Mind transfer science could prevent you from dying in future
By Futuretalk
While hiking in the mountains, you accidentally set off an explosive device that destroys your body completely. Is this the end of your life? Nope, it’s not even an inconvenience. Robots at the Body Replacement Center sense your situation and order nanobots to construct a ‘new you’ with mind, memories, personality, and all cognitive abilities intact. In minutes, your new body is air-lifted to the accident location; and you are not even aware that you had died.
Although today, this scenario sounds more like fiction than science, by mid-century, positive futurists believe that molecular nanotechnology and advancing mind scanning technologies will enable our lives to continue in this manner regardless of any catastrophe that may befall us.
Author James Gardner in The Intelligent Universe claims brain scanning technology is doubling each year, and scanners can now image individual neuron connections and their interactions. For the first time, we can watch our brain create thoughts, and observe how thoughts generate new spines and synapses when we learn something new.
Replacing biological brains with non-biological material is in beginning stages today. Doctors have successfully implanted an electronic chip to replace cells destroyed by Parkinson’s disease. And in the future, artificial neurons made from nanomaterials could replace all biological brain cells giving us the amazing ability to think and process information millions of times faster than we can today.
Foresight Institute consultant John Burch believes that neuron replacement could become commonplace by as early as late 2030s, and he describes how these upgrades would be accomplished. “A daily pill would supply materials and instructions for nanobots to format new neurons and position them next to existing biological cells to be replaced. These changes would be unnoticeable to us, but within six months, we would be enjoying the benefits of a powerful new brain.”
As we begin to use our new brain, we would not be aware that our mind had been switched from one set of brain cells to another. And when our mind is transferred from a destroyed body to a new one, this move will also be unnoticeable.
Utilizing non-biological neurons will allow easy interface with supercomputers; our life history then becomes software that can be simulated, expanded; even improved on if we desire; and the program will always be ready for transfer into a new body, should we encounter disaster.
Will people accept non-biological neurons into their brains? By 2030, the NIH predicts nanobots will be whizzing through our veins monitoring health and modifying DNA or RNAi instructions to protect us from sickness and disease, and help us maintain perfect youthful health, indefinitely.
As we become comfortable with nanobots keeping our bodies in shape, we will be more receptive to other non-biological innovations. Futurist Ray Kurzweil believes that humans will one day become 100% non-biological. “This is just a natural step,” Kurzweil says, “Our species has always been the one that strives to improve itself.”
Of course, no one can predict for sure how our “magical future” will unfold, but the possibilities exist for mind transfers, and given the desire of each individual to opt for life over death, this science could become reality.
This article will appear in various print media and blogs; comments welcome. See other published work by Futuretalk at http://www.positivefuturist.com and click on the “published work” tab.
do we really want this
Why Brain Transfers?
Today’s technologies like cochlear implants, titanium hip replacements, artificial hearts, and brain implants to correct damage from Parkinson’s disease will lead to technologies that not only help the sick and disabled, but will eventually be used to enhance normal bodies providing greater power and many new abilities.
One of the more revolutionary enhancements includes replacing brain cells with non-biological neurons made from nanomaterials. This change will enable people to process information millions of times faster than slow biological brains can. When faced with decisions, we could run thousands of simulations in a split second to determine the correct action. Experts predict this will eliminate much of today’s crime and negative behavior and eventually will lead to a crime-free world.
Utilizing brain transfer techniques will eliminate facing an unwanted death. Human desire for survival, to not die, has been a hallmark of life ever since the first organisms rose from Earth’s primordial soup, and will not go away anytime soon.
Remember though, this technology will not be accepted by everyone, but those who reject these advancements will eventually die out, leaving only enhanced humans to go forward into the future.
Brain transfers just make sense. When the choice is death or transferring your brain into a ‘new you”, no one with enhanced neurons would select death.
Granted, we have a long ways to go before this forward technology can become reality, but with nanotech and infotech advancing exponentially over the next four-to-five decades, this miracle could happen on the schedule mentioned in the article.
Comments welcome.
Today’s technologies like cochlear implants, titanium hip replacements, artificial hearts, and brain implants to correct damage from Parkinson’s disease will lead to technologies that not only help the sick and disabled, but will eventually be used to enhance normal bodies providing greater power and many new abilities.
One of the more revolutionary enhancements includes replacing brain cells with non-biological neurons made from nanomaterials. This change will enable people to process information millions of times faster than slow biological brains can. When faced with decisions, we could run thousands of simulations in a split second to determine the correct action. Experts predict this will eliminate much of today’s crime and negative behavior and eventually will lead to a crime-free world.
Utilizing brain transfer techniques will eliminate facing an unwanted death. Human desire for survival, to not die, has been a hallmark of life ever since the first organisms rose from Earth’s primordial soup, and will not go away anytime soon.
Remember though, this technology will not be accepted by everyone, but those who reject these advancements will eventually die out, leaving only enhanced humans to go forward into the future.
Brain transfers just make sense. When the choice is death or transferring your brain into a ‘new you”, no one with enhanced neurons would select death.
Granted, we have a long ways to go before this forward technology can become reality, but with nanotech and infotech advancing exponentially over the next four-to-five decades, this miracle could happen on the schedule mentioned in the article.
Comments welcome.
Cute 10-minute video on Mind Transfer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KJj9M-w1Js
the particular scenario you describe in the first post is unlikely - but some flaws i see are not with the concept of mind transfer itself.
- nanobots being able to copy your mind in the instant just before it is destroyed doesn't sound probable. some quite advanced form of danger detection would be needed, and it still likely won't be 100% guaranteed to work in time; an alternative is some kind of live backup/mirroring happening at all times, with or without danger - but that seems like overdoing it; perhaps a periodically scheduled backup is the most feasible - but when worse comes to worse, you will not be fully recovered, instead rolled back to the last savepoint.
- transporting your new body to the accident location also seems unreasonable. why not just wake you up in the safety of the lab?
you want to discuss mind transfer - focus on mind transfer then.
i just don't understand why you decorate your post with so many additional, distracting aspects. is there any sense in discussing the likelyhood of those aspects here - certainly not, they are not central to the actual concept this thread is about.
but then, if you don't want them discused and the thread taken out of topic, just don't include them to begin with.
and then there are things which _are_ related to the topic of mind transfer, but you didn't mention.
for example, its obvious that when mind transfer is possible, so would be mind copying, including altered copies. from here quite a lot of ethical problems and discussions can arise.
also, if mind transfer works with some sort of artificial brains, composed of artificial neurons, still inside a biological head - it will obviously work with completely artificial bodies, and even no bodies at all. physical artificial neurons would not be needed - a virtual, emulated neuron network will function just fine. one central supercomputer could be emulating many human minds at once. these minds may be connected to physical reality though bodies with real sensory inputs and motors... but may also not, instead living in a completely virtual reality, ala matrix.
it would be interesting to speculate about how exactly we might eventually accomplish mind transfer. obviously, the approach you outlined - replacing biological neurons with artificial ones - can work some day. we may never be able to understand the brain as a whole, but a single neuron should be easy to emulate. and then we just replace the real thing neuron by neuron... it is a possibility.
perhaps we will discover AI long before we are able to understand or reconstruct our own brains. AI that will be much more capable than our brains to begin with. AI that will be able to do what we can't - understand the human brain. AI that will make the human brain, and humans in general, seem outdated and unnecessary. AI that will replace humans. And maybe, just out of pity, it will preserve some human "brains" by emulating them in a part of its own mind... it is a possibility.
i find it most likely though, that through advancements of BCI and cybernetics and AI, we will gradually change what a human brain is. without completely understanding or being able to replicate its inner workings yet, we will be interfacing more and more computer components into it, merging it with technology. at some point, we will become the AI that i talked about.
- nanobots being able to copy your mind in the instant just before it is destroyed doesn't sound probable. some quite advanced form of danger detection would be needed, and it still likely won't be 100% guaranteed to work in time; an alternative is some kind of live backup/mirroring happening at all times, with or without danger - but that seems like overdoing it; perhaps a periodically scheduled backup is the most feasible - but when worse comes to worse, you will not be fully recovered, instead rolled back to the last savepoint.
- transporting your new body to the accident location also seems unreasonable. why not just wake you up in the safety of the lab?
you want to discuss mind transfer - focus on mind transfer then.
i just don't understand why you decorate your post with so many additional, distracting aspects. is there any sense in discussing the likelyhood of those aspects here - certainly not, they are not central to the actual concept this thread is about.
but then, if you don't want them discused and the thread taken out of topic, just don't include them to begin with.
and then there are things which _are_ related to the topic of mind transfer, but you didn't mention.
for example, its obvious that when mind transfer is possible, so would be mind copying, including altered copies. from here quite a lot of ethical problems and discussions can arise.
also, if mind transfer works with some sort of artificial brains, composed of artificial neurons, still inside a biological head - it will obviously work with completely artificial bodies, and even no bodies at all. physical artificial neurons would not be needed - a virtual, emulated neuron network will function just fine. one central supercomputer could be emulating many human minds at once. these minds may be connected to physical reality though bodies with real sensory inputs and motors... but may also not, instead living in a completely virtual reality, ala matrix.
it would be interesting to speculate about how exactly we might eventually accomplish mind transfer. obviously, the approach you outlined - replacing biological neurons with artificial ones - can work some day. we may never be able to understand the brain as a whole, but a single neuron should be easy to emulate. and then we just replace the real thing neuron by neuron... it is a possibility.
perhaps we will discover AI long before we are able to understand or reconstruct our own brains. AI that will be much more capable than our brains to begin with. AI that will be able to do what we can't - understand the human brain. AI that will make the human brain, and humans in general, seem outdated and unnecessary. AI that will replace humans. And maybe, just out of pity, it will preserve some human "brains" by emulating them in a part of its own mind... it is a possibility.
i find it most likely though, that through advancements of BCI and cybernetics and AI, we will gradually change what a human brain is. without completely understanding or being able to replicate its inner workings yet, we will be interfacing more and more computer components into it, merging it with technology. at some point, we will become the AI that i talked about.
To Visual,
Remember, we are not talking about transferring 2007 human minds. By mid-century, enhanced humans will think with non-biological nanoneurons, not the wet mushy stuff that passes for brains today. In fact, as futurists like Kurzweil, Robert Freitas and others predict, eventually, enhanced humans will be 100% non-biological designed with technologies much more powerful than DNA.
Nanoneurons might be compared with a computer ‘hard drive’ that stores data – our mind, life history, cognitive abilities, etc. That data then becomes software that can be simulated, expanded, even improved on if we desire; and continuously sent wirelessly to facilities such as the “Body Replacement Center” to update our stored records.
The replicated ‘new you’ does not necessarily have to be an exact copy of the real you. In fact, we might have a standing order that should disaster strike, the ‘new you’ replacement would include a few personality changes that we believe would improve our life.
The goal of mind transfer science discussed in this article is to insure that our life will not come to an end from some violent accident; that we can live for an indefinite period.
Also, this technology will not be possible without the aid of strong AI, which some experts predict will unravel itself during the period mid-2030s to mid-century. And we don’t need to worry about AI becoming smarter than us. J. Storrs Hall, in his recent book “Beyond AI,” says that long before strong AI peaks, we will develop nanoneurons and be able to interface with our silicon cousins and share their increased intelligence as it is developed. Hall says we will always remain a step ahead of strong AI.
Of course, if our brain does not have to be made out of meat, we could transfer our minds to other substrates; live inside a computer or something. For some reason, that just does not seem logical to this writer. It may be several decades before we give up on the traditional human ‘look.’
Finally, will we find an advantage to creating extra copies of ourselves? Who knows? With my limited today’s knowledge, I doubt that we would find this acceptable. After all, we could create any number of androids to serve our every whim. Why would we want to stare at a copy of ourselves?
Comments welcome.
Remember, we are not talking about transferring 2007 human minds. By mid-century, enhanced humans will think with non-biological nanoneurons, not the wet mushy stuff that passes for brains today. In fact, as futurists like Kurzweil, Robert Freitas and others predict, eventually, enhanced humans will be 100% non-biological designed with technologies much more powerful than DNA.
Nanoneurons might be compared with a computer ‘hard drive’ that stores data – our mind, life history, cognitive abilities, etc. That data then becomes software that can be simulated, expanded, even improved on if we desire; and continuously sent wirelessly to facilities such as the “Body Replacement Center” to update our stored records.
The replicated ‘new you’ does not necessarily have to be an exact copy of the real you. In fact, we might have a standing order that should disaster strike, the ‘new you’ replacement would include a few personality changes that we believe would improve our life.
The goal of mind transfer science discussed in this article is to insure that our life will not come to an end from some violent accident; that we can live for an indefinite period.
Also, this technology will not be possible without the aid of strong AI, which some experts predict will unravel itself during the period mid-2030s to mid-century. And we don’t need to worry about AI becoming smarter than us. J. Storrs Hall, in his recent book “Beyond AI,” says that long before strong AI peaks, we will develop nanoneurons and be able to interface with our silicon cousins and share their increased intelligence as it is developed. Hall says we will always remain a step ahead of strong AI.
Of course, if our brain does not have to be made out of meat, we could transfer our minds to other substrates; live inside a computer or something. For some reason, that just does not seem logical to this writer. It may be several decades before we give up on the traditional human ‘look.’
Finally, will we find an advantage to creating extra copies of ourselves? Who knows? With my limited today’s knowledge, I doubt that we would find this acceptable. After all, we could create any number of androids to serve our every whim. Why would we want to stare at a copy of ourselves?
Comments welcome.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+Aug 2 2007, 04:09 PM)
In fact, as futurists like Kurzweil, Robert Freitas and others predict, eventually, enhanced humans will be 100% non-biological designed with technologies much more powerful than DNA.
Can you tell us some of those others?
Can you tell us some of those others?
To Zarabtul,
Many scientists and writers in the following three organizations believe that humanity will one day shed its biology for more durable and permanent ‘housing units.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transhumanists
http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/extropians.html
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main
Many scientists and writers in the following three organizations believe that humanity will one day shed its biology for more durable and permanent ‘housing units.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transhumanists
http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/extropians.html
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main
"In my opinion, Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you," nanotech researcher and engineer Tihamer Toth-Fejel comments offhand during his presentation on the potentials of future technology. "[You have to] adapt, change or die." His words are stern, but the audience hardly bats a collective eye. After all, he’s preaching to the choir—this is TransVision 2007, where transhumanists the world over gather to discuss issues such as immortality, space colonization and the emergence of the post-human.
Organized get-togethers like “Transvision 2007” will help push our “magical future” forward.
Comments welcome.
Organized get-togethers like “Transvision 2007” will help push our “magical future” forward.
Comments welcome.
A very interesting idea that is quite simple to think of. I have in a way thought that way for pretty much ever. My wife is however is totally turned off by it. Very interesting reading.
Although the bold future discussed in Futuretalk articles does not generate overwhelming support from the masses, the several thousand scientists, writers, and interested people who do buy into much of this future believe that it will definitely become reality.
At the recent Transvision 2007 conference in Chicago, actor William Shatner spoke of how many of the far out technologies in his Star Trek series are moving from science fiction to science fact. And recently, former presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he believed that humanity would one day break the faster-than-light speed limit in the universe.
Arthur C. Clarke once said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” He surely must have had our “magical future” in mind.
As molecular nanotechnology, quantum computing, and strong AI mature, which many experts predict will happen over the next four-to-five decades, human life could change beyond our wildest dreams. Those of us (knock on wood) who make it into the last half of this century will wonder how we ever survived our early 20th century struggles. Our future selves could be as different from our today selves as we are from our cavemen ancestors.
Think positive about this bold future, discuss it with your friends every chance you get, and it could become your future.
At the recent Transvision 2007 conference in Chicago, actor William Shatner spoke of how many of the far out technologies in his Star Trek series are moving from science fiction to science fact. And recently, former presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he believed that humanity would one day break the faster-than-light speed limit in the universe.
Arthur C. Clarke once said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” He surely must have had our “magical future” in mind.
As molecular nanotechnology, quantum computing, and strong AI mature, which many experts predict will happen over the next four-to-five decades, human life could change beyond our wildest dreams. Those of us (knock on wood) who make it into the last half of this century will wonder how we ever survived our early 20th century struggles. Our future selves could be as different from our today selves as we are from our cavemen ancestors.
Think positive about this bold future, discuss it with your friends every chance you get, and it could become your future.
Why does Futuretalk talk about Futuretalk in 3rd person?
QUOTE (visual+Aug 3 2007, 01:54 PM)
Why does Futuretalk talk about Futuretalk in 3rd person?
Sorry, I was referring to Futuretalk articles that appear weekly in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon newspapers; not the Futuretalk username in these posts.
Sorry, I was referring to Futuretalk articles that appear weekly in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon newspapers; not the Futuretalk username in these posts.
I'd say I was a future-oriented person, but FutureTalk your "Positive-Magical-Bunny/Rainbow-Wonderful Future" stuff gets really annoying and makes almost all of your posts/articles unreadable.
Try injecting some reality into your futures, talk about how we are supposed to get there; what could be the downsides. Maybe discuss the future outside of technology only.
Just my thoughts, maybe i'm the only one thinking this..
Try injecting some reality into your futures, talk about how we are supposed to get there; what could be the downsides. Maybe discuss the future outside of technology only.
Just my thoughts, maybe i'm the only one thinking this..
Most newspaper readers of the Futuretalk column are seniors who are looking for optimism in a world filled with negative activities like terrorists, wars, and crime and disasters such as the recent Minnesota bridge collapse.
As a positive futurist, I try to focus on potential benefits of science and technologies that offer hope for a better life in the future for these older citizens.
I am aware of the many dangers that could arise with new technologies. Pathogens could be developed and released that are immune to our defenses and wipe out a substantial portion of the world. Self-replicating nanobots without safeguard limits might devour all matter on Earth turning everything, including us, into a “grey goo” substance bringing all life on the planet to an end.
Earlier in my lifetime, when the Manhattan Project, which would produce the world’s first atom bomb was planned, critics claimed that if we released such a horrific weapon, it would destroy all life on Earth; but in fact this became a benefit to humanity when it brought a quicker end to WWII – many lives were saved, and today’s nuclear energy has the potential to benefit mankind for many generations to come.
My own personal belief is that future technologies have the potential to improve human life to a degree that today is unimaginable. I believe in our “magical future” and I try to share those beliefs in my articles.
There are two possible futures ahead.
One where we just bumble along and dream of the “good old days” and wish we could relive those old experiences – not really giving much attention to the present – and rarely thinking about the future.
And then there’s a future filled with miracles that promise a good life almost beyond imagination, spurred on by four amazing technology groups – nanotech, biotech, infotech, and cognitive sciences. By assuming exponential advances and positive synergy in these wonder techs, it is easy to predict an amazing “magical future” that can eliminate human poverty, illness, and death. In this future, tomorrow’s citizens will express logical thoughts that focus more on terraforming Earth and developing space colonies, than wasting efforts with crime and intra-global conflicts.
Which future will we select? As a positive futurist, this writer believes humanity will choose the future filled with miracles.
“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” Eleanor Roosevelt
As a positive futurist, I try to focus on potential benefits of science and technologies that offer hope for a better life in the future for these older citizens.
I am aware of the many dangers that could arise with new technologies. Pathogens could be developed and released that are immune to our defenses and wipe out a substantial portion of the world. Self-replicating nanobots without safeguard limits might devour all matter on Earth turning everything, including us, into a “grey goo” substance bringing all life on the planet to an end.
Earlier in my lifetime, when the Manhattan Project, which would produce the world’s first atom bomb was planned, critics claimed that if we released such a horrific weapon, it would destroy all life on Earth; but in fact this became a benefit to humanity when it brought a quicker end to WWII – many lives were saved, and today’s nuclear energy has the potential to benefit mankind for many generations to come.
My own personal belief is that future technologies have the potential to improve human life to a degree that today is unimaginable. I believe in our “magical future” and I try to share those beliefs in my articles.
There are two possible futures ahead.
One where we just bumble along and dream of the “good old days” and wish we could relive those old experiences – not really giving much attention to the present – and rarely thinking about the future.
And then there’s a future filled with miracles that promise a good life almost beyond imagination, spurred on by four amazing technology groups – nanotech, biotech, infotech, and cognitive sciences. By assuming exponential advances and positive synergy in these wonder techs, it is easy to predict an amazing “magical future” that can eliminate human poverty, illness, and death. In this future, tomorrow’s citizens will express logical thoughts that focus more on terraforming Earth and developing space colonies, than wasting efforts with crime and intra-global conflicts.
Which future will we select? As a positive futurist, this writer believes humanity will choose the future filled with miracles.
“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” Eleanor Roosevelt
Futuretalk... very stimulating to think about, but I thought I'd say a few things. This is only an opinion, but I'm sure other people share this view. No, I'm not religious, but there are certain "spiritual" things that I do believe.
I know this is a science site, but what you are proposing I don't believe to be possible. There is a balance in nature of life and death, a continual renewal process... one that I personally believe to be inherent to all of the universe, if you care to assume life exists elsewhere. Even if we did find a physical means to make this mind transfer possible, I would like to remind you that many believe consciousness doesn't stem from the mind, originating from somewhere else entirely, merely using the brain as a means to function in this physical plane/dimension/reality.
Transferring a mind from one body to another might succeed; we may even perfect a method that does this within our perceived physical bounds of life, theoretically cheating death. I just don't see a successful transfer actually happening, because of laws that we haven't fully explored yet, as the scientific community generally won't experiment with consciousness and/or death oriented studies.
Additionally, I think most religious leaders and "spiritually advanced" individuals (I acknowledge many of you don't believe in such things, understandably, as it is scientifically unverifiable) would be unpleasantly surprised at this notion of cheating death repeatedly and indefinitely.
I know this is a science site, but what you are proposing I don't believe to be possible. There is a balance in nature of life and death, a continual renewal process... one that I personally believe to be inherent to all of the universe, if you care to assume life exists elsewhere. Even if we did find a physical means to make this mind transfer possible, I would like to remind you that many believe consciousness doesn't stem from the mind, originating from somewhere else entirely, merely using the brain as a means to function in this physical plane/dimension/reality.
Transferring a mind from one body to another might succeed; we may even perfect a method that does this within our perceived physical bounds of life, theoretically cheating death. I just don't see a successful transfer actually happening, because of laws that we haven't fully explored yet, as the scientific community generally won't experiment with consciousness and/or death oriented studies.
Additionally, I think most religious leaders and "spiritually advanced" individuals (I acknowledge many of you don't believe in such things, understandably, as it is scientifically unverifiable) would be unpleasantly surprised at this notion of cheating death repeatedly and indefinitely.
Most of what we know as "the mind" is actually a part of the body.
Like an iceberg which is mostly out of sight, the conscious part of the mind is the only part we are aware of most of the time. Transferring only the conscious mind (what you think of as "You") wouldn't work without the supporting architecture of the rest of the mind rooted deep within your own biology.
Like an iceberg which is mostly out of sight, the conscious part of the mind is the only part we are aware of most of the time. Transferring only the conscious mind (what you think of as "You") wouldn't work without the supporting architecture of the rest of the mind rooted deep within your own biology.
As mentioned before, we are not talking about extending life indefinitely for today’s biological bodies. Before humanity can expect an indefinite lifespan, it must first discard the biology.
And we cannot assume there are ‘mystical’ features connected to our biological bodies. Human life is designed and guided by DNA, which is nothing more than an elaborate software program that works. In the future, ‘nanoneurons’ will give us millions of times more thinking ability enabling the design of far more efficient non-biological life systems. These are the bodies that will enjoy the ability to transfer minds and always have a replacement body available should disaster strike.
It is true that today, scientists cannot accurately define consciousness; but few believe (with the exception of those with religious views) that consciousness is tied to biology. Most forward-thinkers believe that by mid-century, all the mysteries of “who and why am I” will be easily understood.
Granted it is a huge task to convince the world of this “magical future” when about 80% of humanity believes in some kind of religion, most of which promote ideas that death is natural and will always be a part of life.
However, there is a growing group of ‘realists’ (yours truly included) who dispute these archaic theist beliefs, and we look forward to future technologies that promise a radically improved life for everyone.
And we cannot assume there are ‘mystical’ features connected to our biological bodies. Human life is designed and guided by DNA, which is nothing more than an elaborate software program that works. In the future, ‘nanoneurons’ will give us millions of times more thinking ability enabling the design of far more efficient non-biological life systems. These are the bodies that will enjoy the ability to transfer minds and always have a replacement body available should disaster strike.
It is true that today, scientists cannot accurately define consciousness; but few believe (with the exception of those with religious views) that consciousness is tied to biology. Most forward-thinkers believe that by mid-century, all the mysteries of “who and why am I” will be easily understood.
Granted it is a huge task to convince the world of this “magical future” when about 80% of humanity believes in some kind of religion, most of which promote ideas that death is natural and will always be a part of life.
However, there is a growing group of ‘realists’ (yours truly included) who dispute these archaic theist beliefs, and we look forward to future technologies that promise a radically improved life for everyone.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+Aug 3 2007, 04:54 PM)
And we cannot assume there are ‘mystical’ features connected to our biological bodies.
Death will be a very nice surprise for you, then. There is nothing to fear!
"Our scientific powers have outrun our spiritual powers; we have guided missiles and mis-guided men."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Edit: I would also assert that consciousness does not die with physical/biological death. Maybe your proposed scenario is actually already a working mechanism of the universe!
Death will be a very nice surprise for you, then. There is nothing to fear!
"Our scientific powers have outrun our spiritual powers; we have guided missiles and mis-guided men."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Edit: I would also assert that consciousness does not die with physical/biological death. Maybe your proposed scenario is actually already a working mechanism of the universe!
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 3 2007, 05:50 PM)
Death will be a very nice surprise for you, then. There is nothing to fear!
"Our scientific powers have outrun our spiritual powers; we have guided missiles and mis-guided men."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Edit: I would also assert that consciousness does not die with physical/biological death. Maybe your proposed scenario is actually already a working mechanism of the universe!
I guess we can agree that we view things differently. Isn’t searching for alternate answers one of the traits that defines our human intelligence? If it isn’t, it certainly should be.
"Our scientific powers have outrun our spiritual powers; we have guided missiles and mis-guided men."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Edit: I would also assert that consciousness does not die with physical/biological death. Maybe your proposed scenario is actually already a working mechanism of the universe!
I guess we can agree that we view things differently. Isn’t searching for alternate answers one of the traits that defines our human intelligence? If it isn’t, it certainly should be.
A brief glimpse at an extended future.
This writer believes that by the end of this century, humans will learn to live more efficiently without the need for physical bodies. Kurzweil and other futurists predict that all matter, including biology, will soon be reduced to information.
By the end of this century; or certainly some time during next century, we will find digital life far more exciting than being restrained with physical bodies. In our minds we could select how we image to other people, depending on circumstances. Our mind would enhance the event whether it is a romantic encounter, business meeting, or get-together with friends or relatives.
Shedding our physical bodies will simply make us more efficient and happy.
As we enter into the next few centuries, we will speed space development outside our solar system, and could encounter aliens. Our “chameleon” ability will enable us to create a body image that the aliens would recognize and feel comfortable with.
Will we need to live forever? Probably we will not. Recent UN Millennium Bloggers suggest that in the far future, we may choose death and reincarnation into a new type of life form created by our futuristic society. After a millennium or so in the new life, we may want to return as a digital human again.
Granted, this future sounds more like fiction than science, but with the future accelerating exponentially, this is all possible.
Comments welcome.
This writer believes that by the end of this century, humans will learn to live more efficiently without the need for physical bodies. Kurzweil and other futurists predict that all matter, including biology, will soon be reduced to information.
By the end of this century; or certainly some time during next century, we will find digital life far more exciting than being restrained with physical bodies. In our minds we could select how we image to other people, depending on circumstances. Our mind would enhance the event whether it is a romantic encounter, business meeting, or get-together with friends or relatives.
Shedding our physical bodies will simply make us more efficient and happy.
As we enter into the next few centuries, we will speed space development outside our solar system, and could encounter aliens. Our “chameleon” ability will enable us to create a body image that the aliens would recognize and feel comfortable with.
Will we need to live forever? Probably we will not. Recent UN Millennium Bloggers suggest that in the far future, we may choose death and reincarnation into a new type of life form created by our futuristic society. After a millennium or so in the new life, we may want to return as a digital human again.
Granted, this future sounds more like fiction than science, but with the future accelerating exponentially, this is all possible.
Comments welcome.
From Transvision 2007
Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that humanity will accelerate itself to utopia (immortality, ubiquitous AI, nanotech abundance) in the next 20 to 30 years.
For example, he noted that average life expectancy increases by about 3 months every year. Kurzweil then claimed that longevity trends are accelerating so fast that the life expectancy will increase more than one year for each year that passes in about 15 years. In other words, if you can hang on another 15 years, your life expectancy could be indefinitely long.
He projects that by 2030, AI will be ubiquitous, and most humans will be physically melded to information and other technologies.
Kurzweil argued that we must reject the fundamentalist desire to define humanity by its limitations. "We are the species that goes beyond our limitations," he declared.
Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that humanity will accelerate itself to utopia (immortality, ubiquitous AI, nanotech abundance) in the next 20 to 30 years.
For example, he noted that average life expectancy increases by about 3 months every year. Kurzweil then claimed that longevity trends are accelerating so fast that the life expectancy will increase more than one year for each year that passes in about 15 years. In other words, if you can hang on another 15 years, your life expectancy could be indefinitely long.
He projects that by 2030, AI will be ubiquitous, and most humans will be physically melded to information and other technologies.
Kurzweil argued that we must reject the fundamentalist desire to define humanity by its limitations. "We are the species that goes beyond our limitations," he declared.
RE Willing to Die
Anti-aging theorist and author Shane Greenup believes that those who say they don’t want to live an extended lifespan are not being honest. “When most people face death”, Greenup says, “They don’t want to die at that moment.” This desire to live is part of what makes us human.
Unless you are a suicide bomber anxiously awaiting your 40 virgins; or your body is ravaged by an incurable disease that dishes out unbearable pain; you do not want to die.
Death is a tragedy and humanity will soon overcome this blight that has been with us ever since we became a species.
Anti-aging theorist and author Shane Greenup believes that those who say they don’t want to live an extended lifespan are not being honest. “When most people face death”, Greenup says, “They don’t want to die at that moment.” This desire to live is part of what makes us human.
Unless you are a suicide bomber anxiously awaiting your 40 virgins; or your body is ravaged by an incurable disease that dishes out unbearable pain; you do not want to die.
Death is a tragedy and humanity will soon overcome this blight that has been with us ever since we became a species.
We may disagree, but I absolutely respect what you speak of... it is an exciting idea, very entertaining to wrap your brain around.
That made me laugh
Surely you can't classify everyone into those two categories though. I would contend that I am unafraid of death and fall into neither, but unbiased self-evaluation is impossible. I will only know the truth on my deathbed... I could beg for mommy, who knows?
It will be very exciting to follow developments in the anti-aging/death field of science. One thing though - I strongly advise against placing all your trust and hope in something not yet in existence... this creates self DISempowerment. Strive to be all that you can be, no matter if faced with certain death or immortality. *Fairy tale*, *Fable*, *Advice*, etc.
QUOTE
Unless you are a suicide bomber anxiously awaiting your 40 virgins; or your body is ravaged by an incurable disease that dishes out unbearable pain; you do not want to die.
That made me laugh
Surely you can't classify everyone into those two categories though. I would contend that I am unafraid of death and fall into neither, but unbiased self-evaluation is impossible. I will only know the truth on my deathbed... I could beg for mommy, who knows?It will be very exciting to follow developments in the anti-aging/death field of science. One thing though - I strongly advise against placing all your trust and hope in something not yet in existence... this creates self DISempowerment. Strive to be all that you can be, no matter if faced with certain death or immortality. *Fairy tale*, *Fable*, *Advice*, etc.
This writer has never heard of a psychologist, not influenced by religious beliefs, who claims that people, other than those who are suicide-prone or experiencing horrendous pain, do not fear death.
The desire to avoid death stems from our survival instincts. Even many religious people who have been brainwashed into thinking that there is a life after death that can be spent in heaven, paradise, or hell; if given an option, would rather remain alive to enjoy loved ones and familiar surroundings, than meet the grim reaper at that moment.
With molecular nanotech soon to provide abilities to build things the same way that life does as it configures atoms to form plants, animals and us; it only follows that the most important creation for humans to develop is a better ‘housing unit’. One that will make us feel safer, more secure and give us added strengths – both physical and mental.
Redesigning our bodies is just the natural thing for society to accomplish. We do not deserve anything less. And why should we include death in our new ‘life system’? It doesn’t make sense.
The desire to avoid death stems from our survival instincts. Even many religious people who have been brainwashed into thinking that there is a life after death that can be spent in heaven, paradise, or hell; if given an option, would rather remain alive to enjoy loved ones and familiar surroundings, than meet the grim reaper at that moment.
With molecular nanotech soon to provide abilities to build things the same way that life does as it configures atoms to form plants, animals and us; it only follows that the most important creation for humans to develop is a better ‘housing unit’. One that will make us feel safer, more secure and give us added strengths – both physical and mental.
Redesigning our bodies is just the natural thing for society to accomplish. We do not deserve anything less. And why should we include death in our new ‘life system’? It doesn’t make sense.
WHY LIVE IF YOU CAN'T DIE. EVER HEARD OF FRANKENSTEIN
QUOTE (landon+Aug 4 2007, 07:46 AM)
WHY LIVE IF YOU CAN'T DIE. EVER HEARD OF FRANKENSTEIN
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Please explain.
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Please explain.
landon indirectly raises a valid point.
What do we do with stupid people?
Being stupid influences everything landon does. Changing this by assuming that he needs to be made smarter will change who and what he is.
Is it ethically correct to fix this flaw in people like landon? or better to transfer them in his original state?
What do we do with stupid people?
Being stupid influences everything landon does. Changing this by assuming that he needs to be made smarter will change who and what he is.
Is it ethically correct to fix this flaw in people like landon? or better to transfer them in his original state?
If people were meant to live for ever ever one would have a mind transfer case and new body to jump into.
Besides there is to many people on this earth right now any way. Has any one thought that global warming could be coming from all these people living on earth is the problem. Not just from pollution but from body heat ever one i know is 98.6, nom probably is not, troll
your insults are childish, jealous one ,not had a idea lately
If something is not broke don't try to fix it. You must die like everyone else, as seen in nature
Besides there is to many people on this earth right now any way. Has any one thought that global warming could be coming from all these people living on earth is the problem. Not just from pollution but from body heat ever one i know is 98.6, nom probably is not, troll
your insults are childish, jealous one ,not had a idea lately
If something is not broke don't try to fix it. You must die like everyone else, as seen in nature
If we define stupid as a state of mind where a person could on occasion, render harm to himself or others, then this would be considered a flaw and should be corrected. A person with higher intelligence would contribute more to the greater good of the global community.
what should be considered a flaw
If a stupid person could render harm to himself or others, then this would be considered a personality flaw and should be corrected by enhancing that stupid person with neurons, bringing his intelligence level up with the rest of the world.
Non-enhanced people who cause no harm can be left alone. They will be at a disadvantage to those who are enhanced, but if they cause no problems, let them be. Eventually, they will die out while the enhanced enjoy indefinite lifespans; problem solved.
Non-enhanced people who cause no harm can be left alone. They will be at a disadvantage to those who are enhanced, but if they cause no problems, let them be. Eventually, they will die out while the enhanced enjoy indefinite lifespans; problem solved.
'Non-enhanced people who cause no harm can be left alone. They will be at a disadvantage to those who are enhanced, but if they cause no problems, let them be. Eventually, they will die out while the enhanced enjoy indefinite lifespans; problem solved'.
A bit of an extremist aren't we?
A bit of an extremist aren't we?
QUOTE (Zanga+Aug 6 2007, 05:29 PM)
'Non-enhanced people who cause no harm can be left alone. They will be at a disadvantage to those who are enhanced, but if they cause no problems, let them be. Eventually, they will die out while the enhanced enjoy indefinite lifespans; problem solved'.
A bit of an extremist aren't we?
It's the real world. Those who reject modern technologies are fully aware of what they may be missing; or not. The Amish believe they are living a correct life for them, and who can say they are wrong.
In the future, extreme technologies could arrive at such breathtaking speeds with exponential advances pushing everything forward, that some people may want to say "slow down."
This writer believes that new technologies are necessary to advance society and I can hardly wait to take advantage of stem cell therapies, genetic engineering marvels and medical nanotech miracles. But this is just me; others may think differently.
A bit of an extremist aren't we?
It's the real world. Those who reject modern technologies are fully aware of what they may be missing; or not. The Amish believe they are living a correct life for them, and who can say they are wrong.
In the future, extreme technologies could arrive at such breathtaking speeds with exponential advances pushing everything forward, that some people may want to say "slow down."
This writer believes that new technologies are necessary to advance society and I can hardly wait to take advantage of stem cell therapies, genetic engineering marvels and medical nanotech miracles. But this is just me; others may think differently.
You know what when you put a cup of cold water in the freezer?
It freezes faster.
Answer me this:
If global warming is really happening does global cooling happen the same way?
Could earth freeze over in maybe one or two winters if we have long hot summers?
Does a solar eclipse heat up the earth or cool it down ?
Does thought transfer with the mind?
Is the brain able to hold 300 years worth of memory?
Are stupid people just saving their mind for a new body?
Are you talking about Buddhism?
Your trying to make your on religion aren't you?
Maybe dying is part of the transfer process?
sofa king we tard did
It freezes faster.
Answer me this:
If global warming is really happening does global cooling happen the same way?
Could earth freeze over in maybe one or two winters if we have long hot summers?
Does a solar eclipse heat up the earth or cool it down ?
Does thought transfer with the mind?
Is the brain able to hold 300 years worth of memory?
Are stupid people just saving their mind for a new body?
Are you talking about Buddhism?
Your trying to make your on religion aren't you?
Maybe dying is part of the transfer process?
sofa king we tard did
QUOTE (landon+Aug 7 2007, 12:15 AM)
You know what when you put a cup of cold water in the freezer?
It freezes faster.
Answer me this:
If global warming is really happening does global cooling happen the same way?
Could earth freeze over in maybe one or two winters if we have long hot summers?
Does a solar eclipse heat up the earth or cool it down ?
Does thought transfer with the mind?
Is the brain able to hold 300 years worth of memory?
Are stupid people just saving their mind for a new body?
Are you talking about Buddhism?
Your trying to make your on religion aren't you?
Maybe dying is part of the transfer process?
sofa king we tard did
Sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
It freezes faster.
Answer me this:
If global warming is really happening does global cooling happen the same way?
Could earth freeze over in maybe one or two winters if we have long hot summers?
Does a solar eclipse heat up the earth or cool it down ?
Does thought transfer with the mind?
Is the brain able to hold 300 years worth of memory?
Are stupid people just saving their mind for a new body?
Are you talking about Buddhism?
Your trying to make your on religion aren't you?
Maybe dying is part of the transfer process?
sofa king we tard did
Sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 6 2007, 07:51 PM)
Besides there is to many people on this earth right now any way. Has any one thought that global warming could be coming from all these people living on earth is the problem. Not just from pollution but from body heat
The energy reaching the Earth's surface averages at 164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day
The Earth's surface area is 510,065,600 km²
The human body generates about between 50 to 100 Watts of heat.
So the total human heat output is the same as 3 billion square meters. Sound's like a lot, but it's only 3,000 square kilometers. That's about a square 55km per side.
That's 0.0006% of the energy reaching us from the sun.
The energy reaching the Earth's surface averages at 164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day
The Earth's surface area is 510,065,600 km²
The human body generates about between 50 to 100 Watts of heat.
So the total human heat output is the same as 3 billion square meters. Sound's like a lot, but it's only 3,000 square kilometers. That's about a square 55km per side.
That's 0.0006% of the energy reaching us from the sun.
QUOTE
ever one i know is 98.6, nom probably is not, troll
Correct. I'm 37.0°
.022006172839506172839506172839506 watts s per square m
maybe answer
maybe answer
fix em is about the only intelligent choice though our world can't even leave diseases well explained and just plainly covers-up the truth from the people in the encyclopedia that should at least be backed-up.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 7 2007, 10:51 PM)
.022006172839506172839506172839506 watts s per square m
maybe answer
Wow! that's accurate
maybe answer
Wow! that's accurate
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Aug 8 2007, 12:48 AM)
fix em is about the only intelligent choice though our world can't even leave diseases well explained and just plainly covers-up the truth from the people in the encyclopedia that should at least be backed-up.
Remember, this article is not talking about protecting today’s humans. It focuses on how tomorrow’s society, having undergone complete body and mind rejuvenation will enjoy the benefits of living in non-biological bodies and may opt for transferring their mind into a new body should a disaster bring their life to an end.
Desire to prevent unwanted death is simply a natural part of what it means to be human. Ever since we first became a species, we have been guided by our natural instincts for survival. Mid-century technologies will help us achieve this goal.
Remember, this article is not talking about protecting today’s humans. It focuses on how tomorrow’s society, having undergone complete body and mind rejuvenation will enjoy the benefits of living in non-biological bodies and may opt for transferring their mind into a new body should a disaster bring their life to an end.
Desire to prevent unwanted death is simply a natural part of what it means to be human. Ever since we first became a species, we have been guided by our natural instincts for survival. Mid-century technologies will help us achieve this goal.
This will also lead to immortality and no one is supposed to live forever.
Is mind and soul the same thing?
Is mind and soul the same thing?
QUOTE (landon+Aug 8 2007, 02:17 PM)
This will also lead to immortality and no one is supposed to live forever.
Is mind and soul the same thing?
Ability to prevent unwanted death should not be interpreted as becoming immortal. Nobody wants to live forever; science cannot even tell us how long forever is. Preventing unwanted deaths means just that – to be protected from dying at a time when we do not wish to die.
At some time in the future, we may learn what happens when a body dies, but today, it remains a mystery. Although religions try to promote supernatural ideas of life after death, scientific logic rejects these thoughts as just wishful thinking.
As mentioned in the article, in the next decade, scientists could unravel the mysteries of consciousness – exactly where it lies in our maze of neurons, and how it can give rise to our memories, personality, and emotions. But today, we just don’t know.
Religions refer to consciousness as a ‘soul’ and most believe that it does not disappear with death; that somehow we remain alive after our body disappears, enabling us to continue living in an afterlife. Most scientists reject this concept, but again; we must wait until research in this area concludes in the next decade.
One thing for sure though; by mid-century when mind transfer technologies become available, all of these puzzles will be solved.
Comments welcome.
Is mind and soul the same thing?
Ability to prevent unwanted death should not be interpreted as becoming immortal. Nobody wants to live forever; science cannot even tell us how long forever is. Preventing unwanted deaths means just that – to be protected from dying at a time when we do not wish to die.
At some time in the future, we may learn what happens when a body dies, but today, it remains a mystery. Although religions try to promote supernatural ideas of life after death, scientific logic rejects these thoughts as just wishful thinking.
As mentioned in the article, in the next decade, scientists could unravel the mysteries of consciousness – exactly where it lies in our maze of neurons, and how it can give rise to our memories, personality, and emotions. But today, we just don’t know.
Religions refer to consciousness as a ‘soul’ and most believe that it does not disappear with death; that somehow we remain alive after our body disappears, enabling us to continue living in an afterlife. Most scientists reject this concept, but again; we must wait until research in this area concludes in the next decade.
One thing for sure though; by mid-century when mind transfer technologies become available, all of these puzzles will be solved.
Comments welcome.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 6 2007, 07:51 AM)
If people were meant to live for ever ever one would have a mind transfer case and new body to jump into.
Besides there is to many people on this earth right now any way. Has any one thought that global warming could be coming from all these people living on earth is the problem. Not just from pollution but from body heat ever one i know is 98.6, nom probably is not, troll
your insults are childish, jealous one ,not had a idea lately
If something is not broke don't try to fix it. You must die like everyone else, as seen in nature
Hi landon,
Your post contains it's own rebuttal.
By your logic, we shouldn't be able to enjoy any of the benefits of technology. After all we are not born with the ability to make fire, drive a car, use a can opener, design an airplane, study medicine, or the million other skills and abilities that we now enjoy the benefits of.
To refute your argument in what I believe is your context. If we were not meant to do such things, including redesigning ourselves to be better, then we should not have the capability and intelligence that enable us to do so.
On the subject of death being natural. Not every living organism dies. There are many that don't die unless they are destroyed through outside events. For our species, I believe it's been a useful mechanism for evolution but I think we are rapidly passing up any need for natural (although since we are part of nature it is hardly right to call anything we do as unnatural) evolution.
Global warming is a rather broad topic, and of course each human contributes their part to the planetary energy equations but I've no idea if our population itself is a significant amount. Never hurts to look at it though.
Being as I'm in a technology field and since I work with environments from desktop development to massively redundant production I'm very familiar with with "do not touch it if it works". It's almost a catchphrase when dealing with systems that require extreme availability.
But. Progress isn't stopped by this and should not be. It's a risk analysis in the end. The more critical a system, the more care must be taken to develop and test. I've never encountered a real world system that the risk was so high it could not be touched. Might be interesting to try to come up with such a creature though, at the least an interesting mind experiment.
On a more expansive note: I'm happy to discuss / debate most any topic with the provision that at some point we may just have to agree to disagree and move on.
Ward
Besides there is to many people on this earth right now any way. Has any one thought that global warming could be coming from all these people living on earth is the problem. Not just from pollution but from body heat ever one i know is 98.6, nom probably is not, troll
your insults are childish, jealous one ,not had a idea lately
If something is not broke don't try to fix it. You must die like everyone else, as seen in nature
Hi landon,
Your post contains it's own rebuttal.
By your logic, we shouldn't be able to enjoy any of the benefits of technology. After all we are not born with the ability to make fire, drive a car, use a can opener, design an airplane, study medicine, or the million other skills and abilities that we now enjoy the benefits of.
To refute your argument in what I believe is your context. If we were not meant to do such things, including redesigning ourselves to be better, then we should not have the capability and intelligence that enable us to do so.
On the subject of death being natural. Not every living organism dies. There are many that don't die unless they are destroyed through outside events. For our species, I believe it's been a useful mechanism for evolution but I think we are rapidly passing up any need for natural (although since we are part of nature it is hardly right to call anything we do as unnatural) evolution.
Global warming is a rather broad topic, and of course each human contributes their part to the planetary energy equations but I've no idea if our population itself is a significant amount. Never hurts to look at it though.
Being as I'm in a technology field and since I work with environments from desktop development to massively redundant production I'm very familiar with with "do not touch it if it works". It's almost a catchphrase when dealing with systems that require extreme availability.
But. Progress isn't stopped by this and should not be. It's a risk analysis in the end. The more critical a system, the more care must be taken to develop and test. I've never encountered a real world system that the risk was so high it could not be touched. Might be interesting to try to come up with such a creature though, at the least an interesting mind experiment.
On a more expansive note: I'm happy to discuss / debate most any topic with the provision that at some point we may just have to agree to disagree and move on.
Ward
Wardish, you really said it all. Thanks.
I agree, moving
"While hiking in the mountains, you accidentally set off an explosive device that destroys your body completely. Is this the end of your life? Nope, it’s not even an inconvenience. Robots at the Body Replacement Center sense your situation and order nanobots to construct a ‘new you’ with mind, memories, personality, and all cognitive abilities intact. In minutes, your new body is air-lifted to the accident location; and you are not even aware that you had died."
you're not really transferring your consciousness the way you're putting it. sounds like nanotech replication boasting as if it's resurrection. the true you has already died. this is flawed logic like that arnold schwarzeneggar movie plot trying to mask itself as immortality/resurrection (6 days). calling it transfer for the "original you" when all you're doing is copying information (especially when the copy of you is moldable to someone else's standards in the replication process), the "original" you has already died. so by your standards, like that stupid movie, copying is the same as the original when you HAVE already died. that's not the case, you're not truly coming back. this idea is totally bogus imo.
so if I was to go hiking and died, that's the end, the copy of me isn't really me even though he may speak, think, and do everything else like me, he isn't the true consciousness coming back from being killed which is me, this is flawed, why not create another version of me while I'm alive and kill him? you get where I'm going with this? what if me and my copy were alive but made different choices? according to two different situations? which one of us is true? I would say I'm the true one because I'm the first (original, authentic, born out the womb, grew up and physically endured through life, not just a product of MEMORY that's copied, i have scars to prove my life, and just because it's drawn onto my clone so easily without earning the scars or being IN that actual event that I was IN, how is HE even valid?), you're now dealing with 2 seperate entities, place yourself in that scenario (both of us in the same scenario so i'm referencing you/me as the same), who would you want to die? you or him?
since you know he isn't the same consciousness as you because all he is is a replication from nanobots w/ digitized info, especially when the only thing accounting for him being real is my/your saved memory to make him real constantly in need of an "update" from my everyday experience (that should be mines alone!), nothing else. that's just pathetic. this is a sad attempt at immortality, just because a copy of you comes back doesn't mean it is you. i'd rather invest my money on a machine that discovers new dimensions and learning actual resurrection if there is such a thing then this travesty. hearing this is just sickening. it's even more stupid due to the fact that the "transferred" me is subject to modification or sabotage if whoever manages "me" wished to do so. so by your logic, if I had a biological twin laying dormant waiting for me to die so my memories shift into his personal consciousness, would he still be ME? NO, never, wish it all you want, he's just a dormant shell wanting to be me with MY memories.
this article makes the future seem that much more bleak. heartless, cold, calculative, uncaring, and just selfish. how disgusting.
you're not really transferring your consciousness the way you're putting it. sounds like nanotech replication boasting as if it's resurrection. the true you has already died. this is flawed logic like that arnold schwarzeneggar movie plot trying to mask itself as immortality/resurrection (6 days). calling it transfer for the "original you" when all you're doing is copying information (especially when the copy of you is moldable to someone else's standards in the replication process), the "original" you has already died. so by your standards, like that stupid movie, copying is the same as the original when you HAVE already died. that's not the case, you're not truly coming back. this idea is totally bogus imo.
so if I was to go hiking and died, that's the end, the copy of me isn't really me even though he may speak, think, and do everything else like me, he isn't the true consciousness coming back from being killed which is me, this is flawed, why not create another version of me while I'm alive and kill him? you get where I'm going with this? what if me and my copy were alive but made different choices? according to two different situations? which one of us is true? I would say I'm the true one because I'm the first (original, authentic, born out the womb, grew up and physically endured through life, not just a product of MEMORY that's copied, i have scars to prove my life, and just because it's drawn onto my clone so easily without earning the scars or being IN that actual event that I was IN, how is HE even valid?), you're now dealing with 2 seperate entities, place yourself in that scenario (both of us in the same scenario so i'm referencing you/me as the same), who would you want to die? you or him?
since you know he isn't the same consciousness as you because all he is is a replication from nanobots w/ digitized info, especially when the only thing accounting for him being real is my/your saved memory to make him real constantly in need of an "update" from my everyday experience (that should be mines alone!), nothing else. that's just pathetic. this is a sad attempt at immortality, just because a copy of you comes back doesn't mean it is you. i'd rather invest my money on a machine that discovers new dimensions and learning actual resurrection if there is such a thing then this travesty. hearing this is just sickening. it's even more stupid due to the fact that the "transferred" me is subject to modification or sabotage if whoever manages "me" wished to do so. so by your logic, if I had a biological twin laying dormant waiting for me to die so my memories shift into his personal consciousness, would he still be ME? NO, never, wish it all you want, he's just a dormant shell wanting to be me with MY memories.
this article makes the future seem that much more bleak. heartless, cold, calculative, uncaring, and just selfish. how disgusting.
In the future, technologies will arise that enable us to carry on our lives, should disaster destroy our body.
These technologies promise an alternative to accepting an unwanted death. Neuroscientists agree that today, at time of death, most people still have an active mind. The body has given out, but the brain is still thinking and in most cases, very much alive.
So it just makes sense to create future technologies that can transfer an active mind from a dying body into a new body, thus allowing life to continue.
Granted, today, scientists do not have a clue how to accomplish this mind-boggling feat, but events are underway to change this.
Experts believe that by as early as 2020, researchers will identify the billions of neurons, and the quadrillions of interactions between these neurons that represent our consciousness. Once this technology matures – hopefully by mid-2030s or so – it could become routine for humans in the 2030s and 2040s to opt for this procedure.
Will this “mind-transfer” be an exact copy of the original person? Today, we do not have the intelligence to answer this question, but it seems logical to this writer that when considering the option of mind-transfer vs. letting the body die and rot, the decision for most people will be clear.
The only people I can think of who would reject this technology may be those who are influenced by religious beliefs of an imaginary life after death. Personally, I prefer to continue living in the real world.
Comments welcome.
These technologies promise an alternative to accepting an unwanted death. Neuroscientists agree that today, at time of death, most people still have an active mind. The body has given out, but the brain is still thinking and in most cases, very much alive.
So it just makes sense to create future technologies that can transfer an active mind from a dying body into a new body, thus allowing life to continue.
Granted, today, scientists do not have a clue how to accomplish this mind-boggling feat, but events are underway to change this.
Experts believe that by as early as 2020, researchers will identify the billions of neurons, and the quadrillions of interactions between these neurons that represent our consciousness. Once this technology matures – hopefully by mid-2030s or so – it could become routine for humans in the 2030s and 2040s to opt for this procedure.
Will this “mind-transfer” be an exact copy of the original person? Today, we do not have the intelligence to answer this question, but it seems logical to this writer that when considering the option of mind-transfer vs. letting the body die and rot, the decision for most people will be clear.
The only people I can think of who would reject this technology may be those who are influenced by religious beliefs of an imaginary life after death. Personally, I prefer to continue living in the real world.
Comments welcome.
"So it just makes sense to create future technologies that can transfer an active mind from a dying body into a new body, thus allowing life to continue."
yes, transferring the exact same consciousness. not a "copy", no replicas. that sounds more viable. but machines copying my memories claiming it's me isn't, but finding a machine to transfer my SAME active mind from a dying body sounds right.
yes, transferring the exact same consciousness. not a "copy", no replicas. that sounds more viable. but machines copying my memories claiming it's me isn't, but finding a machine to transfer my SAME active mind from a dying body sounds right.
Of course today, we can only speculate as to how future mind-transfer technologies will work. With our limited neuron capacity, it is only guesswork.
However, here is my take on how this futuristic science may unfold:
I believe that tomorrow’s quantum computing technology will become powerful enough to simulate the consciousness of every human on Earth and in space, and wirelessly update these simulations 24/7, storing them in a secure location somewhere in the digital world.
These simulations would be incredibly accurate and indiscernible from the original person’s mind. The revived person would not even be aware that they had died.
Whether or not humanity would deem it advantageous to create extra copies of people with this process is currently beyond my comprehension. My weak, mushy brain of today cannot imagine any reason to create duplicates of me, but who knows?
It seems more important to focus on the fact that this future technology will prevent unwanted death. This satisfies the human desire for survival. What repercussions might this wild technology bring us? Today, I cannot answer that question, but I’m sure that by mid-2030s it will be crystal clear.
However, here is my take on how this futuristic science may unfold:
I believe that tomorrow’s quantum computing technology will become powerful enough to simulate the consciousness of every human on Earth and in space, and wirelessly update these simulations 24/7, storing them in a secure location somewhere in the digital world.
These simulations would be incredibly accurate and indiscernible from the original person’s mind. The revived person would not even be aware that they had died.
Whether or not humanity would deem it advantageous to create extra copies of people with this process is currently beyond my comprehension. My weak, mushy brain of today cannot imagine any reason to create duplicates of me, but who knows?
It seems more important to focus on the fact that this future technology will prevent unwanted death. This satisfies the human desire for survival. What repercussions might this wild technology bring us? Today, I cannot answer that question, but I’m sure that by mid-2030s it will be crystal clear.
Sorry, I might be "stuck in the past," but I think transferring a mind, wouldn't transfer the spark, or chain of consciousness, that makes you you.
QUOTE (Guest_Chris+Sep 21 2007, 06:50 AM)
Sorry, I might be "stuck in the past," but I think transferring a mind, wouldn't transfer the spark, or chain of consciousness, that makes you you.
These futuristic technologies provide an alternative to accepting an unwanted death. For those who prefer to die, they may do so.
Today, it is difficult for us to imagine that a "new you" would feel as genuine as the "old you," but when these technologies are developed in the future, you may not be able to tell the difference.
These futuristic technologies provide an alternative to accepting an unwanted death. For those who prefer to die, they may do so.
Today, it is difficult for us to imagine that a "new you" would feel as genuine as the "old you," but when these technologies are developed in the future, you may not be able to tell the difference.
Future is here now its just hidden for defence reasons!!
Please comment using science and proof that what I say here is not possible.
Please also watch "HUMAN V2" the BBC documentary at my web site www.beuis.co.uk click the link manifesto then "GET HUMAN V2 here" its in flash! MUST SEE THIS.
Why is there no mention of MRI in this documentary
Why no mention of MRFM
Why no mention of PET scanners using RADIO ISOTOPE FLUORODOPA
and if you go here drtomorrow(dot)com
lessons/lessons1/47
It is said they can read your mind easily using a PET scanner.
Please understand that in the days of security and cryptology then the best defense is mind control.
Please also comment on the idea that MRI was invented in the year 1980 this was swiftly bought by the Americans. (MK ULTRA - EMI)
now if MRI turns the human body or anything into a radio broadcasting device then why would it not turn it into a radio receiving device?? Just a frequency harmonic sypathetic FREQ where we can here radio waves. (NO NEED for an IPOD)
Please watch "HUMAN V2" BBC 2006 documentary at www.beuis.co.uk first before commenting.
Please also be aware of super advanced pattern reccognition software of 1990s that of "SHAZAM" reccognises any piece of music ever released from anywhere within the music.
Please comment using science and proof that what I say here is not possible.
Please also watch "HUMAN V2" the BBC documentary at my web site www.beuis.co.uk click the link manifesto then "GET HUMAN V2 here" its in flash! MUST SEE THIS.
Why is there no mention of MRI in this documentary
Why no mention of MRFM
Why no mention of PET scanners using RADIO ISOTOPE FLUORODOPA
and if you go here drtomorrow(dot)com
lessons/lessons1/47
It is said they can read your mind easily using a PET scanner.
Please understand that in the days of security and cryptology then the best defense is mind control.
Please also comment on the idea that MRI was invented in the year 1980 this was swiftly bought by the Americans. (MK ULTRA - EMI)
now if MRI turns the human body or anything into a radio broadcasting device then why would it not turn it into a radio receiving device?? Just a frequency harmonic sypathetic FREQ where we can here radio waves. (NO NEED for an IPOD)
Please watch "HUMAN V2" BBC 2006 documentary at www.beuis.co.uk first before commenting.
Please also be aware of super advanced pattern reccognition software of 1990s that of "SHAZAM" reccognises any piece of music ever released from anywhere within the music.
QUOTE (Guest_Chris+Sep 21 2007, 06:50 AM)
Sorry, I might be "stuck in the past," but I think transferring a mind, wouldn't transfer the spark, or chain of consciousness, that makes you you.
There is no spark, yes you are stuck in the past
There is no spark, yes you are stuck in the past
seems like an awfully complex undertaking, you mention that we can scan an individual neuron... but we don't fully understand how they work in the first place. but setting biology aside, wouldn't it be easier to just make a new braid and hook it up to a robot?
-Roan
And as long as we're on the topic of nanotech, anyone here read the book Prey by Micheal Chriton? It's about clouds of evil nanobots that eat people to make more of themselves. Anyone here watch Stargate (SG1 or Atlantis, I know I'm a nerd)? in the show there are these little robots called "Replicators" that ear mashenes to make more of themselves. Combine the two and add the ability to learn and change shape, and you have the perfect replacement body, since these littly nanobits can be arranged into the exact patterns of the brain of the preveosley dead person.
Now for the wrench: To replace a body, you have to know the exact locations of all the cells in their bodys, this requires and enormous amount of storage capacity.... for one person, now multiply that by 6.6 billion and you get my result: It is impossible to store all that information (given modern technology) witout having it compressed, and anyone who is a music connosear well tell you that compressed music corrupts and loses quality. if you lose the precice location of one of the brain cells you could do some severe damage.
The solution: forget storing that info, just copy it directly onto the nanobit body, and when the person dies just activate the nanobody. And in the explosion scenario, when your nanobody is blown to bits, the arm and the leg get to gether and eat a goat to make new replacement nanobots for the ones that were blowed up.
win win
-Roan
hi! hi! hi! its skinny ralph! out of my way fatso!
Interesting topic.
What would happen if the scenario contemplated in thread continues indefinitely? People would continue reproducing as usual, while those who are already here continue to live..forever. At some point the earth will run out of resources (material needed to create artificial bodies) to keep everyone alive. After that I guess the minds of everyone can be uploaded to some kind of a super-computer which creates a virtual world like second life which does not consume any resources in the real sense. But a few people have to remain outside the virtual world to maintain the computer. Obviously nobody would want to remain exposed to the elements, outside the perfect virtual world. Also soon they would find that it is of no use to them to keep some super computer running, and decide to pull the plug on those of us inside .
Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
What would happen if the scenario contemplated in thread continues indefinitely? People would continue reproducing as usual, while those who are already here continue to live..forever. At some point the earth will run out of resources (material needed to create artificial bodies) to keep everyone alive. After that I guess the minds of everyone can be uploaded to some kind of a super-computer which creates a virtual world like second life which does not consume any resources in the real sense. But a few people have to remain outside the virtual world to maintain the computer. Obviously nobody would want to remain exposed to the elements, outside the perfect virtual world. Also soon they would find that it is of no use to them to keep some super computer running, and decide to pull the plug on those of us inside
.Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
There was a reason McCoy was so mistrustful of the Transporter.
I mistrust everything!!!
QUOTE (vkamath+Feb 5 2008, 04:26 AM)
Interesting topic.
What would happen if the scenario contemplated in thread continues indefinitely? People would continue reproducing as usual, while those who are already here continue to live..forever. At some point the earth will run out of resources (material needed to create artificial bodies) to keep everyone alive. After that I guess the minds of everyone can be uploaded to some kind of a super-computer which creates a virtual world like second life which does not consume any resources in the real sense. But a few people have to remain outside the virtual world to maintain the computer. Obviously nobody would want to remain exposed to the elements, outside the perfect virtual world. Also soon they would find that it is of no use to them to keep some super computer running, and decide to pull the plug on those of us inside .
Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
A very, very interesting discussion. I've been looking for this kind of discussion for a long time...
People have been saying that the more advanced technology is, the more people will lose faith in religion.
This has been implied in both real life and virtual reality.
In one side some scientists and people argue that since God cannot be proved based
on scientific facts, there is no need to believe in God.
On the other side, there are people that thinks "advanced" technology "threatens" people faith in religion...
Well, my personal opinion is that both are WRONG !!!
When technology has advanced to a certain degree, there will be no difference in technology and religion !
Technology and religion are only two different sides to the same "FACT".
Just like the 2 sides of a coin...
Extremely advanced technology is like magic or even cannot be distinguished from
the work of nature !!
One the latest theories in physic is the string theory, saying that there are 11 (I cannot recall the exact numbers) of dimensions.
We human are actually live in 4 dimension world, but we can only manipulate until 3 dimension (at least for now...)
Before we continue, I want to say first that I believe in God and those "ethereal" beings like angel, soul and demon 100%.
I think that the so-called human soul is actually a part of us that exists on one of the higher dimensions - at least at level 5 or higher...
So when a person "dies" he/she does not cease to exist - he/she is still there, but there is no way to make contact or how he/she can get back to our "current dimension" at least with the current technologies...
Some religions have the so-called "heaven" concepts for example like buddhism - 1 level of heaven, 2nd level, etc...
These are likely to be the so-called higher dimensions...
I believe that it won't be too long before human can manipulate 4th dimension (time) and beyond.....
I do not really remember but there are scientific explanations on the internet somewhere on how to prove that these higher dimensions exists...
There will be several ways in the future to enable human to practically live forever and do not age...
It will be something like "mind transfer"/"soul backup" or genetically engineering "longetivity genes" or others...
Some people worry that the "YOU" which is "resurrected" based on the "mind/soul backup" of the original "YOU" will be different than the "real" one.
But let's think it like this ; let's imagine ourselves like the 2nd dimension pictures drawn by "higher entity" on the 3rd dimension..
We, which are the 2nd dimension pictures are likely to be drawn on not just 1 sheet of paper ("our dimension"/"our universe") but also on other countless sheets of papers ("parallel dimension"/"parallel universes").
Note how I used the word "parallel dimension/universe" and not higher dimension to indicate the same level of dimension...
Which means that the "you" which died on this dimension cannot be said as the REAL and ONLY "you". Just like when animators use sheets of paper to draw the same pictures with slightly difference poses...
There are countless of "US" on slightly different timelines on parallel universes...
People will start realizing this concept and won't feel strange anymore...
On another issue, for people who worried that the earth will run out of resources if people live forever, the solution can either be colonization on other planets or living on virtual worlds. Both possibilities will be possible in the future and people are free to choose.
Let's talk about "moral" and "life value" then...
Living forever doesn't mean that you can do the "bad" things and get away easily..
You may get away if you have money and power but remember that there is still
"the universal law of attraction".
By the time when human able to live forever, I believe that they will still be bound
by this universal law of attraction which exists on the higher dimension(s).
"Positive thought/act" will attract other "positive thoughts/acts" and the same also goes with "negative thoughts/acts". If you say something like "you're stupid" over and over to one of your kid, believe me that even though he actually is a genius, he will become "stupid" sooner or later - just like what you have said...
What would happen if the scenario contemplated in thread continues indefinitely? People would continue reproducing as usual, while those who are already here continue to live..forever. At some point the earth will run out of resources (material needed to create artificial bodies) to keep everyone alive. After that I guess the minds of everyone can be uploaded to some kind of a super-computer which creates a virtual world like second life which does not consume any resources in the real sense. But a few people have to remain outside the virtual world to maintain the computer. Obviously nobody would want to remain exposed to the elements, outside the perfect virtual world. Also soon they would find that it is of no use to them to keep some super computer running, and decide to pull the plug on those of us inside
.Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
A very, very interesting discussion. I've been looking for this kind of discussion for a long time...
People have been saying that the more advanced technology is, the more people will lose faith in religion.
This has been implied in both real life and virtual reality.
In one side some scientists and people argue that since God cannot be proved based
on scientific facts, there is no need to believe in God.
On the other side, there are people that thinks "advanced" technology "threatens" people faith in religion...
Well, my personal opinion is that both are WRONG !!!
When technology has advanced to a certain degree, there will be no difference in technology and religion !
Technology and religion are only two different sides to the same "FACT".
Just like the 2 sides of a coin...
Extremely advanced technology is like magic or even cannot be distinguished from
the work of nature !!
One the latest theories in physic is the string theory, saying that there are 11 (I cannot recall the exact numbers) of dimensions.
We human are actually live in 4 dimension world, but we can only manipulate until 3 dimension (at least for now...)
Before we continue, I want to say first that I believe in God and those "ethereal" beings like angel, soul and demon 100%.
I think that the so-called human soul is actually a part of us that exists on one of the higher dimensions - at least at level 5 or higher...
So when a person "dies" he/she does not cease to exist - he/she is still there, but there is no way to make contact or how he/she can get back to our "current dimension" at least with the current technologies...
Some religions have the so-called "heaven" concepts for example like buddhism - 1 level of heaven, 2nd level, etc...
These are likely to be the so-called higher dimensions...
I believe that it won't be too long before human can manipulate 4th dimension (time) and beyond.....
I do not really remember but there are scientific explanations on the internet somewhere on how to prove that these higher dimensions exists...
There will be several ways in the future to enable human to practically live forever and do not age...
It will be something like "mind transfer"/"soul backup" or genetically engineering "longetivity genes" or others...
Some people worry that the "YOU" which is "resurrected" based on the "mind/soul backup" of the original "YOU" will be different than the "real" one.
But let's think it like this ; let's imagine ourselves like the 2nd dimension pictures drawn by "higher entity" on the 3rd dimension..
We, which are the 2nd dimension pictures are likely to be drawn on not just 1 sheet of paper ("our dimension"/"our universe") but also on other countless sheets of papers ("parallel dimension"/"parallel universes").
Note how I used the word "parallel dimension/universe" and not higher dimension to indicate the same level of dimension...
Which means that the "you" which died on this dimension cannot be said as the REAL and ONLY "you". Just like when animators use sheets of paper to draw the same pictures with slightly difference poses...
There are countless of "US" on slightly different timelines on parallel universes...
People will start realizing this concept and won't feel strange anymore...
On another issue, for people who worried that the earth will run out of resources if people live forever, the solution can either be colonization on other planets or living on virtual worlds. Both possibilities will be possible in the future and people are free to choose.
Let's talk about "moral" and "life value" then...
Living forever doesn't mean that you can do the "bad" things and get away easily..
You may get away if you have money and power but remember that there is still
"the universal law of attraction".
By the time when human able to live forever, I believe that they will still be bound
by this universal law of attraction which exists on the higher dimension(s).
"Positive thought/act" will attract other "positive thoughts/acts" and the same also goes with "negative thoughts/acts". If you say something like "you're stupid" over and over to one of your kid, believe me that even though he actually is a genius, he will become "stupid" sooner or later - just like what you have said...
Throwing religion into the mix opens up a lot of other questions, like those you have brought up.
QUOTE (06294086+)
People have been saying that the more advanced technology is, the more people will lose faith in religion
QUOTE (06294086+)
On the other side, there are people that thinks "advanced" technology "threatens" people faith in religion...
Well, my personal opinion is that both are WRONG !!!
I think subjective views will remain irrespective of advancement in science.
For Eg: If we find the Grand Canyon to be beautiful, any amount of scientific explanation on how it was formed millions of years ago by the Colorado river will not change how we see it. We will never see it as a bunch of rocks.
Same with religion. Subjective views are the result of a combination of Upbringing/environmental factors and genetic predisposition.
Also I think Religion will adapt accordingly to form a more "palatable" view of the world. This is similar to how there are people who support evolution and continue to be Christians. They don't see it as contradictory. I don't have any opinion for or against this.
Well, my personal opinion is that both are WRONG !!!
I think subjective views will remain irrespective of advancement in science.
For Eg: If we find the Grand Canyon to be beautiful, any amount of scientific explanation on how it was formed millions of years ago by the Colorado river will not change how we see it. We will never see it as a bunch of rocks.
Same with religion. Subjective views are the result of a combination of Upbringing/environmental factors and genetic predisposition.
Also I think Religion will adapt accordingly to form a more "palatable" view of the world. This is similar to how there are people who support evolution and continue to be Christians. They don't see it as contradictory. I don't have any opinion for or against this.
QUOTE (06294086+)
Before we continue, I want to say first that I believe in God and those "ethereal" beings like angel, soul and demon 100%.
I think that the so-called human soul is actually a part of us that exists on one of the higher dimensions - at least at level 5 or higher...
So when a person "dies" he/she does not cease to exist - he/she is still there, but there is no way to make contact or how he/she can get back to our "current dimension" at least with the current technologies...
Some religions have the so-called "heaven" concepts for example like buddhism - 1 level of heaven, 2nd level, etc...
These are likely to be the so-called higher dimensions...
I think there are a lot of things which are yet to be discovered. Science is only scratching the surface. I don't believe in God, angel, soul, demon etc, but I am open minded to the possibility of them being discovered in the future.
I think that the so-called human soul is actually a part of us that exists on one of the higher dimensions - at least at level 5 or higher...
So when a person "dies" he/she does not cease to exist - he/she is still there, but there is no way to make contact or how he/she can get back to our "current dimension" at least with the current technologies...
Some religions have the so-called "heaven" concepts for example like buddhism - 1 level of heaven, 2nd level, etc...
These are likely to be the so-called higher dimensions...
I think there are a lot of things which are yet to be discovered. Science is only scratching the surface. I don't believe in God, angel, soul, demon etc, but I am open minded to the possibility of them being discovered in the future.
QUOTE (06294086+)
Some people worry that the "YOU" which is "resurrected" based on the "mind/soul backup" of the original "YOU" will be different than the "real" one.
It depends on what it means to be "YOU". If the mind is "YOU" and all the data and processes from your brain are replicated, you should not feel the difference. That is the theory, and currently there is nothing to show otherwise.
It depends on what it means to be "YOU". If the mind is "YOU" and all the data and processes from your brain are replicated, you should not feel the difference. That is the theory, and currently there is nothing to show otherwise.
QUOTE (06294086+)
On another issue, for people who worried that the earth will run out of resources if people live forever, the solution can either be colonization on other planets or living on virtual worlds. Both possibilities will be possible in the future and people are free to choose.
Yes. That is a good possibility.
What about over-population? Holy Hell, if people don't ever die, we're going to have quite a few humans running around this planet...as if our resources aren't taxed to the limits now.
If this future scenario plays out, ppl will need to stop reproducing, or we'll need some serious wars or incurable diseases to maintain the balance.
Science is one thing, but altering the living/dying process is another.
We would be better off storing our minds and bodies as holograms and go into 'replay mode' for our friends and families after we're dead.
I posted my views (or rather ramblings) on running out of resources in my previous post. Given again below -
Yes. That is a good possibility.
QUOTE (06294086+)
Let's talk about "moral" and "life value" then...
Living forever doesn't mean that you can do the "bad" things and get away easily..
Yes, you can't get away more easily than you re getting away now. Eg: Many countries implement capital punishment to murderers. This is not affected by the advance in science and technology, however a cultural change may affect it.
I think it is possible that researchers may identify people with problems (extreme anger, extreme sexual urges etc) at a genetic level and then cure it in some way soon after birth. So people may have "morals", tweaked at the most optimum level for the society and mindset of the future.
Living forever doesn't mean that you can do the "bad" things and get away easily..
Yes, you can't get away more easily than you re getting away now. Eg: Many countries implement capital punishment to murderers. This is not affected by the advance in science and technology, however a cultural change may affect it.
I think it is possible that researchers may identify people with problems (extreme anger, extreme sexual urges etc) at a genetic level and then cure it in some way soon after birth. So people may have "morals", tweaked at the most optimum level for the society and mindset of the future.
QUOTE (vkamath+Feb 5 2008, 08:49 PM)
Throwing religion into the mix opens up a lot of other questions, like those you have brought up... So people may have "morals", tweaked at the most optimum level for the society and mindset of the future.
What about over-population? Holy Hell, if people don't ever die, we're going to have quite a few humans running around this planet...as if our resources aren't taxed to the limits now.
If this future scenario plays out, ppl will need to stop reproducing, or we'll need some serious wars or incurable diseases to maintain the balance.
Science is one thing, but altering the living/dying process is another.
We would be better off storing our minds and bodies as holograms and go into 'replay mode' for our friends and families after we're dead.
What about over-population? Holy Hell, if people don't ever die, we're going to have quite a few humans running around this planet...as if our resources aren't taxed to the limits now.
If this future scenario plays out, ppl will need to stop reproducing, or we'll need some serious wars or incurable diseases to maintain the balance.
Science is one thing, but altering the living/dying process is another.
We would be better off storing our minds and bodies as holograms and go into 'replay mode' for our friends and families after we're dead.
QUOTE (pinestone+Feb 6 2008, 05:35 PM)
What about over-population? Holy Hell, if people don't ever die, we're going to have quite a few humans running around this planet...as if our resources aren't taxed to the limits now.
If this future scenario plays out, ppl will need to stop reproducing, or we'll need some serious wars or incurable diseases to maintain the balance.
Science is one thing, but altering the living/dying process is another.
We would be better off storing our minds and bodies as holograms and go into 'replay mode' for our friends and families after we're dead.
I posted my views (or rather ramblings) on running out of resources in my previous post. Given again below -
QUOTE (vkamath+)
What would happen if the scenario contemplated in thread continues indefinitely? People would continue reproducing as usual, while those who are already here continue to live..forever. At some point the earth will run out of resources (material needed to create artificial bodies) to keep everyone alive. After that I guess the minds of everyone can be uploaded to some kind of a super-computer which creates a virtual world like second life which does not consume any resources in the real sense. But a few people have to remain outside the virtual world to maintain the computer. Obviously nobody would want to remain exposed to the elements, outside the perfect virtual world. Also soon they would find that it is of no use to them to keep some super computer running, and decide to pull the plug on those of us inside .
Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
QUOTE (vkamath+Feb 6 2008, 07:41 PM)
I posted my views (or rather ramblings) on running out of resources in my previous post. Given again below -
QUOTE (vkamath+)
What would happen if the scenario contemplated in thread continues indefinitely? People would continue reproducing as usual, while those who are already here continue to live..forever. At some point the earth will run out of resources (material needed to create artificial bodies) to keep everyone alive. After that I guess the minds of everyone can be uploaded to some kind of a super-computer which creates a virtual world like second life which does not consume any resources in the real sense. But a few people have to remain outside the virtual world to maintain the computer. Obviously nobody would want to remain exposed to the elements, outside the perfect virtual world. Also soon they would find that it is of no use to them to keep some super computer running, and decide to pull the plug on those of us inside .
Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
Sorry, I scanned through the posts too fast and missed your comments.
As long as the robots aren't running Microsoft programs, I might trust them to be reliable.
Edit: We could have robots maintaining the super-computer, but who would maintain the robots? We need self duplicating, self-maintaining robots.
Sorry, I scanned through the posts too fast and missed your comments.
As long as the robots aren't running Microsoft programs, I might trust them to be reliable.
QUOTE (pinestone+)
Sorry, I scanned through the posts too fast and missed your comments.
As long as the robots aren't running Microsoft programs, I might trust them to be reliable.
Even if they are not built by Microsoft they may eventually fail us. Over a large period of time, faulty robots that spend say 1 Milli second more than other robots in duplicating themselves rather than maintaining the supercomputer will become more numerous. Lets call these the "lazy robots".
When these lazy robots replicate themselves they may produce normal robots or lazy robots. But again over a period of time, robots that replicate as lazy robots will become more numerous simply because the lazy robots don't have the additional burden of maintaining the super-computer. The normal robots will slowly become extinct. There will be nothing left to maintain the super-computer.
As long as the robots aren't running Microsoft programs, I might trust them to be reliable.
Even if they are not built by Microsoft they may eventually fail us. Over a large period of time, faulty robots that spend say 1 Milli second more than other robots in duplicating themselves rather than maintaining the supercomputer will become more numerous. Lets call these the "lazy robots".
When these lazy robots replicate themselves they may produce normal robots or lazy robots. But again over a period of time, robots that replicate as lazy robots will become more numerous simply because the lazy robots don't have the additional burden of maintaining the super-computer. The normal robots will slowly become extinct. There will be nothing left to maintain the super-computer.
QUOTE (vkamath+Feb 7 2008, 01:42 AM)
QUOTE (pinestone+)
Sorry, I scanned through the posts too fast and missed your comments.
As long as the robots aren't running Microsoft programs, I might trust them to be reliable.
Even if they are not built by Microsoft they may eventually fail us. Over a large period of time, faulty robots that spend say 1 Milli second more than other robots in duplicating themselves rather than maintaining the supercomputer will become more numerous. Lets call these the "lazy robots".
When these lazy robots replicate themselves they may produce normal robots or lazy robots. But again over a period of time, robots that replicate as lazy robots will become more numerous simply because the lazy robots don't have the additional burden of maintaining the super-computer. The normal robots will slowly become extinct. There will be nothing left to maintain the super-computer.
And the robots that can complete their tasks ahead of the 'standard' 'bots would be considered over achievers and may get special privileges, such as extra energy or perhaps a bonus- like a day off...
I was gonna go there but thought I might try to plant a seed of optimism first
As long as the robots aren't running Microsoft programs, I might trust them to be reliable.
Even if they are not built by Microsoft they may eventually fail us. Over a large period of time, faulty robots that spend say 1 Milli second more than other robots in duplicating themselves rather than maintaining the supercomputer will become more numerous. Lets call these the "lazy robots".
When these lazy robots replicate themselves they may produce normal robots or lazy robots. But again over a period of time, robots that replicate as lazy robots will become more numerous simply because the lazy robots don't have the additional burden of maintaining the super-computer. The normal robots will slowly become extinct. There will be nothing left to maintain the super-computer.
And the robots that can complete their tasks ahead of the 'standard' 'bots would be considered over achievers and may get special privileges, such as extra energy or perhaps a bonus- like a day off...
Firstly, it seems that populations reduce their reproductive rate as their life expectancy increases. You can either increase the death rate or decrease the birth rate to control population. I know which one individuals would prefer, at their individual level, I think. You don't even need to ask them, because the natural trend is to reduce the birth rate voluntarily.
As well, our resource-efficiency is always increasing. We can see this from analyses of "Money generated per unit of carbon dioxide" or "money generated per unit of energy", etc.
Finally, we are going to be going to space. There's a plethora of resources out there. Taking steps (on a private level) to speed our quest into space, coupled with steps to reduce our environmental impact, means that we actually CAN conquer death AND not suffer from a lack of resources.
It'll be easier with more people helping. And the steps that individuals could be taking actually help themselves in the long-run anyway.
As well, our resource-efficiency is always increasing. We can see this from analyses of "Money generated per unit of carbon dioxide" or "money generated per unit of energy", etc.
Finally, we are going to be going to space. There's a plethora of resources out there. Taking steps (on a private level) to speed our quest into space, coupled with steps to reduce our environmental impact, means that we actually CAN conquer death AND not suffer from a lack of resources.
It'll be easier with more people helping. And the steps that individuals could be taking actually help themselves in the long-run anyway.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Feb 8 2008, 01:51 PM)
Firstly, it seems that populations reduce their reproductive rate as their life expectancy increases. You can either increase the death rate or decrease the birth rate to control population. I know which one individuals would prefer, at their individual level, I think. You don't even need to ask them, because the natural trend is to reduce the birth rate voluntarily.
As well, our resource-efficiency is always increasing. We can see this from analyses of "Money generated per unit of carbon dioxide" or "money generated per unit of energy", etc.
Finally, we are going to be going to space. There's a plethora of resources out there. Taking steps (on a private level) to speed our quest into space, coupled with steps to reduce our environmental impact, means that we actually CAN conquer death AND not suffer from a lack of resources.
It'll be easier with more people helping. And the steps that individuals could be taking actually help themselves in the long-run anyway.
I must say, yours is a healthy and positive view of the future. Quite refreshing considering the state of our Earth and the humans that are 'running the show'.
For the sake of humanity, I sincerely hope your visions are correct...
As well, our resource-efficiency is always increasing. We can see this from analyses of "Money generated per unit of carbon dioxide" or "money generated per unit of energy", etc.
Finally, we are going to be going to space. There's a plethora of resources out there. Taking steps (on a private level) to speed our quest into space, coupled with steps to reduce our environmental impact, means that we actually CAN conquer death AND not suffer from a lack of resources.
It'll be easier with more people helping. And the steps that individuals could be taking actually help themselves in the long-run anyway.
I must say, yours is a healthy and positive view of the future. Quite refreshing considering the state of our Earth and the humans that are 'running the show'.
For the sake of humanity, I sincerely hope your visions are correct...
It's more likely to be correct if there are more people proactively trying to make it so. The average citizens can actually make a difference with just their consumption habits and investment choices. Plus, again, we live in a system where everyone can actually come out ahead - if we're wise.
I've already written about this "transferring consciousness to a machine" concept, promoted years back. The notion that you can replace a neuron in someone's brain with something that functions in an equivalent manner and repeat the process until his consciousness is now in a machine is just science fiction. It's based on flawed assumptions.
Would you mind if I accidentally killed one cell in your body? No, probably not.
Does that mean that you wouldn't mind if I repeated the process until I'd killed all of them? Probably so.
You can't say that a small fraction is close enough to zero that it can be multiplied by a large number and you'll still get zero.
If you're interested in the topic, the paper I wrote is posted at my website:
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
under "Machine Consciousness".
There's another paper there on Neural Architecture and Human Behavior which also applies, if anyone's interested.
Would you mind if I accidentally killed one cell in your body? No, probably not.
Does that mean that you wouldn't mind if I repeated the process until I'd killed all of them? Probably so.
You can't say that a small fraction is close enough to zero that it can be multiplied by a large number and you'll still get zero.
If you're interested in the topic, the paper I wrote is posted at my website:
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
under "Machine Consciousness".
There's another paper there on Neural Architecture and Human Behavior which also applies, if anyone's interested.
I've studied this since before 2000 by an Australian based country. It was a link directly to the spine at the base of the brainstem. It was in a magazine article I was reading when studying AM transmissions.
I just spent about an hour writing out an extremely long and complex way to describe what I was going to say, but I can't be bothered now.
What I was essentially going to say is "You" is a delusion created by the seamless interaction of your brain & memories.
Meaning that the only difference between yourself and a replica, is like when you remember something and the you of then - they are both you, simply that both are different and the same.
In relation to that, transferring your memories to a biological (or machine) replica after your death is completely pointless. Then again, so is life.
What I was essentially going to say is "You" is a delusion created by the seamless interaction of your brain & memories.
Meaning that the only difference between yourself and a replica, is like when you remember something and the you of then - they are both you, simply that both are different and the same.
In relation to that, transferring your memories to a biological (or machine) replica after your death is completely pointless. Then again, so is life.
Vamp,
It's a darn good thing not everyone shares your pessimism or humans would have never made it past the stone age. Life is not pointless, it is the individuals' responsibility to find a purpose and achieve it.
QUOTE
In relation to that, transferring your memories to a biological (or machine) replica after your death is completely pointless. Then again, so is life.
It's a darn good thing not everyone shares your pessimism or humans would have never made it past the stone age. Life is not pointless, it is the individuals' responsibility to find a purpose and achieve it.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 27 2008, 07:15 AM)
It's a darn good thing not everyone shares your pessimism or humans would have never made it past the stone age. Life is not pointless, it is the individuals' responsibility to find a purpose and achieve it.
Proof that at least Vamp's life is pointless
Proof that at least Vamp's life is pointless
QUOTE
Proof that at least Vamp's life is pointless
I was gonna go there but thought I might try to plant a seed of optimism first
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.