Immortality in 2045

[WillBrink]

what would you say are the biggest challenges to overcome?

Pretty far outside my expertise, I'm no neuro scientist that's for sure.

But, I have spoken to a few and such. We know a fair amount about the brain, but we also know very little about it on all the essential areas, such how it even achieves what makes you you and me me. Knowing what the parts do, don't mean you know how or why it works.

Will we really crack that in a few decades? Major breakthroughs (hence the term) never happen in a linear fashion but in fits and starts, so we could understand the brains individual parts right down to each neuron, and take 50 more years to figure out how it actually achieves consciousness.

If you don't understand how the brain achieves consciousness, you sure as heck wont be able to achieve a transfer of consciousness I would think.

I think like a lot of things, we may be in position for such a thing to technically happen (memory capacity, processing speeds, interface, etc, etc) in the time frames being discussed, but that has nothing to do with (in my opinion) it happening.

Ergo, we understand cancer down to the cellular level, yet, we wait for that major breakthrough that makes that huge leap to another paradigm.

That type of thing can never be predicted using linear models, at least not in the vast majority of examples we could use through history.

Just my rambles on the topic. I can honestly say this is one of the few examples where I hope I'm 100% wrong and I hope it happens sooner then predicted vs later, and I will be in line for my robot body with my consciousness existing in some electronic matrix.

Aging is a chronic disease by any way one measures it (it being unavoidable currently does not change that fact) and dying sucks if you ask me.

[bkb0000]

Pretty far outside my expertise, I'm no neuro scientist that's for sure.

But, I have spoken to a few and such. We know a fair amount about the brain, but we also know very little about it on all the essential areas, such how it even achieves what makes you you and me me. Knowing what the parts do, don't mean you know how or why it works.

Will we really crack that in a few decades? Major breakthroughs (hence the term) never happen in a linear fashion but in fits and starts, so we could understand the brains individual parts right down to each neuron, and take 50 more years to figure out how it actually achieves consciousness.

If you don't understand how the brain achieves consciousness, you sure as heck wont be able to achieve a transfer of consciousness I would think.

I think like a lot of things, we may be in position for such a thing to technically happen (memory capacity, processing speeds, interface, etc, etc) in the time frames being discussed, but that has nothing to do with (in my opinion) it happening.

Ergo, we understand cancer down to the cellular level, yet, we wait for that major breakthrough that makes that huge leap to another paradigm.

That type of thing can never be predicted using linear models, at least not in the vast majority of examples we could use through history.

Just my rambles on the topic.

i agree that this is all PURE speculation, first of all. the "future" has never played out exactly, or often even close to, how it's predicted- so we need to take into account the fact that as these future-building technologies are discovered, they'll likely alter the course of technology in ways no man could ever predict.

but to address the intricacies of the brain problem- i don't think we'll really need to understand any of that. until we HAVE the singularity, the computers are going to be doing the understanding for us. reverse engineering. we're not trying to create a new brain, afterall, we're just going to transfer an existing brain, and all of it's physical pathways, to an artificial medium.

when we're born, our brains have, for brevity, vastly larger capacity than you and i have now. by the age of 2 years old, our brains possess something like 6 times the neurons- brain cells- that you and i have in our skulls right now. by the age of 6, half those cells have died out- because they were never used. but they existed there because the brain had no idea of knowing which would be useful, and which wouldn't. since most of our major CNS systems are mostly developed by the age of 8-10, including most of our psyche, the rest of these extra, unused neurons die and are absorbed for their fuel.

this is why it's harder to learn complex, thought-process-altering things after puberty- we simply don't possess the density of available neurons to form pathways to accommodate and assimilate the new thing. we can, with more effort, still learn all sorts of new things, but never again with the intuitive ease we did when were children.

**as a side note to parents out there- this is also why it's so important to keep your childrens' minds stimulated, and be teaching them new things and NOT letting them sit in front of a screen. it's not the TV or computer damage the brain in any way- it's that while they're sitting there staring at a screen, neurons are actively dying off- neurons that COULD have been made into new pathways. your brain is stimulated, and learns things, by watching TV- but substantially less than from physically interacting with their environment.**

so... to make my point- if we map out, exactly, a given brains layout, and learn out how create appropriate artificial neurons- which are nothing more than mini electrochemical conduits which FIRE or DONT FIRE (much like 1's and 0's in electronics)- there's no need to understand any of it. just send in those little nanobytes to do their job: collect data, and reconstruct what they fine. in fact, it'll likely be the mapping itself- the precursor to DOING it- that will show us the how. and at that point, it'll likely just be a curiosity... insightful, and helpful in the creation of newer, better mediums for intelligence- but obsolete.

pluck one neuron, put a new, better one in it's place, and continue.

[WillBrink]

so... to make my point- if we map out, exactly, a given brains layout, and learn out how create appropriate artificial neurons- which are nothing more than mini electrochemical conduits which FIRE or DONT FIRE (much like 1's and 0's in electronics)- there's no need to understand any of it. just send in those little nanobytes to do their job: collect data, and reconstruct what they fine. in fact, it'll likely be the mapping itself- the precursor to DOING it- that will show us the how. and at that point, it'll likely just be a curiosity... insightful, and helpful in the creation of newer, better mediums for intelligence- but obsolete.

pluck one neuron, put a new, better one in it's place, and continue.

It could play out exactly as you say. I think we very likely will hit a few major stumbling blocks that will stump us until a major breakthrough happens, which we both agree can't be predicted. If an actual AI appears in the near future (and I personally think that's going to be a major stumbling block right there) that will be a true game changer, and I really hope I'm alive to see it.

I have no doubt that if some of the major (potential) choke points/stumbling blocks don't end up as a major challenge, then the human consciousness as we see it, will be like nothing we can even picture now, and there could be a true leap forward in our evolution.

I hope I live to see it!!!!

[QuickStrike]

Interesting. I've been thinking "what ifs", and among them includes this topic.

Something like:

What if we could transfer our consciousness/"soul" into a machine to be stored like a software, electronically mimic our five senses and live forever?

Think floating heads connecting into pre-fabricated bodies.

Most labor would be done by robots by then, and then what will we do? Explore and experiment with lower life-forms?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdILmgJGuvw

[bkb0000]

this is a concept that won't let me go... since i believe this is actually something me and mine will live to see. if the predictions are correct, YOU will be faced with all of this.

will we still enjoy the pleasures of our senses when we're artificial? when our computational capacity is dozens, hundreds, thousands of powers greater than it is now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation)?

will we still love? will we still have loyalty? will we still desire to reproduce? to teach? what will be reproduce, when we no longer posses physical humanoid form? when the original, natural DNA is long forgotten?

or will we simply seek- our artificial brains thirsting ever more for knowledge... still seeking out the beginning, our origin.. God. will we drift farther from the notion of a creator, or will we go mad with desire to know Him? when we can travel to the very ends of the universe, turn around, and literally see the moment of creation...

endlessly drifting across the cosmos... millions, billions of years into the future.. long after Earth has been forgotten as nothing more than an inconsequential spec of dust buried somewhere in our subconscious mind, like a dream from childhood. long after we've abandoned even our physical resemblance to "human beings," favoring a less limiting, formless existence.

will we still fear the inevitable, but distant end of the universe, when the very fabric of it all accelerates beyond the physical elasticity of matter and hurls the particles of our particles into oblivion? or will we, having already crossed the threshold of mortality once, have confidence in discovering yet another transcendence? will that become our one and only obsession?

will we still feel any kind of interconnectivity, if we don't volunteer our minds into some kind of singularity of psyches? will be still fellowship, or will we become so engrossed in our own thoughts that we can't even relate to each other on any meaningful level?

will we seek to create? will we become gods of our own making? creating sentient life-forms on distant planets, perhaps in distant galaxies, to love and worship us?

even if there are a hundred billion people on the face of the earth, when the singularity becomes wide-spread, it will not be too many. we could still wander our own quadrant of the galaxy for thousands of years and rarely bump into each other but ever few hundred years. we could be 100 billion strong, 500 billion, an earthly population of over a trillion, a hundred trillion human beings, and it won't be too many. the cosmos still won't notice our presence. but we will be, eventually, the very few "old ones"... all hundred trillion of us. will we even recognize each other, when we chance to meet at the far corners of existence, once every thousand eons?

literalist christians... where do we fit in all of this? will God allow his creation to transcend His creation? does the appearance of imminent transcendence instead herald an imminent end? the Rapture? the last battle? will artificial neurons be the "mark of the beast?" will those who accept godless immortality be, instead, doomed to the grave? perhaps allowed to roam as immortals for a season, (hundreds of billions of years) before being cast into the lake of fire? will the rapture come before the singularity, or will the singularity be the great final test of faith? would you take hundreds of billions of years over eternity?

obviously i'm reaching out pretty far.... but i don't think too far.

[dookie1481]

If you get a chance, watch Transcendent Man and/or read the book The Singularity is Near. Addresses some of these issues and both are fascinating.

[SteyrAUG]

will we still enjoy the pleasures of our senses when we're artificial?

As it is now, those senses are really only brain impulses. And I think it is sentience which gives us our greater capacities. As we can consider things, we can consider others.

Philosophically, there might be dramatic changes however. As we become less subject to the natural world, the more we will question the significance of the natural world.

But honestly, I don't see this actually happening in the near future the way you imagine it. Just as nobody has robots mowing the lawn as was expected by now in the 1930s, I think humans will be more or less the same in 1,000 years but with more sophisticated technology. I strongly suspect it will actually be a very long time before you can transfer a consciousness and it will be even longer before it is commonly done.

[bkb0000]

As it is now, those senses are really only brain impulses. And I think it is sentience which gives us our greater capacities. As we can consider things, we can consider others.

Philosophically, there might be dramatic changes however. As we become less subject to the natural world, the more we will question the significance of the natural world.

But honestly, I don't see this actually happening in the near future the way you imagine it. Just as nobody has robots mowing the lawn as was expected by now in the 1930s, I think humans will be more or less the same in 1,000 years but with more sophisticated technology. I strongly suspect it will actually be a very long time before you can transfer a consciousness and it will be even longer before it is commonly done.

i certainly cant prove otherwise, but the more i read about this, the more it looks to be happening as we speak. once computers can think faster than the natural human mind, the technology spike is going to absolutely skyrocket, making the current spike look like a 5 year old with a set of legos.. and that moment is steadily approaching.

[Packman73]

God will likely smite us all before this ever happens. I'm not too religious, just my opinion.

[Hmac]

Sounds exciting. But if I had to put money down on it, I'd be more inclined to bet that civilization will grind to a halt from nuclear war, or maybe a big space rock before then.

Frankly, I'd settle for the flying cars they promised us back in the 60's.