addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

London Futurists Message Board London Futurists General Discussion Forum › Cryonics "Fact" Sheet

Cryonics "Fact" Sheet

Dirk B.
user 9941666
London, GB
Post #: 276
So, you think there will be no improvements over the next 50 or 100 years? We are still nowhere near theoretical limits. Apart from that you seem to be assuming that resolutions down to the molecular level will be required, which is far from certain. We will not know until we start slicing and simulating creatures with tiny nervous systems to look for differences in behaviour, memory etc.
London, GB
Post #: 241
You really seem to delight is demonstrating your ignorance and stupidity with every message you post.

If you’ll make the effort to scroll back a few messages, you’ll see that this discussion started when I pointed out that fMRI would be a useless technology for scanning the brain of a "cryonics patient". I've taken great pains to explain clearly and concisely why that technology will not work, and (yet again) you cannot rebuke my arguments with anything more than just illogical blind faith in the future.

So, please show me where I said technology has stopped progressing. Also please show me where I said "resolutions down to the molecular level will be required".

What I am saying is that if you plan to map the neural circuitry of a brain, you need to get a resolution that will allow you to see a nerve filament, or better.

Therefore, unless you can first solve the basic problems of being able to cut a thin enough section or invent the device that will allow you to image resolutions very much smaller than what is available now, then all the talk of "slicing and simulating" is nothing more than so much hot air.

Dirk B.
user 9941666
London, GB
Post #: 281
Slicing down to 40nm with the ultramicrotome is current technology.
Atomic force mircoscopy can resolve down to individual atoms.
Or SEM for grosser features, as well as a readout of composition via X-ray emission.
You can even do it with light:

"Combining SPDM and SMI, known as Vertico-SMI microscopy[9] Christoph Cremer can currently achieve a resolution of approx. 10 nm in 2D and 40 nm in 3D in wide field images of whole living cells[10]. The Vertico SMI is currently the fastest optical 3D nanoscope for the three-dimensional structural analysis of whole cells world-wide."

I say again - there is nothing in principle preventing us from doing a scan and upload.
Big engineering problem, and it will require massive computing resources, but no show stoppers.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy