One path to
achieving radical life extension is to of course extend how long we
can survive in our biological body. The other path that is less
talked about is the ability to upload our mind into a computer. If we
accept that this is in fact an extension of life and not a mere
imitation, it is also something we can expect to see with-in our
lifetimes.
According to an
essay by Ray Kurzweil;
“a
n
analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change
is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear”
view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st
century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s
rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness,
also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the
rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine
intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The
Singularity” [1]Moore’s
law is one manifestation of this that helps create these accelerating
returns, but it is merely the most recently popular manifestation of
the law of accelerating returns. It shows processor speed doubling
every 18 to 24 months, which means computers can do more for less
money every 18 to 24 months. Twice as much in fact.
Like
I said though. Moore’s law is just one manifestation of the law of
accelerating returns. Now that we are approaching the end of Moore’s
law, if not have passed it, a new paradigm shift that pushes
technological advancement forward has arrived. According to computer
weekly this new paradigm is AI power. Here is what they say;
“But
the Stanford report, produced in partnership with
McKinsey
& Company,
Google, PwC, OpenAI, Genpact and AI21Labs, found that AI
computational power is accelerating faster than traditional processor
development. “Prior to 2012, AI results closely tracked Moore’s
Law, with compute doubling every two years.,” the report said.
“Post-2012, compute has been
doubling
every 3.4 months.”[2]
The
law of accelerating returns is a very real thing. Particularly
the speed of AI advancement is very important to us getting to a
point where we can download our brains. A
lot of professionals in the field of Artificial Intelligence (37%)
think that in the next 5 to 10 years we will have human level
artificial intelligence.[3]
This
is good news. This means computers will have the ability to replicate
our brain, in less than a decade. The next issue is whether we can
break down the information in our brain in a way that is conducive of
replicating or transferring that information into a computer.
neuroscientist
Randal Koene says
that it is theoretically possible to upload a human mind into a
computer. The prevailing theory is that information is stored in the
brains connectome, and that at some point we will be able to
deconstruct it, and transfer that information to an artificial
intelligence program. [4]
The
2045 initiative headed
by Nectome a Russian based business created by billionaire Dmitry
Itskov, is
already working on preserving information inside the brain, which
seems possible at the moment, although mind uploading is not yet
possible. The procedure would mean instant death in the hopes of mind
uploading technology to become available, to save your life. So I
would not recommend attempting this unless you are already close to
death.
What
Is A HumanI our lifetime we can achieve some form of
radical life extension. Be it mind uploading or increasing how long
we can keep these primitive meat vehicles from deteriorating. The
next question is whether mind uploading is actually something that
would keep us alive, or is it merely something that would be a cheap
imitation of who we are.
I
would argue that we are the information we contain. We our in the
simplest terms the continuation of our memories. I think the movie
Freaky Friday does a good job of showing that it is our collection of
memories, our beliefs, our collection of thoughts that make us who we
are. The people in the film no longer had their original body, but as
you can see, we all felt like they kept their original self.
The
brains did not swap, it is the thoughts, memories and beliefs that
swapped. Of course all of these things are malleable, but it is this
constant changing state the continuity of these memories, that make
us who we are. We can see further examples of this hard to pin down
concept of who we are in other assumptions we make. If we see Siamese
twins, they share the same body, but we consider them 2 different
people. It is not the body that is us, or even the brain itself like
Freaky Friday shows, but the continuation of this malleable self that
we give credit as being “us” is.
Sources
1.
https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns2.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252475371/Stanford-University-finds-that-AI-is-outpacing-Moores-Law3.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/computers-smart-as-humans-5-years4.
https://richardvanhooijdonk.com/blog/en/in-a-future-of-mind-uploading-will-you-still-be-you-and-who-will-own-your-mind/
I meant cloud computing would be common use not common sense
I hope I am right also.
Good luck to you both. And of course welcome to the site.
A resource I highly recommend using: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I hope singularity is right. I don't ever want to die.
This looks like a fascinating topic for my first debate! I'll do my best to keep this interesting. Good luck!
Sounds interesting.
Altered Carbon is largely an exploration of the idea of immortality, and even if we were all immortal through some means, how the upper class would be so much more immortal than everyone else.
Lexx had a brilliant musical episode, which tackles the downsides to immortality on the mental state. Not required viewing, but very entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7iIYhjiSQ
Seems silly you think that it isn't already implied in the title. I will edit to more likely than not, which also means more than 50%
Add in your description: Likely- meaning 50% chance or higher or some percentage like that.
I have never seen those shows. I also think the hole you mentioned is not exploitable. Radical life extension does not have to be available for most or all people to be in existence.
The exploitable hole I see right now, is someone could try to argue that children born in the third world will keep the life expectancy low. Which I don't think is the point of this debate, I am guessing you wish to argue that medical advances will enable someone alive today (let's say a young adult, 21 years old, and insanely wealthy) to live past 200 years. Not every 21 year old, and of course excluding violent ends...
Do you watch Altered Carbon? Or Lexx?
Changed it to likely
Some people think it is impossible to achieve be cause our genetics won't allow us to live that long regardless of technological intervention. Any suggestions for how to word this to debate the people who think radical life extension is impossible?
I also think it would be abusive to literally call anything possible and would not be like "well magic is possible" or anything like that
I'm going to change the resolution hold on
Define possible. Anything´s possible, but how probable is this idea?