http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1306237494
Printable View
I disagree. I think it would be just as much me as I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
No, you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Never change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
That's exactly what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/r...34590909000022
http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/epi.10.49
Suck it. You wait until the rest of us get our new hair before you get yours as punishment for your doubt.
TLDR translation: Drewbacca was right. There are thousands of thousands of planets with potential for life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
p.s. It wasn't my intention to begin this quantum mechanics physics debate with several under qualified participants, but we're here so deal with it.
You are, so dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
You still don't understand the problem and you still don't understand how that's not a solution. There is no application to make your current cells regain what they've lost or anyway to rebuild sections of DNA that have been lost past the Telomere sections, again, all you've done is shown studies which I was essentially referencing when I said:
Why? Because stem cells and cancer cells already do what we need to force upon every cell in our body to fight this process. One big problem though, is that the random attachment of Teomeres doesn't help people who's cells have already degraded past the Telomere range, which is really the big problem. Not to fucking mention that in both those studies they simply showed what stem cells do, which, shocker, doesn't solve our problem as our bodies are not composed entirely of stem cells. That research shows a naturally occurring phenomena which could help us find a way to do this to our pre-existing cells, but you'd still have to get it going before natural loss of DNA sections through replication gets too deep into the coding DNA; OR you'd have to somehow place DNA from cells where it hasn't passed the Telomeres into all your cells where they have, because randomly tacking on Telomeres isn't going to give you functioning sections, you stupid fuck. Stop talking about this, you have no idea what the problem really is or how to solve it, you just know a little bit about stem cells and you have no way to recognize the painfully obvious missing piece between what you're showing me and what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
It's as if I said we still can't make humans fly without the aid of machines and you linked to a study showing that birds can fly. No shit.
I am amazed how Opaque is an expert on everything.
Thousands of thousands taken to it's absolute limit is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
9,999 x 9,999 = just this side of 100,000,000
The real number is much closer to 1,000,000,000,000,000
Your number was 10,000,000 times too small.
Hundred millions of ten millions is more than a little bit bigger than thousands of thousands.
Thousands of thousands being generous and including any number with the word "thousands" in the name is:
999,999 x 999,999 = just this side of 1,000,000,000,000
That's still off by 1,000 times.
Learn to math better.
Edit: Lol, you didn't even say thousands of thousands. You retconed your original statement and still failed to come up with a number larger than "silly".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Josh: You could be too. You just have to find the right Professor to study under.
Could I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
If you catch your mistake quick enough, it doesn't count as a mistake.
It's not my fault I just finished up genetics and cell energetics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Well, I guess it's my fault.
It really is.
Opaque just got done taking every class.
Are you high? The experiments reverted adult cells back to embryonic stem cells with the DNA's fun nubs grown back. No, they're not your current cells when they're in the syringe. Yes, they are your current cells as soon as the lab-grown-from-your-own-DNA-and-young-as-a-spring-chicken lungs get shoved into your chest cavity and sewn in place. Hell, they're your current cells as soon as the syringe gets plunged into your ass and the cells say to themselves "Hey, this looks like an ass. Start making ass".Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Can't please everybody.Quote:
One big problem though, is that the random attachment of Teomeres doesn't help people who's cells have already degraded past the Telomere range
Did you even read? They can turn any cell into a stem cell now. So yeah. Now our bodies are composed entirely of stem cells. Just add 4 million dollars.Quote:
Not to fucking mention that in both those studies they simply showed what stem cells do, which, shocker, doesn't solve our problem as our bodies are not composed entirely of stem cells.
Christ Crispies, you did read and you still wrote that previous sentence. Mind = blownQuote:
That research shows a naturally occurring phenomena which could help us find a way to do this to our pre-existing cells,
Fixed.Quote:
It's as if I said we still can't restore the length of our DNA's fun nubs and you linked to a study showing where we already restored the length of DNA fun nubs. No shit.
This sentence is my favorite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Yes, of course. That's how stem cells work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
How does that replace the DNA in your current cells or stop those new cells from losing telomeres every time they divide once they've become a heart, eye or lung cell? How does that solve the problem of DNA polymerase not connecting to the end of DNA during replication? That doesn't solve the problem I'm talking about. It doesn't make your current cells not lose information when they divide and it's not a treatment you could give to a gamete to make the child it produces never has those problems. How are you having such a hard time with this? All you're talking about is replacing a cell with a different cell (essentially). It's like if I said we needed a way to keep hearts from failing and you linked me to a study where they did heart transplants. It's not the same thing.
I did read, but I also comprehend. Lets say, for example you dumped 4 million into doing this to every cell in your body (I'm sure the real cost would be much more) what happens when they stop functioning like stem cells? Oh, that's right, the same thing they did the first time that happened: they start losing sections of DNA every time they divide and they have nothing replacing the telomeres anymore. What you're talking about it a patch that isn't even being done, it's been done to individual cells, never even a full human and even if it was done to a full human it would be a temporary change not a permanent thing.Quote:
Did you even read? They can turn any cell into a stem cell now. So yeah. Now our bodies are composed entirely of stem cells. Just add 4 million dollars.
That's the difference between what I'm saying we're working towards and what you keep linking. Yeah, the shit you're linking to is real, it's applicable to this conversation (in that it's leading to what I'm talking about) but it is not, at all, the end or the complete solution.
Well if you want to do it that way:Quote:
Fixed.
It's as if I said we still can't permanently fix the problem of DNA segments being lost on replication and you linked to a study showing where we already restored the length of DNA in individual cells using transplants from stem cells to stimulate temporary telomere addition. No shit.
I really learn when I take classes. I don't just try to pass tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
It would be different if I was wrong about this, but as usual Cheebs cannot connect the pieces and I'm, for who knows why, trying to help him understand the difference between observing what something does, applying what something does and finally building a completely different piece of tech that currently doesn't exist based on what we find in those earlier applications.
I've been there, bro. But one class does not make one an expert. You just sound like a know-it-all asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
I really helped open up the science master can of worms. It is an interesting topic of discussion nonetheless.
I have essentially three years of bio under my belt if you count getting full stars on the AP bio test in High School, with a year and a half of that being relative to this discussion. Much more than your average person takes, and based on my friends that just got their Masters in Biology, about as much as you ever need unless you specifically major in genetics. All you guys who have graduated from college know full well that on many subjects there's only so many semesters you need before you really get everything you need to know about it other than application, especially for discussions like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
He's wrong about us having a viable, full body, permanent and available solution to the problem I brought up. I'm not going to let him think otherwise just because he's stupid, because then it makes me look like I think he's right, which he is nowhere near.
Plus, lets be honest, I could have a doctorate in any of these fields I've ever discussed and TNL would still think I don't know anything about the topic I'm talking about. It's a stigma I'll likely carry here forever because I was a dumb kid a decade ago, so I don't let it get to me. Besides, to not use the things I know to tell idiots like Cheebs that they're oversimplifying an enormous obstacle, would be doing myself a great disservice. Especially since argument on TNL is a great tool for retention.
They took a skin cell from an adult mouse, turned it into a stem cell with the Tetromino thingies restored to their youthful vibrance, and using no donor eggs or anything else GREW A FUCKING LIVE VIABLE MOUSE OUT OF IT. SEVERAL TIMES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
How much harder do you want it applied? If they did it again and nobody looked at the damn mouse, then would it count as not an observation?
I don't know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
TNL's general rule of thumb is that the longer your post are and the more it comes into conflict with their personal world view, the wronger you are.
No one knows anything. And you really don't know anything if you can't say what you have to say in a sentence and it doesn't come into conflict with what anyone thinks.
Which is, no joke, incredible. I've heard of studies like this and it's the kind of stuff science fiction used to dream about and it's leading, key word there, us down a path to a possible solution for the problem I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Also, stop saying youthful vibrance, you sound like an idiot. Also, if those cells had already replicated to the point that coding DNA was lost this procedure would be a huge waste of time, so don't
Ok, dude, really stop. Try really hard to read and understand what I'm saying. Ok, are you read? I don't believe you. Take a deep breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
What you linked does not show that we have a way to solve the problem of DNA sections being lost when replication takes place. It also does not give us a full body, permanent, way to continue the attachment of telomeres at a controlled rate. I'm not talking about them applying it to growing a mouse, and rest assured that new mouse, every single one of it's cells will lose information because of how DNA Polymerase works and they won't function like stem cells forever, or even a very long time.
I'll just make this easy on you, email this to your sister who you will listen to:
You will get a lot of "no" followed by her telling you that your body will not rewrite coding DNA from scratch and it has never known how to.Quote:
Is there currently any technology which can either:
1) Permanently change the way DNA Polymerase attaches to DNA making it no longer lose a section of DNA during replication?
2) Apply permanent changes to every cell in the human body allowing for controlled attachment of telomeres at a rate which negates the losses during DNA replication?
Additionally, is there anyway to regain lost sections of coding DNA through any means we've currently observed? Specifically, if the section of DNA that coded for my hair color was lost in one cell during replication, is there any way for a cell to rebuild that section properly, or is DNA only ever copied, never rewritten from scratch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
This thread has a lot of youthful vibrance. Particularly in the areas of spelling and college boy know-it-all-isms.
It really depends on how you define your identity. If you consider everything you produce to be a part of you, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
If you include toenails, shit, cancer, old hair, shit you throw away, your computer, your clothes, to be extensions of yourself then yes, the copy would be you. It is made from you.
But the scenario where you digitize yourself and you live on in the internet isn't going to happen. That is silly fantasy science crap.
Yes you do and I'll prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Can humans breathe underwater without assistance? You answered no, and you're right, and just because you don't have ten years of biology under your belt doesn't make you any less right. Someone with more biology might be able to tell you exactly what happens when lungs fill with water, or how long your brain can go without oxygen before it starts to take damage and so forth. They are not, however, going to let you in on some magical secret about how your really can breathe water because fish can.
Lots of stupid people have said this about things they didn't understand throughout all of history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
lol. Cheebs is awesome. I like how he remains entirely unruffled regardless of how condescending Opaque gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
So purely by virtue of being a mouse, nature alows mice to undergo this cell reversion/cloning process. That should be obvious the same way nature lets fish live under water. Just as under water life doesn't apply to humans, neither does this stem cell buisness because, duh, people aren't mice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
I finally understand.
[taking notes] "Tetromino thingy" is OK. "Youthful vibrance" is idiotic [/taking notes]Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Honesty time: do you have a learning disability?
Your complete inability to comprehend that when I made that analogy I wasn't referencing your mice thing, at all, tells me you might. I also NEVER said that stem cell research doesn't apply to humans, I said it doesn't permanently solve the problem I'm talking about, which is doesn't. How, possibly, is this so difficult for you? You're typing on a computer, you somehow even lived past thirty, but you cannot target in on a specific problem/solution no matter how many times I try to help you. I give up, you are, an I use no hyperbole, the most difficult to teach human being on this board. It's not stubborn either, you genuinely are not intelligent.
You literally know nothing about this subject, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
You just googled words I said, didn't you? You didn't even understand the studies, did you:
You have no idea what that means in regards to this discussion. And yes, saying "youthful vibrance" is stupid buzz word nonsense which has nothing to do with these studies and was never said by these studies, because it doesn't mean anything.Quote:
These findings indicate that telomeric chromatin is dynamic and reprogrammable, and has a fundamental role in the maintenance of embryonic stem cell pluripotency.
This is pretty great. This whole thing.
But according to you, you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Well, according to logicians I can't. Hell, even according to science I can't.
I can be highly confident that it's correct. Happy now?
Pluripotency is just a fancy lad term for youthful vibrance, really.
I hate all of you.
Good thing all we were ever talking about was putting some protective youth goo over the ends of the DNA, Which you said we couldn't do using adult cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Don't hurt your back too badly moving those goal posts. The stem cells need a bit more time in the research lab before we can give you an injection of hot youth spine to make you better.Quote:
It also does not give us a full body, permanent, way to continue the attachment of telomeres at a controlled rate. I'm not talking about them applying it to growing a mouse, and rest assured that new mouse, every single one of it's cells will lose information because of how DNA Polymerase works and they won't function like stem cells forever, or even a very long time.
And yes, the new mouse is just fine. But I will give you that the stem cells are no longer stem cells once they grow into healthy, functioning not-stem cells. You got me there.
You realize he'll think that's correct now, don't you.
Pluripotency refers to the ability to become all three germ layers and is not the same thing as saying youthful vibrance
I think you under-sell the potential of youth.
No, I said we couldn't do it to adult cells, right now, permanently. Which that study didn't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Notice it didn't take a full grown mouse and then change all the cells in it. It took a cell from the mouse and built something else with it. How are those two very different things the same to you?
How can you be this way? How can you both understand that this isn't a permanent fix, or a fix of the original organism, but then still somehow say that we're at a point where we've solved the problem of DNA replication eventually leading to data loss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Built a mouse, right? What's the problem? I bet you see twins on the street and give 'em mean looks.
The difference is the person speaking against has a really good understanding of basic physics, electronics, signal processing, and digital data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
You don't. You read a book by a man that a lot people disagree with.
Getting you into a computer would be like putting a mini vinyl record into a CD. It isn't going to happen. The song on the CD and the song on record are two very different things. The record is physically there. Its shape interacts with a needle in a very specific way to produce a very specific song. And that version of the song is like no other version of the song. It has little printing errors. Little bits of dust and pops have formed on it. And the sound changes the more people play it. The CD on the other hand is data represented by 1s and 0s, which further signify the switching of small switches or electrical pulses. It is a collection of data that tells a small computing device to read the two-channel 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate per channel and output sound accordingly. Every CD using the same source data will be sound the same. They will have to be heavily damaged to sound any different from each other.
Getting you into a electronic device and not just putting a copy of you or a simulation of you is impossible with the way things are currently done. It flies in the face of what we know about matter, electricity, and digital computing. You're essentially asking for someone to put you, a collection of chemical reactions that exist in an analog world, into a format made up of electron pulses coursing through conductive metals.
That isn't going to happen with anything we have, or anything derived from anything we currently have. It isn't in the cards for a system based on flowing electrons and data stored as pulses of electrons.
To do it would require something almost completely different from what we have now and it would border on magic.
For you to believe in it at this moment in time, without even a glimpse of technology that could make it possible, borders on the same level of silliness as Christians. You have no proof that it could happen. You have a lot of science that says it can't.
We may be able to make thinking machines. And we may be able to make simulations or copies of ourselves. We may be able to make ourselves connect to computers. But we can not put you in a computer. The best we could do with where we are going is copy you onto a computer, then kill the physical you.
I've never referred to the Singularity as anything but "religion for techies"
I've also never done much of anything around here other than troll your asshole.
I see the problem here. You can't put two and two together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
You're still going on about how the DNA will continue to combine and wear down the buffer. When I showed that we can put the buffer back, I assumed that you figured out on your own that we can keep putting the buffer back every few decades instead of doing it once and then being all "Well, that fixes that!". You know, like how we drink water to not die and then damn it, we have to do it again, often in the same day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
And I clearly said that there are issues to work out before putting it back in the host animal. Unless you thought I was talking about a different type of cancer up there (the astrological kind, perhaps?), so I don't know why you keep arguing that point.
And finally:
There's the main course of you being wrong that I've been arguing against this whole time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
I'm sorry, Buttplant. I'm stuck in dickish response mode right now and can't let it slide.
And we have to digitize a standardized master version of the recording instead of digitizing a specific record in somebody's house because...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Good thing we can't write code that can change either itself or other code, or somebody could use that ability to write a virus. A virus that infects computers!Quote:
And the sound changes the more people play it. The CD on the other hand is data represented by 1s and 0s, which further signify the switching of small switches or electrical pulses. It is a collection of data that tells a small computing device to read the two-channel 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate per channel and output sound accordingly.
Continue to combine? LOL, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
This reads exactly like someone trying to talk about a topic they know nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Not in humans who are grown. If you genuinely understood what happened here you'd know why this also doesn't makes changes at a gametic level possible, as they already do this and, obviously, that doesn't result in humans who never lose DNA sections on replication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
We could eventually, yeah. We haven't even done it once though, not even the first time. Which is the point I'm making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Holy shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Alright, you are retarded. I'm done with you.
It's a valid question.
Two pages of giant mess because I assumed you could put two and two together. The assumption is my fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
We can grow a clone organism with young cells.
Elsewhere, totally unrelated to this conversation but generally common knowledge, we have done organ transplants successfully on mammals for decades.
Grow new mammal. Kill it. Take one of it's goodies. Remove the same part from the original mammal. Put the new part in the original mammal. Original mammal now contains cells of it's own DNA with new buffers. Ta Da.
On the off change you're not trolling I'll clarify what IP said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
A copy is not the same thing as genuinely transplanting the original. If you copy a vinyl disk you simply create a digital representation of it, but you didn't literally put the vinyl disk into the computer or into the CD. This should be obvious to anyone who is of moderate intelligence. If we copied your memories and thought patterns into a computer, it would be just that, a copy. You would still be inside of you, just now there would be something else which mimics you. When you die, you're still dead, the copy lives on as nothing more than that, a copy. If we copied one of your vinyls onto my computer and then snapped the vinyl, we'd still be able to listen to the music, but the original is destroyed and the copy is nothing more than a copy.
Unless you copied the vinyl onto another vinyl using Technology.
OH SURE, LIKE THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE.
You must be kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
No one, ever, has been this stupid. If your response is about how this is possible I will, no joke, have to assume you are the least intelligent person to ever post here
Here's a good analogy: I said we have no way to keep parts on a car from rusting and your response was replace the parts. I never said we couldn't replace the parts, I said we couldn't stop them from rusting. Do you see how you're solving a different problem?
Buttplant- Record is special because it has dirt different from all of the other dirt on every other record in the world! Therefore digital recording is not good copy since not only does it not have unique dirt, it doesn't have any dirt!
Cheebs- Make the copy from the special dirty record, not the master tape.
Opaque- Yeah, but the original point that Buttplant made that Cheebs was poo-pooing was that a copy is just a copy.
Cheebs- Response undecided. Perhaps just post a summery of what was said.
Click for full size
Oh, man, you guys...
This Thread!
I learned my lesson, I'm just ignoring Cheebs from now on.
Click for full size
Holy army of straw men running away with the goal post...
That's not even the conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
You said:
And you were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
But as long as we are moving the goal posts:
Yes, if you replaced the rusty parts on a car, you solved the car's rust problem. Since replacement works, the original rusting is not actually a problem. You can't possibly care that the non-problem wasn't solved. The car is perfect, but won't somebody think of the discarded differential gear casing!
No, fuck this. I'm not doing this anymore.
Trying to get an idiot to understand what the discussion is even about, let alone why they're wrong about the wrong topic, is a huge waste of my time. Every time you get into a thread you either talk about shit everyone knows you know nothing about, act like you know more than entire disciplines just because you don't know anything about them or just completely miss the point. You have never contributed anything but idiocy and I'm positive I'll be less angry with you on my ignore list.
First time I've used it in years, you should be proud that you're so good at being stupid.
Click for full size
Well if it's wrong then I obviously meant thousands of tens of thousands. Don't be foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
I guess I "win".
Hooray?
God damn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I think so too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
There's not enough Herp to Durp in Universe...
Click for full size
I'm not arguing. I can just increase the multiple of my second number and eventually be spot on.
Oh I meant thousands of millions. See? I've learned to build golden parachutes in to my factual statements. I thank Frog and Ironplant for this.
Alright, alright. I was having a bit of fun. But I know I was actually wrong, and I am man enough to admit it. When I said:
I was clearly in error. This thread has proven that there is no God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Mission accomplished.
But then it was announced that MGS Peace Walker is getting a PS3 version fixing the control flaws.
Thus, there is a God. (Also, God is not Hideo Kojima.)
Because it is more profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
What does this question have to do with explaining how you can't convert an analog carbon based life form into a digital silicon based life form?
How is a master that is digital in the year 2011 act as a counter point? Are we going to start birthing digital robot babies so your point will carry over?
it would still be a copy. I doubt you can get zero loss when copying one analog medium to another. At the very least, you'd copy all the flaws of the record onto the new record + all the flaws of making the copyQuote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Maybe with your eight-track-to-speak-and-spell-to-digital-to-vinyl bullshit you guys do in Tornado Alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
It's not even about loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
It's about the fact that the original is still there and a copy is just a copy. You're right, but don't lose it.
1:1 = 1
Except now...
...there are two.
You're just being a silly fancy lad now.
I know. But Yeller isn't being serious. He's board on the bus or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
The only way I see of achieving what Josh thinks he wants, is if we developed a completely different kind of computing hardware. We'd have to go back to analog computing, and we'd have to do it genetically. But were not anywhere near doing that. And we may never go in that direction. It may not appear profitable or desirable. And if we do do it, you're just taking your brain out and putting it in a bio organism. You've made a computer that interfaces perfectly with the human brain, so their is no need to make copies. Or you might genetically engineer people were they can communicate like a hive.
Which is all as likely at this point as a big flying spaghetti monster. No one here will live to see it.
Is the objection that the exact one-to-one copy isn't a continuation of the original? Because it is. Except their histories then go in different directions. If the original receives a nick from being dropped, the copy doesn't magically receive that nick. But they are still the same as of the point of copying.
Unless you think that objects have souls or something, and I think you do (believe that).
No one is arguing against that.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
It has nothing to do with that. The only statement being made is that just because a copy has been made doesn't mean the original goes on forever, it just means what the original embodied goes on forever. If my mind was copied into a computer I would still die and my original consciousness will not be immortal. A copy of my consciousness might go on forever, but that's little comfort to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
You're leaving out a step, then.
This is discussed in that book you didn't read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
What's the book?
Durp the Hurp-Durp by Faggington Soggybottoms III?
does it, or does it not end up putting your mind in a digital computer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Or does it make the argument that things will get so advanced that the super advanced robots we make will make super advanced computers for us to interface with in ways that we can't possible understand right now?
Sounds like spaghetti monster talk to me. "I'm going to live on forever. I don't understand how, but I read it in a book."
You guys are thinking about this wrong. You don't just dump yourself into a computer and then leave your original self standing there. As parts of your mind threaten to go, you augment it with an artificial mind. The biological you dies as it would over a decade or so and an artificial you is left. And it would be the same you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Think about it. The being that was the seven year old you has no remaining living cells. They all got replaced. There is no longer a being on this planet that has that same thought process and reactions. The physical body and the mind of that being are gone. Yet you remain.
This entire thread is spaghetti monster talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttplant
It wouldn't even be a good copy. Americans are amazingly distant from their bodies. You are not the sum of your thoughts and memories. Your mind can be heavily influenced by your health, the pheromones of the people around you, the food you eat, the drugs you do, previous trauma, natural depression, brain damage, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Lets put it this way, lets say you're gay. Being gay has a pretty big impact on your identity. Sex is a pretty big part of anyone's identity. It is a force. It pushes you to do things. Now lets say they copy your mind. Now what? Your copy no longer has a dick or balls or a prostate. There isn't anything pumping hormones into it. That thought process will be gone from your copy. Your electronic copy won't be gay. It won't be anything.
Sure, they will probably be able to even simulate that, eventually, but it would be an ideal simulation. Your copy would receive an ideal amount of hormones.
Now repeat that for everything. Your copy has an ideal amount of everything the body does to impact the brain.
Would it even think like you anymore? Or would be different person with shared experiences?
This might happen, but it isn't related to the singularity. You're talking about a scenario that augments what we currently are. Technically, under your scenario we change very little. We'd just live for much longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
The singularity implies a high level of artificial intelligence and a society that is so advanced that we can't understand it. Being all Ghost in the shell, doesn't really fit that.
Yeah, the singularity thing refers to a point where machines become so intelligent that they are capable of building something slightly more intelligent. That keeps looping until they end up making something far beyond our comprehension.
Copying your mind into a computer is bullshit, the "real" you still dies. Slowly replacing parts of you, even down to individual brain cells, is something that happens naturally while still maintaining whatever it is that makes you you. If we could slowly migrate into artificial parts that would be RAD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
Are these two ideas mutually exclusive? I submit that they are not.
Also I am now collecting Professor cards.
This thread is shaping up to be a great place to pick up cards.
Apology accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
We may or may not go in that direction though. Technology ultimately goes where the money is at, not where it logically should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
With everything going on with stem cells, we may figure out how to solve most of our mortality and health issues through genetics. Will there be any incentive for people to make nano machines that will repair your memory, if we can develop medicine or gene therapy that keeps your brain operating beyond its peek? Are you going to pay $5 a week for a prescription or $100,000 for the new nano memory bots?
And what do you think the average person will do? Everyone is already used to medicine and trust it. Maybe more than they should. Will people initially trust nano machines? And even if they do, who is to stop big med from trying to ruin those companies?
Bionic superdudes, that's who.
