Human immortality could be possible by 2045, say Russian scientists

[milkmiku]

If Dmitry Itskov's 2045 initiative plays out as planned, humans will have the option of living forever with the help of machines in only 33 years.It may sound ridiculous, but the 31-year-old Russian mogul is dead serious about neuroscience, android robotics, and cybernetic immortality.He has already pulled together a team of leading Russian scientists intent on creating fully functional holographic human avatars that house artificial brains which contain a person's complete consciousness - in other words, a humanoid robot.Together, they've laid out an ambitious course of action that would see the team transplant a human brain into an artificial body (or 'avatar') in as little as seven years time.So here we have it, They will convince these billionaires to fund them and then the billionaires will be first to reap the rewords. The theroy is all correct, it is possible, this is known.

The future looks bleak for those who cannot afford it. We have 30 years at least and 60 years tops.

AHAHHA I forgot to post source.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/07/human-immortality-could-be-possible-by-2045-say-russian-scientists.html
this story has been run by many news groups now.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't really want to live forever, it would be boring.

[cynicles]

Hackable consciousness?

[Rafiq]

I don't really want to live forever, it would be boring.


I do! Shit, after my ass is dead, nothing. I'm gone. Fuck that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't really want to live forever, it would be boring.

I've never understood this viewpoint of immortality. How could it get boring unless you purposefully make it so?

Personally I think occasionally being bored is a price worth paying for experiencing the universe as a subjective being.

[RedHammer]

I am divided in opinion.

On the one hand, the excellent case can be made that eternal life gives you the opportunity to see more, do more, learn more; and what's the point in dying?

And yet, the romantic in me feels that life is sweeter because it is not forever.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I am divided in opinion.

On the one hand, the excellent case can be made that eternal life gives you the opportunity to see more, do more, learn more; and what's the point in dying?

And yet, the romantic in me feels that life is sweeter because it is not forever.

Same. I'm terrified of the idea of dying because I know there is nothing waiting for me, it's just the end. At the same time I feel that eternity is a tad too long...though it's so hard to comprehend actually experiencing 'forever' it's hard to form an opinion one way or the other.

..and now i've got the Queen song in my head..

[RedHammer]

Same. I'm terrified of the idea of dying because I know there is nothing waiting for me, it's just the end. At the same time I feel that eternity is a tad too long...though it's so hard to comprehend actually experiencing 'forever' it's hard to form an opinion one way or the other.

..and now I've got the Queen song in my head..
For me, it's not even about the eternity being a "tad too long", but about the impact of immortality on the cultural and social paradigms I am accustomed to. I fear life would lose some of its significance.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

For me, it's not even about the eternity being a "tad too long", but about the impact of immortality on the cultural and social paradigms I am accustomed to. I fear life would lose some of its significance.

True, how would relationships work for example? Or families?
If it got to the stage where everyone could live forever, how would it effect social interactions?
What would the impact be on 'morality' and other areas where life having a definate ending plays a big role in shaping attitudes and customs.

And no one would ever be able to say 'enjoy it while you still can' ever again.

My head hurts a little...

[RedHammer]

All excellent points. And what's more, this is not something we can switch on and off; there will be an impact on our human situation, and once the decision is made to institute immortality, even to a few people, the entire situation has changed.

It is not a decision to be made lightly, or individually.

[kuriousoranj]

Only socialism will stop us killing one another, not immortality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For me, it's not even about the eternity being a "tad too long", but about the impact of immortality on the cultural and social paradigms I am accustomed to. I fear life would lose some of its significance.

The significance of life is what you make of it, to a certain degree.

The rest is subject to external circumstances such as quality of life.


True, how would relationships work for example? Or families?

Pretty much as they always have done? There have always been circumstance where friends and relations outlive one another.


If it got to the stage where everyone could live forever, how would it effect social interactions?

I'm not sure, but surely more time in which one can make amends can only be a good thing?


What would the impact be on 'morality' and other areas where life having a definate ending plays a big role in shaping attitudes and customs.

Example?


And no one would ever be able to say 'enjoy it while you still can' ever again.

Good riddance! Nobody should be forced to miss all the cool shit in the universe just because their bodies are poorly suited to living a long and healthy life.


Only socialism will stop us killing one another, not immortality.

Neither socialism no immortality would be the panacea to end all the world's ills - there's no such beast. Human problems are solved through material efforts, and there's no reason to have to choose between either socialism or living forever. I for one want both to be part of human advancement.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

a forum full of people who talk about scientific method and no one's even asked for a source. fucking shameful.

source, please.

[freeeveryone!]

regardless of whether or not machines actually can prevent people from dying, this doesn't seem possible because eventually something will kill you.

[Rafiq]

After you're dead, you're nothing. Your brain is rendered in active. Like a smashed computer. It's of no use, and no particular form of consciousnesses within you will survive. You will not even have the ability to articulate your own death, because, well, you're dead. It's important for us Materialists to understand that the material world exists devoid and interdependent of human consciousness. Because this lack of understanding is the sole responsibility for the reason many can barely articulate their own nonexistence. Whether people hate their lives or not, they are their own lives, and nothing in regards to them is a manfiestion of them, besides, you know, their dead bodies (which really just influences our perception of you, but it doesn't influence your perception of yourself). If they took my brain and stuck it into some kind of machine, rendering my consciousness once again active, I wouldn't mind. Here's what scares me though: since we are ourselves, and our consciousness is us, what if they cloned us, and our brain, every single copy of our Neurological cells, placed into another existent being (A clone). What the fuck? This compells us to understand that we are more than our mere conciousness, we are the rest of our organs, our eyes, ears, etc. Which compel us to understand and articulate the material world around us from our specific point of view. Of course those things are means in which are consciousness interacts with the world, but only that specific form of consciousness. Just as a computer is not only it's Hard drive, you've got a processor, graphics card, RAM, and all other sorts of shit I don't care about.

Yeah, and also, it's interesting, and the validity of such a claim is questionable, but I hear animals cannot articulate their own nonexistence, and only humans can. I think that's a load of shit, (if what they say is true about animals). To me, our linguistic complexity is a form of existent pretentiousness, and that, in this regards, we are no better than the animals. That our linguistic exceptionalism (developed over hundreds of years of human sociological development, perfectly on par with evolutionary theory) may be able to express our idiocy in regards to the subject, but that this Linguistic complexity cannot sustain our knowledge in regards to our deaths, or the ways in which we articulate them. I could be wrong, though. AugustWest is really read on this subject, on this Lingusitic complexity which is a form of pretentiousness, that allows us to articulate a "self".

[Rafiq]

regardless of whether or not machines actually can prevent people from dying, this doesn't seem possible because eventually something will kill you.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

[RedHammer]

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

I think he means you may be able to prevent people from dying of old age or disease, but you won't prevent murder, accidents, et cetera

[Rafiq]

I think he means you may be able to prevent people from dying of old age or disease, but you won't prevent murder, accidents, et cetera

Oh, I see. Obviously.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

After you're dead, you're nothing. Your brain is rendered in active. Like a smashed computer. It's of no use, and no particular form of consciousnesses within you will survive. You will not even have the ability to articulate your own death, because, well, you're dead. It's important for us Materialists to understand that the material world exists devoid and interdependent of human consciousness. Because this lack of understanding is the sole responsibility for the reason many can barely articulate their own nonexistence. Whether people hate their lives or not, they are their own lives, and nothing in regards to them is a manfiestion of them, besides, you know, their dead bodies (which really just influences our perception of you, but it doesn't influence your perception of yourself). If they took my brain and stuck it into some kind of machine, rendering my consciousness once again active, I wouldn't mind. Here's what scares me though: since we are ourselves, and our consciousness is us, what if they cloned us, and our brain, every single copy of our Neurological cells, placed into another existent being (A clone). What the fuck? This compells us to understand that we are more than our mere conciousness, we are the rest of our organs, our eyes, ears, etc. Which compel us to understand and articulate the material world around us from our specific point of view. Of course those things are means in which are consciousness interacts with the world, but only that specific form of consciousness. Just as a computer is not only it's Hard drive, you've got a processor, graphics card, RAM, and all other sorts of shit I don't care about.

Yes but, to extend your analogy, what makes your computer truly yours is the stuff on the hard drive, not the fact that it has an XCT Radeon 4500 graphics card or whatever. In a similar vein, the physical features that are perform the function of making us subjectively experiencing entities do not include such material entities such as the liver or kidneys.

So unless I'm misunderstanding you, surely that leaves only tissues such as the brain?

[Skyhilist]

It did say with the help of machines. Even assuming there's no afterlife, I wouldn't want to live forever on life support.

[cynicles]

Does this mean we would have to start controlling how many kids are born like China to prevent over population? Or could we just unplug people when the earth became too full? Would that be considered murder? What are the ethical implications?

[Althusser]

I'd like the option to live forever. The "boring" argument doesn't make sense to me. Just kill yourself after 350 years of reading Marx and skydiving.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does this mean we would have to start controlling how many kids are born like China to prevent over population? Or could we just unplug people when the earth became too full? Would that be considered murder? What are the ethical implications?

Life as a software entity means that you only take up as much space as the equipment needed to support you. you could live on the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing), which is a still-expanding environment due to improving hardware.

Also, the use of dedicated hardware would enable a software entity to inhabit certain environments more easily than biological organisms, such as Earth orbit, the Moon, or beyond. The Moon would be pretty handy if one wanted to maintain contact with Earth, what with there being only about a second of light-speed lag.

[cynicles]

Life as a software entity means that you only take up as much space as the equipment needed to support you. you could live on the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing), which is a still-expanding environment due to improving hardware.

Also, the use of dedicated hardware would enable a software entity to inhabit certain environments more easily than biological organisms, such as Earth orbit, the Moon, or beyond. The Moon would be pretty handy if one wanted to maintain contact with Earth, what with there being only about a second of light-speed lag.
I was actually more concerned about resources used form experiences. Unless you want to been contained to a virtual world all of those resources these immortals would be using would be shared with people living their lives. What kind of limits and constraints would an immortal be working in I guess is a better way of phrasing it.

[Red Rabbit]

So, I'll be in my 50s by then... Not too bad as long as I don't have a heart attack or something.

[Art Vandelay]

So, I'll be in my 50s by then... Not too bad as long as I don't have a heart attack or something.

Well this is kind of ironic.

[NGNM85]

Life as a software entity means that you only take up as much space as the equipment needed to support you. you could live on the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing), which is a still-expanding environment due to improving hardware.

First of all; 'uploading' is a bogus concept because it relies on a Certesian dualisim. There is no mind irrespective of the brain. There is nothing to remove. At best; one could copy ones' experiences into an Artificial Intelligence, this, however, is not real immortality, because you haven't transferred the original consciousness, you've simply duplicated it. For this very reason existence as a software program, floating around the net, is pretty much impossible. Once it leaves the artificial brain; the consciousness would cease, it would simply be an extremely large collection of inert data, until it's returned to an artificial brain. Such an AI could access any computer connected to the internet, it could e-mail itself all over the globe (Or make an infinte number of copies of itself.) however, again, outside of an artificial brain, it would lose the capacity for consciousness. So; an AI would be about as tethered to it's physical housing as we are, the only difference is that it could instantaneously relocate to a new brain.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The idea of "uploading" one's mind into some sort of computer is actually an extension of the anti-body dualism of Christianity. Ray Kurzweill and his mate's "Singularity" is not too different from Christian fundamentalism-its no accident its called the "Rapture for nerds".The fantasy writer Cat Valente had an interesting essay on Cotten Mather, the 17th century Puritan. With only slight modifications Mather's outlook could be used as singulatarian PR.



Cotton Mather, for those of you who don't know, was a deeply unhappy man who lived in Boston in the late 17th century. I've heard him referred to as New England's first horror writer, and I think that's about right. He was a pastor and an author obsessed with the Rapture to a level that would surprise even Tim LaHaye and his ilk. Both he and his father predicted it would come just about every five years until he died--and in dying he was still waiting for it, bitterly, bitterly disappointed that it had not come in his lifetime. He sparked a Millennialist fever in New England and, rather more famously, was deeply involved in the Salem Witch Trials.

A year or two ago I came across a dialogue between Cotton and his father Increase in which they discussed what parts of the body they would be able to shed after the Rapture, and which they would keep. The genitals could go no problem, of course, and the digestive tract, since eating would be unnecessary. Possibly the liver as well, since what toxins could survive in Paradise? The heart and the brain posed a problem, however--would we need those organs to think and feel or would we become pure persons, identities intact without bodies?

I said aloud: What you mean is when you upload, Cotton, buddy. Will you need to maintain a connection to your physical body or will you be able to upload completely?

The tone of the conversation was exactly the same as the one I hear now--it's not really a joke at all when we call it the Rapture of the Nerds. The same hatred of the body echoed in Cotton and Increase's urgent debate, the same longing to leave all the troublesome processes of physical existence behind, to enter a world where they and their particular abilities would make them saints and kings, and those who mocked them would be useless devils or worse. (Don't think this isn't the very urge behind planning for the zombie apocalypse.) The same assumption that in Paradise, they would be able to affect reality as one would in a VR world, that their highest and purest desires would become manifest. The same desire to witness the end of the world by whatever definition, the same desperation not to miss it, to be the generation that achieved ascension.

Not only New England's first horror writer, but her first science fiction writer.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/01/a-far-green-country.html#more





There is a rottenness at the heart of the transhuman project, and the biggest symptom of it is blindness to its own origins: a mixture of warmed-over Christian apocalyptic eschatology (which Cory Doctorow and I poke with a stick in "The Rapture of the Nerds") and the Just-So creation mythology of the smugly self-satisfied hypercapitalists who have unintentionally done so much to destroy so many of the moral and interpersonal values of post-Englightenment civilization.


This is not to say that achieving some sort of immortality is bad, I'd be all for it, but we have to think about the hows and whys of the project.

[Luka]

At best; one could copy ones' experiences into an Artificial Intelligence, this, however, is not real immortality, because you haven't transferred the original consciousness, you've simply duplicated it.
I'm wondering if it would make a difference if you first transplanted the human brain into an artificial body, and then bit by bit replaced parts of the human brain with artificial elements. I'm not sure if the end result would still be just a copy and if it is at what point of the process the original consciousness would cease to exist.

[milkmiku]

I'm wondering if it would make a difference if you first transplanted the human brain into an artificial body, and then bit by bit replaced parts of the human brain with artificial elements. I'm not sure if the end result would still be just a copy and if it is at what point of the process the original consciousness would cease to exist.


There is much we do not know about the mind as of yet, we do know that the brain stores memories and in a solid state form so to speak. So it would be possible to slowly, bit by bit, transform ones gray matter into something else.

I'm truly curious about the affects of indefinite lifespan, not immortality, upon the capitalistic dynamics f the world.

If anyone knows any good reading on this matter, please tell me.

[Per Levy]

lets be honest, even if we can take that claim serious, it wont be used on for poor workers but for rich fucks as usual. so no one here should get their hopes up or anything.

[Socialism in One Planet]

don't know how i feel about this...could be the ultimate dream or the ultimate nightmare. either way it could turn out to be a pipe dream so it's better to come to terms with your own mortality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First of all; 'uploading' is a bogus concept because it relies on a Certesian dualisim. There is no mind irrespective of the brain. There is nothing to remove. At best; one could copy ones' experiences into an Artificial Intelligence, this, however, is not real immortality, because you haven't transferred the original consciousness, you've simply duplicated it.

That depends on the nature of the uploading process, surely? As I argue from here on (http://www.revleft.com/vb/immortality-but-not-t149546/index.html?p=2023993#post2023993), if done right there won't be at any point in time a "copy" of anything, just a single entity materially changing through time.


For this very reason existence as a software program, floating around the net, is pretty much impossible. Once it leaves the artificial brain; the consciousness would cease, it would simply be an extremely large collection of inert data, until it's returned to an artificial brain. Such an AI could access any computer connected to the internet, it could e-mail itself all over the globe (Or make an infinte number of copies of itself.) however, again, outside of an artificial brain, it would lose the capacity for consciousness. So; an AI would be about as tethered to it's physical housing as we are, the only difference is that it could instantaneously relocate to a new brain.

You obviously didn't read the linked Wiki article. The internet itself, in the form of the many various and changing computers currently connected to it, would be the "artificial brain". Although I will grant that at first such uploads wouldn't be as fast as those running on dedicated hardware.

Consciousness is a function, not a computer program. The same function can be performed by multiple programs working in concert. It's not dualism if one thinks subjective consciousness isn't something so special that only organic materials can perform that function.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea of "uploading" one's mind into some sort of computer is actually an extension of the anti-body dualism of Christianity. Ray Kurzweill and his mate's "Singularity" is not too different from Christian fundamentalism-its no accident its called the "Rapture for nerds".The fantasy writer Cat Valente had an interesting essay on Cotten Mather, the 17th century Puritan. With only slight modifications Mather's outlook could be used as singulatarian PR.

Yeah, bad Singularitarian PR. I remember somebody on this forum linked to a web page where Kurzweil was asked about something concerning gender roles or sexual relations or something like that, and I remember his reaction being facepalm-inducing. Obsessive cranks like Kurzweil are a major stumbling block and demonstrate a need for a cultural revolution in transhumanism generally.

As for the "Rapture", that depends how one defines a technological singularity. As far as I'm aware Singularitarians as a whole have not settled on a single authoritative definition. But regardless of how one defines it, waiting out one's entire life in the expectation of a single uncertain event, whether it be the Rapture, the Singularity or the Revolution, strikes me as unhealthy and frankly unfulfilling. Personally I don't think a technological Singularity is likely in my lifetime (and if it does happen, I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing depending on circumstances), in fact I'd be happy if we manage to avoid entering into a new dark age.

[piet11111]

If immortality was an option limited to the rich then that is one hell of an argument for communism.

[Rafiq]

If immortality was an option limited to the rich then that is one hell of an argument for communism.

In what way? I would, on the contrary, see it as one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in all of human history. I mean, if anything, it would be an argument in favor of retaining the capitalist mode of production, by many, because of the fact that our perception of the "technological constraint" capitalism has reached would be transformed, in a way. If capitalism is capable in sustaining such a breakthrough, that isn't at all an "argument for Communism". It really isn't an argument for anything, really.

[Dean]

This compells us to understand that we are more than our mere conciousness, we are the rest of our organs, our eyes, ears, etc. Which compel us to understand and articulate the material world around us from our specific point of view. Of course those things are means in which are consciousness interacts with the world, but only that specific form of consciousness. Just as a computer is not only it's Hard drive, you've got a processor, graphics card, RAM, and all other sorts of shit I don't care about.

Not exactly. The human body recreates itself constantly, to such an extent that most of the cells existing in your body become obsolete over a relatively short period.

What the human body is is a system. And it is the contiguity of its existence that proves consciousness. It is fine and well to copy the accumulated data in your neurological framework, but nothing about that implies a transfer of consciousness itself. If this were the case, why would it not be possible to maintain two copies of your consciousness and thereby exist simultaneously in multiple locations? It is inconsistent with the basic notions of time and space that you can transfer consciousness by simply copying data.

If we are talking about perpetual existence of the brain and whatever other body parts may be necessary to maintain life for the brain, there are serious issues to be resolved which don't seem to be mentioned originally. Human bodies cease to effectively recreate themselves after a certain period. Think of this like planned obsolescence: once the body reaches the upper end of its life cycle, all of its components start to fail because there was no reason for a neuron to evolve to survive for 500 years when human beings were lucky to live to 40.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, if this is true it will pose quite a many problems. We will either have to kill off a portion of the people, or ban sexual reproduction...

[o well this is ok I guess]

I don't really want to live forever, it would be boring. You're not exactly invulnerable, bruh. If life got boring you could pull the plug (possibly literally) at any time.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not exactly. The human body recreates itself constantly, to such an extent that most of the cells existing in your body become obsolete over a relatively short period.

What the human body is is a system. And it is the contiguity of its existence that proves consciousness. It is fine and well to copy the accumulated data in your neurological framework, but nothing about that implies a transfer of consciousness itself. If this were the case, why would it not be possible to maintain two copies of your consciousness and thereby exist simultaneously in multiple locations? It is inconsistent with the basic notions of time and space that you can transfer consciousness by simply copying data.

Well, in one of my posts above the process I talk about involves no wholesale copying of the systems responsible for consciousness. Rather, it involves the gradual migration in a piecewise fashion of the component functions to a different substrate.

Any copies of oneself would, I assume, be separate entities with their own sense of subjectivity, their own "viewpoint" so to speak. That subjectivity would presumably be similar to one's own, at least until the amount of experiences different from the original become sufficient to make the copy personally distinguishable.


If we are talking about perpetual existence of the brain and whatever other body parts may be necessary to maintain life for the brain, there are serious issues to be resolved which don't seem to be mentioned originally. Human bodies cease to effectively recreate themselves after a certain period. Think of this like planned obsolescence: once the body reaches the upper end of its life cycle, all of its components start to fail because there was no reason for a neuron to evolve to survive for 500 years when human beings were lucky to live to 40.

Even though it seems likely that extending the human lifespan will be a technically complicated task, I'm at least comforted by the fact that doing so doesn't seem to violate any fundamental physical rules. It appears that concentrating on the understand and improving the healing processes and discovering the details of what goes wrong with the immune system would be an endeavour liable to achieve worthwhile results. But that's just a semi-educated guess of mine.

[piet11111]

In what way? I would, on the contrary, see it as one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in all of human history. I mean, if anything, it would be an argument in favor of retaining the capitalist mode of production, by many, because of the fact that our perception of the "technological constraint" capitalism has reached would be transformed, in a way. If capitalism is capable in sustaining such a breakthrough, that isn't at all an "argument for Communism". It really isn't an argument for anything, really.


Because the poor might get a tad upset if they are told they where going to die because they are poor ?

I for one would lynch those rich bastards if they told me to go crawl in a corner and die.

[Rafiq]

Not exactly. The human body recreates itself constantly, to such an extent that most of the cells existing in your body become obsolete over a relatively short period.

What the human body is is a system. And it is the contiguity of its existence that proves consciousness. It is fine and well to copy the accumulated data in your neurological framework, but nothing about that implies a transfer of consciousness itself. If this were the case, why would it not be possible to maintain two copies of your consciousness and thereby exist simultaneously in multiple locations? It is inconsistent with the basic notions of time and space that you can transfer consciousness by simply copying data.

If we are talking about perpetual existence of the brain and whatever other body parts may be necessary to maintain life for the brain, there are serious issues to be resolved which don't seem to be mentioned originally. Human bodies cease to effectively recreate themselves after a certain period. Think of this like planned obsolescence: once the body reaches the upper end of its life cycle, all of its components start to fail because there was no reason for a neuron to evolve to survive for 500 years when human beings were lucky to live to 40.

Well, yes, I fucked up, I think though, later on in the post I corrected myself. I was just rambling.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at is: How exactly can we "transfer" our conciousness on a machine, by copying our neurological structure, if we can't do the same thing, should we find it necessary to clone ourselves (which is, in the same way, still copying our consciousnesses)? It's more or less exactly what you put forward.

[Rafiq]

Because the poor might get a tad upset if they are told they where going to die because they are poor ?

I for one would lynch those rich bastards if they told me to go crawl in a corner and die.

Right, well class war doesn't in essence amount to "rich vs. poor", although, most of the time, it appears that way.

[NGNM85]

That depends on the nature of the uploading process, surely? As I argue from here on (http://www.revleft.com/vb/immortality-but-not-t149546/index.html?p=2023993#post2023993), if done right there won't be at any point in time a "copy" of anything, just a single entity materially changing through time.

Yeah. I read that. I'm still not convinced. I still argue that you aren't transferring consciousness, at all, just slowly replacing it in an imperceptible way. That doesn't make the original template any less dead.


You obviously didn't read the linked Wiki article. The internet itself, in the form of the many various and changing computers currently connected to it, would be the "artificial brain". Although I will grant that at first such uploads wouldn't be as fast as those running on dedicated hardware.

Consciousness is a function, not a computer program. The same function can be performed by multiple programs working in concert. It's not dualism if one thinks subjective consciousness isn't something so special that only organic materials can perform that function.

I never meant to suggest anything of the kind. However; there's a difference between 'consciousness', and World of Warcraft. I, NGNM85, am, fundamentally the product of the data that is my knowledge, experiences, and perceptions, housed within a thinking machine, my brain. If you could copy all of the contents of my mind and load it onto a hard drive, the computer would never exhibit consciousness. Consciousness requires specific neural architecture, or an equivalent substitute. Such an AI could transfer it's mind between various networked artificial brains, even, theoretically, parts of artificial brain, but it would still be, inextricably, bound to those particular machines at every given moment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah. I read that. I'm still not convinced. I still argue that you aren't transferring consciousness, at all, just slowly replacing it in an imperceptible way. That doesn't make the original template any less dead.

How are you defining dead precisely?

True, the product of the process I described would no longer be human, but I would argue that ve/she would still constitute a person.


I never meant to suggest anything of the kind. However; there's a difference between 'consciousness', and World of Warcraft. I, NGNM85, am, fundamentally the product of the data that is my knowledge, experiences, and perceptions, housed within a thinking machine, my brain. If you could copy all of the contents of my mind and load it onto a hard drive, the computer would never exhibit consciousness. Consciousness requires specific neural architecture, or an equivalent substitute.

Are you saying that human neural architecture is non-computable? What is your objection?

You also persist in talking about copying when I am talking about a gradual migration of functions. Subjective mental experiences cannot, so far as I know, be reduced to single neurons, so the technological ability to reproduce neuronal functioning using hardware and software on a one-to-one basis should be sufficient to achieve successful migration of all salient mental functions.


Such an AI could transfer it's mind between various networked artificial brains, even, theoretically, parts of artificial brain, but it would still be, inextricably, bound to those particular machines at every given moment.

But "those particular machines" would be whatever is available and specified by the network code.

[milkmiku]

Not exactly. The human body recreates itself constantly, to such an extent that most of the cells existing in your body become obsolete over a relatively short period.

What the human body is is a system. And it is the contiguity of its existence that proves consciousness. It is fine and well to copy the accumulated data in your neurological framework, but nothing about that implies a transfer of consciousness itself. If this were the case, why would it not be possible to maintain two copies of your consciousness and thereby exist simultaneously in multiple locations? It is inconsistent with the basic notions of time and space that you can transfer consciousness by simply copying data.

If we are talking about perpetual existence of the brain and whatever other body parts may be necessary to maintain life for the brain, there are serious issues to be resolved which don't seem to be mentioned originally. Human bodies cease to effectively recreate themselves after a certain period. Think of this like planned obsolescence: once the body reaches the upper end of its life cycle, all of its components start to fail because there was no reason for a neuron to evolve to survive for 500 years when human beings were lucky to live to 40.


Let me to remind you, We know how to reverse and undo the affects of aging. We have done it. So that is a moot point.

[Dean]

Even though it seems likely that extending the human lifespan will be a technically complicated task, I'm at least comforted by the fact that doing so doesn't seem to violate any fundamental physical rules. It appears that concentrating on the understand and improving the healing processes and discovering the details of what goes wrong with the immune system would be an endeavour liable to achieve worthwhile results. But that's just a semi-educated guess of mine.

I honestly have utmost confidence in the ability of mankind to aspire to great ends, if we can keep from ruining our habitat and start accounting for the net changes we make to to the environment.

The one thing I fear with prolonged life is insanity. I think the risk for it only goes up as you age, and I am skeptical that simply resolving many of the health needs of human beings, including mental, can stop this past a certain age. None of this is to say that we should abandon life-expanding research, though.

[NGNM85]

How are you defining dead precisely?

'Dead', as in; 'deceased.' To paraphrase John Cleese; 'This person has ceased to be!'


True, the product of the process I described would no longer be human, but I would argue that ve/she would still constitute a person.

Absolutely, but not the person you started with. It would be a you, NoXon, but not you, not this NoXion. Call him; 'NoXion 2.0.'


Are you saying that human neural architecture is non-computable? What is your objection?

You also persist in talking about copying when I am talking about a gradual migration of functions. Subjective mental experiences cannot, so far as I know, be reduced to single neurons, so the technological ability to reproduce neuronal functioning using hardware and software on a one-to-one basis should be sufficient to achieve successful migration of all salient mental functions.

My objection is that, like Iron Man, and his suit, (Especially post-Extremis.) me, and my brain are one. you can, gradually, replace my neural architecture, piece by piece, in such a gradual and subtle way that I may not notice it, but at some point I cease to exist, and in my place is a cyborg with my memories. You can say, ethically, it's a wash, because you've covered your losses, but that doesn't help me, that doesn't help you. Frankly; I could care less if there is an immortal cyborg walking around with my memories.


But "those particular machines" would be whatever is available and specified by the network code.

Again; those machines would have to be constructed to function as artifical brains. Like I was saying; you could put the contents of my mind into a hard disk, and the computer will never display consciousness, without a thinking machine; it's just inert data. There's no reason why every computer, or even most computers would be constructed to facilitate consciousness. This probably isn't conducive to other sorts of operations. Furthermore; as I said, said entities would be just as bound to their artificial brains as I am to mine. Neo may have the experience of wandering throughout the Matrix, (I'm only speaking in terms of the first film, here.) but in actuality, he is stationary aboard the Nebuchadnezzar. This is just information that he is accessing, via a global network, that provides the illusion that his consciousness is travelling outside his body, when, in truth, it hasn't gone anywhere.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

'Dead', as in; 'deceased.' To paraphrase John Cleese; 'This person has ceased to be!'

That might work for comedy, but for medical and legal purposes it lacks precision. The parrot in the sketch had no heart rate or brain activity, and thus could be definitively said to be dead. However, in the case of an the hypothetical uploading process I described, there would arguably still be brain activity at least in the uploadee. Is personhood invalidated by the lack of a heart rate?


Absolutely, but not the person you started with. It would be a you, NoXon, but not you, not this NoXion. Call him; 'NoXion 2.0.'

But that's why I talked about one no longer being the person one was ten years ago. They're not the same but there is continuity in that the two are causally connected while retaining function.


My objection is that, like Iron Man, and his suit, (Especially post-Extremis.) me, and my brain are one. you can, gradually, replace my neural architecture, piece by piece, in such a gradual and subtle way that I may not notice it, but at some point I cease to exist, and in my place is a cyborg with my memories. You can say, ethically, it's a wash, because you've covered your losses, but that doesn't help me, that doesn't help you. Frankly; I could care less if there is an immortal cyborg walking around with my memories.

How does it not help?


Again; those machines would have to be constructed to function as artifical brains. Like I was saying; you could put the contents of my mind into a hard disk, and the computer will never display consciousness, without a thinking machine; it's just inert data. There's no reason why every computer, or even most computers would be constructed to facilitate consciousness. This probably isn't conducive to other sorts of operations.

Why? With the right software I can play a PlayStation game on a desktop PC, an environment it wasn't actually designed to operate in. Even without "official" Sony hardware, emulation software usually allows one to map the controls to standard PC inputs, allowing one to play the game. Computers are flexible tools, like pens and notebooks (except they can't be programmed to write things themselves in response to input), rather than single-purpose like spanners and wire-strippers.

What's so special about the functions of consciousness that they cannot be similarly reproduced? Especially on a platform designed to be flexible functions-wise? Sure I may no longer be using the Mark One Eyeball to receive visual input, but I would have a whole array of hardware to choose from potentially.


Furthermore; as I said, said entities would be just as bound to their artificial brains as I am to mine. Neo may have the experience of wandering throughout the Matrix, (I'm only speaking in terms of the first film, here.) but in actuality, he is stationary aboard the Nebuchadnezzar. This is just information that he is accessing, via a global network, that provides the illusion that his consciousness is travelling outside his body, when, in truth, it hasn't gone anywhere.

That's because the functions responsible for Neo's consciousness are still located solely in his brain. Physically speaking, a distributed consciousness based on the internet would be in all kinds of little bits scattered in hard drives across the globe, although all the parts currently connected to the internet would be in communication with the others, and would also be maintaining a local cache in active memory. It is that dynamic system as a whole that would produce consciousness, rather than any single part.

[sublime]

This is a horrible idea. Death is part of life. We should not play God, even if God is only the timeless void.

[Rugged Collectivist]

This is a horrible idea. Death is part of life.

Yes. It's a bad part, like polio, would you argue against curing that?


We should not play God,

Why not?


even if God is only the timeless void.

What the hell do you mean by "the timeless void"? No one thinks this shit is deep.

[The Burgundy Rose]

has it occured to anyone else that in order for this to be financially viable then only a handful of people will be financially capable of extending their lifespan indefinitely. in other words the rich, meaning our oppressors, will live on incessantly, intransigent in their extravagant life style, while the rest of us work and die in order to perpetuate said life. it would create two distinct breeds of human; the workers and the princes, and there would be no social mobility because the princes would never pass away, they would always remain to keep others from attaining their share of the wealth and what with them having lived so long they would be more experienced and adept at suppressing any attempt to change the system, while the oppressed will always change and so their memory of past transgressions will always eventually fade. i think that this is a horrible vision of the future with many dire consequences as yet unforeseen.

and to be quite honest i don't think that people like bob diamond and the execs at goldman sachs are the sort of people i want to see living forever, eternally presiding dubiously over the state like some dark and pervasive shadow lurking within the decadent halls of government. never dying, never relenting, never changing. these narcissists cannot be allowed to procure this kind of technology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

has it occured to anyone else that in order for this to be financially viable then only a handful of people will be financially capable of extending their lifespan indefinitely.

That assumes that the contradictions of capitalism (the ones that are already present, that is) do not engender its collapse before the financial-economic problems associated with an immortal subsection of the population crop up.

What is the basis for this assumption?


in other words the rich, meaning our oppressors, will live on incessantly, intransigent in their extravagant life style, while the rest of us work and die in order to perpetuate said life. it would create two distinct breeds of human; the workers and the princes, and there would be no social mobility because the princes would never pass away,

They would still have to deal with accidents, diseases unrelated to aging, and murder. Immortality =/= invulnerability.


they would always remain to keep others from attaining their share of the wealth and what with them having lived so long they would be more experienced and adept at suppressing any attempt to change the system, while the oppressed will always change and so their memory of past transgressions will always eventually fade.

You mean this isn't already happening, for the most part? News to me. Given that the bourgeoisie already control education...


and to be quite honest i don't think that people like bob diamond and the execs at goldman sachs are the sort of people i want to see living forever, eternally presiding dubiously over the state like some dark and pervasive shadow lurking within the decadent halls of government. never dying, never relenting, never changing. these narcissists cannot be allowed to procure this kind of technology.

The thing is, I strongly suspect that the alienation of the capitalist classes from the rest of society will be a factor in the downfall of capitalism, immortality or no. I think I've already pointed out that the inherent instability of capitalism is a bum deal for anyone who can live for centuries or more, no matter their personal wealth (which can be lost).

[The Burgundy Rose]

That assumes that the contradictions of capitalism (the ones that are already present, that is) do not engender its collapse before the financial-economic problems associated with an immortal subsection of the population crop up.

What is the basis for this assumption?

You ostensibly assume that there will be a change in the status quo by 2045. what is the basis for this assumption? if you think that something will happen to change the current socio economic structure then please enlighten me as to the cause of that change in my thread 'what are the prerequisites of communism' in the opposing ideologies forum



They would still have to deal with accidents, diseases unrelated to aging, and murder. Immortality =/= invulnerability.

undoubtedly true. i do not contend this. immortality will not be achieved; merely an indefinite extension of one's life. this is still a contentious issue that should never be trivialised.



You mean this isn't already happening, for the most part? News to me. Given that the bourgeoisie already control education...

it is happening. but the key difference is that those behind the oppressing in the present change. and change ceates instability as the system has to readjust itself. with "immortals" running the show there would be no change, no rocky alterations in order to get to grips with the deaths of significant players. the people at the top's existence would be far more intransigent and the system as a result would be far more stable.


The thing is, I strongly suspect that the alienation of the capitalist classes from the rest of society will be a factor in the downfall of capitalism, immortality or no. I think I've already pointed out that the inherent instability of capitalism is a bum deal for anyone who can live for centuries or more, no matter their personal wealth (which can be lost).

ok. please could you extrapolate on this point in my aforementioned thread as i think this is an interesting point and i would like to hear it in it's entirety.cheers.

thank you for your reply. ;)

[Камо́ Зэд]

What the Russian scientists aren't telling us is the true method by which they hope to achieve immortality. The technology of locating dragon-balls has been in the works since the early days of the Soviet Union, back when the Red Army was referred to as the Red Ribbon Army.

[Robespierres Neck]

I'm going to have to see this one to believe it can be done.

Regardless, it's fascinating.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You ostensibly assume that there will be a change in the status quo by 2045.

No I don't. Find one quote authored by myself that supports the notion of a change in status quo by 2045.


if you think that something will happen to change the current socio economic structure then please enlighten me as to the cause of that change in my thread 'what are the prerequisites of communism' in the opposing ideologies forum

I never claimed to have any knowledge of precisely how or when capitalism will pass away - only that it is inherently unstable.


undoubtedly true. i do not contend this. immortality will not be achieved; merely an indefinite extension of one's life. this is still a contentious issue that should never be trivialised.

The thing is, the longer one lives, the greater the chance is one will have a life-threatening accident or some other similar event.


it is happening. but the key difference is that those behind the oppressing in the present change. and change ceates instability as the system has to readjust itself. with "immortals" running the show there would be no change, no rocky alterations in order to get to grips with the deaths of significant players. the people at the top's existence would be far more intransigent and the system as a result would be far more stable.

The "instability" you speak of does not exist, as capitalism has existed for multiple generations without toppling. This is down to pre-established mechanisms for maintaining hegemony suchas the aforementioned control of education and also things such as inheritence of property, which serves to keep wealth in the family.


ok. please could you extrapolate on this point in my aforementioned thread as i think this is an interesting point and i would like to hear it in it's entirety.cheers.

It's a suspicion, not a fully-fleshed out hypothesis.

[Orange Juche]

We should not play God


Why not?

Humans are short sighted enough that we don't usually take into account the consequences of technological improvement that can be negative. Basically - I don't think as a species, as a whole, we're responsible enough.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Humans are short sighted enough that we don't usually take into account the consequences of technological improvement that can be negative. Basically - I don't think as a species, as a whole, we're responsible enough.

This is a valid concern. We should be responsible about technological advancement,but we shouldn't let our fear halt it completely

Besides, this opportunity is too important to pass up. Immortality would be the most significant advancement ever made. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take a few risks if it means humanity might finally conquer death.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Humans are short sighted enough that we don't usually take into account the consequences of technological improvement that can be negative. Basically - I don't think as a species, as a whole, we're responsible enough.

So we should abandon the ability to make fire? After all, brush fires and wildfires are still being accidentally started by careless humans to this day.

Also, it's not as if "God" (or rather, nature since God doesn't exist) does much of a better job. Most of the Earth's surface is inhospitable to a human in a natural state (i.e. naked), human bodies are riddled with the kind of design flaws that would get any human engineer quickly sacked, and all because the universe is ultimately purposeless and is therefore completely indifferent to our welfare.

In other words, we have to "play God" because there's no-one else to fill in the part. We have to be able to look after ourselves.

[Bombay]

It's our duty to make room for next generations, not to live forever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's our duty to make room for next generations, not to live forever.

Who says it's our duty? Your statement also begs the question of how living forever is necessarily a barrier to "making room" (whatever that means).

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's our duty to make room for next generations, not to live forever.

Fuck that! Who makes these supposedly natural duties? You?

[MotherCossack]

well yeah!
i am tempted to agree with the fuck that sentiment.... but what follows.... less so...

eternal youth??? i'll have some of that, by all means.....
eternal life? well that depends on the expected quality of such a life, especially as time passes....
if aging continues to be an issue, as i expect it will.....

who wants to be a 30000 year old itsy bitsy paper doll with more wrinkles than a tin of prunes and ears as big as houses.

if my 99 year old grandpa was to be consulted .....he would say
"hell no.... my body has disappeared up my arsehole, my head seems to be heading in the same direction... and my legs have completely forgotten what they were ever used for."

[Philosophos]

well what is going to happen to our insticts? I mean they're all in our brain, what will happen if we have the brain but not the penis and vagina to satisfy the instict of reproduction?

What are they gonna do electrify the places of the brain that work when you have sex? It might be fun the first 10 times but then what? You will also miss actual human contact (even though I'm not sure if they can make actual human contact with some scientific way). Anyway if they can't make human contact then we will all have psychological problems. It's not natural not touching other people. Even the babies show this to us.

Anyway I'm tottaly against it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well what is going to happen to our insticts? I mean they're all in our brain, what will happen if we have the brain but not the penis and vagina to satisfy the instict of reproduction?

Our reproductive urges come from our brains, not our genitals. If brain functions are preserved then the urge to reproduce will be as well.


What are they gonna do electrify the places of the brain that work when you have sex? It might be fun the first 10 times but then what? You will also miss actual human contact (even though I'm not sure if they can make actual human contact with some scientific way). Anyway if they can't make human contact then we will all have psychological problems. It's not natural not touching other people. Even the babies show this to us.

There's no reason why an uploadee shouldn't be able to feel things. We can already make artificial sensors more sensitive and discriminating than natural human ones.


Anyway I'm tottaly against it.

Why?

[MotherCossack]

well yeah!
i am tempted to agree with the fuck that sentiment.... but what follows.... less so...

eternal youth??? i'll have some of that, by all means.....
eternal life? well that depends on the expected quality of such a life, especially as time passes....
if aging continues to be an issue, as i expect it will.....

who wants to be a 30000 year old itsy bitsy paper doll with more wrinkles than a tin of prunes and ears as big as houses.

if my 99 year old grandpa was to be consulted .....he would say
"hell no.... my body has disappeared up my arsehole, my head seems to be heading in the same direction... and my legs have completely forgotten what they were ever used for."

and there is another little problem, what will we all do when the huge piles of immortals start to topple off the poor overwhelmed planet earth?

[milkmiku]

and there is another little problem, what will we all do when the huge piles of immortals start to topple off the poor overwhelmed planet earth?

Current(bulltshit) estimate of the Earths carrying capacity is about 14 billion. Shut up worker E2-321443 and accept our over population myth, pay those taxes, eat less, live in your hole! Ignore that we've been screaming about the over population of the eart since the 1800s, It is happening!

anyway

Hive cities, floating cities, Space colonies, mars, mother ships, ect ect.



People here talking about "g_ds realm" and "our natural duties" Really now?

If a creator did not want us to do something, then why would he give us the capability to do so?

About the "finical availability" of this, Remember an ageless person is an eternal debt slave.

Science has always mimicked science fiction, this will be a reality, sooner or later.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

and there is another little problem, what will we all do when the huge piles of immortals start to topple off the poor overwhelmed planet earth?

What makes you think that nobody in the meantime would have thought of living somewhere else apart from the surface of the Earth?

Indeed, if the process of achieving immortality is one that turns the person from a human into a machine (like uploading), then it becomes even easier to live somewhere in space.

A lot of these one-line statements and questions strike me as being based on misconceptions of human behaviour. It's like assuming that if humans found a way of getting all the chocolate they could ever want, then two weeks later the entire universe would be filled end-to-end with confectionery. Well, no. People may end up eating more chocolate than they otherwise would have, but humans enjoy a variety of flavours and I can imagine one would get bored of chocolate if getting hold of it became absolutely trivial.

[Bombay]

Who says it's our duty? Your statement also begs the question of how living forever is necessarily a barrier to "making room" (whatever that means).

There would be too much population if everyone lived forever. Our planet is not that big.


If a creator did not want us to do something, then why would he give us the capability to do so?

We also have the ability to NOT do things we are capable of.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There would be too much population if everyone lived forever. Our planet is not that big.

That rather depends on the nature and circumstances of immortality, doesn't it? If people are living indefinitely then why are we to assume that they are having children at the same rate they do now?


We also have the ability to NOT do things we are capable of.

Sure, but unless there's a very good reason not to, then people should be allowed to pursue whatever they desire. It's the basic libertarian (note small L) position; "all that is not forbidden is permissible" as opposed to the authoritarian position of "all that is not permitted is forbidden".

[Philosophos]

Our reproductive urges come from our brains, not our genitals. If brain functions are preserved then the urge to reproduce will be as well.



There's no reason why an uploadee shouldn't be able to feel things. We can already make artificial sensors more sensitive and discriminating than natural human ones.



Why?

OK I see your points and some of them if not all of them are true, but I just don't like the idea. People get bored even now that they have a short life imagine what would happen if we lived forever.

At the same time imagine how many of the bad guys will get this. Evil for eternity that's something that I don't want to see. And ofcourse the only people that will get it are the rich people. Rich people are capitalists. Rich, capitalists are a grave threat to the society imagine if they become some sort of immortals.... Do you think they will stop until they get every single power in this planet until they play chess with countries (even though they are doing it already)?

You can say that I'm overreacting but it's possible and I'm not surprised anymore by anything that they can do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

OK I see your points and some of them if not all of them are true, but I just don't like the idea. People get bored even now that they have a short life imagine what would happen if we lived forever.

...we would find new things to do? Boredom sucks, but it's temporary (unlike death), and I certainly would rather be bored than dead.


At the same time imagine how many of the bad guys will get this. Evil for eternity that's something that I don't want to see. And ofcourse the only people that will get it are the rich people. Rich people are capitalists. Rich, capitalists are a grave threat to the society imagine if they become some sort of immortals....

Then at least there is always the possibility of them being tried for their crimes. A murderous tyrant who died peacefully in their bed is forever beyond the reach of proletarian justice.


Do you think they will stop until they get every single power in this planet until they play chess with countries (even though they are doing it already)?

I think I see what you mean, but consider this; there is more to being in the ruling-class "club" than a long life or even significant wealth (although both those things can help, of course). The longer one lives, then the greater chance one has of losing most or all of one's wealth and/or influence in the casino-economy of capitalism. This means that every member of a ruling minority of immortals would, sooner or later, face a major loss of social and economic status under capitalism. An immortal has another eternity in which they can regain their wealth and influence, of course, but the rise will be much slower than the fall, if it is even possible at all (depending on the degree of social mobility present).

In short, if one is immortal, then the contradictions inherent in capitalism will not only become unmistakeable, but they will have personal consequences! It's one thing to raid a load of workers' savings and pensions in the certain knowledge that one will be dead or in the Bahamas by the time the shit hits the fan, but it's quite another prospect to do so when there is the very real possibility of personal consequences for it later.

My guess is that if something else doesn't happen to capitalism first, then the emergence of immortal individuals will be it's death knell.

[Bombay]

I would make Dick Cheney immortal and make him suffer in prison for eternity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would make Dick Cheney immortal and make him suffer in prison for eternity.

Which would make you worse than him, actually. What justice is there in administering infinite punishments for finite crimes?

[Bombay]

Which would make you worse than him, actually. What justice is there in administering infinite punishments for finite crimes?

Then I would only make him think he's immortal and then lock him for the rest of his life. Fair enough?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Then I would only make him think he's immortal and then lock him for the rest of his life. Fair enough?

Why not just execute him? Assuming there's nothing we could do to re-write his personality, in effect changing him into a different person.

Imprisonment often turns out to be merely a particularly vile and slow-working method of breaking people, torturing them over the decades with crappy conditions. There's also indications that the very institution of imprisonment is detrimental to both prisoners and those guarding them. Ever heard of the Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Why not just execute him? Assuming there's nothing we could do to re-write his personality, in effect changing him into a different person.


Rewriting someones personality is a thousand times more horrifying than death or life imprisonment.

[Igor]

Yeah it's precisely what we want, to know that white rich old men are not going to drop dead soon anyways but instead, remain white rich old men.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Rewriting someones personality is a thousand times more horrifying than death or life imprisonment.

How so? The former allows a life to turn over a new leaf, the latter involves terminating that life and permanently turning it to shit, respectively.

[Rugged Collectivist]

How so? The former allows a life to turn over a new leaf, the latter involves terminating that life and permanently turning it to shit, respectively.

It's unethical. It's no different from breaking someone down in a prison and rebuilding them. It's just faster.

Also, what could possibly go wrong if the government literally erased any of your thoughts they deemed dangerous? Like in a clockwork orange.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's unethical. It's no different from breaking someone down in a prison and rebuilding them. It's just faster.

What if it was quick, painless, and reversible, unlike death or imprisonment?


Also, what could possibly go wrong if the government literally erased any of your thoughts they deemed dangerous? Like in a clockwork orange.

I'm not saying I'd trust a bourgeois state with such an ability. They fuck up the death penalty badly enough already.

[milkmiku]

Yeah it's precisely what we want, to know that white rich old men are not going to drop dead soon anyways but instead, remain white rich old men.

There are more rich non-whites, you would know this if you bothered paying attention to things outside of your subdivision. I'm considered rich and I'm a third generation Korean immigrant. Class oppression is not about race, not wanting to drop dead i also not abut race.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are more rich non-whites, you would know this if you bothered paying attention to things outside of your subdivision. I'm considered rich and I'm a third generation Korean immigrant. Class oppression is not about race, not wanting to drop dead i also not abut race.

OK cross out the "white" part and just leave the "rich old men" bit.

Although I am genuinely curious as to how what proportion of the bourgeois elites that are interested in immortality would be willing to consider uploading. I could easily see them being comfortable with something like a pill you take once and *BAM* you're immortal, but I'm wondering how many of them would have the same "ick" reaction that I see some people have to the process when it is described to them in detail (as it would be if they elected to go for it themselves, as in a medical procedure).

[Rugged Collectivist]

What if it was quick, painless, and reversible, unlike death or imprisonment?



I'm not saying I'd trust a bourgeois state with such an ability. They fuck up the death penalty badly enough already.

The only way I could see myself accepting this is if it was a choice given to the prisoner. For example, they could be offered death, imprisonment, or reprogramming. Since we're talking about a hypothetical communist society I don't think the resource strain of extended imprisonment would be a big deal since money would be abolished.



OK cross out the "white" part and just leave the "rich old men" bit.

Although I am genuinely curious as to how what proportion of the bourgeois elites that are interested in immortality would be willing to consider uploading. I could easily see them being comfortable with something like a pill you take once and *BAM* you're immortal, but I'm wondering how many of them would have the same "ick" reaction that I see some people have to the process when it is described to them in detail (as it would be if they elected to go for it themselves, as in a medical procedure).

I think they'd get over it. These are people who would do pretty much anything for power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The only way I could see myself accepting this is if it was a choice given to the prisoner. For example, they could be offered death, imprisonment, or reprogramming. Since we're talking about a hypothetical communist society I don't think the resource strain of extended imprisonment would be a big deal since money would be abolished.

Actually when it comes to imprisonment, I think there are reasons to be concerned about the effect of that institution on society as a whole, not just guards and prisoners. Placing society's transgressors into one big house, along with the adversarial relationship between prisoners and guards, creates an entirely negative social dynamic. Nobody really wants to be there, and it won't be long before that is reflected in the behaviour of guards/prisoners, which will have implications for wider society. I also don't like the idea of criminal networks of any kind being able to operate, which I'm sure will happen in any prison.

Execution and reprogramming lack those negative social characteristics, because the former involves the permanent removal of an individual from society, and the latter a transformation of one individual into another, who then goes on to be a part of society.

The permanence of death is what bothers me about capital punishment (assuming that it is not being done in a brutal or unjust manner, of course), so in light of the lack of any means to resurrect people (and thus reverse any miscarriage of justice), I'm very interested in non-custodial alternatives.


I think they'd get over it. These are people who would do pretty much anything for power.

Would that include undergoing personality changes that they may not be able to predict before uploading? It might turn out that the substance of one's brain does indeed matter and that people's minds react variously to the process of being rendered in silico, or that the rapid and easy manipulation of one's personality offered by the nature of being a software entity (change values here and there, add different weighting to this or that) leads to a rapid progression of character alterations.

Or hell, there may even be social considerations. Just because uploading may be possible doesn't mean it will be universally accepted. It might be seen as the life choice of ubergeeks wanting to bring on the Nerdrapture, and it seems that definitely there will be a strong negative reaction to it from certain religious and philosophical quarters.

I can just imagine the Pope or some imam thundering against such "abominations", as well as snotty little essays written by ivory tower academics explaining with smug self-satisfaction how machines couldn't possibly be capable of intelligence and thus we shouldn't give uploads rights.

[Sir Comradical]

I think eventually technology will evolve to the point where upon the physical death of the human body, the consciousness of the brain will be uploaded into a digital matrix style hedonistic pleasure land and allowed to roam free. That way no one will be afraid of death and religion would have absolutely nothing to offer.

No I haven't been smoking some serious shit.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Actually when it comes to imprisonment, I think there are reasons to be concerned about the effect of that institution on society as a whole, not just guards and prisoners. Placing society's transgressors into one big house, along with the adversarial relationship between prisoners and guards, creates an entirely negative social dynamic. Nobody really wants to be there, and it won't be long before that is reflected in the behaviour of guards/prisoners, which will have implications for wider society. I also don't like the idea of criminal networks of any kind being able to operate, which I'm sure will happen in any prison.

Execution and reprogramming lack those negative social characteristics, because the former involves the permanent removal of an individual from society, and the latter a transformation of one individual into another, who then goes on to be a part of society.

The permanence of death is what bothers me about capital punishment (assuming that it is not being done in a brutal or unjust manner, of course), so in light of the lack of any means to resurrect people (and thus reverse any miscarriage of justice), I'm very interested in non-custodial alternatives.

What if prisons were run more humanely, with a focus on rehabilitation? Imprisonment would be much easier to bear if the prisoners were actually treated like human beings. I envision something like apartment buildings in a heavily guarded fenced in area.



Would that include undergoing personality changes that they may not be able to predict before uploading? It might turn out that the substance of one's brain does indeed matter and that people's minds react variously to the process of being rendered in silico, or that the rapid and easy manipulation of one's personality offered by the nature of being a software entity (change values here and there, add different weighting to this or that) leads to a rapid progression of character alterations.

Surely the rich would test all of this on volunteers before they used it themselves?


Or hell, there may even be social considerations. Just because uploading may be possible doesn't mean it will be universally accepted. It might be seen as the life choice of ubergeeks wanting to bring on the Nerdrapture, and it seems that definitely there will be a strong negative reaction to it from certain religious and philosophical quarters.

I can just imagine the Pope or some imam thundering against such "abominations", as well as snotty little essays written by ivory tower academics explaining with smug self-satisfaction how machines couldn't possibly be capable of intelligence and thus we shouldn't give uploads rights.

The pope's authority pretty much stops at the borders of Vatican city. The pope opposes birth control and abortions yet these things are widely available. Countries like Iran might actually be able to enforce a ban, but that could always be circumvented by, you know, going to another country.

There will certainly be a backlash, but how large and effective it will be remains to be seen.

[khad]

What if prisons were run more humanely, with a focus on rehabilitation? Imprisonment would be much easier to bear if the prisoners were actually treated like human beings. I envision something like apartment buildings in a heavily guarded fenced in area.
What is the rehabilitative purpose of an infinite term of incarceration?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is the rehabilitative purpose of an infinite term of incarceration?

Well if society had both prisons and immortal individuals, then those immortals could be made to serve sentences in the centuries or more, rather than be locked up permanently.

Personally I don't think prison is the optimum solution, immortality or otherwise.

[Rugged Collectivist]

What is the rehabilitative purpose of an infinite term of incarceration?

I never suggested infinite incarceration in that post. If you're referring to my earlier post, I will have to clarify. I only supported indefinite incarceration as an alternative to death and reprogramming in extreme cases. Ideally I think a person should be detained for as long as their rehabilitation takes.