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

71–80 of 499 posts

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

#71

Post by gregjor »

latexr wrote: post #68
amyjess wrote: post #62

Ultimately, I am going to quote one of my favorite writers [0] and say that I am not afraid of a life that ends. I don't want to be a brain in a jar. Or in a computer either. I enjoy experiencing physical sensations and interacting with the world in meatspace. And if I can't enjoy either, then just let me die. And I apply this to not just brain preservation, but any attempt to artificially prolong the quantity of my…

> (…) and a prohibition against anyone amputating any of my limbs or sensory organs even if it's necessary to save my life. > I will make sure I die with my autonomy and my dignity intact. Amputees have autonomy, dignity, and rich lives. To believe that the loss of a limb is so severe that death is preferable is absurd and insensitive. What if instead of requiring an amputation, he loses faculties by accident like su…

> To believe that the loss of a limb is so severe that death is preferable is absurd and insensitive.

No. Denigrating someone expressing their personal opinion seems absurd. Since the commenter did not impose their opinions on other people you had to put those words in their mouth to call them insensitive.

I prefer to die with autonomy and dignity as well, meaning I would like to pull my own plug. That other people might have a different threshold, or want to die differently than I might, seems neither absurd nor insensitive. The commenter just described their threshold, they didn't judge other people.

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

#72

Post by gregjor »

amyjess wrote: post #62

Ultimately, I am going to quote one of my favorite writers [0] and say that I am not afraid of a life that ends. I don't want to be a brain in a jar. Or in a computer either. I enjoy experiencing physical sensations and interacting with the world in meatspace. And if I can't enjoy either, then just let me die. And I apply this to not just brain preservation, but any attempt to artificially prolong the quantity of my…

More realistic to make plans for dying, than to fantasize about living forever.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

gregjor wrote: post #71
latexr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (…) and a prohibition against anyone amputating any of my limbs or sensory organs even if it's necessary to save my life. > I will make sure I die with my autonomy and my dignity intact. Amputees have autonomy, dignity, and rich lives. To believe that the loss of a limb is so severe that death is preferable is absurd and insensitive. What if instead of requiring an amputation, he loses faculties by accident like su…

> To believe that the loss of a limb is so severe that death is preferable is absurd and insensitive. No. Denigrating someone expressing their personal opinion seems absurd. Since the commenter did not impose their opinions on other people you had to put those words in their mouth to call them insensitive. I prefer to die with autonomy and dignity as well, meaning I would like to pull my own plug. That other people m…

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by latexr »

gregjor wrote: post #71
latexr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (…) and a prohibition against anyone amputating any of my limbs or sensory organs even if it's necessary to save my life. > I will make sure I die with my autonomy and my dignity intact. Amputees have autonomy, dignity, and rich lives. To believe that the loss of a limb is so severe that death is preferable is absurd and insensitive. What if instead of requiring an amputation, he loses faculties by accident like su…

> To believe that the loss of a limb is so severe that death is preferable is absurd and insensitive. No. Denigrating someone expressing their personal opinion seems absurd. Since the commenter did not impose their opinions on other people you had to put those words in their mouth to call them insensitive. I prefer to die with autonomy and dignity as well, meaning I would like to pull my own plug. That other people m…

> Denigrating someone expressing their personal opinion seems absurd. (…) The commenter just described their threshold, they didn't judge other people.

My sentence does not judge the person, it criticises the belief. Learn to differentiate or you’ll be doomed to a life of ad hominem attacks and taking things personally.

If person A says they love spiders and person B replies they find spiders repulsive, there’s no value judgement passed on person A.

My remark was not a commentary on yourself, your world view, the author, or your approval of them. I don’t know you.

> I prefer to die with autonomy and dignity as well

Who wouldn’t? By itself that statement is meaningless. What’s in question is how one defines the terms.

I invite you to take a closer look at that quote and understand what it means to the people who live those situations. Let’s exaggerate to make a point: If someone said they refused to be treated by a black doctor even if their life depended on it, and followed up with the remark they would make sure to die with dignity, do you not see how that would be insensitive to black people? A writer, especially an ostensibly good one, would understand that basic sentence structure.

Again, that is a purposeful exaggeration to make a point. I’m not making a remark on yourself or the author, I am disagreeing with the belief.

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

#75

Post by seba_dos1 »

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…

The way various hormones influence the brain alone makes it pretty clear to me already that you'd be a completely different person when taken out of your body, and I'm pretty sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.

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

#76

Post by SubiculumCode »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #45
everdrive wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we think the personality changes are due to the heart itself, or just due the minor brain damage accompanying an incredibly invasive surgery?

General anesthesia is not good for the brain.

replying to myself to provide more context.

In my PhD work, I helped conduct the human portion of a study on this topic, contributing to some discussions at the FDA [1]. The idea was a bit controversial then, and I've had a few anesthesiologists get mad at me for it, but the general pattern has now been replicated quite a few times now, such that the field has largely moved on from 'Is something bad happening?' to 'Why does it happen, and how do we prevent that bad thing from happening?'[2]. So it has been a gratifying excursion from my typical research before and since then.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4168665/

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9750936/

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

#77

Post by SergeyKa »

ryandvm wrote: post #69
ericmcer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Spoiler: The haves are not going to get any more generous when they've got thousand year lifespans. You would just have end up having to spend hundreds of years grinding away at the bottom of the ladder instead of 30 or 40.

We grind away to keep the body supplied and satiated.

A transcended/uploaded mind won't have the earthly needs and would be a lot cheaper to maintain, leaving it to achieve otherwise impossible results.

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

#78

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

m3kw9 wrote: post #49

What if the constituent of the brain changes, would you feel you or would it be like another person just go on being conscious. If you don’t know what makes consciousness, most likely you just “die” after the brain freeze. This ain’t like sleeping or coma where your system is kept running continuously

People have been brought back to life after being dead for more than an hour after submergence in very cold water.

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

#79

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

PunchTornado wrote: post #37

I view death as the saviour of democracy and the most democratic aspect of life. Without death, our fragile democracies will die. Tyrants will be in power forever.

Being able to preserve your brain after a natural death won't stop you being assassinated. A few bullets to the brain, game over.
Post reply on HN