# The Singularity Event of 2045



## GadallaRune (May 27, 2011)

So I picked up a Time Magazine and read the front page article on what was dubbed "The 2045 Singularity Event"

It basically states that technology and computing power are accelerating at an exponential curve. meaning its advancing faster and faster every moment.

By what this article states, it says that by 2045, computers will have more computing power than the brain power of _all_ humans on the planet at that time. At this point our entire existence as a race will change forever.

It goes into talking about blending human and machine in both mind and body, making us super-intelligent, and just generally super-human all around.

What I found most interesting was that Vernor Vinge, a mathematician and the main advocate for this theory, believes that anyone who is still alive by 2045, has a good chance of living forever, being truly Immortal (ya can't die) and if your not alive, eventually being brought back from the dead. If that's what you truly want.

I'm still formulating an opinion about this, because Vinge is apparently well respected in a lot of circles, and has put a lot of research into the theory.

I find it interesting, and I wanted to hear what your opinions on it were.

Here's a link to the overview of the theory: http://singinst.org/summit/overview/whatisthesingularity/

And here's one to the Wikipedia page if you want to read a more in-depth description of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity


----------



## Rouz (May 27, 2011)

Yea, read it awhile. I can't buy into this idea completely. Well, mostly the idea of us living inside machine, which is stated in the article. With this idea you get into the idea of what is "you". I'm stupid so, yeah.


----------



## Mentova (May 27, 2011)

So basically in 2045 we're going to be the Geth from Mass Effect?


----------



## Ames (May 27, 2011)

So we're all going to be assimilated into the Borg in 2045?


----------



## CannonFodder (May 27, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> So basically in 2045 we're going to be the Geth from Mass Effect?


 I call dibs on being Legion.


----------



## Sauvignon (May 27, 2011)

The world was supposed to end a week ago... how am I going to live forever? Is my brain going to become a computer? That gives me a headache. Would I get headaches anymore after 2045?


----------



## CannonFodder (May 27, 2011)

Sauvignon said:


> The world was supposed to end a week ago... how am I going to live forever? Is my brain going to become a computer? That gives me a headache. Would I get headaches anymore after 2045?


 I think what OP is describing is more like Caroline/G.L.A.D.O.S. from Portal.


----------



## Morgoth (May 27, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> It goes into talking about *blending human and machine in both mind and body, making us super-intelligent*, and just generally super-human all around.
> 
> believes that anyone who is still alive by 2045, has a good chance of *living forever, being truly Immortal* (ya can't die) and if your not alive, eventually being *brought back from the dead*.


 
Cool I always wanted to be an immortal zombie cyborg with a supercomputer brain!

But really this does sound amazing(if the theory is correct and these types of things do happen), but the "Bringing back the dead" thing is a bit  optimistic to say the least, not to mention that all of these things  would raise a whole list of ethical issues and an entire host of other  problems(although those ethics/problems might be gone by then), such as overpopulation(many countries already have a problem with this) due to being "immortal" and having too many kids, being controlled by a computer through  the "enhancements" in your brain, and bringing someone back to life  against their will or messing up on the process and creating zombie-esq "humans".


----------



## Sauvignon (May 27, 2011)

I know that Portal is a movie, but I haven't seen it. I'm not all up on the latest and greatest pop culture happenings.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 27, 2011)

Lol, Glados. 

No, as one of Vinge's associates, a premiere Biologist in human anatomy explains, that the human body is just a machine. A very complex, exceptionally complicated machine, that just like every other machine begins to wear down from age and use before it dies. Is it not so far-fetched to apply maintenance or repairs to said 'machine'? or to even replace broken or non-functioning parts with brand new ones? And i think it goes more into us becoming Cyborgs.

Plus it goes into the fact that at that point, it would be exceptionally east to take a 'photo' or 'recording' of your brain, and simply downloading it into a new brain or body. Stuff like that, he gets pretty wild with some of the stuff he talks about.

So in short. We shall be Cylons if anything else. Goddamn Toasters.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 27, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> Lol, Glados.
> 
> No, as one of Vinge's associates, a premiere Biologist in human anatomy explains, that the human body is just a machine. A very complex, exceptionally complicated machine, that just like every other machine begins to wear down from age and use before it dies. Is it not so far-fetched to apply maintenance or repairs to said 'machine'? or to even replace broken or non-functioning parts with brand new ones? And i think it goes more into us becoming Cyborgs.
> 
> ...


 Oh cool, in that case I'll download my mind into another like 5 bodies, that way I could post even more on FaF


----------



## GadallaRune (May 27, 2011)

Morgoth said:


> Cool I always wanted to be an immortal zombie cyborg with a supercomputer brain!
> 
> But really this does sound amazing(if the theory is correct and these types of things do happen), but the "Bringing back the dead" thing is a bit  optimistic to say the least, not to mention that all of these things  would raise a whole list of ethical issues and an entire host of other  problems(although those ethics/problems might be gone by then), such as overpopulation(many countries already have a problem with this) due to being "immortal" and having too many kids, being controlled by a computer through  the "enhancements" in your brain, and bringing someone back to life  against their will or messing up on the process and creating zombie-esq "humans".



This is very true, this is why I posted this. I wanted to see what everyone thinks on this. Is this really gonna happen? or even possible? and if so, what sort of ethical/moral/existential issues are gonna pop up because of it? Is it even going to matter? And do we even have a choice if this happens or not, if it _is_ going to happen at all?

As for raising the dead? I'm, not sure about that either. But Vinge explains that when the singularity happens our human minds as they are now are not capable of processing the sort of things that could or will be possible.



Sauvignon said:


> I know that Portal is a movie, but I haven't seen it. I'm not all up on the latest and greatest pop culture happenings.



I believe CF was referring to the *Game* Portal. And you're right about not being on the up and up of what's happenin' in pop culture these days. LoL, that's okay though.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh cool, in that case I'll download my mind into another like 5 bodies, that way I could post even more on FaF



Bwahaha, I thought of that too! well not the posting thing, that seems to be more your thing. But the having multiples of myself? I wonder if that would be allowed. Would anyone be able to stop me at that point?


----------



## 8-bit (May 27, 2011)

As long as can shoot bees out of my hands


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 27, 2011)

Morgoth said:


> Cool I always wanted to be an immortal zombie cyborg with a supercomputer brain!
> 
> But really this does sound amazing(if the theory is correct and these types of things do happen), but the "Bringing back the dead" thing is a bit  optimistic to say the least, not to mention that all of these things  would raise a whole list of ethical issues and an entire host of other  problems(although those ethics/problems might be gone by then), such as overpopulation(many countries already have a problem with this) due to being "immortal" and having too many kids, *being controlled by a computer through  the "enhancements" in your brain*, and bringing someone back to life  against their will or messing up on the process and creating zombie-esq "humans".


 
This was brought up in the series Ghost In The Shell, when Batou had his eyes hacked.  Who knows, by 2045, our world may very well be like the fictional one in that series, what with the advancements being made in cybernetics and artificial intelligence.  Personally, I don't like the idea of living in a virtual reality, but I certainly wouldn't mind having my consciousness... my "ghost"... downloaded into a cybernetic body, especially if it could be as sophisticated as those in Ghost In The Shell.  And yes, the whole "bring back the dead" thing I just don't see happening.


----------



## Cain (May 27, 2011)

This seems viable as a possible future.  Next thing, we'll be travelling to other galaxies and finding intelligent life


----------



## CannonFodder (May 27, 2011)

8-bit said:


> As long as can shoot bees out of my hands


 But what if you find out you are allergic?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 27, 2011)

No Ghost in the Shell references? aug.


----------



## Tycho (May 27, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> This seems viable as a possible future.  Next thing, we'll be travelling to other galaxies and finding intelligent life


 
Life more intelligent than us

and better armed than us

and in a bad mood.

"Get off my lawn" now becomes "Get off my galactic arm" and it's alien superdreadnoughts firing death rays instead of crazy Old Man MacElrath and his fowling piece.

the more I think about it the more I feel that actual contact with an alien species is going to end badly.  Better to just know they're there, so you don't step on their toes/tentacles/whatever.


----------



## 8-bit (May 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But what if you find out you are allergic?


 
I'm not :3


----------



## Seas (May 27, 2011)

I wonder if, by that time, will we be able to genetically engineer bilogical processors/computers, which wouldn't only surpass the human brain's computational capacity, but many other aspects, like creativity too (whish seems like a weak point of today and most conceptual A.I.'s). 
Maybe some decades after this, we could be able to engineer a whole new species around this bio-computer brain, with bodily attributes superior to the human body in most or every aspect (ther esearch would be greatly accelerated by the bio-computers themselves).
Maybe, with the invention of the mind-transfer also mentioned in this thread, there would be less and less reason to bother staying human other for thes social aspect, which would also decline as more people transfer into the superior being.
I wonder, would this be still called transhumaninsm, or straight-out ascension?

^Just throwing ideas around, nothing serious btw


----------



## Alstor (May 27, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> No Ghost in the Shell references? aug.





Roose Hurro said:


> This was brought up in the series Ghost In The Shell, when Batou had his eyes hacked.  Who knows, by 2045, our world may very well be like the fictional one in that series, what with the advancements being made in cybernetics and artificial intelligence.  Personally, I don't like the idea of living in a virtual reality, but I certainly wouldn't mind having my consciousness... my "ghost"... downloaded into a cybernetic body, especially if it could be as sophisticated as those in Ghost In The Shell.  And yes, the whole "bring back the dead" thing I just don't see happening.


 :V



Jagged Edge said:


> This seems viable as a possible future.  Next thing, we'll be travelling to other galaxies and finding intelligent life


 I think the latter before the former. It will take longer than a year traveling at the speed of light just to reach our nearest star. And that's if we can figure out a way to turn matter into energy and back into matter. Meanwhile, we might find artificial life in this solar system.


Back to the OP, I can see saving brain data and inserting some USB-like drive into your temple to extract some data, but I'm a bit skeptical if placing brains in machines is what they're going for.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 28, 2011)

Alstor said:


> :V
> 
> 
> I think the latter before the former. It will take longer than a year traveling at the speed of light just to reach our nearest star. And that's if we can figure out a way to turn matter into energy and back into matter. Meanwhile, we might find artificial life in this solar system.
> ...



I understand the skepticism. Even Vinge himself, when he was first studying the theory, before he had decided to solidify it and become its main advocate, stated that a lot of what the theory entailed, he couldn't help but be skeptical about. It just seemed too much out of the realm of possibility, or went so much against the grain of what it means to be human that he didn't want to believe it. This is because that even though we know what an exponential curve is (in relation to technological advancement) our minds actually have difficulty comprehending it.

In his interview with Time, Vinge related how he literally had to force himself to get past the mental block that was keeping him from even considering the possibilities of what the Singularity Event could entail.

I won't say it you will definitely be able to map your entire brain and download it into another. But, I will say I believe its within that realm of possibility.

As for traveling to our nearest star? That's Alpha Centari, it's approx. 2 and half light years away, so about that long to get there at the speed of light. But it would be far more feasible to travel around using Warp Bubble theory. Which for those of you who don't know, is an actual theory that has been proven to be possible with enough energy. It would just take an ungodly amount of energy to warp space that way to travel FTL


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (May 28, 2011)

Fuck yeah, transhumanism!


----------



## Xenke (May 28, 2011)

This is all very GITS.

We should all watch it. And love it. Just like everyone should.

... Why don't I own it? ;~;


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 28, 2011)

Seas said:


> *I wonder if, by that time, will we be able to genetically engineer biological processors/computers*, which wouldn't only surpass the human brain's computational capacity, but many other aspects, like creativity too (whish seems like a weak point of today and most conceptual A.I.'s).
> Maybe some decades after this, we could be able to engineer a whole new species around this bio-computer brain, with bodily attributes superior to the human body in most or every aspect (the research would be greatly accelerated by the bio-computers themselves).
> Maybe, with the invention of the mind-transfer also mentioned in this thread, there would be less and less reason to bother staying human other for the social aspect, which would also decline as more people transfer into the superior being.
> I wonder, would this be still called transhumaninsm, or straight-out ascension?
> ...


 
Funny you should say this... just had this turn up on my regular Gizmag update:

http://www.gizmag.com/bacteria-prot...aign=696ad27c22-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email




Alstor said:


> :V


 
Crackers just needs to pay attention more often.




Xenke said:


> This is all very GITS.
> 
> We should all watch it. And love it. Just like everyone should.
> 
> *... Why don't I own it? ;~;*


 
I don't know, but I have a copy...


----------



## GadallaRune (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny you should say this... just had this turn up on my regular Gizmag update:
> 
> http://www.gizmag.com/bacteria-prot...aign=696ad27c22-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email
> 
> ...




That is really interesting Roose. Thanks for the link, never even heard of Gizmag till now.

Also, I too own a copy of GitS. I love that anime. You must obtain one Xenke.


----------



## Mayfurr (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> And yes, the whole "bring back the dead" thing I just don't see happening.


 
Me too. What's the point of spending so much effort on resurrecting the dead when creating children is far easier...?

Unless you want an 'expendable' starship pilot, of course...



> Jerome Branch Corbell has incurable cancer and is cryogenically frozen in the year 1970 in the faint hope of a future cure. His body is revived in 2190 by an oppressive, totalitarian global government called "The State". His personality and memories are extracted (destroying his body in the process) and transferred into the body of a mindwiped criminal. After he is awakened, he is continually evaluated by Peerssa, a "checker", who has to decide whether he is worth keeping. With the threat of mindwiping looming over his head, Corbell works hard to pass the various tests.
> 
> Peerssa decides that Corbell is a loner and born tourist. This makes him an ideal candidate to be the pilot and sole passenger of a Bussard ramjet, whose mission is to find and seed suitable planets as the first step to terraforming them. Disgusted with the State's treatment of him as an expendable commodity, Corbell hijacks the ship and takes it to the center of the galaxy...


----------



## Bad Voodoo (May 28, 2011)

Well I think it would be neat if my brain was uploaded to a computer that computer is not me. The whole immortal thing by uploading you brain to a computer is hogwash.

All it did was just copy what was you into a computer. You would still be "you" in your body completely separated from the computer. In reality you wouldn't achieve immortality you just created copys of yourself. So while you will grow old and die that copy will live on. You wouldn't experience anything that copy has done.

So whats the point? If I can't be there to see the universe then it's no use to upload myself to a machine.

Not to sound all religious and shit, but that machine won't have my spirit. It won't be special, it won't be unique, it won't be human. It will just be a number cruncher computing its data set. So that machine will truly never be me.


----------



## Bando (May 28, 2011)

Sounds like an interesting theory, but then again people thought we'd be living on the moon by 2001. Someday something like this will happen, hopefully it will be in 2045 because that would be sweet.

We should probably look out for kids who live in libraries if this does happen :V


----------



## Vibgyor (May 28, 2011)

Woohoo! A cyberpunk future!


----------



## Fay V (May 28, 2011)

I went to a conference where this sort of transhumanism was the theme. It was interesting.


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (May 28, 2011)

8-bit said:


> As long as can shoot bees out of my hands


 
I'M COVERED IN BEES!!! D:
Yeah, I just turned your Bioshock into Eddie Izzard... deal with it. :V


----------



## Recel (May 28, 2011)

What I wonder is if they swich your brain with a computer, will that be still you? I mean, just think about how you see through your eyes. Now if we make an exact copy of you brain, memory and knowledge, than will it be you seeing throug those eyes, or that copy and you stop to exist? Or even if we upload your brain into a computer, will it be still you, or will your brain will be simply emptyed and the computer gets filled with the same information that is in your brain? For anyone looking from the outside, there will be no diffrence, but for you, who knows?

Yeah, im thinking too much into it.


----------



## Bad Voodoo (May 28, 2011)

Recel said:


> What I wonder is if they swich your brain with a computer, will that be still you? I mean, just think about how you see through your eyes. Now if we make an exact copy of you brain, memory and knowledge, than will it be you seeing throug those eyes, or that copy and you stop to exist? Or even if we upload your brain into a computer, will it be still you, or will your brain will be simply emptyed and the computer gets filled with the same information that is in your brain? For anyone looking from the outside, there will be no diffrence, but for you, who knows?
> 
> Yeah, im thinking too much into it.


 
The Way I think about it is like the movie The 6th Day. When a person dies another person is made to replace them.


----------



## Bliss (May 28, 2011)

I read a while ago a very interesting _(and long) _article about immortality and the Singularity Movement on Scientific American. Immediately thought of it after reading the title. Here it is, if you're interested. :3


----------



## GadallaRune (May 28, 2011)

Actually I'd say you're thinking just enough. Questions like those were much of the same ones raised when the topic turned to ethics and morals. Though the uploading of one's mind into a computer, or synthetic brain was only one of the examples given by Vinge for possible immortality.

With how fast technology would advance with the dawning of super-intelligence, Vinge made the postulation that the sort of advances that would normally take years, decades or centuries, would only take weeks, days or even mere hours. For a super-intelligence is far more than what our brains can do. A computer with more IQ than all the humans on the planet? Say you have a goal. Example: Slowing down the aging process...or even stopping it all together. Instead of a mere handful of scientists out of billions of humans working on this goal, it would be like the entire planet -billions of minds- lending their brain power, ideas and creativity to the solution of this goal. And that's just one computer with A.I. Not only that there would be multiple computers like that, hundreds, maybe even thousands. Not only that, but these super-intelligences would be able to advance their own IQ's indefinitely.

Having one of those computers integrated with our brains, not replacing it, but becoming one with it, so that our human minds could utilize all that raw computing power as a human would? Now we have that sort of high-speed thinking and problem solving.

Gene-therapy, Robotic enhancements, Synthetic replacements, Regeneration, etc... the possibilities for extended life are endless. And if this 'super-intelligence' really does come around in 2045? It will be easily at hand.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I read a while ago a very interesting _(and long) _article about immortality and the Singularity Movement on Scientific American. Immediately thought of it after reading the title. Here it is, if you're interested. :3



Thank you Lizzie! This is a very interesting read. Even the skeptics of Vinge's and Kurzweil's vision have some fantastic views of the future. And not just the future, the _near_ future. I think that out of everything this Singularity Movement talks about, that's probably the most interesting and exciting. So many scientists are so sure of this incredibly fantastic shit-storm that's about to happen in a mere 30 years.

I kinda reminds me of Global Warming. For so long no one believed the advocates of the theory. Then when all the scientists believed, no one else wanted to believe them either...mostly cuz the idea was scary, and meant we had to change our life styles. And in the end? They were right.

Edit: jking of course, _Everyone_ knows that global warming is just a fantasy. Much like double-rainbows and unicorn farts. :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 28, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> That is really interesting Roose. *Thanks for the link, never even heard of Gizmag till now.*
> 
> Also, I too own a copy of GitS. I love that anime. You must obtain one Xenke.


 
You're welcome... I get updates nearly every day, through my email.  Lots of interesting tech stuff on that site.  As for GitS?  Excellent, and beautifully animated.




Mayfurr said:


> Me too. *What's the point of spending so much effort on resurrecting the dead when creating children is far easier...?*
> 
> Unless you want an 'expendable' starship pilot, of course...


 
That, and the dead are... well, dead.  How do you intend to "recover" them?  You know, given the brain doesn't last after death... no activity, no "owner" present.

And no, don't want an "expendable" starship pilot...   >.<  Besides, I can fly the thing myself...  




GadallaRune said:


> Gene-therapy, Robotic enhancements, Synthetic replacements, *Regeneration*, etc... the possibilities for extended life are endless. And if this 'super-intelligence' really does come around in 2045? It will be easily at hand.


 
I like the idea of regeneration... I'd rather keep the "original" me operating.


----------



## Bliss (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> That, and the dead are... well, dead.  How do you intend to "recover" them?  You know, given the brain doesn't last after death... no activity, no "owner" present.



Depends on what's your take on death. 
_
"Information-theoretic death__ is the destruction of the human brain  (or any cognitive structure capable of constituting a person) and the  information within it to such an *extent that recovery of the original  person is theoretically impossible by any physical means.*"_


----------



## greg-the-fox (May 28, 2011)

Yeah, we were supposed to have colonies on Mars by now, as well as hovercars, holograms, and sentient robot butlers :V
Needless to say we're not exactly great at predicting the future...


----------



## Bliss (May 28, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> Yeah, we were supposed to have colonies on Mars by now, as well as hovercars, holograms, and sentient robot butlers :V
> Needless to say we're not exactly great at predicting the future...



We might considerably better at it since when those ideas were formed.


----------



## Sam (May 28, 2011)

I believe some of this would be possible already. I remember looking some stuff on this site, noob.us. And they were showing how they could grow human skin from a patient and put it back on them for severe burns and what not, but then they came up with this spray gun, that sprays skin cells on your body and regenerates your burns and what not.

The whole regeneration and living forever thing isn't too far out of reach I think.

I'd rather be regenerated than fucking turn into a robot, I'd rather just be a fleshbag of human the way nature intended me to be.

EDIT: I found the video!  

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjKPaI*


----------



## CannonFodder (May 28, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> Yeah, we were supposed to have colonies on Mars by now, as well as hovercars, holograms, and sentient robot butlers :V
> Needless to say we're not exactly great at predicting the future...


 Honestly we suck at predicting the future.


----------



## Redregon (May 28, 2011)

i would be down with this, maybe... certainly not one to be an early adopter (since every technological innovation created by man has had it's issues and such at launch) but once it's proven to be stable and it isn't going to destroy my "soul" as it were (what makes me Me) i'd definately get some lowjack.

maybe i could actually surf the net? or just remove having to use my hands to interface with a computer so that i can make the stuff i make easier and simpler to make?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

By 2045 there won't be a fucking economy to drive technological progress to a point anywhere near this navelgazing futurewank. Honest to fucking God and people wonder why we're after turning right anti-intellectual as a culture. It's not "I don't wanna talk to no scientist, y'all motherfuckers lyin'" as much as they clearly don't live in the real world anymore, and so the rest of us don't see what use they are to it. Why do we keep throwing money at these people again?


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 28, 2011)

If it can't turn me into a fish it isn't worth my time.


----------



## Tomias_Redford (May 28, 2011)

Why can't scientists stop faffing about with this kinda stuff, and focus on the real important aspects of life.

1. Creating a time machine
2. Creating a real working version of a Stargate
3. Making 3D Movies not look like complete shit.


----------



## Radiohead (May 28, 2011)

I am more interested in seeing what happens when the number of humans on earth reaches the same as the number of neurons in the human brain. (That's about 100 billion.)

I don't know why. I want to see what happens.

(That won'y happen any time soon, I am aware)


----------



## Bobskunk (May 28, 2011)

privileged white middle class bullshit

hurf durf upload my brain into the internet and live in a perfect world of information and all the world's problems will be solved!!  yeah, no


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

Because the human brain totally works just the same as a computer, right? Same fucking thing, totally, no biological and other physical realities standing in the way of "uploading" the contents of human brains. Lah lah lah, conntect the dots, ladadada, connect the dots, la la lala


----------



## Bobskunk (May 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Because the human brain totally works just the same as a computer, right? Same fucking thing, totally, no biological and other physical realities standing in the way of "uploading" the contents of human brains. Lah lah lah, conntect the dots, ladadada, connect the dots, la la lala



more like
"hey, singularity dude, will africa be included?"
"ummmm...."


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> more like
> "hey, singularity dude, will africa be included?"
> "ummmm...."


 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCK


----------



## Bobskunk (May 28, 2011)

poors not need apply


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

Bobskunk... what the fuck is that in your avatar. its nipples look sentient. what is this i don't even


----------



## Bliss (May 28, 2011)

Africa has babies so I don't think they have a need for immortality yet. See, western countries have problems just keeping the birthrate up. :V


----------



## Tycho (May 28, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> poors not need apply


 
if there's ANYTHING that would ensure that the line between haves and have-nots would turn into a solid titanium wall, this would be it.


----------



## Shiroka (May 28, 2011)

Too bad it very obviously _won't_ happen. Not only does Moore's law, on which this theory is based, is reaching its limit already, but back in the 50's, people thought we'd have flying cars and vacations on Mars and shit in 2000. Hell, we can't even make efficient electric cars.

But even if it was true, I think that would signal the end of the world. Think about it; immortality would be available for everyone, not just you. Now imagine the number of assholes there are on this planet. Do the math.

Shit, I hope I don't live to see this 2045 :V


----------



## Rossyfox (May 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> By 2045 there won't be a fucking economy to drive technological progress to a point anywhere near this navelgazing futurewank. Honest to fucking God and people wonder why we're after turning right anti-intellectual as a culture. It's not "I don't wanna talk to no scientist, y'all motherfuckers lyin'" as much as they clearly don't live in the real world anymore, and so the rest of us don't see what use they are to it. Why do we keep throwing money at these people again?


 
To be fair, the people who speculate on this kind of shit for Time Magazine aren't the ones we actually give money to for real research. It's not that scientists don't live in the real world, more that journalists don't.


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny you should say this... just had this turn up on my regular Gizmag update:
> 
> http://www.gizmag.com/bacteria-prot...aign=696ad27c22-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email


 


> Scientists have determined the molecular structure of proteins that allow bacteria cells to transfer electrical charge, which could be a big step towards more efficient microbial fuel cells





> Besides the implications for fuel cell technology, the discovery could also aid in the development of microbe-based agents, used to clean up oil or uranium pollution.



Sure is computers and AI in that article. 
Roose, please stop posting links that are irrelevant to the point being made while making it seem like they are, however interesting they may be on their own accord.

As for the OP - the date is just a news hook, don't pay any attention to it. It's no more sure to happen in 2045 as in 2145. There are many things that stand between us and a technological singularity. 
One of them being the question if it's even POSSIBLE to create something superhumanely intelligent. Note that intelligence=/=computing power. Computing power is only how fast you can analyse data. What you do with the results is what makes intelligence.
The other is the fact that the theory completely disregards PHYSICAL capabilities. We're rapidly approaching the limits of silicon electronics. Scraping the very bottom of it's potential. Alternate technologies are still in their infancy or even purely conceptual. It may take much longer than 2045 for them to reach the same computing prowess and reliability that modern silicon electronics have, much less surpass them.

As for all the visions of the future - if you read even the wiki article, you'd notice that imagining "what technological advancements might happen" is in bright contrast to the concept of a technological singularity. It states that once we develop superhuman intelligence, we can't forsee just how our technological evolution might go. 
On the other hand, things like electronic implants, rejuvenation techniques (that might lead to immortality), replaceble human organs, organic technology ect. aren't a song of the future, they are being developed RIGHT NOW. As part of the normal technological/scientific progress. They certianly don't need a singularity event to come to life.
Actually, when it comes to immortality, I like this presentation. It also shows a kind of "singularity". "Defeat aging by 30 years" -> 20 years pass -> "defeat aging by 50" -> 40 years pass -> "Immortality enabled". With + 20 years of lifespan already there, if you never underwent the rejuvenation. Of course IF that happens. Just like the main point, it's a "if everything goes as we think" matter.


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 28, 2011)

Tycho said:


> if there's ANYTHING that would ensure that the line between haves and have-nots would turn into a solid titanium wall, this would be it.


 
I was thinking that myself.  Who gets to live forever?  The people who can afford the implants, baby.

This idea is sort of based on the previous notion that the brain works like a computer, but I guess now the fad is to say that the brain works more like a rainforest.  And by that, they mean that every piece of it is interconnected with the others, and that if one piece fails or goes away, other pieces can move in to take over those jobs to keep the whole running.  So if it is a computer, it's way more complicated than any computer we've ever managed to build.
That said, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible someday to make an artificial one out of different materials.  That'd be one hell of an engineering problem, sure, but humans seem to be pretty good at figuring shit like that out.  We can already make or grow artificial versions of pretty much every other part of the body, so the brain is really the only issue.   Hence why this idea of the singularity is still around.
I'm just thinking that the timeframe probably isn't accurate.  Computer technology may be getting better exponentially, but our knowledge of the brain isn't.  So the two paths would have to meet somewhere before this would be possible, hence it wouldn't be perfectly exponential, I don't think.

But since we're furries here, think of the possibilities!  You could get your body replaced by that of a cyborg dragon-man with a built in rocket pack and titanium claws.
...which may or may not be a pretty terrifying thought, knowing some furries.


----------



## Enwon (May 28, 2011)

I strongly doubt that this will happen.  As people have already pointed out, people in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s predicted that we'd have hovercars and Martian colonies by now.  This is nothing more than something meant to dazzle people with "technology of the future".  The reality is, we're not exactly very close to achieving this.

My guess for things we might see in 2045: Effective alternate energy sources, full development of artificial organs, a few Martian expeditions, virtual reality, iPod sized computers that have greater processing power than our own current computers, things like that.  Things that are already somewhat in development.

But you can't really predict the future.


----------



## Tycho (May 28, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> But since we're furries here, think of the possibilities!  You could get your body replaced by that of a cyborg dragon-man with a built in rocket pack and titanium claws.
> ...which may or may not be a pretty terrifying thought, knowing some furries.


 
They'll probably also include cybernetic knotted barbed everythinged 18 inch dongs in their upgrade packages, so yes, be terrified.  Be very terrified.


----------



## Rossyfox (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Sure is computers and AI in that article.
> Roose, please stop posting links that are irrelevant to the point being made while making it seem like they are, however interesting they may be on their own accord.


 
It's not irrelevant, it could potentially be used to build a bacterial neural network.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

Predicting the awesome technololgacal future utopia: making older generations look like a fucking race of super-dweebs since steampunk


----------



## Unsilenced (May 28, 2011)

Um...

Yeah. 

Being able to back ourselves up to computers will totally make us immortal. 

Because, you know, computers never fail or decay, and everyone knows that they can be used to stop the sun from detonating, asteroids from hitting, wars from happening ever again, and ultimately can prevent the universe from collapsing onto itself and/or turning into nothing more than an enormous mass of lukewarm iron. 

Totally. 

I think the latest HP update covered that. 



CannonFodder said:


> I call dibs on being Legion.


 
We are all Legion.


EDIT: As a part of an optional test protocol, we are pleased to present this amusing fact: If you can be backed up to a single computer, you can also be backed up to multiple computers. This means that any sufficiently bored psychopath can go download a copy of you and do whatever the fuck he feels like. Remember: Since the events are virtual, the sky is the limit in terms of the amount of pain he can inflict upon your twin. Interesting thought, no?


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Um...
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> ...



I think it's "immortal" more in the sense of "unaging" than "completely unable to cease to exist".

But then again, that'd be implying that we're nothing more than the sum of our memories. It could full well that a copy of your mind would be nothing more than a clone of your with all your memories. Identical, but YOU, the one who's self aware at the moment, would die along with your brain. 

That's I would prefer biological immortality, in my own body, like the one suggested in the video I linked in my previous post.



Rossyfox said:


> It's not irrelevant, it could potentially be used to build a bacterial neural network.


 
I'm pretty sure using neuron-like cells would be far more efficient.

It was strictly about energy production and storage. Fuel cells. Not information transmission.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 28, 2011)

Enwon said:


> I strongly doubt that this will happen.  As people have already pointed out, people in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s predicted that we'd have hovercars and Martian colonies by now.  This is nothing more than something meant to dazzle people with "technology of the future".  The reality is, we're not exactly very close to achieving this.


 
At the same time, look at all the things they failed to predict. Like computers.

I wonder if in 50 years people will look back at us and laugh at the weird things we predicted and the obvious stuff we didn't see coming in 2060.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

Don't you guys fucking get it? Computers are to us what atomic energy was to the superdweebs otherwise known as "people from the 50's". Want to cure erectile dysfunction and baldness? Just smoke a depleted uranium pipe and drink irradiated water! Want to live forever? Put your brain on cassette tape - once you actually figure out how the fuck that would even work. Because casettes tapes will be all the rage once this "compact disck" fad runs its course!


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Don't you guys fucking get it? Computers are to us what atomic energy was to the superdweebs otherwise known as "people from the 50's". Want to cure erectile dysfunction and baldness? Just smoke a depleted uranium pipe and drink irradiated water! Want to live forever? Put your brain on cassette tape - once you actually figure out how the fuck that would even work. Because casettes tapes will be all the rage once this "compact disck" fad runs its course!


 
Too bad that overexposure to computers doesn't give me superpowers. That would have been awesome.


----------



## Recel (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Too bad that overexposure to computers doesn't give me superpowers. That would have been awesome.



You never watched Freakazoid than. :V


----------



## GadallaRune (May 28, 2011)

Radiohead said:


> I am more interested in seeing what happens when the number of humans on earth reaches the same as the number of neurons in the human brain. (That's about 100 billion.)
> 
> I don't know why. I want to see what happens.
> 
> (That won'y happen any time soon, I am aware)



I'm curious to see this as well... though I think there's a goodly chance of humanity wiping itself out before we ever reach that number. It's just so BIG. The number I mean...



Thatch said:


> Sure is computers and AI in that article.
> Roose, please stop posting links that are irrelevant to the point being made while making it seem like they are, however interesting they may be on their own accord.
> 
> As for the OP - the date is just a news hook, don't pay any attention to it. It's no more sure to happen in 2045 as in 2145. There are many things that stand between us and a technological singularity.
> ...



Ah Aubrey de Grey, that was the Biology guy I was talking about. More so than Kurzweil, I truly think Grey's vision and predictions are far more likely. And as cool as it would be to surf the net with just mah bwains, I think biological immortality is what I would want.



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> At the same time, look at all the things they failed to predict. Like computers.
> 
> I wonder if in 50 years people will look back at us and laugh at the weird things we predicted and the obvious stuff we didn't see coming in 2060.



This is very true Hakar. Computers have only been in regular use like they are now for the past 30ish years or so, what else will we come up with in another 30 or so?

This is good. I'm glad everyone is posting their opinions, even the ones who don't think this is even possible, or just plain stupid for various reasons. For those of you who say its all hype or lies, what do you think the future will be like in 2045 then? And for those of you who do think this is possible, why do you think this is possible? Why wasn't your first reaction "this is bullshit" like any normal thinking person?

Also *Wolf-Bone* if you could refrain from commenting on *Bobskunk*'s nipples, that would be much appreciated, since it has no relevance to this thread, no matter how hilarious that was. Cuz seriously, what the hell is up with your avatar *Bobskunk*?


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Recel said:


> You never watched Freakazoid than. :V


 
Oh shit, of course I watched it, but I totally forgot! D:

Welp, now the analogy is complete.



GadallaRune said:


> Ah Aubrey de Grey, that was the Biology guy I was talking about. More so than Kurzweil, I truly think Grey's vision and predictions are far more likely. And as cool as it would be to surf the net with just mah bwains, I think biological immortality is what I would want.


 
Well, for one, de Grey is talking about what he's working on, not about technology in overall. So I guess he has a more or less fair sense of what the future draws for us in that matter. So yeah, I find his vision more likelytoo, because he's in on it, not just some dude that thinks it's supposed to happen because he thought about it a lot.
And he states what conditions must be satisfied for his vision to be true. One of those is "people must get interested and throw money at us", so at least he's realistic :V

And yeah, as I said, we don't know if our consciousness would transfer along with our memories to different "hardware", if it were possible, so I'd rather make my brain live longer for the time being.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Too bad that overexposure to computers doesn't give me superpowers. That would have been awesome.


 
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. I mean I know any rural yokel like myself that grows up with the internet is all but a member of some otherworldly species to most of their own kind by the time they're 20, what with how we know what's going on in the world more than two towns over and can actually spell words and shit. You develop the superpower of making people think you insulted them when you were actually being more polite than they deserved, just because you dared to use a word or two they don't know. I mean you wouldn't use a word somebody don't know unknowingly, right? so if nothing else you got the superpower of omniscience.


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I wouldn't say that's entirely true. I mean I know any rural yokel like myself that grows up with the internet is all but a member of some otherworldly species to most of their own kind by the time they're 20, what with how we know what's going on in the world more than two towns over and can actually spell words and shit. You develop the superpower of making people think you insulted them when you were actually being more polite than they deserved, just because you dared to use a word or two they don't know. I mean you wouldn't use a word somebody don't know unknowingly, right? so if nothing else you got the superpower of omniscience.


 
That's a power I can live with.

For I am... THE USESGOOGLEMAN!

Which reminds me of this.


----------



## Bobskunk (May 28, 2011)

I wanted to show everyone how handsome I truly am.

The irony of the singularity is that it's pseudoscientific and dogmatic, as well as an end with unclear means (and motivation.)  It also seems more like a cult-like process of thinking, in that scientific research and will lead to a transcending of human form (hurf trans/posthumanism) into a utopia of thought and reason.  Naturally, the ends justify the means, and while it can be said that it could encompass every person, the reality is that it would only encompass the select few, and even less on an intelligence level but on a wealth level.  By then, I don't see the wealth divide getting better- long term trend, if little changes?  We're going to see a few walled off lordships with the rest of us as peasants, no middle class, and this is too good a thing to be squandered on the poors.

All that aside, a lot has to be ignored to even consider this theory practical.  It's idealism and technophilosophical exercise but little more.  Also hilarious is how fucking boring it would be.  You exist forever as data?  Who cares.  Every infinite afterlife scenario, whether heaven or singularity, is so incomprehensibly uninteresting that the most likely thing (oblivion/nothingness) is actually the most attractive. :v


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> The irony of the singularity is that it's pseudoscientific and dogmatic, as well as an end with unclear means (and motivation.)  It also seems more like a cult-like process of thinking, in that scientific research and will lead to a transcending of human form (hurf trans/posthumanism) into a utopia of thought and reason.  Naturally, the ends justify the means, and while it can be said that it could encompass every person, the reality is that it would only encompass the select few, and even less on an intelligence level but on a wealth level.  By then, I don't see the wealth divide getting better- long term trend, if little changes?  We're going to see a few walled off lordships with the rest of us as peasants, no middle class, and this is too good a thing to be squandered on the poors.


 
The irony sits in people who start to worship it.

The basic concept of the "singularity" is that we're unable to predict with any accuracy how scientific and technological advancement will progress with a being(s) more intelligent that we are at the helm. 

Kinda like stupid people can't understand science.


----------



## Bobskunk (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> The irony sits in people who start to worship it.
> 
> The basic concept of the "singularity" is that we're unable to predict with any accuracy how scientific and technological advancement will progress with a being(s) more intelligent that we are at the helm.
> 
> Kinda like stupid people can't understand science.


 
Oh there's that too.  Exponential and self-refining and all.

Still think my statement of irony applies: 90% of conversations about this IMPORTANT EVENT IN HUMAN EVOLUTION are couched in exactly those terms and it's tiresome.


----------



## Seas (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny you should say this... just had this turn up on my regular Gizmag update:
> 
> http://www.gizmag.com/bacteria-prot...aign=696ad27c22-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email



I've only heard about the possible advantages of a biological processor/computer so far, but the link is also very interesting... even the batteries possibly being biological can lead to even more advances.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> *Sure is computers and AI in that article.*
> 
> Roose, please stop posting links that are irrelevant to the point being made while making it seem like they are, however interesting they may be on their own accord.


 
Thatch, please stop posting comments when you haven't bothered to read the quote to which my own comment was directed:



Seas said:


> *I wonder if, by that time, will we be able to genetically engineer bilogical processors/computers*, which wouldn't only surpass the human brain's computational capacity, but many other aspects, like creativity too (whish seems like a weak point of today and most conceptual A.I.'s).
> Maybe some decades after this, we could be able to engineer a whole new species around this bio-computer brain, with bodily attributes superior to the human body in most or every aspect (ther esearch would be greatly accelerated by the bio-computers themselves).
> Maybe, with the invention of the mind-transfer also mentioned in this thread, there would be less and less reason to bother staying human other for thes social aspect, which would also decline as more people transfer into the superior being.
> I wonder, would this be still called transhumaninsm, or straight-out ascension?
> ...


 
Note the part I bolded.  And remember that computers (biological or otherwise) need a power source.  Need I say more?




Rossyfox said:


> It's not irrelevant, *it could potentially be used to build a bacterial neural network*.


 
Thank you, Rossyfox... another good point.  The article shows that biotechnology is real, that we may very well one day have biological processors/computers, as Seas mentioned.  We're already looking at a biological fuel cell to power them with, in the article link I originally provided.  And that Thatch thinks is irrelevant.




Thatch said:


> *I'm pretty sure using neuron-like cells would be far more efficient.*
> 
> It was strictly about energy production and storage. Fuel cells. Not information transmission.


 
Most likely, but the whole point was, biotechnology is already in the works.  Which could lead to eventual bio-engineered neural nets... perhaps even engineered from some other bacteria.  It's a taste of what's out there, now.




Thatch said:


> Well, for one, de Grey is talking about what he's working on, not about technology in overall. So I guess he has a more or less fair sense of what the future draws for us in that matter. So yeah, I find his vision more likelytoo, because he's in on it, not just some dude that thinks it's supposed to happen because he thought about it a lot.
> And he states what conditions must be satisfied for his vision to be true. One of those is *"people must get interested and throw money at us"*, so at least he's realistic :V


 
This is the reason we don't have colonies on Mars or even flying cars... virtually no one was interested in throwing money at those endevours.




Seas said:


> I've only heard about the possible advantages of a biological processor/computer so far, but the link is also very interesting... even the batteries possibly being biological can lead to even more advances.


 
Seas, your link came up as a blocked "Malicious website" on my Norton 360... you might want to find another source.


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Thatch, please stop posting comments when you haven't bothered to read the quote to which my own comment was directed:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the part I bolded.  And remember that computers (biological or otherwise) need a power source.  Need I say more?


 
Yes. You need to say how in hell is that a legitimate connection. Last I checked, my brain needs sugar and some other compounds found in food, not d-cells.

Even going along with it, who the hell said it needs to be an organic power source? It could be anything that makes electricity. Which it won't be, because we're talking about living cells, not electronics.

So no, rebound failed. It's as if you tried to explain that producing antimatter is connected to developing interstellar travel "because spaveships need fuel".



Roose Hurro said:


> Most likely, but the whole point was, biotechnology is already in the works.  Which could lead to eventual bio-engineered neural nets... perhaps even engineered from some other bacteria.  It's a taste of what's out there, now.


 
This doesn't change the fact that the article had NOTHING to do with biocomputers. Just because it's the same field (biological engeneering) doesn't mean it's valid for the discussion. It doesn't say anything about our understanding of how such a computer might work or if any work is done towards it at all. It doesn't even tell if it's worth bothering with. Especially because


> which wouldn't only surpass the human brain's computational capacity, but many other aspects,


The only premise for it is your farfetched assumption that "since people are working with biotechnology, they MUST be attempting to make biocomputers". There's no proof for that in the link your provided. Just your wishful thinking that might or might not happen to be true. But if it is, it doesn't make your claim for this link to be a viable argument any less wrong.

Just in case you didn't know, biotechnology is in the works for some time now. They already made organic LEDs and biofuel-producing bacteria.

You know what IS a viable link? This. It was on the first page of a google search for "biocomputer". Again, you lack any undestanding of the links you post. Do you really hope that everyone on this forum is a mindless sheep that will fawn over your vast insight just because you post stuff that's sciency? Believe it or not, some of us actually UNDERSTAND what we read. It doesn't indimidate us into sharing your point of view. And no amount of bending head-over-heels to actually make your links actually have a connection to the context of the discussion will change that.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Yes. *You need to say how in hell is that a legitimate connection.* Last I checked, my brain needs sugar and some other compounds found in food, not d-cells.
> 
> Even going along with it, who the hell said it needs to be an organic power source? It could be anything that makes electricity. Which it won't be, because we're talking about living cells, not electronics.
> 
> So no, rebound failed.



No, I don't.  I give you credit  for brains.  And again, you ignore the quote I made my comment towards.  Which had nothing to do directly with living cells, but with the engineering of biological processors/computers.  So, I provided a link to a biological power source for those biological processors/computers, as a point of interest.  You're the only one here who has made an issue of this.




Thatch said:


> This doesn't change the fact that the article had NOTHING to do with biocomputers. *Just because it's the same field (biological engeneering) doesn't mean it's valid for the discussion.* It doesn't say anything about our understanding of how such a computer might work or if any work is done towards it at all. It doesn't even tell if it's worth bothering with.



Of course it's valid for discussion... this whole thread is about technological advances, so ANY turn in that direction is open game.




Thatch said:


> *The only premise for it is your farfetched assumption that "since people are working with biotechnology, they MUST be attempting to make biocomputers".* There's no proof for that in the link your provided. Just your wishful thinking that might or might not happen to be true. But if it is, it doesn't make your claim for this link to be a viable argument any less wrong.



I'm not the one making the assumption here... you are.




Thatch said:


> Just in case you didn't know, biotechnology is in the works for some time now. They already made organic LEDs and biofuel-producing bacteria.



I'm fully well aware.  Again, re-read about how I found that article in my email link to Gizmag.  THAT is the reason I shared it, because it is a new development, a new advance in biotechnology.




Thatch said:


> *You know what IS a viable link? This.* It was on the first page of a google search for "biocomputer". Again, you lack any undestanding of the links you post. Do you really hope that everyone on this forum is a mindless sheep that will fawn over your vast insight just because you post stuff that's sciency? Believe it or not, some of us actually UNDERSTAND what we read. It doesn't indimidate us into sharing your point of view. And no amount of bending head-over-heels to actually make your links actually have a connection to the context of the discussion will change that.


 
Nice link, Thatch... thanks for sharing it.  But it doesn't invalidate the link I shared.  All technological links that show advancements are valid.  Aaand again, I shared something I ran across, something interesting AND RELEVANT to the topic of technological advancements in bio-engineering.  So, stop being an ass.  If you have your own material to share, share it, don't spend all this time and effort trying to make me look like... whatever it is you're trying to do here.  I'm rather tired of hearing you whine.


----------



## Thatch (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, I don't.  I give you credit  for brains.  And again, you ignore the quote I made my comment towards.  Which had nothing to do directly with living cells, but with the engineering of biological processors/computers.  So, I provided a link to a biological power source for those biological processors/computers, as a point of interest.  You're the only one here who has made an issue of this.



No, I'm stating that what you said had nothing to do with that quote, which I did read, thatn you very much.
A second no, you provided A link. One that was supposedly connected to COMPUTERS/PROCESSORS since you said



Roose Hurro said:


> *Funny you should say this...* just had this turn up on my regular Gizmag update:
> 
> http://www.gizmag.com/bacteria-prot...aign=696ad27c22-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email


 
Now you're trying to make a half-assed connection, just to keep your face. Not to mention you just ignored what I said, which is that this isn't a power source for an organic computer, since that's not how cells are powered. In case you forgot, neurons aren't hooked up to an AC source to work.

There is not a single mention of PROCESSING DATA in the whole article.




Roose Hurro said:


> Of course it's valid for discussion... this whole thread is about technological advances, so ANY turn in that direction is open game.



It's not valid for the quote, which I might just provide here


Seas said:


> I wonder if, by that time, will we be able to genetically engineer bilogical processors/computers, which wouldn't only surpass the human brain's computational capacity, but many other aspects, like creativity too (whish seems like a weak point of today and most conceptual A.I.'s).


 
As you can see, it's very specific about it's subject. Not about batteries, but about computers that, you know, COMPUTE DATA. And AIs.
Again, the only connection is the prefix "bio-". It's not a valid argument in the discussion, though. It doesn't touch computing in any way.



Roose Hurro said:


> I'm not the one making the assumption here... you are.



Oh hey, a "no u". So I guess we reached the point where you have nothing else of value to say.



Roose Hurro said:


> I'm fully well aware.  Again, re-read about how I found that article in my email link to Gizmag.  THAT is the reason I shared it, because it is a new development, a new advance in biotechnology.



It's not an advancement in bioCOMPUTERS, though. If you bothered to read the quote (which you said I didn't, btw), you might notice Seas asking about biological PROCESSORS. Not ANY biotechnology, even if it might have interested him afterwards.

Just for good measure - COMPUTERS. PROCESSORS.



Roose Hurro said:


> Nice link, Thatch... thanks for sharing it.  But it doesn't invalidate the link I shared.  All technological links that show advancements are valid.  Aaand again, I shared something I ran across, something interesting AND RELEVANT to the topic of technological advancements in bio-engineering.  So, stop being an ass.  If you have your own material to share, share it, don't spend all this time and effort trying to make me look like... whatever it is you're trying to do here.  I'm rather tired of hearing you whine.



Oh hey, if you read the quote discussed, it wasn't about any technological advancements. It was about COMPUTERS/PROCESSORS.

And I'm whining, because this is a really infuriating habit of yours. Many times I opened your link out of pure curiosity of what it might actually be, only to find stuff that doesn't explain or build upon the discussed subject, only goes off on a tangent because you posted something purely on the basis that it has contains a single term or idea that was part of this discussion. In this case, it's "biological", while completely ommiting the COMPUTER part.

And the "whatever" here is you being a pseudointellectual that wants to seem intelligent because he links sciency articles and has subscriptions to sites that publish them, while in the end wasting the time of people who actually bothered to read them and are intelligent enough to actually understand what they are about.


----------



## Seas (May 28, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Seas, your link came up as a blocked "Malicious website" on my Norton 360... you might want to find another source.



Strange, as it is only a geocities archive/mirror.
Anyway, it was a joke about the Matrix human-battery plant thing.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> _**SNIP!**_


 
Thatch, give it up... stop making an issue out of a non-issue.




Seas said:


> Strange, *as it is only a geocities archive/mirror*.
> Anyway, it was a joke about the Matrix human-battery plant thing.


 
Well, I just had an update to my security software, and now I've been getting sites actively blocked... apparently something wasn't kosher about that mirror.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 29, 2011)

Alright. Alright. Thatch, Roose, don't get into a flame war on here, pretty please? I don't want to have to start reporting your guy's posts. Your points have been made, leave it at that, k? I'd prefer debate and argument over the technology itself, whether its possible or not, or if it will be here soon, than to whether it has anything to do with this thread.

If it really does have absolutely nothing to do with this thread, you guys can yell at them for me. I'd find that entertaining actually.

I am appreciating both your links and points about Biotechnology though. Does anyone else have any arguments towards the possibility of Mind Uploading, or whether its even possible for a computer to simulate a human brain to that extent? Apparently there are quite a few Biologists who don't think its possible, and they're of course opposed by the Mathematicians and some Computer Scientists. Though there are computer scientists who don't think its possible either.


----------



## Surgat (May 29, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Africa has babies so I don't think they have a need for immortality yet. See, western countries have problems just keeping the birthrate up. :V


 
Part of the reason people have children in poorer areas is so that they'll have someone to take care of them when they are older. If aging wasn't an issue, having children might not be as important to them. 

They wouldn't be the first beneficiaries of anything that provided functional immortality, of course, just as they haven't been with other modern technological advances.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> the whole "bring back the dead" thing I just don't see happening.


Well it depends if the brain is intact or not, if the brain is fully functioning, or at least the cerebral cortex is mostly intact I would say it's quite possible to "bring back the dead". We're simply electro chemical reactions, if we figure out a way to supply the cerebral cortex with blood, or anything that will deliver the oxygen and circulate the necessary chemicals, energy's, and proteins throughout the brain then technically we could keep that person alive until their DNA faults. 

There's a defect in all DNA replication process via RNA; the ends of the DNA strands are cut off, it might only a small amount and the human body has already placed bloated ends of the nitrogenous bases, but eventually the snipping catches up and starts to erase crucial parts of the data strand. Eventually it will cause problems and then death. In the brain that will take several hundred years, though the rest of the human body is constantly regenerating...the DNA will fault not long after its first centennial, I doubt we will ever live past 50% of what we live now, which is aprox 90 years, and when we're sitting around 130 years old we will begin having genetic problems.

But the brain, oh the brain I could talk hours about the brain..but I'll just keep it simple; the cerebral cortex is *us*. This is all our memories, our skills, our happy and sad moments. Everything that makes a person who they are is in that one, extremely complex pile of neurons and electro chemical reactions; if we keep the brain alive we keep the person alive, even if somehow that biochemical process of "thinking" gets transfered into a computer I'm certain it will still be us and not just another consciousness with our memories. 

To keep a brain alive and connected to some sort of i/o for information imput/output, via internet...vocal, whatever really because right now that technology doesn't exist and I would like to hope by 2045 it will, but realistically I don't see it until 2100 at the earliest. First we have to figure out how the brain works.

And to keep a person alive forever...we will have to figure out a way to eventually replace all our DNA with fresh, bloated stuff...or re-apply the bloat on the ends. Both are...impossible right now, I can't even comprehend a way to do that. Maybe by some super-virus we inject full strands of DNA cultured from when we were younger, spreads throughout the body infecting every current cell and either turning them into these other ones or waiting for their next replication to make the swap. That's one powerful virus...


----------



## GadallaRune (May 29, 2011)

Very interesting Harmony, I didn't know that the telomere reduction in neurons was so slow. Centuries you say? Well, then uploading yourself into a computer brain or robot I see as pointless if I can rejuvenate my body and don't have to worry about my brain aging to defection for 100's of years. By then we'd probably be able to fix most mental illnesses hopefully. I know such things as Dementia and Alzheimer's will cause the brain to become damage and cease functioning in a relatively short period of time.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> Very interesting Harmony, I didn't know that the telomere reduction in neurons was so slow. Centuries you say? Well, then uploading yourself into a computer brain or robot I see as pointless if I can rejuvenate my body and don't have to worry about my brain aging to defection for 100's of years. By then we'd probably be able to fix most mental illnesses hopefully. I know such things as Dementia and Alzheimer's will cause the brain to become damage and cease functioning in a relatively short period of time.


That's because unlike other cells these are kept in-tact, rather than simply replaced with new ones. The DNA/RNA process' do occur, just at a lesser rate as I can recall. But your body will still age, any sort of age-reducing technology will have to include a more permanent solution than telomere.

As for dementia and Alzheimer's isn't that chemical imbalance rather than neuron damage? If it is physical damage then it's potentially repairable, and if it's simply chemical then that's definitely repairable.


----------



## Thatch (May 29, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> I didn't know that the telomere reduction in neurons was so slow.


 
Neurons don't divide. The only way to produce neurons is to transform other cells into them (yes, it's actually possible to do that with other kinds than just stem cells). I would risk a guess that telomere reduction doesn't play a significant role in their lifespan.



Harmony said:


> As for dementia and Alzheimer's isn't that chemical imbalance rather than neuron damage? If it is physical damage then it's potentially repairable, and if it's simply chemical then that's definitely repairable.


 
It's because of prions - protein-like compounds that accumulate in the brain matter and distrupt the finctioning of our brain. I don't know how exactly, though, would have to read up on it again.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 29, 2011)

You know I think I just made a Biology Faux Pas by typing that statement. *embarrassed* Thank you Thatch. But if the Brains cells do not divide at all, are they like cancer cells in that they never die from age? But I do believe Harmony is right in that they still produce RNA, just at a much slower rate.

As for Alzheimer's and Dementia? I believe they are partly chemical in nature, at least Alzheimer's. But I believe Dementia is your brain's neurons dying. You're brain actually rotting from the inside out. Its why it gets worse over time. There was another one that makes your brain look like swiss cheese, can't remember what its called though it starts with an 'H' I believe.

Now the question is, if we can't upload our minds into digital hardware by 2045, do you think we'd be able to instead slow the aging process and stop brain-damaging mental illnesses by 2045?


----------



## Thatch (May 29, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> You know I think I just made a Biology Faux Pas by typing that statement. *embarrassed* Thank you Thatch. But if the Brains cells do not divide at all, are they like cancer cells in that they never die from age?


 
I have honestly no idea if neurons die of old age. But they do die because of other reasons, so a way to replace them is an important matter one way or another when it comes to living for a long time.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> You know I think I just made a Biology Faux Pas by typing that statement. *embarrassed* Thank you Thatch. But if the Brains cells do not divide at all, are they like cancer cells in that they never die from age? But I do believe Harmony is right in that they still produce RNA, just at a much slower rate.


RNA is a key part of protein synthesis, mRNA, and tRNA among other things including DNA duplication. Without RNA there's no protein, without protein brain cells can't repair themselves, which is the only way to keep neurons alive.


GadallaRune said:


> Do you think we'd be able to instead slow the aging process and stop brain-damaging mental illnesses by 2045?


Slow the aging process by then? Probably not. But I wouldn't doubt we will have solved a couple mental illnesses.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 29, 2011)

Hm, well to be honest I think you're right Harmony. I think its mostly a money issue though. I don't think enough money is being thrown towards such advances. Aubrey de Grey is one of the leading Biologists when it comes to understanding the aging process. He seems to be pretty confident in being able to come up with a solution to 'curing death' as he puts it rather soon, if only more people with money were willing to put it towards such studies.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> Hm, well to be honest I think you're right Harmony. I think its mostly a money issue though. I don't think enough money is being thrown towards such advances. Aubrey de Grey is one of the leading Biologists when it comes to understanding the aging process. He seems to be pretty confident in being able to come up with a solution to 'curing death' as he puts it rather soon, if only more people with money were willing to put it towards such studies.


Well he's worlds more informed on this subject than I am, so I trust the doctor and I hope he has stumbled across the key problem and has ideas on how to get around it and look forward to seeing advancements. But Immortality by 2045 is a stretch, like we're not even going to see the first person reach age 200 first yet confirm we'll potentially live forever? I'm just a bit skeptical but I don't doubt the human race will reach that point eventually...if our star doesn't go boom first.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 29, 2011)

Got another 5 Billion years before that happens Harmony. We better have some of these damn advancements by then, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 29, 2011)

GadallaRune said:


> Alright. Alright. Thatch, *Roose, don't get into a flame war on here, pretty please?* I don't want to have to start reporting your guy's posts. Your points have been made, leave it at that, k? I'd prefer debate and argument over the technology itself, whether its possible or not, or if it will be here soon, than to whether it has anything to do with this thread.



No prob, already done and ended.




GadallaRune said:


> If it really does have absolutely nothing to do with this thread, you guys can yell at them for me. *I'd find that entertaining actually.*



Isn't this why we're all here?   




GadallaRune said:


> I am appreciating both your links and points about Biotechnology though. *Does anyone else have any arguments towards the possibility of Mind Uploading, or whether its even possible for a computer to simulate a human brain to that extent?* Apparently there are quite a few Biologists who don't think its possible, and they're of course opposed by the Mathematicians and some Computer Scientists. Though there are computer scientists who don't think its possible either.


 
I don't think it would be possible.  Technology might one day be able to copy a person's "essense" into a computer, but it will not be the actual person, just a simulated clone.  Most likely not sentient in any way.




Harmony said:


> Well it depends if the brain is intact or not, if the brain is fully functioning, or at least the cerebral cortex is mostly intact I would say it's quite possible to "bring back the dead". We're simply electro chemical reactions, if we figure out a way to supply the cerebral cortex with blood, or anything that will deliver the oxygen and circulate the necessary chemicals, energy's, and proteins throughout the brain then technically we could keep that person alive until their DNA faults.
> 
> There's a defect in all DNA replication process via RNA; the ends of the DNA strands are cut off, it might only a small amount and the human body has already placed bloated ends of the nitrogenous bases, but eventually the snipping catches up and starts to erase crucial parts of the data strand. Eventually it will cause problems and then death. In the brain that will take several hundred years, though the rest of the human body is constantly regenerating...the DNA will fault not long after its first centennial, I doubt we will ever live past 50% of what we live now, which is aprox 90 years, and when we're sitting around 130 years old we will begin having genetic problems.
> 
> ...


 
Here, let me help you with that:

http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/cellbio/shay-wright/intro/facts/sw_facts.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html

Just a few quick links, the first two for those who may not know, the last one most informative towards an answer.  And nice work there, Harmony.




GadallaRune said:


> Very interesting Harmony, *I didn't know that the telomere reduction in neurons was so slow*. Centuries you say? Well, then uploading yourself into a computer brain or robot I see as pointless if I can rejuvenate my body and don't have to worry about my brain aging to defection for 100's of years. By then we'd probably be able to fix most mental illnesses hopefully. I know such things as Dementia and Alzheimer's will cause the brain to become damage and cease functioning in a relatively short period of time.


 
I didn't, either.  Hmmm... it's almost as if the body's telomere reduction rate may have increased, perhaps due to some environmental change in the far past, while the brain's neurons remained stable.  Odd, that the brain would be genetically set up to "live" longer than the body.  And I'd also prefer regeneration, as I've said before... call me sentimental, but I've grown used to my birthday suit.   




Harmony said:


> That's because unlike other cells these are kept in-tact, rather than simply replaced with new ones. The DNA/RNA process' do occur, just at a lesser rate as I can recall. But your body will still age, *any sort of age-reducing technology will have to include a more permanent solution than telomere*.



Yes, using multiple techniques would have a better chance of long-term success, or so I would think.




Harmony said:


> *As for dementia and Alzheimer's isn't that chemical imbalance rather than neuron damage?* If it is physical damage then it's potentially repairable, and if it's simply chemical then that's definitely repairable.


 
Here's some info on dementia:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/dementia.htm

And here's some info on Alzheimer's:

http://www.ahaf.org/alzheimers/about/understanding/brain-with-alzheimers.html

http://alzheimers.about.com/od/caregivers/a/alz_brain.htm




Thatch said:


> *Neurons don't divide.* The only way to produce neurons is to transform other cells into them (yes, it's actually possible to do that with other kinds than just stem cells). I would risk a guess that telomere reduction doesn't play a significant role in their lifespan.



Hmmm:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20680472

http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=21&questionID=4758

It would seem so.  After all, we know spinal nerves don't regenerate once severed.

While digging, I found something interesting on Alzheimer's:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/01/18/15435.aspx




Thatch said:


> It's because of prions - protein-like compounds that accumulate in the brain matter and distrupt the finctioning of our brain. I don't know how exactly, though, *would have to read up on it again*.


 
Here you go, then:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion




Thatch said:


> I have honestly no idea if neurons die of old age. But they do die because of other reasons, *so a way to replace them is an important matter one way or another when it comes to living for a long time*.


 
True... I'd hate to live forever (or even a few extra centuries) in a vegetative state.




GadallaRune said:


> Hm, well to be honest I think you're right Harmony. *I think its mostly a money issue though.* I don't think enough money is being thrown towards such advances. Aubrey de Grey is one of the leading Biologists when it comes to understanding the aging process. He seems to be pretty confident in being able to come up with a solution to 'curing death' as he puts it rather soon, *if only more people with money were willing to put it towards such studies*.


 
This is the crux of the matter.  I know of beneficial technology left to die, due to lack of funding for research.  It seems we just can't afford to pay for everything.




GadallaRune said:


> *Got another 5 Billion years before that happens* Harmony. We better have some of these damn advancements by then, that's all I'm saying.


 
Heh... thank goodness.  And yes, we'd better have at least some advances before it does happen.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I don't think it would be possible.  Technology might one day be able to copy a person's "essense" into a computer, but it will not be the actual person, just a simulated clone.  Most likely not sentient in any way.


I disagree, it will still be us and not a simulated clone. It's hard to explain but think about a RAID array where every drive holds the same information but they're still the same. Unless the clone has no i/o communication with the original or the original destroyed it's the same essence, the same being and should have the same consciousness. But until this happens there's no way to confirm if either of us is correct in our theory.


Roose Hurro said:


> Here, let me help you with that:
> 
> http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/cellbio/shay-wright/intro/facts/sw_facts.html
> 
> ...


I know about telomere and I was already shown a much more intrusive study on synthetic telomere, or rather forcing there to regenerate significant more of it. But the telomere solution to the DNA replication process is still flawed, it doesn't work 100% and simply supplying enough telomere isn't going to keep a person alive forever. We still age, right now 99.9% of us die before telomere becomes the problem, aging isn't simply just the ends of our DNA getting cut off with each replication, but after being around for a hundred years it will be the problem when blood cells aren't being created and your heart and lungs cease working.


Roose Hurro said:


> I didn't, either.  Hmmm... it's almost as if the body's telomere reduction rate may have increased, perhaps due to some environmental change in the far past, while the brain's neurons remained stable.  Odd, that the brain would be genetically set up to "live" longer than the body.


That's not the case, neurons hold your memories. Your brain cells can't replicate or the unique electro-chemical memory will be lost. It's like flash memory in a way, it always needs power to keep the memory but unlike flash memory a copy can't be made. This is the case for all neurons though, not just brain cells and other neurons don't hold information but their purpose are distinctly different than ones in the brain, or sensory neurons for touch. Without these we lose the ability to feel or move parts of our body among other things such as reflex actions and keeping your organs working. Quite possibly if the body were to replace these that there will be a point where no signal is being sent or received, this could cause loss of control of parts or simply killing the person if their respiratory system suddenly stopped.


----------



## Thatch (May 29, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> After all, we know spinal nerves don't regenerate once severed.


 
New neurons can be created, but by other means than neuron mitosis. Like from the stem cells still present in the spinal fluid.


----------



## Recel (May 29, 2011)

Harmony said:


> I disagree, it will still be us and not a simulated clone. It's hard to explain but think about a RAID array where every drive holds the same information but they're still the same. Unless the clone has no i/o communication with the original or the original destroyed it's the same essence, the same being and should have the same consciousness. But until this happens there's no way to confirm if either of us is correct in our theory.


 
The problem is, with humans, if you upload the information in the brain than you move it basicly. Wich means you remove it from one place and add it to the other. Lets see two glasses of water for instance, one empty, one filled. If you pour the water from one to the other than the original glass will be empty, and the other one full, the filled glass wont become the previously filled glass even if it became an exact copy of it.

Now, the main problem with finding an anwser to this is, that the "new" you will be totaly the same, so from hes standpoint he is you, but maybe you are now an empty shell and dead. He will say he is you, because he feels like he is you. And you cant look for diffrences, because there are none. So even if we get to the point where it is possible to do we will never know if you will live on in a new form or you just give all the things in your head to a computer and stop to exist as yourself.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

Recel said:


> The problem is, with humans, if you upload the information in the brain than you move it basicly. Wich means you remove it from one place and add it to the other. Lets see two glasses of water for instance, one empty, one filled. If you pour the water from one to the other than the original glass will be empty, and the other one full, the filled glass wont become the previously filled glass even if it became an exact copy of it.


We are not water; these things are not this simplistic.


> Now, the main problem with finding an anwser to this is, that the "new" you will be totaly the same, so from hes standpoint he is you, but maybe you are now an empty shell and dead. He will say he is you, because he feels like he is you. And you cant look for diffrences, because there are none. So even if we get to the point where it is possible to do we will never know if you will live on in a new form or you just give all the things in your head to a computer and stop to exist as yourself.


That's one theory but seeing as we're more like a biological computer I would argue it's still us, we're merely a collection of neurons with a left side for logistics and a right side for creation. Though any sort of brain/computer superbrain would have to keep the brain as part of it to be completely sure it's still truly us, this is what I mean by having the original cerebral cortex still connected to the computer via some sort of i/o, it'd be like a RAID array of sorts. We could have perfect memory, faster processing and the ability to record data and let other people re-live it, memories, ideas, feelings. We could potentially have perfect focus and real-time body statistics being fed to us on-demand of a single thought process, instantly knowing how healthy we are or if we're lacking in a certain nutrient or vitamin.


----------



## SnowFox (May 29, 2011)

Recel said:


> The problem is, with humans, if you upload the information in the brain than you move it basicly. Wich means you remove it from one place and add it to the other. Lets see two glasses of water for instance, one empty, one filled. If you pour the water from one to the other than the original glass will be empty, and the other one full, the filled glass wont become the previously filled glass even if it became an exact copy of it.
> 
> Now, the main problem with finding an anwser to this is, that the "new" you will be totaly the same, so from hes standpoint he is you, but maybe you are now an empty shell and dead. He will say he is you, because he feels like he is you. And you cant look for diffrences, because there are none. So even if we get to the point where it is possible to do we will never know if you will live on in a new form or you just give all the things in your head to a computer and stop to exist as yourself.


 
I suspect the original you will be dead. If you could make a perfect copy of yourself with your personality and memories completely intact, your copy would still end up being a different person from that point on, experiencing the world from a separate point of view. You wouldn't share the same consciousness even though you would both think you are the original. Copying your brain information would be the same as moving it, just not destroying the original.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

SnowFox said:


> I suspect the original you will be dead. If you could make a perfect copy of yourself with your personality and memories completely intact, your copy would still end up being a different person from that point on, experiencing the world from a separate point of view. You wouldn't share the same consciousness even though you would both think you are the original. Copying your brain information would be the same as moving it, just not destroying the original.


As long as the two "brains" are talking to each other physically then no, however if they're separated entirely it's a clone.


----------



## Recel (May 29, 2011)

Harmony said:


> We are not water; these things are not this simplistic.



I didnt feel like writeing a page long essay on it...
Aaaaanyway, to upload it you need to recreate it. You cant just plug it in and it will flow over there. And thats why it wont be the same. Becase you need to create a new one that, while exacly the same, is still a new one. Thats what I was geting at in a nutshell.

The RAID like idea most likely would work, but as I wrote, if in any case it wouldnt there would be no way to tell it didnt work.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

Recel said:


> The RAID like idea most likely would work, but as I wrote, if in any case it wouldnt there would be no way to tell it didnt work.


If they're separated then of course they're going to be different beings, unless they're sharing the new data imput then their sensory information will make them different from the moment they were two beings. Even just seeing the other one will make the two different, as they will realize immediately what the other see's and say's isn't exactly the same as what the opposite one starts doing. They will go separate paths and will only have the same past memories while forging new, separate ones from that point onward. But if both "brains" share the same sensory information and work together as one brain then it's simply much more powerful.


----------



## Recel (May 29, 2011)

Harmony said:


> If they're separated then of course they're going to be different beings, unless they're sharing the new data imput then their sensory information will make them different from the moment they were two beings. Even just seeing the other one will make the two different, as they will realize immediately what the other see's and say's isn't exactly the same as what the opposite one starts doing. They will go separate paths and will only have the same past memories while forging new, separate ones from that point onward. But if both "brains" share the same sensory information and work together as one brain then it's simply much more powerful.



Your kind of missing the point.

I know how it should work, but since noone done it we dont know if it would work like that. And, as I wrote, in ANY possible case after makeing the RAID connection for ANY reason your counciousness would disapear, there would be no possible way to say "Yep, this isnt the same being as before".

If everyone would be the exactly same person, in any possible way, that at the exact point in time, where there is no diffrence in them, pose, thougts, genetic and everithing, than are they the same being? Or are they diffrent beings, only in the same pose, thinking the same thing, having the same memories and knowledge with the same body?

So what im saying is, that if you stop existing as you, as the unique being for any reason, theres no way to tell that you stoped existing.


----------



## lilEmber (May 29, 2011)

Recel said:


> Your kind of missing the point.


No I get your point, I was merely saying that it's very obvious and trying to explain the only way computers end up in our brains is if our brains are still there, the computer has to simply become an augment.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 29, 2011)

Harmony said:


> I disagree, it will still be us and not a simulated clone. It's hard to explain but think about a RAID array where every drive holds the same information but they're still the same. Unless the clone has no i/o communication with the original or the original destroyed it's the same essence, the same being and should have the same consciousness. *But until this happens there's no way to confirm if either of us is correct in our theory.*



Indeed, and we each have our reasons to disagree.  I believe the very transfer process may wipe something unique about the individual person, resulting in just a copy of personality and memory, without what you may term "the soul".  I remember that episode of ST: TNG, in which Data refused to have his "consciousness" transferred into storage so his positronic brain could be examined for possible replication.  Data believed the process would damage something unique, and that his "essense" would be lost.  I know, a paraphrase, but I don't have the exact line to refer to... my paraphrase should do fine to get my point across.




Harmony said:


> I know about telomere and I was already shown a much more intrusive study on synthetic telomere, or rather forcing there to regenerate significant more of it. *But the telomere solution to the DNA replication process is still flawed, it doesn't work 100% and simply supplying enough telomere isn't going to keep a person alive forever.* We still age, right now 99.9% of us die before telomere becomes the problem, aging isn't simply just the ends of our DNA getting cut off with each replication, but after being around for a hundred years it will be the problem when blood cells aren't being created and your heart and lungs cease working.



I do believe I made comment to another poster about how I agreed with the need for multiple ways of solving this particular problem, since just one technique won't likely be reliable, or be all that's needed.  I'd be happy with just an extended (healthy) lifespan, no need for immortality.  Not to mention, natural radiation causes damage to other parts of DNA, as well.  Then we have chemical polution, etc.  So, we need multiple approaches, if we wish to solve the problem of ageing.




Harmony said:


> That's not the case, neurons hold your memories. *Your brain cells can't replicate or the unique electro-chemical memory will be lost.* It's like flash memory in a way, it always needs power to keep the memory but unlike flash memory a copy can't be made. This is the case for all neurons though, not just brain cells and other neurons don't hold information but their purpose are distinctly different than ones in the brain, or sensory neurons for touch. Without these we lose the ability to feel or move parts of our body among other things such as reflex actions and keeping your organs working. Quite possibly if the body were to replace these that there will be a point where no signal is being sent or received, this could cause loss of control of parts or simply killing the person if their respiratory system suddenly stopped.


 
This is why I think transfering a person's consciousness into an artificial medium will fail to actually transfer the person.  The "you" in your brain cells are unique to those cells.  Remove the "person" from those cells, and all you have is a copy.  Not the original.  That something responsible for making an individual person unique will be lost.




Thatch said:


> New neurons can be created, *but by other means than neuron mitosis*. Like from the stem cells still present in the spinal fluid.


 
Indeed... spinal nerves would need outside help to stimulate the growth of new cells, to replace those damaged.




Harmony said:


> We are not water; these things are not this simplistic.
> 
> That's one theory but seeing as we're more like a biological computer I would argue it's still us, we're merely a collection of neurons with a left side for logistics and a right side for creation. *Though any sort of brain/computer superbrain would have to keep the brain as part of it to be completely sure it's still truly us*, this is what I mean by having the original cerebral cortex still connected to the computer via some sort of i/o, it'd be like a RAID array of sorts. We could have perfect memory, faster processing and the ability to record data and let other people re-live it, memories, ideas, feelings. We could potentially have perfect focus and real-time body statistics being fed to us on-demand of a single thought process, instantly knowing how healthy we are or if we're lacking in a certain nutrient or vitamin.


 
I agree with this.  What you're thinking of is kinda like Johnny Mnemonic, but where the person is aware of and connected to a network, not just holding data in their head.  Heh... I do like the idea you propose, though.  Much better use of this tech than in that book/film.




Harmony said:


> As long as the two "brains" are talking to each other physically then no, however if they're separated entirely it's a clone.


 
Yes.


----------



## GadallaRune (May 31, 2011)

Now I think we've covered the topics of immortality or at least slowing the aging process, and the vagaries of what mind-uploading would or could entail.

But another large part of the Singularity, is the belief that computers will not only be as complex as the human mind and possess A.I. But, that they will be far _more_ complex and intelligent than not only the human mind, but all human minds put together. And with this super-intelligence comes the ability to continuously increase its own intelligence at an exponential curve, and to make advances in technology and life in general within the span of an hour that would have taken us humans centuries.

What will this entail for us? The Terminator scenario where this super-intelligence sees us as either a threat or completely useless to its continued existence and therefore elects to wipe us out for the better of the world? Or will this super intelligence be the last invention that mankind ever need make? With something that can make advances faster than we can say "what the...?" what point is there to invent or even create anything else? How will this affect jobs? human life in general? even human creativity?


----------

