/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11875630
I do believe biological immortality might be possible because it is witnessed in the animal kingdom.

sure

No anon. You will die one day. Best to make peace with it, or put it from your mind and busy yourself with smaller things.

>>11875653
example?

>>11875666
It has been observed in some more primitive animals
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

can i become an anime girl?

>>11875658

With this type of mindset people would just halt any sort of progress into a key for immortality.

The fact that humans in the past had always shunned theories that later would become reality is the reason why I can't believe what's considered by skeptics a "scientific impossibility".

In 1903, the New York Times declared that "flying machines" were a waste of time, now we go everywhere with them.

https://www.nytimes.com/1903/10/09/archives/flying-machines-which-do-not-fly.html

>>11875676
fascinating

>>11875630
No

>>11875630
>It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

>>11875630
>The techies may answer that even if almost all biological species are eliminated eventually, many species survive for thousands or millions of years, so maybe techies too can survive for thousands or millions of years. But when large, rapid changes occur in the environment of biological species, both the rate of appearance of new species and the rate of extinction of existing species are greatly increased. Technological progress constantly accelerates, and techies like Ray Kurzweil insist that it will soon become virtually explosive; consequently, changes come more and more rapidly, everything happens faster and faster, competition among self-prop systems becomes more and more intense, and as the process gathers speed the losers in the struggle for survival will be eliminated ever more quickly. So, on the basis of the techies' own beliefs about the exponential acceleration of technological development, it's safe to say that the life-expectancies of human-derived entities, such as man-machine hybrids and human minds uploaded into machines, will actually be quite short. The seven-hundred year or thousand-year life-span to which some techies aspire is nothing but a pipe-dream.

>>11875785
>>11875791

>>11875630
Without a continuation of consciousness, there is no immortality. """"Uploading"""" your mind to a computer is not immortality in the slightest. That's like saying if I write down my grandma's recipe for apple pie she lives as long as the card exists.

>>11876936
Bro you straight up have no idea what you're talking about huh?

>>11877789
Prove me wrong, retard.

>>11875630
Not in our lifetime, anon. I do think this is one of the more achievable technological 'holy grails', but techo-optimists are kidding themsleves if they don't think there's still a long way to go.

It'll be a multifarious approach, including STEM cells, genetic engineering, organ replacement (growing new ones and perhaps one day engineered ones with more durable materials), mastering proteomics, and no doubt a ton of other things... The brain uploading stuff is more dubious; there are good reasons to suspect it isn't possible (and if it is, it represents a much higher technological hurdle).

>>11877828
Consciousness is created by the brain, so if we can fully reproduce a brain digitally we can recreate the "consciousness". A full recreation of a brain [math]\neq[/math] grandmas recipe retard

>>11877867
>
>
>

>>11877885

At least he had arguments, while you used a meme to respond.

Therefore you are automatically incorrect.

That is an extreme low IQ or just outright dishonest take on mind uploading. You are not uploading a fucking recipe, you would be uploading all of the neuro connections of a human brain, which represents everything, from memories, feelings, dislikes.

If top scientists believe that it is possible and within our lifetime, why should an anon on /sci/ say otherwise?

>>11875630
If it happens, it happens, this place is not the ultimate source of knowledge, it more like the total opposite

>>11875630
Why do you keep making this same thread? I told you before, if there is a cure for aging, average person will not have access to it, the billionaires and the powerful will keep it to themselves.

>>11877867
What part of "continuation" did you miss? If you die, you're mind is not continuing. That's like saying if I have a twin and commit suicide, I'm actually still alive.

>>11875630
Yes, mind uploading is tricky and comes way later.

It’s likely the biological therapies will come in the next few decades, BEFORE mechanical limb / organ replacements, but they will both occur around the same time.

Only if people actually work on them though

>>11879149
What part of "it is your mind" did you not understand. Again, we are talking about a full recreation of your brain, not a completely different brain

>>11875630
OP, think this through. Even if we manage to print organs, even if we revert senescence using nanomachines, and even if we transplant our microbiota; how the fuck is anyone older than 120 not going to become a festering ball of cancer?
And don't even bring up the "cryonics" meme. We barely know how the brain works, you can't be sure that the process conserves all important structures.

>>11875676
I saw a JRE where they talked about this.
The idea is that there is a mechanism that shortens our celular DNA strands until cells can no longer divide and they just die.
But the reverse of this was cells where the DNA never shortened and they were likely to grow out of hand and cause cancer.
It’s funny that cancer, which seemed to be a rather prosai -if intractable- disease, might be intrinsically tied up in the fundamentals of longevity and senescence

>>11875630
Better fix entropy first nigga.

>>11877867
So if you upload your brain but don't kill yourself then you have two consciousnesses?

>>11880318
That's the philosophical problem with it. If you kill yourself immediately after the upload there's no issue, but if you don't the moment after the upload it becomes a different person, it's receiving different stimuli.

>>11880140
ii will probably get shit for it but i believe a cancer cure will happen before reverse senescence.
i would say 20 years away, immunology therapies are just starting.

its hard to guess where full aging reversal will be available, there are too many variable.