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