I actually consider the creation of such an artificial afterlife to be an ethical priority. Plus in storing backups of humanity, we create an amazing potential resource.
Well, actually when I said that, I meant more so that I was worried my thoughts concerning gene therapy and AI were wrong; forgive me for not clarifying. I do hold firm conviction in my atheism - it's a leap of logic like anything else, and it makes the most sense to me. For example, if the face of god was looming in the sky and barking orders, I'd sooner think it was the trickery of a superior alien civilization than an actual god. It'd seem infinitely more probable to me. This is why I cannot call myself an agnostic - the idea of an actual god is basically ineffable to me.
Furthermore, what you said about the uploading of human consciousness or whatnot is exactly what I meant when I likened the notion of AI blossoming into a demigod with religious "sales pitch". What is consciousness? Won't we die if our bodies are destroyed? Isn't a computer simulation of a serial-sectioned human just a copy of a dead person's mind?
Ah, yeah as someone who disbelieves in an Omnigod. I'd suspect, and do, the whole 'sufficiently advanced technology' line of reasoning for any who would try to claim the title.
As is people survive through their offspring, surviving through a digital copy strikes me as more personally significant.
I'd suggest that it depends on how fast the transition from organic to simulation. Slowly enough, and the transition may be seamless.
The discovery of writing did nothing to change the fact that humans still cracked each other's skulls open with blunt objects and believed in gods to give their lives meaning. Methods improved, yes; they improved tremendously - but no new answers magically appeared. Modern society behaves much as it has thousands of years ago, albeit on a far larger and far more complicated scale.
Yes, I'm familiar with SENS and the Methuselah Foundation. They advocate gene therapy, and that's my criticism of them.
Wow, dismissing everything humans have accomplished as all combined civilizations...
I'd suggest taking a look at the length of human history. Pick up a community college class, or a book, on history or sociology. Perhaps to you a book is insufficiently advanced, but to our progenitors it was, a book meant that knowledge was not lost inexorably to every generation, and could be transported separate from bulky bodies.
Where did I dismiss anything? Did I not acknowledge that methods improved tremendously? We still fight wars, we still suffer, and we still obey the same laws of physics. Even before books existed, knowledge was still passed along; it was passed along vaguely, but then again, one needn't follow an encyclopedic volume of instructions in the trade of fashioning a stone knife or cooking meat. Is the difference between a longbow and a machinegun not just a difference of kill speed, range, precision and convenience? Both implements fling projectiles with the idea of killing someone, don't they? And is the difference between a story written in a book and a folk tale told in caveman grunts not just a difference of information volume, clarity, and availability?
I can see what you're saying. Unfortunately, the brain is still going to die on its own, since it suffers the effects of aging like the rest of the body. Further, there's the problem of providing it with blood. The blood vessels that are in the brain already suffer the same problems as the rest of the circulatory system. Embolism can occur within those blood vessels; this occurs when some debris or residue breaks loose inside a blood vessel, and causes a blockage. Embolism is more likely if the subject is motionless, which is exactly the case with such a "brain in a jar". And aneurysm can also occur, which is basically a rupture of a weak bit in a vein or artery; if the vessel is old, or weak, it's possible to suffer an aneurysm just from the flow and pressure of blood inside it. Replacing blood vessels inside the brain with artificial ones poses huge problems: it's an invasive procedure, which means brain damage; there is no material right now that can adequately do the job; and flesh rejects artificial material (e.g. metal, polymer
( ... )
Personally, I feel that AI is as likely a candidate for life extension as biomechatronics and whole-body transplants (which is why I'm working for SIAI). If self-improving AI doesn't eventuate, then I'm going with cryonics to preserve the pattern of my consciousness.
Thanks for your post, though, I hadn't heard the term biomechatronics before.
Comments 31
Reply
Reply
Furthermore, what you said about the uploading of human consciousness or whatnot is exactly what I meant when I likened the notion of AI blossoming into a demigod with religious "sales pitch". What is consciousness? Won't we die if our bodies are destroyed? Isn't a computer simulation of a serial-sectioned human just a copy of a dead person's mind?
Reply
As is people survive through their offspring, surviving through a digital copy strikes me as more personally significant.
I'd suggest that it depends on how fast the transition from organic to simulation. Slowly enough, and the transition may be seamless.
Reply
Reply
Yes, I'm familiar with SENS and the Methuselah Foundation. They advocate gene therapy, and that's my criticism of them.
Reply
I'd suggest taking a look at the length of human history. Pick up a community college class, or a book, on history or sociology. Perhaps to you a book is insufficiently advanced, but to our progenitors it was, a book meant that knowledge was not lost inexorably to every generation, and could be transported separate from bulky bodies.
Reply
Reply
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7231226.stm
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thanks for your post, though, I hadn't heard the term biomechatronics before.
Reply
Leave a comment