<Hara Ra writes:
>>The latest Cryonics mag has a provocative article by Saul Kent arguing
>>that the main reason for low interest in cryonics is almost universal
>>disbelief that it will work.
>
>For more info you should look at Cryonet's archives about 6-8 weeks
>ago. IMHO, Saul & company (Mike Darwin, et al) have been emotionally
>committed to the biological approach and don't really understand the
>implications of Nanotechnology and what 150 years of technical development
>really means.
>From my perspective, it was Arthur C. Clarke's discussions on the
conceptual lack of distinction between organic and inorganic
Your claim and Saul's are compatible. Together they imply almost universal disbelief that nanotech will do what its proponents claim. I am fascinated this sort of disagreement phenomena. Why are proponents so confident in the face of strong skepticism, and why are skeptics so confident in the face of strong minority disagreement? How does each side explain the other side's behavior, and how does each side think the other side explains it?>
>From my perspective, it was Arthur C. Clarke's discussions on the
conceptual lack of distinction between organic and inorganic that was
crucial, prior to Drexler. This debate was articulated many years ago,
and 20s and 30s sf in terms of the notion 'android' and artificial
cells. The reason why debate was held back was the extreme difficulty in
understanding and scanning cellular processes prior to DNA research and
computing ability. This inhibitor was so extreme that things that were
otherwise conceptually logical were (and still are) seen as impossible
to verify. I remember arguing for the logic of cloning in 1978 CE to
extreme derision at my final year of high school. But I was dumb.
Although I realized the inevitability of AI bootstrapping I failed to
see the connection between different molecular systems for different
maps of sentiency, bootstrapping and environmental manipulation. (Though
I did predict the principles of nanotech in relation to advanced
automation - the micro-macro approach can be reversed given sufficiently
high level technology). I certainly won't be as shortsighted again - I
predict the principles inherent in nanotech will be applicable at the
quantum level and beyond (call it rashon-manipulation if you like, or
whatever). Just a feeling.
The point of the above is that most thinking readers disbelieved in cryonics because of the inevitable breakages in dethawing. Nanotech overcomes this problem (in terms of logic) so assuming the neuron markers in electrochemical patterning (the firing circles etc.) can be reactivated (seems logical) cryonics is OK. Heinlein didn't go for it - was he trying to make a point about World-as-Mythos? Coast Guard funeral, perhaps. Hmm...
Av Polymorph way@warehouse.net 15 August 29 after Armstrong