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

#41
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

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


But the problem is that it's been quite clearly established that the "soul" exists in the structure of the brain, and when that denturates, the person is dead. I think the only way of bringing back the dead is to restoring their brain functions.
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

#42
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

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

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.


There's a problem with thinking in absolutes like that. We're in the fortunate position here of examining a hypothetical - for the moment - scenario and making sure we've addressed the basics. If you think "whether to be alive or dead" is the only question to be answered, that it's really that black and white, you're missing at least part of the point. I'll demonstrate momentarily why.

Let's for a moment imagine what would happen if those who first discovered oil had the luxury of 20/20 foresight. They'd likely still go ahead, knowing it would bring us to this current technological plateau. Wouldn't they have also made certain, when the opportunity existed, to say 'we've taken this as far as we can without doing more harm than good, let's focus on different technology'. This is what 20/20 hindsight gives us now, what 20/20 foresight would have given them then.

Key question: Was it absolutely, unequivocally worth it, oil? Well, to a certain degree it was. Not bad at all, but not the be all and end all.

In context of this here question of whether being alive is always preferable to being dead. It might look black and white with a very easy answer of, "of course it's always better to be alive than death, anyone who thinks differently isn't worth wasting your time entering into a discussion with." And you'd make a grave mistake (pun unintended) of missing a key element of what most humans value more than life itself: quality of life.

I'm tabling for a moment my reservations on the moral judgment call of bringing people back against their will:
a) We've, through this very debate, Keitaro and I, come to the conclusion these nanobots can make a very decent decision as to whether people want to be brought back
b) It's possible in the future we may find another empirical way to answer questions like that in an objective way
c) It's not necessary to make my next point

So say for a moment there's no inherent problem with bringing people back from the dead and resurrecting them in the present. That is the present at the time this technology is invented, to avoid paradoxes. Then what?

Well, given most humans are keen on quality of life - at least I know of few who prefer to be miserable - let's further take it as read that we'd be able to give them an awesome healthy body that would never get sick, or that even if they did, we'd be able to provide them with a fresh clone.

Still looks like always being alive rather than dead holds true, right? Except we're talking here about transplanting people into the future, saving everyone who has ever lived. How well exactly would someone from 120k years ago fare in this day and age? They'd just adapt overnight without going insane, feeling entirely lost or helpless? We'd still, without any question whatsoever, be doing these people a favour? Because it's always better to be alive than dead, right? We come along in our hubris, take someone who's led a perfectly happy life and may well condemn them to a second life of misery. How generous of us.

That's the kind of thing dealing in absolutes gets you.

Hopefully having illustrated that this entire debate Keitaro, others and I have been having wasn't an exercise in futility, but that there are worthwhile questions to be asked (even in for the moment hypothetical scenarios), we can ask how we then might solve these problems.

Do we say, "don't bring back anyone who's been dead for more than 50 years, because chances are greater they'll be miserable than adapt and be happy?" With 50 years being an arbitrary number.

We could also speculate on whether this technology alone is enough and if we might not need a companion technology, to help these people acclimate to the future.

Let's posit a companion technology, for the moment equally futuristic, in which we have a massive simulation, compartmentalised into several eras. Each person would be brought back to life in a simulation first, no more than a psychologically safe number of years ahead of their original time. They'd live another life in this simulation and be reborn again in the next simulation, all the while holding on to the memories of their previous existence. Eventually, when they're ready to face 'reality', they might be brought forward in a leaps of 100 or 200 years at a time, as long as the simulation can tell the person would be able to handle it without going insane or plain miserable.

Eventually they'd be in a simulation that matches the timeline of this invention. This might take several lifetimes for them, but could take a few days or weeks in realtime. They'd then be ready to join us in the real world, whether that's still a physical reality, or whether we're ourselves simulated entities by then traveling between the stars in self-replicating machines.

But we've now examined a question at least as important: "What's the point of bringing people back if they're going to be miserable?" Saying life is always preferable to death just doesn't take enjoyment into account, which, last I understood is something people care a little about...

Anyway, I don't consider our (Keitaro's and mine) back and forth to have been adversarial. We've stumbled across questions and answers that would have been asked anyway if this technology ever came to pass. I think it's also established we shouldn't rush headlong into everything we invent, just because we can, without at least thinking through the possible scenarios. Would that we had with oil.

It's been very interesting and worthwhile indeed, or at least I think it has been. It's nice to engage with passionate, intelligent people, remaining for the best part civil throughout.

As for mind uploading and Jff3's scenario, Cory Doctorow wrote a freely downloadable novel a while ago with a very similar idea.
  • Caiman likes this
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#43
Zergling103

Zergling103

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
I understand the argument you are putting forth and I don't agree for a few reasons. Namely, I think you could be more optimistic and have more of an imagination for solutions to these problems you're bringing up.

We can probably and hopefully agree that having at least a reasonable Quality of Life is always better than no life at all.

Second, we can probably agree that the context of this discussion mostly surrounds the idea of mind uploading and simulating consciousness.

Having established this, the first point where I disagree with your reasoning, is your assumption that there will guaranteeably be at least one case, where there exists absolutely no conditions that a deceased person could be brought into which would restore his quality of life, and this is a very strong assumption to make. Surely this many years into the future it would be mere child's play for a computer to study and analyze any given individual's brain with a fine tooth comb, and then construct an environment that'd instantly wash away any sort of misery. Like, for example, what this person believed the afterlife had in store for him; meeting all his loved ones in a simulated heaven. They don't ever need to know the truth and they can believe they're in this massive spiritual community in the stars; hell, it pretty much would be that anyway. This would be a much better use of technology than trying to figure out if people'd rather be dead.

Second, it assumes that someone whom would prefer to be dead rather than alive could possibly be in the right mind to make that call. Most if not all of the time, such reasoning is based on mental illness, faulty reasoning and/or a distorted perception, (or terminal illness,) all of which ought to be corrected if it is making the person wish he was dead. Also, any such corrective measures would be simple and painless to apply since the brain would be digital.
By extension, we don't let people kill themselves unless they're terminally ill and in a lot of pain. People who are just plain miserable are put through all sorts of treatment measures to correct whatever self destructive thoughts they are having, but we never just let them kill themselves and rightfully so. Again, I reiterate that treating digital minds of different illnesses would be instant and painless.
You cannot assert it'd be wrong to treat people of "time shock" (assuming such a speculative condition would occur given the first point I made) and then assert that we shouldn't let mentally ill people kill themselves, as there are no relevant differences between the two. It is easy to believe there are since most people tend towards an appeal to nature.

It is likely some individuals might not be ready to be reborn and would have to remain suspended for some amount of time. However, the combination of these two points I think makes it pretty pointless and unethical to consider the possibility that we'd ever have to consider just, switching someone to the off position and then forgetting about him or her forever.

#44
Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom
The discussion's way too in depth for my continuously tired brain (and I'm having trouble taking the thread seriously if I'm honest, I'm not in the right mood/mindset for it). And so I'd been ignoring it post-Hitler joke but I'm wondering about this:

Having established this, the first point where I disagree with your reasoning, is your assumption that there will guaranteeably be at least one case, where there exists absolutely no conditions that a deceased person could be brought into which would restore his quality of life, and this is a very strong assumption to make. Surely this many years into the future it would be mere child's play for a computer to study and analyze any given individual's brain with a fine tooth comb, and then construct an environment that'd instantly wash away any sort of misery. Like, for example, what this person believed the afterlife had in store for him; meeting all his loved ones in a simulated heaven. They don't ever need to know the truth and they can believe they're in this massive spiritual community in the stars; hell, it pretty much would be that anyway. This would be a much better use of technology than trying to figure out if people'd rather be dead.


What people perceive as happiness and misery depends on a practically infinite amount of factors, modified stuff like how that person interprets the world based on their previous experiences, and how their mind is affected biologically. The impression I'm getting is that you're telling me that someone (a human mind or, lets bring the singularity to party, a computer) could given (lets say, for the sake of this argument) an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of computing power could create a computer program that could interpret an infinite amount of conditions that are genuinely possible to simulate which would make a potentially infinite amount of human beings happy with 100% accuracy and zero percent failure, errors or disruption, guaranteed with no room for testing this software (because making people unhappy is an unacceptable condition for creating this kind of technology, if what you're describing is what I suspect it is).

I don't mean to be obtuse but this is a very strong assumption to make. And if this isn't what you're saying then you're messing with probabilities in a manner that makes asking for a guarantee on the counter-point a particularly unfair thing to do, given that while it may be a very low probability it could still be very, very possible.

Now coming away from the infinite future to marginally nearer a time when this kind of technology might be developing, what kind of rate of failure is acceptable? And are you going to develop this in secret so nobody can object? Or will be be "enlightened" by then? Will someone have to make us enlightened?

A simpler method would be to copy the person's mind from the moment they were born and then put them in this simulation where they can never be miserable, because it would be the only world they know, so there's a near zero chance of failure (unless the mind rejects somehow).

Or, a simpler method that retains the personalities and memories we're trying to keep (why are we doing that again? I may have missed it) would be to simply poke the right parts of their brain so they can never, ever be sad or disappointed at life. This is in effect what you're doing anyway. And unless they have messed up brain chemistry its 100% effective because you're literally telling the brain what to feel. On the other hand, for some people experiencing and overcoming unhappy times is a part of what makes life worth living, so do you intend to take that away too?

What about the things that may proceed to diminish quality of life depending on the circumstances they occur in, but not necessarily diminishing happiness? Like sarcasm? Or forming contradictory opinions? You going to take away free will too?

Just saying. Feel free to carry on as if I wasn't here, eh. I certainly am.
  • Nom du Clavier and Shimmy like this
For everyone's sake, watch this video

#45
Zergling103

Zergling103

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Just saying. Feel free to carry on as if I wasn't here, eh. I certainly am.

While some of what you said was smart, it stopped being that way about half way through at the point you started talking about me developing things in secret so nobody can object.
So, that sounds like a good idea.

#46
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
So zergling dismisses the question of "is it preferable to be alive or dead" as a stupid question and pointless to discuss? And several other people seem to start with comments assuming that obviously everyone already agrees it's better to be alive than dead? What are these assumptions based on? Yes, this forum is almost completely used by people who are very interested in future technologies and want to live to see them fulfilled. This is and never has been in any way a consensus opinion for people in general. If you survey everyone in the world the significant majority of people will not want to live forever, i guarantee this. Also you're not considering how people views change with age. While young people may want to live forever and experience everything, when they get older these views will completely change. Most old people in the period up to their death accept it and actually look forward to the peace. Yes you could argue this is because their quality of life is low but theres much more to it than that. Many older people really have experienced everything they wanted to experience and they really have no desire to see the wonderous technology of the future. A lot of people here make huge generalisations that this forum is some kind of accurate sample of humanity, it couldn't be any further from the truth. We have no research into how the human mind would deal with immortality. How it would deal with so many memories, so much knowledge. If some people get bored of living now after about 60 years, what's to say they won't be suicidal after 150, and intentionally erasing themselves from existence shortly after. current happiness is greatly dependant on memory and previous happiness. Only what is new will make people generally happy. When someone gets married they might think it's awesome for a couple of years then the novelty wears off and they hate it. Why do millionaires get depressed and kill themselves? Yes, we could get round this by altering peoples brains so that they always get this sense of new happiness but that would involve messing up what makes them human in the first place. Would having virtually reality letting you do anything, anywhere whenever you wanted keep people constantly happy? No, it would mean people had a lot more to do and might make the novelty last for a quite a lot longer but eventually people will get bored of it. I'll repeat my initial argument as nothing has changed. The dead do not want to live again, they have no desire for it. "We can probably and hopefully agree that having at least a reasonable Quality of Life is always better than no life at all"? this doesn't mean anything. There is absolutely nothing "bad" about not being alive, and there never will be.
  • Nom du Clavier and Andy like this

#47
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

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

current happiness is greatly dependant on memory and previous happiness. Only what is new will make people generally happy. When someone gets married they might think it's awesome for a couple of years then the novelty wears off and they hate it. Why do millionaires get depressed and kill themselves? Yes, we could get round this by altering peoples brains so that they always get this sense of new happiness but that would involve messing up what makes them human in the first place. Would having virtually reality letting you do anything, anywhere whenever you wanted keep people constantly happy? No, it would mean people had a lot more to do and might make the novelty last for a quite a lot longer but eventually people will get bored of it.

I'll repeat my initial argument as nothing has changed. The dead do not want to live again, they have no desire for it. "We can probably and hopefully agree that having at least a reasonable Quality of Life is always better than no life at all"? this doesn't mean anything. There is absolutely nothing "bad" about not being alive, and there never will be.


People evolve throughout their life as you pointed out, Shimmy. Not only that, but with "I am the sum of my memories" in mind, it's a good question to ask whether we would actually be bringing back the same person, after first treating them for time shock, and as Zergling suggests, to fix psychological issues.

If we were to bring back Napoleon Bonaparte, treated for timeshock and other aberrancies of psychology, would the resulting personality still identify himself as Napoleon, would we still recognise him as such? It's speculation to say anything beyond 'he'd still have the same name'. Who have we then done a service, ourselves? Napoleon? In this case perhaps neither. We may 'fix' the impulse that someone doesn't want to experience the future, but at the risk of ending up with a person entirely unlike the individual we set out to bring back.

I acknowledge the details of my point of view are evolving, as I posited this future shock fix, but the overall thread through my posts should be clear: First, do no harm. At the risk of making an argument from authority, I share that with the medical profession, who take that as an oath.

As you also point out, Shimmy, there is no scientific knowledge yet that tells us if personalities will even remain stable if saddled with hundreds of years of memories. It may very well turn out to be impossible to simultaneously satisfy 'immortality' and 'sanity' or even 'immortality' and 'humanity'. I suspect the latter argument may be countered with, 'we're working toward post-humanism here, whether we're still recognisable as humans is not important', and while I would agree for people born in that transition period who look forward to becoming post-human, I'd object to this happening to everyone, just because we can.

At the very least we should establish a scientific baseline first on whether it's healthy, psychologically speaking, to life 'forever'. Have a few hundred volunteers upload their mind when they're still in their prime, let their avatar evolve in a simulation lasting a few thousand years, then have that avatar answer if he still wants immortality. Indeed, ask these volunteers if they still recognise themselves in this avatar at all. It may well be that the avatar's personality has collapsed under the weight of his memories, or if the avatar is still 'sane', for whatever definition we have of sanity by then, that the original volunteer has no desire to turn into this ghost of himself.

There are too many questions left to answer yet to be making sweeping statements that this would be preferable for everyone, or indeed anyone. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't develop this technology, again I'm arguing solely we should learn to walk before attempting to leap. This has unintended consequences written all over it otherwise.
  • Caiman, Shimmy and Andy like this
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#48
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random
On a related note, can we at least all agree that this is so far removed from the current state of the art, that all we can really say with any certainty is: We don't know, yet, what consequences this will have. Anyone who thinks they can predict with a certainty approaching 100% that is either unquestionably a good idea or a bad idea, is I think kidding themselves. Unless someone here wants to profess to being all-knowing, in which case the burden is on them: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Going for the moment with the assumption nobody here believes they have all the knowledge in the world to themselves, it should be clear that we cannot at this juncture know one way or the other, it's intellectually dishonest (or a sign of megalomania) to pretend otherwise. Well then, it remains to ask whether we're engaging in intellectual masturbation, or if we're asking worthwhile questions. Far from being a gathering of luddites here, I think we have a bunch of people here with the ability to ask and answer the bits that can indeed already be asked and answered, in that all of us here look to have a decent understanding of the state of the art of science. Would this technology be wonderful? No doubt. Can any of us truly say with moral certitude it is, without question, entirely beneficial to the recipient? No more than we could say with the same certainty it would be disastrous. Given also how people are not all alike, thankfully, it's hard to see indeed how this could be answered one way or the other even if we had the technology in question today. Is it really that much to ask, to try to gain at each significant step along the way, enough scientific understanding to minimise unintended consequences? That we learn from the lessons of our past, basically. Far from wanting to hold this technology back, I want to give it the best possible chance of success, with the best possible outcome for those who partake. I simply don't see how we can expect to do that by at this juncture trying to argue for absolutes when we don't even know half the variables that would be in play. I think I'll leave it at that, for the time being.
  • Caiman likes this
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#49
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England
This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. People do not always agree, especially on a subject as fundamental as life and death. To assume that one opinion is correct and dismiss all others because they do not conform is selfish. I'm sorry everyone hasn't jumped on board with the idea of 'rescuing' every person who has lived and died before us from death, but while it certainly sounds positive on the surface of course such a subject is going to provoke deeper thought and questions of existence. So many fundamental objections are brushed over and not given any thought in this scenario that I don't even know where to start. Say you did bring all of these people back into actual existence, not just in a virtual world. Would they regain citizenship in their original country of birth? Whose laws would they be subject to? Would their wealth (or lack of) be restored to them? Their social status? Their job? Their possessions? Our economic and political systems would require reinventing from the ground up. Or if we wanted to avoid these issues, we'd say no they don't get anything but life back. You think they're going to be fine with that? But okay, as we can see how difficult that would be and indeed we did elect to furnish virtual worlds for them to live in, is it our right to decide what kind of virtual world we put them in? Do we run instances of reality? Who would govern these virtual worlds and who gets to play God with the rules which they are built upon? Do we let them be God of their own virtual world? How do we guarantee their continued existence, who would maintain them? Would we have to simulate a whole universe in there or would there be limits to these worlds? Would the occupants be allowed to know their world is not real? Would they feel alive and real in that environment with that knowledge, could they interact with their 'real family' or just avatars? Would they want out into a 'real' body with the rest of us? Which brings us full circle to the problems at the beginning of this paragraph. These are just some of the questions rolling off the top of my head when it comes to 'bringing back the dead'. I don't think it's a question you can just say 'of course we should!' to without seriously considering what happens when you do. I still feel that in the scenario outlined in this thread (even if we remove the time travel aspect) there is no way around the fact that the 'original' person still dies and what you are saving is a copy, however true its likeness. I do not disagree with the fact that for all intents and purposes you still have the same 'person' after the fact, a consciousness that has the same thoughts, feelings, memories and experiences but the 'original' still dies. There is no way around this. If this kind of technology was perverted to capture an exact likeness of the consciousness of a healthy individual you'd end up with two versions of this person. The original and the copy. I don't see how that's any different from doing it the moment before they die.
  • Nom du Clavier and Andy like this
~Jon

#50
Guest_ace_*

Guest_ace_*
  • Guests
man i really hope nobody resurrects me after i die. i would be so mad at them. i would be all like "whats that for????" http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/realmad.gif

but anyway, how could somebody live in a computer? i mean, would it really be you? or just a copy of you in virtual form? http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/question.gif

#51
Keitaro2011

Keitaro2011

    Member

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

man i really hope nobody resurrects me after i die. i would be so mad at them. i would be all like "whats that for????" http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/realmad.gif

but anyway, how could somebody live in a computer? i mean, would it really be you? or just a copy of you in virtual form? http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/question.gif


Why would you be mad? You'd be able to experience whatever you wanted!

Also, I think it would be you. It's the same brain processes. The only way you could say it's not you is if the "original" kept living and continued to diverge down another path.
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

#52
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

Also, I think it would be you. It's the same brain processes. The only way you could say it's not you is if the "original" kept living and continued to diverge down another path.

I think in referring to the ‘original’ you show why it’s not really 'you'. It’s a philosophical argument, I know... but the original was ‘you’. The original died. A perfect copy which believes it is ‘you’ and for all intents is ‘you’ goes on. But there is a distinction between the two, in my opinion and of course, it’s a massive issue for anyone who might be religious for instance and believe in a soul detached from the physical brain.

Am still interested in discussing some of the questions I outlined in my previous post about the logistics and politics of resurrecting and placating a hundred billion people!
~Jon

#53
someone

someone

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

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!

I don't think it'd be that wise, resurrecting the dead would mean being unfair. Why? You wouldn't resurrect Hitler, would you. You wouldn't resurrect Bin Ladin would you. You wouldn't resurrect
Kim Jong Ill either. So it would be like giving certain "privileges", and imagine what people would do if you give resurrection to only a certain person... They would riot and get their ancestors resurrected too, and possibly more. Also, doing something in the past can risk the future by a much greater scale. I mean if you resurrect some really bad people, they will do it in the future. If you resurrect good people, there's no telling what they'll do once they change.

#54
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!

I don't think it'd be that wise, resurrecting the dead would mean being unfair. Why? You wouldn't resurrect Hitler, would you. You wouldn't resurrect Bin Ladin would you. You wouldn't resurrect
Kim Jong Ill either. So it would be like giving certain "privileges", and imagine what people would do if you give resurrection to only a certain person... They would riot and get their ancestors resurrected too, and possibly more. Also, doing something in the past can risk the future by a much greater scale. I mean if you resurrect some really bad people, they will do it in the future. If you resurrect good people, there's no telling what they'll do once they change.



I think you need to expand your perameters a bit. I've taken all of these scenarios into account.

There would be pleanty of room for everyone's ancestors in a virtual world as computing power increases. Since conscious entities could live entirely in cyberspace, a lack of food, water and clothing would be non-issues.

Second, I can understand the objection to resurrecting people like Hitler. However, I don't think it would necessarily be harmful to resurrect them. They wouldn't hold the power they once did and they could be restrained from harming another human being. Indeed, they could be rehabilitated and be made to see the error of their ways. You may argue that this would violate their human nature, but I think it would be far kinder more logical than leaving them dead.

As for screwing up history, if we can find a way to travel through time, we could probably find a way to avoid screwing up history as well.
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

#55
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

There would be plenty of room for everyone's ancestors in a virtual world as computing power increases. Since conscious entities could live entirely in cyberspace, a lack of food, water and clothing would be non-issues.


There’s still the issue of what kind of rights you give to these people, and I think that’s a fundamental part of this thought exercise which must be considered. You’ve touched on this in your second paragraph by stating ‘They wouldn't hold the power they once did and they could be restrained from harming another human being’. Therefore, I assume you would bring everyone back to a ‘blank slate’ and their previous status, position and wealth in society is no longer attributed to them. Once again I ask... do you think they’re going to be happy with this? Do you think they’ll still feel like the same person when they come back to an alien world with no physical body and nothing of their previous life intact? Will they feel safe knowing their existence relies on the continued operation of computers in ‘the real world’? Wouldn’t they want out- what do we do then?

I think it would be far kinder more logical than leaving them dead

I like being alive and want to stay alive, but if we accept that at death all thought and feeling ceases, I hark back to the arguments earlier in this thread. They’re dead and they don’t know they are. If on the other hand, they do know they are dead and are stuck in some kind of eternal darkness and despair, or ‘Hell’, then using the method of your description, they will STILL be stuck there, because all you are resurrecting is a copy you took right before their actual body and brain died. If instead they are in heaven, who says they want to come back and be contained in a virtual world because we think that’s better for them? (Though I suppose they do remain there, if my previous point about it just being a ‘copy’ coming back stands).
~Jon

#56
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
Ive been reading futuretimeline.net from 2010 to 10,000 AD. How come I dont see any topics about reviving preserved bodies being discussed? I find mind uploading, genetic engineering, and transhumanism interesting, but somehow this site just missed an article about CRYONICS?

“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#57
Time_Traveller

Time_Traveller

    Master of Time Travel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,066 posts
  • LocationRepublic of Jordan, 1 January 3025 C.E.
I prefer Cryogenics as they freeze people and if they have something wrong with them freeze them and then wakle them in the correct time they asked to be woken up and not sure on Cryonics and freezing then waking up dead people (reminds me of Zombies).
I want to go ahead of Father Time with a scythe of my own.

H. G. Wells

#58
mic of orion

mic of orion

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Locationlondon

Ive been reading futuretimeline.net from 2010 to 10,000 AD. How come I dont see any topics about reviving preserved bodies being discussed? I find mind uploading, genetic engineering, and transhumanism interesting, but somehow this site just missed an article about CRYONICS?



If you die, that is it, no return thicket, at least not at current level on knowledge. perhaps in 3000-4000 years time wold be possible to clone someone's memories and conciseness , someone that was dead for a long time but kept in a cryogenic freeze. Its all hypothetical mind you, we know so little about human brain it is anyone's guess.
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.

#59
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
mic of orion, i know that. im just trying to merely point that theres no cryonics/cryogenics mentioned anywhere in futuretimeline.net. i mean shouldnt that be covered in here as well?

“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#60
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
Cryonics is not on there because it is based on the person getting unfrozen when the disease is curable. If there would be any post about cryonics it would be when the first person was frozen. (pre 2000, so it wouldn't be) or when a sudden unfreezing occurs as for what ever reason a bunch of diseases have become curable through nanotechnology, for example.





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