Immortality

[Dr Roberts]

Do you guys thing we will ever acheive immortality either through genetic engineering or through use of Robotics? If so when? Why? Would you accept it? Why (Not)?

[Iroscato]

Well, what do you by immortal? There's loads of levels of it. For example, do you mean unable to die except for physical injury? Impervious to injury and old age, but able to die from total molecular destruction? Utterly, totally, invincible, even if the entire universe billions of years from now bounced back and crushed you?

[Dr Roberts]

Sorry forgot to mention that part. Completely immortal to aging and disease and a higher tolerance of physical injury though a spike through the head would do it. Also better healing abilities.

[Skgoa]

Brain uploads + either dowloading into new bodies or forfeiting physical form altogether should do the trick. ATM we can read grainy images directly from people's minds and can induce simple sensations, muscle movement, etc. - it's just a matter of time.

[Dave]

Do you guys thing we will ever acheive immortality either through genetic engineering?

Probably not.

or through use of Robotics?

Like Skgoa said, surely eventually we'll be able to get a good enough scan of the brain to copy it, whether invasive or not.

If so when? Why?

I have no idea.

Would you accept it? Why?

Yes, if my body is old and tired why not get a virtual one? My only concern would be the right to euthanize myself if I get tired of being dead.

[Singular Intellect]

Medical science achieving an 'indefinite lifespan' is not only possible, but quite likely to happen in our near future. What is required is merely a sufficient understanding and ability to maintain and repair a machine. For example, a car can be maintained and operated indefinitely, as some very old models kicking around today prove. They are as in as good or better condition then when they left the factory.

In this case, it's the human body. Opponents to the notion invoke appeals to ignorance and magical nonsense to justify a perception the human body/brain must die at some point.

Personally, I would have no problem existing indefinitely. However, there's no reason to assume my potential distant future self would be anything like myself as I am today. I don't find this in any way troubling. Many of my childhood memories are now inaccessible to me and from my childhood perspective, I'm a very different kind of person with different ways of thinking.

We are consistent pattern constructs that change continously, with the degree of noticeable change being relative to the timeframes of comparison from one earlier pattern to the next.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Immortality? No.

Assuming Clinical immortality is achieved, which includes somehow getting around the Hayflix Limit, then you'll have a nice long life. However, simple probability guarantees that you will die as a result of accident or violence at some point.

As for mind uploading? Until you can find away around the the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you not going to be uploading your brain any time soon.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The Uncertainty Principle is only pertinent if the functioning of the brain depends on components of a scale that their operations are governed by quantum uncertainty; many believe that that is not the case.

[VarrusTheEthical]

The Uncertainty Principle is only pertinent if the functioning of the brain depends on components of a scale that their operations are governed by quantum uncertainty; many believe that that is not the case.

I think the Uncertainty Principle is pertinent since electrons are used to carry information between neurons.

[ThomasP]

The Uncertainty Principle is only pertinent if the functioning of the brain depends on components of a scale that their operations are governed by quantum uncertainty; many believe that that is not the case.

I think the Uncertainty Principle is pertinent since electrons are used to carry information between neurons.

No, they aren't. Transmission between neurons is mediated by chemical messengers, and while the action potentials that trigger that release are electrical, they're also produced by gradients between sodium and potassium ions within and around the cell.

[Narkis]

Medical science achieving an 'indefinite lifespan' is not only possible, but quite likely to happen in our near future. What is required is merely a sufficient understanding and ability to maintain and repair a machine. For example, a car can be maintained and operated indefinitely, as some very old models kicking around today prove. They are as in as good or better condition then when they left the factory.

In this case, it's the human body. Opponents to the notion invoke appeals to ignorance and magical nonsense to justify a perception the human body/brain must die at some point.

Personally, I would have no problem existing indefinitely. However, there's no reason to assume my potential distant future self would be anything like myself as I am today. I don't find this in any way troubling. Many of my childhood memories are now inaccessible to me and from my childhood perspective, I'm a very different kind of person with different ways of thinking.

We are consistent pattern constructs that change continously, with the degree of noticeable change being relative to the timeframes of comparison from one earlier pattern to the next.

I won't dispute that it might be possible for human bodies to be maintained and repaired indefinitely, eventually. But what makes you think it's not only possible but likely to happen, and in the near future no less ("within our lifetime" is, I believe, the usual phrase)? Yes, medical technology has made great progress in the past few decades. But we are yet unable to even extend our lifespan to a century with any regularity. Any relevant research path is at its infancy, at best. To think that we'll go from an average lifespan of roughly 70 years to an eternal one, and within such a short time, is just a pipe dream, borne out of hope.

edit: And to answer the OP, I believe that functional immortality might be achieved some day. If by some fluke it is within my lifetime, then I would accept it for sure. Who doesn't want to live forever?

[Simon_Jester]

Medical science achieving an 'indefinite lifespan' is not only possible, but quite likely to happen in our near future. What is required is merely a sufficient understanding and ability to maintain and repair a machine. For example, a car can be maintained and operated indefinitely, as some very old models kicking around today prove. They are as in as good or better condition then when they left the factory.

In this case, it's the human body. Opponents to the notion invoke appeals to ignorance and magical nonsense to justify a perception the human body/brain must die at some point.

Consider the difference between "X is a complicated problem that will not be solved soon and might not be solvable," versus "X is a complicated problem, therefore it has no solution."

"X is complicated, we don't know everything about X, therefore there is no solution to the problem of X" is an appeal to ignorance.

"X is complicated, we know that there are many things we don't know about it. We have some sense of how much there is to learn and test and try and deduce and how slow and difficult the work is. Extrapolating forward from that, we're not going to gain total mastery of X any time soon" is not an appeal to ignorance.

To say, in 1890, "manned flight will never be possible because there are things we don't know about manned flight" would be foolish.

To say, in 1890, "manned flight may become possible, but will never be perfect and 100% reliable, or safe, or as pleasant as we'd like to imagine, and we will always have to worry about weather, about the cost of fuel for our aircraft, and we won't just be able to strap wings to our bodies and fly like birds" would be... well, actually entirely true.

You sometimes remind me of a man who, in 1890, thinks that because there is all this promising research into flight, and that these brave aviators are so successful with their zeppelins, that in 1920 or 1930 we'll all be living on cloud-cities serviced by zeppelins and giant helicopter blades, and that personal gliders will be the preferred means of transit to the point where people will forget why they ever bothered with those weird legs.

It turned out that yes, flying was possible, and made many things possible, and allows all sorts of possibilities no one would have seriously credited 110 years ago- like being able to live in one city and commute to a distant one every week for work. Or like making passenger ship travel obsolete for the first time since the Stone Age. Or like being able to drop armies in the middle of enemy country, or drop a bomb on their rulers without bothering to fight their army at all.

But flying didn't make everything possible- we ran into limits of chemistry and physics and logistics and human willingness to cope with hassle.

Likewise, I doubt advances in genetics or robotics will make everything possible- because there are already foreseeable limits on what we can do with those sciences, and because every technology since the dawn of history has come with built-in limitations that weren't foreseen until later on, on top of the ones that could easily be predicted in advance.

[SpaceMarine93]

However the process will be, its probably going to be hideously expensive, and spans your whole existence afterwards.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think the lifespan will automatically jump to infinity, but if people break the 100 or 200 year threshold, jumping from there to "virtually forever" will be possible, since all the new time bought won't be a time when research stands still.

[KhorneFlakes]

Being indestructible is stupid. Being able to (technically) live forever so long as you made sure to eat and maintain your health is good enough.

[Starglider]

Until you can find away around the the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you not going to be uploading your brain any time soon.

You read that in the Star Trek TNG technical manual didn't you?

Even if Penrose was correct and human brain function depended on quantum computing - which has been utterly and totally refuted by essentially all respectable neurologists - that wouldn't prevent us (in principle) copying and reproducing state to a fidelity below the natural noise in the medium (orders of mangitude beyond the threshold of error you would notice introspectively or in talking to an upload).

For any residual 'continuty flaw' issues, we now have this simple and effective treatment.

[Shroom Man 777]

I have ideas for the whole Cloning a Perfect Copy of Myself and Putting a Perfect Copy of My Mind into the Clone idea.



If for example, I was kidnapped by Muslim rebels who'd decapitate me. If they don't give the ransom, and the ransom is like a cent cheaper than the process needed to clone and reupload me, and my dad is a cheapo chinese cheapskate. Well, he's not gonna pay the ransom, he's just gonna do the clone upload out of principle (and cheapness).

Well, fat fucking consolation it is for me when the rebels go lop my head off.



But yeah I'd buy all sorts of junk and then fake my death, and the clone-me would get into legal troubles and get thrown in jail. But fuck him, I'd be in the bahamas, so who gives a shit about him, he's not me, even though everyone thinks he's me, which is good. But he might know about my plot, so he'd scheme a way to get back at me and get ME imprisoned while he disappears with all the bling and bitches.

But no way, jose, the second I see me, I'm gonna shoot him on sight. But then he'd know that, so he'd try to kill me without being seen, and I'd know he'd do that, so I'd find a way to kill him first. Holy crap. It's me, versus me, versus me. Maybe I could clone another me but without the memories of my evil scheming, and whose existence Me #2 won't know about, and I'll pretend to be good friends with Me #3 while intending to use him as a shield. I will fool Me #2 into killing Me #3, and now that Me #2 has given his position away, I'll kill him, and the only one left standing will be me! Me! MEEEEEE!!!!

But, holy shit, what if Me #2 also had a similar idea and thus cloned a Me #4 to execute his evil plans? The Me #4 would think he was Me #2 and would come after Me-Me, while Me #2 hides in the shadows. After Me #4 kills Me-Me, Me #2 will kill HIM and take everything for his self.

But then, Me-Me wasn't REALLY Me-Me-Me, and the ORIGINAL Me cloned himself to create Me-Me to initiate the whole plot, and so in the end, the REAL Me, Me-Me-Me, ends up killing all the Mes!

Or, no. Maybe he is heartbroken at the whole carnage wrecked by Me, and in the end, Me-Me-Me in sorrow regrets the whole affair and in shame he kills himself. And burns down an entire laboratory filled with giant man-sized embryonic Mes!

And leaves behind all the inheritance to a young child, who has the exact (EVIL!) genetic makeup of...


...me.

[Alkaloid]

Christ, I've just had a vision of WWIII, and it will just be Shroom. Millions of Shroom all fighting himself, except none of him will know what Shroom is on his side, and what Shroom is on another Shroom's side. I may never sleep again.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Until you can find away around the the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you not going to be uploading your brain any time soon.

You read that in the Star Trek TNG technical manual didn't you?

Even if Penrose was correct and human brain function depended on quantum computing - which has been utterly and totally refuted by essentially all respectable neurologists - that wouldn't prevent us (in principle) copying and reproducing state to a fidelity below the natural noise in the medium (orders of mangitude beyond the threshold of error you would notice introspectively or in talking to an upload).

For any residual 'continuty flaw' issues, we now have this simple and effective treatment.

The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene actually, but whatever.

The brain does not need to function like a quantum computer in order for the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle to cause problems in trying to scan a living consciences. The fact is you will likely have to know where all the particles (protons and electrons) that make up a brain are and where they are going at the same time. The Uncertainty principle has demonstrated that this is not possible, since smacking such particles with photons in order to "observe" them will change there momentum and thus cause you to lose any information that stored in those movements.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Christ, I've just had a vision of WWIII, and it will just be Shroom. Millions of Shroom all fighting himself, except none of him will know what Shroom is on his side, and what Shroom is on another Shroom's side. I may never sleep again.

This is possibly the single most terrifying thing I have read on this board, and that includes Shepp's posts involving bombs.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Christ, I've just had a vision of WWIII, and it will just be Shroom. Millions of Shroom all fighting himself, except none of him will know what Shroom is on his side, and what Shroom is on another Shroom's side. I may never sleep again.

This is possibly the single most terrifying thing I have read on this board, and that includes Shepp's posts involving bombs.

What? You never wanted to play deathmatch in real life with yourself?

[Crateria]

Christ, I've just had a vision of WWIII, and it will just be Shroom. Millions of Shroom all fighting himself, except none of him will know what Shroom is on his side, and what Shroom is on another Shroom's side. I may never sleep again.

This is possibly the single most terrifying thing I have read on this board, and that includes Shepp's posts involving bombs.

What? You never wanted to play deathmatch in real life with yourself?

Let's hope the Shrooms never contact Shep, who, BTW has gradually gotten in charge of the world's nuclear arsenal. Then it'll be like all those crazy-ass WarGames scenarios all over again. The only winning move is not to play. (I say fuck that- WORK HARD, PLAY HARD! )

EDIT: And just for kicks, has ALSO cloned himself numerous times so he can be at every nuclear launching post, each in various disguises that despite being horrible, people everywhere fall for it.

[ThomasP]

The brain does not need to function like a quantum computer in order for the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle to cause problems in trying to scan a living consciences. The fact is you will likely have to know where all the particles (protons and electrons) that make up a brain are and where they are going at the same time. The Uncertainty principle has demonstrated that this is not possible, since smacking such particles with photons in order to "observe" them will change there momentum and thus cause you to lose any information that stored in those movements.

Based on everything contemporary neuroscience can tell about the brain, you don't need anything like atomic or sub-atomic resolution for a meaningful brain-map. All the useful number-crunching happens at a cellular level, probably in the synaptic connections, maybe down to the molecular level if there's any contribution from intracellular signaling that couldn't be "smoothed out" in a more coarse-grained model.

In any case, there's nothing to suggest that you'd need perfect atomic, let alone sub-atomic, precision to duplicate a brain in meaningful terms.

We can certainly argue over what meaningful is, and no doubt that argument will be had many times over if the technology is ever introduced. I like Robin Hanson's "Em" scenario, where the brain emulations don't have to be perfect to be economically useful, but destroy the typical path to immortality view of uploads.

Of course, identity is a subjective thing by nature, and the human brain is remarkably adaptive to changes in circumstances, so who knows. The brain is very good at making a fleeting, discontinuous process feel like a coherent and unchanging narrative of the self, so "good enough" emulation might be enough to capture all the bits of identity that matter.

That wouldn't eliminate any of the legal or financial or social messiness, but immortality won't be without obstacles no matter what path you take.

[Number Theoretic]

This could be even further justified by the observation that our brain is remarkably fault-tolerant and by the conjecture that conciousness is an emergent feature which doesn't show up at the atomic or sub-atomic scale. One could even argue that it also doen't show up on cell scale.

[Simon_Jester]

What? You never wanted to play deathmatch in real life with yourself?

I never wanted to be collateral damage in a deathmatch played in real life between a million Shrooms.