• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

How can we become immortal?

Jake

Member
Local time
Yesterday, 15:28
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
48
#1
I'm already planning to preserve myself in cryostasis so that I can be revived when medical technology has progressed enough, but what about other methods of becoming immortal? Some people claim that uploading one's consciousness into a computer would suffice. But how would that work? We don't even know exactly what consciousness is. If you just create an exact copy of your consciousness inside a computer, then you haven't really become immortal, because when you die you will cease to be aware, and the fake, computerized you will go on living. And personally, I don't even care about leaving behind a perfect replica of myself if it's not really me. I don't want to leave a legacy, I just want to go on living for my own selfish reasons.

Anyone else have any methods for becoming immortal? And would you even want to take advantage of them if you could?
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Yesterday, 16:28
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,289
#3
Wouldn't an immortal being end when the universe reaches max entropy?
Supposing that's at least 100,000,000,000 years away, perhaps by that time a being who turns immortal within our millenia would find a way to either create a new universe to live in, or prevent the entropy of this one.
 

Jake

Member
Local time
Yesterday, 15:28
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
48
#4
Sorry, I should have specified that I meant immune to aging, disease, and the other natural weaknesses of our bodies that cause us to die even if we're avoiding obviously hazardous situations.
 

Milo

Brain Programmer
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
1,018
Location
MN
#5
Personally, I believe in reincarnation, but I do recall a TED Talks video on someone who thinks their is hope of a gene therapy working to stop natural aging--I believe it had to do with giving our bodies the ability to regenerate the ends of our telomeres, which has been hypothesized to be the cause of our bodies slowing down on its repairs and causing our bodies to slowly deteriorate.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#7
When it can't be done, the doing will be uneven. What if the unevenness consists of your arms and legs falling off? Would you want to go on then?
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,615
Location
Charn
#8
Sorry, I should have specified that I meant immune to aging, disease, and the other natural weaknesses of our bodies that cause us to die even if we're avoiding obviously hazardous situations.
That's good. A one-hundred-billion-trillion-zillion-year stretch of arthritis would be a real bitch.
 

Ex-User (9062)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
1,631
#9
Sorry, my mind froze for a second and i had to think about what this is supposed to mean.
To get it working again, i needed a creative outlet,
i hope you wont be mad at me. :o
I think i got it now, you mean the human brain in jar, attached to a virtual environment/ghost in the machine scenario?

No, i would not go.
1. Because it is an illusionary environment.
2. Being detached from the body would result in a dream-like state,
where everything is inconsequential, random, bizarre, etc.
3. Would you, if you could play a computer game for millions of years without any way out, without any control of which content is in it, go for it?
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#10
Well there's multiple ways.

Mind uploading is essentially making a copy of yourself and if you get really existential about I suppose that can count as immortality, in the sense that your "self" is just a concept.

However if you're concerned about maintaining your continuity of consciousness I'd suggest increasingly modifying your brain with cybernetics over time, gradually replacing it bit by bit until there's nothing left to replace, which is essentially the same thing as mind uploading except you could theoretically remain conscious throughout the entire transition.

As a precursor to that I'm planning on going the brain in a jar route, I figure under ideal conditions my brain could continue functioning for a few decades more at least and a sufficiently well engineered life support system isn't going to fail me, not if there's multiple redundancies, whereas by comparison my biological body is incredibly fragile and if one organ isn't functioning at 100% it affects the functions of all the other organs until the whole system reaches a critical point of failure.

Worst case scenario I'll have my brain embalmed in the least damaging way possible, not frozen, the brain has way too much water in it to be safely frozen and the technology required to recover a frozen brain is very far off.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 17:28
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#11
You should read up on Ray Kurzweil and others who have thought about this subject. Their idea is that we won't become immortal but will have the choice to live indefinitely, a subtle difference. The concept is to achieve "escape velocity" which means that you just need to live long enough to get to the next stage of technological life extension, which will then get you to the next stage, etc. Regardless at your age (I assume you're fairly young?) cryo-preseveration probably isn't necessary, which is a good thing as it probably won't work as hoped.

This thinking is probably your best approach, therefore your job is to not worry about how you'll be around a hundred or a thousand years from now, but 50 years from now. Take steps to improve your health, again Kurzweil has a book on this. Better ones are from Joel Fuhrman. Basically don't eat any refined foods and only consume whole plants.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#12
Or study/develop the technology and eat whatever you like :D
 

Ex-User (9062)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
1,631
#13
You should read up on Ray Kurzweil and others who have thought about this subject. Their idea is that we won't become immortal but will have the choice to live indefinitely, a subtle difference. The concept is to achieve "escape velocity" which means that you just need to live long enough to get to the next stage of technological life extension, which will then get you to the next stage, etc. Regardless at your age (I assume you're fairly young?) cryo-preseveration probably isn't necessary, which is a good thing as it probably won't work as hoped.

This thinking is probably your best approach, therefore your job is to not worry about how you'll be around a hundred or a thousand years from now, but 50 years from now. Take steps to improve your health, again Kurzweil has a book on this. Better ones are from Joel Fuhrman. Basically don't eat any refined foods and only consume whole plants.

Ok, but what is the point?
If it is not really you, but a very bad and very restricted copy of you,
forced into bits and bytes, slaved to perform cognitive operations for some corporation's super computer...
What is the appeal of that?
Even given this scenario, who says anyone will be able to provide the energy to keep all these computers running indefinitely?
It's just a marketing pipe dream, imo.
 

Cavalli

"Tyger, Tyger"
Local time
Today, 07:28
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Messages
135
Location
Australia.
#14
I believe the only form of immortality exists in the way that Achilles (yes I know he's a mythological being and Troy is a made to entertain) thought of it in the movie Troy. Especially the dialogue at the start of the movie:

Messenger Boy: The Thesselonian you're fighting... he's the biggest man i've ever seen. I wouldn't want to fight him.

Achilles: Thats why no-one will remember your name.
Immortality is achieved through our actions, through our legacy. You can preserve your body, do whatever but one day you will get tired of living and wish to move on.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 17:28
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#15

Ok, but what is the point?
If it is not really you, but a very bad and very restricted copy of you,
forced into bits and bytes, slaved to perform cognitive operations for some corporation's super computer...
What is the appeal of that?
Even given this scenario, who says anyone will be able to provide the energy to keep all these computers running indefinitely?
It's just a marketing pipe dream, imo.
You quoted the wrong person.

However, I happen to agree also with the copy theory. As to your points ...

  • If it is not really you, but a very bad and very restricted copy of you Actually a digital version of you would be less restricted, read the Heechee novels by Fred Pohl for a discussion of these ideas.
  • forced into bits and bytes How do you know you aren't already this?
  • slaved to perform cognitive operations for some corporation's super computer... Freedom has always been a struggle, I'm doubtful this makes it worse
  • What is the appeal of that? Indefinite life, indefinite virtual resources, heaven on earth. Sounds good to me.
  • Even given this scenario, who says anyone will be able to provide the energy to keep all these computers running indefinitely? There's plenty of energy in the solar system, I don't see this as an issue.

It's just a marketing pipe dream

Who is marketing it? The ideas are fringe intellectuals at this point.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today, 07:28
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,050
Location
Philippines
#16
I believe the only form of immortality exists in the way that Achilles (yes I know he's a mythological being and Troy is a made to entertain) thought of it in the movie Troy. Especially the dialogue at the start of the movie:



Immortality is achieved through our actions, through our legacy. You can preserve your body, do whatever but one day you will get tired of living and wish to move on.
IMMORTALITY! TAKE IT, IT'S YOURS! :D

But I do agree that this is a type of immortality (or longevity) that we can all relate to.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 01:28
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,159
Location
someplace windswept
#17
You quoted the wrong person.

However, I happen to agree also with the copy theory. As to your points ...

  • If it is not really you, but a very bad and very restricted copy of you Actually a digital version of you would be less restricted, read the Heechee novels by Fred Pohl for a discussion of these ideas.
  • forced into bits and bytes How do you know you aren't already this?
  • slaved to perform cognitive operations for some corporation's super computer... Freedom has always been a struggle, I'm doubtful this makes it worse
  • What is the appeal of that? Indefinite life, indefinite virtual resources, heaven on earth. Sounds good to me.
  • Even given this scenario, who says anyone will be able to provide the energy to keep all these computers running indefinitely? There's plenty of energy in the solar system, I don't see this as an issue.

It's just a marketing pipe dream

Who is marketing it? The ideas are fringe intellectuals at this point.
I wonder what is the appeal of indefinite life? It has no more appeal than finite life.
Infinite imaginary resources, yes you would be as restricted as your resources, in a sense you would no longer be yourself.
Rather you would become everything you are able to emulate with these resources.

Also universe is a finite concept, so preserving yourself indefinitely is baseless assumption.
Either you run out of things to emulate and behold and start repeating yourself or universe ends and you must jump to another.
Then again you run out of universes to emulate and you start repeating yourself.
There is no value in immortality imo.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#18
Immortality: What for?

Sorry, my mind froze for a second and i had to think about what this is supposed to mean.
To get it working again, i needed a creative outlet,
i hope you wont be mad at me. :o
Hell no. We are being creative ... or trying to anyway.


I think i got it now, you mean the human brain in jar, attached to a virtual environment/ghost in the machine scenario?

No, i would not go.
1. Because it is an illusionary environment.
2. Being detached from the body would result in a dream-like state,
where everything is inconsequential, random, bizarre, etc.
3. Would you, if you could play a computer game for millions of years without any way out, without any control of which content is in it, go for it?
This has me thinking, why or what are we living for anyway? It has to be more than just the fear of death*. I'm going to take a wild intuitive guess:

We live because we are trying to accomplish something in a context. A context exists in a context which exists in a context. The further out we go the more we deal with the unknown. That could be the limitation of a computer game. A computer game is bounded. Life is not. Life must have something to do with unbounded accomplishing.

*Fear of death is the negative. Life is the positive.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 17:28
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#19
I wonder what is the appeal of indefinite life? It has no more appeal than finite life..
You have it wrong, it is life for as long as you choose, versus length of life not of your choosing. Getting to decide how long your life should be is far preferable obviously.

Infinite imaginary resources, yes you would be as restricted as your resources, in a sense you would no longer be yourself.
Define 'self'. Are you still yourself from when you were a baby, or a teenager? Every day we wake up we are a new person.

Also universe is a finite concept, so preserving yourself indefinitely is baseless assumption.
That doesn't make sense to me.
 

Ex-User (9062)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
1,631
#20
You quoted the wrong person.
Why? I had Kurzweil's idea in mind and you were the only one who explicitly mentioned it.

However, I happen to agree also with the copy theory. As to your points ...

  • If it is not really you, but a very bad and very restricted copy of you Actually a digital version of you would be less restricted, read the Heechee novels by Fred Pohl for a discussion of these ideas.
    Yeah, yeah, in fantasy it will be paradise+4. Practically it will be a dull hamster wheel. Just think about it. Why would anyone pay to have your ghost in the machine just enjoying him/herself for eternity? What's in it for them? Besides, what does the individual of whom a copy is made even care, since he will never be able to "experience" this other world anyways?
  • forced into bits and bytes How do you know you aren't already this?
    They asked the same thing when they came up with the steam engine. Why is a human-made invention not identical to the human itself? The human genome is not computer code. Neither is the human brain a computer. It is an analogy of our time, but not the actual nature of the thing itself.

  • slaved to perform cognitive operations for some corporation's super computer... Freedom has always been a struggle, I'm doubtful this makes it worse
    While that general observation may be true... why on earth would you like to make a clone of yourself and dedicate his "existence" to slave labour? Sounds a little twisted to me. What's practically in it for YOU?
  • What is the appeal of that? Indefinite life, indefinite virtual resources, heaven on earth. Sounds good to me.
    That's how pied pipers always get their way. Lots of rainbows.
  • Even given this scenario, who says anyone will be able to provide the energy to keep all these computers running indefinitely? There's plenty of energy in the solar system, I don't see this as an issue.
    We have a global energy crisis just around the corner.


It's just a marketing pipe dream
Who is marketing it? The ideas are fringe intellectuals at this point.
"World-renowned artificial intelligence expert and Google's new Director of Engineering, Ray Kurzweil" is hardly a fringe intellectual.
The Silicon Valley Bunch is marketing it.
They need test subjects for the development of sophisticated AI.
Voila.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 17:28
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#21
Why? I had Kurzweil's idea in mind and you were the only one who explicitly mentioned it.
I didn't say anything about digital upload, I was talking about physical life extension, but perhaps that wasn't clear.

"World-renowned artificial intelligence expert and Google's new Director of Engineering, Ray Kurzweil" is hardly a fringe intellectual.
The Silicon Valley Bunch is marketing it.
I think you'll find that is still fringe.
 

Ex-User (9062)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
1,631
#22
I didn't say anything about digital upload, I was talking about physical life extension, but perhaps that wasn't clear.
You are right, i should have multi-quoted Cognisant's post and your's, i thought this was a train of thought, as Kurzweil has paraded the idea of physical preservation until Singularity is achieved.

In December 2012 Kurzweil was hired by Google in a full-time position to "work on new projects involving machine learning and language processing".
Google co-founder Larry Page and Kurzweil agreed on a one-sentence job description: "to bring natural language understanding to Google".
In How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed Kurzweil describes his Pattern Recognition Theory of Mind, the theory that the neocortex is a hierarchical system of pattern recognizers, and details how duplicating this architecture in machines could lead to an artificial superintelligence.
Singularity University is a benefit corporation learning institution located inside NASA Research Park in Silicon Valley whose stated aim is to "educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity’s grand challenges."
Corporate founding partners and sponsors include Google,[14] Nokia,[15] Autodesk,[16] IDEO[citation needed], LinkedIn[citation needed], ePlanet Capital,[17] the X Prize Foundation, the Kauffman Foundation[18] and Genentech.[19]
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 01:28
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,159
Location
someplace windswept
#23
Define 'self'. Are you still yourself from when you were a baby, or a teenager? Every day we wake up we are a new person.
Self would be a result of your every experience.

You have it wrong, it is life for as long as you choose, versus length of life not of your choosing. Getting to decide how long your life should be is far preferable obviously.
I understand the choice between life and death is freedom.
Lets pursue the matter.
Given almost unlimited resources you will run out of things you want to emulate.
Sooner or later you would be switching personalities and emulating entire lifespans.

This leads me to the idea of removal of self. You would define self as you incorporate every concept you have ever emulated. Your self would be every self. Your old self might have chosen to end this life but you are no longer there to decide, a sea of information, faceless concept.

You become a ghost, bunch of information that pursues new patterns and new resources to indulge itself.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#24
@Architect
it is life for as long as you choose, versus length of life not of your choosing. Getting to decide how long your life should be is far preferable obviously.
Does one design one's life around a specific cut off point* or else the completion of some project or is this one of those indecisive "wait and see" thingies? I need to ask because the light at the end of the tunnel is a comin' and I need to make plans for my own mortality.:D

*Just in case I don't choose the immortality option.:confused:
 

Ex-User (9062)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
1,631
#25
Re: Immortality: What for?

Hell no. We are being creative ... or trying to anyway.


This has me thinking, why or what are we living for anyway? It has to be more than just the fear of death*. I'm going to take a wild intuitive guess:

We live because we are trying to accomplish something in a context. A context exists in a context which exists in a context. The further out we go the more we deal with the unknown. That could be the limitation of a computer game. A computer game is bounded. Life is not. Life must have something to do with unbounded accomplishing.

*Fear of death is the negative. Life is the positive.

The reason to live has hundreds of answers, depending on the perspective you choose.
A Darwinist may say this, a religious man may say that, an Astronomer something else, etc.
Which may indicate that this question deals with something which we can not know.
We can formulate a "working hypothesis" which enables us to act,
which justifies our actions, but that's it.
The desire for accomplishment surely is a driving force that is unique to human psyche.
But, is it merely another expression of the drive for security and protection, or is it possible that something else is at work?
The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 17:28
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#26
In December 2012 Kurzweil was hired by Google in a full-time position to "work on new projects involving machine learning and language processing".
I know about every reference you made, but I don't see how that changes anything. Especially that Google hired Ray - what of it? They routinely bring "trophy engineers" (I'm one of their non hire trophies) and they got him for some specific engineering project anyhow. Singularity thinking is hardly mainstream IMO.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 17:28
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#27
@Architect
Does one design one's life around a specific cut off point* or else the completion of some project or is this one of those indecisive "wait and see" thingies?
I don't understand the question, however

I need to ask because the light at the end of the tunnel is a comin' and I need to make plans for my own mortality.:D

*Just in case I don't choose the immortality option.:confused:
Indefinite life is possible for the 50 year olds and below, for 60 and above it probably won't come in time, unless you can make it to 100+.
 
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
17
Location
The outskirts of reality, Glasgow
#28
Man oh Man. Do you really compute all the vairiables? I'll give you all an "hour" of my existenc each if...
(a) You explain why you want it.,
(b) You understand the implications.,

Oh aye, and (b)(2) You accept the responsibilities of transfere without recourse to legal action.
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Yesterday, 16:28
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,289
#29
I understand the choice between life and death is freedom.
Lets pursue the matter.
Given almost unlimited resources you will run out of things you want to emulate.
Sooner or later you would be switching personalities and emulating entire lifespans.
Even if that were the case, I don't see how its unfavorable to have the opportunity to live out thousands of lifespans, rather than just one, on the premise that "you'll eventually run out of things to do anyway".

It's like saying, might as well die today because you're going to die in the future anyway. Or it's like saying, might as well only eat one bite of my cereal this morning, because even if I ate more of it, I'd eventually finish the bowl anyway.

Given the option between two finite resources, the less finite of the two is the favorable choice.

This leads me to the idea of removal of self. You would define self as you incorporate every concept you have ever emulated. Your self would be every self. Your old self might have chosen to end this life but you are no longer there to decide, a sea of information, faceless concept. You become a ghost, bunch of information that pursues new patterns and new resources to indulge itself.
I think it's far too early to hypothesize about the specifics. For example, a being could easily decide to not assimilate all available information but only some -- perhaps merge with one or two minds -- and the creature that results from this fusion might develop a new Sense of Self / Identity / Face. It's not that the self has to dissipate in a sea of borderless information, but the Self will likely continue to evolve into new forms.

But even this wouldn't be forced. Heck, if a person is reluctant to enter this new age, they could literally spend a couple millenia just being good ol'fashion singular humans (just with biological immortality).

I think, though, they'd come to a point where they'd run out of things to do in their finite human form (far sooner than the virtual form), and now that they have nothing to do they would have to decide to either live in a repetitive cycle, end their existence as a human altogether, or continue it via the transition into a new life-form that may not be as human-like.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 01:28
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,159
Location
someplace windswept
#30
Even if that were the case, I don't see how its unfavorable to have the opportunity to live out thousands of lifespans, rather than just one, on the premise that "you'll eventually run out of things to do anyway".

It's like saying, might as well die today because you're going to die in the future anyway. Or it's like saying, might as well only eat one bite of my cereal this morning, because even if I ate more of it, I'd eventually finish the bowl anyway.

Given the option between two finite resources, the less finite of the two is the favorable choice.

I think it's far too early to hypothesize about the specifics. For example, a being could easily decide to not assimilate all available information but only some -- perhaps merge with one or two minds -- and the creature that results from this fusion might develop a new Sense of Self / Identity / Face. It's not that the self has to dissipate in a sea of borderless information, but the Self will likely continue to evolve into new forms.

But even this wouldn't be forced. Heck, if a person is reluctant to enter this new age, they could literally spend a couple millenia just being good ol'fashion singular humans (just with biological immortality).

I think, though, they'd come to a point where they'd run out of things to do in their finite human form (far sooner than the virtual form), and now that they have nothing to do they would have to decide to either live in a repetitive cycle, end their existence as a human altogether, or continue it via the transition into a new life-form that may not be as human-like.

Thanks, you made good points.
I tend to understand things in a very similar way, even if I ask questions I have answered, it is because someone else might add another piece of the mosaic.

Also dying now or later and your explanation is pretty much my nihilist view on things.

I think it would be interesting to know whether universe of things to experience is infinite, given the infinite form of the multiverse or maybe there is a limit to a number of multiverse patterns.

Answer to the preference or difference of less and more is a really deep existential problem.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 23:28
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
54
#31
I have had too much red wine this evening and time has stood still and my perception of it is warped. I am immortal for the moment as time doesn't exist for me.
 

nebnobla

Red-shirted ass
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
58
Location
Ontario, Canada
#32
Not going to happen, not to mention how economically backwards the idea is. This is a concept that boomers may dream of, not realists. Any imposed order over long periods in such an 'entropic' environment will fail to persist.

And don't look at technology for the answers; technology allows imposing intelligent order on a complex system that cannot be predicted anyways, and always leads to unsustainability, e.g. increasing our carrying capacity due to a dependency on fossil fuel technologies, or spraying thousands of tons of metal oxide nanoparticles into the atmosphere to try to deflect radiation before it can reflect off the surface, etc. Human problems have solutions that are neat, simple, and wrong.

Your an animal, just a union of machines operating in an environment of utter chaos; there's no reason for you to live beyond the age limited by the structural constraints dictated by the design of your system.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 01:28
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,159
Location
someplace windswept
#33
Your an animal, just a union of machines operating in an environment of utter chaos; there's no reason for you to live beyond the age limited by the structural constraints dictated by the design of your system.
Then it would be not reason to exist at all. It so happens that you can create your own reasons that arent structural and can go beyond any physical structure.

If you find some reason to reach beyond what you actually have you might just about reach far enough.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#34
Says the guy using a computer to discuss a topic with dozens of people across the world.

You say it's never going to happen but all I hear is "I don't want it to happen" because that's all your reasoning seems to be aside from some vague point about order and entropy which is beside the point because I think we can safely assume people will change over time, y'know I'm going to have to replace my brain cells at some point or another but that's not to say I'll have to replace them all at once.

Your an animal, just a union of machines operating in an environment of utter chaos; there's no reason for you to live beyond the age limited by the structural constraints dictated by the design of your system.
Fuck you :D I have an ego and I choose to live for my own reasons.
 

nebnobla

Red-shirted ass
Local time
Yesterday, 19:28
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
58
Location
Ontario, Canada
#35
Well the generalization that it will not work is based on the fact that our predictions of what is optimal in how we organize things in our environment cannot actually be determined as our fitness in the environment is based on environmental conditions, which is too chaotic and complex a system to predict, and thus any imposed order will result in instantaneous and unpredictable implications on the parametrics of that system, typically resulting in long-term divergence from what may have been the expected outcome. E.g. humans start farming around 12,000 BC, which increases the carrying capacity beyond that of the natural environment. Now, this does not impose a direct negative consequence on the inner workings of that ecosystem as the ecological balance is not perfect whatsoever, only adequate enough to be sustainable, i.e. evolution limits features by their adequacy in some environment, not by their "perfection" in some environment. In any case, humans further attempt to organize the natural environment and even today do not realize the sustainability was lost long ago and our environment will slowly but drastically become too volatile and unpredictable that the sustainability of the race itself is lost as well.

And ego or not, your an animal, almost as complex and unpredictable to the untrained eye as these other systems, whereas most humans are quite computationally predictable, based on childhood experiences painting the mosaic of chemical proportions in the brain which manifests as your mental character for life, i.e. allows us to generalize personalities based on MBTI, etc. Everyone is so much more alike on the inside..
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#36
But we keep reassessing our predictions and the sustainability of the race was never lost, it was never there to begin with, but rather than catastrophe I predict change, the human species will not and indeed cannot remain biologically human forever.

Likewise in terms of biological immortality I totally agree with you, no matter how well maintained the flesh and blood body can't just simply continue on good maintenance, it will need to be replaced bit by bit until nothing of the original body remains, until not even a single neuron of the original brain remains. But the self will go on, I am not one thing but rather the sum of my parts and though changing my parts will in part change me the continuity of my self will go on and so long as that continuity remains though I may one day no longer be human I'll remember being human because I'll still be me.
 

Redfire

and Blood
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
413
#37
Should we make a list, then?

Indefinite lifespan:

1 - Mind uploading. Making a copy of your brain in a virtual environment.
2 - "Cognimmortality". Modify the brain with cybernetics gradually, so as not to lose continuity of consciousness. (obviously you can become a robot or cyborg later, but this topic is about how to escape death).
3 - SENS approach. Repairing damage in the body, so pathology never occurs.
4 - Brain embalming. (I don't know how this would work).
5 - Cryonics. Freeze the body hoping consciousness is not lost and some future technology is able to revive it.

Temporary life extension:

1 - Keep the brain alive with a life support system.
2 - Whole body transplants. Ideally: you make a clone of youself, and you attach your head to your clone's body, reconnecting the spinal cord. It may also work with other bodies, but I imagine it will be more difficult (or not?).

I'm not including obvious life extension methods like clean living (diet, exercise, sleep).

What am I missing? What did I get wrong?

P.S: I'm 20 years old and I seriously doubt any of these methods will develop fast enough for me to take advantage of them. I really wish I'm proven wrong in the years to come.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#38
4 - Brain embalming. (I don't know how this would work).
5 - Cryonics. Freeze the body hoping consciousness is not lost and some future technology is able to revive it.
Well freezing is very destructive, y'see different elements don't freeze at the same temperature and so every cell in the human body which is comprised of several elements is liable to get torn apart as certain bits freeze before others, which is why they'll try to freeze you as fast as possible but even then your outsides are still freezing before your insides and, well, put simply a frozen body is in absolutely no condition to be revived, despite appearances.

But the whole point of freezing is to halt the body's decay and if that's all you're trying to do then being near frozen (as close as possible without actually freezing) and pumped full of something that'll prevent even the most hardy bacteria growing in theory could enable people to revive you later, assuming you didn't totally die in the first place, something to consider if you have terminal cancer.

2 - Whole body transplants. Ideally: you make a clone of youself, and you attach your head to your clone's body, reconnecting the spinal cord. It may also work with other bodies, but I imagine it will be more difficult (or not?).
Way more difficult.

What am I missing?
Satanic rituals? :D
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 01:28
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,159
Location
someplace windswept
#39
And what about making a biological mechanism to self-repair dna to it's brand new state?
Tardigrades have dna repair capabilities.
If we had mechanisms in our bodies to produce stem cells and repair dna when needed and repair every deficiency that comes with age it would be another way.
You would probably still require external memory storage etc. But this would allow the shell to survive much longer.
 

Redfire

and Blood
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
413
#40
Hm. That adds to my suspicion that cryonics "patients" will just be dumped somewhere eventually. Why the hell would you take the trouble to revive people from the past anyway? Historic purposes? With the recording technology existing nowadays that's pointless.

I had a friend who seriously researched satanic rituals for months, and attempted many of them. He gave up after about six months I think. I hope I was as guillible as him, because they sounded really fun. Very much unlike going to Church every Sunday, so you can eventually go to a boring place where there are only clouds and people.
 

Redfire

and Blood
Local time
Today, 00:28
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
413
#41
And what about making a biological mechanism to self-repair dna to it's brand new state?
Tardigrades have dna repair capabilities.
If we had mechanisms in our bodies to produce stem cells and repair dna when needed and repair every deficiency that comes with age it would be another way.
You would probably still require external memory storage etc. But this would allow the shell to survive much longer.
Yes, but how? SENS is easier and you get the same result. As practical as it would be I think we don't need internal mechanisms, working externally is just fine.
 

gilliatt

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday, 18:28
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
286
Location
usa
#42
Someone answered the question, 'when we die the soul leaves the body, where does it go? Maybe we simply think of a soul/consciousness, the body is something entirely different. Not that I have put much thought into this. Oh, how about a mule, what happens to their little soul? their immorality? Mules are highly intelligent, sarcastic, independent and unplanned.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#43
The concept of self is an emergent property in a recognition system that has a feedback loop.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 16:28
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
726
#46
I'm unsure about the exact methods that will lead to immortality (if we do ever reach the capability to live indefinitely). However, I think something like this will probably be the first step: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/anti-aging-formula-slated-begin-human-trials


@Cognisant

The concept of self is an emergent property in a recognition system that has a feedback loop.
I think you're entirely right about this. It seems to me that one's sense of self has a somatic basis. In other words, where the nervous system ends, the self ends. It is literally a sensing of the self that contrasts in the psyche with the perception of the environment. This, of course, becomes more complex as the concept of the self is associated with other concepts and grows in a psychic manner.
 

Rook

Verily.
Local time
Today, 02:28
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
1,798
#47
If I am immortal, I am bound to kill myself some time or another. We are animals, we are instinctively wired to breed and then die. Sure, human instincts are more sophisticated, we have a hunger for knowledge, entertainment etc., but the will to pursue these endeavours wanes with immortality. After a thousand years, I will have been in every country on earth, used every drug, followed every dogma, raised many children, and studied many books. Sure, developments like space travel might bring in new elements for enjoyment, but will you still enjoy it after 10 000 years? 100 000 years? Things will get repititive, dull, meaningless.
After that period of time, a bullet to the brain will be salvation.

We only enjoy life because life is finite. We only seek success, happines and companionship becuase life is finite. We only invent reasons to live because life is finite. What then shall we do if life is infinite?
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 12:28
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,840
#48
Wow that's sad.

Just the other day I was daydreaming about how nice it would be to live on Mars in a robotic body, raking the sand, meditating, using the entire planet as my personal zen garden for hundreds of years.

As boring and lonely as it might become I still enjoy my own company.
 
Top Bottom