You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

VAuroch comments on Cryonics As Untested Medical Procedure - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: jkaufman 17 January 2014 04:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: VAuroch 20 January 2014 04:30:22AM -1 points [-]

The secure deletion argument convinced me, yes. It's a compelling analogy, in that it points out how difficult it is to actually destroy information, even in a minimally-redundant medium when you're specifically trying to destroy that information. A process in a brain, which is a highly-redundant medium, when specifically trying not to destroy data, is incredibly unlikely to make information unrecoverable.

Comment author: V_V 20 January 2014 05:20:11PM *  7 points [-]

Hard drives aren't minimally redundant. The size of the magnetic regions on the platter is bounded from below by the requirement that the heads must be able to read and write them while passing over them at a very high speed.
Furthermore, hard drives are a very stable medium: they are designed to reliably retain data for years or decades without power (possibly they may retain data even for centuries if the storage conditions are right).

I think it's a bad analogy, and a cherry picked one. Contrast with how easy it is to delete data from a DRAM chip, and you'll get why analogies with modern computer hardware don't really make any sense for biological brains.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 January 2014 11:53:21AM 4 points [-]

Except that the analogy is wrong: it's quite easy to destroy the information. In practice, writing random data to a modern hard disk leaves it unrecoverable.

So:

  1. Why did the idea that hard drives (a completely different form of data storage, something specifically designed to retain data across a wide range of conditions) are hard to erase make you think that it was hard to erase data from brains?

  2. Now that you know that it isn't hard to irrecoverably erase hard drives (even though they're designed to retain data), how does that affect the analogy with brains? Why?