[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 56 KB, 450x350, Second Solar Ship.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2666662 No.2666662 [Reply] [Original]

>Just imagine, son, what it must've been like to be human before space colonization. To be trapped on that tiny blue world with no other recourse, no back-up world in case your world failed. You think people are frightened now about the ecology on Yarma VI, but those people have a thousand other places to go if that world fails. The PreSpace Earthfolk had no such options.

>Dad, some of the kids in our holo-lesson say the Earthfolk didn't have rejuvenation like we do. Is that true?

>Yes, son, I'm afraid it is. When the PreSpacers died, the maw of oblivion ate them up and they were lost eternally. It is hard to imagine living a infinitesimal eighty years, but they managed it, and some were even happy, though supposedly a very few. Imagine a miserable and fleshy eight-years without any sort of nano-repairs or safety fields, then woosh, gone forever.

>But...but they didn't even live for a few thousand years? How did they complete their dreams? How did they make plans knowing they would die?

>Simple. They built myths to delude them otherwise. Some of the ancient ones claim to have visited the Vatican before it was torn down twelve thousand years ago. But yes, never forget how lucky you are, how privileged you are to live in a race that is neither bound to a single world nor to mortality. It is a wonder such things didn't drive those poor souls mad--though I guess the wars show otherwise.

>> No.2666683

It would have been fine without the anti-religion propaganda.

>> No.2666703
File: 24 KB, 512x340, Ted Haggard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2666703

>>2666683

>> No.2666712
File: 74 KB, 360x349, CI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2666712

;_;

>> No.2666719

>>2666683
No, it sucks regardless.

These silly scifi fantasies just keep you from enjoying what time you have.

>> No.2666730

>>2666683
K. Hovind must be so proud of you.

>>2666719
Depends on how you take it. When I read that, I thought "Pretty awesome. Hope it comes to pass.", I didn't think "The world is so awful since we don't have all that rite nao."

>> No.2666732

>the wars show otherwise
speak for yourself, my nation is religious and hasn't invaded anyone for centurys

>> No.2666746
File: 13 KB, 160x199, 1295510723621.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2666746

>>2666683

You know it, bro.

>> No.2666755

Somehow, I imagine space will find a way to kill people regularly.

>> No.2666771

>>Be from an advanced future without religion

>>Use the word "Souls"

>> No.2666785
File: 37 KB, 526x473, Rat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2666785

>>2666771
The word "soul" is often used to denote a living being rather than an immaterial essence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

>a person; individual: an honest soul

>> No.2666791

>>2666785

I suppose all people in the future would forget the initial definition of the word.

>> No.2666793
File: 5 KB, 158x152, Slap1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2666793

>>2666791
>initial definition

>> No.2666794

>>2666785
it was translated (dialectically) so that we could understand it better.

>> No.2666797

>>2666662

>thisiswhatscientologistsactuallybelieve.jpg

>> No.2666825

>Implying future people wouldn't fucking treat us with a lot of respect

>> No.2666838

>Implying humans live to see the exploration of space to any significant degree.

>> No.2667666

>>2666794
Whilst true, the colloquial meaning of the word won't be lost and it will remain in our vocabularies for quite some time. It will eventually become something that the elder generation uses (one which is close to the existence of religious cultures) and the younger one sees as old and un-hip.

>> No.2667743
File: 47 KB, 309x427, freddie mercury.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667743

Fuck yeah bro.

Thats going to be us in 2000 years. We'll become immortal around 2040. I'll be 50. Shit I'll be 50 in 30 years. crazy, 2040 doesn't feel far away for some reason.

>> No.2667762

This won't happen in your lifetime, or probably ever

>> No.2667802
File: 1.40 MB, 2893x1875, 1270600701860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667802

>>2666662
>Believes in Colonization of other planets
>Believes in life spans going down in the thousands
>Believes religion is the major problem of humankind
>Believes the only "tiny blue world" is insignicant to the human race
>Believes morality won't bound humanity

Your predictions are such full of crap it's honestly pathetic.

>> No.2667816

Humans are destined for extinction, but fortunately our legacy will live on in our superior robotic successors.

>> No.2667825
File: 70 KB, 450x450, 1297704056056.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667825

http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029

http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

>> No.2667848

You know, even if we are able to conquer aging and all that shit, it's still possible for people to die from various accidents etc. Just not aging is no guarantee. Death is pretty certain to come at SOME point.

>> No.2667866

>>2667848
Most accidents are preventable and/or caused by stupidity. I think people who did not age would be more cautious, if only because they'd have more to lose. Just driving less, and practising good safety when it's necessary, reduces accident exposure considerably.

>> No.2667878

>>2667848
This. Let's not forget the fact that war and conflicts still fucking happen over philosophical or political differences and that won't change in the future. Do you people honestly think that the government or the elite class will just hand you immortality when we don't even have the resources to feed ourselves around the world or even maintain our current standard of living?

Yeah, not going to happen. Our world is running out of the necessary supply to meet our standards today and if you think we'll given this technology to further increase this burden, then you have another thing coming.

>> No.2667880
File: 41 KB, 429x547, they believe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667880

>>2667802
>>2667802

>implying religion isnt a problem in todays society.

>> No.2667884

>>2667878
LolMalthusiancocksucker

>> No.2667885

>>2667878
I think people would object much more strongly to a government plan to prevent access to life extension than they would to simple birth control. Furthermore, you seem to think that governments make very long-term plans, whereas all evidence indicates that they just do whatever is in furtherance of their re-election.

>> No.2667905

>>2667880
>Implying it's the only or even a major problem today

I'm secular but even I know this view is full of crap. It would be like holding atheists accountable for the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. Stop pretending everything can be solved by eliminating one group of people, it's honestly retarded.

>> No.2667912

>>2667884
>>2667884
>learn2Non-renewableresource

>> No.2667914

>>2667912
lrn2EarthIsNotTheOnlyPlaceToGetResources

>> No.2667921

>>2667848

I wonder what the average lifespan would be without aging.

statistically you'd have to die from some sort of accident at some point. I'd say no more than 1000 years

>> No.2667927
File: 56 KB, 229x232, the-space-pope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667927

>>2666662
Space Pope says you're full of shit.

>> No.2667947 [DELETED] 

>>2667914
Learn to realize that we are currently in the infant stages of space exploration and the fact that we don't have any plans to exploit other planets to maintain our living standards. Odds are, the long extension of life expectancy will happen before we even make a base in Mars. We will then have to deal with the fact that we're overpopulated, running of non-renewable resources and conflict will over this.

>> No.2667945
File: 171 KB, 499x222, Picture 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667945

>>2667802

>> No.2667954

>>2667947
Bitches don't know about my Japanese space elevator

>> No.2667955

>>2667914
Learn to realize that we are currently in the infant stages of space exploration and the fact that we don't have any plans to exploit other planets to maintain our living standards. Odds are, the long extension of life expectancy will happen before we even make a base in Mars. We will then have to deal with the fact that we're overpopulated, running out of non-renewable resources and conflict will a rise over this.

>> No.2667973

>>2667954
The Space Elevetor is not going to solve the problems of scarce oil, fresh water or rare metals. It may help with our hydrogen problem, if the price is right and affordable. I'm still worried over the fact that we're running out of chocolate.

>> No.2667975
File: 63 KB, 227x700, 1280987898653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667975

>>2667921
>no more than 1000 years
you're saying that billions of people will die off before they are 1000 years old if aging wasn't a problem? By aging what most people mean are biological causes, anything from organ failure to Cancer. Doubtful, at most. Most of the population will live to be thousands if not immortal b/c we will very soon be able to transfer our mind into a "hard drive" and live as robots, which I for one can't wait for

pic unrelated but makes me lol everytime

>> No.2667976

read this.
http://insomnia.ac/essays/the_final_solution/

>> No.2667977

>>2667825

This guy is pretty ridiculous.

I mean his ideas aren't inherently ridiculous, I don't see any reason why we can't hope to "cure" aging. Whether it be through becoming a cyborg or through various forms of medicine and biological engineering, I don't see why it doesn't hurt to try.

The man himself is pretty ridiculous though. He seems hyper idealistic and childish sometimes.

>> No.2667981
File: 12 KB, 202x208, face91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2667981

>mfw most humans who will ever exist will live in the cramped quarters hollowed out asteroids, mining He3, dreaming of times when humans lived on spacious planets where air was free, there were no ceilings or walls, and when a redundant ecosystem provided everything you will ever need
These are amazing times we live in.

>also, the text is always greener on the other side

>> No.2667985

Anyone that insults even the idea that the galaxy could one day explored by some future version of H. sapiens, that human life span could be significantly extended, or that potential colonization of other planets is just a pipe dream is an intellectually and creatively barren fool.

>> No.2667986

>>2667973
>scarce oil,
Biofuels, electrolyzing water into hydrogen
>fresh water
Because desalinization or improved recycling of water totally doesn't exist. At all.
>or rare metals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

>> No.2667999

>>2667975
You mean copies of minds. Believing that you can just download a brain magically or some sort of soul-mind is science fantasy. There is no reason for downloading personalities and minds into a computer and then destroying the brain.

A copy of you may very well survive indefinitely in a robotic shell, however.

>> No.2668001

>>2667985
Are you ever looked at as the "crazy science wacko space guy" when you voice your opinions on the future of our decedents?

Srsly, I get it all the time. 100 years ago, I would've been scoffed if I talked about wireless internet on mobile phones, men on the moon, etc..

>> No.2668005

>>2667985
Then why hasn't it been done before? It's called the Fermi paradox.

All my ideas have already been thought up... it really rustles my jimmies.

>> No.2668016

>>2667999
*/sci/ brofist*

There is no reason to destroy the original brain.

>> No.2668019

>>2667999
brains are inferior to any data storing and transmitting device we will have by the time we are able to transfer info from the brain to the drive so why would you want to keep your brain? Also your brain is fragile and mortal while the drive can be immortal compared to the brain

>> No.2668022

>>2667973
quit reading cracked.com

im so tired of people talking about facts from that web site and repeating it elsewhere

>> No.2668043

>>2667986
>or rare metals
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining

>> No.2668053

>>2667986

> Biofuels, electrolyzing water into hydrogen

Implying that can be financially effective, possible or even match the demand we need in the future.

>Because desalinization or improved recycling of water totally doesn't exist. At all.
Yeah, because our current understanding and future technologies we're planning to create to fix this problem can totally supply the entire estimated 6.5 billion people and counting. Oh wait. I've look at the desalinization and development of fresh water, none of technology we have in planning to solve this problem is even close. This is just just based on decades ahead of this arising problem.

>asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.

Are you honestly suggesting we can mine asteroids in the future before we run out of resources? We're at the infant stages of space colonization. It would take decades or even more to reach that level. Odds are the rare metal would run out before even implement it.

>> No.2668054

>>2668019
um, because the brain is YOU, you are committing suicide if you destroy the brain. Sure the computer brain may be whats basically a perfect clone of your personality/memories, but thats all it is, YOU are dead.

>> No.2668065

>>2668054
stop living in the past. YOU are not real b/c you change every instant. So whats the difference from transferring what you call "you" from your brain to a computer and experiencing sensation through that? Nothing. People need to grow up and stop being afraid of change

>> No.2668069

>>2668043
Asteroid mining > deep sea mining

>> No.2668074

>>2668022
Cracked? No, I got it off MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40341667/ns/business-cnbc_tv/

Technically we're not running out of chocolate. Just that prices are soaring and the fact people find difficult to harvest.

>> No.2668076

>>2668069
Except the latter we can do in 10 years and the former we can do in 100 years.

>> No.2668079

>>2668065
Why destroy a perfectly good you?

>> No.2668106

>>2668054
Brotip: Every time you sleep or pass out, your consciousness is interrupted. You've "died" and been "reborn" every day of your life and are none the worse for it.

Uploading your consciousness to a machine is no more metaphysically problematic than taking an afternoon nap.

>> No.2668120

>>2668054
That can be avoided by gradually replacing the brain bit by bit with computer parts.

If, for example, you only switch out 1% of your mind with electronics at a time, YOU won't stop existing any more than you do from the gradual replacement of the cells in your body that occurs naturally.

>> No.2668125

>>2668120
interesting, I hadn't considered that.

>> No.2668130

>>2668120
Why not just make a copy and have two of you?

>> No.2668134

>>2668106
no, you still have a subconsciousness while sleeping.often an active dreaming one at that.

>> No.2668136

>>2668134
>>2668106
WTF does it matter?!

>> No.2668141

>>2668106

I doubt you "die" when you go to sleep. It's just a lack of memory. I remember all sorts of things I was thinking about just as I awaken but the memories of those thoughts evaporate so quickly, I usually can't store much memory on it...

>> No.2668155

>>2668141
Just think of it as you did die.

Imagine you don't wake up along with the condition that you did not dream.

That's what I think death will be like.

>> No.2668162

>>2668136
I suppose its just my perceptive, its hard to explain, I'll try.

If you copy your brain into a computer and don't destroy the original, which one is YOU? are you experiencing two existences at the same time? That doesn't make sense to me. What if you copy it to 5 computers. are you experiencing 5 existences at the same time? Do you see where I'm going?

You can only have one consciousness, any others, are something new, even if they are exact copies they arent YOU, their new beings based on you.

>> No.2668172

>>2668162
This "YOU" term is so relative. Short answer is that you would be having multiple experiences. But you're not conglomerating all the experiences into some sort of nexus that is your original brain. They are all separate.

>> No.2668198

newwww!!!!!! CP!!!! CP!!!! CP!!!!! AND JAILBAIT MOVIES!!!!! 11-17 YRS OLD NAKED GIRLS!!!!!

http://4p5.com/ac3d6b
http://4p5.com/c7f59c
http://4p5.com/6565de
http://4p5.com/2ef8d3
http://4p5.com/b7aa29
http://4p5.com/823b4
http://4p5.com/87126f
http://4p5.com/d5c459
http://4p5.com/6dd446
http://4p5.com/80e
http://4p5.com/a590e7
http://4p5.com/2bb001
http://4p5.com/7fce51
http://4p5.com/993
http://4p5.com/c4d479
http://4p5.com/9ef9a1
http://4p5.com/513440
http://4p5.com/65f533
http://4p5.com/e51f6b
http://4p5.com/4354c6
http://4p5.com/ac3d6b
http://4p5.com/675f11
http://4p5.com/daf
http://4p5.com/024e32
http://4p5.com/912f26
http://4p5.com/f67cd4
http://4p5.com/31dd19
http://4p5.com/52f799
http://4p5.com/4f66a6
http://4p5.com/75a948
http://4p5.com/62f017
http://4p5.com/70c624
http://4p5.com/065b46
http://4p5.com/ec09dc
http://4p5.com/8be92e
http://4p5.com/5120f7
http://4p5.com/8337d8
http://4p5.com/5cb85a
http://4p5.com/5b715d
http://4p5.com/87ce4c
http://4p5.com/ec5db0
http://4p5.com/11794c
http://4p5.com/6f9008
http://4p5.com/a6e4d3
http://4p5.com/72793c
http://4p5.com/ccc1b

save all link's to new doc.txt before 404's and download after time!boinsdoivnoin

>> No.2668204

>>2668172
but if their separate wouldn't they be different beings? How could they all be you if theres no "nexus" connecting them.

For example, download the 5 brains into different bodies, send them off into different directions in the universe, have them report back in say, 50 years, they will all have changed significantly based on whatever experiences they had. Wouldn't it be 5 new people by this point? they cant possibly all still be the same ME without a nexus.

I should stop typing so late, I Think I'm just rambling now lol.

>> No.2668214

>>2668204
Of course they would be different. Your bodies can now individually explore the infinite paths of your life.

>> No.2668217

>>2668204
Also, who's to say that you wouldn't "naturally" follow one of those paths?

>> No.2668252

I've thought about the question of immortality quite a bit.

Some people have aptly pointed out that making a computer copy of yourself is almost like making a twin of yourself. You are still doomed to die and your copy will survive. Biology advances will help a bit but there are fundamental limits on the time that cells can remain ordered successfully, you will still eventually die.

The answer is gradual replacement of your self. By augmenting your brain with cybernetic implants you can transfer yourself piecewise to electronic hardware. Start with memory centers then move to abstract thought centers, one at a time. Eventually you will be a computer and you won't even know it.

Obviously the tech for this is a long ways off. Hopefully advances in biotechnology will let us alive now get there.

>> No.2668255

>>2668214
They would be separate beings. The main point of this is that...

The consciousness typing on this thread, if you downloaded a copy of it online then killed the original, would cease to exist. So you would not be experiencing it, since it would be as if you actually died, while a complete copy would survive.

People like to throw "every time you go to sleep you die!" out during all of these debates, but the fact of the matter is that your brain and consciousness are still continuing subconsciously due to your brain.

Just copying you into another body doesn't make YOU that body. It is a separate you, which shares 100% of everything with you. The you typing now, would remain in his brain. If it dies, you wouldn't suddenly be in control of a new computer body.

>> No.2668270

>they think humans will live off the earth
humans are dumb animals, weapons are always a step ahead of actual useful technology. we will nuke ourselves back to the stone age and repeat it all over again until we permenantly become extinct for one reason or another

>> No.2668271

>>2668255
You would then have to define what consciousness is. Is it entirely physical? chemical? If so can it be replicated in a new computer body?

If you were to take a snapshot of your consciousness transfer it and kill off the old brain would you notice? (Let's say this takes place during sleep)

>> No.2668284

>>2668252

As to the idea of leaving Earth, that's crazy. We were born here and in roughly 500 mil years the sun will increase in intensity by about 10% and we will die here as our oceans boil off.

The technology necessary to travel from one solar system to another means that there is no need to travel. Essentially we must be able to live in deep space for hundreds of years and accelerate a moon sized space ship to some significant fraction of the speed of light twice (once to start and once to stop). Anyways there isn't enough energy in our solar system to achieve this goal more than a couple times and that assumes massive technological advances such as space elevators being common.

Anyways, even if we conquer our biological deathclock, we will still die most likely in a war over resources or most definitely when our sun heats up prior to becoming a red giant.

>> No.2668288

>>2668271
It is the unique physical workings of your brain and the personality and memories inlaid within it. It's also presumably the way the electric impulses function compared to other brains. Identical twins do not ever consider their twins as the exact same as them. When one dies, the other does not continue existing in the other twin's stead, so why would copying yourself onto a computer be any different?

The individual experiences of your mind is you. If you were to kill someone in their sleep and then just create an authentic copy in the bed next to them, the other person would be an exact duplicate who believes they are you, but the consciousness in the original is dead.

However, to everyone else alive it wouldn't matter, nor would it matter to the copy, since it would think it is you. At least that's a realistic interpretation of what would happen if you just create a new consciousness while the other still exists somewhere.

>> No.2668303

sometimes i listen to doom metal and ponder the meaning of it all

>> No.2668329
File: 48 KB, 704x396, AwesomeJimProfit9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2668329

>OP thinks there won't be wars in the future, laughinggirls.jpg

Seriously OP. Wars will just be different. We will still fight over resources, just on a larger scale. We'll probably be even MORE nationalistic. Imagine a Neo-Nazi organization dedicated to humanity, and that makes us radicals because we care more about our species then some snake people or living mineral based life form. How long before we meet a life form that is made up of coal, and when we "kill them", we can use them for energy?

Also, just because it'd be a whole lot harder to kill people, doesn't mean people still wouldn't "hurt" eachother. You could still feel pain, heartbreak, loss... those things won't change just because of the advancement in medicine and what not.

Also you have this broad assumption that those type 3 civilization technologies would be avaliable to the public, and not kept in a few select hands who could be worshipped as gods. You seriously underestimate the narcissism and psychotic nature of our own species, let alone other species.

>> No.2668339
File: 3 KB, 118x146, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2668339

>>2668329

>> No.2668348

I would say consciousness is strictly biological, for whatever reasons there are certain things biological constructs can do which creates consciousness that machines cannot.

I also realize tons of idiots will quote my post and try to argue

>> No.2668351

>>2668255
You see, this kind of thread always comes down to this question. Do we have souls?

If we do, then this whole idea of mind uploading is doomed to failure.

If we don't, then the whole idea of consciousness is basically an illusion. There is no *you,* at least not in any meaningful sense.

>> No.2668356

>>2668271
Is conscious physical OR chemical?

Are you stupid, or just idiotic?

If you were killed during sleep would you notice?
Uhm no. You'd be dead.

>>2667878
Why wouldn't they? It would save them shitloads of money that would otherwise be spent taking care of the elderly.

Sure Ethiopians cannot feed themselves.
But we're not Ethiopians. Simple as that.

>>2668019
No, an HDD is not immortal, not anywhere near it.
The failure rate of HDDs as compared to brains is so astronomically high, and unlikely to change anytime soon that your very statement yells out that you have no clue about how brains work, nor how harddisks work.
For instance, your brain gets new cells all the time to replace the ones that fail. HDDs don't manufacture new platters, reading heads, etc, as well as new manufactories for these things when the old one is failing.

>> No.2668368

>>2668351
>There is no *you,* at least not in any meaningful sense.
This is what I believe.

>>2668356
>Is conscious physical OR chemical?
>Are you stupid, or just idiotic?

I wasn't implying OR.

>> No.2668373
File: 267 KB, 400x300, 1299511194349.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2668373

>>2668356
>Implying you can't buy new HDD.

>> No.2668374

>>2668356
>HDDs don't manufacture new platters, reading heads, etc, as well as new manufactories for these things when the old one is failing.
But you can move memory from HDD to another.

>> No.2668379

>>2668348
>I'm going to say something hilariously stupid
>Then call everyone that disagrees an idiot.

Of course you're wrong.
Consciousness is enabled in us, who are biological creatures, but what separates a brain implemented in neurons from one implemented by a trillion fermis running CUDA in SLI? (Also known as the sun)
Why would a perfect reimplementation of the brains functions by computer chips not be conscious, while those implemented by neurons are?

Because neurons are just dumb machines. And so are fermis.

Sure that consciousness is a biological phenomena I agree with. That it is necessarily so, I do not.

>> No.2668381

Unfortunately it seems thermodynamics will prevent us from living forever. However as far as making a mind that lasts indefinitely, I take the ship of Theseus approach. If artificial neurons were developed, which functioned in a manner which the behavior of natural neurons could not be distinguished, we may be able to slowly replace our entire brain.

>> No.2668390

>>2668368
But just because the current phenomena of consciousness is chemical/biological, doesn't mean that it is necessarily so.

And you're the one that says that we're not conscious in any meaningful way. For that to hold you need to define consciousness or otherwise say why and how.

Sufficient and necessary conditions are not the same.

>> No.2668393

>>2668329
Unlikely.

Interstellar travel isn't really possible in a scarcity based system. Considering the amount of energy needed to accelerate even a single vessel to relativistic velocities approaches infinity, we're a long way from conquering the stars. Basically, if we ever reach the level of technology necessary to manage an interstellar empire and encounter alien races, resources really wouldn't be an issue anymore.

>> No.2668395

>>2668368
So let me get this straight. If someone were to copy you in a perfect replica and then tie the replica up, you would be alright with someone shooting you in the head, killing the consciousness that still exists? What if they would give your clone something like a hundred thousand dollars?

>> No.2668399

>implying we won't have proved that there is an afterlife until then and that every lifing cell regardless of it's will become part of it and experience this collective consciousness.

>> No.2668403

>>2668379

if you disagree with my statement, you must also agree that a quadrillion rocks placed in a certain pattern would also create consciousness. After all, what's the difference between a neuron and the position of a rock in space? Both convey information and are just dumb machines, ect.

>> No.2668406

>>2668395
Yes, I would. We're not special. And this point, If we can be replicated, then why not?

>> No.2668412

>>2668379
Not him, but it would not be YOUR consciousness. People want their own consciousness to exist forever, believing that somehow the you typing now will magically move onto being on a computer system while simultaneously being in control of a flesh body from which it was downloaded seems irrational to me.


Why would you care if another you exists if the one experiencing things originally dies?

>>2668381
I think this is the only way to preserve the minds themselves.

>> No.2668421

>>2668406
You wouldn't be exact copies though. By your logic, an alien could kill every human on Earth except for one because we are all approximately identical.

Why would you be alright with dying? Two of me is better than one of me. I'd want both to survive.

>> No.2668436

>>2668406
We're not special, but it's in our own biological self-interests to want to continue living. You might not care about your own life, probably because of how you're neurologically wired, but I would do absolutely anything to continue existing with the mind I have now. I'd augment it, but I wouldn't destroy it just to make a copy I have no control over.

Most people who want immortality want to actually have their OWN immortality transcend the ages and last as long as it can. They don't want some copy that they can't experience things with running around once they die.

>> No.2668437

>>2668412
>People want their own consciousness to exist forever
True, but that sense of a special quality of "you"-ness applied to your consciousness is an illusion. It's just a defense mechanism, a sort of survival instinct meant to encourage you to preserve your own life so that you may pass on your genetic material.

>> No.2668452

>>2668437

just because it's a survival instinct doesn't make it any less real

>> No.2668454

>>2668437
Personally I don't care about my progeny. I'd rather exist myself, in spite of them. I'm the kind who would not think of sacrificing my own life to save anyone. I want to exist and see everything.

I think that dying at some point during life makes all of the contributions you make and all of your achievements absolutely worthless. Nobody will remember it far enough down the line, so if anyone is, it should be you.


Also, is an immortal copy just the same as having your genetic material passing along? It's basically making another you to continue on after you die. In my example, at least, I myself continue to exist and experience the universe until some random act of violence of chance kills me.

>> No.2668457

>>2668452
Wouldn't the copies also have that same feeling of special quality of "you"?

Or once there's a copy created you all lose your "special qualities"?

>> No.2668460

>>2668437
Then what's the point of immortality at all? There isn't one so who wants to upload minds onto computers, since it'd pointless to the uploaders?

>> No.2668475

>>2668457
Not him but here are my two cents.

No. The copy, once created, is as real as you and should strive to exist as long as it can. The original is just as unique and special, as a unique individual. There will never be another being like it, due to the past it's strived for and done.

Sorry for waxing poetic, but all humans are unique and have some value, even if a copy is made the copy would have just as much value as the original, even if it is "better" and "immortal". They would still be equal.

>> No.2668496

>>2668475
I see.

I'd like this thread to be alive in the morning.

>> No.2668498

Why have an immortal copy of you that isn't you, when you can just program something that you like more than yourself? An idealized version of you.


I would rather live forever myself, but I think that's a better idea, especially if you think your own life is meaningless compared to others. Why not just make some sort of mind that has all the good qualities you believe you have but none of the negative ones?

>> No.2668523

>>2668496
From a philosophical and intellectual standpoint I find the deaths of individual consciousnesses, especially those who didn't want to die, abhorrent. People should at least be put into some form of cold sleep so they at least have a vague, distant possibility of being brought back, but so many people in the past have been snuffed out wanting to live forever or at least experience the future. We're on the cusp of at least making sure that some people have the chance to extend their lives and experience more of it than any generation before.

I think that's pretty amazing and beautiful, personally. Most people don't want to live forever though, but biologically, the fact that a species has arrived with the distinct yearning and capability for something like this should at least be attempted to come into fruition in a true, more individual way.


Also I'm rambling due to lack of sleep.

>> No.2668526

I like your description of BRIGHT SHINING FUTURE, but consider that advancedment need not slow to a crawl just because we live many millennia (and beyond). Our relatively short lives only hastened the urgency to do things faster. That said, it does seem that as we live longer, advancement will tend to slow.

There's a Leonardo Bernstein quote I like:
>To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time.

>> No.2668546

>>2666746

Source?

>> No.2668607

>>2667802
How dare you use Captain Picard in your post.

>> No.2668633

>>2668526
Sadly that's a fact, but time isn't just dependent on ages or lifespans. A crisis, war or attempt to outdo or defeat another country could work just as well.

Also advancement is natural. With enough time, advancement will likely always happen unless something causes another dark age, which is unlikely at this point. Overpopulation could also be a reason for technology advancement.

>> No.2668655

>>2668526
Only if you keep everything else a constant. Hardly a realistic expectation.