MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#91

Post by currymj » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #32

etrautmann wrote: post #26

Brain uploading is a misleading description of what nectome is proposing. We don’t know enough about what needs to be preserved yet to accurately save a snapshot of a brain’s “state”. It’s not theoretically impossible, just much further than this company’s marketing implies.

And given the recent discovery of what some are calling (possibly inaccurately) an entirely new organ in the body resulting from changes in the visualization technologies available ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/health/new-organ-intersti... )... I, for one, wouldn't trust that their preservation solution is sufficient for reconstruction of anything even approximating consciousness without a successful bidirecti…

yeah, the idea here is that it might be sufficient, much like cryogenics. their marketing is probably irresponsible, depending on your perspective, but then again you're dead anyway so any shot at a future may be worth it.

unlike cryogenics it will definitely result in a lot of useful and interesting data about the brain, whether it works or not.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#92

Post by mateosu » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

EamonnMR wrote: post #77

mateosu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no real evidence that the human brain functions anything like an Information Processor and, in fact, a growing body of evidence that suggests it's not. We still know so little about the brain and comparing a brain to a computer is is at best a flawed metaphor and at worst an outright falsehood. The idea that any sort of human consciousness can be uploaded or stored by a computer is asinine

The brain is implemented by physics and physics can be simulated by a computer, so I'm not sure I follow you here.

The operative word here being "simulate." I will admit however that that opens a debate about the nature of consciousness in which I'm not prepared to resolutely say would not count as true consciousness.

So I will reframe and clarify my argument -- I believe that we do not know enough about the brain and the nature on consciousness to be able to conclude that taking this kind of "snapshot" of the brain will in anyway preserve any of the necessary information needed to reproduce or even accurately simulate consciousness, and that the argument that it is or will is based on the flawed assumption that the brain is or functions like a information processor (a flawed metaphor that is very quickly reaching it's limitations).

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#93

Post by nradov » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #49

If hundreds of millions of people were to do this, what economic, cultural or religious incentive do people have 500 years from now to resurrect anyone? Maybe people who were famous geniuses, sure, but with my view of human nature I get the impression that unless the resurrection process is extremely low cost and easy, nobody will go to the effort to bring back the consciousness of huge numbers of random people. This…

It's a moot question right now since nothing they're doing could ever conceivably allow for future resurrection. This is purely a way to separate suckers from their money (or, more charitably, perhaps a case of blind optimism outrunning scientific reality).

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#94

Post by ngngngng » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

Anm wrote: post #50

andrewmunsell wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can disable it with a query param: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610743/mit-severs-ties-to...

Interesting that this works with any query parameter: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610743/mit-severs-ties-to...

They're probably only using query params at that endpoint for referral links. There are a couple high profile subscription news sites that let you in as much as you want as long as your referer header says "facebook.com".

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#95

Post by tene » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #60

Veedrac wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First and foremost cryogenics has a PR problem. It is somehow more popular to say that you're glad people are dying by the billions than to align yourself with the people trying to make an earnest effort to stop it (now imagine how fast I would be banned for the same position around genocide). I'm not sure whether this will just further the kneejerk anti-cryogenics sentiment or if it will seem to more normalise norma…

Can you imagine what this planet would be like if people didn't die? How much more crowded we'd be? How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's resources?

There will be challenges and struggles and costs to be paid to significantly reduce death, but my personal philosophy is that involuntary death is bad and should be fought, and that the costs of increased crowding are worth paying to cut down on the deaths of billions.

The general principle, to me, is that whatever the "ideal" rate of death is, for any given set of values and preferences, it would be an astonishing coincidence if it coincidentally happened to be exactly the current rate today.

If we woke up tomorrow to a world where humans didn't suffer degenerative aging and the vast majority of fatal illness (cancer) were treatable, would you start by advocating for mass executions, or would you advocate for increased birth control, renewable energy, reduced resource consumption rates, finding ways to make productive use of otherwise-uninhabited areas of earth, space travel, etc. before you started advocating for murdering billions of humans?

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#96

Post by kanzure » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 7:59 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #86

return0 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

electron microscopy has the resolution to discriminate individual spines and synapses, figuring out the weight of the synapse though is not straightforward. At least for excitatory synapses however, there is ample evidence that the size of the spine correlates with the maturity and strength of the synapse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646057

I didn’t know that. That’s a good start. We still have, what 20 different neurotransmitters that can be weighted differently at each synapse?

You can label receptors with aptamers and other technology, and then sequence the aptamer labels (or whatever). Many in situ sequencing techniques can be applied here. Note, however, that this requires more steps than simply scanning with electron microscope multi-array.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#97

Post by rmcpherson » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #60

Veedrac wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First and foremost cryogenics has a PR problem. It is somehow more popular to say that you're glad people are dying by the billions than to align yourself with the people trying to make an earnest effort to stop it (now imagine how fast I would be banned for the same position around genocide). I'm not sure whether this will just further the kneejerk anti-cryogenics sentiment or if it will seem to more normalise norma…

Can you imagine what this planet would be like if people didn't die? How much more crowded we'd be? How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's resources?

For a fascinating and realistic exploration of what that might look like, I recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. In the series, a longevity treatment is developed that significantly extends lives. Beyond the strain on resources, there are the issues of older generations delaying progress by not relinquishing power (much like the current octogenarian U.S. congress) and other issues.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#98

Post by ahelwer » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

otakucode wrote: post #87

fixermark wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And given the recent discovery of what some are calling (possibly inaccurately) an entirely new organ in the body resulting from changes in the visualization technologies available ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/health/new-organ-intersti... )... I, for one, wouldn't trust that their preservation solution is sufficient for reconstruction of anything even approximating consciousness without a successful bidirecti…

I don't believe we could ever see any kind of system 'approximating consciousness' without a body. Full stop. Dualism is wrong and there is no mind/body split. The full state of the brain, simulated perfectly, would perfectly reproduce the experience of a brain in total sensory deprivation paired with total whole-body paralysis. Even just sensory deprivation alone is enough to cause consciousness to entirely evaporat…

If you have the technology to simulate a brain, it seems pretty trivial to simulate a body, environment, and associated sensory inputs as well.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#99

Post by aetherson » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

zapdrive wrote: post #76

walrus01 wrote: post #49

If hundreds of millions of people were to do this, what economic, cultural or religious incentive do people have 500 years from now to resurrect anyone? Maybe people who were famous geniuses, sure, but with my view of human nature I get the impression that unless the resurrection process is extremely low cost and easy, nobody will go to the effort to bring back the consciousness of huge numbers of random people. This…

Or you can die with a private key of a Bitcoin address containing a few bitcoins memorized. And a tattoo or something that will says you'll give half to whoever revives you. Hopefully Bitcoin will be here for a long time.

If there is technology to reinstantiate your brain with that memory intact, there is technology to pull just that memory out of your brain without bothering to reinstantiate you.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#100

Post by KineticLensman » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #49

If hundreds of millions of people were to do this, what economic, cultural or religious incentive do people have 500 years from now to resurrect anyone? Maybe people who were famous geniuses, sure, but with my view of human nature I get the impression that unless the resurrection process is extremely low cost and easy, nobody will go to the effort to bring back the consciousness of huge numbers of random people. This…

This is a plot point in Niven's "A World Out of Time". The global state views cryogenically frozen people as expendable commodities and uses them for missions that normal citizens won't be asked to do, or which require their antique perspectives. If they refuse a mission, their host bodies (convicted criminals) are mindwiped and the state starts again.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_Out_of_Time