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