How many years are we away from immortality?

[fredreload]

Yes believe me I've checked on Google and the answer is 25 years estimated. Well you guys have probably seen my posts on DNA immortality and digital immortality. We are living at an age in which it seems that both are likely to achieve. I've always got the feeling that someone already cracked the code but is simply hiding the technology from us, how accurate is that I can't really say. I'm keeping digital immortality as a back up plan because it involved mind transferring. I really do hope that before I die I would get my mind transferred and say live for another hundred of years digitally. This really is counting on someone or some organization to have a fully built super computer capable of doing mind transferring. While this remain as a back up plan. I would also like to see how DNA immortality works out as someone transferring my conscious at the last moment is sort of like a bet. Well by the time I turn 80 and if I live until that age and sees that DNA immortality hasn't been developed, I'd probably count on digital immortality instead. So what do you guys think is more likely to achieve and how many years do you think it would take for each?

Edited August 31, 2016 by fredreload

[tar]

Fredreload,.

 

DNA immortality is already reality. It is called children.

 

Digital immortality is already achieved, as well in the abilities we have to copy and store code and info.

 

However, as in the case of the child, the "I" does not transfer, and this would be the case with the digital copy of you as well.

 

Regards, TAR

so I think we are about as close to immortality as we are going to get...already

[swansont]

It's going to be like commercially viable fusion. Always 25 years away.

[fredreload]

Fredreload,.

 

DNA immortality is already reality. It is called children.

 

Digital immortality is already achieved, as well in the abilities we have to copy and store code and info.

 

However, as in the case of the child, the "I" does not transfer, and this would be the case with the digital copy of you as well.

 

Regards, TAR

so I think we are about as close to immortality as we are going to get...already

It's good to hear from many perspectives, let's assume it is possible to transfer consciousness and we can live as children. To go one step further where science can achieve

[CharonY]

I will just say that the Sanger method of sequencing was developed in the 70s, the human genome project started in the 90s and was finished ~2003. Now, the most it has given us is providing a scope of the lack of understanding we still have on many aspects of molecular genetics. We are gaining at best a toehold in understanding certain concepts and validating some ideas we had for decades (and invalidating many more). You are severely underestimating the enormous gap that still exists in the fundamental understanding of aging (we barely scratched it on the cellular level, not mentioning the trouble in translating it to the organismal level) to even doing basic aspects of minimizing its health impact. And this is still another huge leap away from significantly prolonging life which is again another leap away from immortality.

To put it carefully, a timeline of 25 years seems overly optimistic, considering that even the most ambitious organizations have yet failed to demonstrate damage reversal. I.e. the number of proposals massively outweigh outcome data.

[fredreload]

It's going to be like commercially viable fusion. Always 25 years away.

Right well that is what I'm afraid of. With the recent advancement in CRISPR/CAS9 method there has been more attentions for DNA manipulation, thing is gene sequencing is still a problem along with super computers. What I am looking for is a in vitro study of DNA using laser scanning technique, that way we'd understand everything. As for the scale of laser scanner, well it requires dye for find tuning etc. Personally I think laser scanning is the key to both DNA immortality and digital immortality. To get a good scan of DNA or a good scan of individual neurons

[CharonY]

It's going to be like commercially viable fusion. Always 25 years away.

 

I would even argue that we (well, not me, but you know what I mean) know more about fusion than we know about aging. Bits and pieces yeah, but working models not so much.

 

And at this point throwing in technologies is a like waving a magic wand. It is always the next technology that somehow magically solves all the issues, whereas in truth the process is typically slow and methodical.

Note that some of the proposals made here are more word salad than approaches.

Edited August 31, 2016 by CharonY

[fredreload]

I will just say that the Sanger method of sequencing was developed in the 70s, the human genome project started in the 90s and was finished ~2003. Now, the most it has given us is providing a scope of the lack of understanding we still have on many aspects of molecular genetics. We are gaining at best a toehold in understanding certain concepts and validating some ideas we had for decades (and invalidating many more). You are severely underestimating the enormous gap that still exists in the fundamental understanding of aging (we barely scratched it on the cellular level, not mentioning the trouble in translating it to the organismal level) to even doing basic aspects of minimizing its health impact. And this is still another huge leap away from significantly prolonging life which is again another leap away from immortality.

To put it carefully, a timeline of 25 years seems overly optimistic, considering that even the most ambitious organizations have yet failed to demonstrate damage reversal. I.e. the number of proposals massively outweigh outcome data.

Right, so I call for an in vitro study of DNA using laser scanner all the way from DNA to assembling protein, nothing can go wrong there with such detail observations

 

I would even argue that we (well, not me, but you know what I mean) know more about fusion than we know about aging. Bits and pieces yeah, but working models not so much.

Lockheed Martin is working on that, but not sure how many years it would take to come out

 

P.S. Well there are also many ethical concerns, I'm going to sleep first, I'll check the thread tomorrow, good night guys

Edited August 31, 2016 by fredreload

[EdEarl]

Brains are made of billions of neuron cells, which are really complex things that we don't fully understand. It seems necessary to understand neurons before we can claim to accurately simulate a brain. No doubt many neuron functions are about living, rather than thinking. But, at this time we cannot claim the things we don't know are not related to thinking. Thus, estimates we make may be optimistic.

 

We might have enough computer power now in The Cloud to simulate a brain, but not in real time (IMO). Expect real time brain simulation before 2030 (Ray Kurzweil) or by 2050 (a poll of some scientists). At this time there is no such thing as digital immortality, and I believe it will not be possible, because of the Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[CharonY]

Right, so I call for an in vitro study of DNA using laser scanner all the way from DNA to assembling protein, nothing can go wrong there with such detail observations

 

 

Soo. Magic? And even if there was a way to do that in vitro, what does it tell us in vivo? And even if it was possible on the cellular level, what would it tell us on the tissue level (and so on). You are both overestimating our analytical abilities (molecular movies are a bit of a holy grail at this point and we are talking about very simple simple things like catching the confirmational movements) as well as our ability to translate measurements into biological concept. Not that I blame you, as out of necessity popular biology is very dumbed down.

[tar]

fredreload,

 

Saw on the internet yesterday an Indonesian man who claims to be 145 years old...says he is "ready" to die.

 

There seems to me to be a natural unwinding of capabilities and such, that happens as you age. I have a 90 year old dad, that can not drive or ride a lawnmower after some brain surgery. There are complexities involved with living. Reward chemicals and pheromones and driving sexual needs and such that make immortality a tricky question. As in, what capabilities will you have? For instance, if you could live another hundred years, as long as you were in a test tube, with no joy possible from moving around and having a game of catch with your great grand kids, is it really an accomplishment.

 

The biggest question though, is the amount of money and time and energy and such it would take to make "you" immortal. Why you, and not the Indonesian guy? How would we choose who to make immortal, and why would that process work any more smoothly then the competition for resources we currently have.

 

Someone said to me the other day that one reason for dying is to make room for the next life. Do we really want or need 8 billion immortals? Or to make the choice about which 1000 get to be such. Or if the technology allowed everybody to be immortal, would we then not have kids?

 

Who would play ball?

 

Regards TAR

[swansont]

I would even argue that we (well, not me, but you know what I mean) know more about fusion than we know about aging. Bits and pieces yeah, but working models not so much.

 

And at this point throwing in technologies is a like waving a magic wand. It is always the next technology that somehow magically solves all the issues, whereas in truth the process is typically slow and methodical.

Note that some of the proposals made here are more word salad than approaches.

 

I agree. So if someone claims the solution is 25 years out, that number won't get smaller, probably for longer than fusion has been saying it.

 

The moral of the story is predicting the (non-immediate, non-incremental) future of technology is hard

Right well that is what I'm afraid of. With the recent advancement in CRISPR/CAS9 method there has been more attentions for DNA manipulation, thing is gene sequencing is still a problem along with super computers. What I am looking for is a in vitro study of DNA using laser scanning technique, that way we'd understand everything. As for the scale of laser scanner, well it requires dye for find tuning etc. Personally I think laser scanning is the key to both DNA immortality and digital immortality. To get a good scan of DNA or a good scan of individual neurons

 

Ugh, dye lasers. I've avoided ever having to use one. Diode, mostly, and Ti:Sapph (with various pumping methods). Also, recently, a fiber laser system. But I've always worked on systems with fairly well-known target wavelengths and reasonably narrow scanning range requirements.

[Thorham]

DNA immortality is already reality. It is called children.

 

Digital immortality is already achieved, as well in the abilities we have to copy and store code and info.

 

None of that is immortality at all.

[tar]

Thorham,

 

What would you consider immortal? If a pattern persists, and does not die, then that pattern is immortal. Where it is not immortality at all, is expecting the "I" to persist. Which is what I suggested to fredreload as something not possible or even desired.

 

Regards, TAR

Thorham,

 

At all?

 

Regards, TAR

[Thorham]

What would you consider immortal?

Eternal conscious existence. That obviously excludes things such as having a body that can't age, for example.

 

something not possible

Based on current science, of course. Doesn't mean much.

 

or even desired.

Speak for yourself

Edited August 31, 2016 by Thorham

[tar]

Thorham,

 

But best case situation with fantastic technology would still be subject to the death of the Sun, meteors, gamma rays from super nova, etc. Eternal is quite a big goal. Bigger than even the projected lifetime of the universe. And if reliant on technology, you would be dependent on your society and a "keeper" to keep your tube warm and in proper order. I think there are too many political and emotional roadblocks to ever make it to eternity.

 

Regards, TAR

plus regardless of the real world barriers, you never could "make it" to eternity...by definition

[Thorham]

But best case situation with fantastic technology would still be subject to the death of the Sun, meteors, gamma rays from super nova, etc.

Somehow those things don't seem to be an issue at all. We only have a billion years to find a solution to the sun problem (lol), and with the bodies we'll have within a thousand years we can eat gamma rays and super novas for breakfast. And meteors? Really?

 

Eternal is quite a big goal.

Eternity can't be guaranteed. At all.

 

Bigger than even the projected lifetime of the universe.

Bigger than the lifetime of the observable universe. We don't really know what's out there, we don't know how many 'levels' of mechanics there are, and we don't know how much control we can ultimately have over those mechanics. So I say: Who knows?

 

And if reliant on technology, you would be dependent on your society and a "keeper" to keep your tube warm and in proper order.

Not if one's body is advanced enough.

 

I think there are too many political and emotional roadblocks to ever make it to eternity.

Only if we remain petty, simple and stupid like we are now.

[tar]

Thorham,

 

What kind of evolution is there to go from the bodies we have now to bodies that can eat super nova for breakfast in a thousand years...without any natural selection involved, since you don't have survival of the fittest or the birth of mutated offspring, you have current bodies living forever, with technical enhancements. Perhaps you are placing your consciousness into a super computer, with replaceable strong supernova resistant shells, but this would not be "our" bodies. It would be our consciousness transferred to another house. This I think demands that one believe in the ghost in the machine way of looking at consciousness. That there is a soul not immediately defined by the body and brain and heart. I don't think that is the way it goes. Without your body brain and heart you would not be you. You would be that other thing, that machine, with the machine's capabilities and limitations.

 

Regards, TAR

[Thorham]

What kind of evolution is there to go from the bodies we have now to bodies that can eat super nova for breakfast in a thousand years...without any natural selection involved

We go from evolved bodies to designed ones. Evolution through natural selection is a painfully slow process, and waiting for something interesting to happen is not a good idea. It took a few million years to get from the first humans to where we are now. This is clearly something we can do better in the future.

 

since you don't have survival of the fittest or the birth of mutated offspring, you have current bodies living forever, with technical enhancements.

We already don't have survival of the fittest anymore. We 'simply' keep replacing our bodies with more advanced ones over time.

 

This I think demands that one believe in the ghost in the machine way of looking at consciousness. That there is a soul not immediately defined by the body and brain and heart. I don't think that is the way it goes. Without your body brain and heart you would not be you. You would be that other thing, that machine, with the machine's capabilities and limitations.

We're a certain part of the information in our brains. The brain is simply an information processor, and we're part of the information that gets processed. We're not pieces of meat, just like software on a hard disk isn't a hard disk. The software could be stored in static ram, on an optical disc, a big metal plate with holes drilled into it that represent bits, or even just a dot pattern on a piece of paper. Same for the information in the brain, and therefore the same for us.

 

Of course I'm kinda hoping that it won't work that way, because I hope that there's more than just the physical world, but that's another story.

[tar]

Thorham,

 

Well, are we going with DNA design, or are we going for finding a way to transfer consciousness to another vessel? I am thinking it might be hard to change DNA midstream. That is, can you have a body consisting of cells with different DNA in them? When a structure like skin would repair itself how would it know which version of cell to use? The one impervious to cosmic rays or the one that is sensitive to the touch of a butterfly?

 

Regards, TAR

That, along with your hopes for a continuation of the consciousness after the body dies, gives at least two arguments against immortality. One, who wants to live forever if you can't feel a butterfly lite on your wrist, and two, who would want to be bound forever to mortal coils and forsake heaven?

just an aside on technology replacing original equipment...I had my knees replaced and some nerves were sacrificed. The outside front lower right of my right knee and the outside front lower left of my left knee have lost some significant amount of feeling. Like half numb.

if the technology of immortality would leave you numb to life, would that be any fun?

[Thorham]

Well, are we going with DNA design, or are we going for finding a way to transfer consciousness to another vessel?

I see little point in replacing one body of flesh with a another.

 

The one impervious to cosmic rays or the one that is sensitive to the touch of a butterfly?

Are these mutually exclusive?

 

One, who wants to live forever if you can't feel a butterfly lite on your wrist

Who says you can't feel that with a tech body?

 

and two, who would want to be bound forever to mortal coils and forsake heaven?

I'm not religious, and while I hope there is more than this physical world, I certainly don't hope there's a god + eternal heaven + eternal hell system of any kind. That would just be plain wrong.

 

just an aside on technology replacing original equipment...I had my knees replaced and some nerves were sacrificed. The outside front lower right of my right knee and the outside front lower left of my left knee have lost some significant amount of feeling. Like half numb.

if the technology of immortality would leave you numb to life, would that be any fun?

Those nerves weren't replaced with anything. By the time what I'm envisioning becomes possible, I don't think physical sensations are problem. Nerves and nerve endings, or something else, It makes no difference if it's done well.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorham

[tar]

Thorham,

 

I am not religious either and do not believe in either the heaven and hell system or the reincarnation system, but I do hold out to the idea that there is still "something" after death. Like perhaps returning to the "force". I was using he word "heaven" to stand for what-ever-it-is that is waiting on the other side of the rainbow bridge...the lost loved ones, the eternal peace, the end of struggle and strife, the final victory. I am thinking that death will be much like it was for me before I was born. Don't know what that is, but it is generally a good thing, a bigger thing, a more unified thing, in my imagination. Not as separate as being alive is. Of course I would expect to lose the advantages of being separate and a point of focus, to a more non-specific type of consciousness, but I expect something. What ever this might be would be forfeited should one find a way to not die. And what if one, who was immortal, missed something about the way they were when they were young, or had a body, like I miss the feeling on the skin on the outside lower front of my knees? Or if one became "ready" to die?

 

Regards, TAR

Plus, Thorham,

 

You speak of hurtling any technological barrier, with ease and perfection, but you know that things are rarely as perfect in execution as they are on the drawing board, and there are always unintended consequences and engineering trade-offs and bugs in the system that have to be worked out in the next revision. Do you want to be immortal v1.01 or would you be willing to risk it and wait for immortal v6.18? And how much are you willing to lose, of how life is for you now, for how it would be when pheromones and endorphins no longer were in play, and instead the results of the decisions of some panel of designers that were guessing at what would be a perfect way to be forever?

 

And oh, what if you didn't like coexisting with somebody else, like a mass murderer or a Jehovah's witness? Wouldn't they be immortal too, and how would you rid yourself of them? (oh, just remembered, a Jehovah's witness would not submit to the technological process, so we are OK on that score.)

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 1, 2016 by tar

[DrP]

There is no evidence for anything at all after death. It is a nice romantic thought - but not one based on actual reality, just hope and the lies of priests. Do I want to go to heaven? Of course - who doesn't? Just saying that no-one has ever had any contact with the dead, whatever some cooks say.

 

I'd take the cure for death if it was invented - what happens when I am ready to die? Well, I'm sure it could be arranged pretty simply without too much complication.

[tar]

DrP,

 

Well the cure for death is living. That we are so fragile and fleeting is the problem...but that might also be why living is so valuable. Why we fight to survive. Without the fight and the constant victories, it might not be pleasant and rewarding. And you still would like to know you had the power and control enough to pull the plug, should you wish to lose the only thing you have, which is life and consciousness. So I might take the cure as well, if it is some Jellyfish ointment that helps to regenerate cells or something that reduces the aging process and allows for extended living, but forever seems excessive a goal, and forsaking ones body for a different vessel seems not only not possible, but not likely to be pleasant.

 

How do we bypass wars and accidents and power outages and such, anyway. Or remove the politics and money from the equation? For instance, would you take the cure if your test tube had a position on the outside of the rack and not if you were surrounded by and trapped between a bunch of others? Or would it make a difference to you if your mate chose the tube next to you, or chose not to buy a tube at all?

 

Regards, TAR

Or the more likely issue, would you take the bargain basement cure, or the one with some added bells and whistles for an additional price? Even in immortality there will be rooms with a view and ones looking at the dumpsters, I would guess.

And there might be a wait for bandwidth. You can experience a view from the position of your choice, but the best views might have a wait involved and you can only see the thing when it is your turn...or something. The waking world still has to fit together and cause and effect are still in play and doing this thing or taking that course will still result in the closing out of other possibilities.

Edited September 1, 2016 by tar

[DrP]

well - I'd just like to carry on being me for while longer really. I don't really care how (as long as it doesn't involve the suffering or sacrifice of others).

 

 

QUOTE: "the cure for death is living"

 

Not sure that really makes sense to me. Living is the state we are trying to prolong here, it is the result not the cure. If were as simple as just choosing to carry on then I am sure a lot of people that are now dead would still be alive.