If science offerd immortality would you accept?
Religion is always inferior, with God you can live forever but sadly you have to die first. Science, well with science you can literally live forever. Ok I am jumping the gun a little, the technology is still being developed and while feasible it still is only theoretical (as far as I know). Surprisingly this new technology is not some kind of formula that turns back the aging process. It is something much, much more efficient. The idea is to download the information on your brain into a computer and then upload it into a younger clone of yourself. The clone would of course need to be raised in a vegetative state or perhaps even created when you need it.
If this technology becomes available sometime in the next decade or two I doubt this would exactly be legal. However I am sure some scientist in some European country will do it for the right price.
The question is if you had the chance would you do it? Would you want to be immortal?
My answer is 'yes' I would do it in a heat beat.
The other more important question is what impact would this have on religion in your opinion?
I think it would cause a lot of problems since it proves that we are just the sum total of the information in our brains. There is no soul, no magic, our self awareness is just electricity....
EDIT: I should have clarified the clone is not copy of you it is you, the data is transfered from your brain to a new brain. So the information in the brain of your original body is wiped clean as it is uploaded into the new mind. If all we are is a collection of memories it shouldn’t be a problem.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
- Login to post comments
A couple thousand years would be great. Forever? Definitely not.
Oh, I'm going to get you for that.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I think that the way to really go about this is to do as one poster said, and replace the brain on an individual neuron basis. Say, wrap each one in a sheath, which "learns" the connections the cell made, and can continue them after cellular death. Of course, once you have this setup, you can emulate them in a computer. Here's the part I think would be interesting.
First, to ensure "immortality" you would want to offload the basic system to a more secure site, and treat the body as a client of the server(your mind). So, you get your head taken off by a shotgun, no problem. You are just sitting in the dark for a bit until your new body comes online. As long as you can maintain a sense of continuity, it's still you, and not a copy(IMO). Obviously, this would take an immense information pipe, with almost zero latency, so this is probably the achilles heel of the whole idea. Of course, if the local client is capable of autonomous existence, and the system is built upon the idea of a constant updating both ways(like some video games do now), then it may still be feasible.
Second, you could take this data stream and record it, or pipe it to another person, say. I once argued that just the ability to share sensation would revolutionize sex. But it would be useful for other things too. You could inject new data into the stream(why carry a cell phone when you can BE the cell phone). Telepresence would be possible. Why waste resources constantly shipping people into orbit when you can ship some "bodies" up and just have whatever expert required use what is already there? And, of course, entertainment. If you think Warcraft is cool now....
Third, I think it would be interesting to see if the human mind, freed from the meat machine we use to think now, could learn to manipulate multiple I/O channels at a time. That is, could you spawn two processes which share memories and consciousness, but can manipulate a body independently of each other? Could you rebuild the human mind to be able to run two or more bodies, and would this affect your feeling of humanity?
So, I see immortality not so much as a basic continuation of this life, but rather a sort of merger with an artificial intelligence. And I would jump at this in a heartbeat. Just the ability to aggregate more and more data would be worth it. Imagine the insight such a person could have if they could truly master all of our current scientific disciplines? Imagine a mind with the creative impulses of a human, the computational power of a computer and the ability to intergrate all of the diverse fields of information we have today? All with a virtually unlimited lifespan?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Do you know how many neurons are in a human brain, by chance?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
'bout 100 billion, too big of a number for me to grasp, so I just think of it as a whole fucking lot. I see extremes in temperature the same way. Anything below freezing is too fucking cold.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
50-100 Billion. In this thought experiment, I see the "sheath" as more of an engineered virus-like nanobot, so I suppose the name sheath is misleading. The point is to have some way to replace the neurons with a mechanical equivalent, on an individual basis. The basic idea is that this allows the processing to be moved outside of the skull while maintaining a sense of continuity. As far as I can tell, this is the only way to overcome the basic problem with the idea of cloning a new body. Simply making a copy of the data and installing it in a new body is not immortality, except perhaps from the viewpoint of others. The person still dies, just to be replaced by a new individual who thinks that they are the original. This is why I would not step into a Star Trek transporter or the Tesla machine from "The Prestige."
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Off hand no, I do not. Probably that is easy enough to google but I have another objection. Heat.
Let's say that you put some unknow number of billions of nano-robots ina human skull. Even though they are tiny, they will produce some amount of heat as all machines must. Even if that is a tenth of the heat produced by the structures that they are mimicing, that is a lot of new heat being intorduced into the skull. So the skull must be reengineered to accomodate the new heat load.
Also, they will need an energy source. If it is the same sugars that the existing brain runs on, then the body would go into shock from the departure from homeostasis. If it is something else, you still have to get it there without ruining the delicate chemical balance of the body.
=
Indeed. My assumption is that this process is performed in a surgical setting, where heat and nutrition can be manipulated easily. One would not just walk around with 2x the brain mass. The whole body is essentially reengineered around the new brain.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Answers in Gene simmons, your post about copies reminded me of an "Outer Limits" episode. Basically, we developed a technology that allowed us to travel lightyears, but how it was done was a copy was made at the destination, and then the operator had to destroy the first copy. The episode gets funny when they have a mistake and think the person didn't arrive at their destination, so they keep the first copy alive. Onjce they find out the destination copy is infact alive, they have to literally kill the copy at the space station.
I am an Ex-Christian.
Well, I have not seen that outer limits episode. However, there is something quite similar in the novel “Wall Around a Star” by Williamson and Poul.
Basically, the problem of FTL travel is solved by a network of transporter like machines that can create a perfect copy of an individual in another location without a transmission delay. Getting the machines to a destination star system still has to happen at sub-light speed but since intelligent life is everywhere, any given race only need to build out it's own network until it comes in contact with galactic civilization in general. Except in this book, they don't snuff the original.
You walk into the machine on one planet and two of you walk out of the machine on two planets. Both of you are you with all of the same memories and what not but each of you then have separate individual existence.
The philosophical implications to the nature of individuality are kind of neat, especially when you happen to have an occasion to meet yourself for whatever reason.
=
How many ways can I say no !??
Yeah I would take a shot at immortality.
Well, it honestly depends on my lifestyle at the time they offered my immortality. If they offered me the immortality transplant thing when I was poor and starving then no. If I was living well, then I would really think about it.
Is that always the case? I'm serious - has every religion always involved immortality for everyone?
Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of variants. The ancient Greeks had it that Hades was a sort of perpetual afterlife, so it could count as immortality. However, nothing ever happens there so you get to mostly sleep through it. Also, certain versions of Buddhism have and end to the cycle of reincarnation. Ideally, every pass through the world has you getting just a bit cooler but eventually, you reach the point of being 100% cool and then the whole process stops. Your last death is of the ego entirely so there is no more you. However, there is a remnant of all that coolness that merges into and becomes god.
=
How does that make sense? If you don't want to live an eternity, it doesn't mean you value your life any less.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby