From: Eugene Leitl (eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2000 - 03:00:34 MST
He tells nothing new in this post other than in
http://www.merkle.com/cryo/cryptoCryo.html
I haven't read that before, so I just did.
His description of the state of the neural tissue due to
ischaemia/freezing is entirely incorrect. I hate to be blunt, but he's
moving entirely outside of his area of expertise. Even worse, he is
making invalid ad hoc assumptions in his area of expertise (assuming a
nondissipative, deterministic physical process despite dramatic
evidence to the contrary "the laws of physics are reversible"; plus
arbitrarily fixing a lower level of structure encoding the
personality, despite of sound practise (and mounting evidence) to
assume a worst case).
In short, the argumentation as presented makes only a very weak case.
-- Eugene
"In theory, there is difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is."
hal@finney.org writes:
> Coincidentally(?), Ralph Merkle has posted an article today to sci.crypt
> about the analogy between cryonics and cryptanalysis. You can read it
> at http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=590357353. Click on
> "thread" to find any follow-ups. I see that at least one reply has
> mentioned the issue of possible information loss.
>
> Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:04 MST