🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jan.3.23.23.32.1990.10879@athos.rutgers.edu> ems%nanotech@princeton.edu writes:
>That nerve tissue is at the end of this list is promising, don't
>you think? Since it is primarily those 10**11 nerve cells, the
>brain, that we most want to preserve?

This amounts to an article of faith - that because most *conscious*
thought occurs in the brain, preservation of the brain in isolation
will preserve the entire personality.  Personally I don't think that
necessarily follows; I want my *whole* self along for the ride if at
all possible.

>Why would you rule out repairing radiation damaged tissues? Isn't
>this implicit in the cancer cures we expect from nanotechnology?
>
> [Given that even non-ionizing radiation (sunlight) causes dye
> decomposition (fading) I would guess that a 200 year bath in hard
> gammas would leave you somewhat absent-minded.
> --JoSH]

I think the difference here is partly due to different models.

Model 1. Initial radiation sterilization followed by some means of
	maintaining sterility.

Model 2. Continuous radiation to maintain sterility.

I accept JoSH's objections to #2, and have a further objections to
#1, which is that unless you freeze too, you're going to have
unacceptable thermal degradation; but if you're going to freeze
anyway, why bother irradiating and taking further unnecessary damage?

In regard to the viability of frozen embryos: remember that an embryo
at this stage is basically a ball of undifferentiated cells.  The death
of 20% of the cells in such a ball may have no critical long term effect
on its ultimate development.  Indeed, it is conceivable that even one
surviving cell might be enough to grow into a normal organism.  The
situation with an adult, fully differentiated body is quite different.

On the other hand, the incredible advantage that nanotech reconstructors
will have with a full body is that there is incredible redundancy.  ALL
of the genetic information is available in EVERY cell.  Synapse states
have both chemical and physical correlates.  You're not going to want
them to reconstruct you exactly anyway (complete with scars, retrovirus
infections, subcritical heavy metal poisoning, filthy lungs, DDT in your
fat tissue, the back injury that's been nagging you for years, hearing
damage from too many loud concerts, local mutations like birthmarks and
small benign tumors, etc.).  What you want is for them to fix everything
that's wrong with you that they know how to fix, except possibly those
that affect your personality.  That will require modifying almost every
cell in your body, and possibly doing some large-scale alterations (e.g.
if they fix your slipped disk, they might have to adjust the sizes of the
supporting muscles and ligaments). You might also want your biological
age adjusted if you were "over the hill" when you died.

The question is, if their technology allows simulating your mind, do you
also want them to "fix" anything "wrong" they find there?  Maybe they should
revive you and ask you first?  Would it be OK if they asked the simulation
instead, to save time?

	Howard A. Landman
	landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman