Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Your position is that you prefer and believe in "repairing" our brains using biotechnology because there are too many problems with the alternative "electronic based" solution. That is a reasonable opinion and preference.

My response to your comment focused on what I perceived as "consciousness as something that is defined by the workings of the human brain" and that could not be achieved by any other means.

While I agree that attempting to replace our brains with "electronics" is a dangerous game, I also think that the computational approach can provide a lot more interesting answers (and questions) about many phenomena that occur in the "intelligent mind" and what consciousness really is, than the simple "fix by replacement" can.




There's another as-yet-unexplored hazard though, and it's the emotional aspect of showing people convincing facsimiles of their loved ones.

Tempting people into making emotionally charged decisions while they're in the fragile state of confronting death is an ethical sinkhole. If people actually believe that their dead relatives have gone off to live on the great server farm in the sky, what comes next? At the very least, a profound emotional attachment to an air-conditioned warehouse filled with noisy machinery.

Alive or dead, any convincing artificial construct of a human being is going to carry a lot of weight and social currency. It's a phenomenon worthy of experimentation, but there's a very real hazard of making irrational, emotional decisions that revolve around these things, which might carry little practical benefit. There's some serious risk in being deceived by artificial creations, into behavior that is not in our own best interests.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: