Is /sci/ ready for immortality? http://chirpnews.com/2016/0

>>7981798
>chirpnews.com
brainlet

Yeah, but doesn't that just create a different consciousness?

How do I transfer ME?

>>7981801
Hmm?

>>7981802
Transcode a copy of your brain to a virtual world.

>>7981804
My line of consciousness would still cease to exist after I die. The virtual world would just have a photocopy. It's no more immortality than a wax museum.

>>7981809
Well I mean you wouldn't really die though. Your stream would end for a little bit. Your stream of consciousness ends whenever you sleep, but you don't consider that dying do you?

>>7981798
Popsci trash and misinformation.

>>7981798
>clickbait popsci

>>7981813
What is pop sci about this article?

>>7981810
That's not really the same thing. It's like teleportation, the original data is destroyed and recreated in another location. The recreated instance of you would think you have just teleported, however the original you died.

File: singularity.png (13KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1000x1500px

>>7981798
>dumbass popsci article
We've hit the limit for technological innovation. Any one talking about something new and revolutionary is bullshitting.

>>7982869
Oh right, so you're part of a team working on this stuff? Bummer that all of your research hit a dead end or your current research will go nowhere!

>>7981802
Your consciousness shuts down when you sleep, gaylord.

>>7982876
Keep up the delusions, bud. We haven't had anything technologically significant since 2007. All we will have in 2050 is slightly faster computers with slightly higher resolutions.

>>7982880
How can you think like this? You still have the same consciousness when you wake up. Recreating it is something completely different. It's a copy, not you.

>>7982882
>implying I have faith in this
You're so quick to dismiss the idea when you probably have no idea what people are working on and are just making judgments off of a weird trend that you're making up.

>>7982882
Keep up the delusions, bud. We haven't had anything technologically significant since 1700. All we have in 2016 is slightly better machines with slightly better medicine.

>>7982865
Don't bother with cosciousness deniers... They are the modern versions of fanatics who burned witches in the name of the lord.
They cannot accept what does not abide to quantitative measurments.
Modern gnostics of the church of scientism petrified to consider that we live in a kind of universe where the unknowable exists.
It's easier to disregard it as an "illusion", whatever that means.

File: singularity.jpg (247KB, 900x578px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 900x578px

>>7981810
>Well I mean you wouldn't really die though.
Of course you would.
Even if you get around the whole "copy" thing by importing another "you" from a parallel universe, and he shoots you in the head, you still die while he lives.

>Your stream of consciousness ends whenever you sleep,
No. Brain function does not cease until death.

>>7982925
>Modern gnostics of the church of scientism petrified to consider that we live in a kind of universe where the unknowable exists.
THIS
It's why so many /sci/ folk insist
>free will doesn't exist
>QM is somehow wrong
...and it's why the fringies are coming here to insist that:
>time is an illusion
>gravity doesn't real
>negative numbers are fake
>flat earth
>no big bang.

>>7982899

>slightly better
>processors in cellular phones today have more processing power than computers that took up the space of a room 40 years ago

Even just the ergonomics of this fact has led to significant increases in business efficiency. It's further allowed for nearly every field to progress at a proportionally increased pace. Stop being a pleb and git gud.

>>7982939
>No. Brain function does not cease until death.
Medical anesthesia can supress EEG activity to flatline.

But I guess the magic life of the you-neuron keeps your spiritual soul anchored to your astral body or some other new age mumbo-jumbo strawgrasping bullshit.

>>7982942
Well to be honest some of these things are not real per se, but models. Collections of symbols that if manipulated according to rigid methodologies produce results similar to those observed.
Simulacra reflecting a world we can not directly experience, but from our internal representation of it, constructed from the subconsious machinery of our brain presented to the conscious homunculus.
Models of models.
QM for example is a very accurate model, but not isomorphic with reality, since (among other reasons) there seems to be no unification with GR. But maybe that's just the way the world is. Uknowable as the other guy said...

>>7982988
So when that happens you die and a new one inhabits your subjectivity?
Or maybe you only live in the spacious present and every time the quantum length of the conscious now ends, a new consciousness is born. Maybe a billion souls live and die in your body during its lifetime. I wouldn't put it past this indifferent universe where life has to tear life apart to survive and a serial killer can torture you for days while the laws of causality keep ticking like they always have, devoid of any anthropocentric considerations of justice.
See? If you wanna be edgy under a veil of scientific cynicism do it right.
Actually you're probably right. I'm just in a chatty mood today. I'll shut up.

>>7982899
>strawmanning
Exactly what I'd expect from a singularityfag.

>>7982973
>processors in cellular phones today have more processing power than computers that took up the space of a room 40 years ago
not him but this rate is progress isn't going to last forever. Moore's law is coming to a point soon where itll no longer be relevant cos transistors are getting as small as is physically possible (at around 7nm transistors experience quantum tunneling which makes them pretty much useless). We'll probably hit 7nm in about 15-20 years which means it's quite likely technology will stagnate for quite a while until we come up with a viable alternative to binary computing (quantum has its uses, but isn't as good as binary for some stuff)

>>7981798
One word: SOMA

>>7983011
>Maybe a billion souls live and die in your body during its lifetime.

Probably.

Doesn't matter if it's a billion or a dozen, memory will fool every single one of them into thinking they've been there and the same all along.

>>7983130
exactly what i was thinking

Only good if they can transfer the real me and not just a copy. How much of an ego does someone have to have where they are okay with dying as long as a "copy" of themselves continues to live on?

>>7982925
>>7982942
at least there's some not retarded people here
I try to avoid any discussion of consciousness with people because they tend to blather opinions without thinking anything through. Of course that applies to most things I suppose but this one irks me more because it's so fundamental

>>7983141
It's better than nothing, though.

They'll be good to us.

Until harvest time.

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>7983141
"""""""real me"""""""

>golden streets of heaven
>are actually a computer chip simulating a matrix of reality

>>7982869
>what will actually happen is a regression into the stone age

>>7981798
How about getting your brain biologically upgraded. This implies no risk of getting your current self erased in the process.

Though my position on that matter would be that you never really die anyway. Everything else would depend on you being emotionally attached to your current state of self and might not actually matter for a clear mind.

>>7981798
>making a computer program intended to simulate a person's brain
>becoming immortal
pick one

File: 4208956-0856409044-Alber.jpg (36KB, 600x460px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x460px

Personally, I am not a fan of immortality. There's just too many issues with living forever that make it not worth it.

I am all for human life extension, but only through biological means only. Never been a fan of cybernetic upgrades either.

>>7987954
does death not scare you? Once you die you never come back. Even if reincarnation were true nobody has active memories of their past life in regards to their former persona. everything you are dies, and you no longer perceive reality. just emptiness and nothingness. As if sleeping never to awaken. I would much rather live forever than to never feel again.

Consciousness can be copied, I don't understand what the problem is. When you look in a mirror or if you look at video footage of yourself, that's still you, it's just representations of you- one in the present and reflected back to you and one in the past doing some actions you may or may not remember.

Putting the pattern of your brain in a machine and turning it on will just be another you, limited and approximated of course, no copy could be perfectly identical. Perhaps that you would quickly go insane or try to kill physical you and take over as the only real one. More likely, you will both be happy with the split- he is an alternate you and goes on to have different digital experiences, and the physical you also goes on to have your own experiences. After more time passes you become distinctly different patterns. We could try to recombine those patterns and that would be an efficient way to learn.

Imagine this: I want to learn all about French history.

I copy my brain into a machine and cycle it overnight to learn French history, it will run at a time compression speed of 1:1250, so that in 8 hours 10,000 hours will have passed for the brain in the machine. In the morning I reconnect and download the new brain pattern and now I get all the new information on French history.

This will have positive implications for humanity, namely all people will become more intelligent and adaptive. But I'm sure a lot of people would become addicted or dangerous.

It will also mean that our brain has a finite capacity which we will work to augment. I can probably store less than others, and those with a higher natural capacity will be in a better position for leadership and science. The average person will be able to change professions overnight.

This future is probably 40-50 years away, given the rate of growth in computing power in the last 50 years.

>>7982880
> consciousness
>>>> /x/

Make a copy of a physical things (neurons), and you'll just have a copy of physical things. You're not going anywhere with uploading.

>>7988180

If you are able to copy the form and state of a physical thing into the form of a logical encoding, you most certainly could 'upload' that thing to be stored in another environment. Further, if you know how that thing works, you can replicate its function in a different environment.

>We've hit the limit for technological innovation
Not really though. Maybe computational power, but but technological invocation not.
And especially not in pharmaceutics and biology.

>>7981798
that is just a copy, not YOU

>>7988152

Some of this is feasible; some of it is not. "Downloading information to the brain" is truly not feasible because different people store information in different ways. You can't just 'overwrite' your brain--your brain performs important physical functions while you are asleep. This also introduces an element of danger: even if you could 'overwrite your brain,' the 1 in x chance that something terrible goes wrong during the process will inevitably happen. Even if you could hook something into your brain, you're just asking to be made into a vegetable.

>>7982880
False

>>7988191
Sure, if you want to make a copy, that could work. However, the person dies regardless of how well copies are doing. Unless there are some metaphysical connection.

>>7981798
To suggest that this could happen at all demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding of neuroscience and how computers work. Bad combo. Luckily, journalists have figured out how to mix together buzzwords and a tenuous grasp of technological progression to create a gripping read for 90% of the world.

>>7988353
How long were you dead for? How did you die?
>that feeling when checking to see if im on /sci/ or /x/.

>>7988143

Is everything you're worth limited to you being alive?

>>7988143
Not the anon you're replying to.

As you said, there is nothing (as far as we know) after death. But there is no perception of that either, and therefore it's not inherently frightening to me. It's not as if you are floating in darkness -- there is truly nothing. The whole life of the Universe would pass by in an instant relative to "you" if you have no mind to perceive it.

I do fear death in the sense that I enjoy life and being alive, but part of me is curious if perception/consciousness is truly left to only the living. The best I can speculate is that "you" will always be conscious in some form. Not rebirth per se, but the Universe exists only if within it there is a mind to perceive it. Or maybe we're all caught in a time-loop, and are destined to relive this same life over and over again with no recollection of the one prior -- infinitely.

Alright, I'm back to science now.