= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MatthewB comments on Reference class of the unclassreferenceable - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (150)
Well, if the brain is otherwise intact, it can take a while to completely liquefy after being embalmed (unless they remove it completely). So, there is a short period of time where some information could be recovered. Also, depending upon the type of embalming, the brain may last longer than others (Like most things death, it just depends upon what one is willing to pay).
However, most of the methods do begin to converge on zero after a relatively short period when compared to cryonics.
You don't necessarily need the brain. There's no Cartesian divide between your brain and the rest of the universe; they interact quite a bit. I would bet that all the information that's in your brain now can theoretically be inferred from things outside of your brain in 10 years, although I'm less confident that a physically realizable superintelligence would be able to do that sort of inference.
Yes... They interact quite a bit (the brain and the rest of the universe)... Then what am I doing investing in a technology that gives me the best chance of recovering the pattern within that brain?
I get the point, but the interaction between the brain and the rest of the universe is not likely to leave a durable pattern upon the universe of the pattern in the brain. I am open to being wrong about that.
Because of our uncertainty about how much information is preserved and how easy it is to reconstruct. Cryonics is the most conservative option.