One final comment (OMG, I'm writing tooo much): To have life in whatever quality for 200 years would also be useful now, because within that time, the exponential growth of Science would certainly find solutions to the problems of the organs. ;) as you may expect, it is also based on Aubrey's view of immortality.
Curiously I agree by now with Michael about the "clone" example with the downloaded "brain". Actually, we must admit, it points to the idea of "soul". Actually, I think that a machine that mimcs 100% my way of thinking is not me, and supporting this is the example that Roger Penrose gave us as the "Chinese Room". It looks as if there's something more than the "mechanics" of thinking involved in what "self consciousness" really is.
BTW, dear Sócrates, again following Aubrey's ideas: we are NOT genetically programmed to die. Aging is just another sickness. I mention this because you said "yes, we are wired to die". But that is not true. Our genes are our friends, Aubrey says that in his book, in this war against the most devastating sickness we suffer: aging.
Maybe Michael is not aware about the idea for Immortality of Dr. Aubrey De Grey, in which he actually takes into account the huge complexity of human biochemistry, but precisely he has ideas of avoiding it, which he calls the causes of the physical damage, and deal just with the damage. --- I hope Michael missed that point. ;)
shermer's logic only makes sense if you assume that we keep doing research in the way we've been doing it in the past. we don't even do research TODAY they way we did it in the past, and in the near future, information processing will be even more advanced. things that are impossible gradually become easy. his appeal to "difficulty" is lazy.
Shermer is right. The singularity is a ridiculous concept, very obviously a dream fantasy. The very attraction of the idea is the reason one should be skeptical. Who doesn't want to live forever? Too bad reality won't cooperate. The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe; we are hundreds of years from understanding it, let alone replicating it or preserving it permanently.
The breakthrough needs to be in neuron connections, which has thus far eluded medical science. Keeping a brain alive without a body isn't as difficult as it sounds as long as you can continue oxygenated blood flow (which has been possible for quite awhile), but in those instance the "body transplant' patients are paralyzed below the neck (which, besides being a horrible existence, creates tons of other health problems).
Then you have the problem of failures in the brain, which are common.
Shermer's twin example is fallacious; a similar argument can be made about people who are brain-dead, and then revived: is the consciousness that ``reboots'' in the newly-alive brain matter the same person as the one who ``died''? For that matter, are we the same person we were yesterday -- when you sleep, your mind goes unconscious, and in a sense, you die and are reborn the next morning. This is one of the little myths we all live with each day of our lives.. the myth of continuity of self.
One final comment (OMG, I'm writing tooo much): To have life in whatever quality for 200 years would also be useful now, because within that time, the exponential growth of Science would certainly find solutions to the problems of the organs. ;) as you may expect, it is also based on Aubrey's view of immortality.
ivanosito 1 month ago
Curiously I agree by now with Michael about the "clone" example with the downloaded "brain". Actually, we must admit, it points to the idea of "soul". Actually, I think that a machine that mimcs 100% my way of thinking is not me, and supporting this is the example that Roger Penrose gave us as the "Chinese Room". It looks as if there's something more than the "mechanics" of thinking involved in what "self consciousness" really is.
ivanosito 1 month ago
BTW, dear Sócrates, again following Aubrey's ideas: we are NOT genetically programmed to die. Aging is just another sickness. I mention this because you said "yes, we are wired to die". But that is not true. Our genes are our friends, Aubrey says that in his book, in this war against the most devastating sickness we suffer: aging.
God!, these videos are excellent!!!
ivanosito 1 month ago
Maybe Michael is not aware about the idea for Immortality of Dr. Aubrey De Grey, in which he actually takes into account the huge complexity of human biochemistry, but precisely he has ideas of avoiding it, which he calls the causes of the physical damage, and deal just with the damage. --- I hope Michael missed that point. ;)
ivanosito 1 month ago
shermer's logic only makes sense if you assume that we keep doing research in the way we've been doing it in the past. we don't even do research TODAY they way we did it in the past, and in the near future, information processing will be even more advanced. things that are impossible gradually become easy. his appeal to "difficulty" is lazy.
moridinamael 1 month ago
Shermer is right. The singularity is a ridiculous concept, very obviously a dream fantasy. The very attraction of the idea is the reason one should be skeptical. Who doesn't want to live forever? Too bad reality won't cooperate. The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe; we are hundreds of years from understanding it, let alone replicating it or preserving it permanently.
Deagol1000 1 month ago
The breakthrough needs to be in neuron connections, which has thus far eluded medical science. Keeping a brain alive without a body isn't as difficult as it sounds as long as you can continue oxygenated blood flow (which has been possible for quite awhile), but in those instance the "body transplant' patients are paralyzed below the neck (which, besides being a horrible existence, creates tons of other health problems).
Then you have the problem of failures in the brain, which are common.
antybu86 1 month ago
Shermer's twin example is fallacious; a similar argument can be made about people who are brain-dead, and then revived: is the consciousness that ``reboots'' in the newly-alive brain matter the same person as the one who ``died''? For that matter, are we the same person we were yesterday -- when you sleep, your mind goes unconscious, and in a sense, you die and are reborn the next morning. This is one of the little myths we all live with each day of our lives.. the myth of continuity of self.
OneasAsum 1 month ago 2