I'm not convinced you read most of the thread there buddy
You're right, I didn't. I didn't have enough time to even watch the video, let alone read several pages of posts.
Some people seem to want to keep themselves normal while still utilizing the technology to some extent.
I think it should (and will) be every person's right to chose whether or not to have cybernetic upgrades. However, I'm not sure if the choice will
be that clear cut. We're already cyberizing people to a small extent with optical implants, cochlear implants, pacemakers, robotic prosthetics,
BCI's for paraplegics, etc. Not many people here relish the though of being turned into a cyborg - but on the other hand, if they lost their hearing,
would they want a cochlear implant to restore their hearing? Would they turn down a pacemaker to monitor and regulate their heart if it were diseased?
I think it's really going to sneak up on a lot of people.
These tough choices we're going to be making in the next 10 to 20 years won't be an issue for future generations who grow up in a world where
cyberization is increasingly commonplace.
If you live a million years, or 10 years extra from this technology then die, what is the difference for these people? Nothing, there is no use in the
technology for this purpose.
I think they're only talking about practical immortality - not literal. There is no such thing as immortality. Even if you were to survive until the
end of the universe - the universe would still end and you along with it. I embrace the idea of "living forever", but it's more of the idea that I
can live for "as long as I desire". Besides, the human mind has never known immortality before. It didn't evolve to encompass such a reality.
There's no way to know how it would react to such a fate. A few hundred years would be fun, sure... but think about immortality a moment... how would
you feel after one millenium? Two? Ten? A hundred thousand years? A million? ten million? All blinks of an eye to te Earth... yet for us... I can
almost think of no worse torture than "True" immortality.
Perhaps, if such a thing is possible, they could put consciousness in a sort of storage - like a long dreamless sleep, only to be awoken if you're
called upon by a friend or relative, or at certain predetermined intervals in future history.
Where are the other posters? If anyone thinks this is the way forward...I feel extremely sorry for you.
Get used to it, because it's coming whether you like it or not. No matter how hard you dig in your heels and cling to the past, the future will
always come. You can either join it, or you can be left behind. There is no stopping it.
This man does not know how things work. Biological death is not death.
If you're talking about an afterlife, then nobody knows what happens after death. Our best interpretation is that you simply cease to be. Be-de be-de
be-de, That's all folks. Anything else philosophy, religion, psychics, or NDE's seem to say about it is pure speculation on the unknown.
Or have a billion clones of yourself serving as slaves inside some control freak's infinite software loop, tortured and abused over and over again at
trillions of cycles per second, until the end of time!
Who's to say we're not already there and just don't know it. Sure would explain the fire and brimstone old testament stories.
I mean, it isn't just born like we are.
Why not? On the very simplest level our brains and computers operate in the same fashion - by sending and receiving electrical pulses. On and Off.
1's and 0's. When a child's brain first develops, it's not a fully conscious and self-aware being. It's neural pathways still have much
development to go through before it reaches that point. Who's to say that an AI won't experience a similar transition as we become better and better
at parallel processing and distributed networking?
How can they be so sure that just "uploading" your brain into some sort of computer matrix which replicates it will actually be "you"? 'm not
religious, but science doesn't hold an answer to that yet.
Religion and Philosophy doesn't have the answer to that question either. We may never know the answer. To further complicate matters, how do you know
that each time you go to bed, that you'll wake up the same consciousness? What you might be seeing now as a continual flow of consciousness might
just be a trick of the brain created by memories. What if who you are right now in this exact moment in time will cease to be tomorrow night, only to
be replaced by another you tomorrow?
For it to be actual intelligence free will and consciousness is a basic requirement.
It actually hasn't been conclusively proven that we have free will at all. There's still a divide between those who think we do have free will, and
those who think we operate on extremely complex but calculable stimulus responses which only give the illusion of free will. We can't prove that
we're really conscious either. However, they have built AI's which (back to reality here) are "functionally conscious". I believe they have one in
the NAVY called "IDA" which is used to hold correspondence with and negotiate assignments for sailors based on their skill, demand, and the sailors
The simple fact it doesn't include death is an obvious sign that it's not actual intelligence. There is a reason we die. It's not obvious to most
of us, but when you start looking at the philosophy of life and such it becomes very clear.
The reason why we die is to remove redundant genetic material out of the gene pool. Life is about survival, and the best way to ensure survival is
through diversification rather than specialization. If there were no death (in a physical world, not a cyberspace) then specific genetic traits which
may be a liability to the species will not be weeded out - nor will there be a buffer of diversity to help overcome cataclysmic events.
Further, life requires resources, and a world without natural death would find it's resources quickly depleted, destroying the survival potential for