It will never be available. It requires a particularly focused set of technological changes, and those require massive capital investments. Those sort of investments can only be made by very rich people. Yet they're doing nothing of the sort. Today, a billionaire worldwide lives for about as long as does a healthy middle class Western man does. There's no difference in lifespan worth mentioning. So what use is it to have so much fluid wealth at your command, when you're just going to lose it all anyway? Well, WE sort of people say things like that, because WE aren't that rich. People who are that rich, are sociopaths or psychopaths. That's why they're so wealthy. Literally, the focus of their lives is in making money, ever more money. They have no other moral guidance. They aren't visionary. They're just disgusting little money grubbing trolls. They either don't understand mortality, or they don't care.
And that's the most degenerate perversity of all, for an intelligent lifeform. They have the means to address life extension, yet do nothing about it.
>>7805111 Yeah, except these billionaires are the only people that contribute anything significant to charities.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet contributed a lot society in different ways in the course of making money, both contribute heavily to charities and both are unfathomably wealthy.
If people were not incentivied to make money, we'd never have progressed to industrialized society. We'd all be digging holes to plant turnips, squatting in the mud playing with sticks, sipping moonshine in the afternoon and having unprotected sex with our cousins, like pretty much the entire industrialized world.
>>7805320 I read some sci-fi thing where a massive AI construct survived for eternity because the heat-dead universe was enough to cause it to be a superconductor that could calculate almost infinitely fast.
It mostly just thought that it wanted to kill it'self by self-deletion but it couldn't. It was pretty cool.
>>7805337 I think they do it mostly for the tax break. Rather put money into a pet project or pet cause than giving it to the government to squander. Also, arguably nobody has 'humanity's best interests' in mind when they do literally anything. Evolution produced people who are appropriately self-centered. If people do something that benefits others, it's typically by accident or self benefit anyways.
>>7805639 That's not going to transfer your consciousness, retard.
You'll still be fucking around in your fleshsuit while some other copy of you enjoys eternal life. What you need is to find a way to do a conscious stream from one medium to the next, where the human brain's activities gradually shift over to an artificial brain's.
We don't have that kind of technology, and we're probably not going to have it for a good few centuries
50 years ago. If you talked to an 80 year old, they were frail, smaller (shrunken), and talked with a whispery kinda raspy voice. An 80 year old today is switched on, talks normally, and reasonably fit. There are (i think) more 100 year olds alive. So in 50 years we have already gained an extra 20 or so years without really trying.
>>7806362 probably they will do it, fake their death and then live infinitely as different people steering the world while all the plebs are dying off hopefully somoene will leak this secret so i can get my life extension and shitpost on 4chan for eternity
>>7804492 Maybe not in our lifetime, nor true immortality, but chromosomal degradation is something we may see curbed in our lifetime. Telomeres and telomerases seem to be the key. We're understanding better the physics of G-quadruplexes and other structural isomers of DNA in chromosomal end-regions, and how they interact electrochemically with maintenance proteins, etc.
This is actually what sparked my interest in biophysics and physical biochemistry.
>>7805111 You're mostly right, the vast, vast majority of the super-rich don't give a shit about anything but making more money. It's ironic, because if they invested in life extension sciences they'd have a good chance of living longer... and making more money. SENS Research Foundation is doing good work, but can't seem to attract a ton of rich investors. Peter Thiel, the Paypal founder in on board with them, so there's at least some like him, just not enough.
Even if you, by some miracle, survive beyond the heat death of the universe, it is statistically impossible to live *forever*. There's always an end. And even if you live for a googolplex years, your life will be as insignificant as a second in the face of eternal death.
>>7808683 It isn't possible to survive it, but as long as we're talking hypothetical scenarios here, you still wouldn't be able to live for infinity. Even if the probability of you dying is (1/graham's number) every billion years, as we approach infinity, that probability will eventually become humongous.
>>7808701 Continuing the hypotheticals here, it would depend on if that probability was dependent of independent of each previous iteration of a billion years. An independent drawing of one number out of graham's number every billion years could realistically never occur, since your odds for each billion years are 1/graham's number and independent of your odds any other billion years.
>>7808722 anything that has any chance of happening, even 1/graham's number, will happen given enough time. Infinite time means infinite chances, which means a 100% chance of dying at some point, at any point.
>http://elifesciences.org/content/3/e03896 >These results point to the nucleus of neurons as the potential locus of the engram in Aplysia
>http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/full/nn.3594.html >Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations >Our findings provide a framework for addressing how environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally at behavioral, neuroanatomical and epigenetic levels
The hypothesis that memory and consciousness is located in DNA isn't fringe. Moreover, something of a person is inherited by their children. Having said that, we can make a valid argument that by preserving the neurons, we're preserving the person.
So, we remove the CNS/PNS, and roll it up into a ball along with a sheet of electrodes. If we can replace the myelin and glial cells with something thinner - like fluorine - the entire brain could be compacted. And why stop at that point? Before wrapping it up with the electrode sheet and before fluorinating it, the neurons can be infected with viruses that induce the production of inclusion bodies which replicate their functions - but in a far more compact form.
Now, build a new body out of stronger materials, and hook it's nerves up to the electrode sheet at the appropriate area. After that, you're basically a mass of aerographene and carbon nanotubes soaked in DMPU, hydrogen cyanide and all sorts of other other wonderful things. The aerographene muscles will be electrically powered, and a 'stomach' will be used to create heat, which will be harnessed to induce the Seebeck effect. The stomach will also process ores and other food, and use pressure to push the metabolic byproducts into the rest of the body.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494070/ >Importantly, telomerase-treated mice did not develop more cancer than their control littermates, suggesting that the known tumorigenic activity of telomerase is severely decreased when expressed in adult or old organisms using AAV vectors. Finally, telomerase-treated mice, both at 1-year and at 2-year of age, had an increase in median lifespan of 24 and 13%, respectively
The key? No. But it really works, and will help people live long enough to receive treatments that will make them immortal.
>gets your mind transferred to a computer >government starts performing experiments on your mind >you are tortured for eternity >there's nothing you can do about it >everyone outside thinks you're enjoying your virtual reality paradise
>>7805672 >What you need is to find a way to do a conscious stream from one medium to the next Yea man don't gotta leave that soul behind. You really think there's anything more to you rmind than the structure and function?
>>7810478 What defines person A besides the part that was copied? That's the whole point of this hypothetical: you scan/copy/emulate the brain perfectly. I don't really get the difference between your 2 scenario's but yea I agree with that. Except person B == person A.
I do think extended life span is possible. However, not by the procedure in the original post. If a person is to extend their life indefinitely then they need to be a Christian and a hard-scientist. That is all.
>>7810489 >What defines person A besides the part that was copied?
Nothing (well, the body does, but that's not relevant to this discussion).
>That's the whole point of this hypothetical: you scan/copy/emulate the brain perfectly.
Yes, and as outlined in my two scenarios, the original sample (A) gains no benefit; in scenario #1 he lives on and in scenario #2 he dies, but he does not get to experience being person B.
Assume that it would be possible (which it isn't, e.g. due to Pauli's exclusion principle) to create an exact replica of some arbitrary person X. You now have two identical people, X1 and X2. However, by your definition, they are both the same person. How can two people be the same person? You strongly imply that one consciousness will inhabit two bodies. Say you move one body to UK and the other to Botswana. What is your proposed mechanism for one consciousness being able to inhabit two bodies? What if you move them several light years apart?
>>7810600 >You strongly imply that one consciousness will inhabit two bodies. No I don't. I'm only really saying they're indistinguishable, also from their own point of view. Until they diverge, of course.
>>7810625 Alright, I'm going to recap the chain of events in this thread to clarify exactly what we're talking about here, because I'm starting to get lost.
>>7805672 makes the argument that even if you copy your consciousness onto some extremely durable or immortal medium, the original, whose consciousness was copied, will not reap the benefits of this, but his or her exact copy, will (see also >>7810510). He goes on to say that we will need some technology that doesn't copy, but moves the consciousness onto a new medium, just like how you would move an object from the floor onto the table, not copy it resulting in the original still being on the floor with the new copy on the table.
>>7810473 misinterprets the post thinking the previous poster made some kind of metaphysical argument and I feel the need to clarify his argument.
From >>7810489 I read "B == person A", and assume that you think person A and B are one, not two, persons.
I agree that they are indistinguishable from all points of view until they diverge.
It seems that we didn't disagree at all, it was just a misunderstanding. My intention was to point out that there's nothing in it for person A no matter what, as it's B that will reap the benefits.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.