/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5461953]

In the near future, say 50 years from now, is it possible to have prosthetic bodies that can replace limbs and organs? Is it possible that it is a key to immortality? I am very curious that if we replace all our our organs with machines (hence beomcing a cyborg), then can we become immortal?

[Anonymous No.5461971]

I'm sure the technology on making such bodies is closer than you might think but conciseness is from all we know a metaphorical concept.
How could you take one's conciseness and put it in something else.
Thats basically why disbelieve in teleportation.

[Anonymous No.5461981]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5461991]

>>5461981
/x/ can't into eugenics and transhumanism

[Anonymous No.5462040]

Shameless self bump

[Anonymous No.5462809]

>>5461991
i think this is beetween /x/ and /sci/

[Anonymous No.5463047]

OP, with further studies and research of course, I believe with much further studies, a virtual afterlife is what were looking at as far as immortality, instead of a prosthetic body, At least I think Virtual Afterlife will be first, anyhow.

[Anonymous No.5463088]

People you can't be immortal, The universe itself is not permanent.

[Anonymous No.5463506]

>>5461953
Well a major crux of that is brain replacement, and while there's some argument for that happening it also looks like we could manage the causes of aging such that the natural brain simply lasts a lot longer.

[Anonymous No.5463544]

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

It's an unknowable scifi circle jerk. Biological elements will probably be simulated/replicated/superseded much as your smartphone supersedes your brain to make you more "intelligent". Philosophers will play word games but once you have your upgrades you'll never want to go back. You'll be better.

However, we still don't have flying cars. A possible realization of "immortality" is that we accept the forward-simulated projection of a individual as their future self and just get used to organic existence as merely one phase of life. Perhaps we accept that our projection is subject to error** and accept existence as fuzzy. History shows that people are far, far too attached to the notion of human uniqueness/superiority, are bad at the estimating the full scope of technological change, and unimaginative enough to abstract fundamental principles to new configurations. I'm inclined to believe we'll redefine what it means to live before we make our particular implementation last forever.

...though I'd probably welcome a new heart and liver before 2050.

** inb4 that episode of TNG where Geordi meets a hottie at an engineering conference, has a nerd crush and makes the holodeck guesstimate her personality and behavior to within 93.479999999% only to meet her IRL had have her think he is a stalker

[Anonymous No.5463547]

Physically, it's possible. The problem is the mind and consciousness.
Asides from there being no way for us (yet) to remove the brain, keep it functioning, interacting and self aware, it's functions decay rapidly at the end of a person's life. We don't know how to stop this decay, and are no where near knowing enough about the brain to be able to 'port' it into a cyborg.

[Anonymous No.5465102]

>>5463088
>implying immortality doesn't equate with the age of the universe

[Anonymous No.5465130]

>>5465102
>implying immortality equates the age of the universe

>implying immortality isn't larger than the age of the universe, for humans will have found a way to let the universe itself last forever

>implying implications which were not implied

[Anonymous No.5465147]

>>5465130
This guy actually brings up a good point. The way technology is progressing, what's to stop humanity from keeping the entire universe stable, billions of years in the future?