X-Message-Number: 16208
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:46:35 -0400
From: James Swayze <>
Subject: Homes for orphaned cephalons and other stuff
References: <>

CryoNet wrote:

> CryoNet - Sat 5 May 2001
>     #16192: Tissues,Alcor Focus,AIs... [Louis Epstein]
> Message #16192
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 16:57:58 +0000 ()
> From: Louis Epstein <>
> Subject: Tissues,Alcor Focus,AIs...
> <snip>

> > Stem cells, which are undifferentiated cells that appear to have the ability
> > to turn into all kinds of different types of cells and tissues, are another

> > promising source of neural cells. Scientists hope it may one day be possible
> > to take a small number of an individual's cells and coax them to grow into
> > new neurons as needed. This could put an end to any need to harvest either
> > fetal or cadaver tissue.
> This would indeed be convenient.

Someone, either the author of the article or the scientists involved, is not 
reading their peer's work. Stem cells

can already be harvested from an individual's own bone marrow and then made into
proto cells of any type needed by
being bathed in the proper solution for that type.

THE TIMES, monday, jan. 15, 2001

Stem cell discovery reverses time


A researcher based in Britain claims to have achieved the biological
equivalent of reversing time. She says that she has perfected a method of
creating stem cells from adult cells, bypassing the ethical dilemma of
"therapeutic cloning" which recently divided the House of Commons.
Although Parliament voted in favour of research into therapeutic cloning,
many people remain uneasy about creating embryos solely for use as a source
of spare parts.

If Ilham Abuljadayel's claims are verified, treatments for a wide variety of
diseases such as leukaemia, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease may
be transformed. Not only does her method produce a supply of healthy cells
from the patient's own blood, but it generates far more cells, more quickly,
than alternative methods, and without raising ethical dilemmas.

So unlikely does the claim seem to many biologists that she has found it
impossible to have it published in leading journals. But now, she says, it
has been replicated by one of the world's leading contract research
companies, Covance, and a company has been set up to market the idea.

Stem cells are the forerunners of the mature cells that make up the organs
of the body. They are "pluripotent", that is, they have within them the
capacity to develop into many different types of cell - brain, muscle or
blood, for example. The simplest source of a stem cell is a developing
embryo, but until now it has been thought impossible to re-programme a fully
developed adult cell and create a stem cell. That is what Dr Abuljadayel
says that she can do.

Born in Saudi Arabia and educated at King's College London, she went back to
her native country to work as an immunologist. She made her discovery by
accident. She was trying to kill white blood cells by using a particular
antibody when she forgot to add one ingredient to the mixture.

The result was not dead cells, but cells that had been transformed into stem
cells. She calls the process retrodifferentiation: a reversal of the normal
process by which immature stem cells differentiate to become mature adult

Since the discovery she has worked to convince others that it is real. She
has used a laboratory in the department of physiology in Cambridge and
presented a seminar there before Christmas.

One leading scientist familiar with her work, Professor Adrian Newland of
the Royal London Hospital Medical School, said that he had repeated her
experiments with the same results.

"It's fascinating, but there could be other explanations for what is going
on," he said. "My own work suggests that it isn't possible to reverse the
process of differentiation, but I have repeated her work and got similar
results. I think more research needs to be done to eliminate other possible
explanations. As it stands, it could be amazing, or it could be

The first clinical application of the technique could be in treating

Dr Abuljadayel says that blood would be taken from the patient and treated
to create a population of new stem cells, a process that takes only a few

The patient would then be treated with drugs or radiation to destroy the
bone marrow cells and kill the cancer, before repopulating the bone marrow
with cells generated from the stem cells.

Dr Abuljadayel's husband, Ghazi Dhout, who is president of Tristem, the
Dublin-based company set up to exploit the discovery, says that a big
advantage is that a huge volume of cells can be generated.

He says that the first trials, on individual patients, might start in the
next six months.The company plans to seek partners among the big drug and
biotech companies to develop the business. The invention is patented.

A cure for leukaemia may be possible with the discovery of an immune cell
that can seek and destroy infected cells. The development was announced by
researchers at London's Hammersmith Hospital and the Imperial College of
Medicine, who have spent six years investigating the disease.

Regarding orphaned cephalons:

> >      In the first phase of Project Future Bound, our surgeons will perform
> > cephalic isolation, carotid and vertebral artery cannulation, neuro washout
> > for greater biological support and faster cooling.  Once completed, the
> > cephalon, securely packed in ice, will be transported to Alcor Central
> > for the final phases of clinical cryoprotective vitrification,
> > additional cooldown, and long-term care..
> In other words,this is strictly a project for improving neurosuspension;
> cutting people's heads off expeditiously is seen as a centerpiece of their
> care.
> I'll say again that this focus on neuros is something that disturbs
> me about Alcor.It's one thing to offer it as a last resort,but to
> deliberately prefer the preservation of only something that,fully
> repaired,CAN NOT live on its own seems nonsensical.

You needn't focus so much on the machine prospect. I believe most of us feel 
that the first method to be tried

will be the cloning of a new body without expression of the higher brain. 
Nothing of the brain that involves

consciousness would be allowed to grow. All that would be is just enough to 
sustain basic biological functions.

Even before this it might be possible to piece together enough parts through 
tissue engineering to make an entire

body to transplant the cephalon into. Robot bodies need not be a part of the 

> > I don't think we're going to settle the issue of "what is the
> > precise definition of an entity that merits legal protection"
> > anytime soon.  Even so, I guess Jeff is right that we should
> > still put in a word of defense now and then when someone says
> > something particularly disturbing.
> Well,I certainly agree that "we should still put in a word of
> defense now and then when someone says something particularly
> disturbing".
> And I consider assertions that "artificial intelligences" should
> come within the definition of entities meriting legal protection
> to be particularly disturbing!

I have my own reservations about the entire AI issue as anyone here paying 
attention knows. However, in the LN

temperature state a body is static. That's the whole point, to stop molecular 
motion as completely as possible. In

this state it may one day be possible to map the entire brain, the 3D position 
of every molecule maybe even every

atom. This raises the obvious conclusion regarding legalities. We would want for
frozen bodies to have certain

rights. To be treated as simply suspended and not dead. As belonging to one's 
self and not the government or

anyone else. If we establish rights for the static frozen body, I feel, we must 
also afford rights to the 3D map

of that body. This 3D map would be largely electronic. Identity issues aside for
the moment, what difference

existentially is there between an electronic 3D map of a static body and an 
electronic entity? Conversely this

also means that a duplicate would have rights AS A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL (caps 
instead of italics) and could not
legally be considered the original. Oops, there's that identity issue again.

Ok I might as well go into it. It was said recently that a certain supporter of 
the Yudkowskian Sysop AI would

like to copy himself 10,000 times and distribute them throughout an asteroid 
field to wait for activation should
the original meet his demise.

>  In other words I

> can upload myself to an extremely small nanocomputer (perhaps 1cm^2 or 
> make a 10000 copies of myself and distribute them all throughout random rocks
> in the asteroid belt.

 It was also said by Yudkowsky himself that his Sysop AI would not let us abuse 
 our simulations as they would be
considered just as much an individual and deserving of rights as we ourselves.

> >
> > If you do conquer me, shall I be allowed to conduct historical
> > recreations?
> Leaving aside the slanted terminology...
> In a word, no.  Not with real people, anyway.  High-accuracy Giant Lookup
> Table zombies are fine, as are imagined brains that don't have a fine
> enough granular resolution to qualify as citizens.  But you can't just go
> around messing with real people's lives!  Not to answer questions about
> World War II; not for any reason!  Get this:  I care about you and your
> rights, but I care just as much about the rights of any sentient being you
> ever create.  I don't think you have the right to abuse a sentient being
> just because you created it.  As far as I'm concerned, Lee Corbin and Lee
> Corbin's hapless Churchill thinkalike are both my fellow sentients, and
> each has just as much claim on my compassion.  Your desire to answer
> questions about WWII does not permit you to create suffering to find out.

Logically then the Sysop AI would likely not allow the creation of backup copies
who would be considered as

"having high enough granular resolution to be citizens" simply for the purpose 
of being fodder for danger that

threatens the immortality of the original. Furthermore, the Sysop AI and even 
society at large might consider

having backup copies parked on some rock OFF-LINE as unusually cruel. None of us
would allow someone shutting us

down for an indeterminate interval of time. If a backup copy must be considered 
as the same as the original, then

it follows that the backup copy should enjoy ALL the rights afforded to the 
original. This even means that backup

copies should have the right to make backups of their own selves if this were 
allowable in the first place. That's

a singularity of an entirely novel kind. ;) The logic is also hopelessly 
circular because, as mentioned above, if

backup copies are afforded the same rights as the original then it must be said 
that they are unique individuals
and not the original. It's all so paradoxical.

Some of our views are spacious
some are merely space--RUSH

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16208