LONGECITY

Imagine a perfectly functioning brain vat that could extend your neuro-cognition up to 150 years, provide telepresence through robotic prosthesis, and communication via a virtual simulated lifestyle to the outside world. Would you be interested if its costs were relative to cryostasis?

Imagine a trip to Mars that could extend your vacation experience to two years or more, provide telepresence to multiple Martian vistas by robotic prothesis, and high-bandwith communication to family and friends back on Earth. Would you be interested if its costs were relative to a mere cruise around the world?

Sure, but what the heck does that have to do with my vacation needs THIS YEAR?

Herb, I wouldn't give you such a hard time if you just said this was a hypothetical "what-if" for your class project, and would stop inaccurately promoting brain-in-a-vat as a realistic near-term technology. Immortalism has a heavy enough burden of skepticism as it is without a meme like this becoming associated with it. Cryonics is bad enough.

---BrianW
Edited by bgwowk, 29 October 2005 - 05:38 AM.

This is a survey for a class in a hypothetical situation where a brainvat could be constructed. In reality, they can be constructed, you're just overly skeptical and don't have a lot of scientific evidence to back up your claims. All of my research is cited in the Presentation.txt file in the Perpetual Thinking Device thread.

In reality, they can be constructed, you're just overly skeptical and don't have a lot of scientific evidence to back up your claims.

I don't have scientific evidence? You mean there is no scientific evidence that humans have and need a LIVER, an ENDOCRINE SYSTEM, an IMMUNE SYSTEM?

There is nothing in your presentation.txt file that addresses these issues. This is not a near-term technology.

---BrianW
Edited by bgwowk, 30 October 2005 - 10:38 PM.

The only "evidence" pertaining to this I find in your "research" is the opinion of a single scientists that

human brain will not last forever, but like any other organs, has a limited lifespan. This lifespan today is perhaps about 90 years on average

which as you may have noticed directly contradicts your claims.

If 5 people make a statement, and one person states the contradiction, this does not invalidate the other statements.

Also, I would like more than just a quote: was that quote offered by the NIH? The Society for Neuroscience?

Would you be interested if its costs were relative to cryostasis?

I would pay far more for the brain vat over cryostasis. I don't want to wake up a thousand year later to discover everyone is just as stupid as I thought they would be and that they haven't figured out my permanent cure for death yet.

I would like more time from the brain vat idea though. 150 years is still cutting it fine for me. Maybe 1500. At that point I would unquestionably devote my entire natural life and energy to developing the method regardless of money.

Interestingly, I believe some guy actually patented the brain vat idea in an attempt to stop it ever happening. If he owns the patent, legally, the idea can't be sold.

Tough for him, because this is one of the laws I'd quite happily break. Just as I would conscription. They can die on their own time!

who owns the patent? do you have a name?

i think the brain vat or the 'brain pod' may be a reality far sooner than that, even if the fidelity isn't 1-to-1

Would you subject your brain to a technical apparatus at the moment of your legal death to extend your life 20-150 years?

Actually I'm willing and preparing to do so while still alive. Of course, I'd only do so with more advanced machinery. Then again the sort of machinery I'm envisioning could be considered a body and not just a vat... but In any case it's quite similar to what we've now, It would seem we're in bone-fluid-filled-vats with life support, sensory and movement enabling machinery attached.

As has already been stated in this thread, even if all of the other major technical hurdles were overcome, the brain still ages just like the rest of the body. Putting your brain in a vat solves nothing unless you engineer negligible senescence.

DonSpanton: As has already been stated in this thread, even if all of the other major technical hurdles were overcome, the brain still ages just like the rest of the body.  Putting your brain in a vat solves nothing unless you engineer negligible senescence.

Of course upgrading my intellect's substrate is a must, but a change of body should accompany such.

Interestingly, I believe some guy actually patented the brain vat idea in an attempt to stop it ever happening. If he owns the patent, legally, the idea can't be sold.

That's patently absurd.

Got the same objection to this that I have to uploading. I may not be altogether fond of the body I'm inhabiting-- working on improving it-- but I am quite fond of having a body, and I sorely doubt that any mechanical replacement will ever be a suitable replacement. They may eventually be able to build prosthetics that can feel a gentle breeze blowing over them, but they'll never build a prosthetic that can feel the course of blood rushing through its veins, the burn of accumulated lactic acid in the muscles, or the dull ache of a deep tissue bruise.

Not to mention, when you stop having biology, you stop having DNA-- and one of the reasons I want to live forever in the first place is to propagate.

I suppose a brain vat would be preferable to non-existence, and it would make a better stopgap measure than simple cryonic freezing. But it would only ever be a stopgap measure until a new, organic body could be provided. Besides, anything that you can connect to a brain in a vat could just as easily be connected to a brain in a skull.

why so short?

Besides, anything that you can connect to a brain in a vat could just as easily be connected to a brain in a skull.

it depends.