= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Torello comments on Stupid Questions Thread - January 2014 - 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 (293)
Doesn't cryonics (and subsequent rebooting of a person) seem obviously too difficult? People can't keep cars running indefinitely, wouldn't keeping a particular consciousness running be much harder?
I hinted at this in another discussion and got downvoted, but it seems obvious to me that the brain is the most complex machine around, so wouldn't it be tough to fix? Or does it all hinge on the "foom" idea where every problem is essentially trivial?
Most of the explanations found on cryonics site, do indeed seem to base their arguments around the hopeful explanation that given nanotechnology and science of the future every problem connected to as you say rebooting would become essentially trivial.
There are oldtimer cars that seem to have no problem with running "indefinitely" provided you fix parts here and there.
This is sort of my point--wouldn't it be hard to keep a consciousness continually running (to avoid the death we feared in the first place) by fixing or replacing parts?
Continuity of consciousness very quickly becomes a hard word to define : not only do you interrupt consciousness for several hours on a nightly basis, you actually can go into reduced awareness modes on a regular basis even when 'awake'.
Moreover, it might not be necessary to interrupt continuity of consciousness in order to "replace parts" in the brain. Hemispherectomies demonstrate that large portions of the brain can be removed at once without causing death, for example.
error checking on solid state silicon is much easier than error checking neurons.
We know a lot more about solid state silicon than neurons. When we understand neurons as well as we currently do solid state silicon, I see no reason why error checking on them should be harder than error checking on silicon is now.
Too difficult for whom? Us, now? Obviously. Later? Well, how much progress are you willing to allow for 'too difficult' to become 'just doable'?