So that cuts the problem in half, as at least half the cells in the brain motile and replaceable.
I don’t think so. It may solve for 90% of the body’s mass, or even a large percentage of neurons, without making very much progress on the hard part of maintaining cognitive ability and continuity. I (and we) don’t know enough detail of what makes human brains work to have any clue whether it’s actually solvable in existing brains, which haven’t already developed with monitoring and electronic access.
And with that, I think I’ll bow out. Thanks for the discussion—I’ll read further posts and rebuttals, but probably won’t reply.
Ok. Just one note, I did address memory later in the same comment above. You can grow new brain structures, digitally connect them, and they will learn over time the traits of the dying “original” networks they are mimicking. Note we do this all the time in ANNs.
Another meta comment is I am like explaining how you could use a big steam engine made of brass to reach 60mph in a train. I don’t know of better techniques either. I am saying “well you could bolt the patients skull to a fixed point, expose the brain, and add additional structures to copy and augment it to restore lost capabilities.”
I don’t believe such a crude solution will be necessary, I just don’t know anything better with today’s tech base, and I am saying that this will work eventually. Your belief that “death always wins” would be like people in 1910 believing “aircraft will always crash”. Technically true but the rate matters, with methodical refinement and midair refueling and component replacement you can make an aircraft fly for centuries or longer before it crashes.
I don’t think so. It may solve for 90% of the body’s mass, or even a large percentage of neurons, without making very much progress on the hard part of maintaining cognitive ability and continuity. I (and we) don’t know enough detail of what makes human brains work to have any clue whether it’s actually solvable in existing brains, which haven’t already developed with monitoring and electronic access.
And with that, I think I’ll bow out. Thanks for the discussion—I’ll read further posts and rebuttals, but probably won’t reply.
Ok. Just one note, I did address memory later in the same comment above. You can grow new brain structures, digitally connect them, and they will learn over time the traits of the dying “original” networks they are mimicking. Note we do this all the time in ANNs.
Another meta comment is I am like explaining how you could use a big steam engine made of brass to reach 60mph in a train. I don’t know of better techniques either. I am saying “well you could bolt the patients skull to a fixed point, expose the brain, and add additional structures to copy and augment it to restore lost capabilities.”
I don’t believe such a crude solution will be necessary, I just don’t know anything better with today’s tech base, and I am saying that this will work eventually. Your belief that “death always wins” would be like people in 1910 believing “aircraft will always crash”. Technically true but the rate matters, with methodical refinement and midair refueling and component replacement you can make an aircraft fly for centuries or longer before it crashes.