<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:56 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>There's no reason that shouldn't be possible because both uploading and downloading rely on the same fundamental technology, the ability to place atoms where you want them to go.</b></font></blockquote><div><div>
</div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span>For 'marketing' purposes (or PR purposes, at least), I can see the
logic. However, I doubt that a full mastery of nanotech will be
necessary to do uploading, I'd think that something less than that
would be used first.</i></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Without Drexler style <span class="gmail_default" style="">N</span>anotechnology uploading would be difficult but perhaps not impossible, maybe something like the BigBrain Project, only more-so. In 2013 a human brain was embedded in paraffin wax and then a diamond saw sliced the brain into 7404 slices, each slice was stained to bring out the details and then extremely high resolution photographs of each slice were taken. It took several years to digitally align the images<span class="gmail_default" style="">,</span> repair the t<span class="gmail_default" style="">airs </span>and remove <span class="gmail_default" style="">the</span><span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>distortions<span class="gmail_default" style="">,</span> but eventually they were able to make a 3-D model of the brain with <span class="gmail_default" style="">a</span> resolution of only 20 micrometers<span class="gmail_default" style="">,</span> that's about 50 times the resolution you can get with an MRI machine (a human hair is about 100 micrometers thick)<span class="gmail_default" style="">.</span> <span class="gmail_default" style="">B</span>ut 20 is almost certainly not good enough for an upload.</b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>In 2024 researchers at Harvard and Google sliced one cubic millimeter of a human brain into 5019 slices and then used an electron microscope to take photographs of each slice, they then used the resulting 1.4 petabytes (1,400 trillion bytes) of data to construct a 3-D model of that cubic millimeter. They got a X-Y resolution of 4 nanometers (a DNA molecule is 2.5 nanometers thick) but the Z resolution<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span>(thickness) was only 30 nanometers. That probably would be good enough resolution<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> for an </span>upload but unfortunately it was just for one cubic millimeter, the average human brain contains about 1,<span class="gmail_default" style="">4</span>00,000 cubic millimeters.</b></font><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>aldehyde-stabilised cryopreservation sounds the most robust,</i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>I strongly agree! When it comes to preserving information aldehyde-stabilised cryopreservation is much better than standard cryopreservation.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>Other than PR considerations I can't think of any reason why ALCOR doesn't use it, or at least offer it as an option. </b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><br></b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> John K Clark</span><br></b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div>