68 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

[/quote]
With sufficient redundancy a mind can expect to last until either proton decay or expansion acceleration puts an end to its existence. That gives plenty of time to find a way to overcome such fate, if there is such way. I'm not sure proton decay is proven, if proton decay does not take place and the acceleration of expansion stops, then for all practical purposes the organism is immortal it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter... of course it would provably have to send a beserker von neuman probe like wave in all direction cleansing all possible threats and competing resource consumers.
[/quote]

So are you hanging your hopes on this? Hope you have enough time to escape entropy of the entire universe and destruction from the black holes. Watch out, lots of other things can get you. Wonder what Dawkins would think of this?

[shadowhawk]

In the Bible it is reported people lived far longer than we do now. Kind of Paleo before there was a Paleo diet! If we only knew what the cave people were eating.

The Bible also talks about Joshua making the sun stand still by keeping his hands up for couple of hours, but I'm probably just shooting in the dark right now.

And yes, we roughly do know what the cave men were eating, but I seriously doubt going on paleo diet alone will make us live to 900, but it's always worth to give it a shot if you want.

Actually it was almost a day that the Sun stood still. Joshua 10. No one knows what happened (except perhaps you) but the story is told, along with many others, to show God takes care of His people. Jews, Christians and Muslims have all taken this message from it. But what really happened? Aside from you, I don’t know and no explanation I have seen, answers all the questions. This, along with thousands of other mysteries, both religious and otherwise awaits a full explanation for me.

You on the other hand know the answer and even know what cave men were eating! I belong to a number of Paleo bloggs and I suggest you may want to let them know what a Paleo diet is. They sure are confused and fighting with each other all the time. They even brag no one knows. At best it appears to me to be a WAG. (Wild Ass Guess) Just like all atheists, they are not the same. One persons Paleo diet is anothers MacDonalds. Where is Dawkins when we need him?

[Cameron]

So are you hanging your hopes on this? Hope you have enough time to escape entropy of the entire universe and destruction from the black holes. Watch out, lots of other things can get you. Wonder what Dawkins would think of this?

If the acceleration of expansion stops, and protons do not decay, increases in entropy are meaningless... there is enough resources to generate energy practically indefinitely, and with energy you can preserve structure. As for other things that can kill one, as a mind increases in capability and resources the things that can kill it go down and down. In the end the point is not to simply last a long time in the present state but to transcend the present state. It just so happens that growing and advancing constantly comes with the possible benefits of ever greater longevity.

Better to die having attained the state of Socrates than that of a pig. The human state is very likely not the highest state of existence, the same statement that applies to pigs applies to humans as compared to higher states.

Edited by Cameron, 29 April 2010 - 10:23 PM.

[RighteousReason]

With sufficient redundancy a mind can expect to last until either proton decay or expansion acceleration puts an end to its existence. That gives plenty of time to find a way to overcome such fate, if there is such way. I'm not sure proton decay is proven, if proton decay does not take place and the acceleration of expansion stops, then for all practical purposes the organism is immortal it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter... of course it would provably have to send a beserker von neuman probe like wave in all direction cleansing all possible threats and competing resource consumers.

That's one of the more interesting things I've read in a while ...

[eternaltraveler]

it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter...

for a very long time that could work. However eventually all matter will be used within any given hubble volume.

[shadowhawk]

it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter...

for a very long time that could work. However eventually all matter will be used within any given hubble volume.

That is my own take as well. Just how long can you go against the downward flow? Evolution does, but how long? Not eternity. Our own solar system is a good example as we suffer a heat death in a relative short time.

[Cameron]

it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter...

for a very long time that could work. However eventually all matter will be used within any given hubble volume.

it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter...

for a very long time that could work. However eventually all matter will be used within any given hubble volume.

That is my own take as well. Just how long can you go against the downward flow? Evolution does, but how long? Not eternity. Our own solar system is a good example as we suffer a heat death in a relative short time.

Again all that time should allow a more advanced understanding of the nature of this reality by a super-intelligence, if there is a solution it will very likely find it. We can only speculate for now about conceivable solutions, but there is insufficient knowledge to note and fully rule them out at the moment. Right now people like Michio kaku have suggested it may be possible to open a doorway to another universe, thus allowing for a way to continue. Things like time travel if possible, though unlikely, could bestow unlimited matter energy. Many other speculative alternatives have been presented.

[eternaltraveler]

In any case not something we need to worry about at the moment. We need to worry about the next few decades, not the next few trillion trillion years.

[Luna]

So are you hanging your hopes on this? Hope you have enough time to escape entropy of the entire universe and destruction from the black holes. Watch out, lots of other things can get you. Wonder what Dawkins would think of this?

If the acceleration of expansion stops, and protons do not decay, increases in entropy are meaningless... there is enough resources to generate energy practically indefinitely, and with energy you can preserve structure. As for other things that can kill one, as a mind increases in capability and resources the things that can kill it go down and down. In the end the point is not to simply last a long time in the present state but to transcend the present state. It just so happens that growing and advancing constantly comes with the possible benefits of ever greater longevity.

Better to die having attained the state of Socrates than that of a pig. The human state is very likely not the highest state of existence, the same statement that applies to pigs applies to humans as compared to higher states.

If acceleration of expansion stops, you might want to bother yourself with the big crunch! blurgh! problems everywhere! I hate physics and our universe :/ hopefully it's all wrong and we just don't know it yet, otherwise IT SUCKS!

Lacks of energy, entropy, crunch, rip, cold, freeze, heat.. so many options of how to die, can't we just live?

I do think there has to be a way to get over entropy, cause it's not energy "lost" it's energy which flows away as heat. There has to be away to gather it without wasting more energy or to not let it escape when using it somehow.. Like some super efficient dome which absorbs heat and radiation and makes it flow back into a battery..

Actual immortality depends on the universe being immortal too and that is still unknown! see, that's the problem, it's not just one puzzle that we know that has a solution to solve and you become immortal (by fixing aging), but then more and more puzzles that we don't even know if they can have solutions.

But hey, we still don't know much, hopefully it works out for our best, one way or another

And like eternaltraveler said, one problem at a time. Let's fix aging, then we don't need to worry about immediate death and then we can start fixing the rest of the world/universe.
Not much use to bother ourselves now with things which will just distract us from fixing the immediate problem.

Edited by Luna, 30 April 2010 - 07:48 AM.

[chris w]

In the Bible it is reported people lived far longer than we do now. Kind of Paleo before there was a Paleo diet! If we only knew what the cave people were eating.

The Bible also talks about Joshua making the sun stand still by keeping his hands up for couple of hours, but I'm probably just shooting in the dark right now.

Actually it was almost a day that the Sun stood still. Joshua 10. No one knows what happened (except perhaps you) but the story is told, along with many others, to show God takes care of His people. Jews, Christians and Muslims have all taken this message from it. But what really happened? Aside from you, I don’t know and no explanation I have seen, answers all the questions.

I can tell you what happened. Nothing. The story is made up, there did not even have to be a Joshua. Tell me, do you believe that the events depicted in Illiad happened ? or the Popol Vuh book of the Mayans ? Can't you see that each religion that there ever was had its own mythical stories that their followers believed to be absolutely true ? What makes the judeochristian Bible an exception ? Sure, you will probably tell me that the Bible is the true word of God, and the discussion becomes pointless.

[shadowhawk]

In the Bible it is reported people lived far longer than we do now. Kind of Paleo before there was a Paleo diet! If we only knew what the cave people were eating.

The Bible also talks about Joshua making the sun stand still by keeping his hands up for couple of hours, but I'm probably just shooting in the dark right now.

Actually it was almost a day that the Sun stood still. Joshua 10. No one knows what happened (except perhaps you) but the story is told, along with many others, to show God takes care of His people. Jews, Christians and Muslims have all taken this message from it. But what really happened? Aside from you, I don't know and no explanation I have seen, answers all the questions.

I can tell you what happened. Nothing. The story is made up, there did not even have to be a Joshua. Tell me, do you believe that the events depicted in Illiad happened ? or the Popol Vuh book of the Mayans ? Can't you see that each religion that there ever was had its own mythical stories that their followers believed to be absolutely true ? What makes the judeochristian Bible an exception ? Sure, you will probably tell me that the Bible is the true word of God, and the discussion becomes pointless.

Hmmm, since you seem, to be doing quite nicely talking to yourself, go ahead. Could you be wrong, not being there and several thousand years from the event?? No! Are your comparisons, linking these various kinds of ancient writings as if they are the same, wrong?? No! Are you wrong telling me what I will say? No! Congratulations, you are right! I have nothing to add to this.

I saw a beautiful sunrise this morning. Opps it’s just like a religous person to think the sun rises. Sure looks that way, are you sure? Dumb Christians!

Some views on the sun standing still for those who might be open.
http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

http://www.bibleands...nstoodstill.htm

http://www.christian...n/edn-c016.html

http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2189

http://www.icr.org/b...oshua/10:12-14/

[RighteousReason]

Again all that time should allow a more advanced understanding of the nature of this reality by a super-intelligence, if there is a solution it will very likely find it.

If it wants to. Beware the Giant Cheesecake Fallacy.

Major premise: A superintelligence could create a mile-high cheesecake.
Minor premise: Someone will create a recursively self-improving AI.
Conclusion: The future will be full of giant cheesecakes.

Power does not imply motive.

http://wiki.lesswron...esecake_fallacy

One often hears, in futurism, a line of reasoning that goes something like this. Someone says: "When technology advances far enough, we’ll be able to build minds far surpassing human intelligence. Now it’s clear, that if you’re baking a cheesecake, how large a cheesecake you can bake depends on your intelligence. A superintelligence could build enormous cheesecakes - cheesecakes the size of cities. And Moore's Law keeps dropping the cost of computing power. By golly, the future will be full of giant cheesecakes!" I call this the Giant Cheesecake Fallacy. It happens whenever the argument leaps directly from capability to actuality, without considering the necessary intermediate of motive.

Here are two examples of reasoning that include a Giant Cheesecake Fallacy:

A sufficiently powerful Artificial Intelligence could overwhelm any human resistance and wipe out humanity. (And the AI would decide to do so.) Therefore we should not build AI.
Or: A sufficiently powerful AI could develop new medical technologies capable of saving millions of human lives. (And the AI would decide to do so.) Therefore we should build AI.
And the natural mistake, once you understand the Giant Cheesecake Fallacy, is to ask: "What will an Artificial Intelligence want?" When trying to talk about Artificial Intelligence, it becomes extremely important to remember that we cannot make any general statement about Artificial Intelligences because the design space is too large. People talk about "AIs" as if all AIs formed a single tribe, an ethnic stereotype. Now, it might make sense to talk about "the human species" as a natural category, because we humans all have essentially the same brain architecture - limbic system, cerebellum, visual cortex, prefrontal cortex, and so on. But the term “Artificial Intelligence” refers to a vastly larger space of possibilities than this. When we talk about “AIs” we are really talking about minds-in-general. Imagine a map of mind design space. In one corner, a tiny little circle contains all humans. And then all the rest of that huge sphere is the space of minds in general.

—Eliezer Yudkowsky, The Human Importance of the Intelligence Explosion, Singularity Summit 2006

Edited by RighteousReason, 30 April 2010 - 09:03 PM.

[Cameron]

If it wants to. Beware the Giant Cheesecake Fallacy.

It is true, that if all odds are overcome, eventually the mind itself might be the greatest threat to its survival. So long as suicide is possible it can wish for and put an end to its existence. But assuming it wants to exist forever at first, if it manages to guarantee favorable conditions forever, it might find a way to make it impossible for it to kill itself in the future should it have a change of mind.

[Luna]

shadowhawk, I think you are really taking everything being said very exaggerated. And now you're just making fun out of chris which isn't nice.
Chris is convinced in the most logical thing which is that those events didn't happen. In truth, we can't know because we weren't there, this is why it is all belief.

But what's up with the sun standing still jokes? Chris isn't as ignorant as you might think. I think you are taking yourself a bit too far and a bit insulting.

It is probably healthier to say "most likely" or "I am convinced" instead of state something as the absolute truth, you are right with that. But I am sure you have the mentality to see that this is his opinion and he is a person just like you, who had no chance to witness whatever is written in that book, therefore he is basing his choices of what happened and what didn't happen on his logic/belief system, just like you do.

[chris w]

shadowhawk, I think you are really taking everything being said very exaggerated. And now you're just making fun out of chris which isn't nice.
Chris is convinced in the most logical thing which is that those events didn't happen. In truth, we can't know because we weren't there, this is why it is all belief.

But what's up with the sun standing still jokes? Chris isn't as ignorant as you might think. I think you are taking yourself a bit too far and a bit insulting.

It is probably healthier to say "most likely" or "I am convinced" instead of state something as the absolute truth, you are right with that. But I am sure you have the mentality to see that this is his opinion and he is a person just like you, who had no chance to witness whatever is written in that book, therefore he is basing his choices of what happened and what didn't happen on his logic/belief system, just like you do.

Thank you Luna

Shadowhawk, of course that I cannot prove to you, that these things did not happen, just like you cannot prove to me they did. But like our Richard Dawkins said in his book - You can't disprove fairies and unicorns, but there is no reason to believe they exist and behave like they did, right ? So if I find absolutely nothing in the physical world that would suggest God's existence ( and I don't mean "miracles" like "beautiful sunrise" or "a baby being born every second" etc ) then I act like there was no God, which I actually on a personal level find quite sad, but just wanting something very very hard doesn't make it happen.

Edited by chris w, 01 May 2010 - 12:08 PM.

[ken_akiba]

If I may slip in my thoughts,

Immortality + No overpopulation = End of evolution
Unless of course, we master DNA tweaking on ourselves (willful evolution) as opposed to natural evolution involving the conventional cycle of death and birth.

This mastery of DNA tweaking is nowehre near in my opinion and obviously we are not evolved enough.
Thus I think it is not yet a good time to achieve immortality.

Having said that though, I'd like to live long (but maybe not forever).

[Cameron]

This mastery of DNA tweaking is nowehre near in my opinion and obviously we are not evolved enough.
Thus I think it is not yet a good time to achieve immortality.

The human mind operates at a maximum of a few 100hz. A computer with current tech operates at a few Ghz. With adequate hardware, even human level AI could in a year experience more than a million years... now imagine a community of human lvl ai scientists going through a million years of experience and communication in a single year. Now lets picture that a theory of general intelligence might allow scaling to beyond human level intelligence.

[Kolos]

Somehow I'm not saddened or scared by the prospect of ending human evolution even though I doubt all people in the world would become immortal in this century or even millenium.

[Alex Libman]

Intergenerational biological evolution is just one step of a much grander process. Evolution will continue forever (or at least until the heat death of the universe, etc), with scientific / market-based economic evolution being the next major phase.

[chris w]

If I may slip in my thoughts,

Immortality + No overpopulation = End of evolution
Unless of course, we master DNA tweaking on ourselves (willful evolution) as opposed to natural evolution involving the conventional cycle of death and birth.

This mastery of DNA tweaking is nowehre near in my opinion and obviously we are not evolved enough.
Thus I think it is not yet a good time to achieve immortality.

Having said that though, I'd like to live long (but maybe not forever).

The moment we achieve singularity, there will be no real need for evolution, because evolution would turn out to have been just the vessel to get us to the final destination. Let's not treat it as if it was important in itself, with inherent value disconnected from our own wellbeing.

Edited by chris w, 01 May 2010 - 07:10 PM.

[Kolos]

The moment we achieve singularity, there will be no real need for evolution

At least in the biological sense, genes will loose their importance, in fact this process started at least 100-200 years ago with improvements in medicine or even 10000 with improvemts in agriculture leading to Neolithic Revolution. Both made life much easier for the weak and sick that would die or at least wouldn't reproduce in more "natural" society so it's questionable are we actually evolving even today.
After singularity I would imagine there will be a different kind of evolution, genes and our flesh and blood bodies will be marginalized but similar laws would apply to the evolution of mind, consciousness, culture and technologies etc. in fact it was Dawkins who popularized this idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme too bad he's not a futurist...

[Forever21]

Shocking to learn this from Richard Dawkins. I'm very dissapointed. I've decided to reject his theory of evolution.

[Michael]

Hang on, folks ... I think we may have had a bit of a knee-jerk here, in response in part to the framing by BigThink (especially that obnoxious headline) rather than by Dawkins' own statements in context:

How do you feel about recent attempts to end aging?

Richard Dawkins: It's easy to see why people might wish to prolong their own lives. It's a rather selfish pursuit unless you recognize and do something about the fact that birth rates are not declining in the world as a whole, and the population is rising rapidly. ... So to prolong human life in an irresponsible, profligate way would be indeed irresponsible unless you at the same time reduced birth rates. If everybody lived for ever, then we'd better stop any new people being born. Otherwise we're going to be hideously overcrowded. And it's a rather presumptuous, arrogant thing to do, some might say, to say, right, well, the present generation are the last ones to reproduce. We'd better all just sit here and enjoy our lives for thousands of years. We're obviously a long way away from that now, but I know there are some people who see that as a kind of ideal, and they certainly need to think seriously about what to do about population size.

While it doesn't look as if Dawkins is exactly going to be a prominent booster of radical life extension, he's clearly not saying "we must all die on schedule, to avoid overpopulation" but "IF we're going to do this, we're going to have to do something about overpopulation." This is, in fact, an entirely reasonable position; indeed, it's my own and (contra someone's statement earlier in the thread) Dr. de Grey's. The main difference is that Dawkins seems to lack much interest, whereas it's bloody obvious to me and others that it's a moral imperative to cure the terrible degenerative disease known as biological aging on the most aggressive possible schedule (and you're all donating your $1000/year to SENS Foundation, right?) -- but yes, we'll have to take steps to abrogate or ameliorate any adverse social side-effects, of which this is one very likely example if we don't make proactive moves to address it.

(Yes, contrary to what Dawkins says, most projections currently predict global subreplacement fertility sometime in the next few decades -- but no, that won't be enough to counteract an average lifespan of ~1000 yrs. Nor do Dr. Gavrilov's projections get us off the hook, tho' they make it clear that the situation isn't as immediate or as inescapable a crisis as naysayers assume or assert: even a population rate increase equivalent to that of the postwar Baby Boom, starting at ~7 bn people and perpetuated indefinitely, would rapidly become disastrous ...).

Edited by Michael, 02 June 2010 - 07:07 PM.

[shadowhawk]

shadowhawk, I think you are really taking everything being said very exaggerated. And now you're just making fun out of chris which isn't nice.
Chris is convinced in the most logical thing which is that those events didn't happen. In truth, we can't know because we weren't there, this is why it is all belief.

But what's up with the sun standing still jokes? Chris isn't as ignorant as you might think. I think you are taking yourself a bit too far and a bit insulting.

It is probably healthier to say "most likely" or "I am convinced" instead of state something as the absolute truth, you are right with that. But I am sure you have the mentality to see that this is his opinion and he is a person just like you, who had no chance to witness whatever is written in that book, therefore he is basing his choices of what happened and what didn't happen on his logic/belief system, just like you do.

I don't think Chris is ignorant, nor am I making fun of him. I wasn't trying to be insulting. I agree with what you said.

[bacopa]

Hang on, folks ... I think we may have had a bit of a knee-jerk here, in response in part to the framing by BigThink (especially that obnoxious headline) rather than by Dawkins' own statements in context [SNIP!]

(Yes, contrary to what Dawkins says, most projections currently predict global subreplacement fertility sometime in the next few decades -- but no, that won't be enough to counteract an average lifespan of ~1000 yrs. Nor do Dr. Gavrilov's projections get us off the hook, tho' they make it clear that the situation isn't as immediate or as inescapable a crisis as naysayers assume or assert: even a population rate increase equivalent to that of the postwar Baby Boom, starting at ~7 bn people and perpetuated indefinitely, would rapidly become disastrous ...).

well put! But I guess it annoys me deeply that a mind like Dawkins would dismiss it all so easily. I mean surely he would not object to 150 year life spans? If you gave him the chance to get a rejuvenation treatment right now, obviously he would jump on it, as would any rational mind. But I really think he's trying to use the obvious problem of overpopulation as a way to quell his probable fear of himself being to old for the stuff Aubrey and company talk about. I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive Dawkins likes being alive!

Edited by Michael, 07 June 2010 - 02:37 PM.
Trim quote

[Lauren]

I would agree with Devon on this account: it bothers me tremendously that a proponent of the enhancement of biological systems would be against life extension. I would also concur that he is using the argument of overpopulation to quell such anxieties of being too old for the advancements which Aubrey de Grey professes. I happen to think Dawkin's view of irresponsibility on the part of transhumanists and life-extensionists to be a myopic one indeed. However, I can understand his reasoning, however narrow it may be.

well put! But I guess it annoys me deeply that a mind like Dawkins would dismiss it all so easily. I mean surely he would not object to 150 year life spans? If you gave him the chance to get a rejuvenation treatment right now, obviously he would jump on it, as would any rational mind. But I really think he's trying to use the obvious problem of overpopulation as a way to quell his probable fear of himself being to old for the stuff Aubrey and company talk about. I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive Dawkins likes being alive!

[bacopa]

[quote name='Lauren' date='Jun 3 2010, 03:53 AM' post='411565']
I would agree with Devon on this account: it bothers me tremendously that a proponent of the enhancement of biological systems would be against life extension. I would also concur that he is using the argument of overpopulation to quell such anxieties of being too old for the advancements which Aubrey de Grey professes. I happen to think Dawkin's view of irresponsibility on the part of transhumanists and life-extensionists to be a myopic one indeed. However, I can understand his reasoning, however narrow it may be.



is Dawkins really a proponent of enhancement of biological systems?

Edited by dfowler, 03 June 2010 - 05:18 AM.

[Kolos]

I happen to think Dawkin's view of irresponsibility on the part of transhumanists and life-extensionists to be a myopic one indeed. However, I can understand his reasoning, however narrow it may be.

Some atheists treat "nature" as some sort of substitute for God, well actually this way of thinking dates back to antiquity and inspired both dogmatic and more open minded philosophers throughout the history so it's probably more complicated than that but the point is some people have almost religious attitude to nature and someone so fascinated by biology might be one of them... Immortalism is against the natural order of things not to mention transhumanism that might end biological/genetical evolution of humans so I'm not sure a biologist would like that idea.

[shadowhawk]

I happen to think Dawkin's view of irresponsibility on the part of transhumanists and life-extensionists to be a myopic one indeed. However, I can understand his reasoning, however narrow it may be.

Some atheists treat "nature" as some sort of substitute for God, well actually this way of thinking dates back to antiquity and inspired both dogmatic and more open minded philosophers throughout the history so it's probably more complicated than that but the point is some people have almost religious attitude to nature and someone so fascinated by biology might be one of them... Immortalism is against the natural order of things not to mention transhumanism that might end biological/genetical evolution of humans so I'm not sure a biologist would like that idea.

Yes. See P.E. Johnson, professor of law, at UC Berkley on this point

http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_3_1

[Ghostrider]

I'm telling you...he obviously doubts his prospects for life extension so he naturally rationalizes arguments that challenge people like us, who have some f ing hope, pride, zest for life, and love of life....only being slightly a jerk.

It might also be the case that he sees life as a net negative. Deep down, he may wish nothing existed. I can't speak for him, I don't really know. Just speculating.

Edited by Ghostrider, 05 June 2010 - 08:53 AM.