X-Message-Number: 13587
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:14:02 -0600
From: Fred Chamberlain <>
Subject: Scott Badger's Comments on Uploading and Membership

Date:     4/18/2000
From:    Fred Chamberlain
Re:        Scott Badger's Comments on Uploading and Membership Organization
Services from BioTransport

First, some comments to add to Scott Badger's perspectives:

Message #13575 
From: "Scott Badger" <> 
References: <> 
Subject: Re: Uploading vs. Reanimation 

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 21:44:36 -0500

>  OK. So maybe uploading does comes along first.  But how much longer will it
take for nanotech?

Uploading without nanotech seems implausible.  While one may conjecture about
"holographic" memory based on distributed information within the brain,
gathering that information without neural mapping, possibly to the extent of
characterizing the behavior of synapses in addition to their connectivity, is
unlikely.  And for such mapping, nanotech would seem essential.

>Because if I had to choose between the two, I would definitely choose nano.
>Why? Because if I upload, I have to deal with extremely thorny questions of 
>identity (e.g. Am I a copy who thinks I am the original?).

Uploading has many possible dimensions, including the housing of each
individual's information center within a physically mobile structure (a
biological human body might be just fine, if backups following Kevin Brown's
very early "computer symbiote" thesis were part of the picture).  The identity
question is a different matter.  Differences of perspective here may relate to
one's self perception of one as a physical structure vs. one as an
informational process.  For example, it could be argued that the transition
from biological to non-biological brain ("hyperbrain") would involve less
change of identity that a night's sleep with substantial dreaming, so far as
the self-conscious aspect of "knowing it's me" is concerned.

>If I am reanimated with my original brain, I will 'know' that I am the
original. Right?

Maybe not.  In one case of a hemispherectomy, where one half of the brain was
removed, the patient (who was conscious during the procedure) was reported to
say (I'm afraid I don't have the reference on this, perhaps mentioned in some
book on neuroscience) when asked how he felt, "About the same."  Meaning that
he couldn't pinpoint too well that half his brain had been removed.

On the other hand, perhaps what Scott is saying is that if he is told that his
brain had been repaired, and trusted that the person telling him this was
telling the truth, there would be a comfort level in knowing that the original
biological structure had been patched up, but was (in other respects) the same
as it had earlier been.

> Maybe this issue doesn't bother others, but I would rather be 
>reanimated and have the opportunity to see what existence is like for those 
>who are uploaded before I approve that procedure without any such 

The only alternative might be to select a group of individuals you trusted,
specify that if they were never frozen in the first place, but had elected to
switch from biobrain to hyperbrain at some point, and thought that this would
be a switch you would prefer if you were conscious, you would entrust them (as
with a medical surrogate) to consent to this on your behalf.  Barring such a
protective measure, your feeling is probably the safest, most cautious and
(from my standpoint) the most rational position.

>But if I knew in advance that it would take an extra 100 years to develop 
>nanotech mature enough to achieve repair and reanimation, I don't think I'd 
>want to wait that long. How long would I wait. Uh, hard to say. But 
>realistically, I don't think nano will be all that far behind uploading. AI 
>will figure it all out in pretty short order.

Per earlier comment, I think brain repair via nanotech might more plausibly
come first.

>Even so, it does bring up the question . . . As a member of ALCOR, I don't 
>recall being asked which option I would choose. I'll have to give them a

Alcor has a "LifePact" self-interview questionnaire which we recommend all
members complete, either in writing, on a tape recorder, or (best of all)
a camcorder.  It covers the gamut from childhood memories to adult career
satisfactions, to perspectives and preferences on future technologies and
reanimation.  More to the point, it includes statements on whether or not one
would be receptive to accepting installment payment plans for reanimation or
upgrades at reanimation, vs. either waiting or having a more basic starting
point upon reanimation.  Anyone who has *not* made such a record leaves us in
darkness about "what they thought" about all of these critical issues, and not
even nanotech at the neuron by neuron repair level will give us much
We strongly recommend anyone who is signed up complete a LifePact self
interview process at the earliest possible time.

Vita Perpetuem,
Scott Badger
"Cryonics - The alternative is unacceptable."

Now, about BioTransport! 


There have been many levels of speculation about how soon, and in what form,
BioTransport, Inc. will be offering rescue services to membership
and individuals.  In the interests of keeping in touch with reality, a few
comments may be helpful:

1.  BioTransport has obtained a starting level of capitalization, but is still
in the "team building" stage as far as internal management is concerned.  The
initial service contract with membership organizations is still in the
formative process, and for the present, Alcor will continue to take
responsibility for any rescues of its members.

2.  Ove the next year, the initial service contract with Alcor is expected to
be consumated, but it will be launched at a fully matured level only when
additional capital is obtained and a management team independent of "Alcor
Central" exists (at this time, there is so much overlap that it is
difficult to
tell them apart).

3.  The "Direct Public Service" (last minute case) element of BioTransport's
business plan has been reevaluated, as to both liability and potential
resistance from a PR and marketing standpoint.  In light of this, a more
gradual approach is almost certain.  Exactly what BioTransport will first
to the public is still proprietary, but it will almost surely not be "911"
style cryotransport response.


4.  Service to membership organizations other than Alcor, based on the above
scenario, is not likely any time soon.  Any hopefulness in this respect is,
sadly, none other than wishful thinking.  None of the organizations which have
projected the near term availability of services from BioTransport have
communicated in any way with me on these possibilites, and since I am
President of BioTransport (as well as Alcor), this would have been appropriate
before any public announcements (of such prospective availability of services
from BioTransport).

Boundless Life,

Fred Chamberlain, President/CEO (of both Alcor and BioTransport, Inc.)
Alcor Life Extension Foundation () 
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013  (800) 367-2228   FAX (602) 922-9027
 for general requests

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13587