Give it to me straight /sci/

>>9090303
I would say no, but that would be wrong. The correct answer is NEVER.

when we can transfer all the data of a human mind to a computer with out data loss. then able to copy that over and over again with error checking and repair.

>>9090388
But muh futurology article said in 5 years!

>>9090303
Probably after everyone here is dead, OP.
Why, are you afraid?

>>9090412
>when we can transfer all the data of a human mind to a computer with out data loss
Then people can still die and then someone can pointlessly make a copy of their behavior patterns to live in a computer for no fucking reason whatsover.

>>9090572
>Amadeus Kurisu

>>9090412

no, that would just be a computer program emulating your brain, 'you' would still be dead.

>>9090736
What's the difference? Implying an identical emulation isn't you requires some sort of mysticism regarding consciousness.

>>9090303
if one day when undergrads started going into aging research instead of CS

>>9090825

Say somebody cloned you, would you have control of that body or experience what that body could experience? No obviously not, and a cloned consciousness would be the same, why would I want to die while a clone of me continues to exist

>>9090888
>Cloned consciousness
There's nothing scientifically to suggest that a cloned consciousness isn't the same as the original person.

>>9090898

So are you implying that if your consciousness was cloned you would experience everything you currently do from your own body and whatever input the cloned consciousness can also experience at the same time with no physical connection?

>>9090898
So you believe in a magical connection between "identical" biological systems (and they'd stop being identical as soon as they started to heal at different rates), and you think that connection would apply between a human and a machine, but you don't believe in the soul?

>>9090925
I didn't say I believe in a magical connection between identical biological systems, just that there is know scientific distinction between the two. The instant one differs from the other, you have two distinct states. But so long as they are identical, you have one. Two freshly cloned consciousnesses without any stimuli have the exact same memories and sense of being. If you destroyed the original and kept the clone, that consciousness still exists. Implying two mechanically identical instances of "self" are distinct for no other reason than they exist at the same time is more of a dualist "soul" argument than my own monist outlook.

File: 1462848887584.jpg (247KB, 900x578px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 900x578px

>>9090931
It's time to post it. Technozombies are literally so retarded they don't even have a sense of personhood.

>>9090303
Stopping aging is trivial WITH THE RIGHT PHENOTYPE.

>>9091141
Kek.
>>9091137
There's no discernible difference scientifically speaking. If consciousness is a monist materialist phenomenon, duplicating your current consciousness at any point in time is no different than reviving you.

To assume otherwise requires dualism; that two structurally identical (you)s aren't the same thing.

>>9090303
only if they stop the telomeres from breaking down. That's what causes aging

>>9091961

Is this real life?

The clone isn't going to be made of any of the same atoms as the original. How does that require dualism?

If you make a dozen copies of a letter in a copier then burn the original, the original is still gone. The fact that you have facsimiles doesn't change the fact that the original no longer exists.

>>9091961
DESU this is top quality bait

>>9091993
Consciousness is the meta-illusion that emerges from the substrate, though; it's not the letter, but the message the letter carries. If you copy a letter and destroy the original, you still have the message.

>>9091137
See also SOMA for some cool horror-themed contemplation of this concept.

>>9090303
No. Even if aging were stopped no one would live forever; accidents happen, sickness happens, natural disasters happen, war happens.
Also, resource-wise we couldn't afford to have absolutely no one dying unless we reduced child production to near zero at some point in the future. And that's never going to happen. If it did, (which it won't) our species' evolution would halt until we're replaced by a better genetically engineered species or robots.
You might ask 'oh, what if we only make geniuses immortal? They're useful!' Well yeah, but another thing to take into account is that the human brain isn't unlimited. Everything they can't forget takes up space that new information could have taken up. After a while they'll cease to remember new information and be unable to learn.
When immortality is achieved. It likely won't even be widely distributed to everyone (ie; peons like you.) Or at least not for a long time after its invention.

TL;DR: No, and immortality is dumb.

>>9090388
Fpbp

>>9090303
Some sea cucumbers species don't age if I'm not mistakin.
Fun fact: If you don't age the propability of dying an unnatural death goes to infinity

>>9090303
wouldn't that basically require changing the way every cell in the body divides itself to make sure it doesn't break down the telomeres

hey maybe it would work with a genetically engineered baby? I don't think the general public would be ok with immortal lab babbys though

>>9091961
Well I suppose if I clone you and somehow put all your memories into a clone it's okay for me to chain you up, starve you, rape you and eat parts of you, right? I mean it doesn't matter. Since one of you isn't being starved, raped and eaten piece by piece.

>>9092009
Nah he's just a fucking p-zombie. Mankind isn't even really mankind.

>>9092172
Um not really. It would just require constant maintenance.