How many years are we away from immortality?

[tar]

Or more nightmarish is the thought that you would just be inserted in some virtual Matrix world, where the possibilities are limitless, but it is because you are just experiencing a virtual world that someone else is projecting. Like the life of a drug addict. Feeling on top of the world, victorious and undefeatable while lying penniless in the gutter in your own filth, or in this case your brain sitting in a jar bathed in just the right combination of chemicals to keep you dreaming forever, never subject to the waking world at all.

DrP,

 

Well you are right. The "cure for death is living" is not really an answer. It was more a suggestion that we defeat death every time we wake up in the morning, and to view this as a constant victory...for as long as it lasts. A final victory is not possible in this scenario, only a continuing victory, another day of life.

 

Regards, TAR

So, I would say, in answer to the thread question, that we are an eternity away from immortality.

or more than a googleplus years

Unless you allow children to count for an extension of one's own consciousness, or if you allow that continued species survival counts as immortality, in which case we have already achieved the immortal victory.

(for now)

[swansont]

 

Well you are right. The "cure for death is living" is not really an answer. It was more a suggestion that we defeat death every time we wake up in the morning, and to view this as a constant victory...for as long as it lasts. A final victory is not possible in this scenario, only a continuing victory, another day of life.

 

 

 

All this seems to be pretty much beside the point, but "we defeat death every time we wake up in the morning" is BS. Waking up just means death hasn't won, yet. The game is still ongoing. But death wins, and you stay dead.

 

 

One reason I think the OP is misguided is that we haven't really done all that much to cure aging. We've done much more to cure the afflictions that make us die in youth and even in middle age, and that's had a great effect on longevity statistics. More people die of old-age related problems than in the past. We've even made coping with being old better. But not a whole lot that has any kind of direct effect on the issue of immortality.

[Sensei]

One reason I think the OP is misguided is that we haven't really done all that much to cure aging.

That's what for he made thread about modifications of DNA, to fix damaged DNA.. To state it used to have during his yearly age.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Sensei

[swansont]

That's what for he made thread about modifications of DNA, to fix damaged DNA.. To state it used to have during his yearly age.

 

 

So? My statement referred to the past. That's future or ongoing research, at best. There are no guarantees that anything viable will come of it.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

So back to the OP. Which do you think will happen first, being able to spruce up your DNA to renew your body to a younger state, or being able to transfer your mind to a supercomputer?

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

So back to the OP. Which do you think will happen first, being able to spruce up your DNA to renew your body to a younger state, or being able to transfer your mind to a supercomputer?

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

I have no idea.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Do we have any evidence whatsoever that transferring a consciousness to another vessel is even remotely possible? Any steps in that direction ever documented? The closest I remember ever hearing about anything of the sort is Aster fibers in the 1970s where ones consciousness could move about with the fibers as conduits. Complete hooey with no science or sense behind it. Are any clear thinking people, using the scientific method, attempting to put a consciousness in a supercomputer, as the OP is waiting for?

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

One reason I think the OP is misguided is that we haven't really done all that much to cure aging.

 

It's one thing to prevent or slow down the aging process (whatever that means), and another to repair damage done to nerve tissue, or regenerate skin rather than repair through fibrosis. If we had the latter, would it make the former unnecessary? If we could repair tissue damage, wouldn't that include damage from normal aging?

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

It seems to me, that aging is already built into the genes. Women are born with their lifetime compliment of eggs for instance, and the supply runs out about the same time as the hormones change and the change of life happens. Women having children at 40 have increased risk of problems and such. The aging process does not seem to only be a thing that could be reversed by cell regeneration, it seems a whole collection of interrelated systems that shut down or change purpose as the human ages. I sometimes wonder if it is alright that I can't run and jump like I used to, since my bones are more brittle than before and by not running and jumping I am also not breaking my bones. As if the aging process is holistic in essence and the changes are complimentary. I for instance can still move big rocks, but I use a lever and a helper, rather than yanking the thing around like I could as an 18 year old. And would it really be advantageous to have the same hormones coursing through your veins as you had when you were 16?

 

Regards, TAR

Plus, we have no idea of the interrelations of chemicals and how they affect personality and behavior. For instance look at the suicides and ODs that have resulted from our development of pain medications. I don't think we have the overall grasp of the situation of aging under enough control to make any improvements on the systems and processes evolution has already put in place. So many parts and pieces of our systems are carefully balanced and pushing in a thing over here is going to cause a thing to pop out over there. Too complex to "improve" on.

at least given our current state of technology and morality and politics

[Thorham]

You speak of hurtling any technological barrier, with ease and perfection

Nah, I just make it sound easy, and know that it isn't.

 

Do you want to be immortal v1.01 or would you be willing to risk it and wait for immortal v6.18?

What I want is a full tech body that's superior in every way to the body I have now.

 

And how much are you willing to lose, of how life is for you now

Nothing, exceept the bio part.

 

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?

Yeah, it's a problem alright.

 

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?

By keeping them away from me.

[Sensei]

Do you want to be immortal v1.01 or would you be willing to risk it and wait for immortal v6.18?

If something extends lifetime from 70 years (usually wasted by ordinary people),

to say 200 years, that's nearly 3 times more time to work on progressing even further.

 

Using newly saved years to extend it the next few years..

 

But people have to work on it (physics,chemistry,biotechnology,medicine,rocket science,IT), in the first place.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sensei

[tar]

Sensei,

 

And also metaphysics and psychology and the tackling of the hard problem of consciousness in general.

 

Believe it or not in a small way, I have been working on the issue and developing ideas since a thread years back that iNow presented on how religion hijacks the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain and why so many believe in a Deity.

 

Among many other interesting neurocortical findings I learned about the predictive motor simulator, and about an area of the brain that develops around 3 or 4 years old, that allows one to converse with unseen others, which lights up, when scanning the brain, when people deal with moral problems.

 

These findings and other muses and discussions since on topics of consciousness and where the consciousness would go in the case of a perfect copy of the person being executed, and reincarnation and such have led me to my belief, proposed in this thread, that moving a consciousness into another vessel is not going to work. It is, in my estimation the vessel that a consciousness is conscious of, and the memories of all the historical senses, and all the experiences that are built in, are what a consciousness is measuring reality against, continually, while awake.

 

Thus, while Thorham would like a non-bio body, superior in "every way" to his bio body, I posit it would not be Thorham's consciousness if it did not carry the scar on his knee when he fell in 3rd grade, or the memory of the pain he felt when he hit his head on the radiator after leaning back on the folding chair when he was 8.

So the whole complex has to be extended, and erasing the scar is removing that part of Thorham's consciousness, so one should consider what is lost when something else is gained.

 

Regards, TAR

for instance, the brain has a lot of connections, an amazing amount, but finite in number and positioning and distance between amongst the folds...changing the distance and timing of the connections between cells will change the functioning, and adding and subtracting connections, which the brain does all the time, creates the physical reality which a consciousness is conscious of...just trying to reproduce the functions in a black box type of way does not do the complex justice

Edited September 2, 2016 by tar

[fredreload]

My perspective about transferring consciousness is like reconnecting a lost limb, when a limb is cut off you can no longer sense it, but when it's reconnected you can feel the limb again. Transferring consciousness wouldn't be an easy task consider your limb can't think, but similar mechanism can take place.

I believe artificial intelligence could be developed within a few years. Think of an organism with a smallest set of neurons around 7500 and some more synapses. It could be easily simulated in a computer environment, the rest is to figure out if that organism actually has consciousness. I'm more into creating a fish that would swim inside a computer, but then I am not sure if creating consciousness would be ethical, I got a debate on creating life in this digital way in the ethical section.

So I believe mind transferring could be achieved earlier than DNA anti-aging, but then digital immortality remains a back up plan. If you exist in the digital realm you can have everything granted for you, think of a man made heaven, but then someone still have to watch over you, since you would be inside of a metal box. But then you can switch your perspective to the real world by having some machine arm, video camera, right but before I get there, check out the anime Expelled From Paradise, it sort of gives an idea of what living in a digital realm would be like, I'd also like to explore more videos and films of this genre, they would be quite interesting.

 

P.S. consciousness is like a light bulb, it lights up because there is voltage, you feel your arm again because the ion flows through your arm and creates voltage again. Same goes for the brain, is routing a voltage hard? I've never done it before, human synapses travel at 150m/s, not the electron running at the speed of light. It would be interesting to see and that I hope it can be transferred

Edited September 2, 2016 by fredreload

[tar]

and very importantly, sometimes its the imperfections that make a person who they are...I am thinking particularly of a young lady with cerebral palsy that I fell in love with as I held her on my lap, my hands and fingers over hers...somehow a perfect computer sitting on my lap would not be the same thing...at all

[fredreload]

Well, eventually you can leave the computer realm again back into the 3D world, same way you get in, same way you get out, but this time you need a vessel with a correct memory. That would take a while for man kind to develop. If both of you guys are in the 3D realm technically you can interact with each other, it's all physics and synapses, touch feel and other senses, you control them

[tar]

fredreload,

 

The camera and robot arm you are going to attach to your digital copy, should have already been built into your copy. That is, you are not completely copying your consciousness, if you have not already paid attention to your senses, and as well, properly carried forward the memories of your senses from birth on, plus memories of your positioning on the Earth and your movements around the place, and memory of the seasons and history and so on. It is not enough to have a history of the world built into your copy of your consciousness, you must build in the history of the world from your prespective. That is, if Harry built a tree fort but it was in another town and you never knew Harry, then that should not be reflected in your copy of your consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR

that is, we all have a model of the world built within the synapses and folds of our brain, and each model is different since we each have had different experiences, met different people, and read and viewed different messages and had different thoughts hopes and dreams

and problematically you have not described the "viewer" that would read your copy and "be" the consciousness you are creating

What would do the experiencing within your copy?

Edited September 2, 2016 by tar

[fredreload]

TAR,

 

You 3D scan a brain with all the synapses and neurons into the 3D realm in terms of graphics, it would contain all your memory and senses. Keep in mind this 3D model is empty so you can transfer your conscious into it

Edited September 2, 2016 by fredreload

[tar]

fredreload,

 

?

 

Regards, TAR

 

I think my point is exactly that the model is missing a consciousness, if it was conscious, it would be conscious of itself, it would not be your consciousness that was in it, and you have not described or even hinted at what physical thing would be transferred into this empty space, that represents your consciousness. You are back to the ghost in the machine, and you have not nailed down the characteristics of the ghost.

Remember, the complete formulae for the position of every quark and molecule in a sugar cube would not taste sweet.

It would taste like the ink and paper the formulae was written on, or taste like the computer chips the program and data were housed in.

[fredreload]

TAR,

 

Well like I've mentioned I'm comparing consciousness to a voltage, how you connect lost limb is because there is voltage running through it that generates different senses. Now the brain cannot technically be split apart and reconnected, but what flows in the brain is ions and as long as there is voltage, you are conscious. Now technically simulating a voltage in the computer graphics realm would be kind of hard, since we haven't even defined what voltage is in a Physical sense, all we know is V=IR. So my idea is to recreate this voltage in the 3D realm with graphics, it's all math. Then you run this voltage along with the voltage of your brain in parallel, you might have two consciousness generated, or put these two voltages in series, or fit this time frame within 150m/s since that is the nerve impulse speed of the ions, let's say you run at 150m/s and right as it pass through the neuron you run it with light speed and circle back into another neuron, it's all voltage and current here, so speed might matter. It's all speculation from here but, I did put some thoughts into it

 

Regards, Fredreload

Edited September 2, 2016 by fredreload

[tar]

fredreload,

 

Well it sounds possible, but very detailed, and complex where a simple sneeze for instance, would require millions of operations required to sense the pollen and control the various muscles to expel the air and pollen through the nose...etc. You would have to graphically reproduce not only the entire human body, heart and brain, but the entire environment you inhabit. For instance if your real self is looking at the sky on a starry night, and sees a shooting star, your graphics would have to include a simulation of all the dust particles about to enter the Earth's atmosphere, or your graphic self would not experience the shooting star, and hence not be you. Besides, just having a picture of you, does not make the picture you. Unless you think like the stories of the natives in Africa that thought taking a picture of them stole away some of their soul, or that sticking a pin in a voodoo doll of you will cause you pain. No, I think we have a bigger problem than you imagine, getting "you" into the empty space of your graphics. If you take a picture of a skunk and send it to me, will my dog be able to smell it?

 

Regards, TAR

that is, you might make a copy, but the copy is not the original

AND even if you make an exact copy, an exact analogue of you, it would still not be you, it would be another entity that was an exact analogue of you.

Like an identical twin.

Your analogue made of wire and chips and code could never come even close to being as identical as an identical twin, and an identical twin has his/her own consciousness, your consciousness does not just jump over into the twin, because it is identical.

[fredreload]

TAR,

 

Well my idea is that you slowly transfer the synapses in a neuron by neuron basis, it can be quite cumbersome. The picture is not you because it is not 3D, what makes it you is the 3D brain with flowing ions running and creating voltages behind the picture. It is kind of hard to swap the voltage off a neuron I must agree, picture the famous scene from Indiana Jone's where he swaps the statue with a bag of sand and triggers the boulder, it's kind of like that. To create a voltage you might have to simulate an electromagnetic field for every single ions and their interactions, which is a lot more computing power than what a single super computer exists today can handle. I think the memory structure is stored inside the brain in terms of synapses. So by recreating the entire brain in a 3D realm with graphics it would contain all your memory and experiences. You can even create your own memory with custom synapses, but that's speculation

 

Regards, Fredreload

[tar]

Fredreload,

 

But what makes you think it would "work". That is, when somebody dies, let's say of old age, all the physical synapses and cells and voltages and such were there a second before he died and not there a second after...even though all the cells were sitting there, in their exact arrangement. The spark of life left. What is that? I do not think your copy has it. And even if it did, it would belong to the machine you built, it would not belong to you.

 

Regards TAR

as to switching over synapse by synapse you still wind up with two yous not a new vessel you can jump into, unless you sacrifice your life as you destroy your synapses as you copy them over, in which case the copy would be as dead as the original by the time the process was complete

[fredreload]

TAR,

 

That involves the sense of self and why isn't everyone's mind connected. Assuming the arm is detached, if I run ions through it, who do you think the arm would belong to? I know when it is connected to me, the ions flow through it at the exact moment the ion leaves my shoulder. So I would speculate that the trick is timing and delay. Though that does not explain why the current running through two separate wires does not share the same voltage because the current is running at the speed of light. Haven't found an answer to that one.

 

Regards Fredreload

Well right the original body would be destroyed, but the copy shouldn't. Let's say I recreate an arm in a 3D space with graphics and time the ions flow exactly as how my arm would receive it using a scanner. Do you think I can now feel the arm that is in the 3D space apart from the arm that I have with me? I think it is possible, well this is speculation

Edited September 2, 2016 by fredreload

[tar]

Fredreload,

 

The little letters here are popping up at the same time my fingers are hitting the keys. If I glued my fingers to the keyboard I could type asdfjkl; all day, but the computer would only be an extension of my motor system, it would not contain my consciousness, but in that it is my computer, and types the letters I ask it to. I would not think however I have transferred my consciousness into it, except in the same manner that the world has been affected by my breathing and eating and typing and stomping and driving about for 62 years. Whether your consciousness ends at the tips of you fingers or not is thereby a matter of agreement and conventional understanding of the terminology one uses.

 

In fact if you shoot someone with a gun, even though you never touched them, and you could say the bullet did the damage, you still killed the guy, so even if you elect a president that uses a drone to kill an enemy, one could still say that your bidding was done in the world, so the length of your extension into the world and your ability to affect it, is again a matter of conventional use of the terms involved in describing the thing. But you are talking about transferring Fredreload into a computer, just because the timing of the signals is the same, and there is much more to it then that. What would control the next arrangement of signals, after the transfer? The copy would become immediately stupid and not know even how to metabolize a lump of sugar for energy.

 

Regards TAR

Just was thinking about asking you what is the first thing you were going to do, after transferring yourself into the computer. Your wife says Fredreload can you take out the garbage for us, and you say "buz, hum, click".

(don't even know if you heard the question as you did not mention if you were building any ears)

it would be difficult to be conscious of your wife's voice if you were not near her and if you did not have ears

Edited September 2, 2016 by tar

[fredreload]

Well, since you're at this thread I'd assume you are interested in immorality? You think DNA is the next available option? What can Mr. Fredreload do for you ?

Edited September 2, 2016 by fredreload