Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Resurrecting the dead / Mind uploading

resurrection nanobots mind uploading

  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#1
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada
I think this might be possible with the help of time-travel. All you'd have to do is send a swarm of nanobots into the past to scan a person's brain just before their death. This would preserve their memories and allow them to experience all the wonderful things of the future. SPOILERS FOR CHRONO TRIGGER AHEAD: Part of the inspiration came from Chrono Trigger when they resurrected Crono. They used to time egg to travel back to the instant before he was killed by Lavos. They took Crono and replaced him with an identical clone. Death sucks and I think that we owe it to people who have died, ESPECIALLY those who have died to secure our freedoms to find a way to bring them back! I think people who died in accidents deserve to experience all the happiness they possibly can! All the people who were good and kind, but could never find a mate because of our evolutionary prejudeces. It's the only way any kind of an "afterlife" is ever going to exist! I frown upon the nay-sayers who pessimistically proclaim time-travel to be impossible! The ones who give up without realizing that we might find new laws and loopholes that allow us to do these things! To just give up is an insult to the dead! They deserve more than just a rock with their name on it!
  • Caiman likes this
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#2
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

All you'd have to do is send a swarm of nanobots into the past

Is that all? :lol:

So even assuming time travel into the past was possible and people agreed to this idea of bringing back the dead, over a hundred billion humans [1.] have walked the face of this planet, where you going to put all these resurrected people? Or are you going to pick and choose who gets to come back?
  • Nom du Clavier, EVanimations and WithoutCoincidence like this
~Jon

#3
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada

All you'd have to do is send a swarm of nanobots into the past

Is that all? :lol:

So even assuming time travel into the past was possible and people agreed to this idea of bringing back the dead, over a hundred billion humans [1.] have walked the face of this planet, where you going to put all these resurrected people? Or are you going to pick and choose who gets to come back?


Oh, right, I forgot. You could find pleanty of room if you resurrected them digitally. I.E. mind uploading, which is probably what must of humanity is going to end up chosing anyway.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#4
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,963 posts
  • LocationLondon


So even assuming time travel into the past was possible and people agreed to this idea of bringing back the dead, over a hundred billion humans [1.] have walked the face of this planet, where you going to put all these resurrected people? Or are you going to pick and choose who gets to come back?

You could build a computer the size of the Solar System, i.e. Dyson sphere or similar construction and have their minds uploaded into its circuitry. Actually, you probably wouldn't even need a Dyson sphere. We'll eventually have miniaturised computers so efficiently that the entire human race could be stored on a desktop-sized device. lol.

#5
mic of orion

mic of orion

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Locationlondon

I think this might be possible with the help of time-travel. All you'd have to do is send a swarm of nanobots into the past to scan a person's brain just before their death. This would preserve their memories and allow them to experience all the wonderful things of the future.

SPOILERS FOR CHRONO TRIGGER AHEAD: Part of the inspiration came from Chrono Trigger when they resurrected Crono. They used to time egg to travel back to the instant before he was killed by Lavos. They took Crono and replaced him with an identical clone.

Death sucks and I think that we owe it to people who have died, ESPECIALLY those who have died to secure our freedoms to find a way to bring them back! I think people who died in accidents deserve to experience all the happiness they possibly can! All the people who were good and kind, but could never find a mate because of our evolutionary prejudeces. It's the only way any kind of an "afterlife" is ever going to exist! I frown upon the nay-sayers who pessimistically proclaim time-travel to be impossible! The ones who give up without realizing that we might find new laws and loopholes that allow us to do these things! To just give up is an insult to the dead! They deserve more than just a rock with their name on it!


not sure how to reply to this without coming across condescending, but science of time travel is almost certainly impossible, at least at this junction, perhaps in 3000 years time we might be able to travel, but by this time immortality would be as normal as drinking water to quench your thirst.

I am of the opinion that reviving dead or long time gone is a bad idea, but if he had time travel capability than i'd definitely help few individuals from our history to have benefit of immortality.

Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert and Einstein to name few.
It's dangerous to be right, when your government is wrong.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

#6
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
I am under the impression that if backwards time travel is possible and the dead is being resurrected by time traveling nanobots we would see some sort of effect or evidence of it happening now.
  • Nom du Clavier and WithoutCoincidence like this

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#7
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada


I think this might be possible with the help of time-travel. All you'd have to do is send a swarm of nanobots into the past to scan a person's brain just before their death. This would preserve their memories and allow them to experience all the wonderful things of the future.

SPOILERS FOR CHRONO TRIGGER AHEAD: Part of the inspiration came from Chrono Trigger when they resurrected Crono. They used to time egg to travel back to the instant before he was killed by Lavos. They took Crono and replaced him with an identical clone.

Death sucks and I think that we owe it to people who have died, ESPECIALLY those who have died to secure our freedoms to find a way to bring them back! I think people who died in accidents deserve to experience all the happiness they possibly can! All the people who were good and kind, but could never find a mate because of our evolutionary prejudeces. It's the only way any kind of an "afterlife" is ever going to exist! I frown upon the nay-sayers who pessimistically proclaim time-travel to be impossible! The ones who give up without realizing that we might find new laws and loopholes that allow us to do these things! To just give up is an insult to the dead! They deserve more than just a rock with their name on it!


not sure how to reply to this without coming across condescending, but science of time travel is almost certainly impossible, at least at this junction, perhaps in 3000 years time we might be able to travel, but by this time immortality would be as normal as drinking water to quench your thirst.

I am of the opinion that reviving dead or long time gone is a bad idea, but if he had time travel capability than i'd definitely help few individuals from our history to have benefit of immortality.

Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert and Einstein to name few.


That's why I think it should be looked into a little deeper! Besides, Michio Kaku seems pretty optimistic about it. I don't want to make an argument from authority with that, but he DOES study this stuff for a living.

Why would it be a bad idea to resurrect everyone, anyway? If we only resurrected a few, then they would surely want their loved ones to be resurrected to. Who are we to say who is and is not worthy of life?

I am under the impression that if backwards time travel is possible and the dead is being resurrected by time traveling nanobots we would see some sort of effect or evidence of it happening now.


I think if they made themselves known, it would make people complacent and not want to invent such technology... Unless the multi-verse theory is true.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#8
Kynareth

Kynareth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 138 posts

Why would it be a bad idea to resurrect everyone, anyway? If we only resurrected a few, then they would surely want their loved ones to be resurrected to. Who are we to say who is and is not worthy of life?

You must remember that those people would find themselves REALLY lost in the future, in this whole new world. They wouldn't even be able to understand it without any improvements in their brains (still would be problems). Anyways, I would say for myself it's an ambitious idea but I don't see much probability of this happening before the year 3000. It would be even a harder task than terraforming venus for example.

#9
Chronomaster

Chronomaster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts

Michio Kaku seems pretty optimistic about it. I don't want to make an argument from authority with that, but he DOES study this stuff for a living.

Which still means nothing, as you say there's no argument from authority to be had. There is no authority on time travel, considering it is fiction.

Who's the say humans from the past would want to be resurrected by time travelling nanobots anyway? Though what you describe isn't true resurrection, just making copies and possibly loading them into a digital world. I don't really see the point. Bringing back 'great people' would soon lose its novelty, they aren't an infinite source of genius.
Counting down...

#10
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
I would bring back Carl Sagan. Though i don't believe it will be possible.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#11
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada

Michio Kaku seems pretty optimistic about it. I don't want to make an argument from authority with that, but he DOES study this stuff for a living.

Which still means nothing, as you say there's no argument from authority to be had. There is no authority on time travel, considering it is fiction.

Who's the say humans from the past would want to be resurrected by time travelling nanobots anyway? Though what you describe isn't true resurrection, just making copies and possibly loading them into a digital world. I don't really see the point. Bringing back 'great people' would soon lose its novelty, they aren't an infinite source of genius.


Dude, the guy is a doctor of physics! He co-founded string-theory! I think he should know what he's talking about!

Also, it's not about gaining knowledge or bringing back only great people! It's about the basic human right to life! Besides, nobody would be forcing them to live forever. Not only that, but they could be made to live a digital environment that was familiar and comfortable to them and slowly adjust to the future.

As for being a copy, I'm skeptical of the claim that it wouldn't "really" be them. I think if the neural processes and thought patterns are identical, who's to say that it wouldn't be them? I mean, yeah, if you had two SIMULTANEOUSLY, they wouldn't be the same entity, but that's only because there are on diverging paths. If there is only one, then I think it's still essentially the same person.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#12
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
How big would individual populations get with this O_O Would the ressurected be allowed to reproduce? Could we reproduce digitally?

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#13
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada

How big would individual populations get with this O_O

Would the ressurected be allowed to reproduce?

Could we reproduce digitally?


According to the guy above, 100 billion, yes, and yes. And with space-travel, there would be no shortage of resources, especially if there is an infinite number of other universes.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#14
Chronomaster

Chronomaster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts

Dude, the guy is a doctor of physics! He co-founded string-theory! I think he should know what he's talking about!

Yeah and until he steps out of a time machine with proof it is possible his word has as much authority as that of the writers of back to the future. Sorry, but what you posted was a classic appeal to authority fallacy, even if you claim it wasn't. I do not doubt that Michio knows his stuff, but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to the viability of time travel into the past for which there is no basis in reality.

As for whether it would be them or not, well I suppose that's a whole other philosophical argument if you want to have it. But you explicitly said this in your opening post 'scan a person's brain just before their death. This would preserve their memories' - that means the original person still dies, right after you scan their brain and take their memories. What you have is a copy, regardless if it's in the same state or not.

And with space-travel, there would be no shortage of resources, especially if there is an infinite number of other universes.

So as well as time travelling nanobots capable of ressurrecting a hundred billion humans and bringing them to the future you're expecting interdimensional universe hopping and faster than light spaceships? I know we're here to talk about the future but so far all of these concepts don't have any basis in our current understanding of the universe around us. Time travel to the past, dimension hopping, faster than light travel... they're all staples of fiction and it's just a fallacy of no limits to say we cannot rule them out 'in the future' given our current understanding of science has no place for any of them.
  • Shimmy likes this
Counting down...

#15
Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Why would it be a bad idea to resurrect everyone, anyway?

a) Caprica pretty much told us why the computerised resurrection doesn't work. It's not really them, they're fake
b) Dead people will probably go mentally unstable when they're told they're not dead
c) Pulling people into the future leaves them lost/traumatised (eg: coma patients, people that have lived detached from the world for 20 years/time travellers)
d) The conversation would be pretty boring
e) Nobody wants to live forever in a serious manner
f) Spending resources on dead people instead of the living (not just food and water, but the tech to resurrect them in the first place)
g) A religion, cult or resistance movement will form around the tech or its after-effects
h) It causes a gigantic paradox by just going back in time in the first place
i) What if the nanobots evolve to kill people?
j) What if your nanobots resurrects the wrong person?
k) Saving the Godwin til last, what if someone resurrects Hitler?
For everyone's sake, watch this video

#16
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada

Dude, the guy is a doctor of physics! He co-founded string-theory! I think he should know what he's talking about!

Yeah and until he steps out of a time machine with proof it is possible his word has as much authority as that of the writers of back to the future. Sorry, but what you posted was a classic appeal to authority fallacy, even if you claim it wasn't. I do not doubt that Michio knows his stuff, but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to the viability of time travel into the past for which there is no basis in reality.

As for whether it would be them or not, well I suppose that's a whole other philosophical argument if you want to have it. But you explicitly said this in your opening post 'scan a person's brain just before their death. This would preserve their memories' - that means the original person still dies, right after you scan their brain and take their memories. What you have is a copy, regardless if it's in the same state or not.

And with space-travel, there would be no shortage of resources, especially if there is an infinite number of other universes.

So as well as time travelling nanobots capable of ressurrecting a hundred billion humans and bringing them to the future you're expecting interdimensional universe hopping and faster than light spaceships? I know we're here to talk about the future but so far all of these concepts don't have any basis in our current understanding of the universe around us. Time travel to the past, dimension hopping, faster than light travel... they're all staples of fiction and it's just a fallacy of no limits to say we cannot rule them out 'in the future' given our current understanding of science has no place for any of them.


Okay, whatever. I admit that I can't say that any of this is for sure possible. I'm just throwing out what-ifs of how it might be done. But I still say that it warrants further investigation. Much of what we once considered fiction (And indeed, what we said would never happen) ended up being a reality. Not ALL of it, of course, but I know better than the make the same mistake.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#17
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • LocationDeep Space

d) The conversation would be pretty boring


Not at all! I would love to show them all that has happened!

e) Nobody wants to live forever in a serious manner


I would like to live as long as i can!
  • Italian Ufo likes this

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#18
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationB.C. Canada

Why would it be a bad idea to resurrect everyone, anyway?

a) Caprica pretty much told us why the computerised resurrection doesn't work. It's not really them, they're fake
b) Dead people will probably go mentally unstable when they're told they're not dead
c) Pulling people into the future leaves them lost/traumatised (eg: coma patients, people that have lived detached from the world for 20 years/time travellers)
d) The conversation would be pretty boring
e) Nobody wants to live forever in a serious manner
f) Spending resources on dead people instead of the living (not just food and water, but the tech to resurrect them in the first place)
g) A religion, cult or resistance movement will form around the tech or its after-effects
h) It causes a gigantic paradox by just going back in time in the first place
i) What if the nanobots evolve to kill people?
j) What if your nanobots resurrects the wrong person?
k) Saving the Godwin til last, what if someone resurrects Hitler?


A) If the processes are identical, then I think it's fair to say it's the same person. It's only when 2 copies of the same individual go down diverging paths that they are no longer the same entity. Every instant we die and become something new in the next instant. It's hard to explain it words for me, since I'm dominantly right-brained.
B) C) This doesn't need to be the case. Future technology could probably find a way to help them keep calm and adjust to the new state of the world.
D) What?
E) You must not know very many people, then. I do. I want to see everything in the universe! There's no limit to the wonders we can experience!
F) Is that really a bad thing? We spend resources on the living; and if there's more resources than we'll ever use, why not?
G) Not a reason why it's a bad idea.
H) Doesn't need to. There's the self-consistency principle or the multiverse theory
I) Precautions would be taken to prevent that.
J) I think it would be easier to have self-replicating swarms follow every person around their whole lives. This would be easier than making separate trips per individual.
K) What if they do? It's not like he could do anything. He would have no power. Besides, people like that could be reformed. I don't think that justice should be about killing a person because it feels good, or about punishment for punishment sake. I think it should be about protecting society, and reformation works for the good of more people than simply killing or torturing a criminal.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It's my conviction that when someone says something is "impossible," what they really mean is "our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries." -Richard Obousy

#19
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
A few things i don't get about your proposals and reasoning. Firstly, what is this "right to life"? That phrase means nothing to me. They lived a life and they died. They don't miss life, the dead don't have feelings or regrets, there's no concept that they're upset at being dead and desperately want to live again. The only reason to bring people back to life would be for our benefit, because we miss them or we think they had interesting minds, don't try and make it about them, it's entirely selfish. If you really measure the quality of a civilisation by how many "people" it has alive then it will be much much easier to create entirely new digital people who will have all the traits of humans. This method doesn't involve the most likely impossible method you described. As for the scientific research into the topic I think you misunderstand how research works. You research things in steps and you build on previous knowledge. You need at lest some vague theory of how something will work to figure out what to even start researching. long time future inventions can't just be thought of and then made if none of the technology required is even vaguely comprehended. If we do eventually discover something like you described it will be an accident based on a culmination of many different areas of science, none of which initially had any concept of this being their goal.
  • Nom du Clavier likes this

#20
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random


Michio Kaku seems pretty optimistic about it. I don't want to make an argument from authority with that, but he DOES study this stuff for a living.

Which still means nothing, as you say there's no argument from authority to be had. There is no authority on time travel, considering it is fiction.

Who's the say humans from the past would want to be resurrected by time travelling nanobots anyway? Though what you describe isn't true resurrection, just making copies and possibly loading them into a digital world. I don't really see the point. Bringing back 'great people' would soon lose its novelty, they aren't an infinite source of genius.


Dude, the guy is a doctor of physics! He co-founded string-theory! I think he should know what he's talking about!


This little known guy called Stephen Hawking begs to differ on the subject of time travel, as far as I'm aware; last I checked checked he was considered the most brilliant mind alive by many. You say you don't want to make an argument from authority and yet in your reply you go on to list Michio Kaku's credentials. Does not compute... But hey, I'll see your authority and raise you mine. ;)

I'm a big fan of Michio's, by the way, as I am Hawking's. As Chronomaster points out correctly, it is science fiction at this point and neither of their *opinions* - whilst interesting - holds more weight.

Until such time a time travel device has been built and there has been proof that it works, it remains science fiction. Let's wait until it's science fact, with definitive proof one way or the other, not start a holy war of science.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: resurrection, nanobots, mind uploading

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users