This has fuckall to do with anything, but I just discovered there will be

a whole batch of Frankenstein style movies coming out soon.

Anyways, if you're an atheist, then I assume it would not be a stretch

to say that what makes us who we are and what we think is coded

in our DNA and our cellular makeup.

Ergo, shouldn't it be possible if we die, that we could be

frozen or hybernated until such a time that it is possible

to reanimate us?

I know there are companies that are already promissing

to freeze us for this very purpose. And as horrific as it seems

to me, if the psychical body is all there is and conciousness

is strictly a neurological process of electrical impulses, etc.

....then we could damned well live forever once technology allows.

oh lawd.

Assuming that scientific possibility pans out, I'm not really interested. I'm kind of tired now, in fact.

Of course, my own faith tradition has long suggested the existence of an afterlife in some form. So be it. It's just not what I see as the icing on my cake.

As an aside, have you seen the promotional material for the upcoming Frankenstein's Army?! The premise has the Nazis finding Dr. Frankenstein's lab diaries and developing an army of resurrected soldiers! HIGH cheese... but it looks like awesome fun!

[Edited 6/29/11 10:14am]

no, no, no, noooooooo!!!

Reanimation creeps me out.

Ever wonder if those people who are cryogenically frozen (like Walt Disney, for example) still dream?

While this isn’t specifically what you’re talking about, my bf is fascinated with the idea that (while he would talk about this in a much more technological-sounding way) we’ll eventually be able to essentially upload the contents of our brains, so ourselves, really, to some kind of super computer and in that way we could feasibly live forever. And he’s pretty sure it will happen in our lifetime – if we make to be 80 or so.

PurpleJedi said:

Ever wonder if those people who are cryogenically frozen (like Walt Disney, for example) still dream?

Don't forget Bruce Lee and Hitler!!

CarrieMpls said:

While this isn’t specifically what you’re talking about, my bf is fascinated with the idea that (while he would talk about this in a much more technological-sounding way) we’ll eventually be able to essentially upload the contents of our brains, so ourselves, really, to some kind of super computer and in that way we could feasibly live forever. And he’s pretty sure it will happen in our lifetime – if we make to be 80 or so.

That will absolutely happen, and it could be sooner than that.

Organic computing is looming (molecular computing), and this will exponentially increase the rate at which computers evolve.

the amounts of information that will be stored (and instantly accessed) is going to be amazing.

This means that every possible aspect or piece of information that a normal human has can be stored on a computer as information. Now, I'm not sure if this means that the computer is 'you' persay any more than I would say identical twins are the same person, but the practical application to this is that such a personality of sorts as contained within Einstein could be uploaded and continue to produce great work infiniately.

You could send machines to other planets--other star systems, and they would not be susceptible to the same vulnerabilities that we are.

If the human being is nothing more than his psychical construct, and it's not impossible to say that he isn't, then immortality can be achieved. Perhaps the only thing that doesn't scare me about all of this, is that every human being could live long enough to obtain enlightenment.

CarrieMpls said:

While this isn’t specifically what you’re talking about, my bf is fascinated with the idea that (while he would talk about this in a much more technological-sounding way) we’ll eventually be able to essentially upload the contents of our brains, so ourselves, really, to some kind of super computer and in that way we could feasibly live forever. And he’s pretty sure it will happen in our lifetime – if we make to be 80 or so.

Your BF imagines folk funneling their own sentience into a gestalt, or collective, one. I find that very, very fascinating, but I suspect humans (at least Westerners) en masse value their own individualism too much to do that. In a theological sense, I'd say this is why the notions of God, heaven and hell are personalized in the West.

Now, I definitely could see folk going for a sort of "consciousness backup" scenario, where they download themselves into some super computer used strictly for temporary storage in hopes of re-uploading themselves into a preferred personal body, their own "refurbished" or another new body of choice. I also could see paying big bucks to have the other's awareness, or bits of it, uploaded to themselves.

[Edited 6/29/11 11:35am]

imago said:

CarrieMpls said:

While this isn’t specifically what you’re talking about, my bf is fascinated with the idea that (while he would talk about this in a much more technological-sounding way) we’ll eventually be able to essentially upload the contents of our brains, so ourselves, really, to some kind of super computer and in that way we could feasibly live forever. And he’s pretty sure it will happen in our lifetime – if we make to be 80 or so.

That will absolutely happen, and it could be sooner than that.

Organic computing is looming (molecular computing), and this will exponentially increase the rate at which computers evolve.

the amounts of information that will be stored (and instantly accessed) is going to be amazing.

This means that every possible aspect or piece of information that a normal human has can be stored on a computer as information. Now, I'm not sure if this means that the computer is 'you' persay any more than I would say identical twins are the same person, but the practical application to this is that such a personality of sorts as contained within Einstein could be uploaded and continue to produce great work infiniately.

You could send machines to other planets--other star systems, and they would not be susceptible to the same vulnerabilities that we are.

If the human being is nothing more than his psychical construct, and it's not impossible to say that he isn't, then immortality can be achieved. Perhaps the only thing that doesn't scare me about all of this, is that every human being could live long enough to obtain enlightenment.

He also believes we’ll evolve artificial intelligence in such a way that machine “brains” could become virtually indistinguishable from ourselves. We’ve had a few discussions about the ethical implications of this. How will we treat these entities? That kind of thing.

Lammastide said:

CarrieMpls said:

While this isn’t specifically what you’re talking about, my bf is fascinated with the idea that (while he would talk about this in a much more technological-sounding way) we’ll eventually be able to essentially upload the contents of our brains, so ourselves, really, to some kind of super computer and in that way we could feasibly live forever. And he’s pretty sure it will happen in our lifetime – if we make to be 80 or so.

Your BF imagines folk funneling their own sentience into a gestalt, or collective, one. I find that very, very fascinating, but I suspect humans (at least Westerners) en masse value their own individualism too much to do that. In a theological sense, I'd say this is why the notions of God, heaven and hell are personalized in the West.

Now, I definitely could see folk going for a sort of "consciousness backup" scenario, where they download themselves into some super computer used strictly for temporary storage in hopes of re-uploading themselves into a restored personal body, their own or another of choice.

I think he's saying more of the latter, (especially in regards to himself - he's excited at the possibility! ) I maybe just didn't explain it correctly. But now I'm really interested in the idea of a collective consciousness in that manner...

CarrieMpls said:

Lammastide said:

Your BF imagines folk funneling their own sentience into a gestalt, or collective, one. I find that very, very fascinating, but I suspect humans (at least Westerners) en masse value their own individualism too much to do that. In a theological sense, I'd say this is why the notions of God, heaven and hell are personalized in the West.

Now, I definitely could see folk going for a sort of "consciousness backup" scenario, where they download themselves into some super computer used strictly for temporary storage in hopes of re-uploading themselves into a restored personal body, their own or another of choice.

I think he's saying more of the latter, (especially in regards to himself - he's excited at the possibility! ) I maybe just didn't explain it correctly. But now I'm really interested in the idea of a collective consciousness in that manner...

Intelligence farming (let's call it) IS very fascinating. It, no doubt, would be privatized, regulated by government(s) and crawling with black-market goings on. But imagine the money people would pay to, say, have the intelligence of Einstein, the wit of Oscar Wilde, the business savvy of Donald Trump, the musical talent of Mozart, the internal bliss of the Dalai Lama, etc. all smooshed into the body of, I dunno, some young and gorgeous Olympic gymnast! Designer existence. It's CRAZY territory!

People would be placing bids on others, I bet. And folk could make major money selling parts of their own personalities!

[Edited 6/29/11 11:37am]

imago said:

no, no, no, noooooooo!!!

Reanimation creeps me out.

That's intriguing. Why does it creep you out so much?

CarrieMpls said:

imago said:

That will absolutely happen, and it could be sooner than that.

Organic computing is looming (molecular computing), and this will exponentially increase the rate at which computers evolve.

the amounts of information that will be stored (and instantly accessed) is going to be amazing.

This means that every possible aspect or piece of information that a normal human has can be stored on a computer as information. Now, I'm not sure if this means that the computer is 'you' persay any more than I would say identical twins are the same person, but the practical application to this is that such a personality of sorts as contained within Einstein could be uploaded and continue to produce great work infiniately.

You could send machines to other planets--other star systems, and they would not be susceptible to the same vulnerabilities that we are.

If the human being is nothing more than his psychical construct, and it's not impossible to say that he isn't, then immortality can be achieved. Perhaps the only thing that doesn't scare me about all of this, is that every human being could live long enough to obtain enlightenment.

He also believes we’ll evolve artificial intelligence in such a way that machine “brains” could become virtually indistinguishable from ourselves. We’ve had a few discussions about the ethical implications of this. How will we treat these entities? That kind of thing.

Actually, I think they'll one-up us.

Remember, we haven't solved the theory of everything (Einstein's unified theory).

We haven't solved the many of perplexing math problems.

We haven't cure cancer, etc.

There's nothing to stop a sentient computer from replicating a smarter version of itself, until you developing something that can pretty much solve all of our scientific mysteries for us (or at least a damned good number of them).

It's basically a race between man and machine to solve these mysteries now.

I think man will get a few of them, but once machines 'switch on', they will solve the rest for us.

have-to-haven't edit

[Edited 6/29/11 11:49am]

Lammastide said:

imago said:

no, no, no, noooooooo!!!

Reanimation creeps me out.

That's intriguing. Why does it creep you out so much?

Chile, imagine thinking that you're dead for good.

THen one day the lights go on, and you're surrounded by a bunch of people you don't know, unaware of what year it is, and smelling a bit like Mrs. Havisham's musty old closet.

imago said:

CarrieMpls said:

He also believes we’ll evolve artificial intelligence in such a way that machine “brains” could become virtually indistinguishable from ourselves. We’ve had a few discussions about the ethical implications of this. How will we treat these entities? That kind of thing.

Actually, I think they'll one-up us.

Remember, we haven't solved the theory of everything (Einstein's unified theory).

We have solved the many of perplexing math problems.

We have cure cancer, etc.

There's nothing to stop a sentient computer from replicating a smarter version of itself, until you developing something that can pretty much solve all of our scientific mysteries for us (or at least a damned good number of them).

It's basically a race between man and machine to solve these mysteries now.

I think man will get a few of them, but once machines 'switch on', they will solve the rest for us.

Now THIS is the part that most fascinates me about all this. At some point I was even considering writing my dissertation on this projection as it relates to the "Fall" pattern we see across many cultures' ancient theologies, mythologies, etc., and that we seem even now to obsess over in much of our art, literature and scientific ethical conversation.

Should these computers reach that point, humans will be obsolete, liabilities, dead weight... at least where our utility is concerned. We become "illogical." In the same vein that humanity has dismantled God's objective existence, do computers begin to question our need to exist? Do they move to destroy us , as in so much science fiction? And if/when they are successful, do they rationalize that humans never, in fact, existed? And -- finally -- do computers apprehend their own shortcomings and move on to develop a further efficient means of intelligence, carrying on the cycle of Creation and Fall?

[Edited 6/29/11 11:59am]

I could live without my body, just reanimate my brain and my johnson

Lammastide said:

imago said:

Actually, I think they'll one-up us.

Remember, we haven't solved the theory of everything (Einstein's unified theory).

We have solved the many of perplexing math problems.

We have cure cancer, etc.

There's nothing to stop a sentient computer from replicating a smarter version of itself, until you developing something that can pretty much solve all of our scientific mysteries for us (or at least a damned good number of them).

It's basically a race between man and machine to solve these mysteries now.

I think man will get a few of them, but once machines 'switch on', they will solve the rest for us.

Now THIS is the part that most fascinates me about all this. At some point I was even considering writing my dissertation on this projection as it relates to the "Fall" pattern we see across many cultures' theologies, mythologies, etc.

Should these computers reach that point, humans will be obsolete, liabilities, dead weight... at least where our utility is concerned. We become "illogical." In the same vein that humanity has attempted to dismantle God's existence, do computers begin to question our need to exist? Do they move to destroy us , as in so much science fiction? And if/when they are successful, do they rationalize that humans never, in fact, existed? And -- finally -- do computers apprehend their own shortcomings and move on to develop a further efficient means of intelligence, carrying on the cycle of creation and fall?

I'm not sure machines would think in those terms. We have to remember, we're talking about an evolution that goes beyond our more primary survival instincts. Intelligence that can replicate and evolve without adaptive stimulus--no war, no having to be clever than the other tribes and creatures, no threats. Simple evolving because the sentient machine is able to do it deliberately without much effort. It wouldn't think the same as we do. It would need to. It could go beyond 'the jungle'.

What gets me though is that if this is possible, then it further exasterbates the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox states that it should only take a few million years, even with the most conservative estimates, for just 1 society to colonize the entire galaxy. I don't think (or I am not sure) Fermi took into account that machines may be the ones to do it for us----but if this is the case,then Fermi was eve more right--the Universe should be completely colonized by now. Were is everybody?

I'm also very very sorry that this thread is not about oral sex or scrotums and the like, so forgive me for those of you who expected more from me. I do want to say that I have a proven track record of creating such threads though.

NDRU said:

I could live without my body, just reanimate my brain and my johnson

NDRU said:

I could live without my body, just reanimate my brain and my johnson

I've been trying to reanimate your johnson for ages.

imago said:

Lammastide said:

Now THIS is the part that most fascinates me about all this. At some point I was even considering writing my dissertation on this projection as it relates to the "Fall" pattern we see across many cultures' theologies, mythologies, etc.

Should these computers reach that point, humans will be obsolete, liabilities, dead weight... at least where our utility is concerned. We become "illogical." In the same vein that humanity has attempted to dismantle God's existence, do computers begin to question our need to exist? Do they move to destroy us , as in so much science fiction? And if/when they are successful, do they rationalize that humans never, in fact, existed? And -- finally -- do computers apprehend their own shortcomings and move on to develop a further efficient means of intelligence, carrying on the cycle of creation and fall?

I'm not sure machines would think in those terms. We have to remember, we're talking about an evolution that goes beyond our more primary survival instincts. Intelligence that can replicate and evolve without adaptive stimulus--no war, no having to be clever than the other tribes and creatures, no threats. Simple evolving because the sentient machine is able to do it deliberately without much effort. It wouldn't think the same as we do. It would need to. It could go beyond 'the jungle'.

Primal survival instinct -- and much of how we carry on even in "advanced" cultures -- is built largely around a notion of real or projected material scarcity. I suppose you're right that computers wouldn't need to consider such a thing as we do, and wouldn't share our reaction to it. But all evolution presupposes some reason to evolve, and where scarcity/hostile material environment would be far less an issue to these computers (assuming they secure a sustainable energy source), I'm imagining a scenario where sheer efficiency of knowledge and utilitarian problem-solving drives them. Even then, though, humans are anything but efficient -- and so apart from sentimental reasons for computers to keep us around, I'm thinking we'd need to be dispatched.

Now, I'd totally concede the possibility of what I already suspect in some sense: that sheer sentimentality itself has some very utilitarian function that we way underrate. If this is the case, maybe the Terminator will let us stick around longer.

What gets me though is that if this is possible, then it further exasterbates the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox states that it should only take a few million years, even with the most conservative estimates, for just 1 society to colonize the entire galaxy. I don't think (or I am not sure) Fermi took into account that machines may be the ones to do it for us----but if this is the case,then Fermi was eve more right--the Universe should be completely colonized by now. Were is everybody?

Good question. And I've got little in the way of answers. But if we assume that there's at least one extraterrestrial civilization considerably more advance than we are, perhaps their lack of evidentiary existence or contact with us isn't some hint at their nonexistence, but a statement we're not worth stirring -- or that minds superior to ours have deemed colonization of the material universe pointless? (...Perhaps with good reason that they know, and we've yet to find out???)

[Edited 6/29/11 12:40pm]

Never really thought that much about it. Last I heard about it is that when you freeze any living tissue over time you have permenant cell damage, they explode or something, which doesn't work too well for the brain since brain cells once destroyed can't be replaced or at least that's what I heard. I think it's the whole unfrying an egg problem, that some bright people believe is impossible.

I did hear something once about a scientist who may have discovered a way for living cells to turn back the hands of time, as far as physical youth goes. Meaning that a gene could be altered to make cells young again, ie, your body could be 20 forever, none of that pesky wearing out and dying in the first place mess.

morningsong said:

Never really thought that much about it. Last I heard about it is that when you freeze any living tissue over time you have permenant cell damage, they explode or something, which doesn't work too well for the brain since brain cells once destroyed can't be replaced or at least that's what I heard. I think it's the whole unfrying an egg problem, that some bright people believe is impossible.

I did hear something once about a scientist who may have discovered a way for living cells to turn back the hands of time, as far as physical youth goes. Meaning that a gene could be altered to make cells young again, ie, your body could be 20 forever, none of that pesky wearing out and dying in the first place mess.

Yeah I vaguely recall that issue being discussed, and one of the things that they are considering is possibly immersing the brain and other organs in a special fluid that would prevent the cell damage during the thawing out process.

Human body is supposed to decay. Human body is supposed to die. Once you reach a certain age, chances are that one of your organs will collapse...and you'll die...Human bones have a limit as well...

And I'm not sure if the brain/body can endure the process of hybernation/dehybernation...sounds like science fiction to me...Alien, Empire Strikes Back, etc...

anyway, the govs WILL never allow it...overpopulation is here, folks, the worst thing for the world right now would be the possibility for the human beings to live 150-200 years...

JoeTyler said:

anyway, the govs WILL never allow it...overpopulation is here, folks, the worst thing for the world right now would be the possibility for the human beings to live 150-200 years...

Well...unless procreation is slashed dramatically.

PurpleJedi said:

morningsong said:

Never really thought that much about it. Last I heard about it is that when you freeze any living tissue over time you have permenant cell damage, they explode or something, which doesn't work too well for the brain since brain cells once destroyed can't be replaced or at least that's what I heard. I think it's the whole unfrying an egg problem, that some bright people believe is impossible.

I did hear something once about a scientist who may have discovered a way for living cells to turn back the hands of time, as far as physical youth goes. Meaning that a gene could be altered to make cells young again, ie, your body could be 20 forever, none of that pesky wearing out and dying in the first place mess.

Yeah I vaguely recall that issue being discussed, and one of the things that they are considering is possibly immersing the brain and other organs in a special fluid that would prevent the cell damage during the thawing out process.

Who needs the other body parts if you've got the brain, if you can't save the entire body, that is? Clone the ideal body, plop the brain in and presto, youth with the knowledge, now that's the dream. I'm skeptical about all of it though, as far as our knowledge of the body and what really makes it tick to make it last indefinitely. I mean we can't even settle on how to properly nourish what we've got, we've gone from chart to pyramid to plate, and give it a decade it'll be something else. But pushing the boundaries is what people do, so who knows what'll turn up in the long run.

I'm an atheist.. and PUUURRRLEAAAASSE when I'm finally dead, leave me that way!

I want the grass to peacefully grow on my dead body. Period.

carinemjj said:

I'm an atheist.. and PUUURRRLEAAAASSE when I'm finally dead, leave me that way!

I want the grass to peacefully grow on my dead body. Period.

So no toxic embalming fluids or coffin for you, eh?

Eco-friendly burials; http://www.nytimes.com/20...etery.html

PurpleJedi said:

carinemjj said:

I'm an atheist.. and PUUURRRLEAAAASSE when I'm finally dead, leave me that way!

I want the grass to peacefully grow on my dead body. Period.

So no toxic embalming fluids or coffin for you, eh?

Eco-friendly burials; http://www.nytimes.com/20...etery.html

I LOVE that!.

I hate that politically correct corpse thing too, geez, I'm dead, just put me in a hole and cover it, don't spend money on a chemical shiny too expensive and useless coffin... I don't care being confortable or not I'M DEAD DAMMIT!