/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12026184
no because there's no way you can have a chance of mortality equal to 0 %.

>>12026184
well, scientifically speaking, no one has proven that I'm not immortal

>>12026184
Even if it were, the longer you live than you ought to, the more entropy you create, and the closer you bring the inevitable heat death of the universe.

>>12026184
I don't know.

People pay massive sums of money to get their dead body preserved in liquid nitrogen until far in the future where they hope technology will have adbanced far enough to revive them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRxI0DaQrag

>>12026184
things will loop around and recur eternally

>>12026184
already exists in nature
problem is - given an infinite amount of time it's almost certain you would die some other way than just your body failing due to old age (accidents etc)
point is, nothing is immortal - not even the universe itself, so the idea of ever achieving it is retarded.

>>12026274
>People pay massive sums of money
Rookie mistake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Z4d5EOjGs

>>12026184
when psychological profiling reaches its apex in 50 years (funded by big advertising), "immortality" will be sold in the form of a generic humanoid robot with your memories and personality imprinted on it

this process will also be synonymous with cloning

>>12026184
Which kind? Biological one? Sure. www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(16)31664-6?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867416316646%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

And mind uploading might also become a reality in a century or so. Digital minds could alone live until the era of either proton decay or feed themselves in hawking radiation up until the year 10^100, when the last black hole has evaporated. Only vaccum energy, reversible computing or somehow finding a way to escape into a basement universe will allow one to escape entropy. But infinite, eternal immortality can only be for beings that have no begin. Personally hope for subjective immortality, that will be our only way to indefinitfly cheat death.

>>12026184
Who would ever want to live forever? Give me my 75 healthy years, and then let me see what's on the other side, even if it's nothing.

>>12026184
Probably not immortality, no. Because, the literal definition of immortality is:
>... unending existence...
There are many things that could prevent this: pathogens, violence, accidents or the ultimate fate of the universe.
However, bio-indefinite mortality, which is sometimes colloquially known as "immortality", is very much possible, and present within nature:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality
It is also feasible to create medical protocols designed to reverse senescent processes as a method of "de-aging" the organism.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence
It should be noted the "criticism" is entirely based around the "we can't do it yet" stance, which is fairly obvious, seeing as it is a goal to achieve. So, this isn't really an argument against it, more resistance.
The reason why the idea of engineering these processes into us isn't favored is because of the complexity of the metabolic system and its pathways, which are largely implicated in the senescent process, where as addressing them with direct therapies is, hypothetically, less complicated and should take less time to research, refine and implement.

>>12026214
>>12026832
Deathism is so passé.

>>12026828
I'm personally not a big fan of the mind uploading fad, because:
1) Continuity of consciousness: It's just a copy of you, not "you".
2) I see the real-world as more "authentic".

>>12026844
There is no "you"

>>12026855
There damn well is.

>>12026844
>Continuity of consciousness: It's just a copy of you, not "you".
I see the Moravec Transfer/Gradual neuron replacement or the Mind Shift as viable methods to ego bridge your mind into a digital/cybernetics state, but those two methods are far harder to achieve than simply creating a copy of one's mind. The Moravec Transfer only changes the substrate and the Mind Shift requires a full understanding of your own internal processes (autosentience) to be workable.

>>12026184
The only hard part is preserving what constitutes your consciousness. Your consciousness is pure matter.

If matter is infinite, so is consciousness under the right circumstances.

i dont want to fucking die help me anons

>>12026931
No.

The worst part about it is that the group most likely to discover brain-uploading/immortality will be google or some megacorp tech corporation and it will become a dystopia. Hoping to discover it myself first but that probably won't happen

>>12026945
Just become a cyberpunk and engineer it from papers and documents you jack from their repositories.

>>12026950
Even if you do that, you'd probably need a lot of electrical power and resources to actually run the simulation

>>12026954
Sounds fun to try, more fun than being in the simulacrum.

>>12026937
Neurogenesis is a thing though. Your cells are already getting replaced, as long one maintains the process, the mind should survive it.

>>12026956
Well in irder for it to be sustainable you'd probably have to take in orphans who would probably die in the streets and have them work for the electricity bill in return for them getting a place in the simulation (though a shitty one that doesn't use much power) when they die. Then get a little extra power to help feed an AI until it becomes a supergenius, after which you can use it to take over the world

>>12026964
That isn't the issue, my issue is two-fold remember. The Real is Authentic. I don't want to get derezzed for being a bad boy.

>>12026966
You're a bit of a buzzkill, eh? I bet you're fun at parties.

>>12026945
That`s why I am transhumanist combined with socialist policies.

>>12026973
>Implying I go to parties
>Using a reddit joke
>>12026974
It it's socialist policies just replace "megacorporation" with "the state"

>>12026976
Ain't nothing wrong with Reddit, of course, there isn't anything right with Reddit either.

>>12026976
>It it's socialist policies just replace "megacorporation" with "the state"
It`s about a balance between economic freedom and monopolo. Regulation and a structural hold on how these technologies develop can to minimize possible abuses.
Not a utopia nor a dystopia awaits us but new complexities, new potentials and new conflicts. Augmentations mostly won't be developed in black programs but will either be byproduct of medical research and follow in its application the supply/demand rule of all emerging technologies. Human modifications will be less horrific and glamorous than many think, it will be rather mundane. Or will become mundane because people do underestimate the therapeutic time humans will need to adapt to their augmentations. Transhuman technologies will not be the next computer or cellphones, but will become the next house.
I doubt that GRAIN augmentations will develop as smartphones did, because each augmentation will require a extensive treatment. Augments like nanosymbionts, genetic engineering and proteus nanovirusis are also autonomous thus can exist without a supporting system. Even bionic organ replacements wouldn't require a system and could operate independently.
Mind Uploading technology is of course a class in itself and be a product of both AI research and medicine.

>>12027009
That is an insightful paragraph but not sure what it has to do with what I said

Of course it's

>>12026976
I feel like most reasonable people who discuss stuff like this are transhumanists who hold a balanced left-libertarian view. Minimizing and balancing power from and between the state and private industry. I don't want an authoritarian government or nanny state, but I do want a good social safety net. I don't want tons of regulations on businesses, but I also don't want rich people to be able to get superpowers and dominate over everyone else at will (much more than they currently do).

Some regulation will definitely be needed for this technology. It shouldn't be banned, but regulated. When it comes to drastic reductions in aging or other health problems, I think there's a duty to make the technology accessible to everyone, no matter how much money they make. (Maybe a separate proportional tax could be created just for it, and anyone who pays the tax gets access for free.)

As for stuff that's not directly related to health but just increases cognitive ability or strength or height or something, that's definitely tougher. I think once the technology is fully tested and approved, there should be some subsidizing so poor people have access, though maybe they'll have to take out loans or something. It'll be way more valuable than taking out a loan for college, at least.

>>12026976
I feel like most reasonable people who discuss stuff like this are transhumanists who hold a balanced left-libertarian view. Minimizing and balancing power from and between the state and private industry. I don't want an authoritarian government or nanny state, but I do want a good social safety net. I don't want tons of regulations on businesses, but I also don't want rich people to be able to get superpowers and dominate over everyone else at will (that is, much more easily than they currently do).

Some regulation will definitely be needed for this technology. It shouldn't be banned, but regulated. When it comes to drastic reductions in aging or other health problems, I think there's a duty to make the technology accessible to everyone, no matter how much money they make. (Maybe a separate proportional tax could be created just for it, and anyone who pays the tax gets access for free.)

As for stuff that's not directly related to health but just increases cognitive ability or strength or height or something, that's definitely tougher. I think once the technology is fully tested and approved, there should be some subsidizing so poor people have access, though maybe they'll have to take out loans or something. It'll be way more valuable than taking out a loan for college, at least.

>>12026184
No
How would you survive getting eaten by the sun?

>>12026945
I can't wait to have my after death consciousness rights controlled by some company who slid it into an EULA somewhere

>>12026184
I actually wrote a story based on the idea of a universe where true immortality bid impossible and a person is trying to find a way around it

>>12027809
By starlifting it billion years before. Do you really think that mind kind will stay planetary or biological for the next billion years?

>>12026184

yes its possible but it wont make you invisible, entropy will catch up eventually.

>>12027815
I had a similiar idea, except that the final civilization was able to create artifical universi in which copies of these final minds could be put in. But that of course didn't help the final civilization and so they either chose to put their minds in an ever-eternal loop or endure the Deep Time, feeding upon Boltzmann construct until a new universe arises they can enter.

>>12026184
It's possible but a really bad idea. We have evolved cell death for a good reason and biological immortality would unironically destroy our civilization. I'm all for all forms of science and genetic engineering but fucking with immortality is the only thing I would do anything to stop.

>>12026214
just mine iron stars and black holes

>>12028100
>We have evolved cell death for a good reason
Appeals to nature are lazy and wrong, nature is a blind chaos and human ingenuity can and did excedd it. And immortal animals also exist, so even in the naturalist sense this opinion is wrong.

>>12026522
No it doesn't, no one one except generating multiple clones as being individually immortal except nerd faggots writing for clicks. Any one can and will still die

>>12028100
>biological immortality would unironically destroy our civilization
Good.

>>12026184
Yes.

Everything is scientifically possible.

If you improve the human regeneration cycle to perfection you could make humans immortal.

>>12026207
you are aging retard, you are dying.

>>12026198
FPBP
You can reduce the chance of death, extend lifespan, but true immortality will never exist.

>>12026214
Still happens as you die and your offspring do the same. The universe will end no matter what, might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

>>12028298
In this case nature got it 100% right. Boomers living forever would never work out well no matter which way you look at it.

>>12026933
I got your back.

At the moment of your death, I'll save you a seat, and we'll have a pizza.

Blue Eisenhower November

>>12026184
>Immortality is scientifically possible, r-right???

You have a better chance praying to Jesus.

>>12026207
>well, scientifically speaking, no one has proven that I'm not immortal

1. All men are mortal
2. Anon is a man
3. Therefore anon is mortal.

>>12026184
No, but we could probably cure aging for the yet-to-be born if we work hard.

>>12026184

We create 1.500 new neurons each day.

With the fact in mind that we are constantly creating new cells and expelling old ones we can realize that mind uploading is feasible.

>>12031221
A fellow deductor I see

>>12031221
A fellow deducer I see

>>12026184
Google immortal jelly fish mate

>>12031221
Pretty loose definition of man there...

>>12026184
There are colonial organisms which have lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Immortality? Not quite. Good enough? Probably.

Inevitable. This endurance was always temporary. The Philosophy of Death will collapse this century, perhaps sooner then we expect. I will see you all in the ballroom (may it remain eternal), and together we will build the Good City.

>>12029363
aging != dying

>>12026184
Yes but it will be discovered the day after you die.

>>12026184
Telomeres

Just input the cheat code

press up down down left right , go to the store, buy exactly 99 potions, use 33 potions in the glitch room, then press x triangle square triangle circle, and then you get biological immortality

>>12027809
by absorbing the power of the sun and swallowing it myself

>>12026184
No but there is research that will allow for selective reincarnation with persistent memory.

>>12031221
>2. Anon is a man
but anon is not a man but a fag

>>12026184
Unironically yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k

>>12026184
>Biological Immortality
Of course, many plants and animals on planet Earth display biological immortality, therefore applying it to humans is a problem that can be solved, though we can not know the technical level of difficulty. With CRISPR and machine learning we could probably do it in 30-100 years from today, depending on the level of funding.

>True Immortality
Not unless conciousness can be de-coupled from matter, which seems unlikely given our current understanding of physics. Not that true immortality would be a desirable mode of existence for a mortal mind.

>>12026274
I don't get why /sci/ hates vsauce. This was pretty entertaining

>>12026198
You're excluding transhumanism.

>>12026184
Yes, in theory. In practice, we're not their yet.

It's inaccurate to say it would be "hard". We don't even know if it's hard or not. We don't know what we don't know.
Time will give us a better idea of what we have to work with and how we can improve or solve our aging problem. Time spent on research.

Your grandkids might be around to see the technology. Probably not us.