Most extroadinary inter planetary.......plan

3ndahalfof6

Rabies wrote: »

Clearly you have 1000yrs of scientific data to prove this, right Doc?

of course.

kneemos

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

of course.

Clearly it's gonna take some waterboarding to get the info.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We are our conciousness. It's like a running program can ask the operating system to move arms and legs but doesn't know how the OS works, and the OS mostly ignores the program and does it's own thing till there is a request.

Ah but you can effectively shut down the running programme through deep sleep, anesthesia, or the extrme, deep coma, yet when the programme reboots it's still you. Interestingly it's not just tied to memory as due to brain trauma some rare individuals can have no long or short term memory. They can't recall who they are, or were, every 5 minutes is a surprise to them, yet they know they're them looking out. So it seems it's not just continuation of memory, nor is it an unchanging brain as the brain changes radically throughout life(esp in the early years), or through massive head trauma, yet we always remain "I", the ghost in the machine. Maybe it's one of those global holographic thingies you linked to? That so long as enough of the "I" hologram remains, you feel like "I".

Beware
Teleportation is murder ![/SIZE]

Yea I was thinking on that very thing. Teleportation could get odd. If you're an exact copy down to the cosmic string/quantum level then it's you. A perfect copy. Unique self awareness should continue. After all our quantum states are changing as we sit here typing or reading. I'm about to boil up a brew and my quantum states gonna go apeshít , yet I'm gonna sit back down with my cup of tae still me. Where it could get really fcuking odd if we ever crack teleportation is if we don't destroy the original(if that's within the bounds of reality, don't see why not). What would happen to the "I" then? The original "I" would clearly still be you and you'd feel no diffs, but what of your identical copy's "I"? Would ye share a consciousness for a time until the quantum information started to drift? Then again as I say it's about to drift as I go make me tae, soooo ye could share a consciousness. Head-fcuking-melt. :eek::D

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

the brain can survive for over a thousand years in the right host.

Unlikely. Brain cells aren't immortal contrary to popular, they die off. You've end up at say 90 with a notable amount missing. Now if you keep the old brainbox exercised you can continue to grow connections in the brain which will, barring disease processes, keep you well ahead of the curve losswise, but 1000 years? No way. You'd have to find a way to trigger the growth of new cells as well as connections and that would bring it's own dangers.

When you're born and up to a year old you're growing new brain cells(newborn humans are essentially still gestating in many ways, just out side the womb like marsupials). Becoming smarter actually comes about through both making connections and pruning the cells you don't need.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah but you can effectively shut down the running programme through deep sleep, anesthesia, or the extrme, deep coma, yet when the programme reboots it's still you.

But no one is suggesting coma patients live longer so no longevity benefit in being unconcious

Interestingly it's not just tied to memory as due to brain trauma some rare individuals can have no long or short term memory. They can't recall who they are, or were, every 5 minutes is a surprise to them, yet they know they're them looking out. So it seems it's not just continuation of memory, nor is it an unchanging brain as the brain changes radically throughout life(esp in the early years), or through massive head trauma, yet we always remain "I", the ghost in the machine. Maybe it's one of those global holographic thingies you linked to? That so long as enough of the "I" hologram remains, you feel like "I".

isn't 'now' about 3 seconds long , deja vu and all that

was it a story or was there really a Roman soldier who used to write stuff down and re-read it again every morning to remember the plot

MOC88

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Also what the hell are these nanobots that people keep talking about?

I think that you have gone crazy my friend. How a computer and your brain work are completly different. So how do you attach a computer to your brain and share data between the two in any meaningfull way?
Again the memories being backed up or whatever. how would this be done bearing in mind what i said above.

Even if this was 100% right and we could do it today if we wanted there is majour moral/spirtual/philosical questions that must be asked.
Not least is what would you do? you are now in essance a computer with full axcess to everything. you phisical body has died so there is no need to eat and drink and have sex and work. what would you do.
Actully would it even be possible for you to experience emotion when this 'switch over' happens. I dout it. so whatever you do decided to do you would feel no pleasure from it

I would rather take my chance at death/reincarnation/whatever the **** happens when we die.

As far as the nano bots meant I meant it as a way of ensuring against cell breakdown and process of aging- IF it is ever possible - nano bots are minature robots (although by the time they get small enougt they'll probably biologica)l- so the idea is that these microscopic units would ensure you didn't die - your physical body hops on a spaceship and spends the next million years in the same area - of course this would create problems of its own such as memory functions and going insane - you'd keep your body

of course computers work differently there based on codes that developers have on the main developed in the last forty yeears. Give neuro scientists/engineers/programmers another 1000 and what you would see would probably not be recognizable - how would you explain an i-phone to someone 200 years ago?

as for letting a functioning machine slowly take over your functioning brain it ensures you're not just a copy but you as you've evolved and developed it, not only imprinted a copy and hits on the idea it doesn't matter what your physical brain processed everything in as long as you have a functional feedback loop that does the same process as your organic brain did ie. if you disconnected both sides assuming you and it survived the mental trauma you would be only 1 part of two not two identical copies- obviously we would have reproduce brain patterns etc. or at least some way of giving yourself a priority and impetus - otherwise you'd be just a big load of data that isn't arsed to do much- it may never be impossible but if we can ever download a brain in to a computer why not live for a few million years rather than whatever your brain dictates or degrades into


as far as the implications you've stated - tbh I'd assume that everyone would have an original aim after which you'd let components deteriorate- as for what I'd want to do if it was possible just travel around and see the universe etc. etc. so it would be a different answer for everyone

Capt'n Midnight

MOC88 wrote: »

As far as the nano bots meant I meant it as a way of ensuring against cell breakdown and process of aging- IF it is ever possible - nano bots are minature robots

our immune system is comprised of organic nanobots that have been carefully tuned over the last 500,000,000 years are genetically programed to recognise your uniqueness. And they still get it wrong. If you live long enough you have a one in three risk of cancer. If you lived beyond three score and ten the risk goes up faster.


Unless you can slow down human metabolism drastically - and that's going to be hard since primates have been restricted mostly to the tropics since the time of the dinosaurs - individuals won't be able to travel to the stars using current physics.

Robots with human memories might go, but a long way off.


Mammals aren't designed to be sent on seed ships.
Teeth made mammals successful but at the cost of dentists , most other animals have teeth that constantly regrow or use gizzards.

crazy cabbage

Weather or not this will be possible in the furture is hear say. I think you did ask the right question though

MOC88 wrote: »

why not live for a few million years rather than whatever your brain dictates

Here is where there will be difference of opinion and where my problems with this idea start. The reason that there is value to life is becouse it is short. Becouse our time is limited. If we all had an unlimited amount of time then would it be worth it. I couldn't imigine living for 'a few million years'. To me that would be hell.
You mentioned going off to see the universe. I imagine that it a beautiful place and the reason that you wish to go there but but beauty is all around us if we can just open our eyes and see it.

And i want to die. I dont mean to be morbid and i hope i will not for a while yet but death is he final unexplored frounteer. It is something that everyone must enter alone and deal with alone. It is an adventure that can not be deprived of anyone. What happens after death. Who knows? But that makes it all the more exciting! And even if nothing happens you will atleast know that you spent a natural amount of time on earth and hopefully contributed something to your fellow man and made the world a better place And you will now biodegrade into dust and all the nutrions in your body will enter the earth from which new life can seed itself.

What you are suggesting seems so un-natural. It seems to go against every moral/philophisoacl/meatphical/spirtual thought that i have ever had.
Is what you are suggesting possible? That doesn't matter. This debate has to center around the spirtual/moral/whatever questions. Do we really want this??

MOC88

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

our immune system is comprised of organic nanobots that have been carefully tuned over the last 500,000,000 years are genetically programed to recognise your uniqueness. And they still get it wrong. If you live long enough you have a one in three risk of cancer. If you lived beyond three score and ten the risk goes up faster.


Unless you can slow down human metabolism drastically - and that's going to be hard since primates have been restricted mostly to the tropics since the time of the dinosaurs - individuals won't be able to travel to the stars using current physics.

Robots with human memories might go, but a long way off.


Mammals aren't designed to be sent on seed ships.
Teeth made mammals successful but at the cost of dentists , most other animals have teeth that constantly regrow or use gizzards.

Well aas far as the nanobots I wouldn't consider it a definite possibility but jsut because we havce evolved somehthing doesn't mean we can't improve it - yes I've realised the implications of sending us on ships - ie. the ship would be massive and we would have to be altered genetically or otherwise

I wouldn't simplify it as much as human memories in a computer becasue what you have is a copy - the computer processing woould share the burden so you expand into it and it becomes an extension of you until you're using it fully and you no longer limit yourself to your original physical body

- the whole thing about current physics - possible just not with current technology ie. forget about faster than light travel - it would be a fraction of light speed we would travel at - w ewould have to have a way fo replacing all components of a spaceship while in flight - the idea I said early about a massive block of ice which could eliminate space particles which could be combined with blocks of minerals to supply wiht requirements unless we can artificially construct required elements - we would need to engineer ourselves to last naturally

kneemos

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

the brain can survive for over a thousand years in the right host.

Curiosity has gotton the better of me and I'm going to suggest you explain your statement.

MOC88

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Weather or not this will be possible in the furture is hear say. I think you did ask the right question though



Here is where there will be difference of opinion and where my problems with this idea start. The reason that there is value to life is becouse it is short. Becouse our time is limited. If we all had an unlimited amount of time then would it be worth it. I couldn't imigine living for 'a few million years'. To me that would be hell.
You mentioned going off to see the universe. I imagine that it a beautiful place and the reason that you wish to go there but but beauty is all around us if we can just open our eyes and see it.

And i want to die. I dont mean to be morbid and i hope i will not for a while yet but death is he final unexplored frounteer. It is something that everyone must enter alone and deal with alone. It is an adventure that can not be deprived of anyone. What happens after death. Who knows? But that makes it all the more exciting! And even if nothing happens you will atleast know that you spent a natural amount of time on earth and hopefully contributed something to your fellow man and made the world a better place And you will now biodegrade into dust and all the nutrions in your body will enter the earth from which new life can seed itself.

What you are suggesting seems so un-natural. It seems to go against every moral/philophisoacl/meatphical/spirtual thought that i have ever had.
Is what you are suggesting possible? That doesn't matter. This debate has to center around the spirtual/moral/whatever questions. Do we really want this??

well I'm not a neuroscientist so I couldn't say what the odds are but I'd say it is a reasonable expectation.

A few million years is nothing compared to the length of the galaxy . What would be immoral about someone jetting off never to be seen again- either way you'd still die you'd just have extended your natural life by quite a bit. If you really do regard it as morality why not continue your existence to help people if it is required - see how the beauty develops around you. I really do find it hard to see any moral implications considering we are already extending our lives far beyond what we could have lived 200 years ago

crazy cabbage

MOC88 wrote: »

I really do find it hard to see any moral implications considering we are already extending our lives far beyond what we could have lived 200 years ago

There is quite a difference between extending your life by 20ish% by taking care of yourself and eating proper and keeping healty ect and by 10000% and up by the means you are talking about.

MOC88

crazy cabbage wrote: »

There is quite a difference between extending your life by 20ish% by taking care of yourself and eating proper and keeping healty ect and by 10000% and up by the means you are talking about.

why?
if you have a hear or organ transplant is that a moral choice?
if you have any surgery does that mean it is a moral choice?
if you take any form of medication is it a moral choice?

the three above are all artificial life extensions.
I just don't see how it could be considered to be immoral to extend your life- in the end nobody would force you to do it anyhow and couldn't constrict you once it was done.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

our immune system is comprised of organic nanobots that have been carefully tuned over the last 500,000,000 years are genetically programed to recognise your uniqueness. And they still get it wrong.

True but they've evolved to keep you alive for enough time to reproduce and pass on cultural information, theyre not built for extreme longevity. On the other hand on average a 20 year olds built in nanobots are pretty damn good and their risk of cancer etc is significantly lower than say a 60 year old. If you could upgrade a 60 year olds nanobots to acting like a 20 year olds their risk would drop. Never mind if you specifically tailored artificial ones.

If you live long enough you have a one in three risk of cancer. If you lived beyond three score and ten the risk goes up faster.

IIRC and counter intuitively the risks peak in late middle age and actually go down in the very old. It's usually simple wear and tear that sees them off.

To reduce that wear and tear and try to live as long as possible with your current body, keep your insulin levels in check. One thing that is common with all extremely old people is a very good genetic insulin response. Sugar it seems is much worse for you than even ciggies. This is even reflected in how we look. People with low blood sugar look younger and have biologically younger skin. People with higher blood sugars look older than their age and diabetics look older most of all. So cut down on the simple carbs. While type 1 diabetes is just pure bad luck and genetics, type 2 is almost entirely down to environment and lifestyle. It's almost unknown in primitive societies. Actually how young or old you look appears to be reflected in how biologically young and old you are.

Teeth made mammals successful but at the cost of dentists , most other animals have teeth that constantly regrow or use gizzards.

Well yes but lifestyle has a huge impact on this too. Look at the teeth of cavemen over the last 200,000 years. It's notably difficult to find one with dental caries, and crowding is significantly more rare. No braces required and plenty of space for wisdom teeth to come through because their dental arches are fully formed (apparently because of the chewing of tougher foods when young.Archaic Sapiens). Shít we see this in our dogs and recently too. Look at the ads for doggie dental sticks on the telly. Brought to you by the same companies that feed you bullshít about healthy foods and feed your dog the crap carb/veggie based diet in the first place. They're creating their own market. They even put artificial colourings into the bloody food, yet dogs can't see em. Think about it we feed an apex predator a mostly grain based diet and this is considered the norm, hell vets will recommend this diet and actually sell it in their surgeries. Daft. Ditto for cats dental health. There are specialised vet dentists FFS. Try and find a wolf or wildcat roaming the gloaming with dicky fangs. You won't. And barring accidents they live longer too.

Rented Mule

kneemos wrote: »

Our only hope for survival is to download our brains onto something which can last the thousands of years it will take to get to another habital planet and reasemble ourselves when we get there.

Who is going to assemble us if we have all downloaded our brains ?

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

If you could upgrade a 60 year olds nanobots to acting like a 20 year olds their risk would drop.

If you could upgrade cells it would fix most aging problems. The other problem with our immune system is it's effectively fixed at birth. If something new comes along it's powerless, if you could upgrade them to be able to fight new diseases health issues would be a thing of the past. That could go further where every cell in the body could be rewritten every few years to repair any damaged dna sequences.

Well yes but lifestyle has a huge impact on this too. Look at the teeth of cavemen over the last 200,000 years. It's notably difficult to find one with dental caries, and crowding is significantly more rare.

That could be down to learned techniques too. Everyone in my family has straight teeth, none of us needed braces because our father used to push the gums down onto teeth coming through. Always resulted in perfectly straight teeth. Modern parents don't like putting their children through that because it hurts the baby but people back then would be less fearful of inflicting that kind of pain.

kneemos

Rented Mule wrote: »

Who is going to assemble us if we have all downloaded our brains ?

Could create a foetus and keep it nourished until it's old enough to download into,as long as it could walk and talk it would probably work.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

That could be down to learned techniques too. Everyone in my family has straight teeth, none of us needed braces because our father used to push the gums down onto teeth coming through. Always resulted in perfectly straight teeth. Modern parents don't like putting their children through that because it hurts the baby but people back then would be less fearful of inflicting that kind of pain.

Could be S. Eating more fibrous and tough foods would do similar, so maybe that's a replacement for that?

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Could be S. Eating more fibrous and tough foods would do similar, so maybe that's a replacement for that?

I have vague memories of our father giving us bones to chew on too. The poor old dog waiting patiently for his turn on the bone once we'd taken all the nice bits of spare meat off it.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

father giving us bones to chew on too

Bones ?

Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!