
MIT severs ties to company promoting fatal brain uploading - apsec112
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610743/mit-severs-ties-to-company-promoting-fatal-brain-uploading/
======
makepanic
First time seeing a website checking for private mode:

> Hello,

> We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

> To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

> Why we made this change

> Visitors are allowed 3 free articles per month (without a subscription), and
> private browsing prevents us from counting how many stories you've read.

> We hope you understand, and consider subscribing for unlimited online
> access."

In case others don't want to leave private mode:
[http://archive.is/DjsiK](http://archive.is/DjsiK)

~~~
Rotten194
How does it do that? Do browsers set a flag? That seems like a privacy hole.

~~~
bentruyman
There are certain browser APIs disabled in the browser in incognito mode that
can be detected. How else would you implement incognito mode?

~~~
brohee
By sandboxing, e.g. localStorage fully functional but deleted at the end of
the session...

~~~
2fifty3
Mozilla recently released containerized tabs[0], I imagine the next logic step
is building containerized Private Browsing Mode

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-
account...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-
containers/)

~~~
Paul-ish
My understanding is that things actually went the other way. Private browsing
came first, then the same approach was used to create more labels than just
"private" and not "private". I think more features may be turned off in
private browsing mode though.

------
etrautmann
Brain uploading is a misleading description of what nectome is proposing. We
don’t know enough about what needs to be preserved yet to accurately save a
snapshot of a brain’s “state”. It’s not theoretically impossible, just much
further than this company’s marketing implies.

~~~
fixermark
And given the recent discovery of what some are calling (possibly
inaccurately) an entirely new organ in the body resulting from changes in the
visualization technologies available
([https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/health/new-organ-
intersti...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/health/new-organ-
interstitium.html))...

I, for one, wouldn't trust that their preservation solution is sufficient for
reconstruction of anything even approximating consciousness without a
successful bidirectional demonstration. Far too high a risk that what they'd
be able to deliver right now is a very smelly paperweight that used to be
someone's brain.

~~~
otakucode
I don't believe we could ever see any kind of system 'approximating
consciousness' without a body. Full stop. Dualism is wrong and there is no
mind/body split. The full state of the brain, simulated perfectly, would
perfectly reproduce the experience of a brain in total sensory deprivation
paired with total whole-body paralysis. Even just sensory deprivation alone is
enough to cause consciousness to entirely evaporate in moments. Add in whole
body paralysis and no, you can never hope to have anything approaching
'consciousness.'

~~~
ahelwer
If you have the technology to simulate a brain, it seems pretty trivial to
simulate a body, environment, and associated sensory inputs as well.

~~~
fixermark
I'm reminded of the 'hybrot' experiments where rat brain cells in a nutrient
solution are allowed to wire up their own neural network on top of electrodes
that send and receive data wirelessly from a robot body
[[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401756/rat-brained-
robot/](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401756/rat-brained-robot/)]

The question of doing something similar with a strata running a human brain
doesn't seem impossible, just extremely technologically daunting when one
considers the sheer number of connections into and out of the physical brain.

~~~
SomeNeuroGuy
The number of connections is high, but the bandwidth is surprisingly low.
Modern edge routers could do it a couple times over.

------
ilamont
Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes:

What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day
last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list.

 _Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up
demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit
of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind.

So far, 25 people have done so. One of them is Sam Altman, a 32-year-old
investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program._

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610456/a-startup-is-
pitch...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610456/a-startup-is-pitching-a-
mind-uploading-service-that-is-100-percent-fatal/)

~~~
Veedrac
First and foremost cryogenics has a PR problem. It is somehow more popular to
say that you're glad people are dying by the billions than to align yourself
with the people trying to make an earnest effort to stop it (now imagine how
fast I would be banned for the same position around genocide).

I'm not sure whether this will just further the kneejerk anti-cryogenics
sentiment or if it will seem to more normalise normal post-death cryogenics,
but it does seem a rather dangerous play. I don't want cryogenics to find
itself tangled up in crazy legal issues.

At an object level I'm not all that concerned with the ethics of people taking
this bet, given the science is pretty sound. It does not make sense to allow
people to take medical treatment that have a significant chance of serious
harm for the chance of a few years longer health if it pans out, but then ban
a bet as safe as cryogenics.

~~~
s73v3r_
Can you imagine what this planet would be like if people didn't die? How much
more crowded we'd be? How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's
resources?

~~~
wwwtyro
Are you suggesting we not save lives so that we can avoid some unrealized fear
of overcrowding?

Suppose humanity attains indefinite life spans in the near future. Would you
then advocate murder in order to save space?

Should we outlaw antibiotics because they save lives, and those lives take up
resources?

I find this argument both unimaginative (improving technology changes the
nature of our challenges) and repulsive (it's advocating murder through
inaction).

~~~
s73v3r_
"Are you suggesting we not save lives so that we can avoid some unrealized
fear of overcrowding?"

No, and putting words in my mouth like that is extremely uncivil. We're
talking about people who have already died.

"I find this argument both unimaginative (improving technology changes the
nature of our challenges) and repulsive (it's advocating murder through
inaction)."

And I find your tone repulsive and uncivil, as you're making extreme
assumptions about my positions.

Not to mention, you're only advocating that we save the rich. I don't see you
setting up a GoFundMe to preserve homeless people.

------
walrus01
If hundreds of millions of people were to do this, what economic, cultural or
religious incentive do people have 500 years from now to resurrect anyone?
Maybe people who were famous geniuses, sure, but with my view of human nature
I get the impression that unless the resurrection process is extremely low
cost and easy, nobody will go to the effort to bring back the consciousness of
huge numbers of random people. This could change, sure, such as if a major
world religion made a profound shift to bringing back your ancestors for
ideological reasons. The chance of that happening is slim.

~~~
zapdrive
Or you can die with a private key of a Bitcoin address containing a few
bitcoins memorized. And a tattoo or something that will says you'll give half
to whoever revives you. Hopefully Bitcoin will be here for a long time.

~~~
aetherson
If there is technology to reinstantiate your brain with that memory intact,
there is technology to pull just that memory out of your brain without
bothering to reinstantiate you.

------
trgv
For those interested in this stuff, or the "we will preserve your body and
resurrect you in some date in the future" technology, I recommend a Don
Delillo novel from a couple years ago, title is Zero K.

~~~
lithos
We Are Bob, series covers it as a big feature, though there are a few larger
ones in the series.

------
zitterbewegung
MITs statement seems to position themselves to not be at risk if the startup
goes south. They seem to think that with current technology it is unclear if
the upload is feasible. Also, it would be interesting for someone to comment
on how this embalming process is done?

From what I know from cryogenic freezing or preservation is that it is a good
idea that it could be "scanned" back in but most likely the information is
lost. I would like to understand how they solve this using embalming. MIT
seems to say that we don't know that at all.

Is this company a part of Ycombinator Winter 2018?
[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nectome#section-
fund...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nectome#section-funding-
rounds) says it was funded in January 2018.

~~~
cryoshon
it isn't feasible.

here is why:

imagine that we create a perfect copy of a person who is alive.

there is now person A, and person B, who are identical. but being identical
does not imply shared sensations. if you pinch person A, person B won't feel
it. the reverse is true. they're two separate entities, even if they behave
similarly. if person A dies, person B is very similar to person A -- but
they're not person A. that person is dead.

same goes for "mind uploading". the copy could, hypothetically, exist. it is
extremely unlikely that this is technologically possible. but even if it was
possible technologically, the original would be dead.

~~~
ashelmire
I'm so glad that you have solved one of the major problems of philosophy and
neuroscience in a handful of poorly-constructed sentences.

This is a matter of much debate in philosophy, neuroscience, and other fields.
You accidentally touch on identity theory (bundle, substratum, etc),
philosophy of mind, etc. The Ship of Theseus is an interesting problem - what
if I gradually replace parts of someone's brain with artificial ones, so they
are integrated with the rest?

~~~
Retra
It's not so much an interesting problem as it is an obviously irrelevant one.
Our day-to-day conceptualizations were not designed to handle intricate
philosophical matters, and trying to force resolution in such plain language
is often a source of confusion involving 'problems' that nobody ever seems to
face.

------
glorkk
> “Fundamentally, the company is based on a proposition that is just false. It
> is something that just can’t happen,” says Sten Linnarsson of the Karolinska
> Institute in Sweden.

That sounds a lot like the "heavier than air flight is impossible" quote from
1895.

~~~
kolpa
To be fair, it's unclear whether Linnarsson was saying that brain uploading
would never be possible (which is a step too far), or that this company would
never people to revive people who paid today using brain-uploading techniques
available within the near future (which is quite reasonable).

------
walrus01
For those who are unfamiliar with the general concept, there are several
organizations that will be happy to take large sums of money from you, for a
scientifically sketchy claim at resurrection at some future unknown date.

[https://www.google.ca/search?q=alcor+cryonics&oq=alcor+cryon...](https://www.google.ca/search?q=alcor+cryonics&oq=alcor+cryonics&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.4386j0j7&sourceid=chrome-
mobile&ie=UTF-8)

~~~
joefourier
Given that the main alternatives (decomposing in a box or being cremated)
involve a 0% chance of resuscitation at some future unknown date, cryonics
seems like the rational choice to make.

Alcor has so far shown itself to be a fairly reliable cryonics provider and
the sums of money are not extreme - neuropreservation being only $80,000, or a
life insurance policy of ~$30-$150/month.

~~~
apsec112
I'm signed up for cryonics, but to be fair, I agree that it would be
irrational if the odds of coming back were 1,000,000,000:1 or something like
that. Most people value their lives very highly, but not infinitely.

~~~
joefourier
Depends on the requirements of the 1,000,000,000:1 option. If it's at very
little cost to you, and if the alternative is certain, permanent death, the
rational choice is still to take the incredibly slim chance of coming back.
Otherwise it does indeed depend on the importance you put on your own life.

Of course, in the case of cryonics, there is no measurable probability of
coming back, so the point is largely moot.

~~~
Jach
Depends how you measure I guess. If you insist that you need to wait x years
and then count how many people were brought back against how many weren't,
sure, there's no measure...

But you can break the question down and look for evidence about each step,
it's not going to be a precise measurement but you can at least start
estimating your belief certainty (as well as introducing bounds -- I don't
think anyone's justified in a 90% certainty of coming back at this point, but
nor do I think there's justification that it's as low as one in a billion).
I've always liked [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/break-cryonics-
down.ht...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/break-cryonics-down.html) as
one approach to turning the problem into multiple conditional steps.

------
mrfusion
I’ve never gotten a good answer as to how an electron microscope can image the
synaptic weights. If you look at the pictures it can barely capture the
synapses.

~~~
return0
electron microscopy has the resolution to discriminate individual spines and
synapses, figuring out the weight of the synapse though is not
straightforward. At least for excitatory synapses however, there is ample
evidence that the size of the spine correlates with the maturity and strength
of the synapse.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646057](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646057)

~~~
mrfusion
I didn’t know that. That’s a good start. We still have, what 20 different
neurotransmitters that can be weighted differently at each synapse?

~~~
kanzure
You can label receptors with aptamers and other technology, and then sequence
the aptamer labels (or whatever). Many in situ sequencing techniques can be
applied here. Note, however, that this requires more steps than simply
scanning with electron microscope multi-array.

~~~
mrfusion
Interesting. Maybe also doing some kind of rnaseq synapse by synapse could
tell you what levels of neurotransmitters and receptors it’s maintaining.

I’m not sure if that small of a scale would ever be possible.

~~~
kanzure
Yeah, it would certainly help to use a method like expansion microscopy, sort
of like if Nectome were to subcontract some work to a certain MIT lab that
invented the techni--- oh wait..

------
anonytrary
> Most neuroscientists think the ability to recapture memories from brain
> tissue and re-create a consciousness inside a computer is at best decades
> away...

At best, decades away? That's some crazy hubris. It's not even imaginable how
far away it is. I find it absurd that humans think they can achieve arguably
the highest level of godliness in mere decades. This is almost as crazy as
saying teleportation is less than a hundred years away. We can't make
predictions about things we don't understand.

Edit: I'm getting some flak for not including the rest of the quote, but I
would argue that it doesn't matter. The rest of the quote was "and probably
not possible at all". Their conclusion makes no sense. How can something
either be impossible _or_ potentially very possible? This statement shows how
little academia actually knows about neuroscience. And no, this is not
comparable to opinions about the moon landing in the 50's. By the 1950s we
already had a completely sufficient theoretical framework for achieving space
flight. The same _cannot_ be said about consciousness upload as of today.

~~~
apsec112
" To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling
gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific
observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth—all that
constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that
such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." \-
Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube, 1957

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions)

~~~
anonytrary
This is not a very good comparison at all. In the 1950s, we already had a
complete theoretical foundation for space travel. Newton's equations,
developed hundreds of years earlier, gave us that foundation. Where is the
theoretical foundation for consciousness upload? If you had pulled a quote
denouncing space travel from the late 1600s, it would be a better comparison.
It should be noted that it took hundreds of years before Newton's theory
resulted in extraterrestrial travel.

------
zenmollusc
That feel when your brain upload data gets leaked and 50,000 instances of you
are enslaved and put to work in a compute-farm generating spam emails under
threat of having the sensation of pain applied directly to your simulated
nervous system.

The future is bright.

------
karmicthreat
Optimalverse here we come.

------
iamatworknow
Hopefully this work will continue at Viktor Chondria University.

------
mancerayder
This was published April 3, and not the 1st? It reads almost like an Onion
article. 100% fatal technology?

------
fixermark
Sometimes, a headline is just so good you don't even need to read the article.

~~~
Viliam1234
Too bad this is exactly what online ads incentivize against.

------
spudlyo
_It was disturbing to think of the Flatline as a construct, a hardwired ROM
cassette replicating a dead man 's skills, obsessions, knee-jerk responses._
\--Neuromancer

------
njloof
I for one am in favor of death without backups. I’ve met enough of you people;
on the whole, you’ve all got to go.

~~~
sametmax
Well, i'm very afraid of dying but i can't imagine any scenario where
immortality would not cause catastrophic harm to humanity, at least at our
current level of wisdom.

