X-Message-Number: 9779 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:03:29 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #9773 - #9778 To John Clark: I strongly suggest that you read over Merkle's writings. Although they are fine statements of the power of nanotechnology, NOT ONCE does he ever justify the notion that IF we use some kind of nanotechnology to attempt to revive someone, THEN it will be able to do so. The problem is very simple: nanotechnology will allow us to examine in great detail the brain of someone who was suspended by present or past methods. Fine. Just what reason does Dr. Merkle provide that shows that the result of that detailed examination will NOT show total destruction of memory and identity? The closest to that he has ever come has been to get one of his friends from Xerox to discuss the very general case. Well, sometimes, the problem of unravelling is easy, and it becomes harder and harder until finally it falls into many possible solutions. Just how well this represents even the general case isn't clear: I'd like to know just how he did his statistics. Not only that, but I'm interested not in the general case (which includes lots of instances other than cryonics!) but in what would happen to US when we are suspended by present methods. After all, when we consider the "general case" revival from cryonics becomes a very small subset. There is no way we can work out whether or not nanotechnology will just verify that we are completely destroyed without doing lots more neuroscience. I personally believe that that neuroscience is likely to tell us just what we can do with our nanotechnology, and actually tell us how to revive some or all current patients. But without that neuroscience the argument remains severely lacking. It just doesn't establish a thing. I believe strongly that more research in cryonics will remove this issue entirely. Moreover, the kind of neuroscience research I suggested in my message would help deal with the issue of those already suspended. I also believe that fallacious arguments, or arguments lacking one of the clauses in their syllogism, in favor of cryonics serve no good purpose and may even cause harm to cryonics. So that is what I object to. And I hope that my objections are now clear. Best and long long life, to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9779