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

261–270 of 499 posts

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

#261

Post by kelnos »

snakeyjake wrote: post #156
augusto-moura wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 "There aren't any changes except for all of the changes, but those changes don't count because reasons." I don't know how many amputees you know; you may know many. I was in the army for 10 years during the height of the global war on terror and kno…

> Could be the trauma that caused the amputation, could be the amputation.

Given the personality changes seen in people who go off to fight in the military and who end up coming back fully physically intact, I think it's more likely that the personality changes here were caused by the trauma, not by the amputation.

I'm not saying the latter isn't possible, but absent evidence to the contrary, it doesn't make much sense to assume the personality changes occurred because of the amputation alone.

Also consider that amputation -- even ignoring whatever trauma precipitated it -- is its own sort of trauma. I imagine if someone came up to me, perfectly physically healthy, knocked me out, and cut off my leg, I would wake up and develop emotional trauma that would cause personality changes.

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

#262

Post by gowld »

wutwutwat wrote: post #219
suzzer99 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right, nothing would change, and both scenarios do play out the same. The difference would be the knowing about it part. That's what changes things for me. If it currently happens that way I wouldn't be aware of it, but if I knew that it was going to happen, the act of knowing, makes it an issue, for me anyway, even if it still plays out the same as every other time.

You remember going to sleep last night. So even if you died and a copy of you was made, intuitively, subjectively, you feel that tomorrow is still you, same as yesterday was same you, even if there is some technical disconnect.

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

#263

Post by thinkingtoilet »

bambax wrote: post #136
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They'll decide when they're ready. I would love a little more time on this planet. And when it's time, I'll hop in the nitrogen pod. People are already making that decision in some parts of the world.

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

#264

Post by wutwutwat »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #199
danparsonson wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if we copy you into a robot and the copying process leaves you unharmed and awake, are they both you?

Yes, they are both me. It is admittedly a weird conclusion, but that doesn't make it false- we did a weird thing and got a weird result. Objectively, there is no case for saying either is not you.

No, one is a copy of you. There is only one you. Literally. A copy can be perceived as being you, but it's literally, physically, not you. If it was you, literally you, it couldn't exist in both. Your copy could answer a question differently than you might, because the copy would immediately start having a different experience than you. If it was you, that wouldn't be possible. If it was a copy of you, you wouldn't exist along side of it, and it wouldn't be able to answer a question differently than you.

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

#266

Post by blensor »

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…

From what my experience tells me, many people prioritize their children's life over their own. Kind of like the insurance policy that lives on carrying their values further after they have died. So this is not really that much different. Your own body is nearing it's end but a new vessel is carrying your values your influence on the world further. Even if it is a physically separate part from the own body it's the close enough for me to be considered living beyond my death.

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

#267

Post by DanHulton »

gowld wrote: post #205
nkrisc wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference when there could conceivably be two of you. There will never be two of me in my bed when I wake up, so I’m the same. If my mind could be copied and embedded in a robot or whatever, then there are two of me, each now diverging. That other one is not me, as far as I, the other, am concerned.

You'll need to be more clear in your last sentence. If you are cloned while you are sleeping, and both the original and the copy are moved into different rooms before you wake up, both of you think themself is you, and both of you think the other is not you. So, who is correct?

You're assuming that there exists such a cloning process, and in doing so, silently ascribing properties to that process that completely change the outcome.

You're in effect saying "Assume there is a cloning process that is instant and creates a complete copy of you, both mentally and physically," and sure, in that theoretical world, you can talk about there being no way to know which was you, the clone or the original.

But IRL, we have no way of knowing what the properties of such a cloning process would be - maybe it's impossible to create a cloning process such that mentally, it is a complete copy. Maybe you can always tell whether you're the original or the clone. Similarly, maybe we simply cannot create a digital copy of a mind that cannot immediately tell it is the copy. We have literally no way of knowing.

So instead of living in the philosphical realm, we can have a lot more productive conversation in the practical one. Practically, it strongly appears to me that I have continuity every time I wake up, and practically, if you copied my mind and ran it on a computer, that mind would not be the "me" that appears to experience continuity. Practically, it would bring me no comfort to know that this other mind that used to be a copy of my own continues onwards while I die, no more so than it would bring me comfort to know a twin of mine continues onwards.

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

#268

Post by boogieknite »

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…

its Villeneuve's Enemy

thinking about this even a little makes me want to throw up because this can never be tested. yeah, id be dead, but technically, im alive. im alive according to everyone including myself (new me). So im not dead. But like you said, i died and am dead and dont experience any more life. if all evidence is that i didnt die and still exist, then thats the fact

we can theorize that our consciousness continues, but there is NO WAY to ever actually test it because all experience are that consciousness continues whether or not that is the case. sprinkle in some quantum suicide and my stomach is doing backflips from the existentialism od

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

#269

Post by wutwutwat »

bhhaskin wrote: post #214
danparsonson wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if we copy you into a robot and the copying process leaves you unharmed and awake, are they both you?

I think it would both be me until it started to drift, which would be almost instantly.

Right. You'd have a memory of cloning your mind, and the copy wouldn't have a memory of that. From the first boot of the copy, it would be operating with a different set of data than you. Also the fact you exist along side of it, means it's not you. It's a copy of you.

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

#270

Post by gowld »

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 .

That law of nature is quantum mechanics. Quantum state can be teleported, but cannot be duplicated.
Post reply on HN