Death special: The plan for eternal life

[BoBoGuy]

The method is being developed (in mice, so far) to better understand the architecture of the brain. But Anders Sandberg, who is based at the University of Oxford, has a rather more ambitious aim in mind. For him, this work is merely the first step towards uploading the contents of human brains - memories, emotions and all - onto a computer.

This is the opening session of the ninth annual meeting of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) in Chicago. Sandberg and his fellow transhumanists plan to bypass death by using technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), genetic engineering and nanotechnology to radically accelerate human evolution, eventually merging people with machines to make us immortal. This may not be possible yet, the transhumanists reason, but as long as they live long enough - a few decades perhaps - the technology will surely catch up.

To many, these ideas sound seriously scary, and transhumanists have been attacked for jeopardizing the future of humanity. What if they ended up creating a race of elite superhumans bent on enslaving the unmodified masses, or unwittingly programmed an army of self-replicating nanobots that would turn us all into grey goo? In 2004, political scientist Francis Fukuyama singled out transhumanism as the world's "most dangerous idea".

YouTube - Quest for immortality

[EmeraldWolf]

I love it. Where do i sign up ?

[BoBoGuy]

Originally Posted by EmeraldWolf

I love it. Where do i sign up ?

Contact Dr Anders Sandberg at the below address.

anders.sandberg@philosophy.ox.ac.uk

You may have to wait awhile but good luck anyway.

Bo

[Remiel]

This does pose an interesting question, can the human mind / being / essence / however you want to phrase what makes us human, be transfered into something mechanical?

[BoBoGuy]

Originally Posted by Remiel

This does pose an interesting question, can the human mind / being / essence / however you want to phrase what makes us human, be transfered into something mechanical?

Consider the following scenario, adapted from Derek Parfit’s seminal discussion of personal identity in his 1984 book Reasons and Persons. Imagine that at some point in the future you begin to suffer from some debilitating form of mental illness. Because of the amazing advances made by the Blue Brain and other similar projects, it is now possible for scientists to ‘copy’ the functional aspects of your brain (your ‘mind’, one might say) onto a computer. They will then ‘delete’ the dysfunctional elements which underlie your mental illness, and copy back the rest of the mental ‘program’ to your brain. The copying across to the computer usually results in the ‘emptying’ of the brain, so that in effect, while the scientists are carrying out the remedial process, your brain would itself be like an empty hard disk on a computer.

Many people, confronted by cases like this, believe that it would clearly be rational for one to undergo the treatment. One will emerge from it the same person, but cured of one’s mental illness. But now imagine a further twist. The copying takes place as normal, but the mental states correlated with your brain remain in place. The scientists tell you two further things. First, the bad news. Because of some defect in the tissues of your brain, it will cease to function within a few minutes. Second, the potentially good news. Another transfer has failed, and this time the scientists have lost all the data from another brain, leaving them with a ‘spare’, empty brain. They plan to copy your data into that brain instead, so your own mental life can continue. So, they say, you have nothing to worry about.

But how will you – that is, the individual with the brain about to malfunction – feel about the fact that ‘your’ mental life will continue in some other brain? Probably not entirely satisfied. This at least raises the possibility that, in the ‘ordinary’ cases of transference, the person who emerges from the process is not the same as the one that entered into it.

[Remiel]

Quite possible. Especially that last possibility, after all if it is only data, what prevents one from tampering with it?

The question then is will it even be possible to transfer a brain to a computer? Is the human mind such that we can translate it into a binary program to be reverted later? Is the information that resides within our brains who we are? Or is it merely data storage?

I can't say that I know the answers to any of these questions. What do you guys think?

[Earthbound01]

You should check out Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil's work in the immortality field:


Aubrey de Grey

and

Ray Kurzweil

[KazeCraven]

I think that if there is anything beyond this life, it's likely that your soul, for lack of a better word, won't be able to reconnect with a machine, even if it is programmed to behave like you. I'm not sure I completely understand this procedure though, but it sounds like we're just duplicating the effects and not the person.

[BoBoGuy]

I agree with Earthbound01 that Aubrey de Grey is well worth checking out. He’s a Cambridge researcher who argues that aging is merely a disease and a curable one at that. He believes that humans age in seven basic ways that can all be averted.

Below is a short University of Alberta interview that, if interested, is worth viewing.

YouTube - Aubrey de Grey

[JRhodes]

Originally Posted by BoBoGuy

The method is being developed (in mice, so far) to better understand the architecture of the brain. But Anders Sandberg, who is based at the University of Oxford, has a rather more ambitious aim in mind. For him, this work is merely the first step towards uploading the contents of human brains - memories, emotions and all - onto a computer.

This is the opening session of the ninth annual meeting of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) in Chicago. Sandberg and his fellow transhumanists plan to bypass death by using technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), genetic engineering and nanotechnology to radically accelerate human evolution, eventually merging people with machines to make us immortal. This may not be possible yet, the transhumanists reason, but as long as they live long enough - a few decades perhaps - the technology will surely catch up.

To many, these ideas sound seriously scary, and transhumanists have been attacked for jeopardizing the future of humanity. What if they ended up creating a race of elite superhumans bent on enslaving the unmodified masses, or unwittingly programmed an army of self-replicating nanobots that would turn us all into grey goo? In 2004, political scientist Francis Fukuyama singled out transhumanism as the world's "most dangerous idea".

YouTube - Quest for immortality

I'd argue that we already race of elites that have enslaved the rest of us.

I personally don't like the idea of eternal life, I think I'd be pretty bored with it after 100 years or so.

[BoBoGuy]

ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — A model that replicates the functions of the human brain is feasible in 10 years according to neuroscientist Professor Henry Markram of the Brain Mind Institute in Switzerland. "I absolutely believe it is technically and biologically possible. The only uncertainty is financial. It is an extremely expensive project and not all is yet secured."

The opportunities for this neuroscience research challenge are immense explains Professor Markram: "A brain model will sit on a massive supercomputer and serve as a kind of educational and diagnostic service to society. As the industrial revolution in science progresses we will generate more data than anyone can track or any computer can store, so models that can absorb it are simply unavoidable. It is also essential to build models when it comes to treating brain diseases affecting around two billion people. At present, there is no brain disease for which we really understand what has gone wrong in the processing, in the circuits, neurons or synapses. It is also important if we are to replace the need for the millions of animal experiments each year for brain research."

Human Brain Could Be Replicated In 10 Years, Researcher Predicts

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by BoBoGuy

For him, this work is merely the first step towards uploading the contents of human brains - memories, emotions and all - onto a computer.

The human brain operates in a non-linear fashion (ie creativity), and cannot be replicated (only imitated) by a linear, non-living entity (ie computers). Sorry!

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

The human brain operates in a non-linear fashion (ie creativity), and cannot be replicated (only imitated) by a linear, non-living entity (ie computers). Sorry!

I would amend your statement to say, "The human brain operates in a non-linear fashion (ie creativity), and cannot be replicated (only imitated) by a linear, non-living entity (ie computers). Sorry!" at this time.

I tend to lean towards Ray Kurzweil and his associates that it will be possible in the not so distant future as the singularity approaches.

[newmark]

Interesting, but what about our soul/spirit? That would never copy onto a computer.
And what would life be like living in a computer if you did upload your memories?

[BoBoGuy]

The organic brain decays and succumbs to death, as all living things must do, but what if it were possible to transfer its precious contents onto another medium so that we may live forever?

I was six years old when my parents told me that there was a small, dark jewel inside my skull, learning to be me...

Why? So that when I could no longer be me, the jewel could do it for me.

I thought: if hearing that makes me feel strange and giddy, how must it make the jewel feel? Exactly the same, I reasoned; it doesn't know it's the jewel, and it too wonders how the jewel must feel, it too reasons: "Exactly the same; it doesn't know it's the jewel, and it too wonders how the jewel must feel..."

And it too wonders whether it's the real me, or whether in fact it's only the jewel that's learning to be me.

Sure, the jewel could pass the fatuous Turing test — no outside observer could tell it from a human — but that didn't prove that being a jewel felt the same as being human. Given the chance at immortality, does the question of perfect authenticity even matter?

Maybe I just want to fly
I want to live I don't want to die
Maybe I just want to breath
Maybe I just don't believe
Maybe you're the same as me
We see things they'll never see
You and I are gonna live forever

~ Oasis

[Figment12]

Interesting topic, would definitely want to see something like this come to fruition. But unfortunately I'd assume great minds like Einstein would never be able to be brought back

[Jthorn]

Originally Posted by BoBoGuy

I agree with Earthbound01 that Aubrey de Grey is well worth checking out. He’s a Cambridge researcher who argues that aging is merely a disease and a curable one at that. He believes that humans age in seven basic ways that can all be averted.

Below is a short University of Alberta interview that, if interested, is worth viewing.

YouTube - Aubrey de Grey

From what I 've seen, this guy talks too much about irrelevant details. Like why a potential cure could grant us life for many years or why we shouldn't make the choice for future generations. All well and good and makes his suggestions all the more appealing, yet there is very little meat. As in, how exactly he plans to cure aging. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but it's as if he's trying to excite the crowd more than achieve anything.

As to the topic at hand, what I find rather spooky is that even if we cure aging, death by injuries - through violence or accident - isn't likely to be eliminated. In the case of uploading our brains to computers, then there's the possibilities of malfunction or destruction of the machines.
All in all, I wonder how sheltered an eternal life would have to be. Or how it would feel to lose someone you 've known for some thousands of years and going to spend several more without them. Would they even matter to you then? Creepy stuff.