Immortality, but not really

[The Vegan Marxist]

Every single one of us pro-science nerds dream of achieving immortality as a scientific cure - the disease being that of death. Though, what some may fear of this is the idea that no one dies through immortality. The problem with this idealist objection is that immortality is only granted through a specific category - that of natural death.

The medical industry is where the "vaccine for death" will be formulated. And so, with natural causes of death pushed out of the way - medically speaking - we have now achieved immortality. Possibly will be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind, and I have no doubt that we'll eventually discover such a cure.

The problem? There isn't one necessarily. Just the illusion of a problem. People fear of the lack of death (oddly). Though, again, immortality doesn't grant death to be obsolete. Death is granted in many other categories other than natural causes or by medical reasons. There's murder, suicides, accidents, etc. Not exactly the best way of going out, but these (un)natural causes of death are essentially 1/3 of all deaths accounted for globally.

There is also the possibility of assisted dying. Which I seriously hope will be an open option through the medical industry by the time we achieve immortality (is it too much to ask for assisted dying to be legalized now?). So death will still be a very real factor in a immortally-reigned society.

I guess there wasn't a question in this entire rant of mine. And rather it was to rant for the sake of ranting. I guess it's just a subject that I feel should be discussed in some level, for whatever level that may be.

[Quail]

I can see that natural death could conceivably be ruled out, but if the "unnatural" causes that you mentioned can't be ruled out, we can't exactly become immortal. As people get older, the probability that they will have died in an accident goes up and up. I'm sure that accidental death can be reduced with safer technology and decent information about safety, but I don't have a lot of hope in eliminating it completely. With that in mind, the best we could get would be very long lifespans, I guess.

If people live for a very long time and still reproduce (I'm not sure how long people would remain fertile, but if people didn't age, their reproductive systems wouldn't age either) there could be a problem if the population increased very quickly, that perhaps we would find it difficult to adjust to the increased needs of the population.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say that people are scared of a lack of death. I'm more worried about the idea of dying before I've had the chance to do everything that I want than by the idea of not dying. I guess religious people might be a little pissed off at the idea of not dying and getting into heaven.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd hazard a guess as to why the idea of biological immortality sits uncomfortably with some - some may cleave to Christian mythology and believe that human mortality is a consequence of the Fall, and that circumventing that would be playing God.

But more commonly I reckon people are just so used to the idea of death as inevitable that to attempt to cheat it is both absurd and perverse. But why should we accept death as inevitable? It's not written into the laws of physics. Energy can be applied to constantly shift entropy outside of our bodies. All the little breakdowns that lead to old age and death can be fixed, if we only knew how.

In my opinion, it would do the species a great deal of good to have a segment of the population be biologically immortal. It would mean a portion of the populace with the incentive and capability to give a damn about the world 10, 50, 100, 1000 years down the line, because they would be living in that world. It would be in their interests to keep civilisation both stable (for safety) and yet diverse (to prevent stagnation and boredom). Longer lifespans would also put us within reach of the stars, even without faster-than-light travel - decades-long journeys are nothing when you can reasonably expect to live for at least a millennium.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But more commonly I reckon people are just so used to the idea of death as inevitable that to attempt to cheat it is both absurd and perverse. But why should we accept death as inevitable? It's not written into the laws of physics. Energy can be applied to constantly shift entropy outside of our bodies. All the little breakdowns that lead to old age and death can be fixed, if we only knew how.


Technically, people aren't even able to argue that death is a "natural" occurrence to all life, given the fact that there are some who do potentially live forever:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

[Summerspeaker]

Speaking of indefinite lifespans has more technical merit than talk of immortality, though the latter obviously makes for better poetry and propaganda. (Two valuable things!) Preventing the horrors of aging, disease, and injury matters the most to me. I find the notion that we should accept such suffering downright baffling.

[piet11111]

The thing about massively extended lifespans that i like is that more people would have an incentive to better themselves and get that higher education and be nicer to the people around you.

I am 25 and currently feel no need to go back to school because i have an OK-ish job but if i would live to be a 1000 years i would definitely set the bar a lot higher because i can work off the debt i would accumulate by going back to school.

[Amphictyonis]

The thing about massively extended lifespans that i like is that more people would have an incentive to better themselves and get that higher education and be nicer to the people around you.

I am 25 and currently feel no need to go back to school because i have an OK-ish job but if i would live to be a 1000 years i would definitely set the bar a lot higher because i can work off the debt i would accumulate by going back to school.

School debt in 1000 years? Hopefully it would be free by then.

[bcbm]

In my opinion, it would do the species a great deal of good to have a segment of the population be biologically immortal. It would mean a portion of the populace with the incentive and capability to give a damn about the world 10, 50, 100, 1000 years down the line, because they would be living in that world. It would be in their interests to keep civilisation both stable (for safety) and yet diverse (to prevent stagnation and boredom).a group of immortals dedicated to maintaining "stability" and making decisions (for our own good) that will play out over the course of decades, centuries and millenia... yeah what could go wrong there

[StalinFanboy]

Why is death considered a disease?

[StalinFanboy]

School debt in 1000 years? Hopefully it would be free by then.

Or education will be completely abolished by then. Dunno why "learning" has to have a separate time from the rest of your life.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why is death considered a disease?

Why shouldn't it be? It is, after all, a medical component to our inner organs. Which, I might add, has been prevented numerous times in hospitals. Many people have been brought back to life after seconds of death, sometimes even hours (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080323114930AAc5isi).

If we can produce the ability to stop death, why should we not embrace?

[NGNM85]

Why is death considered a disease?

Death isn't so much a disease, as it is, in natural cases, the result of disease. Oxidation, senesence, cancerous cell mutations, etc., these are diseases, to which all of us succumb, if something else doesn't kill us first.

[kitsune]

It's not so much that death is a disease, but that aging is a condition — or rather a set of conditions — that are inevitably fatal. The goal is to make those conditions treatable and the damage caused by them reversible.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Feasibility? Can I get a link?

I just don't understand; longevity, sure. But how does science propose to eliminate aging altogether?

Keep in mind, we're humans, not jellyfish or bacteria. As complicated organisms, we have an estimated 80 trillion cells. A very conservative estimate places 200,000 cells in the human body lost every single second of your life (higher end estimates range up to 3 million), all of which have to be replaced by replicating cells. This means in about seven years or so, through metabolic turnover, you can expect every single atom in your body to be replaced.

The problem is the Hayflick limit. After so many divisions, the cells in your body enter a senescence phase, where those cells are no longer able to divide. Cellular apoptosis ("programmed cell death"), combined with the Hayflick limit limits the body's ability to rebuild itself on a cellular level.

If you could eliminate apoptosis (and in the process avoid becoming septic), potentially many of the body's cells could survive indefinitely, at the cost of losing cellular adaptability to internal/ external stimuli. Additionally, you'd have to reduce cellular mitosis, lest you developed too many cells and too little space. This could lead to longer lifespans, but still, eventually cells would wear out (even slight impacts or friction eventually erodes cellular structures), become replaced, and the Hayflick limit comes into play again. Of course, environmental changes, toxins such as pollutants, and diseases would pose a greater threat then currently.

Eliminating apoptosis, therefore is unfeasible. Is the plan then to eliminate the Hayflick limit (the only other option I see)? If that were possible, immortality would be feasible. But each mitosis a cell undergoes shortens the telomeres of the cellular DNA. Eventually the telomere runs out. Could this be prevented? If so, could the genome be made to remain stable indefinitely? (if not, prepare for cancer)

edit: Achieving immortality would be quite an accomplishment and pretty cool. To say there'd be sociological and Malthusian issues to address would be an understatement, but a society of primarily sterile people might solve those problems (perhaps a requisite of undergoing immortality treatment). On a personal note, however, I am at peace with the idea of death. While not suicidal, I have absolutely no desire to live forever. Developing the technology would be nifty, but I would opt out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

a group of immortals dedicated to maintaining "stability" and making decisions (for our own good) that will play out over the course of decades, centuries and millenia... yeah what could go wrong there

Have you got any exact criticisms, or just more cynicism and innuendo? If you think that humans (and what they may eventually become) inevitably fuck things up for themselves and others, why the fuck are you a communist?

[piet11111]

School debt in 1000 years? Hopefully it would be free by then.

Cost benefit i could get a degree in something but who says i would be able to land a job that fits my study and not get stuck doing something else entirely ?
While still having to pay for that debt for say 10-15 years.
If i can become a 1000 years old it would just be a matter of waiting for a job offering that fits my interests while doing that shitty job and paying for that debt during 10-15 years would seem like a very minor sacrifice.

This is assuming i would start that higher education in todays capitalist world only with longevity technology to enable me to get to be a 1000 years old (death by accidents/murder are something i would not even consider in my choice to follow higher education)

[StalinFanboy]

Have you got any exact criticisms, or just more cynicism and innuendo? If you think that humans (and what they may eventually become) inevitably fuck things up for themselves and others, why the fuck are you a communist?

I think the issue is more about giving a specific group of people that much power for so long. How are you gonna support this and be a communist?

[StalinFanboy]

If we can produce the ability to stop death, why should we not embrace?

Because I'm not afraid of death.

[chegitz guevara]

just give me my hot cyborg body already.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the issue is more about giving a specific group of people that much power for so long. How are you gonna support this and be a communist?

My argument is based entirely on the fact of living longer. I am not proposing a gerontocracy, merely suggesting that, as actors within a democratic framework, people with indefinate lifespans would be more inclined to make choices that are in their long-term interest. If long-lived people were to form a political elite, they would eventually turn themselves into a target for short-lived people to focus their frustrations on, justified or otherwise. If long-lived people have the same political freedoms and responsibilities as short-lived people, then they cannot reasonably bear all the blame for when things go wrong, as something inevitably will at some point.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Because I'm not afraid of death.

Then you'd have every right to embrace assisted dying. We're looking creating a society where death and become actual social choices.

[StalinFanboy]

Then you'd have every right to embrace assisted dying. We're looking creating a society where death and become actual social choices.

No I'm asking why you see death as something other than an inevitable and natural part of life.

[bcbm]

Have you got any exact criticisms, or just more cynicism and innuendo? If you think that humans (and what they may eventually become) inevitably fuck things up for themselves and others, why the fuck are you a communist?

relax bro...


My argument is based entirely on the fact of living longer. I am not proposing a gerontocracy, merely suggesting that, as actors within a democratic framework, people with indefinate lifespans would be more inclined to make choices that are in their long-term interest. If long-lived people were to form a political elite, they would eventually turn themselves into a target for short-lived people to focus their frustrations on, justified or otherwise. If long-lived people have the same political freedoms and responsibilities as short-lived people,

thanks for clearing that i up it sounded like you were talking about a group of immortals exercising some form of control over the rest of the population due their long term interests or whatever.


then they cannot reasonably bear all the blame for when things go wrong, as something inevitably will at some point.if you think that humans (and what they may eventually become) inevitably fuck things up for themselves and others, why are you a communist?

[The Vegan Marxist]

No I'm asking why you see death as something other than an inevitable and natural part of life.

Because it doesn't have to be inevitable. It doesn't have to be a natural part of life. I would argue that "immortality", or longevity, could be just as natural as death. Instead of being inevitable, why can't life and death be choices? That's where I get at.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

if you think that humans (and what they may eventually become) inevitably fuck things up for themselves and others, why are you a communist?

Eh, all it takes for things to go wrong is to be fallible beings living in a chaotic universe. That's a world of difference from humans being incurable fuckups.

[bcbm]

i don't think anybody here ever described them as "incurable fuckups"

[Decolonize The Left]

I, for one, have no interest in living forever. I consider death to be the consequence of life, and if you were to remove death then you'd be effectively removing life as well. After all, if you live forever you aren't "living" anymore, as life is defined as the state which follows birth and precedes death.

So why wouldn't you want to live?

- August

[The Vegan Marxist]

I, for one, have no interest in living forever. I consider death to be the consequence of life, and if you were to remove death then you'd be effectively removing life as well. After all, if you live forever you aren't "living" anymore, as life is defined as the state which follows birth and precedes death.

So why wouldn't you want to live?

- August

You seem to be placing life under a metaphysical property. A personal feeling of yours that without death, one cannot live their life to the fullest. And I don't believe this to be so.

[bcbm]

that's just semantics. you are living as long as your biological processes still function and i don't see why sustaining these processes for hundreds of years or even indefinitely would mean "not living" in any meaningful sense. our time here is very short; there are always new things to see, experience and learn and doing so over thousands of years instead of tens doesn't mean those experiences being any less rewarding or interesting and when or if they do, there is still the option of death (http://conanvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Editorials.Detail&id=97).

[Decolonize The Left]

You seem to be placing life under a metaphysical property. A personal feeling of yours that without death, one cannot live their life to the fullest. And I don't believe this to be so.

No, I'm addressing the definition of the word.

My point is that without death, you aren't "living" at all. You are like a stone, or wall, or a river. Furthermore, the desire to live forever bears a striking resemblance to the invention of the "soul" or the "spirit" which "lives on after the body dies."

All these inventions appear to me to stem from an inability to cope with the existential anxiety present in human life. Given that one cannot cope with the fact that death is inevitable, we must invent ideas which we cling to in hope that we will avoid death.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

that's just semantics. you are living as long as your biological processes still function and i don't see why sustaining these processes for hundreds of years or even indefinitely would mean "not living" in any meaningful sense. our time here is very short; there are always new things to see, experience and learn and doing so over thousands of years instead of tens doesn't mean those experiences being any less rewarding or interesting and when or if they do, there is still the option of death (http://conanvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Editorials.Detail&id=97).

It may be semantics, but semantics are important. Life is the time in between birth and death, take one away and there's no life.

Furthermore, if life is merely the functioning of biological processes, no biological processes are infinite - all require energy in some form, the conversion of this energy and the loss of some. Given that some energy is lost in all conversions, it's fundamentally impossible to continue forever.

- August

[The Vegan Marxist]

that's just semantics. you are living as long as your biological processes still function and i don't see why sustaining these processes for hundreds of years or even indefinitely would mean "not living" in any meaningful sense. our time here is very short; there are always new things to see, experience and learn and doing so over thousands of years instead of tens doesn't mean those experiences being any less rewarding or interesting and when or if they do, there is still the option of death (http://conanvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Editorials.Detail&id=97).

Conan? :confused: lol

[The Vegan Marxist]

My point is that without death, you aren't "living" at all. You are like a stone, or wall, or a river. Furthermore, the desire to live forever bears a striking resemblance to the invention of the "soul" or the "spirit" which "lives on after the body dies."

Define "living".


All these inventions appear to me to stem from an inability to cope with the existential anxiety present in human life. Given that one cannot cope with the fact that death is inevitable, we must invent ideas which we cling to in hope that we will avoid death.

I don't think that's the case whatsoever. It may be to some people, but it's surely not where I'm trying to get at. Also, death doesn't have to be inevitable - fact! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula)

[chegitz guevara]

I read somewhere that if we are able to abolish death by old age and disease, the average life span would be about 700 years before you get taken out by an accident, murder, war, etc.

I can deal with that, but I'm hoping to live billions of years.

In any event, the BS semantic argument that getting rid of death means no more life (leaving aside that it is an incorrect definition of life as a stage between birth and death :rolleyes: ). Death is inevitable, no matter how long you live. The universe has a finite life span. We can't outlive the universe ... unless we can travel to other universes, but we need to find one with the same conditions that exist in this one.

[Broletariat]

I read somewhere that if we are able to abolish death by old age and disease, the average life span would be about 700 years before you get taken out by an accident, murder, war, etc.

I can deal with that, but I'm hoping to live billions of years.


These statistics of course are based on a Capitalist society. Socialism would eliminate things like war so that number would likely go up.

[bcbm]

Conan? :confused: lol

its a summary of "ashes to dust" which is a story about this race of immortals who from time to time have a ceremony where they jump off a cliff because they are bored/disgusted/whatever


It may be semantics, but semantics are important. Life is the time in between birth and death, take one away and there's no life.

but death would still be possible, just postponed indefinitely


Furthermore, if life is merely the functioning of biological processes, no biological processes are infinite - all require energy in some form, the conversion of this energy and the loss of some. Given that some energy is lost in all conversions, it's fundamentally impossible to continue forever.

until we can upload our brains to computers/robots, but thats some next level shit

[Blackscare]

I've thought about this quest philosophically a lot, and I'm glad I have the chance to share this. This may offend more traditional metaphysical outlooks, or be too lofty for some, but here goes;


Dude I would totally love to have my brain, like, removed or something and put in a capsule so I could inhabit other bodies like a hella-badass dragon mech or a human form with an android willy for when I totally wanna fuck some mortals. Then i think I'd fly around the universe laughing like a silly king whilst shaping primitive alien societies into my own image. I will be known as shemp, they will march under the banner of shemp towards the destruction of other civilizations I had also created for the lulz. They will worship jane fonda, who is lame.


Praise be to shemp, and also with shemp.













(The sad thing is, this is a juvenile parody of what I totally would do, minus the dragon mech)

[Bright Banana Beard]

I would love to transfer my brain into newly-body made so real life Captain Shepherd (ME2) and live for long time.

Imagine that... I get to do epic adventure including saving the humanity from destruction.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Furthermore, if life is merely the functioning of biological processes, no biological processes are infinite - all require energy in some form, the conversion of this energy and the loss of some. Given that some energy is lost in all conversions, it's fundamentally impossible to continue forever.

From now until the heat death of the universe seems close enough to forever from my current perspective. It's certainly a lot longer than I can intuitively grasp.

If length of experience is really that important, then there are potential ways of increasing that even with limited time. The laws of physics as now understood would allow one gram (more or less) to store and run the entire human race at a million subjective years per second.

That means, using only the Earth's mass for computing power, it would be possible to support more people than the entire Universe could support if biological humans colonised every single planet. It means that, in a single day, a civilization could live over 80 billion years (several times older than the age of the Universe to date).

Now multiply that by the estimated amount of days until the heat death of the universe.

No, I'm happy with the amount of time one could get without having to shatter the laws of physics as we know them. Free energy would be nice but is not essential.

[Jalapeno Enema]

I hate to derail this thread from cybernetic rants, philosophical quandaries, and contradictions about semantics, but I still want to know if there is any known sound evidence that indicates potential feasibility of human immortality.

Before you can run, you must be able to walk; before you can invent the automobile, you must invent the wheel.

Without feasibility, I see perusing a scientific course of immortality no more productive then searching out the fountain of youth throughout the galaxy (since we're pretty sure it's not on Earth; we've looked long enough.)

Without some sort sliver of feasibility, discussing immortality is simply a "what-if" discussion, and discussing it scientifically is an incongruous intellectual masturbation session.

Is there anything out there? Or are we playing a modern version of trial and error, because if we're resorting to alchemy, I'll just drink Goldsclager; at least then I'll get a buzz.

[piet11111]

Jalapeno Enema death is nothing more then our body breaking down because of wear and tear.
If we manage to find a way to fix or even avoid that damage we already limited death down to sickness (deadly diseases like say ebola or cancers) and accidents or intent(war or murder)

Sickness is already something that science is working hard on to find cures for so if old age is eliminated we might be lucky enough to survive until science manages to fix sickness.

War and murder would be a lot harder but under a global communist system war would be eliminated and murder would lose most of its causes as money would be useless and the insane would get helped a lot sooner and better then under capitalism.

This would leave accidental death but if that is the only way we could die then we would be putting a lot of effort into improving personal safety.

[Decolonize The Left]

From now until the heat death of the universe seems close enough to forever from my current perspective. It's certainly a lot longer than I can intuitively grasp.

If length of experience is really that important, then there are potential ways of increasing that even with limited time. The laws of physics as now understood would allow one gram (more or less) to store and run the entire human race at a million subjective years per second.

That means, using only the Earth's mass for computing power, it would be possible to support more people than the entire Universe could support if biological humans colonised every single planet. It means that, in a single day, a civilization could live over 80 billion years (several times older than the age of the Universe to date).

Now multiply that by the estimated amount of days until the heat death of the universe.

No, I'm happy with the amount of time one could get without having to shatter the laws of physics as we know them. Free energy would be nice but is not essential.

But this seems to me to be nonsensical.

For if you 'upload' a brain into a machine, you are not uploading anything other than information. The human being is a body - not bunch of information. The 'self' is just a story, it's not real; it's just the pen name behind the story of your life.

So this notion of uploading 'human lives' and running them at high speed is likewise meaningless. It's just calculations and information, not life.


Define "living".

Open a dictionary, I'm not twisting words here:
living


Present participle of live (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/live).


life (plural lives (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lives#English))


The state that follows birth (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/birth), and precedes death (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/death).



I don't think that's the case whatsoever. It may be to some people, but it's surely not where I'm trying to get at. Also, death doesn't have to be inevitable - fact! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula)

That jellyfish may be biologically immortal, but not in the sense we're talking about here. That jellyfish effectively reverses the aging process and is 'reborn' in a sense from a certain point in life. We're not talking about this as that would require that we relearn and re-experience everything which would contradict the stated purpose of being able to develop knowledge over extended periods of time.


but death would still be possible, just postponed indefinitely

Point taken, but death is not a possibility - it's an inevitability (perhaps the only one). No matter how you cut it, we're all gonna die (even if it's at the end of the universe).


until we can upload our brains to computers/robots, but thats some next level shit

No doubt, but I've got my bones to pick with this next level shit as well.

- August

[Blackscare]

Jalapeno Enema death is nothing more then our body breaking down because of wear and tear.

I thought that you were describing an actual ailment until I realized Jalapeno Enema is a user. Doesn't sound like a pleasant way to go, though.

[piet11111]

I thought that you were describing an actual ailment until I realized Jalapeno Enema is a user. Doesn't sound like a pleasant way to go, though.

That would be a terrible way to go :lol:

[chegitz guevara]

An electronic copy of me is not me.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I thought that you were describing an actual ailment until I realized Jalapeno Enema is a user. Doesn't sound like a pleasant way to go, though.

Remember that, more than likely, assisted dying would be a viable option during these times. If you feel like your time is now done with and that you'd finally want to see the end of your long life, then doctors would be there, ready to assist you in doing so.

[bcbm]

For if you 'upload' a brain into a machine, you are not uploading anything other than information. The human being is a body - not bunch of information. The 'self' is just a story, it's not real; it's just the pen name behind the story of your life.

So this notion of uploading 'human lives' and running them at high speed is likewise meaningless. It's just calculations and information, not life.

is consciousness anything more than information? its just stored in our brains at the moment, if there is no loss in content to move it to a computer what is being lost besides our fleshy bits?



Point taken, but death is not a possibility - it's an inevitability (perhaps the only one). No matter how you cut it, we're all gonna die (even if it's at the end of the universe).

based on our current theories it could be possible to escape into another universe before the end, or even to create our own ideal universes and escape into them.


No doubt, but I've got my bones to pick with this next level shit as well.


i mean the matrix would be pretty fun if you got to pick the program

[Blackscare]

Remember that, more than likely, assisted dying would be a viable option during these times. If you feel like your time is now done with and that you'd finally want to see the end of your long life, then doctors would be there, ready to assist you in doing so.

by giving me a jalapeno enema?

[The Vegan Marxist]

by giving me a jalapeno enema?

:laugh:

We'd want to make it as comfortable as possible. Unless you're a sadist, then maybe we could work something out. lol

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But this seems to me to be nonsensical.

For if you 'upload' a brain into a machine, you are not uploading anything other than information. The human being is a body - not bunch of information. The 'self' is just a story, it's not real; it's just the pen name behind the story of your life.

So this notion of uploading 'human lives' and running them at high speed is likewise meaningless. It's just calculations and information, not life.

It's only meaningless if you consider having a human body to be essential. Uploading can be done in a gradual, transformative way that changes the substrate of your personality from flesh to machine. It's not your beating heart or your digestive system that define you as person, they only define you to be human.

Besides, I only suggested uploading as a way of cramming more subjective time in before the end of the universe, which is billions of years away (at least) in the first place.

We may not win the battle against entropy, but why shouldn't we go down fighting?

[NGNM85]

It's only meaningless if you consider having a human body to be essential. Uploading can be done in a gradual, transformative way that changes the substrate of your personality from flesh to machine. It's not your beating heart or your digestive system that define you as person, they only define you to be human.

My concern, and I know, I mentioned this before, is that the concept of uploading seems to necessitate, or, at least, lend itself to, a kind of Cartesian Dualism. Also, I’m still pretty sure that, were such a feat possible (Which would necessitate, among other things, extremely sophisticated nanotechnology.) this process would essentially mean killing me, and creating a Strong AI with my memories, which I don’t find terribly appealing.

Also, I think shortly after the ‘upload’ you would cease to be human, that detachment from the human condition would increase by leaps and bounds the longer one remained in that state, unless one were to install some sort of block, which sort of defeats the purpose, I think. For these reasons and others, I am much less enthusiastic about using GNR technologies on my brain, as the rest of my body.


Besides, I only suggested uploading as a way of cramming more subjective time in before the end of the universe, which is billions of years away (at least) in the first place.

It should be about 20 billion years, presuming we still exist, and haven’t figured some way around it.


We may not win the battle against entropy, but why shouldn't we go down fighting?

I have no argument with that, in principle.

[bcbm]

My concern, and I know, I mentioned this before, is that the concept of uploading seems to necessitate, or, at least, lend itself to, a kind of Cartesian Dualism.

so?


Also, I’m still pretty sure that, were such a feat possible (Which would necessitate, among other things, extremely sophisticated nanotechnology.) this process would essentially mean killing me, and creating a Strong AI with my memories, which I don’t find terribly appealing.

well we can transfer info from one computer to another without deleting the content, maybe this will be possible with brains some day (cue freaky possibilities) and again if we view the brain content of our lives as pure information, how important is the hardware on which the info is stored?


Also, I think shortly after the ‘upload’ you would cease to be human

so?

[NGNM85]

so?

Well, the problem is that Cartesian Dualism is a fallacy.


well we can transfer info from one computer to another without deleting the content, maybe this will be possible with brains some day (cue freaky possibilities) and again if we view the brain content of our lives as pure information, how important is the hardware on which the info is stored?

It might be theoretically possible to copy my knowledge, and personality traits into another substrate, which could be copied, duplicated, etc. However, I haven’t seen any particularly good explanation on how to transfer my mind to any other substrate. The problem is, again Cartesian Dualism, there is no separation between the substrate of my mind, and my mind, itself. My mind is a process happening through the electrochemical processes of the organ that is my brain. My memories and thoughts are manifested in neurons and synapses, there is no discrete ‘mind’ to pull out of my brain, my brain is my mind.


so?

That entirely depends on what value you place on being human.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My concern, and I know, I mentioned this before, is that the concept of uploading seems to necessitate, or, at least, lend itself to, a kind of Cartesian Dualism.

How so? At no point is consciousness seperate from the body - the whole thing is being carefully transformed.


Also, I’m still pretty sure that, were such a feat possible (Which would necessitate, among other things, extremely sophisticated nanotechnology.) this process would essentially mean killing me, and creating a Strong AI with my memories, which I don’t find terribly appealing.

So if you were conscious, yet your heart was not beating, it would matter to you if that was because your brain was being artificially supplied oxygen, or because your brain did not need blood to operate?


Also, I think shortly after the ‘upload’ you would cease to be human, that detachment from the human condition would increase by leaps and bounds the longer one remained in that state, unless one were to install some sort of block, which sort of defeats the purpose, I think. For these reasons and others, I am much less enthusiastic about using GNR technologies on my brain, as the rest of my body.

I definately think it's a process that should be supervised by a Friendly AI. That should be a sufficient check to ensure that uploadees' posthuman personalities don't develop along dangerous paths. But otherwise I don't see anything wrong with people's perceptions moving outside of the human norm.


It should be about 20 billion years, presuming we still exist, and haven’t figured some way around it.

Who knows what we'll discover...

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm sorry for neglecting this discussion. Responses to bcbm and NoX below.


is consciousness anything more than information? its just stored in our brains at the moment, if there is no loss in content to move it to a computer what is being lost besides our fleshy bits?

I don't think there is such a thing as "consciousness." So no, I don't think that consciousness is anything more than information as this is a nonsensical statement.


based on our current theories it could be possible to escape into another universe before the end, or even to create our own ideal universes and escape into them.

I'm not familiar with these current theories so I'll admit it may be that my ignorance is blinding me, but I'm highly skeptical of theories of moving to another universe (possibly sliding through two singularities in a rotating black hole) when we can't even manage our own species here.


i mean the matrix would be pretty fun if you got to pick the program

I agree. But the whole point of the matrix was that it's better to be in "reality."


It's only meaningless if you consider having a human body to be essential. Uploading can be done in a gradual, transformative way that changes the substrate of your personality from flesh to machine. It's not your beating heart or your digestive system that define you as person, they only define you to be human.

You assume there is such a thing as a "personality" or "person." I argue that these are linguistic tools we use to survive as a species, but that they are not actual things that can be transferred in any way.


Besides, I only suggested uploading as a way of cramming more subjective time in before the end of the universe, which is billions of years away (at least) in the first place.

Fair enough, but by this argument you must advocate merely putting people to sleep as 'dreamtime' is much longer than regular time. My argument stands that "more subjective time" does not equal more "life."


We may not win the battle against entropy, but why shouldn't we go down fighting?

We should. I'm not at all opposed to fighting for the extended survival of the species. What I'm arguing is that this fight is done in reality, on earth, and between people. It's not done by attempting to upload 'a person' into a computer (not to mention that I think it's nonsensical) as this doesn't change the material relationships which govern our societies.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You assume there is such a thing as a "personality" or "person." I argue that these are linguistic tools we use to survive as a species, but that they are not actual things that can be transferred in any way.

Well, if the person is an ontological fiction, it doesn't mean the process can't be replicated in a different medium. If there is a strong causal link between the biological human at one end of the process and the uploadee at the other, I don't see how that is cause for concern. After all, if we're actually zombies who only think we're self-aware, what difference does it make for us to be made of cybernetics instead of flesh?


Fair enough, but by this argument you must advocate merely putting people to sleep as 'dreamtime' is much longer than regular time. My argument stands that "more subjective time" does not equal more "life."

People find it hard to interact with the real world when asleep. As an uploadee, there'd be no reason one couldn't interact with the real world if for some reason the virtual world did not fully satisfy.


We should. I'm not at all opposed to fighting for the extended survival of the species. What I'm arguing is that this fight is done in reality, on earth, and between people. It's not done by attempting to upload 'a person' into a computer (not to mention that I think it's nonsensical) as this doesn't change the material relationships which govern our societies.

Well, that's a different argument. I'm not arguing that uploading will be some kind of political panacea - rather I'm arguing that uploading is a possible life option other than mere death and disposal of the body.

[bcbm]

I'm sorry for neglecting this discussion. Responses to bcbm and NoX below.

no worries


I don't think there is such a thing as "consciousness." So no, I don't think that consciousness is anything more than information as this is a nonsensical statement.

elaborate?


I'm not familiar with these current theories so I'll admit it may be that my ignorance is blinding me, but I'm highly skeptical of theories of moving to another universe (possibly sliding through two singularities in a rotating black hole) when we can't even manage our own species here.

well we'd need to be at least a type iii or type iv civilization to have that potential, but given a timespan of billions of years and assuming we don't clusterfuck ourselves first, it is a possibility.


I agree. But the whole point of the matrix was that it's better to be in "reality."

which is why it was just a movie ;) and if we created our own "matrix" i think entering and exiting would always be possibilities. you want to live in the "real world" for some years? cool. you want to be in an epic fantasy adventure for a couple in a simulation and kill dragons? cool.

[NGNM85]

Extended excerpt from Dr. Aubrey de Grey's Ending Aging; http://www.kurzweilai.net/bootstrapping-our-way-to-an-ageless-future

(Courtesy of KurzweilAI
http://www.kurzweilai.net/)

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, if the person is an ontological fiction, it doesn't mean the process can't be replicated in a different medium. If there is a strong causal link between the biological human at one end of the process and the uploadee at the other, I don't see how that is cause for concern. After all, if we're actually zombies who only think we're self-aware, what difference does it make for us to be made of cybernetics instead of flesh?


elaborate?

The person is a necessary fiction, one which we must write to make sense of time and history. So basically the notion of "self," or the "I-you" dichotomy, these are language games - linguistic tools used to make sense of existence and human interaction. There is no physical self beyond the body - no 'self' hiding somewhere in the mind though we certainly think there is as we've become accustomed to such thinking.

Likewise, people often wish to say that the 'self' is 'consciousness.' But what is consciousness? The state of being conscious? In which case, if it is indeed a state, then it is relatively worthless as a thing, as states can change according to any number of circumstances and the relative character of a state of something isn't analogous with something so solid as a 'self.' To play with this claim, does the self disappear when you're unconscious?

So if there's no self beyond the body, what are you "uploading" into the digital? A faint semblance of what once was a person? A mishmash of information devoid of tangible relationships to reality?
And if there isn't such a thing as "consciousness," what are you "uploading" into the computer?

My underlying point here, and the reason why I attempted to answer both your points at once, is that notions of the "self" and "consciousness" as distinct entities from the body are metaphysical nonsense.


People find it hard to interact with the real world when asleep.
As an uploadee, there'd be no reason one couldn't interact with the real world if for some reason the virtual world did not fully satisfy.

Ah, but this only reinforces my earlier counter-claim. Just like when asleep, when in the digital world one must 'unplug' and return to the real world. You cannot simultaneously be in both - it's one or the other. For even when you're sleep-walking, "you" are still dreaming. Furthermore, if the sole point here is 'how much time' one has, why not argue for relativity and space-travel? If we've reached the point where this is possible, it's much more effective to simply travel at the speed of light thereby stretching time and actually living for a lot longer.

So my earlier claim holds that "more subjective time" doesn't equal more "life." "More subjective time" necessitates a magical "subjective world," which has yet to be argued effectively - and the equivalence of subjective time to life indicates that the state of dreaming is equivalent to the conscious.


Well, that's a different argument. I'm not arguing that uploading will be some kind of political panacea - rather I'm arguing that uploading is a possible life option other than mere death and disposal of the body.

Do you believe that there are entities which "live" in the digital world? I mean this literally, not figuratively.


well we'd need to be at least a type iii or type iv civilization to have that potential, but given a timespan of billions of years and assuming we don't clusterfuck ourselves first, it is a possibility.


I'm not familiar with types of civilizations but I believe I understand the gist of what you're saying. I am more than open to the possibility of what you say, I never have problems with actual possibilities, what I have problems with is this I see as nonsensical.
And as of this moment, the notion of traveling through a black hole (where the laws of physics no longer apply), is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, it's a far-out-fucking-idea, but not worth discussing as an actual alternative to what's going on (same goes for 'immortality' as I hope to argue).


which is why it was just a movie ;) and if we created our own "matrix" i think entering and exiting would always be possibilities. you want to live in the "real world" for some years? cool. you want to be in an epic fantasy adventure for a couple in a simulation and kill dragons? cool.

What happens when you die in the digital world?

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So if there's no self beyond the body, what are you "uploading" into the digital? A faint semblance of what once was a person? A mishmash of information devoid of tangible relationships to reality?
And if there isn't such a thing as "consciousness," what are you "uploading" into the computer?

The part of the body that thinks (or at least the parts of the body causally vital to the kind of behaviour we attribute to thinking beings).

This is the uploading process as I have been thinking of it:


The Moravec Transfer gradually moves (rather than copies) a human mind into a computer. You need never lose consciousness. (The details which follow have been redesigned and fleshed out a bit (by yours truly) from the original in Mind Children.)

1. A neuron-sized robot swims up to a neuron and scans it into memory.

2. An external computer, in continuous communication with the robot, starts simulating the neuron.

3. The robot waits until the computer simulation perfectly matches the neuron.

4. The robot replaces the neuron with itself as smoothly as possible, sending inputs to the computer and transmitting outputs from the simulation of a neuron inside the computer.
This entire procedure has had no effect on the flow of information in the brain, except that one neuron's worth of processing is now being done inside a computer instead of a neuron.

Repeat, neuron by neuron, until the entire brain is composed of robot neurons.

Despite this, the synapses (links) between robotic neurons are still physical; robots report the reception of neurotransmitters at artificial dendrites and release neurotransmitters at the end of artificial axons. In the next phase, we replace the physical synapses with software links.
For every axon-dendrite (transmitter-receiver) pair, the inputs are no longer reported by the robot; instead the computed axon output of the transmitting neuron is added as a simulated dendrite to the simulation of the receiving neuron.
At the end of this phase, the robots are all firing their axons, but none of them are receiving anything, none of them are affecting each other, and none of them are affecting the computer simulation.

5. The robots are disconnected.

You have now been placed entirely inside a computer, bit by bit, without losing consciousness. In Moravec's words, your metamorphosis is complete.
If any of the phases seem too abrupt, the transfer of an individual neuron, or synapse, can be spread out over as long a time as necessary. To slowly transfer a synapse into a computer, we can use weighted factors of the physical synapse and the computational synapse to produce the output. The weighting would start as entirely physical and end as entirely computational. Since we are presuming the neuron is being perfectly simulated, the weighting affects only the flow of causality and not the actual process of events.

Slowly transferring a neuron is a bit more difficult.

4a. The robot encloses the neuron, the axons, and the dendrites with a robotic "shell", all without disturbing the neural cell body. (That's going to take some pretty fancy footwork, I know, but this is a thought experiment. The Powers will be doing the actual uploading.)

4b. The robotic dendrites continue to receive inputs from other neurons, and pass them on to the enclosed neural dendrites. The output of the biological neuron passes along the neural axon to the enclosing robotic axon, which reads the output and forwards it to the external synapse, unchanged.

4c. The robotic axon outputs 99% of the received biological impulse, plus 1% of the computed robotic impulse. Since, by hypothesis, the neuron is being perfectly simulated, this does not change the actual output in any way, only the flow of causality.

4d. The weighting is adjusted until 100% of the output is the computed output.

4e. The biological neuron is discarded.

Assuming we can simulate an individual neuron, and that we can replace neurons with robotic analogues, I think that thoroughly demonstrates the possibility of uploading, given that consciousness is strictly a function of neurons. (And if we have immortal souls, then uploading is a real snap. Detach soul from brain. Copy any information not stored in soul. Attach soul to new substrate. Upload complete.)

From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).


My underlying point here, and the reason why I attempted to answer both your points at once, is that notions of the "self" and "consciousness" as distinct entities from the body are metaphysical nonsense.

The uploading process as I described changes the "self" by changing the body - so it doesn't matter if self and body are one and the same or not.


Ah, but this only reinforces my earlier counter-claim. Just like when asleep, when in the digital world one must 'unplug' and return to the real world. You cannot simultaneously be in both - it's one or the other. For even when you're sleep-walking, "you" are still dreaming.

What's to stop a virtual being from exploring and interacting with meatspace using remotely piloted robots?


Furthermore, if the sole point here is 'how much time' one has, why not argue for relativity and space-travel? If we've reached the point where this is possible, it's much more effective to simply travel at the speed of light thereby stretching time and actually living for a lot longer.

The great irony being that upgrading from wetware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_%28brain%29) to hardware and software would make space colonisation and relativistic travel much easier.


So my earlier claim holds that "more subjective time" doesn't equal more "life." "More subjective time" necessitates a magical "subjective world," which has yet to be argued effectively - and the equivalence of subjective time to life indicates that the state of dreaming is equivalent to the conscious.

So? I'd rather be dreaming than dead.


Do you believe that there are entities which "live" in the digital world? I mean this literally, not figuratively.

It depends on your definition of "living". In my view, anything that can self-replicate and is subject to selection pressure while locally decreasing entropy/increasing complexity is close enough to life in my book to count.

I don't think it's something we've achieved artficially yet, however.


And as of this moment, the notion of traveling through a black hole (where the laws of physics no longer apply)

I don't think this is quite correct. Anything within the event horizon of a black hole is unobservable, but that's not the same as assuming that all physics has been thrown out the window.


What happens when you die in the digital world?

Depends on how the running environment was generated. It might be too abstract for such organic trivialities.

[Decolonize The Left]

The part of the body that thinks (or at least the parts of the body causally vital to the kind of behaviour we attribute to thinking beings).

This is the uploading process as I have been thinking of it:

From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).

I'm gonna give it a shot:

1. A neuron-sized robot swims up to a neuron and scans it into memory. Ok.

2. An external computer, in continuous communication with the robot, starts simulating the neuron. Out of what? And why are we to believe that whatever is being used to replicate the neuron is adequate as a substitute?

3. The robot waits until the computer simulation perfectly matches the neuron. Ok...

4. The robot replaces the neuron with itself as smoothly as possible, sending inputs to the computer and transmitting outputs from the simulation of a neuron inside the computer.
This entire procedure has had no effect on the flow of information in the brain, except that one neuron's worth of processing is now being done inside a computer instead of a neuron. Problems galore, but we'll deal with them momentarily.

Despite this, the synapses (links) between robotic neurons are still physical; robots report the reception of neurotransmitters at artificial dendrites and release neurotransmitters at the end of artificial axons.So the robots are also synthesizing artificial neurotransmitters?
Or if the processing is now being done in the computer, the regular neurons are inactive - and if this is the case, they aren't releasing neurotransmitters or changing chemical balances.
Furthermore, how do the artificial neurons use chemicals at all? I.e. how do they "fire"?
You're losing me...

In the next phase, we replace the physical synapses with software links.
For every axon-dendrite (transmitter-receiver) pair, the inputs are no longer reported by the robot; instead the computed axon output of the transmitting neuron is added as a simulated dendrite to the simulation of the receiving neuron.
At the end of this phase, the robots are all firing their axons, but none of them are receiving anything, none of them are affecting each other, and none of them are affecting the computer simulation. So let's say I'm uploaded and someone cuts off my leg. The neuron impulses are sent to my brain where they meet the mysterious "software links" and end up continuing into the computer brain. This brain then processes my extreme pain and sends it back the same way.
Aside from my previous questions, doesn't this raise issues of time-delay for neuron transmission? Furthermore, if you are simply replicating the brain, how do you 'link up' to the spinal cord and periphery nervous system, and the other parts of the brain which aren't gray matter?


The uploading process as I described changes the "self" by changing the body - so it doesn't matter if self and body are one and the same or not.

Point taken.


What's to stop a virtual being from exploring and interacting with meatspace using remotely piloted robots?

Nothing. But you're still in the virtual.


The great irony being that upgrading from wetware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_%28brain%29) to hardware and software would make space colonisation and relativistic travel much easier.

Perhaps, if you consider it an "upgrade" at all. But it may also not make such a transition easier as the opportunity for distraction is infinitely greater in the virtual than in the real.


So? I'd rather be dreaming than dead.

At the point you're talking about, they're the same thing.


It depends on your definition of "living". In my view, anything that can self-replicate and is subject to selection pressure while locally decreasing entropy/increasing complexity is close enough to life in my book to count.

This raises the question of what you call "a thing."


I don't think this is quite correct. Anything within the event horizon of a black hole is unobservable, but that's not the same as assuming that all physics has been thrown out the window.

No, but the supposed center of a black hole is a singularity, an infinitely small point of infinite density - a place where the laws of physics do not apply as it is supposedly a breach of the spacetime continuum.


Depends on how the running environment was generated. It might be too abstract for such organic trivialities.

Sweet, sweet, organic trivialities....

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Out of what? And why are we to believe that whatever is being used to replicate the neuron is adequate as a substitute?

The simulation is presumably based on data gathered by the robot. The important thing here is that the robotic neurons and software synapses do the same functions as their organic counterparts.


So the robots are also synthesizing artificial neurotransmitters?

Yes. Or they hijack whatever machinery the body uses to produce them in the first place - it doesn't matter as long as the appropriate chemicals are used.


Furthermore, how do the artificial neurons use chemicals at all? I.e. how do they "fire"?
You're losing me...

How does any machine use chemicals as part of its operation? Really, I think you are grasping at straws here.


So let's say I'm uploaded and someone cuts off my leg. The neuron impulses are sent to my brain where they meet the mysterious "software links" and end up continuing into the computer brain. This brain then processes my extreme pain and sends it back the same way.
Aside from my previous questions, doesn't this raise issues of time-delay for neuron transmission?

I don't see how. Circuits are orders of magnitude faster than neurons, so they'll have no problems keeping up.


Furthermore, if you are simply replicating the brain, how do you 'link up' to the spinal cord and periphery nervous system, and the other parts of the brain which aren't gray matter?

Since these artificial neurons can communicate with each other and organic neurons, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to presume that artificial neurons can transmit information to the rest of the nervous system.

Of course, that's only relevant during the uploading process. Once it's completed you'll be getting your input/output from somewhere else.


Nothing. But you're still in the virtual.

Then why does it matter? I've already said it's better to be dreaming than no more.


Perhaps, if you consider it an "upgrade" at all. But it may also not make such a transition easier as the opportunity for distraction is infinitely greater in the virtual than in the real.

That's a risk, I'll grant you. But I don't think it should be too much of a problem as long as we maintain enough mental diversity such that there's always someone watching the fire of Reality, where all the Off switches are ultimately located.


At the point you're talking about, they're the same thing.

I beg to differ. Who else do you call someone who has my memories, my personality, my past? In terms of continuity of consciousness, nothing has been terminated or split.

Sure, you're no longer human - but that's part of the point.


This raises the question of what you call "a thing."

If you can detect or infer its presence and say "yep, that's a [thing] alright!" then it is.


No, but the supposed center of a black hole is a singularity, an infinitely small point of infinite density - a place where the laws of physics do not apply as it is supposedly a breach of the spacetime continuum.

That's what Relativity tells us. But since physics is always incomplete, and singularities involve a combination of Relativity and quantum mechanics which is apparently impossible, something's not quite right. My suspicion is that a new theory that stitches the two together while at the same time resolving their contradictions will be required.


Sweet, sweet, organic trivialities....

Well, dying is one thing I could live without.