X-Message-Number: 20959
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:28:26 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #20917 - #20926

This message is for Robert Bradbury:

It would be good if you read rather than simply cited Ralph Merkle's
piece. A physical nanodevice may work out locations of molecules,
but the results of many such devices must SOMEHOW be put togher
to work out the correct locations from the incorrect locations
these devices find. Yes, they could all feed their results into
a relatively large computer (not nanosized, if only  because the
memory size wouldn't be large enough). If we're going to be
using nanodevices for repair of frozen brains, bringing in that
computer is cheating. It won't be a nanodevice, though as a 
hypersupercomputer it could certainly be made much smaller than
supercomputers are now. If you claim that the computer is made
up of a combination of all your nanodevices, the same problem
occurs (our brains are made up of millions of neurons, but
no one claims that brains are nanodevices). 

The major problem with using ONLY nanodevices is that the structures
(which are assumed broken and moved, NOT intact) will be much
larger (1000 x) than the nanodevices that are supposed to repair
them. 

I will also add that this is an argument which applies to the
repair of fractured brains ONLY. It is not and is not intended to
be an argument against the use of nanotechnology in other medical
areas. Lots of things can go wrong with us because our molecules
have been modified or damaged --- though I will add that any
research doctor would also say that simply repairing the damaged
molecules may easily turn out to fail. Our biochemical metabolism
may have gone wrong enough that simply fixing apparent damage
just temporarily heals the problem. But these are the same 
kinds of problems that current medical science must also deal
with. Nanomedicine would transform them but not eliminate them.

Finally I will point out that at the level we're talking about,
nanomachines will come to resemble biological entities much
more than the machines we are used to (including computers) on
a larger scale. I respect the effects of billions of years of
evolution on the biochemical level. Not only that, but if you
go small enough, you can even find wheels --- if you like wheels.
I'm not claiming such devices would be identifical to those
made by life forms, either. Just much more similar than a
supershrunken computer.

              Best and long long life to all,

                   Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20959