Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I wrote all of that to ask you about a "singularity" and what the theory on it was. I've never heard of it.
A guy by the name of Ray Kurzweil, the inventor of voice recognition technology, is getting on in years and wants to live forever. For the past decade or so he has been flogging the following basic train of thought:
1) According to Moore's Law, computing power doubles every 18 months or so while halving in cost.
2) As a result, there is more and more computing power in the world all the time.
3) At this rate by (IIRC) 2040 there will be more computing power in the world than there will be human brain power. This, he calls the "singularity".
4) At this singularity the combination of raw computing capacity, network effects, medical advances, and other technological improvements will cause human life expectancies to increase faster than the rate at which people age. Therefore we will have "biological immortality", meaning people will die of diseases and accidents but not aging.
5) It will be possible to copy and/or transfer one's consciousness to computers as well, therefore, even if the body is destroyed, ones consciousness need not be.
As a software developer I can tell you that all of this is a bit of a stretch. Computing capacity is not the same thing as effectively harnessing and using that capacity. Without the right software, all that hardware matters not a whit. And software is notoriously had to do right. We still have mysterious computer lock ups just balancing our checkbook or trying to watch an episode of Mad Men on our iPad; do you really want to live inside such a device? We don't yet know how the brain stores data so how would we copy it someplace else?
Then there is the whole matter of sensory deprivation. There is no point in being uploaded to a computer only to go mad. Successful backup copies of Mordant or Royalite will in my judgment require significant advances in sensor technology as well as computer technology, and breakthroughs in how to correctly interface all of it.
Not that we aren't making strides. I read a white paper last week about an open source software library that has successfully reverse-engineered at least in broad strokes how the frontal cortex of our brain works; simulating layers of nerve cells in software produces a low-level artificial intelligence that can spot and classify patterns in data and learns on its own as it goes. There is no reason in principle why eventually we will not be able to fully decode the human brain. The most interesting thing about this particular library is that writing the simulator actually helped them reverse-engineer the brain because when they made educated guesses about how the brain works and the results were wrong, they could tune the software until the outputs matched what the brain's response is. In other words software testing became a kind of trial and error experiment in testing out theories of brain function and mapping.
At any rate ... regarding the subject of biological immortality, there is also yet another tack on this. There are a handful of people in the world who are born who never age. Apparently because at least up to a point aging stimulates the brain, all of these people have profound handicaps and are largely inert, but their bodies do not age. Scientists have found at least one of the genes that is failing to be turned on in these people. The hope is that if they can completely sort it out, they can turn off the genes that govern aging after a person's mental and physical development are fully complete, sometime after their 25th year, and they will never age. Even if they don't succeed in doing this there are potentially dramatic applications for things like preventing Alzheimer's.
So essentially, science is to some degree or other on the cusp of either producing biological immortality or at least making significant new strides in life expectancies. So you, as a young person especially, may get the chance to take the red pill and live forever. Sort of.
A guy by the name of Ray Kurzweil, the inventor of voice recognition technology, is getting on in years and wants to live forever. For the past decade or so he has been flogging the following basic train of thought:
1) According to Moore's Law, computing power doubles every 18 months or so while halving in cost.
2) As a result, there is more and more computing power in the world all the time.
3) At this rate by (IIRC) 2040 there will be more computing power in the world than there will be human brain power. This, he calls the "singularity".
4) At this singularity the combination of raw computing capacity, network effects, medical advances, and other technological improvements will cause human life expectancies to increase faster than the rate at which people age. Therefore we will have "biological immortality", meaning people will die of diseases and accidents but not aging.
5) It will be possible to copy and/or transfer one's consciousness to computers as well, therefore, even if the body is destroyed, ones consciousness need not be.
As a software developer I can tell you that all of this is a bit of a stretch. Computing capacity is not the same thing as effectively harnessing and using that capacity. Without the right software, all that hardware matters not a whit. And software is notoriously had to do right. We still have mysterious computer lock ups just balancing our checkbook or trying to watch an episode of Mad Men on our iPad; do you really want to live inside such a device? We don't yet know how the brain stores data so how would we copy it someplace else?
Then there is the whole matter of sensory deprivation. There is no point in being uploaded to a computer only to go mad. Successful backup copies of Mordant or Royalite will in my judgment require significant advances in sensor technology as well as computer technology, and breakthroughs in how to correctly interface all of it.
Not that we aren't making strides. I read a white paper last week about an open source software library that has successfully reverse-engineered at least in broad strokes how the frontal cortex of our brain works; simulating layers of nerve cells in software produces a low-level artificial intelligence that can spot and classify patterns in data and learns on its own as it goes. There is no reason in principle why eventually we will not be able to fully decode the human brain. The most interesting thing about this particular library is that writing the simulator actually helped them reverse-engineer the brain because when they made educated guesses about how the brain works and the results were wrong, they could tune the software until the outputs matched what the brain's response is. In other words software testing became a kind of trial and error experiment in testing out theories of brain function and mapping.
At any rate ... regarding the subject of biological immortality, there is also yet another tack on this. There are a handful of people in the world who are born who never age. Apparently because at least up to a point aging stimulates the brain, all of these people have profound handicaps and are largely inert, but their bodies do not age. Scientists have found at least one of the genes that is failing to be turned on in these people. The hope is that if they can completely sort it out, they can turn off the genes that govern aging after a person's mental and physical development are fully complete, sometime after their 25th year, and they will never age. Even if they don't succeed in doing this there are potentially dramatic applications for things like preventing Alzheimer's.
So essentially, science is to some degree or other on the cusp of either producing biological immortality or at least making significant new strides in life expectancies. So you, as a young person especially, may get the chance to take the red pill and live forever. Sort of.
That's really sad, imo. But now that you've explained it to me I remember having a conversation (more of a lesson) on it from my uncle. He's fascinated by the idea and would opt into it as he'd like to live forever if he didn't have to deal with repercussions like aging and poor health.
But now that I think back to the subject matter, I know now that I'd definitely opt out of the singularity. It sounds dark to many people but at some point I would really like to die. While I think it's great that there's new advancements that allow people to live healthier lives longer-- which allows people to do more with their lives. To me, good health is probably one of the best gifts a person can have!-- forever is too much for me. It's odd to some people but I like that life feels short. It's encouraging and motivating. lol Not to mention that for me, someone who spends a lot of time observing and studying people, behaviors, etc, after a while it becomes redundant. So I think no....I'd be taking myself out the gene pool.
I just find life too monotonous . . .I am sick of doing the same things over and over again . . . washing dishes, sweeping the floor, eating, doing laundry, paying bills, cleaning up this and that, taking care of problems, rinse and repeat, ad infinitum . . .
I do fun things (you would not know it), but I think the day-to-day stuff just gets to you after awhile. I am in my early sixties and I am just burnt out with the sameness of all of the tasks that have to be done - and once you do them, they don't stay done . . .
So I think 40 years would make life very precious, intense, and fun.
It sounds dark to many people but at some point I would really like to die. While I think it's great that there's new advancements that allow people to live healthier lives longer-- which allows people to do more with their lives. To me, good health is probably one of the best gifts a person can have!-- forever is too much for me. It's odd to some people but I like that life feels short. It's encouraging and motivating. lol Not to mention that for me, someone who spends a lot of time observing and studying people, behaviors, etc, after a while it becomes redundant. So I think no....I'd be taking myself out the gene pool.
Actually, I understand what you are saying. I have used this metaphor a couple of times on this topic on these fora before: Life is like a movie: no matter how good a movie is, how well scripted, directed, acted, scored, and edited, no one wants to watch one that is 18 hours long. At some point it's time to pee and go to bed.
My problem is unfinished business combined with curiosity. I would like to at least double the current life expectancy. I would go indefinitely so long as I had the right to end it if and when I judged it not worth the trouble anymore. It ought to be a fundamental right to rationally determine your own quality of life.
On the other hand, I feel 200 years old already, so I'm okay with whichever way it goes. It's just that my battle fatigue is in part due to the lack of time left to me. My wife for example really wanted to be a forensic pathologist but for various reasons never pursued that. She's burned out on her profession but is too old to spend years retooling for a new profession and it would be difficult to get hired at an entry level into something like that at her age. Would either of us have thoughts of hanging up our spurs if we really had more time to work with? I think she'd enroll at university tomorrow if she knew she had even another 50 years of good health.
We are so used to this level of mortality that I'm not sure how it would impact society. I outlined a work of speculative fiction about it once. What if we had physical immortality and people became completely bored and also, think about it: if the only cause of death is accidents (in my scenario, disease had been dealt with as well), might not people become morbidly risk adverse? Might people who are maimed or crippled be feared and shunned like lepers? It would all depend on how people dealt (or not) with their fear of death, and if you have physical immortality, how much motivation do you have to think of such things?
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,455 posts, read 12,487,658 times
Reputation: 10433
Without the mundane, fun wouldn't be as fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I outlined a work of speculative fiction about it once. What if we had physical immortality and people became completely bored and also, think about it: if the only cause of death is accidents (in my scenario, disease had been dealt with as well), might not people become morbidly risk adverse?
There is already a published story that is exactly like the scenario that you had outlined.
I'm thinking (and 'fairly' certain) that it was printed in Analog Science Fiction and Fact. But since I've read a lot of sci-fi ever since I was a child (beginning with my dads complete library of Astounding), and over the years I'd also been reading Analog SF&F, Asimov's Science Fiction mag, Omni (while it was still in print) and the Nebula Awards books along with some other odds and ends in the sci-fi genre, it's hard to remember exactly who published it and when (though, again with the 'fairly certain', I believe it was probably printed, in Analog SF&F, within the past 10-15 years).
I find it troubling that someone would think that life is "so" long. I am 59 years old and have been so busy living life that I haven't had time to dwell on getting old. You just take it as it comes. I had the pleasure of knowing a few people in their 80's, delightful people who felt blessed for every day they were given. Recently, in the KS forum, someone brought up some man, obviously mentally ill, that committed suicide because he didn't want to get old, a 60 year old and a couple of the posters were thinking along the same lines, then, maybe not suicide but not living that long. They were sort of making this guy out to be a hero. And, KS is one of the states people are more likely to commit suicide and I have some opinions on that I won't go into. Some people just spend too much time thinking and not enough time doing. You can have bad health and a crappy, empty life at any age. Did you ever see that movie where there was this town where people could move to, an exclusive town where you could live to be 100 years old, still in your young and healthy condition but at 100 years, you had to walk into, I think it was a fountain, and drown yourself? I thought the movie was horrible. Of course, when younger, it sounded like an acceptable choice to some and probably in reality would if some were given the choice. If they refused to walk into the fountain and drown themselves, they instantly became 100, their real age if I remember correctly. I probably saw that movie m years ago and it has always stuck in my mind. Aging is not that bad if you haven't wasted your life up to that point. Life is good and I hope to have many more years even with wrinkled skin and creaky bones.
I have so many things that I want to do, even around here where I live. Maybe the thing is that people need goals and dreams. Give yourself plenty to live for.
It seems to me as if life for most people just goes on too long . . .past the fun and useful parts, into the dull and routine, then painful and awful parts . . .
I think it should be condensed down to 40 or so years.
WTH? Have you ever seen a movie called Logan's Run? People weren't allowed to live over the age of 30. You're seriously sounding like a character from that movie.
Who said that life has no pain when you're younger? Have you ever heard of children or teenagers being ill? Have you ever heard of arthritis affecting children, teenagers, and young adults? Well, it can - and DOES.
Who said that people 40 and beyond don't have fun? If they planned well when they were younger, they'd have the choice to retire and travel, or keep working - and still travel. Either way, they have choices.
I've seen plenty of older people on road trips, on planes, discussing the Alaskan cruises they've taken, planning their next cruise to the Bahamas, etc.
Some even celebrate paying off their mortgage, etc. Getting older and paying off debts is an achievement. I don't know if many younger people are debt-free - especially if they've attended college, have been irresponsible with credit cards, etc.
Honey, life can be dull and routine at 6 yrs old! Ever see a child bored in school? Children's attention spans are pretty short. They get bored fairly quickly without the proper stimuli.
Life can be awful and/or painful at ANY age. The only fair thing about life is that bad times will strike us ALL.
You don't outlive your usefulness when you're older. Fun doesn't cease when you get older. You just learn to be more creative. Sure, bodily limitations usually occur as one ages, but that can happen at ANY age. You live with the cards you're dealt with, try to improve the game, and win the damn game.
You LEARN to have fun. I cannot stress enough that creativity is a key. Progression is the opposite of stagnation. Learning how to successfully progress is a key. Planning ahead is a key. Wisdom is a key. Resisting certain impulses (i.e., impulsive spending when you can't afford it) is a key. Getting and maintaining a positive attitude, and being proactive is a key.
Give life a chance. Do what you can with it, and keep trying. Don't die on the vine.
Actually, I understand what you are saying. I have used this metaphor a couple of times on this topic on these fora before: Life is like a movie: no matter how good a movie is, how well scripted, directed, acted, scored, and edited, no one wants to watch one that is 18 hours long. At some point it's time to pee and go to bed.
My problem is unfinished business combined with curiosity. I would like to at least double the current life expectancy. I would go indefinitely so long as I had the right to end it if and when I judged it not worth the trouble anymore. It ought to be a fundamental right to rationally determine your own quality of life.
On the other hand, I feel 200 years old already, so I'm okay with whichever way it goes. It's just that my battle fatigue is in part due to the lack of time left to me. My wife for example really wanted to be a forensic pathologist but for various reasons never pursued that. She's burned out on her profession but is too old to spend years retooling for a new profession and it would be difficult to get hired at an entry level into something like that at her age. Would either of us have thoughts of hanging up our spurs if we really had more time to work with? I think she'd enroll at university tomorrow if she knew she had even another 50 years of good health.
We are so used to this level of mortality that I'm not sure how it would impact society. I outlined a work of speculative fiction about it once. What if we had physical immortality and people became completely bored and also, think about it: if the only cause of death is accidents (in my scenario, disease had been dealt with as well), might not people become morbidly risk adverse? Might people who are maimed or crippled be feared and shunned like lepers? It would all depend on how people dealt (or not) with their fear of death, and if you have physical immortality, how much motivation do you have to think of such things?
You know...56 isn't too late to go back and do the things you want. I'm not sure if you're experiencing health issues that make it so that you can't or financial restraints but it certainly can be done. I'm really proud of my mom for getting her first degree at almost 50.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
