= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on How do you tell proto-science from pseudo-science? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (88)
We want a lot more precision restoring brains than from restoring kidneys-- it's conceivable that there's a limit which makes good enough restoration for kidneys possible, but not for brains, though I don't think that's the way to bet. It's plausible to me that restoring brains adequately is much harder.
This seems like a non-obvious statement to me. Kidney function is dependent on fine microstructure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_corpuscle
The size of each corpuscle is about the same as the size of a neuron.
Yes.
It's also true, though perhaps irrelevant, that we don't actually care whether kidneys are restored. If my kidneys are damaged and a surgeon successfully transplants Sam's kidneys into my body, I'm basically OK with that... I don't especially want my kidneys, I just want kidneys. I suspect that's true of most people.
If my brain is damaged and a surgeon transplants Sam's brain into my body, the corresponding thing is much less true.
That being said, I expect that >99% of my cognitive function, memories, etc could be replaced by Sam's and I would be OK with that as well, even if I make the OKness evaluation with my current brain. Identifying the <1% for which that isn't true is a tricky project, though. That being said, I expect I'm very atypical in this respect.
Moreover, human kidneys can't be reversibly cryopreserved by current methods.