Or at least many times the natural lifespan. Not necessarily a one off solution, repeatedly trading tributes for longer life seems more likely from what I've read on the subject anyways.
>>17747800
Short answer
>no
Long answer
>yes
>>17747810
I mean... I appreciate the insight but could you at least give me a few keywords or a shorthand description related to the long answer?
>>17747812
Look into Keith Richards and Ozzy Osbourne.
>>17747817
lol
>>17747828
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ozzy-osbourne-genome/
Here's some sauce on Ozzy.
>>17747800
Technically, yes.
There already has been research on telomere regeneration and that's pretty much the only reason people die of old age.
>>17747800
Don't listen to these guys op. Humans will faze out. But relax, consciousness won't.
You are born with a finite amount of DNA, which carries the data that allows your cells to reproduce. With each cell death some of the data is lost. Unless you can somehow replicate your DNA, we are literally programmed to die.
>>17747800
Who wants to live forever?
>>17747800
>>>/sci/
There's actually been some remarkable breakthroughs in the field on longevity in the past year.
>>17748285
Herbert West did his research almost a hundred years ago. Just sayin'
>>17748325
Did herbert west discover a quick, simple treatment that stopped aging in its tracks?
>>17748364
Doctors hate him with this one weird trick that lets you live forever!
>>17748209
I do.
>>17747953
Nah, believe what you want but your concioucness is generated by a neural network...called your brain :) once it shuts down you wont experience anything again
>>17748285
This is true actualy, drastic life extension is close but I'm not suprised paranoid anons on /x wouldnt know anything about it.
They'd probably be against gene therapy to extend your life "cuz its nawt naturell!!!11"
If you lived forever you would have a serious problem on your hands.
>>17748431
It would never come to pass. The earth is crowded enough as it is without people not dying like they should be.
The only reason this stuff would ever pass is if the majority of humanity was wiped out suddenly, and we needed to increase human life span in order to not die out.
>>17748507
I would most certainly give "an Einstein" immortality. Or someone of some serious value, however that would be determined.
Surely.
I don't figure that everyone of anyone concerned, or everyone of anyone that can make calls on this subject believes that the only reason it would ever become both acceptable or put into practice would be if the total global population were reduced to, say, 5 million.
I think the better thing to do in that situation is to encourage a lower fatality rate, not introduce immortality. If you did that, you would probably cause some stagnation in the gene pool (given that the hypothetical scenario at face value is a -global- population that would be exceptionally spread out across great distances). That's not even considering the other aspects, or hurdles, of even introducing that notion after the constant rebuffing of the idea that "everyone dies". Almost all perspectives given today revolve around the notion of being finite, or being mortal, or being "simple", what have you.
Yet, if you have an ineffable source of genetic material swimming about in flux, I don't see why you would prohibit an agent/s of great affect from continuing to utilize said affect. Not everyone does this.
I also feel like there's something gravely wrong with suggesting that there are "people not dying like they should be". It's as if it implies that we should not give you, or allow you to be simply given:
Food
Water
Shelter
Information
The means to barter or trade for those things
Perhaps not even the credence with which some will treat you with... so that you will live "as humans were always meant to live", and die as they did during a short period of short human history. With little headway. Yes, completely forget about the notion of progress or the concept of tool-making and innovations from a relatively opportunistic creature of habit, known now as "people".
>>17748431
Not even gene therapy I'm talking like vitamin supplement quick and simple.
If a way were invented to become effectively immortal, there would almost certainly be a very strong class/wealth bias. Only the very, very rich would be able to afford it, and so only the very, very rich would be immortal. The enormous majority of the world - I'd imagine like 99% - would be stuck with regular life spans. Imagine the implications for politics.
>>17748383
Immortality would suck unless most everyone else was immortal, life-ling relationships with people would still be relatively short, you get to watch everyone you've ever cared about age and blow away like so much dust, and the world around you keeps moving forward without you until all the stars go out. And there you are, all alone until the end of time.
>>17748721
As I have said in >>17747817
As per the implications for politics, nothing would really change, just the issues addressed. Politics everywhere already are biased towards the wealthy, and for good reason.
i wouldn't mind living a lifespan that was several times longer than normal as long as i was old enough to get my social security before it became popular to get your teleomes enlarged and the gubmint pushed the social security age up to like 250 years old or some shit, if they did that i'd say fugg it and conk out at 80 cause work sucks lmao :D
>>17747800
sure i am 800
>>17748426
Things just don't disappear mate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1TcDHrkQYg
>>17748383
Get over yourself, no one is that special
>>17748847
Heaven can wait, we're only watching the skies.
>>17748426
Brain is receiver of consciousness. Not generator. An antenna, not a transmitter.
>>17749040
wrong.
The brain generates consciousness
>>17749041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
We can agree to disagree.
>>17749049
>i'm so smart I referenced wikipedia
just because some guy somewhere said "consciousness is hard" doesn't make you smart or give you a good argument
>>17749054
You don't have an argument either.
>>17749054
Wasn't really trying to argue. I'm not going to change your mind. You're not going to change mine. What's the point?
I mean, you just dismissed off hand a problem acknowledged by philosophers and neuroscientists alike (they call it the binding problem), but hey, your high school science textbook is infallible right?
>>17749059
I don't need one because two reasons
A) I'm cool
and a little less importantly,
B) I'm right.
>>17748426
SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH REEEE
>>17749040
Incorrect.
>>17749119
There's no proof either way, it's a philosophical debate.
>>17749041
No it doesn't, but believe what you want.
>>17749159
no actually it's a scientific debate and will be resolved through empirical evidence.
>>17749274
No it's not.
But who cares about the argument! I mean one day you die right?
>>17748426
I think it's transferable.
>>17749274
>Objective science will determine reality of subjective experience
Literally wat
>>17749040
This.
I think consciousness is literally transferable. Maybe matter is God. Maybe consciousness is God. Our brains are the antennas to receive consciousness. It's all connected, all consciousness is connected, and all our brains receive it like an antenna so we perceive reality independently while everything still is remaining unified and connected as one. It's so hard to understand and explain but I really want to know what is God. Is God matter or consciousness, or perhaps the two are the same?
>>17749334
Matter is an emergent property of consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property of what might be called Source or God.
>>17749343
So consciousness must of existed is some state where it literally was not matter then at some juncture manifested itself into physical matter?
Use nanomachines to replace neurons with perfectly analogous neurodes in between nerve signals with no disruption. You now have an immortal machine brain functionally identical to your fleshy one.
You will probably regret this, assuming you manage to live long enough to enact it, but there it is.
The first immortal human has already been born, in fact, there is already a large group of them. They have formed a secret society which seeks out other immortal humans and keeps their existence hidden from the public.
>>17749274
>He believes in actual verifiable evidence over anecdotes and "it just feels right"
>>17749315
Good for you, current understanding of science disagrees.
I have a theory,
Cancer is just unsuccessful attempts of our bodies to overcome mortality, as only part of your body becomes immortal in a sense.
>>17749376
If it is secret, how do you know about it?
>>17749376
You realize that saying "they cover up their existence" just means you have to prove that in addition to them existing in the first place, right?
>>17749290
One day, you hope you die. For good, maybe.
>>17748209
>>17749315
It could very well be. If it's not transferable in the same way that I can move my finger to the keys on the keyboard, then maybe it's at least replicable.
Which, between each instance of said system, would probably be tantamount to "being transferable enough". Whether you remain "Human" through the process/es remains to be seen.
Quite frankly, my whole take on it is that consciousness can be both generated and received. It doesn't seem... impossible, at least in theory, to translate at least more than 3/4ths of what makes up "me" onto a blank network fairly analogous in function (if not structure) to that of my actual brain or mind or what have you.
If I can consider that I may be able to be represented on paper, or in a series of self-satisfying (or circular) sentences that manage to put forth the concept of making an infinite string of sentences from a finite amount of words, then I believe that I must be translatable as your old copy of Midgets Shitting In A Bucket II: Electric Boogaloo.
>>17749386
Chappy did it with like 12 ps4's.
>>17749390
That's kinda true desu senpai. There was that one nigger woman who had her cancer cells preserved for research since a long ass time ago, can't think of the name unfortunately.
>>17749390
Nope, it's just out of control cellular growth. Cancer cells aren't immortal.
>>17749398
So, stuff in movies can happen in real life? Be right back, gonna do a slo-mo off-the-wall car backflip.
>>17749404
They are not affected by the Hayflick limit, so it's uncontrolled cell division, i.e. they are immortal.
>>17749409
>>>17749398 (You)
>So, stuff in movies can happen in real life? Be right back, gonna do a slo-mo off-the-wall car backflip.
Was joking dude.
>>17749419
No shit.
>>17749392
>>17749395
Just because they are immortal doesn't mean they can't be killed. One such dying immortal human has told me the truth. Enjoy your mortality, plebs.
>>17749437
Boring.
>>17749352
imagine if there was a synthetic virus that replaced your organic neurons with nano machine analgous neruordes
>>17749442
Jump into a pool of molten metal. Quick, before you catch the eternal suffering of a seemingly boundless mind stuck in the shape of a human being, pinned under a rock until the sun engulfed the planet.
>>17748426
Actually a study on human DNA showed that everyone's DNA has it's own unique resonance (vibration). No two are alike. Much like a radio frequency this vibration could act in the same way the reliever on a radio works. In other words your conscious may be emanating from somewhere else and connecting to your body and using it similar to the way you might use a remote control car.
>>17749455
>he thinks molecular kinetic vibrations are equivalent to radio waces
>>17749437
>Enjoy your mortality, plebs.
I will, enjoy desperately trying to escape your mortality only to find that it's inescapable.
![e3beef73e8868aa80861c271efe13167[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gHoDD2C.jpg "e3beef73e8868aa80861c271efe13167[2].jpg")
I am immortal, AMA
>>17749496
How'd you do it?
>>17749497
They posted on /x/.
Or, they made their mark on enough people that they'll tell other people about them 75 years down the road... and so on and so forth.
yes, it's on the way. Any other questions?
>>17749497
Quit your job, divorce your wife, send off your kids , become a hermit in the Chinese mountains and masturbate religiously.
I think in the future it will be something like 1pill a day. But if you take this pill you need to get a vasectomy, and overpopulation problem solved! If you have kids, then you can't take the pill and you die, and no more than 1 kid, you need special permission for more.
The first world has a magical ability to kill birth rates.
>>17748426
Learn to spell consciousness before you pontificate about it.
>present
>would rather stay in samsara than return to the source
Enjoy your suffering. We were meant to die.
>>17747800
Have you died yet? No? Well then anything's possible, up to and including you being alive right now. Why should tomorrow be any different?
>>17749496
Can you see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
>>17749633
I think, and hear me out but because this is a wild one...
Tomorrow is Monday (relativistically speaking).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/first-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/
>>17749693
Keekle
>>17749740
>it was Monday
I guess it's not the worst reason to kill yourself.
>>17749066
Got him good.
>>17747800
No, you only get one life, limited in span, and that is why it is precious.
>>17750543
Try writing all of that again, but coherently this time
>>17750712
Lol, but this is 4chan, full of uneducated millenials who think they are special snowflakes.
>>17750712
ily
energy can never be destroyed, but you can't stop change.
what does change have to do with death? ask yourself this question and listen to the ether silently for an answer.
>>17750662
Objective opinion.
>>17751678
Alliterative posting.
No and never
The purpose of life is to experience death. Ergo, a deathless life has no purpose. (Death, meaning the process of dying itself, not the abstract state of "death".)
Dying sounds pretty nice for people who aren't doing much with themselves. Honestly I'm surprised there aren't suicide booths yet.
>>17751770
But you are dying, darling. You are slowing realizing it.
>>17751787
I've realized it, but haven't come to terms completely with the idea. I mean how does anyone KNOW what will happen? No one really does, it's a mystery.
>>17751791
That's true. At least we know we'll be occupied by it for the rest of our time.
>>17751793
I at least hope its some sort of break from being bound physically and emotionally. Being free to roam any part of the universe, through time and space.
>>17751798
You will not be bound physically or emotionally.
You will cease to be.
>>17751799
Will I "wake up"? Or will I have no point of view whatsoever. That's something I just can't imagine, not having some sort of perspective.
>>17751798
There are so many theories about "after death" that it's fun to think about.
The energy will dissipate. You will not be you anymore.
>>17751802
There will be no more "you". The imagination of not existing is hard.
4:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJcr3_TXrQo
>>17751807
So this video is saying we go back to the source?
>>17751818
That's what you're looking to find as the answer.
So, we'll say yes.
>>17747800
Theoretically, yes.
