View Single Post
  #339  
Old 12-30-2017, 01:31 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There is a little bit of engineering involved as well. There are potential roadblocks that may or may not be insurmountable. When nuclear power was first envisioned, they didn't think about xenon. Xenon almost ruined the whole thing, and while it was a surmountable issue, it remains a significant factor that needs to be monitored to keep your reactor operating correctly.

So, in any of these future technologies, there will be a "xenon". Something that was completely unexpected based on first principles, (though they did suspect that something may act like xenon as being a neutron poison that builds up as a result of nuclear activity, they did not know it would be xenon, nor how to deal with it until they actually were doing the experiments.) and something that cannot even be considered how to correct for until that flaw is found.

Our understanding of the brain and advanced cellular biology is around where our understanding of nuclear power was in the 20's. It seems as though there is something there to be exploited for our gain, but the exact road to realizing that, as well as the obstacles in that path are still completely unknown.
Can I ask for you to recheck your assumptions on this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
So if you can replace 1 synapse perfectly, in theory, though it is obviously isn't physically possible to do with a living brain because biology is too fragile and unreliable, you could in theory replace 10% of them. Or 50%. Or 100%. You would have to also duplicate the rules that cause new synapses to form, duplicate the update rules, duplicate other analog signals the brain uses as well. It would be no means be an easy task.
Bolding added. Where are you getting even the idea of saying that I think the problem would not have unexpected snags?

The only way you can even begin to claim that is I'm saying if we spend a small amount of money (it's cheaper than long term medical care...) freezing the brains of terminally ill people, the chances are good that we could eventually do something useful with them. And we should plan to freeze them for up to ~300 years (about $30,000 in present day's money in LN2) because there might in fact be a great many such 'snags' that have to be worked out.

All I'm really saying is the risk : reward is worth it for many people. If you gave someone the choice of spending their last few years in a haze in an Alzheimer's ward, before certain death, or undergoing a surgical procedure that might fail and might see them revived in the far future, you would get a lot of takers for the latter. And we should respect that and not consider it "murder" by our archaic understanding based half on religion.