111–120 of 161 posts
Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list. Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind. So far, 25 people…
First time seeing a website checking for private mode: > Hello, > We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode. > To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in. > Why we made this change > Visitors are allowed 3 free articles per month (without a subscription), and private browsing prevents us from counting how many stories you've read. > We hope you understand, and consider subscr…
Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list. Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind. So far, 25 people…
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…
(1) The idea that the ultra-rich may be able to survive into the future cryogenically while 90+% of the rest of the world dies is morally abhorrent.
(2) Fearing death so much is viewed as cowardly.
(3) This is a bit more abstract, but the implicit assumption in cryogenics that death is a universal bad is troubling. Thousands of years of human thinking have determined that the prospect of death is an integral part of the human experience and may be the thing that provides life meaning. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea that the coming natural death of me and probably everyone else in this thread is on par with a genocide is upsetting (and I personally choose not to believe it). From Epictetus: "Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates." [0]
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…
For the sake of argument, I'm assuming you're talking about a physical, tangible body.
> Dualism is wrong and there is no mind/body split.
Not really seeing any argumentation to back this claim up. Particularly important for a debate that has been ongoing for some centuries now...
> 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.
This segment of your post makes me wonder if you are fully comprehending the end-game proposed. I don't think it would be unfair to say that anyone dreaming of a future down this path intends for these "brains in vats" to have ways to sense/communicate.
> Even just sensory deprivation alone is enough to cause consciousness to entirely evaporate in moments. Add in whole body paralysis and no, you can never hope to have anything approaching 'consciousness.'
Here is where I find a particular loss of argumentation. What evidence do you have to support your claim that without sensing things, consciousness disappears? Don't some groups of monks utilize sensory deprivation to attain "higher states of consciousness"? I'm not arguing that they are truly achieving higher states but rather that the technique itself has a connotation of "consciousness-growing" rather than "consciousness-receding".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Can you imagine a better incentive for off-planet migration and terra-forming?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 anywa…
Literally everything that humans understand is understood in a framework of information processing. It is probably not even possible to understand something without being able to model it as an information-handling process. What basis do you have to say consciousness is different? Because we haven't figured it out yet? It's 2018. There are billions of years of thinking that have yet to happen on the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't feasible. here is why: imagine that we create a perfect copy of a person who is alive. there is now person A, and person B, who are identical. but being identical does not imply shared sensations. if you pinch person A, person B won't feel it. the reverse is true. they're two separate entities, even if they behave similarly. if person A dies, person B is very similar to person A -- but they're not person A.…
I'm so glad that you have solved one of the major problems of philosophy and neuroscience in a handful of poorly-constructed sentences. This is a matter of much debate in philosophy, neuroscience, and other fields. You accidentally touch on identity theory (bundle, substratum, etc), philosophy of mind, etc. The Ship of Theseus is an interesting problem - what if I gradually replace parts of someone's brain with artif…
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…
I think there are a few explanations: (1) The idea that the ultra-rich may be able to survive into the future cryogenically while 90+% of the rest of the world dies is morally abhorrent. (2) Fearing death so much is viewed as cowardly. (3) This is a bit more abstract, but the implicit assumption in cryogenics that death is a universal bad is troubling. Thousands of years of human thinking have determined that the pro…
To me, this sounds like the naturalistic fallacy. Is there a better argument than this one?
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…
I think there are a few explanations: (1) The idea that the ultra-rich may be able to survive into the future cryogenically while 90+% of the rest of the world dies is morally abhorrent. (2) Fearing death so much is viewed as cowardly. (3) This is a bit more abstract, but the implicit assumption in cryogenics that death is a universal bad is troubling. Thousands of years of human thinking have determined that the pro…
(2) If you fear death to much, you might not fight to the death in a war. Not everything in our culture makes sense in the modern world.
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…