Science of living forever. What do you think of this ?
Offline What do you make of this ? :
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december052010/brain-download-ta.php
Can brain uploading be achieved within 40 years? Sooner, say some experts.According to Ian Pearson, a British futurist, death will be a thing of the past by 2050
Pearson is one of many futurists, cybernetic experts and artificial intelligence researchers whose thoughts are converging on the same basic idea: Why not upload everything that's in the brain—everything that makes a person who they are—into a computer and then download it again into a new body? Doing such a thing would make the individual theoretically immortal.
For such a thing to work, more advancements will be needed in the hardware and the software, and better interfaces will have to be developed between the human brain and the silicon brain.
Yet how to get there from here is not insurmountable.
Can brain uploading be achieved within 40 years?
Sooner, say some experts. What's needed are super fast computers with huge memory capacity. They see that happening before 2020 and that's just 10 years away. If there are unexpected breakthroughs with quantum computers the time line will be shortened considerably.
Some are not so ambitious; they're satisfied with the idea of virtual immortality. In that scenario everything that's an individual is uploaded into a digital avatar and survives 24/7 within a permanent, theoretically eternal, Internet.
Science fiction? No. An organization called The Digital Immortality Institute (DII) is researching the possibility of doing just that. DII has determined the three things necessary to achieve digital immortality are: guaranteed Internet access; insure the identity integrity of the avatars for each individual user; and finally, make sure the personality, memory, everything that makes up the person as a unique individual, has been uploaded into the digital facsimile before the actual person dies.
Yet virtual reality holds little interest for Pearson. He wants the real thing, and so does scientist Anders Sandberg. A member of the new transhuman movement (beyond human), Sandberg believes uploading minds and downloading them again into new bodies is a technology that's imminent. He believes it will happen because of Mankind's desire to overcome aging and death, as well as solving the problems associated with overpopulation.
Another transhumanist, AI theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky is convinced the technology must be developed quickly before a group or government with evil intentions does it first. He sees artificial intelligence as the key to unlock the immortality door. But it must be done in the right way for if it's not, dire consequences could follow. "If a self-improving AI is thrown together in a slapdash fashion, we could be in for big trouble," he warns.
Some like 80-year old Marvin Minsky, called the father of artificial intelligence, creator of artificial neural networks and the co-founder of the AI lab at MIT, believes the general masses haven't a clue about how to handle immortality, nor do they deserve it. From his ivory tower perspective he believes that scientists need the extra time that immortality can provide, while the rest of humanity should be satisfied with normal lifespans.
Sounding a bit godlike, Minsky waves aside any ethical considerations and argues that scientists are above such things. No restrictions on the research and applications, no regulation of any kind should be countenanced by the scientific community.
"Scientists shouldn't have ethical responsibility for their inventions, they should be able to do what they want. You shouldn't ask them to have the same values as other people," Minsky adamantly declares.
Now, that is scary. Isn't that the premise that Dr. Frankenstein had in the book that bears his name?
Article written by Terrence Aym
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
- Login to post comments
Signature ? How ?
To be honest, I wasn't sure what to think of it. Especially some of that stuff that Minsky was saying towards the end.
I wasn't sure if this was even a possibility or if it was just some aspect of bunk science that made for a good headline.
One of the reasons why I posted it on here. Since it seems that alot of you on here are far more educated about science than I. I just wanted to get some feedback.
I don't think I'd want to live forever in the internet anyway, what would happen if I got some kind of virus ? Hehe.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I don't pay too much attention to that kind of stuff anymore. The paperless office is still being kicked around as being a goal and I first heard of the idea in the early 80s.
But, have you read, This Alien Shore by C. S. Friedman? People are direct wired into the internet via hard wire links in their brains and a virus is loose. Great read.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I'll have to check that book out.
Paperless office ? Reminds me of the "new" computers that we are supposed to be getting at work. They have been telling us about "when the new system gets here in a couple of months" for about six years now.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
No, it wouldn't.
Universe heat death. Statistically inevitable system failure. Fog of ages. Etc.
All of these things are just extensions of apparent 'life' span. The only things that are "immortal" are those which are not subject to change.
Not saying it is or isn't worth working on, but kicking around the word "immortal" is largely just a bunch of hype.
Agreed, if by immortal the understanding is that of an infinite life span. On the other hand, if it means that some of us may live a really long time, then yah, I guess so. Although that would bring into question just how old would a person want to eventually become?
Seriously, can you see being two hundred years old? Perhaps for a decent number of us, that might be viable if possible but assuming that we don't destroy society somehow, the longer that one is alive the greater the amount of collective social change there will be.
If you can accept living to be two hundred, can you accept living to be two thousand? Twenty thousand? Really, we are into sci-fi territory on this but how many of us want to just throw the dice and gamble on even wanting to live that far into the future?
Eventually, we will have the whole solar system mined out and then what? A long slow decay as even the best possible scenario must hold that recycling cannot be 100% efficient. Even if some of us do choose to live as long as possible, I don't see us reaching the heat death of the universe.
=
IMO, the biggest hurdle would be elucidating the neural basis of consciousness which is a field of study still in its infancy. If indeed we could fully map all of the brain's functions digitally, rather than placing the brain into a new body, why not simply house the brain in a broth with input and output wires that generate a virtual reality. And in this artificial realm you can have anything your heart desires. And to avoid boredome, after an elapsed period of time the erase button for your memory is triggered followed by reset. I'd never get bored of filet mignon medium-well, smothered in butter, baked potato side with sour cream, glass of wine and creme brule for dessert for all of eternity. No adverse health sequelae and no guilty conscience over a dead cow.
BTW, the vat would be encased in a box studded with solar panels orbitting the sun for power. So it would be "eternity" until our star burns out.
I don't think we could keep the brain working normally with just electrical connections, we would have to be able to release a whole range of chemicals as well.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I think those are included in the "broth" he spoke of.
But some of those input wires would have to go to devices to release controlled amounts of various chemicals as required, not just directly to the brain. Changing levels of many chemicals are just as much inputs to the brain as nerve impulses.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
This idea is wrong for so many reasons and at so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
In the OP, it's suggested the 'brain' be installed in a new body. Whose? A new born infant? That would be robbing that being of it's rightful existence.
An artificial body? That seems more reasonable but, who would be in charge of maintenance?
The comment at the end about this only being available to scientists because they are worthy and the general masses are not...well, that I can sort of go along with - brain power would be put to good use for humanity (hopefully) and not simply to conjure up imaginary gourmet meals on Fantasy Island.
Whatever the means and method used, I think it safe to say, it would be very expensive... hell, most people can't even afford general health care now. How the hell would they ever be able to afford immortality?
Reading between the lines...I see this as a potential way to produce low maintenance, low resource consuming armies of humanoids designed for the sole purpose of catering to the wealthy. Yeah, you would be an immortal indentured servant. Sort of like what the Christians believe immortality to be.
In reality, how could this ever possibly happen when we can't even find a reliable fuel source other than fossil fuels? What happens when the electricity goes out?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I have to disagree there; the brain already contains such devices, so it would just as much be a matter of stimulating them. As to sensory input, etc., electrical stimulation to nerves does just fine-- and those wetware devices *can* be indirectly stimulated by way of sensory input. I don't see why we would need to circumvent that.
I don't think it's too much to assume that the nerves are serving their normal intermediary functions, merely attached to machines instead of the sensory devices they are originally functional with. We already have a number of bionic sense that function on these principles.
Why is the idea morally wrong? IMO there is not a lot of distinction between a brain within an organic machine versus a silicon based machine. And who would be in charge of maintenance? Well, we are all in charge of maintenance of our organic bodies. Why is it not possible for a mechanized one?
In the long run it would be far, far more expensive to maintain our organic bodies and brains. With an aging population, and accompanying health problems (heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc..) existence in a durable mechanical body with a long life battery sounds cheaper to me.
Why would such mechanized humanoids be stripped of all rights to serve a wealthy group? In fact with their better bodies and brains, clearly over the long run we know who the masters of the world would be while we humans die out.
What about nuclear or solar power (eg. Mars rover)?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Truth to be told, I don't think I like the idea of living "forever" myself. Like Answers in GeneSimmons mentioned. I might consider the idea of living 200 or 300 years. But the idea of 2,000 or 20,000 is just something that I presently can not wrap my mind around. I am not sure if I would want to live that long, can you imagine what sort of a mental outlook that you might have after 2,000 years ? I think I would be totally alien by that time and so far removed from being me that it would no longer be me and thus, figuratively, I would not be living forever.
HOWEVER, if I found out that I had less than a month to live and had the option of going through something like this, I might jump at the chance to do so. Death is not one of those things that I dwell upon too much, but if forced to face with it and life was a viable option, then I might take it.
I do have some limitations on choosing life. If life was going to leave me paralyzed from the neck down or horrifically damaged beyond hope of recuperation, I probably would not want to continue to live.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Here's something else to consider... how would this affect the over population problem we now have? If growth continued at the present rate - and people were engineered to live 5 times longer than they do now - wouldn't that have a negative effect on the planet?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Me personally, I would think so. As well as cause some major wars and major terrorism. I mean, the scientists in the original article were a little arrogant about the idea that THEY were gonna get the technology to do so but no one else would. But do they really think that governments of ANY kind would sit around and just allow them to have this without trying to take it ? I mean, if people in Iran and throughout the world found out that a group of MIT scientists held the key to immortality, I would imagine that attempts to get to that technology, assassinations, and everything else would ensue. Not to mention all of the people right here in this country, that would be trying to beat down the doors to get to it and attacking everyone who got in their way. Even if they tried to keep something like this top secret, I don't think it would be long before something like this would get out. The ability to live forever ? That could cause some out and out terror if the public ever found out that a select few had found it and were not going to share it.
Just an idea of mine, now how true that would be I would not know.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
It would make a great sci-fi movie, though.... or, would that be The Matrix?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
A movie would be a great idea. I hope that they could get Anthony Hopkins and John Hurt to have some important roles. Let Jason Stratham do all of the fighting. Let Asia Argento play the female lead. I would hope that maybe they could also get Gary Oldman to play the evil mad scientist with some sort of agenda behind "immortality".
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I liked Oldman in The Professional, where he played an evil DEA agent...also good in The Fifth Element. Hopkins is great in anything. Pacino ( The Devil's Advocate) would make a great evil scientist, too.
I really can't take Deniro seriously anymore after The Fockers and Showtime. he has got to be the funniest straightman ever!
Sorry to go off topic....
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein