First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Do you believe we'll ever stop death?
Posted 1/29/16
Being dead seems nice
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

aListers wrote:

We can probably stop death by old age but invincibility will probably never happen. Either you or sombody else is going to do somthing stupid some day and you're going to be killed by it.

I personally plan to live till I'm 1000. Hopefully I'll see the turn of the new millenium.

Neural uploading with routine back-ups.

Data is stored on two or more distributed networks.

7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

aListers wrote:

We can probably stop death by old age but invincibility will probably never happen. Either you or sombody else is going to do somthing stupid some day and you're going to be killed by it.

I personally plan to live till I'm 1000. Hopefully I'll see the turn of the new millenium.

Neural uploading, with routine back ups

Data is stored on two or more distributed networks.

13496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


aListers wrote:

We can probably stop death by old age but invincibility will probably never happen. Either you or sombody else is going to do somthing stupid some day and you're going to be killed by it.

I personally plan to live till I'm 1000. Hopefully I'll see the turn of the new millenium.

Neural uploading, with routine back ups

Data is stored on two or more distributed networks.



At that point, you've lost your biological body. You're already arguably dead. Unless you manage to split your brain up, preserve it in working condition and then build the rest of a brain in order to download the information onto it then you're dead as soon as your body perishes. Nobody would do that brain splitting method either as it'd be inefficient.
6746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/16
no, it's not possible.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

aListers wrote:

At that point, you've lost your biological body. You're already arguably dead. Unless you manage to split your brain up, preserve it in working condition and then build the rest of a brain in order to download the information onto it then you're dead as soon as your body perishes. Nobody would do that brain splitting method either as it'd be inefficient.

Why would I feel constrained to defining life as only existing in a biological body when I've already listed Simulations as one possible form of immortality?

Aside from Simulations, I believe science will eventually allow not only for the uploading of consciousness, but the ability to download copies of that consciousness back into biological bodies of our own design.

I used the plural intentionally. Once consciousness can be stored as data, it becomes possible to create multiple versions of yourself, both within Simulations and occupying physical bodies. Each version becomes a distinct individual at the point of separation, vastly increasing the odds of some version of you surviving.

Versioning becomes incredibly important when discussing galactic colonization. A copy of the individuals consciousness is sent, not the individual. A few thousand years of transit time though interstellar space become trivial as the new bodies are not grown until the destination is reached and found to be / made hospitable.

7263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Online
Posted 1/29/16
Death shouldn't be something you fear or want to stop. You may feel like it is the source of sadness or an inconvenience, but that's ultimately up to you to feel that way, it's not something you can conquer, so it's better to have confidence in it.
13496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


aListers wrote:

At that point, you've lost your biological body. You're already arguably dead. Unless you manage to split your brain up, preserve it in working condition and then build the rest of a brain in order to download the information onto it then you're dead as soon as your body perishes. Nobody would do that brain splitting method either as it'd be inefficient.

Why would I feel constrained to defining life as only existing in a biological body when I've already listed Simulations as one possible form of immortality?

Aside from Simulations, I believe science will eventually allow not only for the uploading of consciousness, but the ability to download copies of that consciousness back into biological bodies of our own design.

I used the plural intentionally. Once consciousness can be stored as data, it becomes possible to create multiple versions of yourself, both within Simulations and occupying physical bodies. Each version becomes a distinct individual at the point of separation, vastly increasing the odds of some version of you surviving.

Versioning becomes incredibly important when discussing galactic colonization. A copy of the individuals consciousness is sent, not the individual. A few thousand years of transit time though interstellar space become trivial as the new bodies are not grown until the destination is reached and found to be / made hospitable.



While you have a point, my point was only that it was arguable. I personally would consider myself dead if there was no longer any part of my original body, no matter how small, that was alive and connected to somthing that could be called me. If a teleporter was invented and it simply recreated an exact copy of you in another place while removing the original then I would also consider myself dead - simply with a new me being created.

Essentially, we disagree on what immortality is - and that changes the question considerably. I believe that immortality can be done without killing the original copy - however invincibility can't be. You believe that these ways would bring immortality and invincibility but I don't believe that it's either. It all depends on how you define immortal. If you leave a lasting legacy does that make you immortal? Recreating yourself is simply extending the legacy that is you in my opinion - not extending your life.

I'm not going to argue that these won't be good or essential in the future - I'm just saying that it isn't immortality to me. If this is what you seek then go ahead but I would consider that closer to being written down in an unforgotten tale than living for all eternity.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16
We can agree that it is a philosophical difference and leave it at that.
Cuban 
627 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Miami, FL
Offline
Posted 1/30/16
Cloning is an option. But the actual definition of death is just inevitable. And to be honest, I would not want to live forever...
422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Starlight Academy
Offline
Posted 1/31/16
Honestly, I wouldn't want to live that long only to continue to suffer with the never-ending problems with society that is happening now and in the future. Plus, overpopulation and having our big sun blow up is also not my idea of a fun death...
20218 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Online
Posted 1/31/16
A quote in heard in a book it's sad but true

if you don't want to die than you should never of been born
Posted 2/1/16
Nope.
3510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/1/16
Maybe we'll prolong our time until we die
But we can't stop something inevitable
4724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / CT, USA
Offline
Posted 2/1/16
We may find ways to extend our lives but we will never stop death. It's like they say the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.