Billionaire to kill himself in belief might be possible to digitise his consciousness, eventually

[Quid est Veritas?]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/billionaire-signs-up-to-be-killed-have-brain-digitally-preserved/

I have seldom seen a sillier thing than this.

We have no evidence how consciousness functions. We aren't even sure how the vast majority of the brain functions. We can't even fully determine how neurophysiology works. We don't even really know how volatile Anaesthetic gases induce unconsciousness nor Induction agents their full effects. We don't know how to preserve neural tissue. We cannot recreate nerves or fix the simplest pathways. We aren't even close.

Even setting aside the complete materialist idea that we are solely our neurology, this is frankly idiotic. Chances are his brain would not survive, or would be severely degraded. Preserving human tissue just doesn't work. Further, even if we would accede to consciousness as emergent property of neurophysiology, we have no idea if that would be transfered to digitisation. Besides, that entity would be a copy of him even if succesful, not the original, and without a grounding in biology and the effects of hormones and so forth on the neurology, we have no idea if it would be stable. It would substantially be a different organism, which would have little relation to the state of the original.

How is it even legal for a healthy man to kill himself? Is Euthanising yourself in search of an idiotic, scientifically unsupportable pipedream of eternity really allowed?

What fresh madness is this? This is about as supportable as cultists drinking poisoned koolaid in expectation of eternal life.

 

[Nithavela]

While I fully agree with the OP on the complete nonsense of this story, it's ultimately his choice. And he didn't actually have himself killed, he's just on some sort of waiting list and this would only kick in once he contracted some sort of deathly condition.

The real kicker of this story is that the company who offers this "service" got a million US dollars from the government in research grands.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

While I fully agree with the OP on the complete nonsense of this story, it's ultimately his choice. And he didn't actually have himself killed, he's just on some sort of waiting list and this would only kick in once he contracted some sort of deathly condition.

Well no, it would only kick in if he voluntarily acceded to it and fulfilled the criteria for Euthanasia. As we know from the Dutch and Belgians, laws that say "only for intractable and incurable terminal illness", eventually get extended to perfectly healthy people with depression - that need not even be diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

The real kicker of this story is that the company who offers this "service" got a million US dollars from the government in research grands.

I was unaware of that. That is particularly worrisome. There is frankly much better places such money could be spent, probably with far more gain for Neurology. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well no, it would only kick in if he voluntarily acceded to it and fulfilled the criteria for Euthanasia. As we know from the Dutch and Belgians, laws that say "only for intractable and incurable terminal illness", eventually get extended to perfectly healthy people with depression - that need not even be diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

I was unaware of that. That is particularly worrisome. There is frankly much better places such money could be spent, probably with far more gain for Neurology. Cuiriouser and curiouser.

One must watch out for those rabbit holes caterpilla

 

[Kentonio]

How is it even legal for a healthy man to kill himself? Is Euthanising yourself in search of an idiotic, scientifically unsupportable pipedream of eternity really allowed?

Seems more likely its a 'just before he dies' thing, not something he's going to do next week. In which case, why not?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Seems more likely its a 'just before he dies' thing, not something he's going to do next week. In which case, why not?

That hasn't really been established. This guy is part of the group who have kit out bunkers for the coming apocalypse in New Zealand. I don't think he has much faith in the future.

Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand

Doing something like this, especially if they are trying to preserve neural tissue which dies quite rapidly, would obviously be far more effective with a younger, healthier brain.

Some people have more money than sense, so I would hope it would only be when he approached the end of his life, but his past actions has made this far from certain.

Regardless, such a person would still be losing his indeterminate last days for dubious and highly unlikely gain, even ignoring the question of the morality of Euthanasia for such a thing.

 

[Kentonio]

I don't think he has much faith in the future

I can't say I blame him currently, the tides of history are not running in a favourable direction right now. We are, as the Chinese might say, living in 'interesting times'.

Doing something like this, especially if they are trying to preserve neural tissue which dies quite rapidly, would obviously be far more effective with a younger, healthier brain.

Some people have more money than sense, so I would hope it would only be when he approached the end of his life, but his past actions has made this far from certain.

Regardless, such a person would still be losing his indeterminate last days for dubious and highly unlikely gain, even ignoring the question of the morality of Euthanasia for such a thing.

Possible, but I don't see a Silicon Valley billionaire just topping himself early. If its the last few days of his life though, I really don't see how it matters. Then again I'm fully in favour of legalized euthanasia (with intensive controls).

 

[bhsmte]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/billionaire-signs-up-to-be-killed-have-brain-digitally-preserved/

I have seldom seen a sillier thing than this.

We have no evidence how consciousness functions. We aren't even sure how the vast majority of the brain functions. We can't even fully determine how neurophysiology works. We don't even really know how volatile Anaesthetic gases induce unconsciousness nor Induction agents their full effects. We don't know how to preserve neural tissue. We cannot recreate nerves or fix the simplest pathways. We aren't even close.

Even setting aside the complete materialist idea that we are solely our neurology, this is frankly idiotic. Chances are his brain would not survive, or would be severely degraded. Preserving human tissue just doesn't work. Further, even if we would accede to consciousness as emergent property of neurophysiology, we have no idea if that would be transfered to digitisation. Besides, that entity would be a copy of him even if succesful, not the original, and without a grounding in biology and the effects of hormones and so forth on the neurology, we have no idea if it would be stable. It would substantially be a different organism, which would have little relation to the state of the original.

How is it even legal for a healthy man to kill himself? Is Euthanising yourself in search of an idiotic, scientifically unsupportable pipedream of eternity really allowed?

What fresh madness is this? This is about as supportable as cultists drinking poisoned koolaid in expectation of eternal life.

I guess he is one of those "excentric" rich guys.

 

[brinny]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/billionaire-signs-up-to-be-killed-have-brain-digitally-preserved/

I have seldom seen a sillier thing than this.

We have no evidence how consciousness functions. We aren't even sure how the vast majority of the brain functions. We can't even fully determine how neurophysiology works. We don't even really know how volatile Anaesthetic gases induce unconsciousness nor Induction agents their full effects. We don't know how to preserve neural tissue. We cannot recreate nerves or fix the simplest pathways. We aren't even close.

Even setting aside the complete materialist idea that we are solely our neurology, this is frankly idiotic. Chances are his brain would not survive, or would be severely degraded. Preserving human tissue just doesn't work. Further, even if we would accede to consciousness as emergent property of neurophysiology, we have no idea if that would be transfered to digitisation. Besides, that entity would be a copy of him even if succesful, not the original, and without a grounding in biology and the effects of hormones and so forth on the neurology, we have no idea if it would be stable. It would substantially be a different organism, which would have little relation to the state of the original.

How is it even legal for a healthy man to kill himself? Is Euthanising yourself in search of an idiotic, scientifically unsupportable pipedream of eternity really allowed?

What fresh madness is this? This is about as supportable as cultists drinking poisoned koolaid in expectation of eternal life.

God have mercy!

Praying.

 

[dgiharris]

Not sure why all of the disdain???

I don't think you have a proper appreciation for our technological growth rate.

In 1903 mankind had barely invented the first aircraft...
then 66 years later we put a man on the moon

66 years ago, a building sized computer clocked in at a blazingly fast 200kHz worth of calculation speed.
66 years ago a megabyte worth of storage took up about closest worth of space as magnetic tape

We are literally on an exponential curve in terms of our tech development and progression

66 years from now, it is easily within the realms of possibility that we would have figured out a way to upload consciousness onto a cloudlike system and create a real life version of the Matrix.

Imagine a host of different realities each with their own laws of physics with the only limit being human imagination.

It isn't far fetched at all.

 

[Dave-W]

Imagine a host of different realities each with their own laws of physics with the only limit being human imagination.

It isn't far fetched at all.

The problem is that what would get uploaded would be a copy of the consciousness but not the actual conscious person.

the copy may not even be aware that he/she is not the real person since all of the memories and thought patterns may have been copied intact. But the REAL person dies just like normal.

 

[dgiharris]

The problem is that what would get uploaded would be a copy of the consciousness but not the actual conscious person.

the copy may not even be aware that he/she is not the real person since all of the memories and thought patterns may have been copied intact. But the REAL person dies just like normal.

I had an interesting thought in this regard a while ago...

I submit that every single time we loss consciousness we die and when we wake up it is just the copy of us waking up...

Or put another way, what is the difference between losing consciousness and waking up vs being a copy of a consciousness that is coming into being...

How could you be sure that the two different scenarios are different???

 

[Nithavela]

I had an interesting thought in this regard a while ago...

I submit that every single time we loss consciousness we die and when we wake up it is just the copy of us waking up...

Or put another way, what is the difference between losing consciousness and waking up vs being a copy of a consciousness that is coming into being...

How could you be sure that the two different scenarios are different???

You may wish to read this comic:

The Machine

 

[Nithavela]

The problem is that what would get uploaded would be a copy of the consciousness but not the actual conscious person.

the copy may not even be aware that he/she is not the real person since all of the memories and thought patterns may have been copied intact. But the REAL person dies just like normal.

In ancient times, there were 7 world wonders, like the hanging gardens, the colossus of rhodos or the pyramids of Giza. One of those wonders was the temple of the goddess Artemis in Ephesos, known for being the biggest temple of the ancient world.

In 356 BC, a man named Herostratos burned down this temple with the express intent of making his name and deed immortal. He was punished by damnatio memoriae, the punishment of having is name stricken from all records and forbidden to talk about to erase him from history. As you can tell by us knowing about him, it didn't stick.

I'm mentioning this little historical tidbit to showcase how far people are willing to go to make themselves immortal in one form or another. If someone was willing to burn down the greatest temple in ancient history to preserve his name, is it really that unreasonable that a millionair pays 10.000 dollars for a shot at preserving his entire memory and personality?

 

[dgiharris]

You may wish to read this comic:

The Machine

thanks for that... I really enjoyed it

 

[dgiharris]

In ancient times, there were 7 world wonders, like the hanging gardens, the colossus of rhodos or the pyramids of Giza. One of those wonders was the temple of the goddess Artemis in Ephesos, known for being the biggest temple of the ancient world.

In 356 BC, a man named Herostratos burned down this temple with the express intent of making his name and deed immortal. He was punished by damnatio memoriae, the punishment of having is name stricken from all records and forbidden to talk about to erase him from history. As you can tell by us knowing about him, it didn't stick.

I'm mentioning this little historical tidbit to showcase how far people are willing to go to make themselves immortal in one form or another. If someone was willing to burn down the greatest temple in ancient history to preserve his name, is it really that unreasonable that a millionair pays 10.000 dollars for a shot at preserving his entire memory and personality?

When you think about it, it is a great hedge with super infinite odds. Mathematically it makes perfect sense.

We are all going to die and leave this life forever. Whether you believe in god, heaven, nirvana or nothingness... regardless of your belief, when you die here, this life is done.

So, if you really like this life and would like it to continue indefinitely, then what does it matter if you spend a few thousand or even millions to preserve it at the moment of death.

Even if there is a 0.001% chance of success, you don't really lose anything by trying... And if successful, you win the lotto

Imagine going from reality to reality... You could live in a Star Trek themed universe for a few decades tire of that then go to a Lord of the Rings themed Universe do that for a while then take a stab at living as an alien creature on an alien planet then why not try a life where you have no memory and start fresh and then after 100 years get your old memories reinstalled...

Imagine being a super hero or super villain in a Marvel/DC themed Universe? Imagine a universe where when you die you simply reset vs a universe where you literally only get one life so you better be careful!!!

In any event, I'm kinda sad that I'm probably too old to take advantage of this when it comes about. My guess is this technology is somewhere between 50 to 100 years away.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find it sad and pathetic.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Not sure why all of the disdain???

I don't think you have a proper appreciation for our technological growth rate.

In 1903 mankind had barely invented the first aircraft...
then 66 years later we put a man on the moon

66 years ago, a building sized computer clocked in at a blazingly fast 200kHz worth of calculation speed.
66 years ago a megabyte worth of storage took up about closest worth of space as magnetic tape









We are literally on an exponential curve in terms of our tech development and progression

66 years from now, it is easily within the realms of possibility that we would have figured out a way to upload consciousness onto a cloudlike system and create a real life version of the Matrix.

Imagine a host of different realities each with their own laws of physics with the only limit being human imagination.

It isn't far fetched at all.

You are quite mistaken. Firstly, it is irrelevant whether we could do it in future, because a brain would have to be preserved by current technology. This is almost impossible, so literally there would be nothing to upload. You would need to preserve the cells in their completely in vivo state. The balance of potassium and sodium within and outside the cell, along with calcium ion shifts, are of utmost importance. There is no 'memory' or inscribed physical storage, there is a fine electrochemical gradient and homeostatic balance. The act of 'preservation' even if succesful, which is highly doubtful, would still disturb this irreparrably. Thus no memory would remain nor a 'consciousness' if materially derived. It is patently far-fetched.

Further, we have failed dismally to correlate electrical brain activity to conscious states. EEGs that read brain waves and electrical activity, has recently been tested for awareness under Anaesthesia. They gave a number of volunteers muscle relaxants and then checked their EEGs. They were still fully awake - yet the EEG recordings depicted them as in deep sedation.

Besides, people don't know how little we really know of brain function. We can't even describe how our spontaneous breathing occurs, in spite of knowing exactly where the three respiratory centres in the brain are located, and how the tracts innervate the respiratory muscles.
For much of our motoric functioning we have a vague idea that it must occur here or there, but almost no particulars on how this really occurs. We know nerves depolarise, but how this is set over into effects is still mostly guesswork.
When it comes to reasoning or consciousness, even more so. We simply don't know anything about it, of course assuming its material basis.
We might know more later, but it is slow going, even with extensive use of imaging technology like fMRIs. It certainly is not exponential.

Your characterisation of technological progress is flawed anyway. We flew in 1903 with rapid development of propeller aircraft, which then reached its natural plataeu, from where further improvements became difficult. The obvious routes of enquiry were exhausted. Then jets and so forth came along, which was essentially a whole new thing. They also ran their course into the supersonic, and aircraft have not been increasing much in speed since, only incrementally.
The same is true of computer technology. Moore's law was a projection that took the eventual plateauing of development into account. The idea of exponential increase is more the work of popular futurists: the same that said in the 60s that we'd have flying cars today, or in the 80s we'd have hoverboards and humanoid robots. Intel acknowledges that the rate of improvement is plateauing and they predict the next decade or so will see a steep decline in further improvement of processing speed.
Medically, we cannot even grow or model comparatively much simpler organs like the heart properly either - not for want of trying - so a brain is not even close to the realm of possibility.

I am sorry, but the chance of me spontaneously growing an extra limb, is higher than the success of this venture. On the grounds of medical science, it is profoundly silly. Even if we achieve astronomical technological improvement, copying the entire electrochemical balance of the brain, if this is even where consciousness or the self resides, recreating its functionality in simulation, is probably more than a century away, if not a couple of centuries.

 

[dgiharris]

You are quite mistaken. Firstly, it is irrelevant whether we could do it in future, because a brain would have to be preserved by current technology. This is almost impossible, so literally there would be nothing to upload. You would need to preserve the cells in their completely in vivo state. The balance of potassium and sodium within and outside the cell, along with calcium ion shifts, are of utmost importance. There is no 'memory' or inscribed physical storage, there is a fine electrochemical gradient and homeostatic balance. The act of 'preservation' even if succesful, which is highly doubtful, would still disturb this irreparrably. Thus no memory would remain nor a 'consciousness' if materially derived. It is patently far-fetched.

Further, we have failed dismally to correlate electrical brain activity to conscious states. EEGs that read brain waves and electrical activity, has recently been tested for awareness under Anaesthesia. They gave a number of volunteers muscle relaxants and then checked their EEGs. They were still fully awake - yet the EEG recordings depicted them as in deep sedation.

Besides, people don't know how little we really know of brain function. We can't even describe how our spontaneous breathing occurs, in spite of knowing exactly where the three respiratory centres in the brain are located, and how the tracts innervate the respiratory muscles.
For much of our motoric functioning we have a vague idea that it must occur here or there, but almost no particulars on how this really occurs. We know nerves depolarise, but how this is set over into effects is still mostly guesswork.
When it comes to reasoning or consciousness, even more so. We simply don't know anything about it, of course assuming its material basis.
We might know more later, but it is slow going, even with extensive use of imaging technology like fMRIs. It certainly is not exponential.

Your characterisation of technological progress is flawed anyway. We flew in 1903 with rapid development of propeller aircraft, which then reached its natural plataeu, from where further improvements became difficult. The obvious routes of enquiry were exhausted. Then jets and so forth came along, which was essentially a whole new thing. They also ran their course into the supersonic, and aircraft have not been increasing much in speed since, only incrementally.
The same is true of computer technology. Moore's law was a projection that took the eventual plateauing of development into account. The idea of exponential increase is more the work of popular futurists: the same that said in the 60s that we'd have flying cars today, or in the 80s we'd have hoverboards and humanoid robots. Intel acknowledges that the rate of improvement is plateauing and they predict the next decade or so will see a steep decline in further improvement of processing speed.
Medically, we cannot even grow or model comparatively much simpler organs like the heart properly either - not for want of trying - so a brain is not even close to the realm of possibility.

I am sorry, but the chance of me spontaneously growing an extra limb, is higher than the success of this venture. On the grounds of medical science, it is profoundly silly. Even if we achieve astronomical technological improvement, copying the entire electrochemical balance of the brain, if this is even where consciousness or the self resides, recreating its functionality in simulation, is probably more than a century away, if not a couple of centuries.

Great reply. Here is my counter.

Firstly, in regards to the brain, you are right, our current level of understanding leaves a lot to be desired. However, before I get to that, I'd like to talk about the medical profession as a whole and the advancement of medicine...

The key to medical advancement was the application of the scientific method (which one could argue the medical profession as a whole did not universally apply until the 1800s) and the introduction/application of other sciences. Even though the microscope was invented in the 1600s, it didn't enjoy regular actual medical clinical use until 1800 and then it took a long time to impact medical science due to limitations in communication. Then there was another huge jump in medical science with the advent of the X-ray.

We are on the threshold of nanotechnology and that will enable another huge quantum leap in terms of medical science and I would guess that would dramatically impact our ability to measure and quantify the various processes within the brain.

Computing/processing technology is another area that promises further leaps forward-- especially if we ever realize quantum computing...

But what I will say is that over the past 20 years technology has literally progressed faster than our ability to actually assimilate it. That is how crazy the curve is right now. Even as we start to hit the limits of Moores law, we still haven't caught up and properly assimilated our current capabilities.

In order to move forward with the whole "Consciousness uploading", yeah, some things definitely need to happen. We need advances in imaging, nanotechnology, and mathematics governing the various states involved with human consciousness as well as a much better understanding of the human brain....

But to say those things are "centuries" away...

I just don't know how you can say that when you look at where we were as a species just a century ago as compared to today???

Lastly, as to some of the things you said.

We have the technology to have flying cars. In fact, they built a flying car in the 60s.
We could also have a lunar city and colony on mars by now if we really tried, but we didn't. As for humanoid robots, yeah, we are definitely a little behind on that front but not by much. We can have humanoid robots within the next 50 years but again we'd have to really try.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Great reply. Here is my counter.

Firstly, in regards to the brain, you are right, our current level of understanding leaves a lot to be desired. However, before I get to that, I'd like to talk about the medical profession as a whole and the advancement of medicine...

The key to medical advancement was the application of the scientific method (which one could argue the medical profession as a whole did not universally apply until the 1800s) and the introduction/application of other sciences. Even though the microscope was invented in the 1600s, it didn't enjoy regular actual medical clinical use until 1800 and then it took a long time to impact medical science due to limitations in communication. Then there was another huge jump in medical science with the advent of the X-ray.

We are on the threshold of nanotechnology and that will enable another huge quantum leap in terms of medical science and I would guess that would dramatically impact our ability to measure and quantify the various processes within the brain.

Computing/processing technology is another area that promises further leaps forward-- especially if we ever realize quantum computing...

But what I will say is that over the past 20 years technology has literally progressed faster than our ability to actually assimilate it. That is how crazy the curve is right now. Even as we start to hit the limits of Moores law, we still haven't caught up and properly assimilated our current capabilities.

In order to move forward with the whole "Consciousness uploading", yeah, some things definitely need to happen. We need advances in imaging, nanotechnology, and mathematics governing the various states involved with human consciousness as well as a much better understanding of the human brain....

But to say those things are "centuries" away...

I just don't know how you can say that when you look at where we were as a species just a century ago as compared to today???

Lastly, as to some of the things you said.

We have the technology to have flying cars. In fact, they built a flying car in the 60s.
We could also have a lunar city and colony on mars by now if we really tried, but we didn't. As for humanoid robots, yeah, we are definitely a little behind on that front but not by much. We can have humanoid robots within the next 50 years but again we'd have to really try.

I have a very different view. I have never seen development fulfill the promise it was supposed to. We aren't that more advanced than the early 20th. Computers and electronics, sure. I think it more that old bugbear how each age thinks they are so much more advanced than their predecessors and will get more done. The Nazis were planning to dam the mediterranean and water the Sahara, for instance. The British drew up plans for the channel tunnel in the 19th and considered it feasible, though it was never done due to political concerns. I think we just have different perspectives. I have been told how remote surgery and patient monitoring was on the cards for years, without the slightest movement in that direction.
A lot of our technology is much older, just became more readily available, like microwave ovens, anaesthetic vapours, or were already considered within the realm of possibility, such as high-speed trains or space flight. Doing something already considered to be possible, is different from doing something which is not even close to being so.

Another point:
You know Medicine doesn't use Scientific Method right?

Medicine uses Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). We cannot repeat studies with negative outcomes, due to ethical constraints. If the participants had bad outcomes, or very good ones, we can't ethically allow the former or withold the latter. So the results of medical studies are fixed, graded according to evidence class and then plugged into arcane statistical analysis, to determine which result should be given more weight. Medicine thus has non-falsifiable, non-repeatable studies. While it is certainly an Empiric system, it is not Scientific Method. Almost the only times Scientific Method was employed in Medicine, was in Nazi concentration camp experiments.

This is also a major stumbling block with namotechnology. It is simply not in accord with medical ethics to insert foreign bodies, that will ellicit immune response, without a lot of safeguards and studies. Preliminary human trials will take decades to begin after the technology had been shown viable in animals. I doubt this will be occuring anytime soon, nor that this will be a massive improvement in our knowledge of the brain. We really know far less than people think, even with advanced imaging technology.
We still don't even understand the human heart, which we have been investigating from Galen through Harvey to today. Recently, the Starling's forces, that determine fluid shift in the cardiovascular system, have been completely revised thanks to the glycocalyx of arteries and veins. If we aren't even close to understanding a comparatively simple pump like the heart, how can you think the vast complexicity of the brain is in reach? And we need to understand almost all of it, and model it correctly, if we are to do something like this. Preserving it in the first place is well-nigh impossible, but somehow modeling complex gradients and depolarisations is simply beyond us.

Anyway, Xrays wasn't such a great advance in knowledge. Orthopaedic treatment was merely facilitated, but much of the knowledge of how to set bones was already present. They could now reduce bones and work out if the angle was correct or place medullary nails in theatre, but it didn't tell us massively that much more than we already knew. Don't underestimate those old clinicians. They finely graded heart murmurs with stethoscopes, long before ultrasound, or worked out arterial wave forms before invasive monitoring. Sometimes it is astonishing.

We shall have to agree to disagree. I don't know much about the computer aspects, but from the medical side, it IS centuries away, even with vast and ongoing technological improvement. Ultrasound and Magnetic imaging improved our understanding, but not astronomically so, which is what nanorechnology and its ilk would have to do. I find this highly implausible, which is why this is being done by tech moghuls - I doubt many doctors think this even remotely feasible.