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

131–140 of 499 posts

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

#131

Post by radarsat1 »

etrautmann wrote: post #61
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…

As a neuroscientist working on brain computer interfaces, it's painfully clear to me that we are absolutely nowhere close to understanding the full complexity of the human brain in a manner required to simulate or reboot someone's consciousness. It's not even clear yet what level of abstraction is required. Do we need to map all of the synapses to get a connection graph, or do we need to map all synapses plus the syn…

In addition to all that we don't know about synapses etc, I've often wondered if even mapping all the "hardware connections" so to speak would even be enough. You'd have everything in the right place, but what about the "signals" running on it? Does a certain amount of constant activity on these circuits constitute signs of a "living" brain vs a dead one? How much of our consciousness is really in the topology of the circuits, and how much of it is simply defined by the constant activity running around in them? I assume neural circuits form loops that consist of synapses that reinforce or surpress activity. If these signals going around and around ever "stop", can they ever be started again with the same "patterns"? What if these patterns, the living "software", are at least partially what define you?

Well anyway that's my airchair crackpot neuroscience theory for the world to consume ;). I'm sure there must already be a name for the idea though.

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

#132

Post by SubiculumCode »

everdrive wrote: post #99
SubiculumCode wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 'W…

Thanks. This is purely anecdotal, but we had a family member whose child was under anesthesia for a severe respiratory infection. He’s been severely developmentally delayed in his first year, and it’s unclear to us what damage done.

Thanks for sharing. It is difficult to know for certain. If the respiratory infection led to hypoxic damage, then that could also contribute. I have not kept up with the field, but generally the most sensitive period for anesthesia was before 4 years or so. As I mentioned briefly, most of my work is in different areas of research so I haven't kept up to date.

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

#133

Post by augusto-moura »

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 don't think I agree with you. There are multiple examples in society of damaged nervous system connections with the brain, spine cord damage for example, where the personality of the pacient changes little. In the same sense, losing limbs or entire sections of your body (aside from psychological trauma and other psychological consequences) don't affect personality that much

Of course the nervous system is much more complex, but damage to the brain almost always result in some sort of cognitive dysfunction or personality change, see the Phineas Gage case for example.

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

#134

Post by achierius »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #88
JohnFen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

1) There's no danger of overpopulation. People have a natural tendency to reproduce slower when they feel safer. 2) Trivial argument: if people already lived indefinitely would you advocate murdering them to "make room"? Telling people they shouldn't be able to pursue a longer life is equivalent. Making that decision for yourself is perfectly fine; making it for others is not. 3) 150k people die every day, nearly 2 p…

1) Is not clearly true. Yes, 'feeling safer' pushes down on reproduction rates. But the _total_ effect on population growth could still be positive if the total death-rate drops enough -- we don't know enough to say for sure. And frankly, I think the most likely outcome is that people would be more likely to have kids if they didn't have to worry about missing out on their chance at XYZ dream.

2) Not true from most moral perspectives, including 'common sense morality'. In a pure utilitarian sense, sure, but most people don't subscribe to that. For example, choosing to not save someone from a burning fire is not the same as choosing to burn them to death. Both the actor and their intention matter.

3) I don't disagree with the first half of your point (that this is a tragedy) but I cannot share your optimism re.: us solving the consequent problems. If there's anything that the last fifty years of modernity have shown, it's that we're actually quite bad at solving broader social problems, with new and even-worse problems often arising well after we thought the original problem settled. Consider global warming (to which the 'solution' looks to be the further impoverishment of the third world, and probably mass deaths due to famine/drought/heat waves), or how we in the US 'solved' mobility by destroying main streets and replacing established public transportation with cars and mazes of concrete. Now we've "solved" loneliness by giving everyone a phone and -- well, I'm sure you know how that went.

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

#135

Post by haccount »

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

[dead]

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

#136

Post by bambax »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #116
bambax wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain immortality is possible, and it's also likely to be achieved, because we always do everything we can do, regardless of consequences. But I think this is the acme of selfishness. I don't want to be immortal, and I wouldn't want to live in a world with 500-year-old know-it-alls running around "oldsplaining" everything to everyone else. I have, thankfully, a fairly good chance of dying before that happens.

It's funny people always talk about this in extremes. "Do you want to live longer?" "Yes" "OH YOU WANT TO LIVE A MILLION BILLION YEARS?!?!" There are values in between immortality and ~80 years.

Oh and when we have defeated death, when will people decide it's time to go? And how will they do it?

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

#137

Post by giantg2 »

hinkley wrote: post #105
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…

Why would you want to go on in a world that has either left you behind or keeps making the same mistakes over and over in a cycle and won't listen to you because you're too old to understand? And conversely, I think Kim Stanley Robinson puts it best in the Mars trilogy. Scientific progress often has to wait for the old guard to die so new ideas can be tried. Sometimes there are actually new things and they need to be…

Just imagine someone who died 50 years ago coming back and hearing skibidi toilet, no cap, ohio, etc. Then not being allowed to board a plane without a body scan, and not having money for a plane anyways since bread was dime and a gallon of gas was a quarter last you checked. You can't even get a job you're just a brain and all the knowledge work you could do is 50 years out of date.

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

#138

Post by latexr »

bambax wrote: post #93
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…

Many people end their life when they find it's too painful to live. Many more wish they could -- the debate around end-of-life issues is raging in many countries.

What’s your point? I support the right to euthanasia, nothing in my comment contradicts that.

We’re not talking about someone in pain wishing to die, we’re talking about someone vehemently arguing they would rather die than live without a limb, without having experienced it. And their reasoning is a lack of autonomy and dignity, none of which are a given.

There are literally millions of people without limbs, half a million new ones per year in the US alone. They’re not poor invalids, they’re people who adapt and can do things we only dream off while living normal lives.

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

#139

Post by prettyStandard »

bee_rider wrote: post #124
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 not sure I actually believe in quantum immortality but I think it is slightly suspicious—out of all the people you could have been be born as, you just happen to be born in a timeframe where brain preservation might be possible before you die?

I see what you're saying...but...

Most people are alive right now. The population historically has been much lower, so odds are you would be born around the time high technology would support a high population.

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

#140

Post by jryan49 »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #78
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.

But did their "consciousness" continue? We currently have no way of telling.
Post reply on HN