Would you cheat death?

[Norpo]

I would, simply because there's so much freakin' cool stuff, that even if you were stored in a computer, you could probably do, with sufficient programming (browse the internet, for example)

...Though if "Life Bank... in the year 2050!" had lazy programmers that said "okay, these things can think now, scope met, job done" without actually letting them DO anything in this state, then it seems like it would be rather pointless until they did, no? I'd want some sort of off-switch I could use though, just in case the "man-made afterlife" didn't live up to the hype. Of course, if technology advances enough to store a conciousness and let it think, then it must have advanced enough to read it's outputs and give it inputs..

..And then the post-death editor wars start. emacs or vim? Is one better than the other now that keyboards aren't a thing?

[baggers]

About "what makes you" things, I find pretty interressing that story:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/man-failed-paternity-test-because-he-chimera-his-unborn-twin

So, this man is a "chimera": a perfect fusion of 2 "fake" twins that make not a siamese, but one viable human. Part of his genome is from one brother, part is from the other. And these 2 genomes don't even have the same blood type! ^^

But naturally, He think he was "one and only" because that's how brain process works! ^^

[problemecium]

I'd do both: if I can be cut and pasted onto a computer, I can be copied and pasted. If possible I'd make a whole bunch of backups of myself so that in case one goes down a version of me still exists in the other.

[fredinno]

Cells die and being born your whole organism renews periodically. But What makes you you? Your body? Your brain? Your memories?

I would say your soul, but then we would be getting into religious stuff I don't think is allowed here.

[baggers]

I would say your soul, but then we would be getting into religious stuff I don't think is allowed here.

Should the "Chimera guy" in my previous post got one, or 2 baptism? Answer it! (2 or 1 soul for that guy? )

Edited November 3, 2015 by baggers

[problemecium]

As many as he wants. Nobody's got any proof that souls even exist anyway.

[Bill Phil]

Cells die and being born your whole organism renews periodically. But What makes you you? Your body? Your brain? Your memories?

your accumulative experiences.

[WinkAllKerb'']

soul is a concept @para, and so exist, some concept are easy to reach some are not ; ) also many concept once reached are not always what's you expected them to be when you discovered them at first and started to explore them.

[Mazon Del]

Be that as it may WinkAllKerb, "what" a soul is, is highly flexible. If I declare that my accumulated memories/experiences to be my soul, then it is inherently something that can be copy/pasted thus invalidating any 'special uniqueness' about mine, yours, anybodies. So it isn't really like there's much point in caring about souls when they either can't be proven to exist and/or they are whatever we choose to think of them as.

[Alias72]

In the future I assume that humans will finally defeat our ultimate enemy, death itself by storing our consciousness on computers.

My question for you is would you save yourself or face the end?

I personally would save my consciousness on a machine if I had guarantees thatit is truly me on the machine not just a perfect copy.

The only correct answer to your question is yes. The reason is that everyone who said no will die off leaving only the people who said yes. The result is that all of humanity agrees with me. because every individual makes up a fraction of humanity they cannot outvote me.

[zekes]

Yes, I hate losing. I'd rather spend eternity by myself than to be completely forgotten. At this point I feel like I'm the only one who cares about myself so if I die I'll lose the one person who cares.

[DestinyPlayer]

I'm gonna answer the original question.

Would I store my consciousness in a machine? That would depend on several things.

1: Would my original body still remain active, with my consciousness in it?

If yes, then absolutely. Even if it's going to be a perfect copy and not an extended consciousness, at least there will be another me out there even after my death. Return.

If no, then proceed to 2.

2: Are the other people who got their consciousness uploaded reportedly perfectly the same as they were, personality wise?

If yes, then I'd highly consider it. After all, uploading your mind to a computer doesn't only mean immortality, but also no physical needs, i.e. no need to sleep, no need to eat or drink, etc. It would probably be possible to simulate these feelings if needed, and refurbish them into something useful, but sleep, for example, I would gladly leave behind, and even if I'm completely by myself, I would probably find something to do in my computerized mind. Make a virtual reality of AI's, for example. I'd have eternity to figure that out.

If no, then I would only go for that if I had something that would kill me in the next few years. Cancer or something like that.

Something like that.

Edited November 5, 2015 by DestinyPlayer

[DestinyPlayer]

Though honestly, the only thing that I need out of that is to leave sleeping behind. I don't really need more time. I just need to be able to use the time I already have fully, not in a semi-trance both at day and at night with occasional moments of clearance. That would be one of the main reasons for digitizing myself, but I'd go with something else if there was a way to just remove the need to sleep.

Edited November 5, 2015 by DestinyPlayer

[Just Jim]

Someone please start a poll for this question. I am absolutely floored that anyone said 'no'....

Honestly, all kidding side, I say absolutely no. At the risk of being philosophical, I do not know with 100% certainty that everything just stops when we die. And physics argues that information cannot be destroyed... more or less and very simply put.... only changed.

That being said, if there is even the slimmest of chances it doesn't just end, I don't want to miss out or mess around with what may happen next.

[Mazon Del]

Well that's the thing Just Jim, is that short of finding a way to reverse entropy or jump to a younger universe, regardless of what we do, we eventually will still cease functioning. I'm still going to try to get to my 5'th trillion year of life, but if it all still ends in death, I'll still be showing up to whatever is over there, maybe just a bit late to the party.

[Randazzo]

Perhaps once or twice. I would not want to be interminably immortal. I cannot imagine a sane person who is not ironically short-sighted would want such a thing.

[grawl]

Perhaps once or twice. I would not want to be interminably immortal. I cannot imagine a sane person who is not ironically short-sighted would want such a thing.

I don't agree with you. A pretty sane person could really thrive on knowledge. And humanity produces "new" knowledge at an incredible rate, way faster than the pace one can learn. So you'll get virtually unlimited amount of new stuff to learn and to keep you going.

Think 20 years of study in mathematics, then 20 in physics, then 20 in sociology, then 20 in geology, then back to the new stuff in pyhsics, and it goes along for an eternity

I often get the feeling of being stuck in a life because I don't get the time anymore to take another switch at this point.

But man, if I had that time ahead of me, I would make and grow those kids while I'm young, then study and work on all the things I want, not thinking about the other things I could do but that I won't because I'm doing some other thing right now, and now was the only time to do that thing. (Well done if you've kept with me )

Edited November 5, 2015 by grawl

[Skyler4856]

I wouldn't mind living for a couple thousand years, if I can dedicate my time to learning

[SemiaCloud]

Well heck yeah!

[lodestar]

Think 20 years of study in mathematics, then 20 in physics, then 20 in sociology, then 20 in geology, then back to the new stuff in pyhsics, and it goes along for an eternity

I think that's exactly what Randazzo meant by ironically short-sighted. You're assuming all those years of study wouldn't change your perception of your own existential condition even one bit.

[RuBisCO]

You can't cheat death, everyone dies, in fact you have died already, that you 20 years ago, is dead, your grow out of it, a new person.

Now would a copy of your brain, in some kind of hypercomputer be a reasonable "cheat" of death, sure, better than just being buried or cremated, the less lost of you, "like tears in rain", the better.

[Just Jim]

That's one heck of a gamble... wagering the next 1,000ish years on "maybe" versus "subhuman existence"....

I would chose at least some form of existence every time - ASSUMING that I still have the option to end it of my own will.

I think your last sentence is also my biggest point. I wouldn't have a problem adding a few hundred or even a couple thousand years. But I want the option to end it when I've had enough. The thought of living millions or billions of years is terrifying.

[magnemoe]

Perhaps once or twice. I would not want to be interminably immortal. I cannot imagine a sane person who is not ironically short-sighted would want such a thing.

Why not you could always kill yourself in any realistic scenario.

Nobody smart would stop you, yes you might have to run trough some loops first to verify its just not an depression.

Yes stopping aging is one of this earn a lots of billions and get an noble price settings.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't cheat death, everyone dies, in fact you have died already, that you 20 years ago, is dead, your grow out of it, a new person.

Now would a copy of your brain, in some kind of hypercomputer be a reasonable "cheat" of death, sure, better than just being buried or cremated, the less lost of you, "like tears in rain", the better.

Agree, now running your brain on an emulator would require 3-4 order of magnitude above current computing. On the upside its like going from 8086 to i7, on other hand Intel has used billions to increase performance 50% the last 5 years.

On the gripping hand you can wait, GM probably make the ladies better in 300 years, at least as long as you see the tail as an feature

Never guess the far future, read how the Victorians thought it would be. Fallout is kind of 1950 in the future after an nuclear war.

[HoloYolo]

I would. With the way I'm living now I have a high chance of not living long, so I would prolong and cheat my way through life as much as I can.

[RA3236]

I would if I was transferred into an android body.

Although I guess it wouldn't last a trillion years, machines would not like to be existing because of matter being destroyed.