Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 499 posts

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#51

Post by ashleyn »

NickM wrote: post #11

I used to buy into this kind of stuff, but I've become more and more skeptical of the idea that you would still be yourself if your brain could be preserved/emulated/transplanted/whatever. Our nervous system extends into our bodies. We feel emotions in our bodies. People with certain kinds of brain damage that prevents them from feeling emotions normally also experience trouble making rational decisions. More recent…

I'm also skeptical of the idea that one can "upload" consciousness and it would still be "you". I suppose this is true in a philosophical sense, but in a practical sense, subjective experience of consciousness rules the roost. It's inevitably going to be a mere copy of you. You don't get to experience any of it. Similar to a software project which is forked, I think it makes more sense to classify it as an entirely different entity at that point.

I suppose there are valid use cases for this, but I'm not that narcissistic to think the world needs eternal copies of me.

The continued subjective experience of the original consciousness is where I believe the real value lies. Digitisation of consciousness, assuming it has any sound scientific basis in the first place, would practically need to look more like the gradual replacement of brain (and bodily) matter with something more durable, enduring, and controllable. A slow process in which carbon is exchanged for silicon, or cellular damage is continuously reversed and aging kept at bay.

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#52

Post by m3kw9 »

kerblang wrote: post #16

As usual, it must be warned that living forever means you can be tortured forever. Interesting that an article on Dante is getting upvotes today...

Yep even a life sustaining brain vat that keeps you alive for 1000 years while feeding you some bad stimulation is not very hard to fathom

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#53

Post by portaouflop »

rob74 wrote: post #23
vanviegen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some externalities at play here though... - We currently only have one world that all living humans must share. - Imagine the sickening amount of power some people would be able to gather given a few centuries. That can't be good for everyone else.

Well, people already gather that sickening amount of power - not for themselves, for their heirs, but still - take the soon-to-be-again US president: he probably wouldn't be where he is right now if his father hadn't amassed a considerable fortune which he inherited.

So it’s bad already let’s make it an absolutely alhellish nightmare?

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#55

Post by mrtesthah »

latexr wrote: post #20
NickM wrote: post #11

I used to buy into this kind of stuff, but I've become more and more skeptical of the idea that you would still be yourself if your brain could be preserved/emulated/transplanted/whatever. Our nervous system extends into our bodies. We feel emotions in our bodies. People with certain kinds of brain damage that prevents them from feeling emotions normally also experience trouble making rational decisions. More recent…

For example, it’s widely reported that organ transplantation, especially heart transplants, may cause personality changes associated with the donor. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3943/5/1/2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31739081/

The mass-spaced effect in organ tissues may be one explanation of this: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2024/novemb...

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#56

Post by slibhb »

One of Don DeLillo's later good novels is about this stuff (Zero K).

I always think people's attitude toward possible future worlds is interesting. You can see a wide spread of opinion in this thread -- whether you think functional immortality would be a good thing says a lot about who you are. Ditto for colonizing other planets, automating all work, building AGI, and so on.

I suppose I'm on the side of the technologists. I think immortality is probably possible and humans should try to achieve it. But along the way it will mostly be snake oil and cults. And, of course, it's all but guaranteed that everyone in this thread isn't going to make the cut-off.

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#57

Post by lm28469 »

marcodiego wrote: post #32
JohnFen wrote: post #2

I think that immortality would be a disaster, personally. That we die is a critically important aspect of life. I'd prefer that we work on ways to make the death process less traumatic.

What if death is just a 'feature' of how life evolved in this planet? What if we discover life in other planets that are just endless? It just seems too anthropocentric to think that all forms of life must die. Ok, that maybe part of how 'WE' define life, but, for me, that looks a lot like an arbitrary definition.

It's a bit like fighting against the ocean imho, it doesn't matter how much you put into it you'll always lose eventually.

It's much simpler to accept and live within your constraints than to waste your life and mental energy wishing you could be/do something you will never be/do.

If you think about it most of the things we "fix" are extremely wonky, even something such as a bone fracture isn't guaranteed to heal 100%, most medicine have massive side effects, organ transplants have something like 50% survival at 15 years on average, &c. We think we're getting more and more control on things but most of it is a hack job temporarily delaying the inevitable

Also, anyone thinking being uploaded to a computer forever is heaven on earth must live a pretty fucking terrible life to begin with

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#59

Post by [deleted] »

ericmcer wrote: post #10
JohnFen wrote: post #2

I think that immortality would be a disaster, personally. That we die is a critically important aspect of life. I'd prefer that we work on ways to make the death process less traumatic.

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would be more beneficent because they wouldn't be scrambling to get ahead in their short time here. If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

[deleted]

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#60

Post by JohnFen »

ericmcer wrote: post #10
JohnFen wrote: post #2

I think that immortality would be a disaster, personally. That we die is a critically important aspect of life. I'd prefer that we work on ways to make the death process less traumatic.

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would be more beneficent because they wouldn't be scrambling to get ahead in their short time here. If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

> We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection

We certainly have not.

> If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

True, but if you lived forever that would mean that it wouldn't be realistic for new people to come into the world, which means far fewer new ideas and ways of looking at the world. That would a net loss for humanity.

Post reply on HN