Let's have a serious discussion about immortality

Uploading your "consciousness" into a computer might be possible some day. But note that an upload is basically a copy, so there is no guarantee that the upload will actually be you, it might be a different consciousness that is identical to you. You might still die and your consciousness fades away. To make sure that consciousness in the hard drive is actually you, you would need a transfer of your consciousness, not a copy. I don't see how that would be possible though.

Never. If you're that kind of faggot who puts all his hope in science and technology to avoid him from dying because he smokes a lot and does drugs, you're a disgusting human being.

>exponential technological advancement
alright, this meme really needs to fucking die

very low probability but it's possible. Biology is just incredibly complex though. Also the technological level to do so also brings in a lot of other challenges that might kill us.

>Be immortal
>Memory isn't infinite
>Can't remember childhood
>No idea when you were even born or what sort of life you've lived throughout eternity
>How many times have you moved, changed your name, changed careers
>Maybe you've taken up a hobby or area of study and you're really into it, but is it the first time you've been really into this thing? If not then what meaning does it have getting into it now if a few centuries from now you won't even remember.

Even if we could somehow freeze the aging process, people would still get cancer eventually and cancer is a long way off from being cured.

We're all going to die, user.

>How does gene therapy prevent you from being incinerated alive or be shot down by Tyrone? You still don't understand just how inevitable death is in the long run.
OP said biological immortality, which means eternal life assuming nothing kills you.

...

BuT whAt iF tHAt'S aLreAdy ThE caSe ?????

I don't think immortality will be achieved within our lifetimes.
There are ethical concerns with genetics research that prevent people from embracing it fully.
CRISPR cannot edit the full human genome, and it tends to make errors, so for now the technology to make a living human immortal does not exist.
People would probably not be comfortable with gene editing embryos, and if they were we're not there yet.
We don't have the understanding of consciousness needed to transfer it to a machine.
TLDR
No.

Yes, I do think people born in the 2080's have a good chance of becoming the first immortals.

That's bullshit and always has been.

Consciousness is barely worth more than your personal schedule, your signature, your passport.
It's surface level.
Where do you think dreams come from? Not from your decisions.
Where do desires come from? Not from memories.

Genetics is the only key to selfhood.

>Proceeds to post a dozen Mitsubishi Keikau videos about how we're all going to activate a interuniversal wormhole using planck energy to boil spacetime.
I think most people's fear of death is FOMO though. There's a difference between dying at the end of time and dying in 1900 for example.

>Genetics is the only key to selfhood.
This thread is already shitty enough, don't start.

>using planck energy to boil spacetime
LOL, not even two black holes colliding produces any wormholes

>attach brain to robotic body
>wait for synthetic brain tissue to be made
>start making neural mappings to it
>gradually remove original tissue
>????
>live forever

wow, that was hard you mortalets

>write a book
>nullify every other argument

People who say immortality is impossible mean on a cosmological scale because our current theorized ultimate fate is heat death and the only way to avoid it would be to disprove one of our laws of physics.

These people don't mean 1000 year old humans, they mean humans of actual infinite age.

I didn't say its sensible, just that Keku as actually said that's how people could escape.

the issue then is to make ourselves out of a system that has an entropy change of 0 forever while still being sapient.

Which again, requires something currently physically impossible.

Now hey, maybe just the change we need does come along 30 million years in the future, who knows, but we can't speculate what is possible on technology we don't even have the precursor of the precursor to yet. For all practical purposes, immortality is impossible by human means; you're going to have to get into unscientific mysticism to support it as of now.

Maybe the cyborgs of 1382017AD will laugh at our naive pessimism.

ok how about this. instead of entropy change being zero, it's rate of increase gets exponentially slower but never zero. that way, it's not converging and violating the second law, but doesn't cause decay in order that would be visible to the system due to the timescales involved. i guess infinity though isn't valid here as a timescale and it would decay, but if it converges at an arbitrarily far away distance, isn't that the same as saying it doesn't converge in some sense?

Again, modern science can't answer this question in the way you'd like. We may be able to get biological immortality in a few decades, and that'll get you far enough to start asking about entropy reversal, maybe. I believe the average lifespan for a biologically immortal person, assuming all other risk factors remain the same, is around 8 thousand years statistically.

i'm not asking if entropy can be reversed. i'm asking that if it grows at a logarithmic scale, would it be the most efficient system possible such that the notions of entropy reversal wouldn't be needed to achieve this physical immortality that's being thrown around? logarithmic is just an example but it's clarify what i'm thinking; the growth gets slower in non-polynomial time if that means anything.

We've been authorized by the Pan Galactic Federatsiy to scroll to your time and use this rudimentary comm channel to say yes, we're laughing at you.

well. Extended life under Western birth rates isn't a problem.
But if the birth rates in the Western world increase due to immigration from the 3rd world or developing countries, that have high birthrates, increasing the price of things in the market due to increased population and so increased demand.

Memory isn't some storage room of arbitrary facts where random memories start getting pushed out when it gets full. Important memories can be remembered indefinitely, since they get refreshed every time you recall them.

Granted, your memories would get modified a little bit along the way, since mistakes in your recall ends up getting stored in the memory, but you'd still have a vivid sense of who you are, even if some of the facts wouldn't check out if someone tried to verify.

>Atheists discussing eternity

keep a fucking diary

When technological singularity is achieved (some experts estimate it to happen in 50 years), biological immortality will be achieved quite likely

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Well, only if general AI don't decide to get rid of us.

Wow. Another one who thinks that writing in all caps will convince people. Also grunting about entropy without knowing what it is will impress nobody of importance.

My genetics may decide how I react to certain stimuli, but my genetics do not determine my everyday life. My day to day life is as much affected by my own decisions as it is the decisions of the strangers, coworkers, friends, and family who surround me.

I don't get it but I'm also not atheist.

Sure, but it's quite a difference between living 100 years and living a million, and living a million in software where you actually run 10000 times as fast as a a biological human.

>There are ethical concerns with genetics research that prevent people from embracing it fully.
Only in the US and Europe

This only goes so far.

Specifically as far as knowledge is concerned, many things simply have to be relearned. Consider, for instance, all the people who write a thesis at the end of their Masters or PhD and are unable to understand the material or follow the arguments several years later due to having left the field after graduating. There are countless examples out there really, think about all the people who at one point used to speak another language but over time forgot it, or think about all the people you've forgotten (maybe you can remember a few facial features, a scrap of an event, something, but in time the memory will be gone and it will be as if you never knew them).

There's also the bigger problem that if something happened so long ago that it hasn't affected your life for centuries, you don't remember it, and you can't even relate to it then what use is it to read about it? You may as well be reading someone else's diary.

>memories don't get pushed out when your memory gets full, memories get pushed out when they get old and you haven't thought about them in a long time
This is not any better.

I'm not saying immortality is misery, but it's also no cakewalk.

kek
this is truly the best meme yet

No, you're not even going to be the great great great grandparents of the first immortals. The closest thing you'll get is improved aging cream by the time you die. Immortality is something humans probably won't have for thousands of years lmao.

Wait what's your point? Of course you're not going to remember every detail. People don't remember details about shit they did 10 years ago, but people don't consider it overwhelmingly miserable.

Consider being 1000 years old and you know that in the first 100 years you were a very successful professional musician, next 100 years you were game developer, then for 100 years you were genetics researcher and contributed considerably to science, etc.. would you feel miserable if you don't remember how to play that one song on piano?? Fuck no, people don't feel miserable for forgetting shit...

Also when BMI-s advance, we could increase our memory capacity considerably

NEETzsche

Hmm slaves barking. Who told you I am like you.

Anyway don't fucking call yourselves scientists.

Don't listen to the retards ITT. Yes, you have a good probability of making it, OP. And the good news is that you can influence the outcome. Donate to SENS and spread awareness about aging research.

>t. FUCKING loves scientists

If you were immortal how would you go about preventing the authorities from finding out and taking custody of you?

Asking for a friend desu

> 80s
Not a chance.

>make and exact copy of your DNA at the peak of your body's potential
>remove shortened DNA from ends of chromosomes and insert the cloned DNA
>repeat process so that you regain any genetic information lost when DNA replicates itself
Could it work?

Yeah I seriously doubt we won't have so much antiaging technology in the next 50 years to keep us all alive much longer. We already have enough crap to make 70 year olds look half their age. People who are in their 20s now, we're in the middle of the most narcissistic group of people ever born. Nobody alive today wants to ever die. We used to have patriotism and religion and children and even scientific and artistic advancement to try to immortalize us in some way. People don't even reproduce as much. The only thing left to do is to actually become immortal. We will get better and better at this shit. In fifty years we'll all be getting stem cell steroid injections into our bones and living for 300 years

>living for 300 years
Not good enough.

I think immortality will be figured out in less than 100 years. Possibly even less than 75. Artificial Intelligence is going to create a utopia unless we tamper with it's programming. There are many solutions to immortality. Laws that don't let you have children if you want to be immortal could be one. Another thing is space for all the people. This is easy. Arcology. Food for the people: We will have to largely go plant based. Sorry not sorry. I've already made the transition to that and it was easy as fuck and my mental clarity has spiked. Also, We will have to stop being so politically correct about everything. If you have a question I'm sure I could answer.

just to add on my point, it's going to be more likely about nanotechnology than gene editing.

immortality =/= invulnerability there sport

it could happen sooner but the planet's political awareness is very low brow

>serious discussion about immortality
Fucking how? It's not a serious topic.

where is this done? in every single cell?

not necessarily. nanotechnology could be programmed enough in the future to be able to locate lost body parts and bring them back together. also force fields are a definite possibility and they could even be strong enough to withstand the temperatures of the sun ergo we could literally fly into the sun in the far future and probably without a spaceship.

also to add to this the force field could be used with sensors and activated during a car crash or explosion.

based on how shit like "we'll cure cancer and aids and will be on mars by 2000 and have world peace" turned out, we will increase lifespan by a good ammount and then kinda get disillusioned with the idea and pretend we achieved what we wanted by substantially lowering expectations nad chase another dream we come up with. Singularity or warp-speed or some shit.

>implying any nation outside the US and Europe matters

Save that for Facebook there Debra

I think it'd have to be just so that no cell could ever die. If not, then the cells you didn't do this for would completely die off after enough replications.
Doesn't seem to practical though does it? I wouldn't want to have to go through this process every time a cell was about to die

It's never gonna happen

underestimating the singularity, i see.

Yeah it's the worst kind of top down solution. Immortality will have to be engineered from birth. Strong DNA from birth not DNA repair.

what riemann hypothesis tell us about bilogical immortality?

>can't find a cure for the common cold
>retards think immortality will be discovered soon

>believe in immortality
>don't do safe long term investments
>don't do anything to prepare for your expected lifespan

Immortality is a easy when you know just about everything there is to know about science and technology. Knowing is easy when you are a supercomputer the size of a moon. Being a supercomputer the size of a moon is easy when you have trillions of robots building you. Building trillions of robots is easy when you have one robot that is capable of self-replication. Designing that one robot is easy when you have AI. Having an AI is easy when you have enough computing power combined with evolutionary algorithms. Having enough computing power is easy when you just wait for the GPUs of 2030 to arrive.

Exponential growth bitches.

depends on how much money you make oldfag

I hope not because only rich psychopathic freaks like Peter Thiel will get it.
At least now I can count on them dying eventually.

If we actually manage to pull off AI without it blowing out in our faces then immortality (more like potentially infinite lifespan but who cares really) is trivial. honestly I´m more scared as to what will become of humanity when we are close to achieve that or we finally do so, as some people will go fucking crazy over the idea that we are obsolete
pic related?

With humanism's suicide and world wealth being focused in china I'm sure a commoner stands great chance to gain access to immortality treatment. because he's special after, everyone said so in school.

this

AI is just a simulation of sapience not sapience, it works on discrete 1s and 0s

>Believing the common cold being cured is due to technological incapability and not the fact that doing so would require us to round up and immunize all of humanity at once.

Curing the common cold has no cost effectiveness, that's why there's no effort to do so. You can cure a strain but it evolves a few times a season and is spread across the globe.

How far are you from the necessary materials to build the machinery required?

What's that webm from?

>read book you wrote 2000 years ago
>realize it sucks and that you are a terrible writer

All I'm seeing is all the multi hundred year depression people will have

It's probably better for their mental health to have an inflated estimate of their life span.

>Calling people slaves
Rich boi thinks money will pay for his immortality. Sorry only the .01% will get it, and it won't be about money. Something like immortality would be strictly regulated and only our rulers would get it.

Particles align to form matter in such a way as to minimize their energy. Therefore, the energy is released in the surroundings and therefore increases entropy, which is believed to lead to a massive heat death of our universe.

>"We" can't clone a human legally
>"We" can't practice eugenics
>"We" still have a taboo on performance enhancing drugs
>"We" still haven't colonised space
>"We" haven't sent a layman to space in his personal vehicle
>"our" biological milestone seems to be creating a superbug that eats fucking oil
>"We" are scared of genetic alteration of humans
>frankly on the grand scale "We" haven't achieved shit.
I'd say immortality is pretty fucking far away, and if it is possible, women will find a way to sabotage it so that "evil men can't live forever and immortalise the patriarchy"

>(you)

If I could get a gf with that body I'd be ready to accept the inevitability of death and die in peace.

I'm wondering too. I wanna say the Animatrix but I'm not sure.

ps I'm hard as a rod rn.

He is correct though

>To make sure that consciousness in the hard drive is actually you, you would need a transfer of your consciousness, not a copy. I don't see how that would be possible though.

FFS, it's as simple as the old "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment - gradually replace the brain with machine so continuity of identity is preserved, rather than making a copy like a computer file.

That is, assuming consciousness is, in fact, a computable phenomena. Theories like Penrose's quantum account of mind might mean that it is not something amenable to computational simulation, i.e. Church-Turing Thesis, so it might be a hard task.

This is a much more interesting subject than most people give it credit for.

Virtual immortality can basically be attained in one of two ways: Either biologically, as you said, or through transhumanism. While the two are somewhat connected, I think we can all agree that unless we get a ridiculously unprecedented amount of medical breakthroughs and discoveries in the next few decades, we won't be seeing biological immortality in our time. There is no "one" thing that can be done to make the human body immortal. To make a body immortal, you'd have to develop ways to immunize and regenerate the body in a million different ways, none of which are really known to us yet. And even if successful, you'd still be vulnerable to various kinds of accidents, violence, toxins, radiation, biological agents etc. Not to mention the fact that there are a whole lot of political and environmental obstacles to biological immortality to boot. IF this was possible in the next 200 years - and it seems pretty obvious that it really won't be -, it would absolutely not be something that was made available to the populace as a whole.

Realistically the cheapest, easiest and most practical form of immortality would be transhumanism. That is, moving the consciousness from your brain to a computer, into a simulated reality. Now, this needs a fucking shit ton of medical and technological advancements to become reality, but there's at least a remote chance that it could happen in the next 40 or so years that us 80's people have left, on average.

(... cont ->)

(continuing..)

Transhumanism would be quite different. It's much easier to store, secure and repair digital data, than to protect a biological body against everything in the physical world. A digitally stored mind would create virtually no strain on the environment. More importantly, the more advanced our technology becomes, the cheaper it would be to store people's minds and to simulate their digital environments. It's basically a given that if we reach the level of technology where transhumanism is possible on a large scale, then the equivalent of a Moore's law will make sure that the price, storage space and power requirements of storing human minds digitally will develop much, much faster than people can ever reproduce and die off to add more strain to the system. Point being, if this tech becomes reality, then so does the fact that we CAN let *everyone* live forever, digitally.

The fear of death, and the desire to live is such a basic human feeling, that there would be a massive demand for such a system. So it's not at all unlikely that in such an event, some government somewhere would create a nation-wide cloud of immortality where every tax-paying, working citicen would be guaranteed to spend a virtual eternity upon the death of their physical bodies.

Now whether some natural disaster, war, human greed and bullshit like hacking or other malevolence would at some point cause irreparable damage to that system or not, is another matter. But if transhumanism does become possible, it's practically a 100% certainty that it WILL become the norm of our daily lives. Simply because the costs and downsides would so quickly become so negligible, that there's no reason not to do it, when it would be the most powerful motivator for the living that any nation has ever imagined.

(...cont)

The Black Mirror series (currently on Netflix) had an episode about this. I recommend you check it out. Transhumanism would eventually transform our society. All people from the point the system was created could live on in various kinds of simulated worlds with other real people and AI pretending to be people at the same time. With advanced robotics, people could enter the physical world through avatars like in the movie The Surrogate to greet their grandchildren, or real people could use interface devices to visit the digital world and meet their grand-grand-grand parents instead.

Philosophically speaking, unless we blow ourselves up, are destroyed by a planetary natural disaster, or find some new ultimate restrictions on the development of technology (which seems unlikely given that optic chips and quantum computers are no more than a decade or two away), this outcome is inevitable. The only question is, will it come in time for us, or not. Whatever the case, it seems likely that we are on the very edge of that turning point in human history... born just close enough to barely make it, or just far enough to barely miss it by a generation or two.