58 replies to this topic

[rephore]

Kurzweil thinks the singularity will happen sometime in 2050, and that it will provide immortality.

Maxlife.org founder, David Kekich thinks that Nanotechnology will provide immortality or at least extend our lives a hundred extra years by 2019.

As immortalists, we are gods roaming this earth.  As gods, we control our destiny.  We can predict the future, and control it.  Hence we control life.

So do you consider yourself immortal now?  Or do you consider yourself immortal only when the inevitable death conquering technology arrives?

[lunarsolarpower]

rephore, on May 10 2010, 04:49 AM, said:

Kurzweil thinks the singularity will happen sometime in 2050, and that it will provide immortality.

Maxlife.org founder, David Kekich thinks that Nanotechnology will provide immortality or at least extend our lives a hundred extra years by 2019.

As immortalists, we are gods roaming this earth.  As gods, we control our destiny.  We can predict the future, and control it.  Hence we control life.

So do you consider yourself immortal now?  Or do you consider yourself immortal only when the inevitable death conquering technology arrives?

Not to rain on your parade but there's a huge difference between being an immortalist and being a full on immortal. To be able to credibly claim to be an immortal one would likely need to have full control of their own universe. An immortalist is one who strives to push back the odds of death to a greater and greater degree over time as new methods open up to be able to do so.

Perhaps what you were trying to get at with this poll is "do you think you will survive to live for an expansive period of time during which you will continue to be availed of improved life extension methods?"  At least that's what I think you were going for. Personally I answer this question with a percent likelihood rather than a simple yes or no.

[Alex Libman]

Immortality is a very noble idealistic concept, not an attainable one.  Even immortal beings in fairy tales are sometimes romantically shown to lose their immortality (like in exchange for "true love", another idealistic concept), the mere possibility of which means they weren't immortal to begin with.  According to some cosmological models immortality isn't even theoretically possible even if all other causes of death can be avoided.  The cause of life extension can only be a matter of timelines and probabilities, not absolutes.

Another thing to consider is the definition of mortality from the point of view of "identity awareness".  Human conscientiousness is a funny thing - we might have some degree of awareness and free will inside the complex electrochemical reactions playing out in the meat inside our skulls, but we're not really alive, we just think we are.  We have instincts given to us by evolution to avoid predators, as well as higher brain functions that allow us to remember that we are alive and that we want to live, but all of this is far from perfect, and it certainly wasn't designed to scale to millions of years of sentience.

Imagine that I introduced you to your clone, a copy so perfect that neither of you knows who is the original.  You still experience life through just one of your copies, and the existence of the other, while you may find him/her more endearing than a random person on the street, would not really remove your own objections to death, even if it was perfectly instant and painless.

One thing that always bothered me when watching Star Trek is the idea that whenever they use the transporter they are actually killed, and another copy of them is created in a different place.  (Just don't start wondering if every time you fall asleep you actually die and another copy of you wakes up the next day - that's a sure path to insanity.)  What we'll probably end up with in our efforts for long-range life extension is probably something similar: you will continue to exist, but will it be really you or just your copy?

[Kolos]

lunarsolarpower, on May 11 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

Perhaps what you were trying to get at with this poll is "do you think you will survive to live for an expansive period of time during which you will continue to be availed of improved life extension methods?"  At least that's what I think you were going for. Personally I answer this question with a percent likelihood rather than a simple yes or no.

Well perhaps what he wanted to say that in the future we become gods and for god time, cause and effect etc. doesn't matter, he can move in either direction or even exist in all timelines at once so in a way some of us (those lucky to live long enough) are immortal gods already. Have you tried praying to yourself? Give it a try!

[chris w]

Yes, I am immortal right now, and I think I'm going to give it a test run tonight in bad neighbourhoods...

Guys, 30 % for "not in our lifetime" ? You're making me shed a tear.

Edited by chris w, 11 May 2010 - 01:14 PM.

[chris w]

Alex Libman, on May 11 2010, 06:18 AM, said:

Just don't start wondering if every time you fall asleep you actually die and another copy of you wakes up the next day - that's a sure path to insanity.

I don't know, I actually ponder this quite often and am still doing ok ( but then again you never feel yourself that you're becomming insane, right ?)

Quote

What we'll probably end up with in our efforts for long-range life extension is probably something similar: you will continue to exist, but will it be really you or just your copy?

I guess what keeps us in the frame of continued selfhood is a mutual feedback of self assurance and the way others treat us - if you and the guy who fell asleep yesterday share the same memories and moreover you remember that the yesterday's Alex shared memories with the day before yesteday's Alex, that's already one thing, a clone wouldn't have that, he would have memories of being brought up in an evil scientist's laboratory on a tropical island ( of course in case of possible mind uploading of the clone it becomes tricky - he could have all your memories as well, copied from your brain when you were sleeping or something ).

And when you meet people, and someone says to you " Hey, Libman, you still owe me that five bucks", then together with the first thing, and given your brain is maintaining all the chemical balance and everything, there's no way of escaping being yourself. The episode of Northern Exposure comes to mind, where they put Chris Stevens to trial and his line of defense was that he no longer is the same person who commited the fellony years ago, I don't remember right now but I guess in the end he looses the case with this. So perhaps the socially derived criterion may be even more important ( and I know that hurts an Objectivist   ).

Maybe if we were to live for thousends or millions of years ( and without doing anything to the brain along the road ) it would just switch to some kind of "cooling off" mode, producing states of altered consientiousness that would depersonalize you regularly, as being yourself could become sort of a prison cell, so kind of making you a little insane from time to time, in order for you to not become insane full time.

Edited by chris w, 11 May 2010 - 03:29 PM.

[Kolos]

I wonder if we can live or exist with memories from milions of years, would it be even possible to store this much data and to use them like we use our memories today? With counsiosness big like a gas giant we could literary get lost in our own thoughts.

[ken_akiba]

I'm sorry but I would vote yes to: Immortality will not be available in 21st century, probably not even in 22nd century. My personal opinion is that immortality will be achieved only in intense collaboration between numerous disciplines of science including Biochemistry, Nanotechnology and Physics. And imo none of them are nowhere near to maturity. Will not be achievable w/o a major revolutionary new collaborating approach by these disciplines not to mention each discipline needs major revolutionary new approach on their own.

Edited by ken_akiba, 11 May 2010 - 05:19 PM.

[forever freedom]

ken_akiba, on May 11 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I would vote yes to: Immortality will not be available in 21st century, probably not even in 22nd century. My personal opinion is that immortality will be achieved only in intense collaboration between numerous disciplines of science including Biochemistry, Nanotechnology and Physics. And imo none of them are nowhere near to maturity. Will not be achievable w/o a major revolutionary new collaborating approach by these disciplines not to mention each discipline needs major revolutionary new approach on their own.

I agree that with current rate of progress, beating aging seems far off. But have you read Ray Kurzweil, and about the Singularity? What do you think of that?

[chris w]

ken_akiba, on May 11 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I would vote yes to: Immortality will not be available in 21st century, probably not even in 22nd century. My personal opinion is that immortality will be achieved only in intense collaboration between numerous disciplines of science including Biochemistry, Nanotechnology and Physics. And imo none of them are nowhere near to maturity. Will not be achievable w/o a major revolutionary new collaborating approach by these disciplines not to mention each discipline needs major revolutionary new approach on their own.

Ok, I'm affraid I have to report you to Mr. Kurzweil's office for the act of not believing The Law of Accelarating Returns  . But seriously, isn't the merging of genetics and computer science happening now one of the revolutionary new approaches that we need ? I can easily imagine big leaps made in twenty years in this field, what do you think ?

Edited by chris w, 11 May 2010 - 06:08 PM.

[VidX]

We are in such a situation that " Immortality will not be available in our lifetime" is NOT AN OPTION. I'm sorry, but why do you participate here at all if you chose that answer? Big goals are NOT achieved with that mindset. I don't care, maybe we will all be dead by the time indefinite life extension arrives, but to give up before that, idk, that's not how I was raised to go for the goal one set for himself.
If I go for a goal - I have all or nothing mentality, literally, I put my 150% efforts, and most important - all the time, no matter what obstacles or "bad times" arise, I encourage myself with the detailed vision of my goal to keep going. That may sound like a line from a self-help book, but it actually is what I found to be working very well in any field you chose to succeed.

Edited by VidX, 12 May 2010 - 09:46 AM.

[Kolos]

Well if you're not a scientist working on projects related to nanotechnology, bioengineering etc. theres no much you can do no matter how hard you try.

[CerebralCortex]

ken_akiba, on May 11 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I would vote yes to: Immortality will not be available in 21st century, probably not even in 22nd century. My personal opinion is that immortality will be achieved only in intense collaboration between numerous disciplines of science including Biochemistry, Nanotechnology and Physics. And imo none of them are nowhere near to maturity. Will not be achievable w/o a major revolutionary new collaborating approach by these disciplines not to mention each discipline needs major revolutionary new approach on their own.

How about the obviation of aging?

[VidX]

Kolos, on May 12 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Well if you're not a scientist working on projects related to nanotechnology, bioengineering etc. theres no much you can do no matter how hard you try.

Oh yes you can. For ex. participating in one of the "teams" here (I'm preparing a letter to send "VIP outreach" in my language) OR being very good at whatever you do, thus acquiring a solid income, thus - being able to support some of the studies that are starving for funding at the moment, or at the very least - educating general public to help gain a "momentum" and overall awareness.
There's much we all can do, the question is - whether we'll give up and not even try (because oh well.. "It's impossible in our lifetime anyway.." like someone really has a magic ball) or we'll do anything that's in our abilities.

Edited by VidX, 12 May 2010 - 02:13 PM.

[chris w]

VidX, on May 12 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

We are in such a situation that " Immortality will not be available in our lifetime" is NOT AN OPTION. I'm sorry, but why do you participate here at all if you chose that answer? Big goals are NOT achieved with that mindset. I don't care, maybe we will all be dead by the time indefinite life extension arrives, but to give up before that, idk, that's not how I was raised to go for the goal one set for himself.
If I go for a goal - I have all or nothing mentality, literally, I put my 150% efforts, and most important - all the time, no matter what obstacles or "bad times" arise, I encourage myself with the detailed vision of my goal to keep going. That may sound like a line from a self-help book, but it actually is what I found to be working very well in any field you chose to succeed.

I agree partially, as much as I admire people that go 150 % when the goals are set, it's a bit different story here. If Kurzweil is wrong on the exponentiality and all, and De Grey on his engineering approach, then just wanting it very very hard won't give us anything. But sure, there is a strong element of self fulfilling prophecy with this, if no one believes we can do it, then in fact we never will.

For now I try to get my friends informed about this stuff, and friends' friends as well by Facebook, making myself look like a wacko sometimes, but I don't give a damn, this is too important, even those who will think that I went a bit nuts, are a win, because at least I got them thinking about those things that they have usually never heard before and the seed is sown. Besides that I'm doing things to stay healthy, last year I kicked cigarettes ( and being a chain smoker since highscholl - that was like the battle of Stalingrad to me ) and go to gym regurarly ( again, if a couple of years before someone told me that I will be doing that, I would just laugh my ass off ), and I guess that's the best a life extension "soldier" can do, and hope that the higher ranks - the science guys, do theirs as well. So I won't critisize anybody here - both of you, VidX and Ben Akiba have a point, I just hope VidX will turn out to have "the righter" one.

Edited by chris w, 12 May 2010 - 03:59 PM.

[Kolos]

Quote

If Kurzweil is wrong on the exponentiality and all, and De Grey on his engineering approach, then just wanting it very very hard won't give us anything. But sure, there is a strong element of self fulfilling prophecy with this, if no one believes we can do it, then in fact we never will.

Don't worry about Singularity too much, we don't really need exponential growth or friendly AI for radical life extension.

[Teixeira]

Alex Libman, on May 11 2010, 07:18 AM, said:

Immortality is a very noble idealistic concept, not an attainable one.

How can you be so sure about that? Do you have all the informations you would need to make such a statement? I´m sory but I don´t believe it!

Edited by Teixeira, 13 May 2010 - 12:44 AM.

[rephore]

Thank you for sharing all your thoughts and opinion guys.  Even from "non" immortalists, it's nice to see different view points.

I first learned about Immortality Institute a few years ago when I was 16.  It was such an interesting concept that I tried to gather as much information about the subject.  I found sites like Lef.org, maxlife.org, kurzweilai.net to be quite interesting.  I for one believe that the technology to conquer aging will soon be here (2020) or sooner, and even accidental death should be conquered (cryonics) just a little after that.

In my personal experience of trying to spread immortalism, people generally think I'm a nut job.  So I just try to set an example and share the concept of Life Extension instead.  I agree with the saying that people who do not train, exercise, or work out are committing slow suicide.  I try to do my part.  I promote the free ebooks on life extension.  I train and enjoy it.  I've gotten my two cousins who I live with to start training as well.  I've yet to get my third cousin to train though.  I've also pretty much gotten every girl I dated to start training.  In my most recent relationship, she even became an immortalist.

I also believe that diet is key to living long enough for biological immortality to arrive.  I want to have as many loved ones as possible live long enough for this.  So as much as possible, I try to influence every one around me.  Classmates, friends, relatives... I usually am the one to decide where to eat when going out.  At home, I like to make protein shakes and cocktails and healthy drinks, just so that they can drink it instead of opting for soda.  But how do I get people to stop drinking soda?  

Lastly, I believe every little bit counts.  So I'm working on a site in my spare time to help spread the immortality "meme."

[chris w]

Kolos, on May 12 2010, 08:41 PM, said:

Quote

If Kurzweil is wrong on the exponentiality and all, and De Grey on his engineering approach, then just wanting it very very hard won't give us anything. But sure, there is a strong element of self fulfilling prophecy with this, if no one believes we can do it, then in fact we never will.

Don't worry about Singularity too much, we don't really need exponential growth or friendly AI for radical life extension.

I know, but I guess if we built strong AI, then learning all the various gene and protein interactions would be a piece of cake then, so I still hope Kurzweil is right about the twenty year distance concerning this.

Edited by chris w, 13 May 2010 - 01:04 PM.

[forever freedom]

Kolos, on May 12 2010, 08:41 PM, said:

Quote

If Kurzweil is wrong on the exponentiality and all, and De Grey on his engineering approach, then just wanting it very very hard won't give us anything. But sure, there is a strong element of self fulfilling prophecy with this, if no one believes we can do it, then in fact we never will.

Don't worry about Singularity too much, we don't really need exponential growth or friendly AI for radical life extension.

I think we do, at least if we want radical life extension in our lifetimes. What makes you so optimistic?

[Alex Libman]

chris w, on May 11 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

And when you meet people, and someone says to you " Hey, Libman, you still owe me that five bucks", then together with the first thing, and given your brain is maintaining all the chemical balance and everything, there's no way of escaping being yourself. The episode of Northern Exposure comes to mind, where they put Chris Stevens to trial and his line of defense was that he no longer is the same person who commited the fellony years ago, I don't remember right now but I guess in the end he looses the case with this. So perhaps the socially derived criterion may be even more important ( and I know that hurts an Objectivist   ).

So if your identical clone showed up tomorrow and the rest of society recognized him as you, then you wouldn't object to your own death just because of that clone?

That is a form of mortality we might not be able to escape, as our minds and bodies gradually experience the Trigger's Broom paradox - you will survive as a copy of a copy of a copy...  You may be immortal in the perception of others, and perhaps in the memories of your new copies (in as far as memory can be authenticated, which isn't by much), but your old copies will die.  C'est la vive.

I don't want this pessimist perspective to discourage anybody from their interest in longevity / immortality, however, because it ought to at least be possible to extend life experience as we know it today far into the second and possibly even third centennial without the need for any major brain modifications, and a lot of new ideas regarding preserving "stream of consciousness" identity will probably be developed in the meantime.

BTW, since you brought up political philosophy first, I'd like to add that this is also an excellent argument for inheritance rights / against the death tax (not the worst of all taxes, but still theft).  People inheriting wealth might seem like an exception to the capitalist argument that in a free society wealth reflects merit, but the inherited wealth reflects the merit of the person who created it, and it is his Right to spend it however he sees fit, including giving it to somebody else, which might have been his incentive to creating this wealth in the first place.  Keeping your own property as parts of your mind and body are gradually regenerated is not much different - if Bill Gates lives to be 10,000 he probably won't be the same person who've founded Microsoft, but his Right to his bank account will remain legitimate.

[ken_akiba]

To Mr. 4ever_freedom, I like concept of gravitational singularity but afraid not Kurzweil's singularity.
In a nutshell, I reject the idea that computing power is (and will be) a major contributor for advancement of science. I believe instead, that it is (and will always be) ability to create 'novel orderly relationships' i.e. creativity that advances science.

Example: Einstein trashed conventional 'orderly relationship' between object and gravity and came up with a novel orderly relationship between space and gravity i.e. he argued that it is not the object 'pulled' by gravity but rather the space around the object 'bent' by the gravity.

In other words, it is paradigm-shattering, not raw computing power, that advances science.
As to wether computer will ever glimpse this sophisticated level of paradigm-shattering inspiration, I vote no, at least not in the foreseeable future. And should it ever happen, again what the field of computer science needs is a major paradigm shattering, not a faster computer.

Now this may sound unreasonable, but I actually believe it is our emotion that grants this unique ability to us humans, however elaborating more on this may deprive me of my potential future income as I am actually plannig to write a book on this.

:-)

Edited by ken_akiba, 13 May 2010 - 06:17 PM.

[ken_akiba]

Correction.
but rather the space around the object 'bent' by the gravity (X)
but rather the space around the object is 'bent' by the mass (O)

Edited by ken_akiba, 13 May 2010 - 09:05 PM.

[Kolos]

chris w, on May 13 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

I know, but I guess if we built strong AI, then learning all the various gene and protein interactions would be a piece of cake then, so I still hope Kurzweil is right about the twenty year distance concerning this.

I'm quite sceptical about AI, it should be possible but if we wan't it to help us it should be quite similar to human so we can understand it to some extent and trust, because it's quite foolish to think that we can create a slave that would be more powerful than it's master and still remained loyal. We could use some chains to bind him but eventually he will know more about them than their creators did. But if we basically need human with processing abilities of a supercomputer why bother with AI? Transhumans is all we need, at least in things dealing with human world, society etc.

forever freedom, on May 13 2010, 03:32 PM, said:

I think we do, at least if we want radical life extension in our lifetimes. What makes you so optimistic?

I don't think it's optimism we just don't need some of the things people like Kurzweil are talking about to live much longer.

[Ghostrider]

Quote

One thing that always bothered me when watching Star Trek is the  idea that whenever they use the transporter they are actually killed, and another  copy of them is created in a different place.  (Just don't start  wondering if every time you fall asleep you actually die and another  copy of you wakes up the next day - that's a sure path to insanity.)   What we'll probably end up with in our efforts for long-range life  extension is probably something similar: you will continue to exist, but  will it be really you or just your copy?

This idea was discussed before on here.  It was also explored in a 2006 movie about a magician who performs amazing acts by killing himself every night.  Weird movie, don't recommend it.  Anyway, consciousness itself if transient.  The "you right now" is conscious only for an instant, then you change and it's like a different person...similar, but still different.  The you 3 years from now will be similar to the you now (probably), but definitely not the same.  If I consume a lot of alcohol, I'd say my consciousness changes.  Everything in flux.

[hypnotoad]

My wild guess is that effective "immortality" will be available by the end of this century through a combination of ultra-advanced genetic engineering, organ printing,stem cells, cybernetics, and nano-tech.   Now whether or not anyone alive today will be around to benefit from that is much more questionable.  I don't see the whole rejuvenation/regeneration De Grey route being viable, but a kid born in 2050 would likely be around to take full advantage of it by the turn of the century.

I think the more you get away from biology the better because engineering and computer science are things that inherently improve as time goes by, unlike biological systems. I think a person that is 90% synthetic at the end of the 21st century would be around until mind-uploading, full brain/memory cloning etc can be perfected. Basically like Kurzweil wrote you have a head, throat, and sex organs and everything is mostly synthetic and far more powerful, agile, and resistant than any organic system.

The whole mind uploading stuff feels like a 22nd century paradigm shift rather than a 21st century one.  But by then society will be so radically alien to us that humanity wont be anything like we think of it today.  To me the the super-mechs from the end of AI is plausible sometime in the 22nd century.

I'm 42 now, and in good health with great family genetics and I'm making a concerted effort to eat right, supplement correctly, and exercise and stay positive and with a sense of purpose.. that's all we can do for now.  Hopefully I can avoid those impossible to predict/avoid random accidents. That's my biggest fear actually - car wrecks, slipping in the tub and cracking my head open, earthquakes, etc.  Assuming I can hold out into age 90 (fingers crossed) - that would give me until 2060 or so to see what's developing.  I'm hoping like hell that de Grey's  "longevity escape velocity" has happened by then!

Edited by hypnotoad, 11 June 2010 - 04:52 AM.

[chrwe]

Timelines are just a guessing game.

I have about the same time left as you do (2060 likely, 2070 if I am VERY lucky), but I try not to worry overmuch because besides working for "the cause", there isnt a lot one can do and also, don`t forget you dont have to achieve "immortality" all at once, it would be quite ok if we get 30 more years at first...then another 30...this is an idea of Kurtzweil`s which I actually think makes sense

[Luna]

chrwe, on Jun 12 2010, 07:42 AM, said:

Timelines are just a guessing game.

I have about the same time left as you do (2060 likely, 2070 if I am VERY lucky), but I try not to worry overmuch because besides working for "the cause", there isnt a lot one can do and also, don`t forget you dont have to achieve "immortality" all at once, it would be quite ok if we get 30 more years at first...then another 30...this is an idea of Kurtzweil`s which I actually think makes sense

at 2060 I will be 71 :/

[chrwe]

Lucky you, I will be 87

[Berserker]

I will be 69...lucky the people who will be born by then...