Immortality

[Anonymous No.9730383]

Alrighty /sci/ time for the age old question, what do we have on the stopping of aging and reversing the effects of aging as well? Where is a good start to look into, so maybe if it is possible, but very expensive, I could do it myself? By now we should have a plethora of knowledge on this subject, right?

[Anonymous No.9730392]

>>9730383
>This thread... again.
Have you tried checking the archive(s)?

[Anonymous No.9730396]

The easiest way would be to just upload your personality and memories into a more sturdy container such as a computer and then destroy the inferior meat container.

However, a lot of people don't consider that to be "you" but merely a copy of you... so as a compromise, how about replacing one part of your body at a time over the course of decades, so at least it would be a more vague "ship of theseus" problem instead

[Anonymous No.9730413]

>>9730396
>The easiest way would be to just upload your personality and memories into a more sturdy container such as a computer and then destroy the inferior meat container.
>The easiest way
Lol, /g/ is so full of pseudos nowadays, I even miss the undergraduates.
You do know it is the structure of your brain that IS your memories and personality, right? How exactly would that be converted to digital data, EASILY?
Do you know what's easier than that?
Genetically engineering cells so they don't die, damage, etc.
Or injecting telomerase.
A bunch of other shit.
Biological longevity is far easier than your meme shit.

>>9730383
Also OP, immortality is impossible from a statistical standpoint, you WOULD die at some point, whether it was from an accident, or murder.
However, you'd just live vastly longer than nature would've originally enabled.

[Anonymous No.9730420]

>>9730383
ai will kill you in 25 years max

[Anonymous No.9730422]

>>9730383
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence

[Anonymous No.9730424]

>>9730413
Well, you're trying to compare how "easy" two different things which are both currently impossible would be. Personally I think making a full scan of a human brain and creating a perfect 1 to 1 simulation will happen sooner than modifying human genetics to end aging without extreme side effects, but at the end of the day we're both just talking out our ass.

[Anonymous No.9730428]

>>9730383
If the longevity escape velocity is not reached within your natural lifetime, you can also sign up for cryonics of you want a shot at future revival.

https://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm
https://www.cryonics.org/about-us/faqs/
https://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html
https://www.cryonicscalculator.com/

[Anonymous No.9730429]

>>9730424
We're nearer to biological solutions, than some memeshit digital rubbish that we can't even quantify a solution for yet.

[Anonymous No.9730431]

>>9730383
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/naked-mole-rats-sort-of-dont-age/

[Anonymous No.9730470]

>>9730413
>Also OP, immortality is impossible from a statistical standpoint, you WOULD die at some point, whether it was from an accident, or murder.
>However, you'd just live vastly longer than nature would've originally enabled.
This actually isn't necessarily true. If you're using a Poisson distribution to calculate the probability of death occurring, if λ approaches 0 as time approaches ∞, it's possible for the probability to converge on a value less than 100%. Here's a crude graph to help explain this.

There's also the more exotic possibility that quantum immortality is real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsjrA87Cno

[Anonymous No.9730484]

>>9730420
Relevant: Predictions for when AI will exceed human performance

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08807.pdf

[Anonymous No.9730499]

>>9730470
>as time approaches ∞
>what is heat death
The only way for you NOT to die, would be to violate causality and either go back in time with a wormhole, or into a different universe.
All of which is pure memeshit.

[Anonymous No.9730502]

>>9730420
More AI statistics

[Anonymous No.9730505]

>>9730499
>All of which is pure memeshit.
How is it pure memeshit?

[Anonymous No.9730512]

>>9730505
Because wormholes probably (and I say that with almost 99.9% certainty) don't exist, and if they do, they're probably not traversable, because the theoretical means by which they are traversable is even more uncertain than their nonexistence.

[Anonymous No.9730519]

>>9730512
>Because wormholes probably (and I say that with almost 99.9% certainty) don't exist
Sauce?

[Anonymous No.9730537]

>>9730519
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Traversable_wormholes
Read that and then tell me the technology needed doesn't sound like pure horsepoo.

[Anonymous No.9730621]

Will we reverse agin/stop aging in 100 years? This is very relevant. I don't wanna die :(

[Anonymous No.9730624]

>>9730621
Go watch Aubrey's TedX talk.

[Anonymous No.9730711]

>>9730413
Why do people always confuse immortality with invulnerability?

This annoys me to no end. Yes you can be immortal and die from a car wreck. Best piece of sci fi that addressed this was Lexx. Kai's people were immortal but could die from sickness or injury. So they become extremely risk averse.

On the flip side you could be invulnerable and die from old age. Oh and I realize invulnerable has different definitions. My definition is that you can sit on the surface of the sun and not die.

[Anonymous No.9730716]

>>9730711
It's only because the definition is somewhat ambiguous, I prefer terms like:
>antisenescence

[Anonymous No.9730969]

>>9730621
>100 years
I want it sooner than that. Life is a piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.9731023]

>>9730621
memento mori

[Anonymous No.9732519]

>>9730383
>tfw im probably younger than everybody in this thread
>tfw I have more chances to live 150+ years than you
>tfw i'm planning to make my own company that researches this (longevity)

[Anonymous No.9732749]

>>9732519
All of us in this thread will probably live for a thousand years. Unless we kill ourselves.