/sci/ - Science & Math

I am 21. I plan to contribute to life-extension research. My generation will live potentially forever.


We'll be like the oldfags of life. FUCK YEAH!

I don't care! I'll be making fucked up creatures!

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

>>1693091

did you just read that other thread and decide that?

>>1693112
Yes, why?

>>1693113

lol

actually it made me think about doing that too.

>>1693113

I have some bad news for you.

if humans end up colonizing the galaxy that would mean there would be trillions of humans. if you assume that our births are random then that would mean that the chances of being born in the first 50 billion like we have would be less than 1%. it is a lot more likely that we are somewhere in the middle, and humanity fizzles out in the next couple hundred billion humans born. we probably will never colonize the galaxy, based on statistical probability alone. wah wah.

>>1693128
Doomsday arguement much, problem /sci/?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

>>1693128

that doesnt even make sense. the statistics apply to everyone, which means that someone born during the colonization of the galaxy would have a <1% chance of being born during that time

i agree that humanity probably wont colonize the galaxy but not because the chances of us being born during this time are small, thats just a ridiculous claim

make assumption

use assumption to predict variable you based first assumption on

fail

>>1693142

yes, what I said is essentially the doomsday argument.

the doomsday argument hasn't been disproved by the way. walk in to random theater at movie, there's a 50% chance the movie is halfway over. no reason this doesn't apply to humanity.

>>1693168

you talking about the doomsday argument?

because if so then you are wrong.

>>1693171

analogy fail

>>1693182

how so? cause we in the movie instead of watching?

theres nothing in space

what you really want is a ship thats all cosy like in firefly right with a crew and speak in ye old frotier town speak.

well just start a company up and buy a nice boat then make it really long voyages with a fairly small crew delivering some cargo of sorts.

maybey a reaserch vessil and get some scientists

get some LSD and some weed and some other drugs and basically spike the food every now and then to have a strange episode where wierd stuff happens

and put like stars outside your window.

or do what they did in that one episode of CSI newyork where they made thier house into a ship and wore uniforms with thier freind so you might want to think about going to a star trek convention and makeing some freinds there and doing that maybe

>>1693181
>supposing the humans alive today are in a random place in the whole human history timeline chances are we are about half way through it

>... chances are we are about halfway through it

worse than bibletards

>>1693171
>50% chance the movie is halfway over
wtfamireading.jpg

>>1693203

the truth?

if you randomly walk walk into a movie of unknown length at an unknown point, then there is a 50% chance it is in the first half, and a 50% chance it is in the second half.

>>1693195
>>1693203

This

That wrong fail-logic could be applied to anything.

"There is 50% chance that the world explodes within 10 seconds. Either it does or it doesn't"

faith is the only requirement. and I've got that, tenfold.

>>1693213
That's not the same as it being halfway over you retard.
Also that's like saying 'hey if I walk into a theatre while it's showing a film there's a 100% chance that it's at some point in the film', which doesn't prove anything

>>1693220

no.

the earth is 4.5 billion years old. using this logic the chances of it exploding in the next 10 seconds are approximately 705 quadrillion to one.

am i not explaining this right?

>>1693213
Logic fail. You cannot walk into a movie of unknown length at a random time, such as they have an equal probability to come in at any time of the movie. You would have to know the length of the movie to do this.

>>1693107
We have half a mouse brain (4096*256MB) now, so, if we continue to accelerate the increase of computer speeds, a human brain simulation should be possible within our lifetime.
I would upload myself to that. And get a fuck awesome exoskeleton (humanoid robots should also be perfected in my lifetime).

>>1693085

"I'm alive today. I'll live to see the last star in the Milky Way burn out."

-Elizier Yudkowsky

hatersgonnahate.jpg

>>1693213

there is a 50% chance you're half way through your life right now.

so if you're 60 you have a good chance of living til 120

and if you're 10 you probably die at 20

thnx bai

>>1693292

>implying the lifespan of humans is random

>>1693292

The probability that you will die doubles for every eight (or is it 4? I forget) years you spend living, up until a cap of ~44% is reached around age 95. Since the odds of death are infinitesimal until late life, your life expectancy doesn't change much until then. At birth the average US citizen is expected to live for 77 years or so; one must survive until 32 to have an average expected lifespan of 80 years. This becomes 81 at 46, 82 at 54, and 83 at 60. No matter how long you live, however, you can expect to live for another year and some change, on average. Keep in mind, however, that there is no such thing as a completely average person.

You can look it up on publicly-available actuarial tables.

>implying everyone in the future will be space travelers
nowadays most peapole dont even go out of their country

>>1693360
> The probability that you will die doubles ... up until a cap of ~44%
You need to qualify that. The probability that you will die in the next [minute/hour/day/year?] doubles ... up until a cap of 44%.

>>1693091
never though of it that way
first generation of immortals

>back in MY day we had to hang out in physical bodies! there wasn't any of this netspace or nothing, just lots of clunky robot bodies and before even that, we were organic!

>haha, oh esculo 1, you have the silliest stories
>not come back to the host node for euphoric frequencies

its gon be gr8

>>1693128
Ok, this is really retarded circular logic. The chance of an event that has already happened has no bearing on future events in this case.

The probability of an event that has already happened, e.g. you having been birthed now, tells you absolutely nothing about the probability of other future births.

>>1693091
future peoples face when you tell them of a world without self backups