>2016
>people still think immortality will be available within our lifetime
kek
Isn't some guy with a shitty body going to have his head transplanted into another body some time soon in Russia?
>>7804492
Not really. Nobodys thinking that.
>>7804492
Immortality is not possible, or at least not something you can experience.
>>7804492
This chart is at least 50 years too early on everything,
but some of the work with telemerase could have us living to 120, so maybe that will buy us some time
>>7805027
I don't think anyone's referring to actual IMMORTALITY, as most will even want to die after long time, but rather they refer to living a reasonably long time
>>7805068
If that's what is meant then alright
>>7805068
I think OP means those transhumanist autists that think they'll beable to 'upload their mind' into computer hardware so they can play WOW forever as a digital being.
It will never be available. It requires a particularly focused set of technological changes, and those require massive capital investments. Those sort of investments can only be made by very rich people. Yet they're doing nothing of the sort. Today, a billionaire worldwide lives for about as long as does a healthy middle class Western man does. There's no difference in lifespan worth mentioning. So what use is it to have so much fluid wealth at your command, when you're just going to lose it all anyway? Well, WE sort of people say things like that, because WE aren't that rich. People who are that rich, are sociopaths or psychopaths. That's why they're so wealthy. Literally, the focus of their lives is in making money, ever more money. They have no other moral guidance. They aren't visionary. They're just disgusting little money grubbing trolls. They either don't understand mortality, or they don't care.
And that's the most degenerate perversity of all, for an intelligent lifeform. They have the means to address life extension, yet do nothing about it.
>>7805111
Yeah, except these billionaires are the only people that contribute anything significant to charities.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet contributed a lot society in different ways in the course of making money, both contribute heavily to charities and both are unfathomably wealthy.
If people were not incentivied to make money, we'd never have progressed to industrialized society. We'd all be digging holes to plant turnips, squatting in the mud playing with sticks, sipping moonshine in the afternoon and having unprotected sex with our cousins, like pretty much the entire industrialized world.
>>7804783
It's was a Kojima ruse to promote new Metal Gear Solid game.
Why would you want an artificial body? Uploading your consciousness seems like the big step here.
True immortality is impossible because of entropy.
>>7805310
this
there is always an end
>>7805320
I read some sci-fi thing where a massive AI construct survived for eternity because the heat-dead universe was enough to cause it to be a superconductor that could calculate almost infinitely fast.
It mostly just thought that it wanted to kill it'self by self-deletion but it couldn't. It was pretty cool.
>>7805131
>these billionaires are the only people that contribute anything significant to charities
Only because it tricks morons into believing they have humanity's best interest at heart.
>>7805296
yeah, how can one transfer the brain structure into electronics, and if they can, how it it possible without destroying human's brain in the first place?
>>7805337
I think they do it mostly for the tax break. Rather put money into a pet project or pet cause than giving it to the government to squander. Also, arguably nobody has 'humanity's best interests' in mind when they do literally anything. Evolution produced people who are appropriately self-centered. If people do something that benefits others, it's typically by accident or self benefit anyways.
>>7805065
>Super-AI is estimated to occur in 2045.
by whom?
>>7805375
morons
>>7805359
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
>>7805639
That's not going to transfer your consciousness, retard.
You'll still be fucking around in your fleshsuit while some other copy of you enjoys eternal life. What you need is to find a way to do a conscious stream from one medium to the next, where the human brain's activities gradually shift over to an artificial brain's.
We don't have that kind of technology, and we're probably not going to have it for a good few centuries
>>7805131
>except these billionaires are the only people that contribute anything significant to charities.
Because they're more able to.
It hurts bill gates far less to donate a million dollars to charity than it does for me to donate a hundred.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.humanscience.org/docs/Perry%2520(1978)%2520A%2520Dialogue%2520on%2520Personal%2520Identity%2520and%2520Immortality.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjRn6-Y2MHKAhXJeD4KHYuuA0wQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGWdGU6pzLZ_OMonr3SUUeYITLkdg&sig2=f0fl6-5m2nl0OctlnQ59Hg
Sorry about the Google link, could not direct link on mobile.
You guys should read this dialogue first, before assuming immortality.
50 years ago. If you talked to an 80 year old, they were frail, smaller (shrunken), and talked with a whispery kinda raspy voice.
An 80 year old today is switched on, talks normally, and reasonably fit. There are (i think) more 100 year olds alive. So in 50 years we have already gained an extra 20 or so years without really trying.
Immortality, no, but ending death by cellular degradation, yes.
>>7805111
>Those sort of investments can only be made by very rich people. Yet they're doing nothing of the sort.
Or maybe they are and we just don't know about it.
>>7806362
probably they will do it, fake their death and then live infinitely as different people steering the world while all the plebs are dying off
hopefully somoene will leak this secret so i can get my life extension and shitpost on 4chan for eternity
>>7804783
Yes. It's taking place next year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3227954/Human-head-transplant-edges-closer-reality-Chinese-surgeon-teams-Italian-doctor-perform-procedure-2017.html
>>7805672
I don't think Ctrl-X Ctrl-V will ever be possible with organic or non-organic consciousness.
>>7804492
Maybe not in our lifetime, nor true immortality, but chromosomal degradation is something we may see curbed in our lifetime. Telomeres and telomerases seem to be the key. We're understanding better the physics of G-quadruplexes and other structural isomers of DNA in chromosomal end-regions, and how they interact electrochemically with maintenance proteins, etc.
This is actually what sparked my interest in biophysics and physical biochemistry.
>>7805111
You're mostly right, the vast, vast majority of the super-rich don't give a shit about anything but making more money. It's ironic, because if they invested in life extension sciences they'd have a good chance of living longer... and making more money. SENS Research Foundation is doing good work, but can't seem to attract a ton of rich investors. Peter Thiel, the Paypal founder in on board with them, so there's at least some like him, just not enough.
>>7805333
Are you referring to The Last Question by Asimov?
>>7807315
Universal AC but they arent the same Ac bassicaly made itself god
>>7807306
agreed. its like that "teleportation device to Mars" thought-experiment.
Yeah and even if so it won't matter unless you're filthy fucking rich.
That's why, above all else, I want to make money. Somebody else will figure out the technical aspects of life extension, but nothing I do matters in life unless I get rich first.
Immortality is impossible.
Even if you, by some miracle, survive beyond the heat death of the universe, it is statistically impossible to live *forever*. There's always an end. And even if you live for a googolplex years, your life will be as insignificant as a second in the face of eternal death.
>>7808678
So true immortality is possible only if God exists.
>>7808678
Wat
What is there that could possibly stop you if you survived entropy? Which you couldn't do, anyway, but that's pretty much the final boss of the universe.
>>7807313
>thinking telomeres and telomerases are the key to immortality
kek even a high school ap bio student knows more than this
underage b&
>>7808683
It isn't possible to survive it, but as long as we're talking hypothetical scenarios here, you still wouldn't be able to live for infinity. Even if the probability of you dying is (1/graham's number) every billion years, as we approach infinity, that probability will eventually become humongous.
>>7808701
Continuing the hypotheticals here, it would depend on if that probability was dependent of independent of each previous iteration of a billion years. An independent drawing of one number out of graham's number every billion years could realistically never occur, since your odds for each billion years are 1/graham's number and independent of your odds any other billion years.
>>7808722
anything that has any chance of happening, even 1/graham's number, will happen given enough time. Infinite time means infinite chances, which means a 100% chance of dying at some point, at any point.
>http://elifesciences.org/content/3/e03896
>These results point to the nucleus of neurons as the potential locus of the engram in Aplysia
>http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/full/nn.3594.html
>Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations
>Our findings provide a framework for addressing how environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally at behavioral, neuroanatomical and epigenetic levels
The hypothesis that memory and consciousness is located in DNA isn't fringe. Moreover, something of a person is inherited by their children. Having said that, we can make a valid argument that by preserving the neurons, we're preserving the person.
So, we remove the CNS/PNS, and roll it up into a ball along with a sheet of electrodes. If we can replace the myelin and glial cells with something thinner - like fluorine - the entire brain could be compacted. And why stop at that point? Before wrapping it up with the electrode sheet and before fluorinating it, the neurons can be infected with viruses that induce the production of inclusion bodies which replicate their functions - but in a far more compact form.
Now, build a new body out of stronger materials, and hook it's nerves up to the electrode sheet at the appropriate area. After that, you're basically a mass of aerographene and carbon nanotubes soaked in DMPU, hydrogen cyanide and all sorts of other other wonderful things. The aerographene muscles will be electrically powered, and a 'stomach' will be used to create heat, which will be harnessed to induce the Seebeck effect. The stomach will also process ores and other food, and use pressure to push the metabolic byproducts into the rest of the body.
>>7808722
If you toss a coin, it is independent of any previous tosses. And yet, the probability of getting 1 head is 50%
10 heads in a row is ~0.001%
100 heads in a row is 7.9*10^-31%
Similarly, the probability of dying in a billion years is 1/graham's number
10 billion years in a row is 10/graham's number
...
Graham's number years in a row is 1
Infinity is infinity
I'm drunk so that might've sounded convoluted, but essentially it's impossible to live for infinity, even if your probability of dying is that damn low.
>>7808688
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494070/
>Importantly, telomerase-treated mice did not develop more cancer than their control littermates, suggesting that the known tumorigenic activity of telomerase is severely decreased when expressed in adult or old organisms using AAV vectors. Finally, telomerase-treated mice, both at 1-year and at 2-year of age, had an increase in median lifespan of 24 and 13%, respectively
The key? No. But it really works, and will help people live long enough to receive treatments that will make them immortal.
>>7804807
immortality is literally at the centerpiece of Ray Kurzweil's and most tranhumanist's ideology.
>gets your mind transferred to a computer
>government starts performing experiments on your mind
>you are tortured for eternity
>there's nothing you can do about it
>everyone outside thinks you're enjoying your virtual reality paradise
I wouldn't risk it.
>>7807298
I lost
>>7805097
Why do people get so mad over that, though?
>>7805672
>What you need is to find a way to do a conscious stream from one medium to the next
Yea man don't gotta leave that soul behind.
You really think there's anything more to you rmind than the structure and function?
>>7810473
I realize you might be a troll, but here goes.
No, you fucking retard. He is stating the fact that if person A transmits his consciousness or brain onto some medium, you will end up with one of two scenarios:
1. You now have person A and person B. Person B believes he is person A, as he has all of person A's memories up till the point where person A uploaded his consciousness/brain.
2. You now have person B, who thinks he is person A because he has all of person A's memories, but person A is dead.
Either way, there's nothing in it for person A.
>>7810478
What defines person A besides the part that was copied? That's the whole point of this hypothetical: you scan/copy/emulate the brain perfectly.
I don't really get the difference between your 2 scenario's but yea I agree with that. Except person B == person A.
>>7810467
>Why do people get so mad over that, though?
I do think extended life span is possible. However, not by the procedure in the original post. If a person is to extend their life indefinitely then they need to be a Christian and a hard-scientist. That is all.
>>7805111
based violent simians guy is back lads
>>7804492
>2016
>people still think that immortality can be achieved through external means
>>7810489
>What defines person A besides the part that was copied?
Nothing (well, the body does, but that's not relevant to this discussion).
>That's the whole point of this hypothetical: you scan/copy/emulate the brain perfectly.
Yes, and as outlined in my two scenarios, the original sample (A) gains no benefit; in scenario #1 he lives on and in scenario #2 he dies, but he does not get to experience being person B.
Assume that it would be possible (which it isn't, e.g. due to Pauli's exclusion principle) to create an exact replica of some arbitrary person X. You now have two identical people, X1 and X2. However, by your definition, they are both the same person. How can two people be the same person? You strongly imply that one consciousness will inhabit two bodies. Say you move one body to UK and the other to Botswana. What is your proposed mechanism for one consciousness being able to inhabit two bodies? What if you move them several light years apart?
>>7810600
>You strongly imply that one consciousness will inhabit two bodies.
No I don't. I'm only really saying they're indistinguishable, also from their own point of view. Until they diverge, of course.
>>7805639
That ain't you anymore nigga :////////
>>7810625
Alright, I'm going to recap the chain of events in this thread to clarify exactly what we're talking about here, because I'm starting to get lost.
>>7805672 makes the argument that even if you copy your consciousness onto some extremely durable or immortal medium, the original, whose consciousness was copied, will not reap the benefits of this, but his or her exact copy, will (see also >>7810510). He goes on to say that we will need some technology that doesn't copy, but moves the consciousness onto a new medium, just like how you would move an object from the floor onto the table, not copy it resulting in the original still being on the floor with the new copy on the table.
>>7810473 misinterprets the post thinking the previous poster made some kind of metaphysical argument and I feel the need to clarify his argument.
From >>7810489 I read "B == person A", and assume that you think person A and B are one, not two, persons.
I agree that they are indistinguishable from all points of view until they diverge.
It seems that we didn't disagree at all, it was just a misunderstanding. My intention was to point out that there's nothing in it for person A no matter what, as it's B that will reap the benefits.
>>7806721
but where does the body come from
>>7804492
>2016
>people still think immortality will be available within our lifetime
/implying
/implying the annihilation of 7 billion people.
/implying Kurzweil will not out live you
/implying you are not planning to try and live as long as possible
/implying
>>7805060
people have lived to 120 already
>>7810664
In Russia we do not ask such questions
Would you choose to live for an infinite amount of time, or choose to have an infinitely high IQ?
>>7808739
How does that work in light of religion and promises of eternal life?
Can you be immortal because the probability of you dying is a reducing chance as time goes by?
>>7810677
Top kek
>>7810690
The former, only if I have the an hero option if I fuck up everything.
