Comments on: Chemical brain preservation: how to live ‘forever’ — a personal view

By: Bruce Zimov

Bruce Zimov — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:15:57 +0000

I strongly support the effort. Here are some ramblings that put the whole thing in a universal context. Temporal Becoming sometimes throws a wrench in theory. Einstein expressed this in his conversation with Carnap. It is true that an ideal abstract physics can obtain in mathematical terms parameterized by t, even with a branching future, and quantum probabilities. What is amazing about QM is that it is a sufficient condition for structure, the Periodic table. Anyways, consciousness on an arbitrary substrate would also have a t parameterized math description, but that ideal instance is not concious. That is a category mistake because t is not equal to temporal becoming. With temporal becoming, the instances take on reality, even if presentist in Bourne’s sense. It appears that Parfit is correct. So, is the philosophy of math Platonist? See defense of structuralism. If not, our conventions are not the whole story. They are at least a reflection of the truth. “Our math” vs true math, if a minimal set of universals are admitted. Sensibility is challenged, if even by only the square root of -1. The square root of -1 is important physically. Basically, it represents periodicity paradoxically. Two operations conflict. One may wonder how often that happens, and make a branch of math out of it. We think we are seeing randomness, but in QM it is obviously pseudo-random. That is what the Bell violations are. Sentience in robots will lead to a robot that thinks it is saved, even if no one else does. If brains were plasticized, even before nanometer standards are met, eventually the future society would either reanimate us, eat us, or worse. If reanimated, we may be integrated in a hive, or not. We may relive our lives, good and bad, depending on the life. But plastinization is being held to too high a standard, discounts future technology, and 55 million dead brains from normal people stack up on the dead pile with that amount of aborted babies. BTW, nothing says you have to throw away the fetus, you can plasticize its brain.

By: Rodrigo Nunes Cal

Rodrigo Nunes Cal — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:02:40 +0000

Hello!I am brazilian person who elaborated an interesting blog related with science and technology!! The blog has many important articles about it! I’d like that you access it and inform the link to other people, like professors and students! Many people around the world have accessed it!! Furthermore, I’d like to congratulate you for your excellent work!! The link of my work experience is http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4240145A2 The link of my blog is http://rodrigoncal.wordpress.com My objectives are drafted in this link http://rodrigoncal.wordpress.com/objectives-objetivos/ Best Regards, Rodrigo Nunes Cal

By: S0ulman

S0ulman — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:57:28 +0000

thank you for your very interesting reply, much appreciated.

By: John M. Smart

John M. Smart — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:25:48 +0000

Lively comments guys! I’ve written a followup post, Preserving the Self for Later Emulation: What Brain Features Do We Need? that you may enjoy. It speaks to issues regarding electrical vs. chemical features of the brain raised above by some.
http://eversmarterworld.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need/
With regard to those who are concerned about duplications of self, and whether uploads truly are “you”, you can find a post at our Brain Preservation Foundation that addresses that (and other objections around brain preservation’s value)
http://www.brainpreservation.org/content/overcoming-objections
As Giulio says above, our body is copying us all the time. That’s what protein turnover is, if you get technical about it. But does it so incrementally that we don’t notice it. In my opinion the more we learn about life and information, the more amazing the universe seems, and the more our options seem to grow. It’s a great time to be a transhumanist, I think. Cheers, JS

By: donjoe

donjoe — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:17:55 +0000

A summary of possible objections and my replies:

1. It’s just a copy, it’s not me.
A: You’re already just an imperfect copy of who you were yesterday.
1.1. But I have continuity of perception.
A: No you don’t, you slept and thus became unconscious last night, yet your brain kept changing. Furthermore, even while awake you’re only ever really aware of a fraction of all the changes happening in your brain and thus in your personality.

2. What about the electrical signals? Aren’t they an essential part of the personality, one that would be lost?
A: They may very well be. This is the most serious problem I’ve seen raised here and I don’t have an answer.

3. The body is important too, you can’t just copy the brain.
A: It has its role, but it can’t be at the same level of importance as the brain. Yes, it influences your thoughts and behaviour, but you can adapt to a different body without turning into someone else – we’re already doing it everytime we play RPGs: we learn to see ourselves as having completely different bodies and capabilities yet we don’t feel like our identities are being destroyed. So I don’t think the body-change thing is such a big problem. Even if you can claim that role-playing an avatar that’s very different from your current body DOES change your personality, frankly I’d rather continue my life as a personality-changing RL RPG than have to disappear completely.

4. What if more copies are made?
4.1. Which one is “really you”?
A: They’re all you, but their new lives will be “what your life would have been had you been under the same environmental influences that make you now say that copy X is distinct from the others”. They’re multiple versions of you. You can think of them as a selection of the multiple branching yous of the Many-Worlds Interpretation brought together in the same universe.

4.2. What if more copies are made without my consent due to hacking / data theft etc.?
A: This is a real ethical problem which I think deserves more attention. There’s a real risk of this kind of technology turning human personalities into a commodity, destroying identities (e.g. some other incarnation is set free to run around and successfully pretend it’s you => you lose all your identity-based rights etc.).

By: S0ulman

S0ulman — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:24:31 +0000

Another question: Can we as an individual really be reduced to our brain? I think there is more to it – what makes us “us” are our brains AND our body. I think today’s AI research widely accepted that it requires an embodiment and that the embodiment actually has a great influence on how such (very early AI attempts) express and experience. My point is – a preserved brain coming alive in a different body or in a virtual body may be not a very satisfying or even nice experience…. What do you think on this?

By: S0ulman

S0ulman — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:52:38 +0000

I would love to do it.To be able to live significantly longer respectively become alive again would be fantastic. However I have a general question: Looking at the latest press releases from the BlueBrain project my understanding was that surprisingly the way the synapses connect and the way neurons form are only partly “intentionally” but to a great deal conincidently. Could it be that what constitutes us as an individual is to a much lesser extent of what we assumed in the spacial arrangement of the neurons/connections, but rather in the actual wave of signals carried by approx. 100 bill neurons multiplied with approx. 2000 dendrit -connections? If so then this would imho imply that once you are dead (the wave carried by the hardware “brain” halts respectively ceases to exist as the wave will be completely flat/inactive) a lot of information would actually be lost forever. Or to give a different view of the question – how solid is our knowledge that our memory, our personality etc. is in the spacial arrangement of nerve cells and its dendrites? Obviously english is not my mother tongue and I hope I nevertheless could make myself understandable with my question. T

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:43:36 +0000

I’ve always said that if given the opportunity, I would want to live forever. Death scares me, not just because of the pain involved, but because I don’t want to miss the amazing things to come. Anyone who says they aren’t afraid to die is either lying or believes in a greater afterlife (I don’t). There is still so much I want to do and learn and see. I want to see the distant future. So yes, I would preserve my brain, if possible.

By: B. DiPaolo

B. DiPaolo — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:23:13 +0000

Could you PLEASE leave your superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense off of a site devoted to science?

By: Editor

Editor — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:33:51 +0000

“really no difference between your God and the Sun God…”: bit difference — the Sun god was more credible because it was based on observations of a physical entity and repeatable, falsifiable measurements (time of day, insolation level, skin darkening, etc.).

By: joedbradshaw

joedbradshaw — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:13:37 +0000

Yes, we atheists are all terrified of the invisible man in the sky. There’s really no difference between your God and the Sun God, Moon God, Voodoo… Superstition brought about by ignorance. It surprises me someone like you would read a “scientific” site, after all, the earth is only 6,000 years old, right?

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 01:39:59 +0000

“Today, only 1% of people in developed societies are interested in living beyond their biological death”
That’s what sin does to unbelievers. The desire to die. Because they are miserable, depressed little creatures. Sin is the opposite of life, it’s death.
The Lord shall do them a favor by wiping them out, they wouldn’t enjoy the purity of heaven. Right now, they are walking dead, like zombies.

By: davidgibbs

davidgibbs — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:30:27 +0000

I like the AI in the new Destined for Oblivion, the people in the book can enter that computer and remain in it for ages to learn and advance they knowledge and train physically. Then they can get out, immortal, thanks to Nanites. It’s a great book written by an Alcor member. I think the idea of Nanites to stop aging is likely the only way.

By: Vin

Vin — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:00:28 +0000

I think its more about a knowledge based system in the early iteration of preservation rather than an atomic-level clone, like if I wanted to ask an ancestor something after they had died or have their counsel or point of view on something.

By: Sophy Laughing

Sophy Laughing — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:20:12 +0000

I would do it in a heartbeat…or rather, lack thereof. Whether or not there’s an essence that remains independent of the original biological configuration is unknown. If not, oh well, the alternative is death. This is a metaphysical question for many as many people of the world today believe they will go to “Heaven” when they die and would not want to extend their biological or otherwise mechanism. Some people lose interest in living after having lived long lives to the point of exhaustion, mental and physical. I see why they might not choose to go for it. The ethical questions surrounding who gets to decide if you’re “reanimated” is a bit bothersome. I’d like to think I could sign a document, have a serum embedded in my brain or jar (in case that document gets lost or there is a change of protocol) that simply states: REANIMATE ME, FIRST! :D

By: jabros

jabros — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:17:08 +0000

I’ve thought of systematically replacing the biological cells with nano, mechanical, biotechnology, whatever is invented in the future that will do so, for keeping the brain and body alive indefinitely as the only way you would be certain to have immortality. Creating a clone and “downloading”, “installing” the copied consciousness would only create another sentient being, and it would not be you as the original you with what would be considered a soul. I just assumed other people had thought of this as well, and here you are talking about it.

By: srgg6701

srgg6701 — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:53:31 +0000

I suppose you would if a structure of “you” would be saved. It doesn’t matter what you made of, the only thing defines who you are is relation between all sides of your personality. That is your experience and some algorithms ruling your mind and your way of thinking.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:49:25 +0000

Now I feel relieved ;)

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:21:57 +0000

DARPA is working on it. The cheetah is such a platform. Later they will add arms and monkey like mobility.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:14:08 +0000

Yeah.And they had to bring Mr.Olympia into scene.

I am sure a real world skynet would kick our collective *sses.

Since technology keeps advancing you’ll only need to be creative and maybe you’ll make succesfull entertainment yourself^^

Ps: A fast terminator makes sense, but would really be frightening to fight against.^^

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:10:02 +0000

I agree. It actually is a premise for an even more interesting movie, of the logic is still suspended. Take the police station shoot up scene. If that had occured in reality it would have brought the whole government forces to bear on the terminator. He moves too slow to evade capture or destruction. He is more of an old horror movie frankenstein. Skynet would be very smart. I would expect a real terminator to be also. It would be very agile also. With these attributes and again, thesuspention of logic, you can generate a whole bunch of thrilling scenarios.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:19:49 +0000

But that won’t make for a good movie.

I always fund it funny that the terminator throws people around instead of grabbing their head and let it go 360°, without people noticing the senselessnes of it.Ok, maybe not the full 360°.

By: gaoptimize

gaoptimize — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:42:43 +0000

He’d be just one of many sociopaths/psycopaths we have today, moving up the banking and political ladder. He likely wouldn’t get that far competing with the likes of Dimon, Bernanke, Paulson, etc.

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:01:42 +0000

I don’t argue against the science or motivations. It can also be used to access lost loved ones, in terms of replicating their past experiences. I think it would be feasible to induce spirit transfer into a outside substrate. If I make an exact copy of myself, atom for atom, I don’t think I would be in both, or say multiple copies. This leads me to believe that a future copy won’t contain my present sense of I. Maybe further in the future that I that I experience might be also reserectable. This is still fairly far of in the future. There is much that we don’t know. I encourage all research on the subject.

By: philippe chambon

philippe chambon — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:38:21 +0000

Brain preservation is necessary today in order to achieve immortality by uploading the mind in a computer in the future . So, we expect that, as transhumanists say,our entire consciousness and personal identity will be preserved forever by these methods. As Kurzweil say, we hope that” the singularity is near” us.

By: egore

egore — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:00:24 +0000

What happens if someone learns how to recreate a Hitler intelligence and recreates in to the most advanced Mechanisms? Does that mean we would have to live under the thumb of such a manifestation?

By: Smita

Smita — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:55:16 +0000

The issue is, can consciousness be uploaded? Perhaps our memories can, but can Me be uploaded to think and react to new situations as “I” would?

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 02:09:04 +0000

Well, the question is subjective, but I would readily say yes….I speak only for myself, but I see myself as more then the sum of all parts. Those molecules may be important, but they certainly don’t define me and I probably wouldn’t even notice them missing once I start replacing them, even more so other people.

By: tim the realist

tim the realist — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:32:57 +0000

what if we had these processes called food and waste and metabolism and we slowly repalced every molecule in your body over some period of time. Would it still be you?

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:27 +0000

I’d say we’d rather a part of it.Or would you say my thumb alone is me?

If the premise of sth is that I am a cow, that does not make it true.Anyway, since I swallowed my cal(f) (in paradoxical) that’s not very likely.

Suffice it to say.I don’t believe in any feel good god, since I see no necessity for it.

My mind is not that unshaven.Just in case that statement is unintelligible , I am refering to Ockham’s razor.

By: Bri

Bri — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:53:29 +0000

@ some agreement with Mr. X. Let’s take your premise a step further. Let’s say for arguments sake that continuity of self is maintained when nonbiological parts are integrated. Everybody likes this idea for the most part, and I agree that that’s what will happen. Now in a fast forward mode, we let our imaginations run wild with possible changes we might make over the course of our enhanced lives. You can run your simulation for as long as you think you’d want to live for. At one thousand years out you’d be hard pressed to say that you are the same as the original infant. At one million, it would be hard to say that you even are an earthling. At one billion you might not even be in this multiverse. The next one is even harder to imagine. Let’s multiply it by infinity. This means that it would encompass even time before you were born, because infinity is limitless. Any attempts to put constraints on infinity causes it to be finite. We are souls or sparks of the infinite. What we view as being ourself is really more like a garment that is worn on the soul.

By: Bri

Bri — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:30:53 +0000

If you examine the basic premises of most religions it’s says that everything is part of god. That it really is god everywhere. If that’s the case than we are that paradoxical god that can’t lift a stone that we made.

By: alex ivanov

alex ivanov — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:50:23 +0000

We will be together forever. Death is not an option.

By: alex ivanov

alex ivanov — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:39:12 +0000

Let’s pick into the future 20 years from now. A person is terminally ill and dying in a hospital. Doctors have done everything to save him but nothing worked. Death is inevitable. Then a scientist comes and says you can preserve this patient and revive him later when the medicine advances and finds a cure for his disease. If you don’t do that then you will be accountable for his death and go to jail. What do you think doctors will do?

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:48:11 +0000

@ Some agreement with Mr.x..
I really like your user name, even though it could have some improvement. Maybe next time you want to change some to total?

A paradox god can do anything, young body and old memories included.

But he can’t make a stone that’s too heavy for him to lift.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:45:28 +0000

We need more censorship, quick: Marcos claims I have megalomaniac tendencies!He also insulted most of my family *starts to cry*.

Where is Wôdan when he’s needed?

Just kidding.

I’d sneak these things in in larger posts, since one can not tell the intention of the poster—> Many people get off topic in their rants without noticing, often because of lacking education (yes I said, just because one leaves school does not mean he gains the skills he hadn’t magically in adulthood).

But we are good, we would not do that right!?

On topic: I think most of the older folks on here may not have enough money to use early forms of this or any other life extension technology.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:36:53 +0000

@Bri.I was not talking about you.Whatever you said, I still like you;) (to the extent one can like soemone he practically does not really know).

I meant Mr. Friendly.He was too nice in other posts, you know.

Otherswise I agree with you: I do not identify persons with their opinion, by that I mean if I dislike (which I did not say) your statements that does not mean I dislike you.

By: cosmowrench

cosmowrench — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:36:02 +0000

Suppose scientists would invent an artificial neuron that is interchangable with real neurones. And you have all your neurones gradually (lets say, over a year timespan) replaced with artificial neurones. Would ‘you’ still be you after the process? And what if you have all your neurones replaced at once?

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:18:52 +0000

Only 1% are interested in living forever?….I’m not even sure what to say about that.

I mean, yes, their are a whole list of questions to ask even if immortality became a practical option, but in principle, this should be a number vastly higher then 1%.

Maybe it’s just because I have a certain viewpoint on these things, but something about that just seems too hard to believe….1%? Just one? How is that even possible?

By: Some Agreement with Mr. X

Some Agreement with Mr. X — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:34:40 +0000

I agree with Mr. X to some extent. There is a “you,” but only one point in time. At the next moment in time there is a different “you.” The different “you(s)” are most obvious, for example, when a comparison is made of the two-year-old “you” with the sixty-year-old “you.” If a comparison was made by way of looking at photographs of the two-year-old “you” with the sixty-year-old “you,” everyone would agree, including “you” at the moment of looking at the photographs, that the two-year-old “you” and the sixty-year-old “you” were different persons. When you narrow the time frames, such as comparing “you” of one day with another “you” of the next day, the differences are much harder to distinguish, but the “you(s)” are different. What makes the “you”(s) different at different times? It is the changes that take place in “you” from moment to moment, such as the changes in the atoms, molecules, cells, and the accumulated memories of “you” as time goes on. Thus, when a person dies of dementia or another pitiful condition, a photograph of the person taken at an earlier time from the time of death is usually shown to those attending the memorial service for those people to remember the earlier “you,” and not the older pitiful “you” at the moment of death. This talk about “uploading” “you” is nonsense as it is just another form of enticing people to believe in an “after life,” based on the fallacy that there is only one true “you” regardless of time. This time, the belief in an “after life” is being generated by science rather than by traditional religious beliefs. When you ask religious believers what “you” will be resurrected from the dead, for example, the “you” when you were twenty years old or the “you” at eighty years of age, most would choose the twenty-year-old “you.” But that twenty-year-old “you” would have no knowledge of his or her spouse, if he or she married after twenty years of age. At least, theoretically, God can choose the “you” to resurrect. The “you” that would be “uploaded” would simply be the “you” at the time of death. Perhaps, that is a “you” that no one would want uploaded, including the “you” that is reading this comment. (For simplicity, I am using “points in time” as discrete units rather than as a wave where the changes in “you” are taking place continuously and there is no “point in time.”)

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:31:15 +0000

Likes and dislikes can change. If I argue with you I might not like the part of you that I was arguing with. At another juncture in time, even total enemies can turn into the best of friends. This idea has been explored in countless stories. I think it’s important to be tolerant to thing we might hate, or people we might dislike. If the chance to find common ground is shut off, then alienation occurs and the chances of being good friends becomes more remote.

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:24:41 +0000

Mr X has said a point that I have stated before and I agree with his analysis. If you can make an absolutely perfect copy, what stops you from making many copies? Ray explored this in SN. Would the you that you experience be in all of them at the same time? Most likely not. There is no reason to believe that the reanimated you would contain the same soul.

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:07:44 +0000

I can understand peoples desire to alter the past , but I don’t think that can ever happen, otherwise we all would be very different already from a multitude of alterations. It’s a idea explored many times. Take the Terminator story as an example. All the terminator would have to do is creat a nuetron bomb. Sarah and Kyle would die and that would be that. Same goes for an evil genius from the future. Many madmen don’t mind their own destruction, as long as they get their revenge. Some gray goo at the appropriate time in history and we wouldn’t be even slime.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:33:04 +0000

Somehow I think you said that just because you dislike me;)

By: MrFriendly

MrFriendly — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:50:25 +0000

Very good point, Giulio.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:46:01 +0000

I believe this is the biggest chance to live beyond physical death for people who are today already too old or fragile to benefit from age reversal therapies. (see the website http://www.fightaging.org)
It is amazing to read that 99% of everyone still don’t want their brains and personality to be preserved!
I think it has to do with wrong ideas about how life after “death” would be like. It will not be in de old fragile and ill state in which a person dies of aging, but it will be with a (virtua?)l body that can not even become ill.
If a persons mind can be stored and revived in about 2045, he or she will have the wonderful oppurrtunity to take advantage of expanding (with nanobots) all the limits of our brains, we will be infinitely more smarter, creative, etc.. Who would say “NO” to make this jump to an era with such perspectives??

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:21:52 +0000

Yes.

By: Marcos Marin

Marcos Marin — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:59:09 +0000

Yep =) After having such long term delusions.

Nah, Germans tend to be so megalomaniac… but points for you for noticing ;-) I wouldn’t have made my sentence so ugly with such an obvious quote if I knew we had more such perspicacity around here, but then again it would’ve been seen as “unrelated issue” and blocked as a personal attack against religion. :-(

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:56:24 +0000

Nice to know unlimited death and destruction will still be around then. Do any of you guys work for Satan?

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:46:35 +0000

Say Jayce, around 2050 or so, do you want to get together and open up a wormhole to send a stream of nanocells back to scan Poe and bring back his essence? Of course we have to bring back his dead wife too. What kinds of things will he write when he awakes anew?