EPTScientist claims immortality in 20 years or so - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
| ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
| ||
|
yooh
China223 Posts
| ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
| ||
|
georgir
Bulgaria253 Posts
increasingly more powerful computers, brain-computer interfaces, ai research and nanotechnology might allow us to precisely measure and emulate single neuron activity for all the neurons in a brain at once. this could mean "mind upload" into mechanical replacements of the brain and/or the rest of our body for continued interaction with the physical world, or even an existence in a purely virtual world. this also brings very interesting possibilities like copying minds - for backup purposes, for increased productivity, or just because we can. as computers get faster and faster, it also brings the possibility to get our minds work faster than real-time, but at the same time with the possible infinite expansion of the "human" population, it might also be the case that we will never have enough computing power... if multiple minds are emulated on a single computer or network, computing power for one's own mind might turn out to be a resource that we work for or compete against each other for and trade with instead of money... who knows. there's some even crazier ideas like developing some kind of collective consciousness or whatnot. yeah, i'm a dreamer. i'm stopping now before people figure out where i live and round me up in a nuthouse. | ||
|
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
[ immortal in my understanding = to live forever ] if u can kill yourself still.. its something different.. | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On September 29 2009 17:42 Scorch wrote: Is immortality even desirable? yeah you can definitely hit olympic rank on iccup at that rate | ||
|
Kyo Yuy
United States1286 Posts
I would imagine a few hundred years, probably longer than that, and that's assuming we have sufficient resources on Earth to continue doing the research that we are doing now. One thing that a lot of people overlook, is that scientific research is always limited by the amount of resources available to do the research. | ||
|
SnowFantasy
4173 Posts
| ||
|
valaki
Hungary2476 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On September 29 2009 23:10 Kyo Yuy wrote: I think two decades is way too soon for us to achieve biological immortality. I would imagine a few hundred years, probably longer than that, and that's assuming we have sufficient resources on Earth to continue doing the research that we are doing now. One thing that a lot of people overlook, is that scientific research is always limited by the amount of resources available to do the research. Another thing people overlook is the rate at which information technology advances. Humans in general have a hard time understanding the concept of exponential growth. Even if they do understand it in theory it is still very unintuitive for us. We tend to think of things in a linear manner. We look at the technological advances that have happened during the last 30 years and project that the same amount will happen in the next thirty when in fact following the same exponential rate, many thousands of times more could happen in the next 30 years. | ||
|
zwitter
United States6 Posts
All that doom and gloom out of the way, it does make a great science fiction plot (Kurzweil's contributed a few of these-- and don't get me wrong, I love thinking about this stuff)... But seriously folks, how has no one brought this up yet: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Highlander.jpg There can be only one! | ||
|
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
On September 29 2009 19:53 phosphorylation wrote: Perhaps the poll should be worded: Is your desired lifespan beyond what would be without intervention? Wouldn't everyone have answered yes, then? Unless everyone has a DNR. | ||
|
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
On September 29 2009 23:09 konadora wrote: yeah you can definitely hit olympic rank on iccup at that rate not really, because if everyone was immortal, it would be relative. I suppose you could argue some sort of absolute plateau effect, in which case, why would people play?  | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
| ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
On September 30 2009 00:30 Jonoman92 wrote: If people live to be 150 will they still take social security at 65? It'd mess up the system. Well I assume if they are using nanobots to completely counteract senescence then there would be no reason to offer social security at 65 a your body would still be physically 'young'. If it just kept us alive for longer while the repair/aging equilibrium was reached at a physically 'old' age I'm not sure it would even be worth taking up the offer. For me at least being physically old for 90 years is no thx. | ||
|
XsebT
Denmark2980 Posts
 | ||
|
Mah Buckit!
Finland474 Posts
On September 29 2009 20:02 Manit0u wrote: Life after death =/= immortality. Edit: Besides, I'd rather not get into Heaven after I die. Imagine spending an eternity without booze, cigarettes, more than 1 sex position etc. etc. Disaster. Edit2: Yes, I'm a sinner and I like it. To me continuing existence is the same as immortality. Maybe not in the same form but nonetheless. If you are paralyzed are you alive in different way than you would be otherwise? The rest of us however will never have been when we die that is we didn´t exist, we do not exist and we will not exist. Unless we of course obtain some sort of immortality, which would be nice. | ||
|
eNoq
Netherlands502 Posts
For open minded people, google John Lear, Bob Lazar, David Icke and Alex Collier. | ||
| ||
