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

MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 161 posts

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#31

Post by joefourier »

Analemma_ wrote: post #18
aeorgnoieang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific claims does, e.g. Alcor, make that are scientifically sketchy? Just the implication that resurrection might be possible sometime in the future?

Resurrection, while not impossible , is sufficiently unlikely that taking people's money while promising it-- even with a disclaimer that it is not guaranteed-- seems exploitative, akin to people promising homeopathic cancer remedies. It is preying on people's fear of death.

The cryonics companies only promise preservation of body/brain tissues, not resuscitation.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#32

Post by fixermark »

etrautmann wrote: post #26

Brain uploading is a misleading description of what nectome is proposing. We don’t know enough about what needs to be preserved yet to accurately save a snapshot of a brain’s “state”. It’s not theoretically impossible, just much further than this company’s marketing implies.

And given the recent discovery of what some are calling (possibly inaccurately) an entirely new organ in the body resulting from changes in the visualization technologies available (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/health/new-organ-intersti...)...

I, for one, wouldn't trust that their preservation solution is sufficient for reconstruction of anything even approximating consciousness without a successful bidirectional demonstration. Far too high a risk that what they'd be able to deliver right now is a very smelly paperweight that used to be someone's brain.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#33

Post by apsec112 »

joefourier wrote: post #24
walrus01 wrote: post #5

For those who are unfamiliar with the general concept, there are several organizations that will be happy to take large sums of money from you, for a scientifically sketchy claim at resurrection at some future unknown date. https://www.google.ca/search?q=alcor+cryonics&oq=alcor+cryon...

Given that the main alternatives (decomposing in a box or being cremated) involve a 0% chance of resuscitation at some future unknown date, cryonics seems like the rational choice to make. Alcor has so far shown itself to be a fairly reliable cryonics provider and the sums of money are not extreme - neuropreservation being only $80,000, or a life insurance policy of ~$30-$150/month.

I'm signed up for cryonics, but to be fair, I agree that it would be irrational if the odds of coming back were 1,000,000,000:1 or something like that. Most people value their lives very highly, but not infinitely.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#34

Post by kolpa »

ilamont wrote: post #29

Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list. Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind. So far, 25 people…

> Sam Altman, a 32-year-old investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program.

Sam Altman co-created Y Combinator when he was 20?

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#35

Post by iamatworknow »

Analemma_ wrote: post #28
trevyn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cryonics organization promises it.

I used to get in a lot of arguments online about cryonics back in the day (it's very possible that you and I have had this debate under different usernames on that other site for Valley nerd-types); they always went nowhere and I'm not interested in getting back into them. Suffice to say that I'm not convinced by cryonics organizations' "we're not promising anything" disclaimers: I think these are done with a knowing…

At the end of the day, why does it matter to you? If they have the money and it's something they, in sound mind, want to do, why not just let them do it and not let it bother you?

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#36

Post by joefourier »

apsec112 wrote: post #33
joefourier wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the main alternatives (decomposing in a box or being cremated) involve a 0% chance of resuscitation at some future unknown date, cryonics seems like the rational choice to make. Alcor has so far shown itself to be a fairly reliable cryonics provider and the sums of money are not extreme - neuropreservation being only $80,000, or a life insurance policy of ~$30-$150/month.

I'm signed up for cryonics, but to be fair, I agree that it would be irrational if the odds of coming back were 1,000,000,000:1 or something like that. Most people value their lives very highly, but not infinitely.

Depends on the requirements of the 1,000,000,000:1 option. If it's at very little cost to you, and if the alternative is certain, permanent death, the rational choice is still to take the incredibly slim chance of coming back. Otherwise it does indeed depend on the importance you put on your own life.

Of course, in the case of cryonics, there is no measurable probability of coming back, so the point is largely moot.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#37

Post by cryoshon »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #4

MITs statement seems to position themselves to not be at risk if the startup goes south. They seem to think that with current technology it is unclear if the upload is feasible. Also, it would be interesting for someone to comment on how this embalming process is done? From what I know from cryogenic freezing or preservation is that it is a good idea that it could be "scanned" back in but most likely the information…

it isn't feasible.

here is why:

imagine that we create a perfect copy of a person who is alive.

there is now person A, and person B, who are identical. but being identical does not imply shared sensations. if you pinch person A, person B won't feel it. the reverse is true. they're two separate entities, even if they behave similarly. if person A dies, person B is very similar to person A -- but they're not person A. that person is dead.

same goes for "mind uploading". the copy could, hypothetically, exist. it is extremely unlikely that this is technologically possible. but even if it was possible technologically, the original would be dead.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#38

Post by toyg »

kolpa wrote: post #34
ilamont wrote: post #29

Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list. Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind. So far, 25 people…

> Sam Altman, a 32-year-old investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program. Sam Altman co-created Y Combinator when he was 20?

He most definitely did not found YC but he is indeed 32.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#39

Post by jamestimmins »

kolpa wrote: post #34
ilamont wrote: post #29

Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list. Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind. So far, 25 people…

> Sam Altman, a 32-year-old investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program. Sam Altman co-created Y Combinator when he was 20?

No, the article is incorrect. He wasn't a creator; he was in an early batch (the first I believe), and then became president some time after his company was acquired.

Re: MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading

#40

Post by kolpa »

glorkk wrote: post #21

> “Fundamentally, the company is based on a proposition that is just false. It is something that just can’t happen,” says Sten Linnarsson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. That sounds a lot like the "heavier than air flight is impossible" quote from 1895.

To be fair, it's unclear whether Linnarsson was saying that brain uploading would never be possible (which is a step too far), or that this company would never people to revive people who paid today using brain-uploading techniques available within the near future (which is quite reasonable).
Post reply on HN