Immortality only 20 years away.

The only "foolproof" or "cloneproof" method (again, in theory) would be brain transplants.

So if someone shoots you, doctors/technicians remove your brain and bam: another body or "not a body but the next best thing" + your brain = you

But if your brain is compromised (if you're shot in the head, if you die in an explosion and so on), tough luck.
 


I call bullshit. They haven't even discovered a cure for baldness yet. How the hell are they going to reverse the aging process in 20 years?
 
charlie.simm said:
What would happen?

Would there still be a "you" or would all of the five "individuals" be nothing but clones?
Click to expand...

You propose a copy and thats what youre going to get. You will have to deal with not being able to do much if uploaded to a computer. Youll have to learn a new body if uploaded to a new body, which is a major ethics no-go. For a taste of what thats like, read stories about people getting a hand transplant or spinal cord paralysis. At least in the beginning of this technology, youll probably still be more dead than alive after such a transplant.

Assuming that theres no such thing as a spirit that transcends physics to which your brain is somehow connected, how would your copies be able to "know" what they are?


If you had your brain transplanted, it would likely be treated as an object that doesnt belong there by your new body. Probably not cool. Whos going to know whether your brain can even connect to a foreign cns? As far as neurology is concerned, they view the brain as part of the cns, and why wouldnt they? the brain gets input from all kinds of places. what if you get your brain transplanted and it couldnt understand the incoming signals?
 
Kurzweil is indeed an overoptimistic futurist.. like most futurists in fact. Eventually significant life extension will be possible.. but not in any of our lifetimes.
 
charlie.simm said:
I don't read too much life extension literature (so I apologize in advance if what I'm about to ask sounds/is stupid) but there are some things I don't understand about the commonly talked about concepts and I hope some of the better informed WF members can help.

Papajohn? Cardine?

Here it goes:

In my opinion, there's only ONE viable life extension approach: backups.

Even if there will be major breakthroughs (and I'm sure that will be the case), you can still die in a car accident or get shot... you get the point.

So again, backups are the only solution.

Something like constantly backing up your brain, storing the information on multiple storage mediums and uploading that information to a new "body" or computer whenever necessary.

If you die in a car accident, say goodbye to your old body. The body will be toast but "you" won't die because family members or insurance companies or whoever will upload the backups to a new body or computer.

The same principle would apply if you get shot or die for any other reason.

The main dilemma I have is this:

Let's assume you die and that the backups will be uploaded to FIVE new bodies instead of one.

What would happen?

Would there still be a "you" or would all of the five "individuals" be nothing but clones?

If the answer is that they would be nothing but clones, then it's fairly safe to assume that even if the backups are uploaded to just one body, it would still be a clone and not you.

Therefore, "you" died and the only thing/person that's left behind is an individual with your memories programmed to think like you.
Click to expand...

Who's to say that your consciousness goes with it though?

Your brain can be copied, but I'm me - I see and interpret the world around me. If there were two of me, I wouldn't be seeing two sets of information, I'd be two different people, so the "original" me would still be dead.

It's a really weird one.

Of course people could still be killed in accidents, but there is the potential to stop people dying from aging/cancer/disease.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ"]Aubrey de Grey: Why we age and how we can avoid it - YouTube[/ame]
 
poisonsembrace said:
There is no overpopulation crisis, it's just that the very few own pretty much everything. If you feel so strongly about it, please volunteer to kill yourself. Oh wait.. not your family right? Another family but not yours is causing the perceived problem you read about online you faggot.
Click to expand...

Oh but there is... have you seen prices lately? Look at the population stats for the past few hundred years...
 
Dresden14 said:
Oh but there is... have you seen prices lately? Look at the population stats for the past few hundred years...
Click to expand...
I have yet to read one of your posts that wasn't mentally retarded.

Please stop posting. Smart people try to make this forum their home. You are not one of them.
 
Or for example, haven't you ever been told by your municipality that the water level is low, so only even numbered houses can water their lawns on Mon and Wed, and odd numbered houses on Tues and Thurs?
Click to expand...

First world problems
 
"Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever. Ultimately, nanobots will replace blood cells and do their work thousands of times more effectively."

Could happen
 
charlie.simm said:
I don't read too much life extension literature (so I apologize in advance if what I'm about to ask sounds/is stupid) but there are some things I don't understand about the commonly talked about concepts and I hope some of the better informed WF members can help.

Papajohn? Cardine?

Here it goes:

In my opinion, there's only ONE viable life extension approach: backups.

Even if there will be major breakthroughs (and I'm sure that will be the case), you can still die in a car accident or get shot... you get the point.

So again, backups are the only solution.

Something like constantly backing up your brain, storing the information on multiple storage mediums and uploading that information to a new "body" or computer whenever necessary.

If you die in a car accident, say goodbye to your old body. The body will be toast but "you" won't die because family members or insurance companies or whoever will upload the backups to a new body or computer.

The same principle would apply if you get shot or die for any other reason.

The main dilemma I have is this:

Let's assume you die and that the backups will be uploaded to FIVE new bodies instead of one.

What would happen?

Would there still be a "you" or would all of the five "individuals" be nothing but clones?

If the answer is that they would be nothing but clones, then it's fairly safe to assume that even if the backups are uploaded to just one body, it would still be a clone and not you.

Therefore, "you" died and the only thing/person that's left behind is an individual with your memories programmed to think like you.
Click to expand...

I think true immortality is impossible to achieve.

An indefinite lifespan is definitely possible, but as you said, your "clones" would not be you.

I think the long term safest approach for humans is to spend the vast majority of your time in a virtual reality hidden safely away from any dangers with nanobots inside your body ensuring that you don't die.

There are still risks, like if somebody goes into your bunker and blows it up, but there are a lot of ways to mitigate that risk. In the end though, I don't think there is anything that ensures your permanent survival, because there is always a possibility (even it if is remote) that the set of atoms that define "you" could be reached and harmed.
 
cardine said:
In the end though, I don't think there is anything that ensures your permanent survival, because there is always a possibility (even it if is remote) that the set of atoms that define "you" could be reached and harmed.
Click to expand...

Even more interesting to think about is the fact that we don't have the same atoms in us now that we did a year ago.. making it harder for materialists like us to define what exactly it is that we're trying so hard to hold on to.

Nothing in us is permanent. In a way we die every day, shedding old atoms, forgetting old memories and emotions that used to define us. But every day we also change into something that's still alive, gaining new experiences, atoms, etc.. until our final death. Not even our matter is permanent during the time we're alive.

If you say that you want to preserve your consciousness or 'information' like DNA code, then that's really not all of you is it? Most of us would agree that a clone of yourself is not actually you.. so preserving information alone means nothing. Even if your clone had an exact copy of the neurons in your brain you still would not be comforted that you were the clone.. and that you were living on 100% in it.. because it's composed of different matter and it's experiences are separate from yours. And once again, preserving your atoms is impossible if you're body is actually functioning.

Saying that you want to live forever is like saying you want a certain wave in the ocean to last forever.
 
^fool. you don't need to "preserve your atoms" to live forever. I'm still me from 20+ years back but I'm in a different body. Yes we get repaired and replace cells, etc... but our fundamental structure remains the consistent and it is the seat of our consciousness.
 
FreshCoast said:
^ i would have to agree , extended life would be awesome, but no one wants to live forever.
Click to expand...

Why not? If you can stay young and keep experiencing new things etc.. Why wouldn't you want to?

I could achieve shit tons given a millennium to do it.

No one will ever live forever, so far as eventually you'll step out in the road at the wrong time and get mauled by a bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back