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

#21
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

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.


By that logic, it would be okay to kill a person, since they wouldn't mind being dead. There would be no reason to have charity, doctors, firefighters, police, or anyone else dedicated to preserving life. I assume that you think those things are okay to have. Well, what makes one method of saving a person's life more worthy of consideration than another? You know what? You're right. It is selfish. Humans are selfish. It all ultimately comes down to ourselves wanting to feel good, whether it's through pride, personal pleasure, alleviation of guilt, or whatever. So what? Just because I have my own interests in mind doesn't mean that I want to make the lives of everybody else a living hell.
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

#22
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.


By that logic, it would be okay to kill a person, since they wouldn't mind being dead. There would be no reason to have charity, doctors, firefighters, police, or anyone else dedicated to preserving life. I assume that you think those things are okay to have. Well, what makes one method of saving a person's life more worthy of consideration than another? You know what? You're right. It is selfish. Humans are selfish. It all ultimately comes down to ourselves wanting to feel good, whether it's through pride, personal pleasure, alleviation of guilt, or whatever. So what? Just because I have my own interests in mind doesn't mean that I want to make the lives of everybody else a living hell.



Theres a very big difference between saving a living persons life and resurrecting someone who is already dead. The living person will most likely want to keep living and not want to endure the pain of death, the dead person will not.

#23
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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



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.


By that logic, it would be okay to kill a person, since they wouldn't mind being dead. There would be no reason to have charity, doctors, firefighters, police, or anyone else dedicated to preserving life. I assume that you think those things are okay to have. Well, what makes one method of saving a person's life more worthy of consideration than another? You know what? You're right. It is selfish. Humans are selfish. It all ultimately comes down to ourselves wanting to feel good, whether it's through pride, personal pleasure, alleviation of guilt, or whatever. So what? Just because I have my own interests in mind doesn't mean that I want to make the lives of everybody else a living hell.



Theres a very big difference between saving a living persons life and resurrecting someone who is already dead. The living person will most likely want to keep living and not want to endure the pain of death, the dead person will not.


It's not about the pain of death. It's about the cessation of life and everything that one finds beautiful and enjoyable. There's no difference in saving a person's life by preventing their death and saving their life by undoing their death. I know what I want if I end up dying.
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

#24
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
But you don't, you want to keep living at the moment because life is all you know. when you're dead you will want nothing. Beauty is a luxury only the living can appreciate.

#25
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

But you don't, you want to keep living at the moment because life is all you know. when you're dead you will want nothing. Beauty is a luxury only the living can appreciate.


Right, and I don't want that! I don't care that I won't want anything when I'm dead! When I'm dead, I can't experience pleasure and that makes life better than death! You're being inconsistent. If it's okay to let a person remain dead, then it's okay to not save their life, since they'll be scare for a while but after that, they won't have any desires. Sorry, but what your saying is hardly a justification for saying that it's not worthwhile to bring back a dead 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

#26
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts


But you don't, you want to keep living at the moment because life is all you know. when you're dead you will want nothing. Beauty is a luxury only the living can appreciate.


Right, and I don't want that! I don't care that I won't want anything when I'm dead! When I'm dead, I can't experience pleasure and that makes life better than death! You're being inconsistent. If it's okay to let a person remain dead, then it's okay to not save their life, since they'll be scare for a while but after that, they won't have any desires. Sorry, but what your saying is hardly a justification for saying that it's not worthwhile to bring back a dead person!


For not experiencing pleasure to be a bad thing you need some kind of conscious thought to know you're not experiencing it. The concept of life being "better" than death makes absolutely no sense. I'm not sure you fully appreciate what being dead means. With regards to me justifying it, I'm pretty sure you need to give a good reason why it should be done (since its invention and implementation rests on that) before I have to justify the other side anyway, and I still don't see anything reasonable form what you've mentioned so far.

#27
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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



But you don't, you want to keep living at the moment because life is all you know. when you're dead you will want nothing. Beauty is a luxury only the living can appreciate.


Right, and I don't want that! I don't care that I won't want anything when I'm dead! When I'm dead, I can't experience pleasure and that makes life better than death! You're being inconsistent. If it's okay to let a person remain dead, then it's okay to not save their life, since they'll be scare for a while but after that, they won't have any desires. Sorry, but what your saying is hardly a justification for saying that it's not worthwhile to bring back a dead person!


For not experiencing pleasure to be a bad thing you need some kind of conscious thought to know you're not experiencing it. The concept of life being "better" than death makes absolutely no sense. I'm not sure you fully appreciate what being dead means. With regards to me justifying it, I'm pretty sure you need to give a good reason why it should be done (since its invention and implementation rests on that) before I have to justify the other side anyway, and I still don't see anything reasonable form what you've mentioned so far.


If it's not hurting anybody, then why not?
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

#28
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

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


But you don't, you want to keep living at the moment because life is all you know. when you're dead you will want nothing. Beauty is a luxury only the living can appreciate.


Right, and I don't want that! I don't care that I won't want anything when I'm dead! When I'm dead, I can't experience pleasure and that makes life better than death! You're being inconsistent. If it's okay to let a person remain dead, then it's okay to not save their life, since they'll be scare for a while but after that, they won't have any desires. Sorry, but what your saying is hardly a justification for saying that it's not worthwhile to bring back a dead person!


But unless they have been explicit about wanting to be brought back from the dead, as you would be, as I would be, as indeed more of us here would probably be explicit in our wish to be brought back, I think we shouldn't.

Just as we have these things called 'Do Not Resuscitate' orders there should be a more elaborate 'Also, Do Not Resurrect' version. Whether or not we believe people will want to be brought back, making the choice for them to bring them back is no different from making the choice to end their life against their will.

If killing someone against their will is murder, how is bringing them back against their will any less bad? We cannot know without having their explicit consent prior to trying if they want to; if you say everyone wants to, the attempt to bring them back in order to ask if they indeed wanted to be brought back, well... it has already removed that person's choice and done the wrong.

To answer your previous question: It *is* hurting people if you remove their choice. Among its many forms we call the effects of which murder, indentured servitude, what else have you that's a removal of choice?

Catch 22.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#29
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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



But you don't, you want to keep living at the moment because life is all you know. when you're dead you will want nothing. Beauty is a luxury only the living can appreciate.


Right, and I don't want that! I don't care that I won't want anything when I'm dead! When I'm dead, I can't experience pleasure and that makes life better than death! You're being inconsistent. If it's okay to let a person remain dead, then it's okay to not save their life, since they'll be scare for a while but after that, they won't have any desires. Sorry, but what your saying is hardly a justification for saying that it's not worthwhile to bring back a dead person!


But unless they have been explicit about wanting to be brought back from the dead, as you would be, as I would be, as indeed more of us here would probably be explicit in our wish to be brought back, I think we shouldn't.

Just as we have these things called 'Do Not Resuscitate' orders there should be a more elaborate 'Also, Do Not Resurrect' version. Whether or not we believe people will want to be brought back, making the choice for them to bring them back is no different from making the choice to end their life against their will.

If killing someone against their will is murder, how is bringing them back against their will any less bad? We cannot know without having their explicit consent prior to trying if they want to; if you say everyone wants to, the attempt to bring them back in order to ask if they indeed wanted to be brought back, well... it has already removed that person's choice and done the wrong.

Catch 22.


But the thing is that it can be reversed. They can pull the plug on their own life if they wish it. This way, they still have a choice with more options available than ever before.
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

#30
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random
You cannot undo a wrong by reversing its effects. Suppose we had time travel and a woman was violated and she'd travel back in time to avoid that from happening, she'd still have the memory. Has it then or hasn't it happened? Was the wrong erased or wasn't it? This is one of the very few points where I am absolutely against science going. I don't mind the technology existing, but bringing people back from the dead who haven't signed a codicil to that effect, is a moral line I'm very much against crossing. What if this person you brought back had seen enough, was tired of life and looked forward to death - but had some moral objection to euthanasia. You tell him basically tough cookies, either deal with it or go kill yourself anyway. I hope you see how absurd that is, in that you're forcing yet another choice on someone who was very happy not to have to make a single choice ever again. I'm not even saying these people will be the norm, but even if they're the exception does that justify screwing them over like that? With this technology you could undo murder. Does that make the murder excusable? If that murder was still unjustified even though reversed, how is this not a problem?
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#31
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

You cannot undo a wrong by reversing its effects. Suppose we had time travel and a woman was violated and she'd travel back in time to avoid that from happening, she'd still have the memory. Has it then or hasn't it happened? Was the wrong erased or wasn't it?

This is one of the very few points where I am absolutely against science going. I don't mind the technology existing, but bringing people back from the dead who haven't signed a codicil to that effect, is a moral line I'm very much against crossing.

What if this person you brought back had seen enough, was tired of life and looked forward to death - but had some moral objection to euthanasia. You tell him basically tough cookies, either deal with it or go kill yourself anyway. I hope you see how absurd that is, in that you're forcing yet another choice on someone who was very happy not to have to make a single choice ever again.

I'm not even saying these people will be the norm, but even if they're the exception does that justify screwing them over like that?

With this technology you could undo murder. Does that make the murder excusable? If that murder was still unjustified even though reversed, how is this not a problem?


I think most people would want it, though. I don't think the needs of one person should outweigh the needs of many more. In the situation you mentioned, I suppose you could let them live in the physical world in a body prone to aging and disease. To be blunt though, yes, I think we should say "Tough cookies. You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also, it's nice like murder or rape where we're maliciously and deliberately inflicting pain or suffering. With death, the memory of being resurrected would be erased, so that's kind of a moot point. You have to admit, though, that you're forcing something on somebody either way. At least with resurrection, there's a choice. With leaving them dead, they're forced to be dead when they otherwise wouldn't have to. I think it's the more moral choice by far.
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

#32
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

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

I think most people would want it, though. I don't think the needs of one person should outweigh the needs of many more. In the situation you mentioned, I suppose you could let them live in the physical world in a body prone to aging and disease. To be blunt though, yes, I think we should say "Tough cookies. You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also, it's nice like murder or rape where we're maliciously and deliberately inflicting pain or suffering. With death, the memory of being resurrected would be erased, so that's kind of a moot point. You have to admit, though, that you're forcing something on somebody either way. At least with resurrection, there's a choice. With leaving them dead, they're forced to be dead when they otherwise wouldn't have to. I think it's the more moral choice by far.


That is the point we've been trying to get across to you: When you are dead, leaving you dead isn't a choice being forced on you. It is the act of doing nothing, no more, no less.

As for the needs of the many: that's why we let those many decide in advance that they want to be brought back, with the few deciding they'll give it a miss. Why make it more difficult than that?

As for 'with death, the memory would be erased' making it a moot point... that's the same kind of justification the Nazi's had for their eugenic experiments, just saying. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#33
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

I think most people would want it, though. I don't think the needs of one person should outweigh the needs of many more. In the situation you mentioned, I suppose you could let them live in the physical world in a body prone to aging and disease. To be blunt though, yes, I think we should say "Tough cookies. You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also, it's nice like murder or rape where we're maliciously and deliberately inflicting pain or suffering. With death, the memory of being resurrected would be erased, so that's kind of a moot point. You have to admit, though, that you're forcing something on somebody either way. At least with resurrection, there's a choice. With leaving them dead, they're forced to be dead when they otherwise wouldn't have to. I think it's the more moral choice by far.


That is the point we've been trying to get across to you: When you are dead, leaving you dead isn't a choice being forced on you. It is the act of doing nothing, no more, no less.

As for the needs of the many: that's why we let those many decide in advance that they want to be brought back, with the few deciding they'll give it a miss. Why make it more difficult than that?

As for 'with death, the memory would be erased' making it a moot point... that's the same kind of justification the Nazi's had for their eugenic experiments, just saying. Two wrongs don't make a right.


But the people dying are being forced into death. With resurrection, it's optional. And really, a choice? Is that really such a terrible thing? They'll just chose what they want to happen next. It's not a violation at all. Quite the opposite. As for deciding in advance, this kind of stuff wasn't always around. Sure, if and when such technology seems more realistic, we'll be asking people for their input, but before then, they are forced into death. I really can't see why you find being resurrected to ask if you really want to be dead is so objectionable.
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

#34
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random
I really can't see why you think this is an ethical line we should allow ourselves to cross. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. Not that I believe we'll ever invent that technology, so as far as I'm concerned it's a thought experiment. That doesn't make my conviction that crossing this hypothetical ethical line, to bring people back against their outright stated will, dehumanises us that would make that call on behalf of the dead, any less strong. But hey, if we get to the point where we can send nanobots back to rescue people, why don't we let those nanobots first inform people? Problem solved. No leaving people behind who didn't want to be left behind, no questionable moral judgments to be made.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#35
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

I really can't see why you think this is an ethical line we should allow ourselves to cross. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not that I believe we'll ever invent that technology, so as far as I'm concerned it's a thought experiment. That doesn't make my conviction that crossing this hypothetical ethical line, to bring people back against their outright stated will, dehumanises us that would make that call on behalf of the dead, any less strong.

But hey, if we get to the point where we can send nanobots back to rescue people, why don't we let those nanobots first inform people? Problem solved. No leaving people behind who didn't want to be left behind, no questionable moral judgments to be made.


I suppose if they had access to their thought patterns and memories, they would also have access to whether they want to be resurrected or not. Outright asking them in the past could interfere with history.
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

#36
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

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


I really can't see why you think this is an ethical line we should allow ourselves to cross. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not that I believe we'll ever invent that technology, so as far as I'm concerned it's a thought experiment. That doesn't make my conviction that crossing this hypothetical ethical line, to bring people back against their outright stated will, dehumanises us that would make that call on behalf of the dead, any less strong.

But hey, if we get to the point where we can send nanobots back to rescue people, why don't we let those nanobots first inform people? Problem solved. No leaving people behind who didn't want to be left behind, no questionable moral judgments to be made.


I suppose if they had access to their thought patterns and memories, they would also have access to whether they want to be resurrected or not. Outright asking them in the past could interfere with history.


I agree that outright asking them would interfere with history. They'd have to have access to their thought patterns and memories, or there'd be no person to bring back in the first place, so if the nanobots can tell unequivocally this person doesn't want to die and they don't change their mind right before their death, or vice versa they do want to die but change their mind at the end, then the nanobots can go ahead and bring their thought patterns forward in time, no harm done. It's a much cleaner solution, leaving the entire moral question up to the subject themselves to answer, even if sort-of-not-entirely-telepathically.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#37
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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



I really can't see why you think this is an ethical line we should allow ourselves to cross. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not that I believe we'll ever invent that technology, so as far as I'm concerned it's a thought experiment. That doesn't make my conviction that crossing this hypothetical ethical line, to bring people back against their outright stated will, dehumanises us that would make that call on behalf of the dead, any less strong.

But hey, if we get to the point where we can send nanobots back to rescue people, why don't we let those nanobots first inform people? Problem solved. No leaving people behind who didn't want to be left behind, no questionable moral judgments to be made.


I suppose if they had access to their thought patterns and memories, they would also have access to whether they want to be resurrected or not. Outright asking them in the past could interfere with history.


I agree that outright asking them would interfere with history. They'd have to have access to their thought patterns and memories, or there'd be no person to bring back in the first place, so if the nanobots can tell unequivocally this person doesn't want to die and they don't change their mind right before their death, or vice versa they do want to die but change their mind at the end, then the nanobots can go ahead and bring their thought patterns forward in time, no harm done. It's a much cleaner solution, leaving the entire moral question up to the subject themselves to answer, even if sort-of-not-entirely-telepathically.


Of course, a person who initially doesn't want to be resurrected may change their mind if they consider all the awesome technologies of the future.
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

#38
Zergling103

Zergling103

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
Keitaro, I wouldn't waste your time arguing with people on the internet about whether this is a good idea. Often, these sorts of discussions follow a pattern: Those out there whom are just being critical for its own sake will just keep pouring on arguments that, usually, are easy enough to counter that a rebuttal pops into your head the instant your eyes cross over the words. But actually going through and replying to each one usually just leads them to respond with something just as well thought out, and now you've wound up debating with people whom are unsure about... whether it is preferable to be alive instead of dead? Yeah. That's a good sign that it's time to talk to someone else.
People who initially take an opposite role will usually do so to the end, man, and will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to keep themselves there. Most people out there are not willing to search for a way through the obstacles -- something that have taken some scientists years -- to achieve the end result you hope for. Usually its just to spill forth the first argument that comes to mind and hope the other person gets tired of replying.

My advice is, seek out discussion with individuals who are adequately willing to find some way to achieve whatever ends (or as close as possible) through the snags and obstacles, but who are critical and unwilling to ignore said snags and obstacles. If you run into an argument that is genuinely worth answering, the answer won't come to mind instantly. Otherwise, don't waste your time, they're probably not gonna make the effort either.

#39
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

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

Of course, a person who initially doesn't want to be resurrected may change their mind if they consider all the awesome technologies of the future.


A feeling of awe thinking of the future, whether what their descendants might come across or looking forward to some sort of afterlife, might act as a proxy. We'd still know if they'd be amenable to living more. Whether it is a 'I wished I'd have long enough to see my grandkids' or 'If only I'd seen that steam train finished' or a 'I wonder what afterlife will be like', any such memory found would be a choice. But how would the nanobots weigh that against a dying thought of, 'I'm so bloody sick of humans, I don't want to see a single one ever again, good riddance', a misanthrope might very well have?

It's difficult. If only the question were as easy for everyone as with Oscar Wilde, he could be brought back with the news he'd be able to tear that wallpaper down, if it's not already gone.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#40
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
I think everyone is thinking way too science fiction here about resurrecting the dead. It's actually pretty simple really and in about 40 or 50 years time we may have the technology to start such a project.

Here is what I propose how a future civilization may become immortal and/or resurrect the dead.

Resurrecting the dead is actually quite simple but the technology will not be available for thousands of years. Something I'd like to call Soul Travel. When humans figure out a way to control our entrance into other dimensions eg. dying, we will achieve one of the top goals of any civilization. We will use unknown technologies to travel outside the body with our souls into other dimensions. We would have to figure out how to locate old souls and how to navigate inside these other dimensions in order to visit loved ones.

However, we could develop a method of 'resurrecting' the 'dead' using advanced forms of certain technologies even available today.

Facebook is still a young company and who knows what it will look like in the distant future. But with 700 million users strong I don't think its going anywhere anytime soon. Even Mark Zuckerburg said he doesn't know Facebook's longterm future and what it will look like ten years from now. Couldn't Facebook which already sort of knows us build an entire network around thoughts, hopes, and dreams of each user? I like the sixth day (film) scenario where you can scan your mind and upload it onto a hard drive. Why couldn't Facebook serve as the face of the Brain Network? People will say that nobody will use this type of network but i think they are wrong. People post information about themselves willingly on Facebook for the whole world to see. So why couldn't Facebook evolve to a thought sharing network and then a mind sharing network? It would give an ultimate life to the internet (however that may be a bad thing but that's for another topic)

What does this have to do with resurrection you ask? Everything! If in the future 10 Billion people have a Facebook account linked to their minds and thoughts Facebook can definitely create a type of death prevention system. Here's how I think it will work. Say you get shot, Facebook will instantly know that you've been shot and notify the important people in your life automatically. If you die from the bleeding Facebook and the Hospital will automatically rescan your mind, delete those few minutes and then re-upload your mind as if it never happened. If the doctors cannot save your body, Facebook will simply create you a new one using high tech cloning technologies and estimates based on your pictures and previous body.

Now for those people who die and want to stay dead you can still communicate with them via a holographic graveyard or deathstream or any other creative names you can think of for a dead social network. Before they died the person could upload video/holographic program of themselves to the site. If you wanted to talk to them as if they were still alive, the programs used would be so sophisticated that it would be like your actually talking with them!

Now the graveyard idea is probably only about 10-15 years away from commercial use. I believe some companies are already testing holographic wills and message machines.

That's my two cents of Resurrecting the dead. Not too too difficult and nothing involving time travel http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbup.gif
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.





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