Will we get immortality in our lifetimes

[Anonymous No.12296228]

What do you think /sci/

Are we gonna get to live thousands of years or are Kurzweil and De Grey full of shit

[Anonymous No.12296244]

>>12296228
The latter.

[Anonymous No.12296265]

>>12296228
Consciousness transfer to computers is inevitable. It will begin with being able to effect electrical signals in a circuit with your brain via some kind of transduction that optimizes the process based on the individual a la an in silica thalamus (think neuralink). At some point that process will become 100% perfect and slowly the input from the brain to the chip will be able to be perfectly emulated by a 3rd system.

[Anonymous No.12296283]

>>12296265
yes but would humanity retain conciousness or would they just be artificial intelligences replicating human function

How would the conciousness of a human possibly get transferred into a robotic form

[Anonymous No.12296286]

>>12296244
The only reason you give them shit is that you're an asshole. Stop speaking out of your ass.
Debunk just one thing this guy tells here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFZr2LTTNS8

[Anonymous No.12296294]

>>12296286
this guy is moot's coworker now

what a time to be alive

[Anonymous No.12296305]

>>12296283
Consciousness would be retained. Think of a person who suffers a concussion or some other type of brain damage -- a part of the organ that facilitates their consciousness is destroyed, but their consciousness persists despite it because consciousness is a process. The same would be true with the upload -- as the consciousness relies more and more on the 3rd entity emulating the brain's input to the chip, the brain will be used less and less until it'll be able to be discarded completely after the transfer is complete (coma would be the manifestation of this).

[Anonymous No.12296313]

>>12296265
there is a mathematical proof that you cannot copy your consciousness

[Anonymous No.12296319]

>>12296305
and where is your proof for this

[Anonymous No.12296322]

>>12296305
>>12296283
>>12296265
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

ok this thread can end now

[Anonymous No.12296325]

>>12296313
what exactly is this mathematical equation then

[Anonymous No.12296346]

>>12296325
see >>12296322

[Anonymous No.12296427]

>>12296228
They're full of shit, nobody but their cultist groupies believes their nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12297748]

>>12296228
You won’t.

[Anonymous No.12297756]

They're not full of shit at all but it'll take longer than they think. And no, no one reading this will make it in time, or at least it's extremely unlikely.

[Anonymous No.12297772]

>>12296322
Consciousness transfer may be impossible but the no-cloning theorem doesn't prevent it. The no-cloning theorem just means you can't exactly copy an unknown quantum state. The quantum state of your consciousness changes probably every nanosecond, and between going to bed and waking up it's probably very different.

We definitely don't know for sure, but consciousness likely isn't nearly as granular as pure quantum states.

[Anonymous No.12297781]

>>12296427
>believe
This is not how it works, honey. (faugh! it's not honey)

[Anonymous No.12297790]

how is this different than what a priest says. just baseless hopes

[Anonymous No.12297791]

>>12297756
>it's extremely unlikely
Doesn't mean it isn't worth striving.
Also that is more likely than you think: telomeres extension became several times less expensive in few years (if this trends go on, I will be able to purchase that operation in a decade or two, and all other sorts of procedures will be available in that year)

[Anonymous No.12297795]

>>12297790
Because you're not based enough.
Start with taking some lessons in biochemistry, so you'll be able to read their sources.

[Anonymous No.12297832]

>>12297772
why do you automatically assume you can quantify consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12297850]

>>12297795
>read philosophy and theology bro leibniz proved it
same shit you are saying

[Anonymous No.12297859]

90% of Earth population is already barely needed. Giving them immortality would be an absolutely improbable charity.

[Anonymous No.12297866]

>>12296322
Now post Godel theorem and Schrodinger's cat.

[Anonymous No.12297869]

>>12296283
Why should you even care about your mythical consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12297894]

>>12297850
> read philosophy and...
> theology
No more questions.

[Anonymous No.12297901]

>>12297859
Are you the one giving them that or they themselves work towards that goal?
Also listen to what this based skinhead says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6vFIKAUxk
(in humanity of a trillion people, we'll have thousands of mozarts and thousands of einsteins)

[Anonymous No.12297904]

>>12296228
Immortality does not stop you from getting hit by a bus.

[Anonymous No.12297990]

>>12296228

You Can Do It Aubrey!

[Anonymous No.12298030]

Recreate a mechanical brain with longer lasting parts.

[Anonymous No.12298037]

>>12296228
Aubrey is correct but Kurzweil is full of shit. Aubrey is right in that aging will slowly be defeated through biology, not nanobots or consciousness uploading like the Kurzweil schizos and retards on this thread are implying. We have a small but respectable chance of making it in the year 2080 or so, but any earlier is a total pipe dream.

[Anonymous No.12298040]

>>12298037
>We have a small but respectable chance of making it in the year 2080 or so
Look at this clueless faggot lecturing out of his own butt! Hey, faggot, you're clueless, and it's not that your data is flawed, it's that you have none.

[Anonymous No.12298050]

>>12296228
The only real way to get immortality is to have a distributed consciousness, i. e. a hive mind. Even if you didn't age, the odds are some event would eventually kill you, unless you lived in a hidden box floating out in space. But with a distributed consciousness, you could avoid keeping all your eggs in one basket, and with a lot of memory backups you could reduce the probability of your own destruction by random events to near zero. The only way you would die is if someone tried to wipe you out, and even then you could hide back ups all over the place to make that very difficult.

The issue with all this is information sync. Different incarnations of you running about in different places would experience different things, and thus would change in different ways. You could try to unify all of the incarnations by copying memories and passing them around, but that sort of communication would be fundamentally limited by the speed of light. Which is probably fine if all the yous are on one planet, but what if you send a bunch of yous to a different solar system, while some of them stay home? How do you keep yourself synched with that kind of time delay?

[Anonymous No.12298054]

>>12296228
Both

[Anonymous No.12298081]

>>12296265
>transfer
Why did SOMA make scifi nerds obsessed with consciousness "transfer"? There's literally no need to try and "transfer" our consciousness. The future of immortality is brainjars. We keep our organic brains, but put them in robotic bodies, or even in massive facilities that keep them alive while our nerve impulses are beamed to robotic avatars that actually exist in the real world.

[Anonymous No.12298090]

Don't worry, the world will be so shitty in 2050 that you'll be begging to die by then.

[Anonymous No.12298118]

>>12298081
That's not really the best idea. See:
>>12298050

[Anonymous No.12298125]

>>12298118
That post is shit because distributed consciousness is not possible, as it would rely on moving human consciousness from biological to technological medium. This is impossible. Any 'backups' made would not be 'you', they would be copies of 'you'.

I'm not immortal if a copy of my consciousness exists on a harddrive somewhere. My stream of consciousness will end. Brain in a jar is the only 100% guaranteed way that my current consciousness will possibly have a chance to live forever.

[Anonymous No.12298133]

>>12296228
Never.

[Anonymous No.12298177]

>>12298133
Not only doesn't your leaflet mentions the most promising directions of research, even the few he does, does it misleadingly:
> the injection of youthful blood, with disappointing results.
Results are very promising, only that is (being one of the ways to immortality I know of) the way that also leads to some violent death from apalled audience. But artificial youthful plasma could be alright in their eyes. Ever wondered why they took your blood for some endless tests when you was little, and when you're old (and probably need those tests more) they lost the interest?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/young-blood-might-rejuvenate-older-adults/

[Anonymous No.12298185]

>>12298177
They do a lot of blood tests on babies because they're more valuable and have more potential and nobody wants a baby to die. We're literally biologically programmed to want to protect and take care of babies, so of course our systems are going to run more medical tests and expend more resources on infant medical care and disease prevention.

Is it just me or is /sci/ being overrun by /x/ conspiracy schizos

[Anonymous No.12298190]

>>12298125
That's a rather restrictive definition of continued consciousness, and I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with human intelligence for eternity.

[Anonymous No.12298206]

>>12298185

[Anonymous No.12298210]

>>12298190
Continued consciousness is restrictive. You are you as a result of continued chemical reactions constantly taking place in your brain uninterrupted. You can't 'transfer' that activity onto another medium. You can only copy a simulation of your brain activity, and even then, that would not be 'you'. That would be a copy of 'you'.

Sure, you can create a copy of 'you' that may live forever, but you, the instance of consciousness reading this post right now, will eventually die. You won't be flashed over last second to digital or hivemind 'you' and take control. Your chemical reactions will cease, and you will cease to be.

The only way to keep 'you', the 'you' reading this post, alive forever (potentially) is by preserving and keeping your biological brain alive.

I want to live forever, I don't give a fuck if I can create a clone of my brain that gets to live forever. That's not me. If I wanted to do that, I'd have a kid.

[Anonymous No.12298212]

>>12298206
>implying the jewspiracy cares enough about a vietnamese theorycrafting forum to try and convince schizophrenic posters that they're not behind everything

[Anonymous No.12298287]

Both full of shit

[Anonymous No.12298318]

Guys please tell me we will achieve immortality in the next 20 years. I love my mother dearly, and I don't want my her to die.

[Anonymous No.12298334]

Guys please tell me we will achieve immortality in the next 20 years. I love my mother dearly, and I don't want her to die.

[Anonymous No.12298344]

>>12297869
>why would you even care if you stop existing lol
Retard and/or soulless NPC detected

[Anonymous No.12298506]

>>12298334
We probably have, and in the next twenty years these technologies will become really affordable.
But you shouldn't be scared, be prepared instead, because after we reach that frontier, the next one will be the resurrection of those propperly conserved. And I'm not speaking only of vitrified ones, but about dried ones too, and who knows will we pull out of the hat of our heads.

[Anonymous No.12298579]

>>12297756
so nobody born so far this century will get immortality? damn

[Anonymous No.12298586]

>>12296228
>Will we get immortality in our lifetimes

Curing baldness is one million times easier than immortality.
Do you see lots of 90 year old men with dark thick long hair?

NO... you are are going to die

[Anonymous No.12298607]

>>12298506
well do you have any tangible proof of that fact?

[Anonymous No.12298687]

>>12298607
Lurk genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.12298692]

>>12298687
What’s the genetic engineering board called

[Anonymous No.12298693]

Buckle up!
http://booksonline.com.ua/view.php?book=139878

[Anonymous No.12298699]

>>12296322
Quantum scale has absolutely no effect on any scale higher than (sub) atomic. Ergo it's not a factor in consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12298703]

>>12298692
You got me, I was mistaken about what the term "lurk" means. Read more on the subject to get informed and to be able to come to your own conclusions (some basic knowledge of biochemistry are required to understand that kind of literature, but for that you don't need to get some phd, a good book or about twenty lessons from a good professor should do)

[Anonymous No.12298704]

>>12297791
>telomeres extension
And why would you want to give differentiated cells this ability again?

[Anonymous No.12298709]

>>12298703
So which books told you immortality is in 20 years

[Anonymous No.12298716]

>>12298704
Read about the results of such procedure and you will want one too. The retards who said that "telomerase is a marker of carcenogenic process, thus telomerase will cause cancer" fail to use logic, and thus they are unfit for scientific endeavours.

[Anonymous No.12298720]

>>12298709
I think Kurzweil's and deGrey's books tell exactly that (but I didn't read them, because I am convinced already by my own routes)
I come to such conclusions by studying the field and seeing all sorts of experiments coming to fruitions.
I keep my eye on genetic therapies, yet I know there are tens of other ways being developed as we speak.

[Anonymous No.12298723]

Human body is like a house built of the vast variety of random junk all of which starts to decay at some age. You can support the house while it's just one column or roof piece cracking, but when all of them start to rot in different ways, you are out of luck.

[Anonymous No.12298725]

>>12298716
>Read about the results of such procedure and you will want one too.
Show me which article you read. Your other point is moot because most differentiated cells initiate apoptosis before telomere shortening has any effect. Having telomerase already active is just one inhibiting factor gone in cancer prevention.

[Anonymous No.12298746]

>>12298725
>Show me which article you read.
I read many.
> Having telomerase already active is just one inhibiting factor gone in cancer prevention.
Your theory contradicts some stubborn facts. This short book is simple to read and gives external links to lots of data.

[Anonymous No.12298747]

>>12298720
If you donated some cash maybe you’d have a better chance

Like the only chance of immortality is that enough rich people want it and see it as a lucrative business opportunity

Calico and Sens are comedically underfunded

[Anonymous No.12298751]

>>12298693
Tldr

[Anonymous No.12298754]

>>12298133
What book is this

[Anonymous No.12298759]

>>12296228
Yeah probably. Technology removes the limits we have

[Anonymous No.12298760]

Biofag here. People in this thread are being overly pessimistic. We have already extended lifespan of mice by 40% with the clearance of senescent cells when the mice are already at old age. This is a demonstration of genuine removal of molecular garbage instead of simply slowing down aging through evolutionarily conserved fasting/calorie restriction pathway which work better on small organisms, which means that the benefits should not diminish when senescent cell clearance is applied to larger organism.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eliminating-senescent-cells-extends-healthy-life-mice

It's only a matter of time before full body senescent cell removal therapies progress to human trials and that will probably add ~4-8 years to our lifespan (this is a conservative estimate when compared to the extension shown in mice). Best case scenario it might give us 12-15 years in my opinion. Stem cells might add on 5 extra years.


The yamanaka factors for partial reprogramming also might come in clutch for us, but whole body implementation for humans is going to be heavily reliant on advances in gene therapy delivery, so it's not guaranteed we will get it, or that it will even work on humans.

So, if you have good genes, you might make it to 130 with all these advances. And you better hope to fucking god that by then the science progresses far enough.

[Anonymous No.12298767]

>>12298746
It's clear to me that you are a layman because you have failed a very clear and important distiction. Namely the difference between stem- and differentiated cells.
My first question was quite clear: How would this be beneficial in differentiated cells.
Is telomere shortening bad for stem cells? Yeah this is not a new epiphany.
Your 2nd point must be based on a missunderstanding. No one is saying telomerase causes cancer. What is said is that telomerase allows cancer cells to -in theory- replicate forever. Because of that it could be used as a vector to kill cancer cells by stopping their telomerase. A problem with this type of therapy currently is the specific targeting of only cancer cells and not stem cells as well.

[Anonymous No.12298773]

>>12298760
>We have already extended lifespan of mice by 40% with the clearance of senescent cells when the mice are already at old age.
>~4-8 years to our lifespan (this is a conservative estimate when compared to the extension shown in mice)

Massive misrepresented fact. It has already been shown that life extension diminishes very rapidly if the organism is bigger. Reasons are unknown however (I think David Sinclair adresses this somewhere).

[Anonymous No.12298782]

>>12298746
>Bill Andrews
>By targeting telomeres within skin tissue, TAM counteracts and suppresses the fundamental cause of skin aging: telomere shortening. Skin cells are rejuvenated, youthful elasticity is restored, fine lines and wrinkles disappear.
This guy has a snake oil shop, so why shouldn't I believe this guy isnt a quack?

[Anonymous No.12298788]

>>12298773
That's for pathways involving calorie restriction, because famines are longer relative to smaller shorter lived r-selected species; that's why they get more lifespan extension from calorie restriction. Senescent cell clearance is NOT calorie restriction, so large organisms will not see a huge diminishment compared to short lived ones, or at least that diminishment will be smaller.

[Anonymous No.12298792]

>>12298125
>My stream of consciousness will end
It does this everytime you fall asleep. Is the you that wakes up not you therefore?

[Anonymous No.12298795]

>>12298344
>invent some immeasurable mystical thing which does not change your behaviour in any way, yet supposedly watches what you are doing
>call it "you"

[Anonymous No.12298796]

>>12298767
> How would this be beneficial in differentiated cells.
It's a very retarded question. Think of T-cells. Think of your cheek being cut while shaving and the cells around that get the signal to divide don't get damaged in the process. You didn't think it was the stem cells that did all the job in such situations?
> No one is saying telomerase causes cancer.
You clearly wasn't following this subject. It was one of the main objections, not the way you put it, even more retarded than that.
> What is said is that telomerase allows cancer cells
But cancer cells produce their own telomerase, so what's your point, and that's not the only mechanism they use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=untnn4_8jxY
And secretly, there's a cure for cancer too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5HiHUdbuk

[Anonymous No.12298807]

>>12298792
When you sleep your stream of consciousness does not stop. The chemical reactions in your brain are still working. You can still dream. You have brain activity. You can react to stimuli in your environment to some degree.

[Anonymous No.12298810]

>>12298796
>You didn't think it was the stem cells that did all the job in such situations?
It's clear to me that you know very little now. Yes it is the stem cells that will proliferate and repair the damage not the epithelium cells. T-cells also dont proliferate either.
>But cancer cells produce their own telomerase,
Yeah which is bad and shouldnt happen. Thus my first question. Why would you give telomerase to differentiated cells.
>And secretly, there's a cure for cancer too:
You don't even know how skin repair works but you want me to believe you understand how cancer can be cured?

[Anonymous No.12298812]

>>12298788
Could you show the article that proves it on larger organisms?

[Anonymous No.12298813]

>>12298810
anon why are you arguing with someone who believes there's a secret cure for cancer

[Anonymous No.12298816]

>>12298810
>T-cells dont proliferate
Oh you, mr-know-all.
Simply fuck off already.

[Anonymous No.12298818]

>>12298210
Get life insurance, and sign up for cryonics.

[Anonymous No.12298825]

>>12298813
I didnt think he was a schizo
>>12298816
t.lymphoma

[Anonymous No.12298826]

>>12298818
If I deep froze myself I would die. Even if scientists somehow discovered a way to keep the ice crystals that destroyed my neurons and blood vessels from turning my insides to mush upon reanimation, the 'me' that would reanimate wouldn't actually be the me that's writing this post right now, because I would have had zero brain activity. It would be something like a copy.

[Anonymous No.12298830]

>>12298813
Where do I begin..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBqD_XHA_nI
http://web.archive.org/web/20190722041941/https://mahead.livejournal.com/12991.html

[Anonymous No.12298835]

>>12298830
>hour long youtube videos are my research
>>>/x/ and stay there

[Anonymous No.12298838]

>>12298825
> I don't really know what lymphoma is, thus t-cells don't proliferate.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.12298847]

>>12298830
Why are there so many facebook conspiracy schizos on /sci/ lately who think scrolling through 'weed 4 health' facebook groups is equal to research

[Anonymous No.12298853]

>>12298835
>all I see is the youtube link
>I am blind, so I hate videos
You're fucking annoying.
Cannabis kills tumor cells

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1576089

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20090845

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616322

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14640910

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19480992

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328

Uterine, testicular, and pancreatic cancers

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645

Brain cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216

Mouth and throat cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Breast cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194

Lung cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25069049

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract

Prostate cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753356
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545

[Anonymous No.12298856]

>>12298838
Please point to where you think that T-cells proliferate so we can laugh.

[Anonymous No.12298858]

>>12298835
>>12298847
>>12298853

Blood cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594

Skin cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284

Liver cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304

Cannabis cancer cures (general)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18199524

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277

Cancers of the head and neck

http://ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494

Cholangiocarcinoma cancer

http://ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115947

Leukemia

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454482

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532

[Anonymous No.12298863]

Cannabis partially/fully induced cancer cell death

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130702

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19457575

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615640

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931597

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18438336

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387516

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15453094

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550

[Anonymous No.12298865]

Translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19509271

Lymphoma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546271

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936228

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337199

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19609004

Cannabis kills cancer cells

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997

Melanoma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222

Thyroid carcinoma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164

Colon cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095

Intestinal inflammation and cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536

Cannabinoids in health and disease

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801

Cannabis inhibits cancer cell invasion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218

[Anonymous No.12298873]

>>12298853
>>12298858
>>12298863
>>12298865
a bullet also destroys cancer cells. and radiation. and extreme heat. getting stabbed. starving yourself. not drinking water. you can also kill cancer cells by electrocuting yourself to death. how could they be keeping these cures for cancer away from us...

[Anonymous No.12298874]

>the schizo got triggerd
If you could read you would know that most of these studies are before 2010
and ask for follow up studies and dont show any clinical results/trials. If you do have those studies feel free to show them in an organised and palatable manner.

[Anonymous No.12298880]

>>12298873
> compares thc to a bullet to one's brains
Oh, the level of argumentation right there!
Explain why cannabis smokers who don't smoke tobacco have lower risk of lung cancer than non-smokers.

[Anonymous No.12298890]

>>12298880
Not a single studied you posted has said in its conclusion that it was a cure. Care to make an actual argument as to why it is the case?

[Anonymous No.12298899]

>>12298890
> Pretends to check out all the studies.
Suddenly I felt satisfied with the thought that you will die of old age when the cure is available to you, because you know better, duh.

[Anonymous No.12298911]

>schizo ruins immortality thread
when your facebook ban lifts please fuck off back to your conspiracy groups instead of shitting this board up

[Anonymous No.12298927]

>>12298911
> booze-sucker believes in government taking good care of him
Keep on sucking.

[Anonymous No.12298935]

>>12298807
will it ever be possible for us to understand if death is truly nothing or if it is this dream like state

like what even happens to our conciousness when it dies?

[Anonymous No.12298939]

>>12298880
who tf is this bearded guy

[Anonymous No.12298941]

>>12298899
I actually have but good to see that you admit to not having checked your own spam message.

[Anonymous No.12298945]

>>12298935
Just based on the mechanics of brain chemistry, your consciousness ceases and you're done. No dreams, nothing. You wouldn't even experience nothing. It would be like before you were born.

If you don't believe that, there are always spiritual answers like a 'soul'.

[Anonymous No.12298948]

>>12298935
By the current understanding this anon >>12298945 is right. Though some people can experience a lot of hallucinations at the last moments of their life.

[Anonymous No.12298958]

>>12298812
Debate my reasoning please.

[Anonymous No.12298960]

just like space colonization it won't happen and won't be available to common folk

[Anonymous No.12298964]

>>12298807
>The chemical reactions in your brain are still working.
So chemical reactions keep your soul in?

[Anonymous No.12298968]

>>12298964
Think of it this way; You are the constant chemical reaction in your brain of neurons firing. That doesn't stop when you go to sleep, or when you enter a coma, or when you're drugged. Anything that stops the constant chemical reaction in your brain would result in your death. 'You', the 'You' reading this right now, are not a stable object. You're not a 'thing'. You are a process, kind of like fire. If a fire stops burning, it's dead. Even if you use the exact same tinder as before and light a new fire, the original fire will never come back. That's your brain.

If you believe in a 'soul', there's not really anything scientific to back it up and I can't say for certain.

[Anonymous No.12298969]

>>12296228
It'll be the end of humanity. I'd say live no more than 140 years.

[Anonymous No.12298971]

>>12298969
And only if you are creating something or doing something of importance. Leeches after 100 can drop.

[Anonymous No.12298978]

>>12296228
No. knowledge is yet too primitive and there are more pressing matters that get more funding: like mutilating people in a vain attempt to make them feel better about themselves

[Anonymous No.12298984]

>>12298945
and it is impossible to reactivate brain activate beyond that point?

[Anonymous No.12298986]

>>12298984
It's not currently possible. Even if we could 'restart' the brain, the being that would come into existence would not be the stream of consciousness that had already died. It would be something like a copy. It would believe it was the original, and have all the memories of the original, but it would not be.

[Anonymous No.12298992]

>>12298986
well damn

so if i die then there's no way i will ever exist again

[Anonymous No.12298995]

>>12298992
That's only within the confines of what we currently understand about the human brain. Maybe we'll discover something new later. Maybe religion is real. Maybe there's something we're just not seeing. But, again, that's why I said earlier in the thread that brain-in-a-jar immortality is the only way to go.

[Anonymous No.12298997]

>>12298960
what about suspended animation?

do we yet have a way to put humans into stasis so they can wake up and enjoy the future or is that still far off?

[Anonymous No.12299010]

>>12298968
>You are the constant chemical reaction in your brain of neurons firing.
That's far from obvious. Why do you think that any "constant" process is necessary to keep "you" alive? Of course if you use that premise you will get more trouble later (and that constancy is far from well-defined too). When you turn the computer off and then on, programs stay the same. When you destroy the book and print it again, the text is the same.
>If you believe in a 'soul', there's not really anything scientific to back it up
Correct, that's why we talk about information and about same structure/behaviour instead.
> Even if you use the exact same tinder as before and light a new fire, the original fire will never come back.
Have you heard a saying about the inability to enter the same river twice?

[Anonymous No.12299015]

>>12298958
Nothing to debate. Said study was about senescence not nutrient shortage. You're lagging in your knowledge of up-to-date reasearch.

[Anonymous No.12299021]

>>12299010
We're not books, and we're not computers. There is a difference between the structure of the brain, and the constant firing of neurons and chemical reactions that form your active thoughts. If you destroy the brain and somehow manage to piece it all back together perfectly and flip it on again, do you really thing that the consciousness of the person who died would suddenly flood back into existence? Or would it be an entirely new person, who just so happens to have the memories of the old?

[Anonymous No.12299024]

>>12298984
Dying (brain death) is the result of multiple kinds of failures that stop normal neurons from functioning until they get permanently damaged. It's basically the conclusion to multiple events that are irreversible. So no it would be too late to do anything. People who were brain dead and do come back always have brain damage.

[Anonymous No.12299026]

>>12299024
>>12298984
Actually my last point kinda invalidates the conclusion. Yeah some people can come back but it is in a very bad state that requires outside lifesupport functions.

[Anonymous No.12299031]

>>12297791
Yes and what are the chances someone born in 1999 can experience immortality and avoid death?

[Anonymous No.12299077]

>>12299021
>There is a difference between the structure of the brain, and the constant firing of neurons and chemical reactions that form your active thoughts.
Both are physical structures made of atoms and carrying some information. Unless of course you believe that brain has something totally different and immaterial, but that returns us to the soul talk.
> If you destroy the brain and somehow manage to piece it all back together perfectly and flip it on again, do you really thing that the consciousness of the person who died would suddenly flood back into existence? Or would it be an entirely new person, who just so happens to have the memories of the old?
Let's see: how do you check that your friend is the same person as yesterday? You look at his behaviour and if it is mostly identical, then he is probably the same. If you have futuristic technology, you can also brainscan him and see if structure is equivalent to the past. So you can apply this process to the repieced person. If the structure of his brain is the same and his behaviour did not change, then he is the same person as before (and that will also apply to you).

[Anonymous No.12299108]

>>12298090
yeah but that's only because foreign people eat bats

[Anonymous No.12299116]

>>12299077
One is a process, and one is a structure. They're made up of the same building blocks, but they do different things.

>Do you know if your friend is the same friend?
Irrelevant. This brings us to the teleportation scenario. Imagine a world where atomic-level teleportation exists, where your atoms are taken apart and put back together somewhere else. It will be impossible to know if the conscious 'you' that left is the same 'you' that arrives at the destination. 'You' would be dead as your atoms rip apart, and the 'you' that arrives would have all your memories, and assume it was a success. I don't want to die, so I would not take that risk. But you, the teleportation agent, is telling me "don't worry, it doesn't matter because nobody would know the difference anyway."

[Anonymous No.12299129]

>>12299116
Some code running on your computer is a process too. You can even put in in the virtual machine, pause it and launch later, and it will be the same machine and same code.
>It will be impossible to know if the conscious 'you' that left is the same 'you' that arrives at the destination. 'You' would be dead as your atoms rip apart, and the 'you' that arrives would have all your memories, and assume it was a success.
Now replace that 'you' you are using with 'soul' and you will get something semi-consistent. Science can't deal with things you are unable to distinguish from each other in any way. You can as well stop sleeping since you don't know if you will wake up as a same man.

[Anonymous No.12299193]

>>12298941
I was pretty sure it's in there, but that video containst this reference:
https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/24/1/15
> In view of the above findings, a null association between marijuana use and lung cancer is somewhat surprising because marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens in amounts comparable with those found in tobacco smoke (49). Although the generally smaller amounts of marijuana that are regularly smoked compared with tobacco might appear to explain the null association of marijuana with lung cancer, the absence of a dose–response relationship between marijuana use and lung cancer, in contrast to the strong dose–response relationship noted for tobacco (16), would argue against this explanation. A more likely explanation is a tumor-suppressant effect of THC and other cannabinoids evident in both cell culture systems and animal models of a variety of cancers, as reviewed by Bifulco and colleagues (57). These antitumoral effects (antimitogenic, proapoptotic, and antiangiogenetic) could possibly counteract the tumor-initiating or tumor-promoting effects of the carcinogens within the smoke of cannabis.

> The two case–control studies on non-Hodgkin lymphoma reported on null to possibly protective associations (40, 41). In the study including 1,281 cases and 2,095 controls from Northern California, a 50% reduction in risk for men was observed for a 1,000 or more times marijuana use and a 40% reduction in risk for women was observed for 40 to 999 times of marijuana use (41). However, protective associations were also observed for sexual behaviors and cocaine use; thus, it is unclear whether the associations between marijuana use and lymphoma risk were due to residual confounding.

this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBqD_XHA_nI
He speaks about it more explicitly at 16:00

[Anonymous No.12299196]

>>12299129
Sleeping is different entirely. Your brain does not stop when you die. Your brain is running processes for your entire life. The only known time that your brain stops running completely is when you are dead. I'm not using the term "soul" because this is not a spiritual argument. Based on all evidence from shared experiences, human beings have a sense of experiencing, being present, etc. That they would like to preserve. When someone is talking about immortality, they mostly mean that they want their continued stream of consciousness to continue, so even if it's not quantifiable, it's something that should be taken into consideration.

[Anonymous No.12299213]

>>12296228
I felt some comfyness emanating from this picture but now it's gone.

[Anonymous No.12299218]

>>12296228
No.

[Anonymous No.12299232]

>>12297832
Apart from supposing the existence of soul, what would make it impossible?

[Anonymous No.12299243]

>>12299213
why?

[Anonymous No.12299246]

>>12296228
>Will we get immortality in our lifetimes

No, the scientific establishment has been replaced by morons to keep the current "elite" in control.

[Anonymous No.12299252]

allow me to rephrase that...

The problem doesn't interest me because I will never be allowed to afford it, and thus I will never think about the problem or try to find an answer to it.

get your billionaires to think about the problem.

[Anonymous No.12299259]

>>12299196
>Sleeping is different entirely.
That's what you claim, but that's a very arbitrary distinction.
>I'm not using the term "soul" because this is not a spiritual argument.
But 'soul' perfectly fits what you are implying. If we talk about more defined things like internal structure or behaviour, it will support the copying possibility.
>Based on all evidence from shared experiences, human beings have a sense of experiencing, being present, etc.
Sure, and if you will copy or upload your mind, it will retain all these senses and urges.
>they want their continued stream of consciousness to continue
Once again, that's quite an arbitrary decision. If you will define your desires as "being copied is bad but sleeping is ok", it will fit your premise, but will say nothing about mystical 'you' remaining.

[Anonymous No.12299262]

>>12299246
tell us more

[Anonymous No.12299267]

>Will we get immortality in our lifetimes
No, instead you will get population reduced several times.

[Anonymous No.12299284]

>>12299259
How is it arbitrary? When you sleep, your brain is still active. When you're torn apart, atom by atom, your brain is not active. It's not even a brain. They're entirely different scenarios with different implications.

I'm not saying that "a" consciousness will not exist if you're uploaded copied, cloned, etc. I'm saying that your 'current' instance of your consciousness will cease, which will be indistinguishable from death from your point of view.

[Anonymous No.12299325]

>>12299193
Hey retard a tumor-suppressant effect is not a cure at all. Rest of the article says there is an (small) increased chance of certain cancers because of weed(some cases + tobacco) use. Basically inconclusive badly made studies.
Seriously take a small course on oncology because this is just next level retardedness.

[Anonymous No.12299330]

>>12299284
Your claim is that some 'you' will disappear if you will be copied, yet it will not disappear in your sleep (or even if you are blink). That's extremely unobvious. Of course you can try to define such a 'you' in a way that will support your viewpoint, but that will be both circular and unscientific.
> I'm saying that your 'current' instance of your consciousness will cease,
>which will be indistinguishable from death from your point of view.
But the second part does not follow from the first? In fact you will probably never even notice that some gap happened, unless you will be told about it.

[Anonymous No.12299361]

>>12299325
>+ tobacco
exactly
All the other hundred of articles (and I have even more) are not an argument.. because..
Because it cannot be patented, so you can suck it to big pharma and keep on calling the dissidents schizos, while the dnst3 is all yours.

[Anonymous No.12299362]

>>12299330
Anon, I feel like you're misunderstanding the basic concepts behind what I'm talking about.

The fact that you're equating your brain being disassembled to something like your eyes closing shows you just have the wrong lens about this discussion. Your brain keeps working when you're asleep. Your brain keeps working when your eyes are closed.

[Anonymous No.12299364]

>>12299262
humanity has conquered the world through our intelligence... our ability to make plans and tools to increase the amount of effort we can preform.

We have gotten so good at this, in fact, that despite our limited muscle mass (relative to other mammals), we are now the apex predator on the planet.

In fact, there is no predator of humans, except other humans.

So, it follows, that the best way of attaining and keeping dominance, is to be the smartest human, and concurrently, to reduce the intelligence of all other humans.

Most humans would think this a barbaric action, to deliberately reduce the intelligence of their fellow humans...

but not ALL humans think that this tactic is abhorrent.

psychopaths, for example, would naturally do all within their power to minimize the intelligence of their fellow humans, in order to keep their position on the top of the "ladder", so to speak.

Thusly, the educational institutions are purposely being watered down, and re-engineered to make a more docile, servile, obedient, and dumber type of human, for the purpose of guaranteeing the power and position of a few greedy psychopaths.

Q.E.D.

consequently, psychopathy is one of the great filters.

[Anonymous No.12299383]

>>12296265

Where are you going to upload yourself to? AWS or Azure?

Very bad idea.

[Anonymous No.12299384]

>>12299362
And your brain keeps working after you turn it back on after the hypothetical upload. Of course you can keep claiming that sleep does not destroy some mystical 'you' and uploading does, but that's exactly your original point! You just keep restating it. You need to show that deep sleep 'working' of the brain is crucial for preserving the thing you can't even define.

[Anonymous No.12299392]

>>12299384
There's a key phrase there.
>after you turn it back on
Your brain, for your entire life, NEVER turns off. The only time your brain stops is when you're dead. The only safe assumption to make is that when it stops, your consciousness stops, and 'you' die. If it somehow comes back on again, the 'you' that starts experiencing life would not be the 'you' that died.

[Anonymous No.12299397]

>>12296228
more importantly can this technology be used to make me a cute anime girl

[Anonymous No.12299421]

>>12299392
>Your brain, for your entire life, NEVER turns off.
True, but that's because you presently have no technology to make it fully stop (although coma or temporary vegetative state come close). We are assuming the existence of such a technology, as in you fully stop the brain and then it runs again without any difference.
> the 'you' that starts experiencing life would not be the 'you' that died.
That's what you claim, but it isn't supported by anything. You may as well claim that sleep/coma/blinking make you a different 'you'.

[Anonymous No.12299430]

>>12299421
There is a difference between sleeping, a coma, or blinking, and the scenario I'm talking about.

How is a scenario where your brain is taken apart and put back together perfectly the same as

1. your brain going into a low energy state, still able to respond to stimuli, and dreaming
2. being in a deep sleep recovery state
3. putting your eyelids down for a second to obstruct your vision (this one makes the least sense)

[Anonymous No.12299443]

>>12299430
Of course there is a difference. Coma isn't the same as sleeping, sleeping isn't the same as recombining the brain and recombining isn't the same as blinking. That doesn't say anything about where you should draw a you-destroying line: at blinking, recombining or coma.

[Anonymous No.12299449]

>>12299443
Blinking, sleeping, or being in a coma do not fully stop your brain activity at any point. That's why they're not comparable to the teleportation hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.12299452]

>>12299449
Yes, and we are arguing if that full stop matters in any way or not (with its irrelevance being an obvious solution).

[Anonymous No.12299456]

>>12299397
You can become a cute anime girl already. In the virtual reality where we'll all live while our bodies will be preserved in some perfected conditions (in much more comfortable capsules and without those gay cables)

[Anonymous No.12299464]

>>12299452
Yes, so it doesn't make any sense to bring up sleep, a coma, or blinking(????) when we're talking about a potential cessation of the constant electrical and chemical reactions that make up continued consciousness.

In a world with internal consistent logic, were to to teleport at an atomical level, it would be functionally similar to deleting yourself and forming a copy somewhere else. Why would the new consciousness have any reason to be the old?

The exact same process could take place, except you don't delete yourself, you just make a copy. With your logic, I would somehow suddenly be experiencing two simultaneous consciousnesses from two seperate bodies at the same time.

[Anonymous No.12299465]

>>12299361
Sure schizo just completely ignore the fact that a tumor suppressor is not a cure.

[Anonymous No.12299479]

>>12299193
>The three testicular cancer case–control studies were fairly consistent with one another in terms of an increased risk observed even for fairly moderate frequency and duration of use (28–30). It is perhaps surprising that testicular cancer would be associated with marijuana use, because tobacco smoking is not thought to be associated with testicular cancer risk.
enjoy the ball cancer retard

[Anonymous No.12299483]

>>12299479
That part of the study doesn't count because the voices tell me it's irrelevant

[Anonymous No.12299493]

>>12299464
>Yes, so it doesn't make any sense to bring up sleep, a coma, or blinking(????)
Prove that the person after sleep is the same person.
Prove that the person after coma is the same person.
Prove that the person after blinking is the same person.
Of course there is an easy way to do that: to see how the person behaves after that or, in advanced cases, do a brain scan. But that will also work for the teleportation.
>Why would the new consciousness have any reason to be the old?
Because it will have the same structure and will act in the same way (both of these things can be measured, and talking about immeasurable things returns us to the soul)
>I would somehow suddenly be experiencing two simultaneous consciousnesses from two seperate bodies at the same time.
Is that any more a contradiction than one text existing in several copies?

[Anonymous No.12299512]

>>12299493
You're putting too much emphasis on the provability of things like personality.

Under your logic, if I say I'm thinking about the color blue, then I'm thinking about the color blue, because you have no evidence otherwise. However, I'm actually thinking about the color red, regardless of the information you've recieved. It's a fact I'm thinking about the color red, even if there is no evidence.

If I am unaware that my previous instance died because, to me, I have all the memories, that would not change the fact that the previous iteration is dead.

[Anonymous No.12299521]

>>12299456
>You can become a cute anime girl already.
if i ever have to leave vr i'm not really an anime girl
personally don't know how to feel about such immersive vr. i know it's a super big wish fulfilment thing but it feels so...hollow

[Anonymous No.12299530]

>>12299512
Let's say that we can't prove what you are thinking (and whether you are thinking anything at all) Then we can't also prove if blinking, sleep or coma don't fully destroy 'you' and replace 'you' with completely new 'you'. That makes all the debate about true 'you' completely unscientific and more of a religion talk.

[Anonymous No.12299548]

>>12299530
I really don't get why you're hung up on blinking and sleeping. All human beings experience those things for themselves. If those things ended your consciousness, you would not be able to form memory. You would never feel present. You would be like Clive Wearing, in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_P7Y0-wgos

It's not a religious talk, because it has nothing to do with a 'soul',or something unquantifiable. Consciousness is a real thing. Atomic level teleportation does not exist, so it's not something we can test in real life, but it calls for interesting questions regarding our definitions of continued consciousness, and is relevant to the discussion about immortality.

If you're just going to be a reductionist and say "well you can't prove anything because nothing is provable and all evidence is subjective", you're not really facilitating interesting conversation.

[Anonymous No.12299564]

>>12299548
>If those things ended your consciousness, you would not be able to form memory. You would never feel present.
But if you are teleported, your memories stay intact and that's pretty measurable. You will also continue to feel present both after blinking and teleportation. See, you are now using perfectly measurable examples. You can also clearly see the changes of behaviour (and presumably brain structure) in your video.
>Consciousness is a real thing.
Sure, it's a measurable pattern. Religion starts when you switch to immeasurable things which can't be proven.
>If you're just going to be a reductionist and say "well you can't prove anything because nothing is provable and all evidence is subjective",
But that's what you said. I show you a way to prove something, let me cite:
>Of course there is an easy way to do that: to see how the person behaves after that or, in advanced cases, do a brain scan. But that will also work for the teleportation.

[Anonymous No.12299610]

>>12299465
>tumor suppressor is not a cure
poisoning of all the cells so maybe the tumor dies is certainly a cure.
Why did you ignore all the research telling that it IS a cure?
Here, eat some more:
Marijuana reduce head and neck cancer risk ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638490
Cannabinoid for breast cancer treatment ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
THC to induce apoptosis on cancer cell ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
CBD inhibit cancer cell invasion ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
Cannabinoid make tumor kill themselves ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
Cannabinoid doesn’t only inhibit cancer growth or killing it, it do more than that ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
Cannaboinoid kill cervical cancer cell ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19015962
HU-331, synthesize from CBD can become anticancer drug ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
CBD kill leukeumia ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532
HU-331 as anticancer drug ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
Cannabinoid in health and diseases ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
Cannabinoid and cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
THC and brain tumor ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
Met-F-AEA in cannabis inhibit thyroid cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
CBD and THC as potential treatment for pain and cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
Activated CB1 and CB2 makes colon cancer kill themselves ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of brain tumor. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
CBD induces apoptosis of glioma cells ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
Endocannabinoids as emerging suppressors of angiogenesis and tumor invasion
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
WIN, a synthetic from cannabinoid can be used in hepatic cancer treatment ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457

[Anonymous No.12299612]

>>12299610
The endocannabinoid system as a target for the development of new drugs for cancer therapy ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
Cannabinoid in intestinal cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
Anti-tumor activity on cannabinoid on human breast carcinoma ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
cannabinoid system as a potential target for pharmacological treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
Cannbinoid derivatives induce cell death on pancreatic cancer cell ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
the potential use of cannabinoid agents in cancer immunotherapy ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
CBD was able to produce a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
Estrogenic induction of cannabinoid CB1 receptor in human colon cancer cell lines. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
Endocannabinoids and fatty acid amides in cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
cannabinoids could be a good palliative agent for cancer patients ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
cannabinoids as a new gastric cancer therapy ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
Cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
onset of execution phase of cannabinoid-induced glioma cell death ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
CB2 may be a viable therapeutic target for the treatment of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
Cannabis does not increase risk of cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
de novo-synthesized ceramide is involved in cannabinoid-induced apoptosis of brain tumor cells ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
a new marker of cannabinoid antitumoral activity? ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
potential use in the management of malignant gliomas ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
cannabinoid administration may be an effective therapeutic strategy for targeting human cancers ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
THC activate JunD which then reduce the spread of breast cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173

[Anonymous No.12299622]

>>12299612
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoid ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
p38 MAPK in CB2 receptor-induced apoptosis of human leukaemia cells ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids exert pro-apoptotic actions in tumor cells via the CB2 cannabinoid receptor ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
p8 mediates cannabinoid-induced apoptosis of tumor cells ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
Control of the cell survival/death decision by cannabinoids ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
CB2 agonists have potential therapeutic interest and deserve to be explored in the management of prostate cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
cannabinoid therapy for the management of breast cancer ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
Cannabinoid and brain tumor ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
cannabinoids as potential antitumor agents ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
cannabinoids in the management of gliomas ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
Cannabinoids protect astroscytes ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
Cannabinoid inhibit brain tumor spread ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
THC makes brain tumor kill themselves ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
THC makes prostate cancer kill themselves ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
low doses of cannabinoids may enhance spread of cancer, where as high doses of cannabinoids usually slow or stop cancer cell growth or even kill the cancer cell ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964 - about this one Rick Simpson himself told me that the former claim is false

[Anonymous No.12299634]

>>12299610
>>12299612
>>12299622
What government agency assassinates self-treaters who inject THC into their tumors so they don't talk and reveal the conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.12299677]

>Its another paper spam
Hey retard absolutely none of those linked articles will claim that they have found a cure for a cancer type. Keep being retarded though.

[Anonymous No.12299678]

>>12299634
But they talk about it, only you are too deaf and dumb to listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zpli7sWZW4&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoRFTbIakk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8YsNeHzczU
Also you're not supposed to inject it into tumors, because THC works by modifying the immune response via CB1 & CB2 receptors.
Watch this manual, it contains instructions and the recepy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5HiHUdbuk

and now for something completely different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-aYxu4Uys0

[Anonymous No.12299697]

>>12298692
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.12299719]

>>12299678
Why are you posting photoshopped quotes? Are you a zionist shill? Hemp oil didn't cure Tommy Chong, it was Tyrone Therapy. Here's the real graphic, if anyone is interested:

[Anonymous No.12299741]

>>12298795
What people are asking is whether they would fall asleep and wake up AS a robot, or if they would fall asleep and wake up NEXT TO a robot that has a perfect copy of their own brain inside it. Because BECOMING a robot is cool for turning your old worn-out body into one that will last far longer, but BEING COPIED INTO a robot means that nothing changes for you and you still die like normal while some robot clone walks around pretending (albeit PERFECTLY pretending) to be you.

[Anonymous No.12299742]

>>12299364
No, the smartest human would seek to elevate others to their level because they understand the importance of delegation and team research, dominance is not a determiner of scientific success, only a factor in enabling cooperation and we have several factors which make us more potent than other animal/hominid species. It would be self-destructive to actively negate the intellects of more than 7 billion people, the issue at heart is that people are too lazy or too stupid to research and build up a scientific worldview, psychopaths are literal deformed minds and have no advantage over other people besides a deficit of emotional intelligence. Your idolization of emotional disfigurement is understandable, as many fiction writers love to use it for dramatic affect, but fiction writers often do no research when discussing psychology, biology or physics (there are some exemptions who were scientists or put serious effort into their work.) And your post had my hopes up too, just disappointing.

[Anonymous No.12299749]

>>12299719
kek

[Anonymous No.12299794]

>>12299742
wow, that's an impressive misdirection post you have there...

your shill boss must be proud.

[Anonymous No.12299833]

the no cloning theorem claims that its impossible. Therefore, this thread is pure reddit

[Anonymous No.12299837]

>>12299833
explain dolly the sheep then

[Anonymous No.12299845]

>>12299837
Maybe actually read what the no-cloning theorem is first.

[Anonymous No.12299862]

>>12299837
heres a video to let you understand what the theorem actually means
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owPC60Ue0BE

[Anonymous No.12299863]

>>12299833
>>12299837
>>12299845
this made me laff during a work meeting

[Anonymous No.12299917]

>>12298856
Imagine if you wish someone so retarded that he looks at this image and decides that it tells that mitosis doesn't happen.
Does his half-wit brain processes concepts like Hayflick limit, and why would those telomeres get short if the cells didn't divide... He never thought this far, he was never taught to think, only to memorize.

[Anonymous No.12299937]

>>12296228
Yes and no.

You will die in your lifetime. It's too soon. But the real question is, are we actually within your lifetime, or does this only appear to be? It's very likely this reality is an ancestor simulator.

Be a good anon, anon. Not all crops will be salvaged.

[Anonymous No.12299974]

>>12299862
All this states is that it's impossible to create a perfect copy without destroying the original. A brain transfer would be like a teleporter for your mind.

[Anonymous No.12300002]

>>12299974
thats the same thing

[Anonymous No.12300016]

>>12299974
If I, the original, must be destroyed to make the transfer happen, then I am dead and only my clone lives on. It would look as though I survived to an outside observer, but my internal stream of consciousness would end in my physical body and a new one independent of myself would begin in the robot/computer.

See: https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc?t=339

[Anonymous No.12300028]

>>12300016
This happens every second of every day. "Stream of consciousness" is a meme. The you of now is not the same entity as the you of 10 seconds ago.

[Anonymous No.12300048]

>>12300016
This is a bizarre cartoon.

[Anonymous No.12300080]

>>12298210
You should define your own identity by continued personality and memories. Those chemical reactions just create you, they are not you, how would something that does the same by a different method be automatically inferior? If your brain was shut down, the whole thing destructively scanned, and then a simulation began of you in a computer, the new you wouldn't be able to tell it was not you. The advantages of having a mobile consciousness would outweigh the existential anxiety caused by having your original container be destroyed.

[Anonymous No.12300088]

>>12300028
It's just the best way to describe it efficiently. I am a being thinking with my brain and seeing through my eyes. If you make a perfect copy/clone of me, I will not think with that brain nor see through those eyes. If I am killed/destroyed, I will experience pain and death while the clone continues to live. My consciousness will not magically transfer into this clone, I have no divine soul to fill that vessel, we will simply be two identical beings who operate independently of one another, both capable of permanently dying just as independently. Yes, to the OUTSIDE observer it would make no difference if you killed me and let the clone take over my life, but I, the INTERNAL observer, would cease to be and not experience anything beyond that death.

[Anonymous No.12300092]

>>12300080
>the new you wouldn't be able to tell it was not you
But the old me (current me) would be fucking DEAD. Why would I give a shit if some copy of me gets to live on in the world if I die and cease experiencing the life I sought to extend in the first place?

[Anonymous No.12300093]

>>12299937
too soon for immortality augmentations?

[Anonymous No.12300101]

>>12296228
>Kurzweil and De Grey full of shit
they are full of shit

[Anonymous No.12300111]

>>12300101
what sort of insane shit proves they're full of bs

[Anonymous No.12300114]

>>12297756
so nobody born before 2020 is gonna get to live forever?

[Anonymous No.12300122]

>>12300080
>the new you wouldn't be able to tell it was not you
But it would be you. At least, it would be your consciousness, if that is how we are defining "you"

I like the Boltzmann brain argument when it comes to defending the principle of consciousness transfer. You can imagine a universe of a randomized set of states coming together to form an interval in time that you perceive as a moment of being alive. Another randomized set that differs slightly than the previous interval would then give you a delta, or the perception of consciousness. There could be eons of real time between these two moments, between when one interval was randomly formed and the next. But "your" subjective experience would only perceive it as a fraction of a second, with no interruption. Furthermore, it's impossible to prove this is not true as a subjective entity, as there would exist no objective observer in such a universe.

The question of whether or not objective observers can even exist comes into question. If you asked your parents if you were the same you as when you were born, compared to the you of now, they should answer no. You consist of completely different atoms and states than you did then. But their objective observation also occurred during a time when they were not the same entity as they are now. So who can really objectively claim a continuation of an entity? It's impossible

[Anonymous No.12300137]

>>12300088
>My consciousness will not magically transfer into this clone
What is that "consciousness" you are talking about, and how is it different from divine soul?

[Anonymous No.12300139]

>>12300092
>But the old me (current me) would be fucking DEAD.
It becomes dead every second.

[Anonymous No.12300161]

>>12300093
Human life span will be greatly extended but we will not be immortal for quite a while.

[Anonymous No.12300171]

>>12300137
My consciousness is an emergent property of the configuration of matter that makes up my body and everything within it. Like I said, I think with my brain and I see through my eyes, making a clone of me would not give some single ethereal entity that is "me" some form of hivemind controlling two bodies, it would simply create a new independent entity that happens to be an exact duplicate of me, the original. Even if you as an outside observer can't distinguish which is the original and which is the copy after blindly shuffling our positions, each of us is our own independent internal observer with thoughts, feelings, and experiences that are our own. The clone and I can't even occupy the same physical space, and the fact that if I look at the copy I face west while the copy faces east to look at me means we are actively forming distinct memories and having separate experiences from the moment of the copy's creation. If you kill either of us, it would be murder, because we would both be equally human and equally alive.

[Anonymous No.12300178]

>>12300139
Oh, so then it doesn't matter if I kill you? No harm done, you die every second already, right?

[Anonymous No.12300183]

>>12300139
>the old me dies every second
the people who say stuff like this never actually believe it. Do you honestly believe that you are not you from last year, that its just an illusion that you think you are a single non changing being?

[Anonymous No.12300187]

>>12300178
No, then the pattern containing my personality will disappear.

[Anonymous No.12300188]

>>12300092
You're basically getting reincarnated and achieving true immortality, not the restrictive immortality of being a brain in a box. By freeing yourself from your original shell, you could move between any computer that would host you. You could have several back ups that would massively decrease the odds of any final death, you could even be multiple places at once.

Look man, you should accept that the only reason you're so touchy about this is you've been programmed a certain way by natural selection. However, being a human you are a creature of reason, you are capable going against your own instincts. There's no reason to stay enslaved to your own biology if technology allows you to break free of it.

[Anonymous No.12300197]

>>12300188
>By freeing yourself from your original shell, you could move between any computer that would host you.
Well, the copy of me.
>There's no reason to stay enslaved to your own biology if technology allows you to break free of it.
Making a copy of my brain and then killing myself is not breaking free of my biology. I don't give a shit if some copy of me lives on in the world after I die, I only care that I can continue living.

[Anonymous No.12300198]

>>12300171
The problem is that you use supposedly clever "emergent" word and supposedly silly "ethereal" word, but you can just juggle them around:
>My consciousness is an ethereal property of the configuration of matter

>Even if you as an outside observer can't distinguish which is the original and which is the copy after blindly shuffling our positions, each of us is our own independent internal observer with thoughts, feelings, and experiences that are our own.
Both of the copies will think that they are you.

>The clone and I can't even occupy the same physical space
But you can go to the street and still remain you.
>If you kill either of us, it would be murder, because we would both be equally human and equally alive.
Depends on the divergence. If you will destroy my single-copy home HDD, it will be a tragedy for me, but if you will destroy one of the backups, it will be just a nuisance. Unless, of course, we are talking about different souls, but then we should question

[Anonymous No.12300202]

>>12300183
But that's what you claim: that the exact copy of you isn't the actual true emergent ethereal you. It's basically a technical question: invent a teleportation device and go through it a few times. Then thinking that you disappear in the process would be as silly as your question.

[Anonymous No.12300222]

>>12300161
when and how will we extend it

and will those extensions grant enough reprieve for us to live forever

[Anonymous No.12300223]

>>12300198
>The problem is that you use supposedly clever "emergent" word and supposedly silly "ethereal" word, but you can just juggle them around
The fact that you think those terms can be interchanged tells me you don't understand the definitions of those words in the first place, it has nothing to do with being clever or silly.
An emergent property means something that only exists as a result of some interaction; it is a physical property that emerges from the interaction of physical things.
The word ethereal describes something that exists disconnected from material reality, such as a soul. An ethereal soul does not depend upon a physical body whatsoever to exist, and could transfer between physical vessels with no interruption.

>But you can go to the street and still remain you.
Yes, but if I die then why do I care if some other person gets to live on in my place? I'll be dead and incapable of caring about such a thing.

>Unless, of course, we are talking about different souls, but then we should question
I'm saying there are NO SOULS. Only bodies. Only the properties that occur as a result of the physical interaction between all the parts that make up a body. I am my body, my body is me. No soul, no mind-body duality, I am a collection of matter in a material world. Any other collection of matter, regardless of how similar, is not me.

[Anonymous No.12300227]

well even if immortality becomes possible i gotta wonder when and how. would people born before 2010 get to try it out or not

would the zoomers and millenials get some

[Anonymous No.12300242]

>>12300227
If people like DeGrey are to be believed, we'll eventually discover all the mechanisms to reverse DNA damage and cellular aging, distill it into an injection, pill, or procedure, and then just make humans like those biologically-immortal jellyfish by reversing the age of every cell in our body periodically.

[Anonymous No.12300246]

>>12300223
>An emergent property means something that only exists as a result of some interaction; it is a physical property that emerges from the interaction of physical things.
Well, then you get emergent stuff of various complexity in humans, computers, animals and inanimate objects. Does not say anything about them dying from the copying.
>The word ethereal describes something that exists disconnected from material reality, such as a soul.
If we stick to the material reality, then your exact copy will be you.
>Yes, but if I die then why do I care if some other person gets to live on in my place? I'll be dead and incapable of caring about such a thing.
Correct, so you should avoid dying (getting the pattern of information making your mind completely destroyed).
>I am my body, my body is me
If you equate *you* to the collection of atoms which make your body, then you will continue to live for some time (and will live even when disassembled and then assembled again). But you will also slowly die with every meal, and after 10 years will mostly die.

[Anonymous No.12300250]

>>12300242
0.1% of humanity getting immortality is an improbable utopia.

[Anonymous No.12300251]

>>12300250
despite making up 0.1% of the population, immortals commit 100% of all crimes

[Anonymous No.12300255]

>>12300242
yes but when? do i get some or is it all going to the zoomers

and how well funded are calico and sens anyways

[Anonymous No.12300272]

>>12300197
Anyone ever told you you're a solipsist?

[Anonymous No.12300323]

>>12300246
>If you equate *you* to the collection of atoms which make your body, then you will continue to live for some time (and will live even when disassembled and then assembled again). But you will also slowly die with every meal, and after 10 years will mostly die.
This - the human body is a Ship of Theseus, attempts to preserve the 'self' are futile. Self is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.12300331]

>>12300323

[Anonymous No.12300335]

>>12300272
I'd say I'm a materialist. Doesn't solipsism involve the belief that yourself is the only consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12300392]

>>12300197
The problem with that objection is that you're already a copy. From moment to moment "you" cease to exist and is replaced with a subtly different "you". You're already a copy of a copy ad nauseam.

[Anonymous No.12300525]

>>12300392
I don't subscribe to this idea that every person is a slideshow of moments where their moment-prior self is replaced with a next-moment self and therefore all sense of identity is meaningless. Even the idea that every cell in your body is replaced over time is a myth; many cells in your body like neurons, bones, and teeth are never replaced.
I am my body. My body changes over time, but it's the same body I started with, it's simply grown and developed over time. If you clone my body or my mind and put it somewhere else, it's just a copy of me that will go on to develop in its own way and have its own experiences. I will still exist separately and therefore creating that copy no more extends my life than having a child extends my life, I still die all the same.

[Anonymous No.12300530]

>>12300246
>>12300323
Retarded semantics.
>heh, cells replace themselves therefore you don't really exist.
>what? You already knew about the cells? You still exist despite your body repairing and recycling its biomatter?
>nooo you're not supposed to think that way!!! ;'_';
Jaden smith tier philosophy

[Anonymous No.12300545]

>>12300530
>Retarded semantics.
Correct, your "copy of you is not really you" is a pretty retarded semantics.

[Anonymous No.12300551]

>>12300525
>I am my body. My body changes over time, but it's the same body I started with, it's simply grown and developed over time.
...you proclaim.
>If you clone my body or my mind and put it somewhere else, it's just a copy of me that will go on to develop in its own way and have its own experiences.
...you also proclaim.

We already see that it's your viewpoint, but it isn't based on anything. Your common sense and intuition are non-arguments, since a copy will also retain them.

[Anonymous No.12300554]

>>12300545
It's not, it's a different person with an independent existence who happens to have the same memories. If you punch him in the face and break his nose, your nose will not break in response. He will experience a broken nose and need immediate medical attention, but you will not. Your experiences will be different, so you cannot be the same person.

[Anonymous No.12300561]

>>12300551
Your assertion that the copy believing it's the original makes it the same person is absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.12300567]

>>12300554
>It's not, it's a different person with an independent existence who happens to have the same memories.
Same memories and completely the same mind. If these things do not form a person, then we return to the soul talk.
>If you punch him in the face and break his nose, your nose will not break in response.
If I will punch you, you will be hurt, but that will not make you a different man. Or will it?
>Your experiences will be different, so you cannot be the same person.
Why?

[Anonymous No.12300574]

>>12300561
But it works for you and you year ago.

[Anonymous No.12300609]

>>12300545
>>12300567
Are you completely retarded?
Do biological twins exist as the same person? Think about that. Starting to make a bit more sense now?

Find a different transhumanist fantasy to circlejerk. Brain transfer or "mind upload" will never work, not for the individual anyways.

[Anonymous No.12300612]

>>12300335
You're assigning your own identity arbitrarily to your own surroundings, not your own essence. Essentially it's the ship of Theseus problem. If you take something, and replace it piece by piece with something that is functionally identical, is it the same thing? Personally I don't give a fuck about my cells. They're just meat. I care about my personality, and if I can copy my existence to something else that's good enough.

[Anonymous No.12300620]

>>12300609
Indentical twins don't have the same memories, they have different experiences and epigenetics. But if you had two twins constantly sharing memories and synchronizing their memories, they would effectively be the same person.

[Anonymous No.12300626]

>>12300335
You're assigning your own identity arbitrarily to your own surroundings, not your own essence. It's the ship of Theseus problem. If you take something, and replace it piece by piece with something that is functionally identical, is it the same thing? Personally I don't give a fuck about my cells. They're just meat. I care about my personality, and if I can copy my existence to something else that's good enough.

[Anonymous No.12300627]

>>12300612
>I care about my personality
Doesnt exist
t.hume

[Anonymous No.12300628]

>>12300567
>Same memories and completely the same mind. If these things do not form a person, then we return to the soul talk.
The second the copy comes into existence he begins forming new memories that you do not have. He can walk into a room and see something happen, then you can walk in right after and never know what happened while he was alone. Thus, divergence. Thus, different mind. Thus, different person.
>Why?
If you think that two people with two physical bodies experiencing two completely different things doesn't prove that they're different people, then do you also think identical twins are literally just two of the same person?

>>12300574
>But it works for you and you year ago.
The difference is that my body was the same body a year ago. If you create a copy of my body then it is by definition a separate and different body. You could tattoo that body and my body would not magically get that tattoo, therefore they are two independent bodies having two independent experiences and cannot be considered the same person. As in the post above, do you think that identical twins are the same person?

[Anonymous No.12300630]

>>12300609
Twins have a lot of differences even at birth, and then they live different lives.
>Brain transfer or "mind upload" will never work, not for the individual anyways.
It may be, but not because of your ethereal emergence.

[Anonymous No.12300635]

>>12300609
Identical twins don't have the same memories, they have different experiences and epigenetics. But if you had two twins constantly sharing memories and synchronizing personalities, they would effectively be the same person.

[Anonymous No.12300639]

>>12300635
>But if you had two twins constantly sharing memories and synchronizing personalities, they would effectively be the same person.
They wouldn't, though, because they would still, at a very minimum, occupy two different positions in space that can never overlap.

[Anonymous No.12300641]

>>12300628
>The second the copy comes into existence he begins forming new memories that you do not have. He can walk into a room and see something happen, then you can walk in right after and never know what happened while he was alone. Thus, divergence. Thus, different mind. Thus, different person.
You will form new memories and experiences during the next few minutes. Does that mean that you will become not you?
>then do you also think identical twins are literally just two of the same person?
See >>12300620 >>12300630

[Anonymous No.12300645]

>>12300628
Your body was NOT the same body one year ago. It contained many different particles and functioned significantly differently from the way it does now. The thing that keeps your identity, the important part, is the Darwinian desire to propagate your own genes. It's understandable to desire self propagation, but why freak out about maintaining everything precisely as it was? Stasis really isn't necessary for this sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.12300649]

>>12300628
>The difference is that my body was the same body a year ago. If you create a copy of my body then it is by definition a separate and different body.
It is exact copy, so its structure is the same. Do you think that this post at my computer, at 4chan storage and and your computer becomes three different posts?
>You could tattoo that body and my body would not magically get that tattoo
Do you become a different person after getting tattoo?
>As in the post above, do you think that identical twins are the same person?
Again see >>12300630 >>12300635

[Anonymous No.12300652]

>>12300639
And your neurons occupy different parts of space that can not overlap, by the rules of physics. Does that mean every neuron is a separate person?

[Anonymous No.12300653]

>>12300639
You don't become a different person when you move from the bathroom to the kitchen.

[Anonymous No.12300654]

>>12296228
Yes. The great man spoke.
>I LOVE FOOTBALL.

[Anonymous No.12300658]

>>12296228
Yes! By all means YES! I wanna live forever! I'm gonna rule this fucking planet!

[Anonymous No.12300665]

>>12300645
>Your body was NOT the same body one year ago.
Patently false. Not every cell in your body gets replaced, that is a myth. Neurons, for example, do not get replaced: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218597/#:~:text=Neuronal%20replacement%20has%20not%20been,as%20in%20parietal%20lobe%20syndrome.
Likening the human body to the Ship of Theseus is asinine because there are many nonreplaced cells in the body, those in the brain included.

>>12300641
>You will form new memories and experiences during the next few minutes. Does that mean that you will become not you?
No, I am still myself and the copy is still himself, but we are not each other because we are independently operating beings in separate locations in space.

[Anonymous No.12300672]

>>12298090
Only old people born in 2000s or 1990s or 1980s will think so. Everyone born in their time period (in this case, the 2040s) enjoys the "best times evar" and looks back to bygone ages as if it was the Dark Ages.

[Anonymous No.12300673]

>>12300665
>No, I am still myself and the copy is still himself
And you are also the same.
>but we are not each other because we are independently operating beings in separate locations in space.
Space is irrelevant, see >>12300653

[Anonymous No.12300679]

>>12300672
I'm sure all these 1910's and 1940's youth totally enjoyed their times.

[Anonymous No.12300681]

>>12300652
>And your neurons occupy different parts of space that can not overlap, by the rules of physics. Does that mean every neuron is a separate person?
No, because what we consider to be a person is the combination of activity that occurs from millions of neurons being linked together. That's what it means for consciousness to be an emergent property of the brain.

>>12300653
>You don't become a different person when you move from the bathroom to the kitchen.
No, but one person cannot occupy two positions in space. There is no way for me to be in the bathroom and the kitchen at the same time. If I had a copy, that copy could be in the bathroom while I'm in the kitchen. Because we are independent and separate entities, which makes us different people.

[Anonymous No.12300690]

>>12300665
If you knew anything about cell biology, you would know that cells are constantly repairing and replacing pieces of themselves. Neuron make new connections and cut off old ones, so even if they do not divide, they change from their previous state. And what about children, who do grow new neurons? Is a 6 year old not the same person as a 10 year old?

[Anonymous No.12300691]

>>12300681
>No, but one person cannot occupy two positions in space.
That's a technical problem.
>Because we are independent and separate entities, which makes us different people.
You have the same mind though (but maybe your souls are different).

[Anonymous No.12300698]

>>12300681
So how are two brains that are completely synchronized and connected not the same person? That is trillions of neurons linked together, is it not? And if you were connected at the speed of light, and dependent on one another, how would you be different people?

[Anonymous No.12300714]

>>12300691
>You have the same mind though
Nope, two minds that happened to start with the same configuration at some point.

>>12300698
When did anyone say anything about being synchronized and directly connected? That's not remotely the same discussion.

[Anonymous No.12300729]

>>12300714
I was repeatedly pointing that out. Did you actually read any of my posts?

[Anonymous No.12300734]

>>12300714
They will both be you, until the amount of differences will become too large.

[Anonymous No.12300736]

>>12300672
will people born during the 80s-00s get to live forever or will they die

[Anonymous No.12300740]

>>12300242
okay but will it happen while i'm still alive or will i pass away while the zoomers get the goods

[Anonymous No.12300748]

Can yall help me with a CALC exam

[Anonymous No.12300765]

>>12300734
No, only I am me. 1 brain = 1 person

>>12300729
>I was repeatedly pointing that out. Did you actually read any of my posts?
There have been a lot of different posts from a lot of different people. Regardless, I would still argue they are two individuals who merely synchronize memories. They can be disconnected, act independently, and synchronize later, therefore they are two independent beings acting in the world. They may act identically to one another, but it still makes them no more the same person than twins finishing each other sentences or simultaneously thinking the same thought are the same person.

[Anonymous No.12300771]

>>12300765
You can remove a brain hemisphere and remain alive and even with the same personality. Does that mean that there are two yous inside your cranium?

[Anonymous No.12300772]

>>12300740
That's a very good question which remains to be seen. The more funding we can get for that type of research the better we'll be, but there are a lot of people who are actually against trying to cure aging because they think it's unnatural.

[Anonymous No.12300777]

>>12300765
Okay, so how about this. What if, through some incredibly advanced gene fuckery, you were give the ability to do a sort of brain mitosis. You could split each half of your body into a new person, and each half would grow another new half to replace the once it lost in the division. Which one would be you?

[Anonymous No.12300788]

>>12300771
That's a hard question that I don't think I have an answer for. Split brain stuff is fascinating to me, like getting different answers for the same question when asked to different halves of the brain in split brain patients, because it really does beg the question if we're ultimately one person or two deep down.

[Anonymous No.12300808]

>>12300777
The thing is that I think that we're starting to get away from the point here. Ultimately, my contention is that two bodies (specifically brains) constitute two individuals. That doesn't change here, but trying to say which one will be "me" is irrelevant. They will both be themselves and not each other. The whole reason me being me is an important point in the copy/destroy scenario is that if I am copied then destroyed, I die even though people around me will just think the copy is the same me (and so will that copy).

[Anonymous No.12300919]

>>12300772
well how many billions do scientists need

and what about hypersleep stasis? could we use some form of hypersleep to stop our aging for a while until we can gain immortality or something to that sort

[Anonymous No.12300941]

>>12300919
>could we use some form of hypersleep to stop our aging for a while until we can gain immortality or something to that sort
Cryonics exists, but it's questionable whether we'll ever be able to bring those people back or whether we can really store people like that without long-term damage if they do come back.

[Sage No.12301077]

>>12296322
>This proves it's impossible!

Smooth brain.

[Anonymous No.12301086]

Okay this thread is nice and all but I wanna know if I can live forever if I make it to 2040

[Anonymous No.12301114]

>>12300808
The whole two brains being two individuals thing, only makes sense if the two are separated. What if you have two brains that are so interconnected that one neuron in one brain communicates almost as efficiently with another neuron in the other brain as it would with another neuron in the same brain? If those two brains were synchronized well and had a cohesive identity, why would you consider them different people?

The problem here is you have some preconceptions, which are useful for dealing with the modern world, but become somewhat obstructive when thinking about the posthuman future. You have defined that the only you that can exist is the one in the brain you currently inhabit, but that kind of thinking would really restrict things going forward.

[Anonymous No.12301124]

>>12301114
>that kind of thinking would really restrict things going forward.
I would hope so. I don't want to be part of the future that thinks copying people and then discarding the original is the same as that original person attaining immortality, because it's not. It's imbuing a new immortal person with a copy of your memories/personality and then letting yourself die.

[Anonymous No.12301154]

>>12301124
What you should try to understand, is that your current concept of death and identity is an abstraction. It is a system cultural and instinctive reasoning that has evolved, mainly through natural selection. These ideas you have are not necessarily universal. Just like a cat would have very different concepts in it's mind in relation to certain events compared to you, so would an organism even farther removed from you as you are from a cat. What precisely, would be wrong with being a packet of data zipping from one chunk of hardware to the next? Would it really be that bad to die, if you were just going to get reincarnated again with the same memories and all your personality in just a fraction of a second? I think that's a fair price to pay for that level of mobility and indestructibility.

[Anonymous No.12301206]

>>12301154
The problem is that I'm not convinced that I would wake up on the other end. Someone would, but not me. I would be committing suicide to enable a VERSION of myself to continue living beyond then. You seem to imagine your body as a jar and your consciousness as the water that fills it: Just pour the water from one vessel to another and nothing changes, the water is preserved and only the jar is discarded.
But imagine a document scanner that burns up the paper as it's copied into a digital format. The information on the document is preserved digitally and enjoys all the benefits that come with that, but the original paper document is gone forever. You can't say that you still possess the original document because your scanner incinerated it. To the people interacting with the document it may not matter, the digital document is just as good or better and serves all the same purpose as the paper document, but that paper document nonetheless ceases to exist. You can never say the file IS the document because they are two separate physical instances on two separate media, you can only say the file is a copy or version of the document.
That's more how I see it, what I am is the physical sum of matter that makes up my body. You can copy the data from my brain, but the body you copied that data from is still alive, operable, and conscious. So then I still live out the rest of my mortal life while the digital version of me lives in some computer network long after I'm dead, or the copying process may have to destroy me to enable the copy. In either case, a new version of me is what's created and that's who lives on in my stead. The data you copied from my brain isn't me because it's a separate instance in a separate medium.

[Anonymous No.12301256]

>>12301206
It seems to me like you want to preserve the original for arbitrary reasons. In the case of the document, of course the original is lost, but is anything of VALUE lost if all the information in the original is preserved in the copy? A person isn't just a chunk of matter, they're defined by their behavior. And your whole continuous existence is a perception created by the continuity of your memory, so if you're consciousness kept chugging on in the same way, how would anything of value be lost?

[Anonymous No.12301280]

>>12301256
Why are you looking at that from the outside?
Look from the inside of the copied body and you will understand what he says.
By your same logic why fear death if life doesn't matter for you when you're dead.

[Anonymous No.12301293]

>>12301280
Why fear death? Because you're programmed to by evolution. That, and you want preserve your personality. I understand the natural association of your body with your person because that is how humans have evolved to feel. But it isn't an emotion based in reason, it's an emotion based in gene propagation. I think part of humanity evolving to the next stage, will be us getting better at deciding which instincts to ignore. And it would be good for us to ignore the feat of death, in certain circumstances.

[Anonymous No.12301300]

>>12301293
> Thinks that fear is the only reason to stay alive.
It's only because you're a subhuman, your only motivators are fear and greed (no curiosity, no creativity, no duty)

[Anonymous No.12301309]

>>12301300
Did you even read what I posted?

[Anonymous No.12301317]

>>12296228
Why would you want to live thousands of years? Hundreds maybe but holy shit imagine how shitty life would be if you had even 500 years of thought put into it.

[Anonymous No.12301321]

>>12296265
>Consciousness transfer to computers is inevitable.
opinion discarded. You have literally no way of knowing if that's even possible let alone inevitable.

[Anonymous No.12301322]

>>12301309
Yes and I'd better not.
Pain can cause people ignore the fear of death. Some better good can make reasonable people risk their lives. What you offer has no good reason at all, only some half-ass reasoning similar to one of a troubled teenager who found it as the first solution to all his troubles.

[Anonymous No.12301323]

>>12301317
We'll learn to forget all the shitty experiences without forgetting the lessons we got out of them.

[Anonymous No.12301337]

>>12301322
Your reply doesn't make the slightest amount of sense in relation to what I posted. Are you okay? Are you having an episode?

[Anonymous No.12301344]

>>12296228
>Will we get immortality in our lifetimes
With my shitty Charlie Brown luck, they'll discover immortality the day after I die.

[Anonymous No.12301347]

>>12301323
>cyber alzheimers

[Anonymous No.12301388]

>>12301337
Don't be so bitter, little subhuman, we'll upgrade you some day.

[Anonymous No.12301449]

>>12301388
I am legitimately confused. Why did you start a bunch of /pol/ style shitposting in this completely reasonable thread?

[Anonymous No.12301459]

>>12301449
I started? Look at how informative was that message I responded to.

[Anonymous No.12301475]

>>12298334
You really want your mom to float all over the cyberspace?

[Anonymous No.12301494]

>>12301475
Is it another "yo mom's so fat" joke?

[Anonymous No.12301533]

>>12298177
>Results are very promising
No they aren't. See, this is an eternal problem with scientism NPCs. You ALWAYS over emphasize the benefits of any new technology or medical procedure into the realm of pure fantasy. Then you ignore when it's proven to be wrong and gets brought back down to reality. But by that time you've already jumped on another dick and are in full swing lying about it.

[Anonymous No.12301534]

>>12298754
The Search for Immortality, from the Mysteries of the Unknown Time-Life series.

[Anonymous No.12301535]

>>12296265
>implying biological immortality won't be a thing

[Anonymous No.12301536]

>>12298830
Bob Marley.

[Anonymous No.12301573]

>>12301533
>No they aren't.
Because you said so? Or those mercenary jewrnalists paid to prevent the toddlers abductions by senile cynicist mobsters?
Now explain to me why would the old rat get rejuvenated if that technology didn't work? Did they tell you that finally the young rat tried to gnaw the old rat's head off? Probably not.

[Anonymous No.12301577]

>>12301536
Got his cancer from football (not in the lungs but in a toe) and afaik he quit smoking atm, because his doctor recommended him to, probably was overhyped by those who'd try to conceal the medicinal features of weed, for he's not all that talented desu.
Also, as that documentary tells, you can smoke it untill the cows go home, it will not help you cure your cancer (it's good enough the inhaled ammount of thc neutralizes the inhaled benzpyrene)
This documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5HiHUdbuk

[Anonymous No.12301588]

>>12301577
Surely, nobody in America both smokes pot and also has cancer!

What a retard. I thought your kind all became nazis. Religious potheads are still around? Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.12301616]

>>12301588
>nobody in America both smokes pot and also has cancer!
let me repeat it for you, because those couple of lines were tldr for you:
you can smoke it untill the cows go home, it will not help you cure your cancer (it's good enough the inhaled ammount of thc neutralizes the inhaled benzpyrene)

[Anonymous No.12302052]

>>12298699
then your brain is a bunch of 'if's

[Anonymous No.12302100]

please cure aging already, my parents are 65 & 70 ;_;

[Anonymous No.12302195]

>>12301256
>>12301293
I just can't imagine the absolute hubris of thinking that the world is somehow so inherently enhanced by the existence of my personality that I must make it continue to exist forever even if I have to kill myself to do it. To me, all that matters is my own personal experience and if that ends, then that's the end, no legacy or copy of myself will count for anything once I'm dead and gone and can't even see or experience any of it.

[Anonymous No.12302270]

>>12302100
Consider vitrification.

[Anonymous No.12302869]

>>12302195
>all that matters is my own personal experience

And that right there, is the definition of solipsism.

Also if you think you don't have any unique value as a person, you should probably just go ahead and kill yourself, and save the rest of us the valuable oxygen.

[Anonymous No.12302882]

>>12296265
>"Transfer conscioussness"
Holy shit you basedencefags are unbelievable. Read philosophy every now and then. Even if you could perfectly simulate your consciousness point for point for all time in silico, YOUR consciousness wouldn't be transferred onto the computer, just copied. You would never experience anything that you2 is experiencing and you2 would never experience anything you are experiencing.

[Anonymous No.12302900]

>>12296286
>>12296286
Show me one example of literally "reprogramming" a human at a genetic level. You can't even change someone's skin color with gene therapy, let alone grow their cock, or transform them into an arbitrary morphology.

[Anonymous No.12302937]

I love Aubrey De Grey :)

[Anonymous No.12303077]

>>12302869
>And that right there, is the definition of solipsism.
Not wanting to die and be replaced with an independent copy is solipsism? Please note that I'm not saying my personal experience is the only thing that exists, I'm saying that if I die then I can no longer care about anything because I'm dead. A copy of me may be able to live on and continue caring about things that I HAPPENED to care about during my life, but that is HIS caring and HIS life.

[Anonymous No.12303362]

>>12296228
No. Everything in this universe is transient.

Trying to fight and escape death and change is the mark of a supreme fool.

[Anonymous No.12303488]

>>12299917
Hahahaha, imagine being so retarded that you think DNA synthesis happens during mitosis. You must have stopped any bio ed after middle school. Pro tip the only place where blood cells proliferate is as a stem cell and their respective progenitors.
A differentiated T cell would never do that, keep spouting things you dont know shit about tho

[Anonymous No.12303513]

>>12300665
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218597/#:~:text=Neuronal%20replacement%20has%20not%20been,as%20in%20parietal%20lobe%20syndrome.
Your source is 31 years old adult neurogenesis has already been proven.

[Anonymous No.12303514]

>>12303077
I frankly don't understand why you shouldn't consider the copy to be another incarnation of you. Also I feel like we're going in circles here. Try and step outside your own perspective and understand how ridiculous it is to consider the original and a copy to be meaningfully different.

[Anonymous No.12303528]

>be Aubrey de Grey
>want to achieve immortality
>drink alcohol literally everyday

[Anonymous No.12303534]

>>12303513
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214854X20300133?via%3Dihub

[Anonymous No.12303612]

This "copy" thing is utterly and completely retarded. You will not be your copy. Your copy, by definition, will just be a copy. You are a material being, you are not information. Get that through your thick fucking skulls. YOU ARE NOT FUCKING INFORMATION. Your subjective experience will end after your material brain is obliterated. That's all that matters. Now go kill yourselves copyfags.

[Anonymous No.12303622]

>>12303514
I already said that the original and copy are not meaningfully different to OUTSIDE OBSERVERS. In fact, that's the most insidious part of the whole illusion: If someone kidnapped me, cloned me, killed me, and sent the clone back to live in my place then I would experience being killed and dead but my family, friends, and coworkers would be none the wiser to my demise. And indeed it would make absolutely no difference to them whatsoever, because they get to interact with an identical version of me so from their perspective literally nothing changed from the day before.
BUT
I
WOULD
HAVE
DIED
My current, present self, would not be able to see through the copy's eyes nor think with the copy's brain nor feel with the copy's fingers. If you copied me and then killed me, no one outside would be able to tell
BUT
I
WOULD
DIE
Is there still a version of me out in the world doing 100% of all the things I would have done? Influencing the world in the precise ways that I would? Yes, absolutely, I agree. But I wouldn't be there to EXPERIENCE it. BECAUSE I DIED AND GOT REPLACED WITH A COPY.

[Anonymous No.12303655]

>>12303528
>No exercise
His lifestyle makes me question his claimed motives.

[Anonymous No.12303685]

>>12303528
>>12303655
Doctors are the worst patients.
Mechanics drive cars that are falling apart.
IT professionals' computers are a mess.
It's a common trend.

[Anonymous No.12303715]

>>12303488
>the only place where blood cells proliferate is as a stem cell and their respective progenitors.
Is it red blood cells you're speaking of? Because they lose their nucleus as they mature. T-cells can divide alright, and you yet have to show me where it is said otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12303727]

>>12302900
Short-cock-nigger detected.
Here, let me help you out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi9FH0gWLn4
(many such cases)

[Anonymous No.12303733]

>>12303528
Probably to get along with your asininity.

[Anonymous No.12303740]

>>12303612
fpbp

[Anonymous No.12303796]

>>12303715
>receptor mediated division
And this is relevant to the hay-flick limit how? Find the life span of a lymphocyte.

[Anonymous No.12304112]

>>12303655
That's because he's a literal millionaire heir that's just grifting futurist idiots. The exact same scam all life extension companies are running.

Name ONE product SENS has actually produced. Just one.

[Anonymous No.12304136]

>>12303796
I was expecting you to accepti your being miseducated, but no, you'd rather wiggle you ass.
It's good to know what kind of asses oppose medicinal values of thc and what techniques of pilpul they're using.

[Anonymous No.12304142]

>>12304112
Are you sure you're speaking of a production company?

[Anonymous No.12304150]

>>12304142
Yes. The entire mission of SENS is to find a cure for aging. It has not made one fucking step in that direction in its entire history. Instead, it has watched the life expectancy of america DROP.

[Anonymous No.12304161]

>>12304150
Their complete name is sens RESEARCH foundation, so all they're supposed to produce is research papers (and they produce quite a lot of those) they also educate and motivate. So BioViva wouldn't appear if SENS didn't exist. And BioViva (among others) does produce some therapies you can buy if you have the money.
> the life expectancy of america DROP.
You import third worlders, you get third world problems.

[Anonymous No.12304169]

>>12304161
>Their complete name is sens RESEARCH foundation
Oh I'm sorry, what DISCOVERIES has SENS made?

>BioViva wouldn't appear if SENS didn't exist
BioViva cured aging?!?!? Oh no wait, that's just another """company""" started by a rich millionaire heiress grifter to steal money from idiots. Odd how that keeps happening.

>does produce some therapies you can buy if you have the money.
Name one that is proven to do something to extend your fucking life. Every nutriceutical company on Earth makes these fucking claims.

>You import third worlders, you get third world problems.
What a retarded nazi teenage faggot you are. Zoom zoom yourself off a cliff. The drop in American life expectancy SPECIFICALLY comes from single white men due to suicide and drug addiction.

[Anonymous No.12304180]

>>12304169
>what DISCOVERIES has SENS made?
You didn't even look into it did you?
> steal money from idiots
Yeah, those rich bastards are idiots, unlike you.

[Anonymous No.12304184]

>>12304169
>drug addiction
Thank big pharma. They produce A LOT.

[Anonymous No.12304191]

>>12304180
>You didn't even look into it did you?
I followed SENS for YEARS, you fucking faggot. I've even communicated with them on multiple occasions. They have NOTHING.

>Yeah, those rich bastards are idiots, unlike you.
Are you one of the retards that is of the opinion it requires intelligence to inherit wealth? How about you kill yourself so your inevitable morbidities from being too stupid to live a healthy lifestyle will no doubt raise the average life expectancy of everyone else a tick. And since you're so stupid I'm sure you don't know the difference between healthspan and lifespan, we can all agree you'd be helping the cause.

>>12304184
We know the cause. The point is de Gay was wrong. As usual. One of his earliest arguments (which was stupid even at the time) was that if we just keep upping the life expectancy we'd accomplish the goal. Whoops.

[Anonymous No.12304222]

>>12304191
>They have NOTHING
I know this game. I show you the list of their research papers and in the next few minutes you claim "that's all shit"
>One of his earliest arguments (which was stupid even at the time) was that if we just keep upping the life expectancy we'd accomplish the goal.
Show me where he said this. As far as I know, he was always speaking about radical life extension, like ten years in which we invent some other techniques.
And about BioViva - I dare you to show some actual specialist of the level of Craig Venter who'd say that it's a scam.

[Anonymous No.12304317]

>>12299741
This is such a no shit thing I'm baffled every time this comes up as an honest answer to biological immortality.

[Anonymous No.12304547]

>>12296265
>>>12296228
>since we invented computers
>and since computers just replicates what we want
>> in order to achieve what we want we need to put it in a way it has a logic and can be verified if its valid all the time
>>coded in a way that its implicative
>>coded primitively because after compilation its just 0 and 1s, binary, two states YES NO
>>but thats just for speed
>>the actual code has dependencies
>just like our brains but its already compiled
>but we will get into our mind easily
>as we created >computers< to understand us and everything around us
>basically
>>12296265 is right

[Anonymous No.12304549]

>>12296322
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
a 1970 study

ultimate state of kekcopter

yea they had the absolut possibility to simulate 1 zillion zillions of data at yotabit speed basically yes they could do 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 einstein operations in their mind in order to solve unsolvable


you absolut braintard go to fkin /fit/ with your shitty proof

[Anonymous No.12304554]

>>12304547
> slowly the input from the brain to the chip will be able to be perfectly emulated by a 3rd system.
And what will happen to the original neurons?

[Anonymous No.12304556]

>>12297772
and its not even about duplicating your mind or smthn

>you have your brain an electric-biomechanic object that is ->readable,writable

now we just use our brain as an input to devices we created, sometimes when we have brain tumor the devices help us read data in our brain


but one day we will just easily write whatever we want to the brain


that way we can easily: extract anything we want from the brain > either to a host and accumulate memories or whatever

it absolutely doesn't matter who you will be in another body when you:
>can confirm it's your memories since you know pictures of your friends or videos, you know your home etc. All the data will be there, all the tastes etc. That way you just don't bother with that psycho shit and actually just think to survive or get occupied, if you are no longer a human u dont need to eat but u wanna have healthy mind so you socialize or go out or play games etc

Consensus:
Once we can read/write brain
We can easily move to another body/device/backup preserve ourselfe

you don't need to fkin replicate everything

that way your old body can rot since

but now i will kinda entangle it since im one of few people that think that heart could be even smarter than brain or somehow operate it and brain is like a compiler but thats just another episode

[Anonymous No.12304810]

>>12304191
Nothing as in they have 0 funds or as in they haven’t made a single Worthwhile discovery

Also how much do rich people put into sens anyways

[Anonymous No.12305115]

>>12296283
It won't, possibly future technology would allow a copy of your memories and therefore have an elaborate robot that mimics you - but you're gone, consciousness is not even understood .. but even scientific efforts such as integrated information theory suggest that to be the case, consciousness would not be part of that copy.

On the bright side, it might lead to the death of a massive amount of rich naive people - as they would rush to suicide for that possibility of immortality.

[Anonymous No.12305120]

>>12302882
They will be tricked to accept death when the process ends lmao.

[Anonymous No.12305510]

>>12304136
You again proved why the the hayflick limit is irrelevant for differentiated cells in this case lymphocytes who live for years.