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

171–180 of 499 posts

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

#171

Post by wutwutwat »

robbomacrae wrote: post #163
wutwutwat wrote: post #141

“Take very high resolution scans of brain structure to characterise how someone’s neurons work, recreate it in a digital format then put it in another robotic, virtual or biological body.” This isn't preserving, it's copying. A copy of your brain/personality/you... isn't you... it's a copy. It's a cassette tape playing back the radio you recorded onto it. It's really kind of odd that people talk about brain transplan…

That all makes sense. But let's run with this way beyond the foreseeable tech. What if you can replace each neuron in situ one by one up to X%. Then what if it was reversible (the neurons were initially just bypassed, commented out). Someone could then dial it up to 5%.. 50% and if they still felt the same throughout and then went up to 100%. In that scenario would they have copied themselves? I find it fascinatingly…

You're asking a question that we've asked ourselves for a millennia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Technically, we are not the same people that we were when we were born. The cells in our body have one by one been replaced with new ones and the old ones have died off. The things that make up my body are 100% different than when I was born, so I literally am not the same person, physically.

Maybe this is an indicator that there is more to what makes us, us, than just the physical assembly of atoms in our bodies. There are things I don't know that we'll ever get a full understanding of.

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

#172

Post by neom »

suzzer99 wrote: post #159
adventured wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't copy a person anyway. We're going to find out that it requires an order of events - order of experiences - aspect that can't be recreated to get the actual person. Everything else will end up being a weak simulation (even if it gets a bit closer over time with improvements in simulating).

In theory if you had an atomic replicator you should be able to make a copy of a person. I'm not saying it will ever be practically possible. But I don't see any fundamental laws of nature that make it impossible .

Unless some quantum effect doesn't actually allow that to be true, a "great filter" of sorts. Could make a copy and it just doesn't turn on, due to unknown unknowns, can't know why.

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

#173

Post by TrainedMonkey »

wutwutwat wrote: post #141

“Take very high resolution scans of brain structure to characterise how someone’s neurons work, recreate it in a digital format then put it in another robotic, virtual or biological body.” This isn't preserving, it's copying. A copy of your brain/personality/you... isn't you... it's a copy. It's a cassette tape playing back the radio you recorded onto it. It's really kind of odd that people talk about brain transplan…

Every time you go to sleep your consciousness shuts down. What wakes up is something slightly different due to biological processes. You are not tired, your mood is different, part of cells in your brain got replaced, memories become more stable and maybe linked to other similar memories, etc... This is way more pronounced for people waking up from a coma. Philosophers thought of this for a while, see https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/66018/the-bra...

So, each morning is a copy of you wakes up? Or do you draw a line in the sand and say that is different.

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

#174

Post by sdwr »

Nux wrote: post #113

Once the brain has been powered off and the back on, is it even "you" anymore? Hasn't that person died and a new one was "born"? Used to go a little bit crazy thinking about this when watching people getting transported in StarTrek.

Thinking about that is like getting spooked by your reflection in a mirror - instincts being used in a situation where they don't apply.

If there's only one you at a time, neither you nor an outside observer can tell the difference.

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

#176

Post by mensetmanusman »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #173
wutwutwat wrote: post #141

“Take very high resolution scans of brain structure to characterise how someone’s neurons work, recreate it in a digital format then put it in another robotic, virtual or biological body.” This isn't preserving, it's copying. A copy of your brain/personality/you... isn't you... it's a copy. It's a cassette tape playing back the radio you recorded onto it. It's really kind of odd that people talk about brain transplan…

Every time you go to sleep your consciousness shuts down. What wakes up is something slightly different due to biological processes. You are not tired, your mood is different, part of cells in your brain got replaced, memories become more stable and maybe linked to other similar memories, etc... This is way more pronounced for people waking up from a coma. Philosophers thought of this for a while, see https://philoso…

Every nanosecond the set of atoms constituting you changes, each of those are a different you.

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

#177

Post by JoshTriplett »

achierius wrote: post #134
JoshTriplett wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

1) We already have a growing population, and I don't think it's inherent that curing mortality must make it grow faster. The net effect would certainly be an ongoing upwards growth (since I would hope that population never goes down), but I'm arguing that the net effect does not inherently have to be unchecked exponential growth. Immortality doesn't solve resource constraints, and resource constraints do influence people's choices. That said, I also believe that even if it did result in faster growth, that isn't a reason to not solve the problem.

2) The equivalence here isn't "choosing to not save". Choosing to push someone back into a burning building, or preventing them from trying to escape, is equivalent to choosing to burn them to death.

3) I am an incorrigible optimist and don't intend to ever stop being one. Humanity is incredible and it's amazing what we can solve over time. I don't believe that any potential solution we might come up with is worse than doing nothing and letting 150k people die every day.

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

#178

Post by suzzer99 »

wutwutwat wrote: post #160
suzzer99 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you just found out that this is actually happening. Every night you die and are replaced with a perfect copy of yourself. Would you do anything differently?

I would probably get a concentrated dose of existential dread knowing that by EOD I would cease to exist. Usually I'm able to delay that dread with the silly reasoning that I still have many years left before I die, but I wouldn't have that mind hack if I knew I had no time left.

Why not go out with a bang and spend your life savings on hookers and blow (or whatever decadent thing floats your boat)?

My point is that I suspect most of us wouldn't do anything differently, even if we know it's not our consciousness continuing on, because both scenarios are identical for all practical purposes.

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

#179

Post by yfw »

wutwutwat wrote: post #141

“Take very high resolution scans of brain structure to characterise how someone’s neurons work, recreate it in a digital format then put it in another robotic, virtual or biological body.” This isn't preserving, it's copying. A copy of your brain/personality/you... isn't you... it's a copy. It's a cassette tape playing back the radio you recorded onto it. It's really kind of odd that people talk about brain transplan…

Reminds me of the scene from the show pantheon where the scanning process kills you because you need to scan and peel the brain layer by layer

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

#180

Post by Nevermark »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #75
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.

Coming back as a brain in a vat certainly sounds awful.

But I would assume that bringing someone back would be tied to a physical or simulated body that provided a compatible context.

Not a bad assumption to solidify in your brain preservation/restoration contract.

Post reply on HN