Immortality

[JevinR]

Would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it? Then create a whole new set of problems

http://2045.com/

[WHOAMI]

 

We all gonna die.

 

[Philip]

Don't mindlessly compare us to a nuclear explosion please. That makes your fallacious argument both an insult to logic and to astrophysics. Except if you can back it up  In which case I humbly invite you to do so...

@WHOAMI First of all, I'm sure you could open that mind of yours and at least play around with the possibility of immortality.

Secondly, the future is built by visionary ideas, not by pessimistic one-liners. In fact, your views on biology are probably "all gonna die" way before humans do.

Thirdly, life expectancy is always increasing a couple of days each year. As soon as this increase reaches 1 year per year, humans will suddenly become basically immortal. Won't they ?

And please note that people don't die of old age. People die of diseases and accidents. And, in the last centuries, most diseases and sources of accidents have been solved already. We're just left with the complicated ones now. The ones that even teams of researchers can't figure out by themselves. So we're pretty lucky that AI is coming to save the day ! Soon, no human problem is going to be too complicated for those godly algorithms...

[WHOAMI]

@Philip

 

It's impossible. yeah it's just a one line but it's just an impossible.

 

[Kelley White]

@JevinR, I love a good conversation about toys and death over morning tea.     Thank you. 

 

Technically you are correct by theory that the sun will die.   Physical immortality is impossible?  Apples and oranges in causation and correlation there related to immortality.  I don't expect you should open your mind or have fun with your imagination, I do however invite you to entertain the possibility for fun?

 

@WHOAMI  what is death?  What is life extension?  DO we not already engage in life extension with medicine?  I'm curious if you have ever thought of it in that light before? 

 

On 18.3.2016 at 0:17 PM, Philip said:

the future is built by visionary ideas

@Philip, love this thought! 

On 18.3.2016 at 0:17 PM, Philip said:

Thirdly, life expectancy is always increasing a couple of days each year. As soon as this increase reaches 1 year per year, humans will suddenly become basically immortal. Won't they ?

And please note that people don't die of old age. People die of diseases and accidents. And, in the last centuries, most diseases and sources of accidents have been solved already. We're just left with the complicated ones now. The ones that even teams of researchers can't figure out by themselves

Interesting observations.

On 18.3.2016 at 0:17 PM, Philip said:

So we're pretty lucky that AI is coming to save the day ! Soon, no human problem is going to be too complicated for those godly algorithms...

Do we really know or do we have to be responsible for creating this? 

I am really pleased you are all willing to engage in this conversation.  Thank you. I think its really important for us to have these discussions to ensure responsible ethics and wisdom prevail within technological development and application.

[nbolt]

Biological immortality is impossible, as is the fact with every piece of physical matter in the universe. Every single one of your cells get replaced on a regular basis anyways, and only ~10% of the cells inside you are actually human. This idea of psychological immortality is just that- nothing more than an idea- a concept created by our egos on a moment-to-moment basis. You cannot have immortality as you do not exist. Or, in another sense, you are already immortal.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Neill Bolton

[Guest]

We are in a sense already all immortal...they say at least

[Galyna]

@Philip

On 18.3.2016 at 0:17 PM, Philip said:

 

@WHOAMI First of all, I'm sure you could open that mind of yours and at least play around with the possibility of immortality.

Secondly, the future is built by visionary ideas, not by pessimistic one-liners. In fact, your views on biology are probably "all gonna die" way before humans do.

Thirdly, life expectancy is always increasing a couple of days each year. As soon as this increase reaches 1 year per year, humans will suddenly become basically immortal. Won't they ?

And please note that people don't die of old age. People die of diseases and accidents. And, in the last centuries, most diseases and sources of accidents have been solved already. We're just left with the complicated ones now. The ones that even teams of researchers can't figure out by themselves. So we're pretty lucky that AI is coming to save the day ! Soon, no human problem is going to be too complicated for those godly algorithms...

People die also because their cells wired and coded this way. If we want to be immortal, we have to rewire and re-code the whole cell process.

 

[Primeval]

Would any of you go for "Longevity", living hundreds/thousands of years in relative youth?

Edited March 18, 2016 by Lha Bho

[Guest]

@Lha Bho Of course, as long as regular "getting killed" still may occur. I don't want to live thousands of years in agony, so death must always be an option if needed.

[Primeval]

Check out this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen

Maybe not the most youthful looking fellow, though interesting none the less.

[Primeval]

Many Mythologies suggest that Humans lived longer in the Ancient Past, before the Mythological "Fall of Man".

[Philip]

Haha awesome debate, guys ! Pretty epic...

@WHOAMI As harsh as I may have sounded, actually I'm sure you're a pretty intelligent person. Sharing your arguments might open my mind, and also bring lots of value to this conversation. Please feel free to do so if you like.

@Kelley White Great comment by the way !

4 hours ago, Kelley White said:

Do we really know [... if AI is coming to save the day ] ?

No we don't... You're right. I'm getting carried away by my rants again  

Let me correct myself : We don't know if AI is going to solve mankind's biggest problems. I sure hope so, but hope is not evidence at all. 

4 hours ago, Kelley White said:

do we have to be responsible for creating this?

I'm not sure I understand the question... But I'll be happy to answer if you rephrase it a little, please

@Neill Bolton Thanks for correcting me there. I totally agree. For the purpose of the conversation, my definition of immortality was : 

Having (1) a continuous stream of consciousness, without interruption, and (2) not having parts of my brain modified in a sudden and major way, until I decide to end my own life.

But as you pointed out, almost everything is wrong with this definition :

1) It means going to sleep equals dying, because it interrupts the stream of consciousness. Which is creepy as f*%k hahaha

2) What classifies as a "sudden" and "major" brain modification ? What doesn't ? Where do we draw the line ? Do brain implants equal death ? Does the normal brain evolution equal death ? 

As you implied, the concepts of immortality and death don't even make sense. But I'll still kind of ignore your comment, because I don't want the whole debate to "die" just yet...

@Lha Bho

1 hour ago, Lha Bho said:

Would any of you go for "Longevity", living hundreds/thousands of years in relative youth?

I would. If you're forced to live forever, then the choice of dying is removed. Which sucks.

And this is purely spontaneous and speculative, but I tend to think that the ultimate goal of intelligence is to increase the number of choices it has.

[Primeval]

Immortality is the Shadow of Death.

[Philip]

 

 

 

 

I don't see why we couldn't use similar technologies to fix the damage we've done to the earth.

On 18.3.2016 at 9:27 PM, Makis said:

It is a good thing that humans die after not later than let's say 100 or 120 years

Death is the most horrible tragedy there is. Isn't it ? And why 100 years ? It's so arbitrary to me. Why not 20 years ? Why not 10 years ?

I'm not inside your head, but to me, it seems like you're promoting the way life worked so far, just because it's how it worked so far. Do you value nature just because it was there before us ? I don't. I value the happiness of conscious beings, no matter how much the universe has to change in order to get there. My basic plan is to make the universe alive. Then make the universe conscious. Then make the universe happy. And every atom is welcome to the party ;D

So basically, we don't agree a lot hahaha. At least now. But I'm open. Maybe you're right. I surely have a lot to think about after reading your comment. Which was really well articulated, by the way.

[nbolt]

define robot and define lifeform. our brain is nothing more than a biological machine.

[nbolt]

what is the basis for this? define 'perceive'.

[nbolt]

No, WE are just programmed automats. When you look at the screen, when you hear sounds, when you become aware of impressions and emotions, your brain is doing all of that with zero input from "you". Zero. We like to think of ourselves as the input to this whole equation but we're really just the output. You don't think future AIs will be able to see? You don't think they will be able to translate audio data into words and meaning? You don't think technology will advance to the point where we can replicate how our brain works and create what we experience as consciousness?
 

 

[nbolt]

3 minutes ago, Makis said:

Yes, I believe technology won't be able to replicate how "our brain works". It is not really the brain, but conscioussness by the way, which is not material. The brain is a kind of "transmitter".

Consciousness is non-existential. It is impossible to define or pinpoint. It is an illusion created by the human mind.
 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Neill Bolton

[nbolt]

Well you have yet to be able to define it.