DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » good point. Think I'd rather have about 75 good yrs than living to a over a hundred and dealing with all the assorted problems which come when a human body starts to live outside of average natural range.
B0jangles wrote: » Seriously though, we're far more likely to accidentally wipe ourselves out than intentionally achieve immortality. I've thought for a long time that humanity as a species is both very very clever and extremely stupid - we're like an inventor who develops a supremely efficient, elegant and effective saw, then cannot see why it is not a good idea to use it on the branch we're all sitting on.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » We’re prolonging old age at the moment and we can’t cure many of the diseases associated with it: nobody would want to live to 150 with 50 years with dementia, 60 years in a nursing home. There’s a lot of hot air and very little action.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » We’re prolonging old age at the moment and we can’t cure many of the diseases associated with it: nobody would want to live to 150 with 50 years with dementia, 60 years in a nursing home.
AMKC wrote: » Or go explore space when we get decent spaceships and faster than light travel.
Stargate is another example with Thor and his race that were cloned multiple times..
A better story than that one. brainfreeze: Most people in the tech industry don't think it will happen like that, just uploading your brain at the end of your life. It's a slow transition, more and more technology blends with your own mind. Starting off as little brain enhancements to improve whatever it is you are trying to improve. Imagine you could access google in your mind by just thinking, etc. Stuff like that. With the recent rise of A.I you will augment yourself to an A.I, making you exponentially smarter. This in the industry is called "The Singularity". The moment in time when A.I becomes to powerful that humans will have to merge with it in order to keep up. Then eventually, since your brain and the A.I are working in unison, your "sense of self" in terms of your biological brain and the software running in the cloud are one and the same. You don't see them as enhancements or separate intelligences, you are that person. You are the A.I. Your biological brain dying will not be a concern to you because at that stage it works in unison and copied by the software, which you identify as being you anyway. There is two competing theories in terms of the recent inevitable rise of A.I "Be afraid, we need to control this or we will become slaves to the A.I" - Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and others. "Relax, we will be the A.I" - Bill Gates, Ray Kurzweil, Larry Page and others. Current predictions are we will have human level intelligence by 2029, and the "Singularity" when we have super intelligence beyond anything we can comprehend as a species, by 2045. The hypothesis is we will start to merge with A.I between those dates with it being normal in 2045. So we could say we start to become the Borg then or just like them. Soon all our consciousnesses will be linked and we will no longer be individuals so.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Living in this state of being forever sounds like hell tbh. Could you imagine working in an office for the next 1000 yrs.
AMKC wrote: » . Soon all our consciousnesses will be linked and we will no longer be individuals so.
wexie wrote: » Eh, Netflix and chill!!
wexie wrote: » They tried that in multiplicity, just didn't work, especially once the made a copy from one of the copies. Wasn't quite as sharp as the original...
Captain Chaos wrote: » It's called The Sixth Day.
eviltimeban wrote: » The reason we don't have flying cars is that people generally don't want flying cars...
FishOnABike wrote: » Meeeh, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm still waiting for my flying car, unlimited free power, anti gravity, (real) hoverboard and all the other 'just around the corner' miriacles promised by futurists.
FishOnABike wrote: » Cell reproduction is not perfect, telomeres shorten, random and environmentally induced mutations affect DNA, death is not a moment, it is a continuous multifaceted process and as much a part of life as is conception and birth.
wakka12 wrote: » Yes technically you have to die to upload your consciousness. So it really is technically cloning yourself. But what does it matter, it will just feel like going to sleep and waking up to you, if you died in your sleep and woke up the next morning and doctors said they managed to save you by putting your consciousness in a new body you wouldnt be able to tell unless they told you
Necrominus wrote: » But does consciousness live on after death? What about those that are declared brain dead before they could have this miraculous treatment? A lot of people die very suddenly and quickly, you'd need to plan the precise moment of your death, or make a copy of your consciousness and store it somewhere in case you had a heart attack/got into a car crash/ran over by a pack of sulky racers/tripped and smashed your skull on a patch of ice.... Right?
riffmongous wrote: » But my understanding is that you won't wake up. It's the copy that will and you won't experience it
eviltimeban wrote: » Would it not still be a copy? Like, I can create an Excel file, then make a copy of it, then delete the original, and what I'd have is an identical version, but not the original. The original is in the trash. If you uploaded your consciousness seamlessly, IOW, your current consciousness that carried on without stopping, it would be "you". Any other option and you're just making a copy If the body ages to it's death point, or is ravaged by cancer / disease etc, I wonder could there be an option to remove your brain from you body and it be kept alive, consciousness and all, remotely? The literal "brain in a jar".
eviltimeban wrote: » Nanotech could make humans immortal by 2040, futurist says:https://www.computerworld.com/article/2528330/app-development/nanotech-could-make-humans-immortal-by-2040--futurist-says.html
eviltimeban wrote: » You'd have a chip inserted inside your brain which would be constantly saving your consciousness. All you'd need to do is revert back to the last save point and carry on from there (ideally it could be done every hour or so, so you don't miss out on too much). There's scope for a sci-fi story here. Protagonist dies in car crash, they revert to save point, but it's a completely different person!
NIMAN wrote: » What about if you were to die suddenly, before you got your brain contents loaded to a computer?
"It's radical life extension," Kurzweil said. "The full realization of nanobots will basically eliminate biological disease and aging. I think we'll see widespread use in 20 years of [nanotech] devices that perform certain functions for us. In 30 or 40 years, we will overcome disease and aging. The nanobots will scout out organs and cells that need repairs and simply fix them. It will lead to profound extensions of our health and longevity."
Hector Savage wrote: » Even if we could cheat death (we maybe able to but it's a good bit off yet) psychologically how the hell could you deal with it ? hmmm what am I gonna do for the next ......... 300 billion billion billion years ??? F*CK THAT!
professore wrote: » fixxxer wrote: » Uploading your consciousness would not be uploading you. It would be uploading a copy that thinks its you. So many people don't get this. It's like the whole cloning thing, where so many people think they can live as their clone. Eehhh no, in that case twins would only have a single consciousness between them and when one died they would still live in the other one.
fixxxer wrote: » Uploading your consciousness would not be uploading you. It would be uploading a copy that thinks its you.
