You must log in or register to comment.

Honest_Switch1531 t1_j1ox9om wrote

Memory transfer is a scifi technology. We have no idea how it could possibly be done. The workings of memory are almost completely a mystery.

More likely is finding a cure for aging using stem cell and other related technologies. We do have a fairly good idea of how aging happens. It is a combination of around 10 different processes that interact. There are possible cures for some of then be tested right now.


Gubekochi t1_j1oz4wg wrote

Mandatory plug for r/longevity in case that sort of thing might interest OP.


VektroidPlus t1_j1p7qc4 wrote

I don't really see it ever being possible to upload or transfer your consciousness outside of your body.

Most psychology and biology agree that the brain and body can't really exist without one another.

The brain is also far more complex than what we thought. It's nothing like a computation machine or memory storage device. It's more like a corporation with different departments running different tasks that are governed by a central body that acts as our facing consciousness. It's also incredibly imperfect. It's prone to errors or even certain 'departments' briefly taking over.

These 'departments' very likely mean we have different consciousnesses with different desires, consider themselves a different age, and identify as different genders and have preferred sexualities. They're also all developing at different rates as life happens for a person.

It seems like such a daunting task to comprehend what makes us tick let alone capture that and somehow transfer it over. There's more scientific evidence about reversing cellular degeneration than anything about consciousness transferring.


youcandanch t1_j1pyj7p wrote

this is absolutely fascinating, any recommendations on places to start reading on this? would love to dig in a bit more to understand it.


VektroidPlus t1_j1qfiyj wrote

Michio Kaku has a great book called the 'The Future of the Mind'. Not exactly the most reputable since he's a theoretical physicist and not a neuroscientist.

His writing though, is very easy to read. He gives a great overview of how humanity has thought about the brain throughout history, important scientific discoveries, and where neuroscience is at now. The rest of the book is his speculation about where he thinks we will go in the future with neuroscience.


Teripid t1_j1qd5pb wrote

Well said. I'd add another caveat too. Everyone reading this is currently a collection of cells, electrical impulses, etc.

If you could magically ctrl+c, ctrl+v that person over and had two completely identical human bodies and thoughts you'd likely just have someone who behaved exactly like them but they'd be separate entities. Defining what makes a human and continuing it is still near high-scifi.


uh_buh t1_j1pudcq wrote

Recent psych degree graduate, this is absolutely correct, and your analogy to explain is a really great one.


TheSinfulBlacksheep t1_j1qc2t8 wrote

So the brain is something more akin to a colony of zooid organisms like a Portuguese man 'o war? Obviously not at the cellular level, but in the sense that these are specialized individual animals that kind of cluster together to build the whole. Am I on the right track here?


VektroidPlus t1_j1qj74m wrote

I think we can say that about most living creatures as a whole though and not necessarily just the brain. I'm way oversimplifying it, but most living beings are just a collection of complex cells, from brain to body.


LordOfSpamAlot t1_j1qy2qa wrote

>The brain is also far more complex than what we thought. It's nothing like a computation machine or memory storage device. It's more like a corporation with different departments running different tasks that are governed by a central body that acts as our facing consciousness.

Do you have any sources? This is an interesting topic.


Nopengnogain t1_j1oz2dm wrote

What if we can figure out how to do a brain transplant one day?


AugustusClaximus t1_j1p0fa0 wrote

That doesnt solve the problem of the brain itself aging


justmikewilldo t1_j1p3tbc wrote

Non aging cellular organisms exist on earth. It’s a matter of when we figure out how that works, not if.


Decryptic__ t1_j1p7z1q wrote

Isn't a type of jellyfish such a thing? And isn't it that jellyfishs don't have a brain to begin with?


Otrsor t1_j1piw6f wrote

Well, they do have a nerve net of sorts, but the way they achieve immortality they more like regress back to "baby" form and grow back, so it's more like they just become their own baby.


SirDraeos t1_j1p8hhs wrote

Simply figuring out how it works doesn't necessarily mean it's a mechanism we could apply to a completely different cellular structure.


Knichols2176 t1_j1pcb5q wrote

That’s more easily solved. Aging is caused directly by hormones and their levels. That can be studied better and a supplement to certain hormones can be administered. There are many hormones beyond just testosterone and estrogen. There’s thyroid, adrenal, and blood cell stimulating as a few examples. With optimal supplementation, aging can be slowed tremendously.


Lx99x t1_j1p1cvx wrote

If we can keep the synapses fire along with brain cells alive, we can, in theory, transfer memory. Obviously not the memory itself, but the brain acting as a hard drive. This is why Musks nueralink is exciting. Imagine growing a perfect clone of yourself then doing a brain transplant with nueralink as the bridge. I would imagine that within the next 20-30 years we'll see that happen. Big hurdle would be keeping blood supply to the brain (feeding oxygenated blood through the carotid arteries).

The absolute biggest hurdle I think is curing dementia and alzhiemers. Can't transfer the brain if the brain is no good right?

Were gunna see some crazy medical shit within the next few decades. Just don't get your hopes up though. The tech will be too expensive for us plebians.


DniMam t1_j1p75ch wrote

20-30 years is very very optimistic prediction. They imagined flying car. It will be the same for self-driving car. Although we did lot research and progressed by leap and bound, we still face ton of challenge as tagged traffic sign recognition, unpainted's not ready and AI is not able to understand our environment, nor able to do any ounce of adaptation.

We are in a very early stage. Their main asset is finding the correct data and copy-pasta. They can't think.

I wouldn't put any cents in neuralink : this technology already existed and created a connexion between a brain and computer. Nothing more. Musk is only an investor with a sprinkle of personality cult.

We are very far from understanding how brain work, nor illness as depression, bipolar…and that doesn't mean we haven't progressed but we are very far from this step aside connecting brain to computer and moving a mouse on the screen.

If we succeed in memory transfert, there is still lot challenge to solve. We know nothing about our brain and memory.

When you transfert memory data, we will need to make sure various point :

  • that we are able to create new memories, think and use the data received
  • that we can solve possible memory conflict between old brain and new brain.
  • that the data transferred last.
  • Is the clone another version of yourself ? It maybe someone else with a different habit. In fact, you died.

Decryptic__ t1_j1p7ugz wrote

Disclaimer, I'm not a scientist nor have a degree in any sort of this thesis. This is my personal thinking. If you disagree, you are free to discuss it.

#Saving the Brain Some say to save the brain as it is, which would require more capacity than we have available right now.

So, every server, every HDD or SSD in the world isn't enough to store a brain.

So there's that problem, the other would be transferring this amount of data into a device. So let's say you could save it. How long would it take?

With our current technology, we can transfer "only" 1.84 Pbit/s (source). This is equivalent to 1840 Terrabytes/s or 1'840'000 Gigabytes/s.

Would this be enough to save a brain? We don't know.

#Age of a Brain The second concern is that Alzheimer and cancer are a problem of aging. The longer you live, the higher the chance to get one of these.

So even if we reverse aging and could toggle it on and off (to stay forever at the age we want), it needs to solve those two problems too. If not, we would likely think ourselves to death.


Living-Positive8849 t1_j1qe7lx wrote

Aging is genetic. Aging is controlled by our genes if we don't wanna age we have to change those genetic code that play role in aging.

Although taking regular supplement of chemicals that counter chemicals responsible for aging can also help.

Also memory is stored in nerve cells in our brains (maybe in forms of some chemical or genetic codes), so memory transfer and storage require highest level of tech and knowledge


IcyBoysenberry9570 t1_j1qkpkm wrote

They've aged and de-aged rats recently. Made them older, then made them younger. That sounds like we're at the point where we've cured aging but for the bioethicists.


xXkiljoyXx t1_j1qtwam wrote

Memory transfer may never be possible. You will not experience the consciousness of the clone even if it has your memories. The clone will essentially be a separate person. It will act like you and think like you but you will still be gone.


SirDraeos t1_j1p8w3e wrote

Is aging seriously now considered a disease to be treated/cured? How is this any different from considering a candle that's gone out after melting all its wax, faulty?

I fail to see how aging is anything other than a certainty so much as the sun rising and setting every day, and trying to "solve" it, as ridiculous as attempting to hold the sun hostage at its zenith.

Most people nowadays live an absolutely worthless lives (pardon the coarseness, but I believe this to be true of myself too), so how is aging not the cure to the disease we've turned our existences into?

Edit: unless of course, when speaking of curing aging we refer not to the lengthening of our lives, but the improvement of the quality of our years (which I still consider ironic given how little people are willing to invest time and effort into their own health).


Mokebe890 t1_j1pns4g wrote

Oh boy, and in future sun will burn out. Nothing is certanity so why aging should be? There are immortal animals which dont age so its not something out of natural world.


SirDraeos t1_j1u2z4d wrote

So you're saying you want to exchange the complexity of the human body for that of an immortal jellyfish? You do realise that organisms aren't comprised of pieces you can individually pick and choose from, and that you need the whole system in order for that one characteristic to be viable?

And what would YOU do with limitless time? What have you done with the time you've had up until now?


Mokebe890 t1_j1uamaz wrote

It is mechanism of genes? Of course we are different species and you cant 1:1 transfer it to mammals but you can tweak our biology into it. Check dr Levin work on regeneration in species that dont posses ability to regenerate limbs. By this I meant it is possible because it occurs in nature.

Nature choose one of two ways, either producing offspring or immortality and I absolutly prefer immortality. We can do it, it is not against biology or physics so its just a matter of time.

Work? Study? Watch? Play video games? Read? Exercise? I dont really need much. There will always be new tasks, new things to study, new series to watch, new games to beat, new books to read and keeping in shape is always going. Absolutly want to do it for as long as I want. If I decide it is time for me and Im already bored then always you can go euthanasia.


michaeleid811 t1_j1p14lb wrote

a copy of me still isn't living forever. That's just a copy


SickMoo1 t1_j1padv4 wrote

True but what is me?

Am I the same person I was yesterday, before going to sleep? How can I be certain of that? If I'm not aware I was dead and woke up in clone, am I still a copy?


SaukPuhpet t1_j1phuhl wrote

I've thought about this a fair bit, as the idea that the clone is me never sat right with me. It always intuitively seemed it wasn't me and was instead a copy of me, that they were somehow distinct. Going off that initial gut feeling I tried to figure out why it was that I felt that way and arrived at what I think is reason for it.

I am NOT SaukPuhpet and neither is the clone. SaukPuhpet is information. SaukPuhpet isn't a physical thing, but more a collection of memories and genetics and other traits that describe a human being, but not the human being itself.

I am an Instance of the entity class of SaukPuhpet, as is the identical clone. It is not the concept of SaukPuhpet that I am attached to, but rather the specific instance of that concept, call it SaukPuhpet Alpha. In that sense the clone is not me, because I am SaukPuhpet Alpha and it is SaukPuhpet Beta. Even if Identical, we are both discrete instances of the SaukPuhpet entity class and therefore distinct.

I don't care if SaukPuhpet Beta, Gamma, Delta, and so on get to keep the greater concept of SaukPuhpet alive indefinitely, as I am entirely unattached to them. It is SaukPuhpet Alpha that I want to exist forever. SaukPuhpet Alpha is what I identify as being myself, greater concept be damned.


Qowegishomo t1_j1qjhtf wrote

>Am I the same person I was yesterday, before going to sleep? How can I be certain of that? If I'm not aware I was dead and woke up in clone, am I still a copy?

This is all just paranoid.

>Am I the same person I was yesterday, before going to sleep

Yes. What happened is that your brain went into a sleep mode. There's still continuity of the neurological processes and physical continuity of your neurons.

>How can I be certain of that

How can you be certain of anything? You could be a brain without body connected to a machine. You could be a completely different life form connected to a computer that simulates your life as a human. These discussions are pointless.

>If I'm not aware I was dead and woke up in clone, am I still a copy?

Yes because you lost the continuity. The neurons that are you died. You are dead. There's a copy of you living.


LostN3ko t1_j1r13cc wrote

I love how you dismiss the ship of theseus as pointless and act like we have any idea of the true nature of the self. In order to have any discussion of mind transfer, teleportation or the brain in general there are age old unsolved philosophical questions that must be answered to have any sort of emperical proof of concept. You obviously know the topic as you point to continuity but continuity is not enough.

You are not the same person you were 10 years ago. If I replace every cell in your body one by one with a nano machine that replicated the cells function you would maintain continuity but would you call 100% flesh you the same person as 100% nanobot you? How could you test that question? How can you prove any being is a specific person or not? Continuity can solve the legal problem but not the metaphysical one.

Consciousness has a lot of complicated gotchas in it for existing technology. Was phineas gage the same person before and after or people with retrograde amnesia. How much of the personality is just memories and how much is an emergent property?


Qowegishomo t1_j1r8vo5 wrote

Questions you raised in this comment are much more valid. Ship of Theseus, for one, is when this conversation starts getting increasingly interesting and difficult.

I was responding only to the particular things I quoted, which all have clear answers.


[deleted] t1_j1r1pz1 wrote



LostN3ko t1_j1r8uwk wrote

It is doing some heavy lifting. 2000 year old question about the fundamental nature of the self with no solution in sight, a mere speedbump in the road to immortality.


mattcalt t1_j1qssef wrote

Living With Myself (with Paul Rudd) on Netflix kind of addresses this.

That’s what I always thought. The copy/clone would feel like they’re living longer but me, I’d just be dead.


gg2ezpzlemonsqz OP t1_j1p1hj3 wrote

But its "YOUR" memory. Everything from your first thought to a "NEW BODY" is you. What you like, what you feel, PC or mac, the memory of YOU so wouldnt just a copy of a clone just be like getting a new organ from a transplant?


michaeleid811 t1_j1p1w2d wrote

I dont' believe that there is an essential me that transcends my own body. So if you copied every thought I had and then transferred it to a perfect replication of me. That still wouldn't be me it would be a copy of me with my exact memories and thoughts but me would still be dead.


MayorOfSmurftown t1_j1pakci wrote

>That still wouldn't be me it would be a copy of me with my exact memories and thoughts but me would still be dead.

Until you wake up and realize you were the copy all along.


LostN3ko t1_j1r1w96 wrote

The clone would wake up and realize it was a clone since its inception a few moments ago. It has your memories but it has no past of its own. You would still be dead.

Defining "you" here is the key to this debate.


MayorOfSmurftown t1_j1rstiz wrote

As far as you know right now, all of your memories are fabricated and you have no past of your own.

How do you know you weren't created this morning when you woke up? How do you know you won't disappear tonight when you go to sleep, and a "new" consciousness with all your memories emerges to take your place tomorrow?


LostN3ko t1_j1rvhv8 wrote

Ah different than your previous suggestion. I was answering that "you" can't wake up as your clone, your clone is a separate person from you. But yes I agree I have no proof that I am the same person because we have no empirical way to judge the authenticity of an individual's personality. It is an emergent property of a system. It's not any one part of you but the synergistic effect of the combination. If you were to produce an atom for atom recreation of every part of your brain it would still not be you.


MayorOfSmurftown t1_j1sgbqr wrote

But that's kind of my point. What's it matter if it's really "you" or the clone? You can't tell the difference. You might be being reborn every single day as a brand new entity, but from your perspective, you're still one continuous existence.


LostN3ko t1_j1vd719 wrote

Um in which case you don't need clones if your reborn every day then congrats everyone is you and your already immortal or you can never live more than 1 day and you'll never be immortal. So either way this whole question is moot and having clones changes nothing. Not sure why this view of the self cares if clones exist or not.


MayorOfSmurftown t1_j1viij0 wrote

"You" might have been the clone all along. Imagine you're a clone. From your perspective, you don't feel like a clone, because all of your memories are completely identical to your original.

You seem so convinced you're the real deal, but for all you know, you could wake up tomorrow in a clone body, and everything you thought you experienced today was just a copied memory.


LostN3ko t1_j1vk9fj wrote

If I have 10 clones in a room with me there are 11 discrete individuals in the room each with their own thoughts and opinions and only one of them is you. It doesn't matter how many clones you make none of them will be you. Identical twins are clones of each other but that doesn't make either of them immortal even if they both had complete retrograde amnesia they are not immortal. You keep saying "wake up in a clone body" but that can not happen, the clone can wake up and think it is the original but it would still be it's own person. If I have 100 clones they can all believe they are the original but none of them are the original. If I woke up with only the memories of King James in my head I would still not be King James and he did not just become immortal. I feel like this point is being lost on you. Even if the self dies every night and a new self wakes it the morning with all of the memories in the bodies brain that self will still not be King James.


MayorOfSmurftown t1_j1votvw wrote

What does it even mean to be the "original"? What's so important about that? Your cells are constantly dying and being replaced. You literally aren't physically the same person you were 5 years ago. So what is it? What makes you "you"?

Imagine a human version of the Ship of Theseus. Let's say, to make a "clone", they split your brain in half, then copy the cells from the other half of the brain to create two identical brains. Which one is the "original"? Which one is "you"?


LostN3ko t1_j1vqhxh wrote

Before you ask me to solve a 2000 year old philosophical paradox please explain in what world view can I wake up in someone else's body.

For the purpose of this discussion we have to assume a self exists. If we don't then there is no point continuing the discussion as no one exists anymore and no amount of clones change that and immortality explicitly doesn't exist. If a self is only alive for one day again immortality no longer exists. The only philosophical realm where immortality exists is where every person has a self and that self has a timeline beginning with birth and ending with death. Immortality is a self with a birth but no foreseeable death.

Now if I have 10 clones they are all discrete individuals. They each have their own feelings thoughts sense of individuality. They are not a hive consciousness they are each a unique instance with unique selfs. Each of which dies when their body dies. Not one of them is immortal.


MayorOfSmurftown t1_j1vuf9w wrote

What if your "self" isn't defined by physical matter like cells or atoms, but by the continuity of your memory and conscious experience?

Yes, those 10 clones are all distinct individuals after they are created, but before then, they were all essentially the same entity. From their perspective, it's as if all 10 of them started out inhabiting the same body, and at a certain point, they diverged.


LostN3ko t1_j1vwgvh wrote

From the moment of divergence they begin to have unique experiences that make their self a different person than the others. 10 selfs. Each with their own end and none of which will be a shared experience meaning they are not the same self anymore.

Identical twins start out as one egg with a shared experience. After separating they become two selfs each unique. Identical twins are not a version of immortality.

There is a wishy washy version of immortality here but it's the same one we have always had, legacy through progeny. Your children were once part of your body, you split them off, they grew into new selfs and you passed on your memories, opinions and stories to them and they carry them forward. Offspring, pictures, movies, stories, histories, crafted materials, art and fame all fall into this psudo immortality of keeping your memory alive, a little bit of you as people like to say. None of these are true immortality where a self does not die.


ManiaGamine t1_j1owdr2 wrote

No. Nothing is forever. Even if you could solve all the problems eventually the Earth will become uninhabitable for you and you will die and even if you could survive that eventually the sun will go Nova die and even if you could survive that there will eventually be the heat death of the universe.

So no, forever is not possible.


MrMemory t1_j1owoah wrote

Don't let the heat death of the universe keep you up at night though gif


Gubekochi t1_j1ozasl wrote

We still have billions of year to find a way to make artificial big bangs, reverse entropy or jump to parallel universes, so even the death of the universe might not be the end.


Robotman1001 t1_j1oz10q wrote

I’d think if we figured out immortality we could figure out a space-station…


Words_Are_Hrad t1_j1pp0ly wrote

>sun will go Nova

No it won't it's not big enough.


ManiaGamine t1_j1r443f wrote

There fixed it. Either way death of the sun would have the same outcome to anyone still left "alive"


moist_yoda t1_j1sbg7o wrote

If nothing is forever then isn't that a type of forever? Isn't nothingness just forever nothing? But aren't we alive because nothing can truly be forever nothing? But isn't that another form of forever? So aren't we just under the law of forever is nothing and nothing is forever? we're here because nothing could truly be nothing which is just a form of forever because nothing can be nothing forever which is a law of forever. But because we're no longer nothing we're under law of nothing is forever which is a form of forever because nothing is forever which is forever until nothing is forever in which it's forever nothing.

Nothing is forever Is wrong because forever has always been nothing, nothing could change forever because it's forever and forever will always be because it's forever. We may be forever nothing, forever something no matter what we can't escape forever because forever never can be one thing and will be forever one thing because it's forever. Forever will always be forever just as nothing can never be nothing because nothing has to be something for us to exist. Nothing is nothing it's again another form of forever. so we can't truly say nothing is forever if you do you have to acknowledge that the idea of nothing is forever can't be forever because nothing is forever which creates a paradox.


ManiaGamine t1_j1secyv wrote

No? That would be getting into semantics.

Nothing is by definition no thing. Therefore when I say nothing is forever, I'm not stating that an absence of things is forever. I'm saying no specific things are forever. The laws of the universe essentially don't allow it as we understand them. Even the heat death of the universe will potentially undergo some form of transformation. There has been speculation that there will be some inverse of the big bang at some point.

But our best understanding is that due to thermodynamic entropy there will always been a natural inclination towards disorder and this is especially relevant in the context of heat and energy which is to say that any system reliant on such would eventually succumb to failure or at least an inability to maintain structure and control which in the context of life... in whatever form we're talking about would be failure.

Say thousands of years from now a human was built into a computer and could essentially keep itself going through successive creation of robotic components/bodies/etc. But it essentially has the ability to outlive biological limitations. Well it would still likely run out of energy at some point. So how would it resolve that? Use other energy systems? Systems reliant on exotic matter? Seemingly limitless fuels? Well that's just it, nothing is limitless. There is a finite amount of anything that exists in the universe and barring some sort of perfect ability to convert energy and matter back into either form over and over forever (Which by the laws of thermodynamics would be as we understand it impossible) you're still going to hit an end... it may be a very VERY long life but it would not be "forever".


moist_yoda t1_j1sndy8 wrote

But semantics is half the fun. But okay I agree with you but I believe we should never be truly absolute only absolute till otherwise. This flexibility allows us to change and adapt. For instance, All knowledge about the Heat death of universal is what we know not what we know in the future. Is Heat death correct probably yes but then again it could be wrong in the future by how much who knows? it could just very well be a small miss calculation that doesn't change the outcome or something big which changes our knowledge about it. we only know present knowledge, not future knowledge. we can only make educated guesses.


ManiaGamine t1_j1snlqx wrote

Just saw your edits and honestly... what are you even talking about?

>If nothing is forever then isn't that a type of forever? Isn't nothingness just forever nothing?

"Nothing" is not a thing... that's the whole point. It's an absence of things. But that isn't even the context in which my commentary was made. What I was saying is that no "things" are forever. If it exists, it isn't forever. If it doesn't exist, well there's really no way of knowing if it'll never exist.

>But aren't we alive because nothing can truly be forever nothing?

Again, you are operating on a completely opposite basis from what I actually said. You seem to have in your mind turned nothing (or the absence of things) into something and are now discussing that as a state which in a roundabout way yes but that deals in the nature of entropy and how everything is always in a state of change and disorder. We are alive and exist because of a very complex series of chaotic changes over a very long period of time.

>So aren't we just under the law of forever is nothing and nothing is forever?

There is no "law of forever". In fact based on the nature of spacetime it is entirely possible that there is no forever, and there might not be any real concept of "nothing" either. Even in the void of space there is going to be something, it might be imperceptible but it is not nothing.

>we're here because nothing could truly be nothing which is just a form of forever because nothing can be nothing forever which is a law of forever.

Again, not a thing. I have to genuinely ask, are you high? Because your post is kind of a word salad that sounds like the ramblings of someone on drugs.

>But because we're no longer nothing we're under law of nothing is forever which is a form of forever because nothing is forever which is forever until nothing is forever in which it's forever nothing.

I... don't think you understand what you're talking about. The fact that you've now referred to the law of nothing and law of forever despite neither of those things actually existing suggests to me that you're going into this weird deep philosophical place but without the knowledge or articulation to really appreciate the concepts you're thinking about which is leading you wildly astray of anything tangible or meaningful.

For instance, you've completely missed the mark on "Nothing" and you seem to be word salading the concept into something that might seem coherent and sensible to you but otherwise makes no real sense.

You seem to be touching a wee bit on the law of thermodynamics but from a place of what I can only describe as ignorance. So if this topic does interest you I would sincerely suggest looking into thermodynamics as it is super fascinating and might put you in a better position to understand what it is you're thinking about.

>Nothing is forever Is wrong because forever has always been nothing, nothing could change forever because it's forever and forever will always be because it's forever.

Existence would disprove that entire statement.

>We may be forever nothing, forever something no matter what we can't escape forever because forever never can be one thing and will be forever one thing because it's forever.

Again, what are you talking about? "We may be forever nothing" you do know the words you're using have definitions right? We are not nothing, therefore we cannot be "forever nothing". You're just throwing the words forever and nothing around like they ironically have no meaning.

>Forever will always be forever just as nothing can never be nothing because nothing has to be something for us to exist.

I don't mean to be mean but you sound like someone who is trying REALLY hard to sound smart but have no idea what they're talking about. Lines like that one just come across as pseudo-scientific jibberish.

Which come to think of it might be part of the problem. You definitely seem to be approaching this from a philosophical point of view (Though I'm not entirely sure why) so there is definitely some interesting conceptual discussions that could be had there but like it's just so wildly off the mark in the context in which it is being discussed. As in... it has no relation to this topic or my comments.

>Nothing is nothing it's again another form of forever.

Uh... that's not correct.

>so we can't truly say nothing is forever if you do you have to acknowledge that the idea of nothing is forever can't be forever because nothing is forever which creates a paradox.

Lol no. Like... ridiculously no. You've completely butchered concepts and words to essentially make something true that just isn't... that just isn't how anything works as we understand it.


moist_yoda t1_j1spf8x wrote

Am I high, yes but I'm also sleep-deprived Honesty don't remember if I edited my post?


ManiaGamine t1_j1sprnu wrote

Reddit says you did and there were a few sections that I definitely didn't see prior to my reply.


moist_yoda t1_j1sr212 wrote

Yeah but doesn't change much other than I need sleep and this conversation is probably going to be funny when I'm sober and well-rested. Also auto-correct is helping me right now. Auto-correct is the real mvp of this conversion


ManiaGamine t1_j1ssgkq wrote

Rofl lol. I reckon you'd be fun to have some deep conversations with given how that one went but you really should get some sleep.


moist_yoda t1_j1t3rr6 wrote

Trying too and deep high conversions are the best


Lawjarp2 t1_j1owwwt wrote

Yeah. But forever is a long time. I'd settle for having the ability go out on my own terms.

What's stopping us? Other than not having the tech, a lot of what you think you are is tied down to the body. Easier to create AGI than upload minds. Both will be revolutionary.


agree-with-me t1_j1oywog wrote

Trick is to live long enough to stop aging. Then, to determine moving memories. That buys more time to figure out how to get off the planet, the solar system, figure out what comes after the universe dies and lastly what to do to transcend that. Buying decades at a time buys you forever.


UnmutualOne t1_j1oxtu7 wrote

Is consciousnesses just memories? If we cannot determine how consciousness is created, how could we transfer consciousness from one body/brain to another?

Most of the stuff I’ve read fails to address the problem of consciousness and postulates something that seems more like creating a copy rather than transferring “you” into another body.

It’s akin to the argument that the transporter in Star Trek kills the original and creates a duplicate at the other end.


GuitarMartian t1_j1p29ce wrote

Personally i don’t think we can guarantee someone will live FOREVER, but i do think the length of human life could be extended quite far with some innovations in biotech.

I’ve only scratched the surface by reading books like David Sinclair’s but would like to know more about the future potential innovations.

For what its worth i think its really important to ask these types of questions and push medical tech forward.

People deserve to meet their grandparents and great-grandparents.


dee_lio t1_j1oxwef wrote

The problem is that you could possibly lose out on the clone / upload metaphor. Would you know you're a clone? Also, there's more to memory than what's located in the brain. There is information stored in nerves, etc.

IIRC, jellyfish have a functional immortality. Maybe some technology could parlay off of that? You'd avoid the memory issue, because you're not dumping the original body. In that same note, there's also a function of your own body's telomeres, if you could cause them to not lose information when copied, and keep replenishing them so you don't run out, there would probably be something there, too.


TimmyTimmie82 t1_j1ozim4 wrote

Being immortal would suck so bad gosh I've just turned 40 and don't really want to think that I'm going to have to do this again. Just my opinion but life has gone on long enough.


shotsallover t1_j1p3t6i wrote

I'm older than you and I'm not happy with how little potential life I have left. I already know I don't want to leave, and want as much life as I can get.


TimmyTimmie82 t1_j1p5t7e wrote

Well I'm happy for you everyone is different. I just feel I have seen and done enough. I'm just not happy here I belong somewhere else.


HAWMadden t1_j1oy5t7 wrote

You could always make your clone a video explaining everything they need to know and they could start watching it at certain times


Worldly-Bonus6298 t1_j1oyvkf wrote

I think I eventually be possible with memory chips and nano technology but wtf do I know? Ill be long gone before then. Great question though.


CinemaMike t1_j1p9nto wrote

This will probably get lost in the comments. This Hardvard professor's research says we can and that he is able to do it already in small animals right now. Testing for humans is currently being done.


zemboy01 t1_j1pdfim wrote

Look at these garbage people a bunch of comments but only 4 up votes? Wtf. Let me be fucking real with you these people are the problem most people don't want to live forever good more air for me to enjoy at least I won't be rotting in the ground.

To answer your question yes it's possible I've been researching ways to live forever. There is scientists working on repairing DNA because it degrades over time. Some scientists have found a way to reverse aging but it's only in the very early stages. I want to become a super scientists and make an an "elixir" that could repair damage wounds because if you do live forever you don't want to live in pain do you.

Finally my thoughts. I love life it's fucked up full of pain and suffering but that makes all the good moments that much all the better because sure there are bad times but there are good times too. I want to make a super civilization where we can expand across the universe and humanity can thrive. The fact that most people don't want to live forever is also good more space for us that do want to. My dream is to find out what reality and the universe meaning and you know what even if it's means the universe has no meaning who cares it's still worth living.


Egad86 t1_j1owock wrote

I think we are a very long ways away from understanding the human mind still and even further from developing a way to “download” memories and personalities, and even if we were able to do that what’s to say the new mind with the uploaded information would process it the sane as the original brain. Clones may have the same DNA and physical traits, but how about creating the same neural connections?

Who knows though, maybe some day in the distant future, with enough research.


SoundTracx t1_j1oy3iy wrote

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it feasible anytime soon? No.

We will get to the point where we can upload our conscious to a cloud like thing. These can be built around red dwarfs that last for millions upon millions of years more than our own sun.

I mean it’s possible for us to reverse entropy for all we know. There’s no set yes or no rules to life, humanity has bent or removed nearly every rule in its path.

Time will tell like most things, we most likely won’t see this technology but maybe our children’s children will with the way things are going.

Living in a virtual world where you can be your own god or even a world where every need is met and you can do whatever you wish to do with those you love most.

Is it fair for those who came before you? Is it fair for you and your family to live together forever when billions upon billions of humans have died?

There’s a lot of maturing humanity needs before we even think about the possibility of eternal life. We are not prepared for that future or it’s problems.


[deleted] t1_j1oz9xj wrote

Two problems with "uploading our consciousness."

For one. We have no clue, even if we were capable of doing so, that a digital copy of consciousness would actually be conscious versus just imitating consciousness.

Second. Even if we could copy it, and be assured the copy was conscious. It's still just a copy. The original you still dies.

For digital immortality to really be feasible you can't just make a copy. You need a way to transfer consciousness from one "body" to another.

For all we know this is simply impossible.


SoundTracx t1_j1p2jy2 wrote

Your conscious for all we know isn’t even connected to your body in terms of we know of. It could literally just be 1s and 0s but in biological terms.

Past memories we’ve studied to be mostly false to what actually happened. What you remember isn’t true. In fact most of it isn’t. It’s why humans used songs to pass down information in story form instead of using just our memories. Those stories while can be changed like our memories tend to have more legitimate history.

I’m not saying you remembering what food you had for dinner last night type of memory but more long term. Humans are terrible with long term memories, unless they were traumatic in some way.

You could wake up with false memories tomorrow and still be you for all “you” know. This is where it gets very tricky. We don’t know what “you” is. Is it your memories? If it is then shit my idea works fine. If it’s not then it’s going to be more difficult.

A clone of you is just you, but not “you”. So Star Trek teleportation is not this. It’s still “you” being transferred from one location to the next.

If we could do the matter -> energy -> matter teleportation and even fix or cure ailments during that process which includes the degradation of DNA then we could in theory live forever.

There’s many many solutions to the problem, only one needs to be correct. But it still doesn’t solve the problems that come with it


[deleted] t1_j1q72yg wrote

First let me say thank you for the post.

"Your conscious for all we know isn’t even connected to your body in terms of we know of. It could literally just be 1s and 0s but in biological terms."

Science is just now exploring the idea of the brain as a receiver of consciousness rather than the materialist generator of consciousness. But if it is a receiver, that puts us even farther away from making it work. How can we even begin to understand something (the source or signal the brain receives) if 1) we don't know what that would be. 2) can't even prove or disprove the materialist vs receiver hypothesis.

Even if consciousness could be boiled down to ones and zeros if it's a receiver we have no means whatsoever to find or experiment with that source.

Maybe there is a way to live forever through advanced anti oxidation, nanobots repairing cellular damage, or periodic dna repair. That's not really my field. But the whole consciousness transfer thing is very far fetched imho.

In terms of what a person is, you're right we don't know what it is. But you do hit on a good point. We certainly aren't just our memories. It seems we are more the sum total of our DNA, experiences, nurture, as well as the stream of unique cognitive functions that process those things (often with unique mistakes and interpretations).

This creates an issue where the "you" that you are is highly unique and ever changing. Almost like an AI who can rewrite its own code. It begs the question, if even one tiny bit of information was incorrect, how far off from "you" would any copy be? We can't just copy memories from the original, because the originals memories aren't correct either. It's not about just the end product of the memory. It's about the unique fingerprint of what about the actual experience was coded into memory, and the unique things remembered, forgotten, and distorted. There's likely important and unique information not just in what was remembered, but what was also forgotten and distorted.

If you want a good book on the subject "I am a strange loop." It's a good read.


llmercll t1_j1oyzxa wrote

You can’t upload consciousness. YOU are tied to your physical brain. Any upload would be a copy not YOU. It’s literally impossible. It will never happen.

Neither will immortality. Body systems are too interconnected to be tweaked in a way to results in immortality without causing other disease.


coreywindom t1_j1ozsww wrote

I think biological immortality is possible, meaning halting the aging process and people no longer dying of natural causes but living forever is impossible. I don’t think humans will ever leave the solar system and at some point our star is going to die


Gilded-Mongoose t1_j1ozvju wrote

Y’all don’t realize memory transfer doesn’t mean “you” live forever. You’re not transferring yourself - it’s just another exact clone of you.

I’ve said this before - you can duplicate your memory elsewhere but just imagine you don’t die - you’re still watching your “other” self run amok but if you die then you still die.


xl129 t1_j1p2j77 wrote

You remind me of an Love Death + Robots episode where (rich) people live forever, resource is limited though so making new children is an forbidden act.


starmanjones101 t1_j1p2n7e wrote

Yes, absolutely, we can live forever....we are in essence just information, and information can theoretically be preserved forever...


TomsRedditAccount1 t1_j1p2ngm wrote

Cloning with memory transfer is not a way to live forever. It's just reproduction with extra steps.

And you miss out on sexual recombination of your genes.


Homewardment t1_j1p3a3n wrote

I think the real question is would you really want to live forever?


xBR0SKIx t1_j1p47rg wrote

The question is would you want to live forever, death sucks but, unless I was really good at business that I could manage to indefinitely make money on, there is no retiring plan that would survive that natural decay of nations/empires and I would just keep repeating the same hellish wage slave cycle.


jamesshine t1_j1p4mzw wrote

Not anytime soon. The best we can hope right now is to create a clone of our brain that allows for an emulator to recreate a synthetic approximation who we are. But it isn’t “us”. We are our brain. As flawed and fragile as that organ is, it is what makes us who we are. We are still learning how they work. Barely can solve any brain damage issues. Let alone find ways to avoid the inevitable deterioration of the organ.


Super_Saiyan_Carl t1_j1p4wm3 wrote

I think there's three ways to go about it:

Complete cell regeneration at full functionality. Think of our cells as batteries... When we're at the prime of our lives, they are regenerating back at 100%. As we get older, the battery wears down and that percentage starts to drop--giving us age related issues and appearance.

However if one were to fix this, I think cancer would be essentially cured, because that is when a cell of a certain area generates malignantly. That's also why cancer is more prominent in older people than young. Making it so cells continue to regenerate at perfection would eradicate cancer from the system completely.

The second, and what I think is the most unlikely, is the ship of Theseus method of replacing human parts for technological. We see people get new arms and legs all the time but those replacements have limited functionality and aren't really designed to be a true part of a person. People are looking more like techy pirates than the terminator or androids from DBZ. The biggest issue would be to create a working system that replicates the circulatory system and brain functionality. The human brain is so complex it will likely never be relocated, thus eliminating this as an option.

The third and most likely is the brain in a bar idea... A combination of psycho pass and inception. Essentially tricking the brain into believing time is moving at a much slower rate or creating a different reality perceived.

Let's say a brain can live up to 120 years max, that's really all anyone needs if they are hooked up to a machine that that tricks the brain into thinking every true hour the goes by is actually a lifetime in a false reality. If scientists can come up with a way to trick our brains into falsely perceiving time-- we could live a new life every "real day" our brains are hooked up. Now what if the technology gets better and we can live 1000 lives in a real day? Or an hour, or a minute. You get the idea. That could virtually be immorality.


ActonofMAM t1_j1p600c wrote

As noted in the science fiction of Lois Bujold, a clone of you would be your however-many-years-delayed identical twin. If you had a perfect clone and let it grow to adulthood, it would be its own person. Either transplanting your brain into it, or overwriting its memories with yours in some way, would murder the second person it had grown up to be.


Shiningc t1_j1p63af wrote

I don't see how we can't live forever once we figure out how to repair individual cells.

However all of our cells are replaced every 10 years or so. But how could it be possible that we still apparently have the same consciousness?


L0ST_N0UN t1_j1p75t6 wrote

It's weird to me that people would except a clone as part of "living forever" but don't feel the same about having a child. Even passing your memory to a clone would still mean your death and the clone would live on not you. It only could be debatably you if the exact brain activity was transferred not copied and even then we don't know if that is the thing that makes you you. However a child is basically a clone of you made naturally. That being said I'm terrified of death and hope my conscience ness is able to be downloaded into a robot or something before my time ends.


ZacMacFeegle t1_j1p7674 wrote

Memory storage is not a soul its only the souls memory of this life


lord_zarg t1_j1p7dti wrote

Unless all of the tech involved is 100% full proof I don't think you could ever live forever. Saves corrupt, clones can have imperfections and eventually the heat death of the universe will destroy everything


zurtzar t1_j1p8jg3 wrote

The first stage of memory storage will give rise to a new trend in naming.

From now on people with a number after their name will be clones that have watched/downloaded their previous iterations life.

One day these individuals will pool their collective inheritances to fund a more complete cloud based memory. Thus creating something of a hive mind.

From that point on any number of clones could be made based on an initial template and would carry that templates name while all things put into memory by any clone is uploaded to the shared mind.

All is one, one is all. We will have surpassed mortality.


JamesTweet t1_j1p8zfq wrote

No, if nothing else kills you the heat death of the universe will.


EveningAgreeable2516 t1_j1pb473 wrote

For me, yes, so far. I've been living since the very beginning consistently. I haven't even had any fake-out deaths.


ducogranger t1_j1pc641 wrote

Even if possible, it would never be accessible to the common person. Only the uber-rich will ever be able to afford it. I guarantee they will gatekeep the shit out of it.

Not to mention all the bootleg, snake oil salesmen that will come out of the woodwork if and when the news comes out that it actually works.


Elmore420 t1_j1pcar1 wrote

Yes, your meat puppet won’t, but your quantum field is eternal unless Humanity goes extinct. We are far more than we understand because we believe that our mind exists solely in our Brain, and this is incorrect. Our brain is the interface between our Mind and our Meat Puppet. It serve as a multifunction organ, but first and foremost it serves as a biological fuel cell where sugar is oxidized into "Dark Energy" as cosmologists call it now, and "Animal Energy, similar to, but not quite, electricity" as Galvani called it back in 1860. It’s also what psychiatrists and brain researchers measure with EEGs and PET scans; as do other biological scientists measuring energy out put of all living organisms.

Humanity’s greatest problem is trying to hang on to the past. We are an evolutionary creature in a transitional state between Animal and Creator. 10,000 years after the Human Superego formed and Humanity gained independent thought and the ability to create whatever we want, we still choose to create war and slavery for fun and profit. 10,000 years ago the first modern humans woke up to their own thoughts, no longer directed by Nature. We were an embryonic Singularity unto ourselves, with an instruction coded into the Superego everyone recognizes, “Be kind and take care of each other.” The next moment we went psychopathic and started an economy based in war and slavery. We’re just mean an selfish, that’s all there is to it. Psychopathic narcissism is the birth defect the human superego developed with, that we don’t recognize as a problem. We want to remain animals where we can enjoy the feeling of power that comes with exploiting human suffering. We don’t want to have the responsibility of Creators to provide for the future, we want to be animals where we only need to exploit what nature has created.

Under your plan you can exist until 9 billion minds exist, then your quantum field will collapse as the Human Superego goes extinct as an evolutionary failure. You see, there is a reason on the Quantum Physics end of our existence that we are taught we’re all part of something greater than ourselves, and we must unite to succeed. It takes 3 billion minds to come into harmony with the Prime Singularity we are born from, so our Superego comes into resonance and reaches its amplified state. That’s when the Superego becomes a fully formed Juvenile Singularity. With this we gain Quantum Self Awareness and an understanding of our true capabilities.

By searching for ways to preserve the past and making it work for us, we are only assuring our extinction. Had we followed our instruction we would have evolved 7000 years ago, had religion or revolution and the advance of technology worked, we would have evolved by the 1950s had we been healthy. But we are not, we are addicted to to the self destructive pleasures that psychopathic narcissism brings. Now that Science has also failed to get us to look to a non self destructive future, it’s really doubtful we choose the Hydrogen Economy and let go of the past, but if you want to live forever, that’s what you have to do for yourself, accept that you must cooperate of your own Free Will. Otherwise we have about 20 years to Full Term and our final failure of Quantum Kindergarten, "Couldn’t play nice" our epitaph.


minorthreatmikey t1_j1pf8en wrote

If you upload your memory to hardware, you will still die. Your clone could live on but you wouldn’t know anything about it since you’d be dead.


Rogermcfarley t1_j1phmv3 wrote

What is conciousness? How does the brain generate conciousness? Find the answers to these first then perhaps you can one day transfer your conciousness.


Otrsor t1_j1pieh5 wrote

In theory immortality is possible, yes, consider this, every single cell you are comes from the same cell every other known living thing comes, LUCA, in a way we just are just LUCA witch some changes that means that as far as we know cell division is unlimited.

So as long as we can prevent or fix any change or mutation and recode any natural oversight in our cells that prevents immortality it should be achievable as far as we know.

Anywho, it would be achievable on our biological body's.


Stone_d_ t1_j1pmwrw wrote

You mentioned that cloning is possible. Ethically its really impossible if we're going to do it for a lot of people.

That is, until very recently. Theres actually a very new procedure where a person in need of a heart transplant can first transplant their own DNA into the pig's living heart using CRISPR, and then transplant the gene edited pig heart (or any organ likely) into their own body, and there will actually be a lower risk of organ rejection than in a human to human transplant. Essentially, its an ethical and superior form of organ transplantation that is really just emerging in the past year.

Still, that doesn't change what happens to the brain. I like your question because its a thought ive been stumped on for maybe 5 years now. I have an idea that i'll share for fun mostly. Here it is:

Cellular quantum beam implantation. We implant whole organs using a surgeons hands, scalpels, etc, but what future technology will trace its roots to today's organ transplantation? Cellular quantum beam implantation. The idea is very simple. Cut a hole in the human body using, say, a thin laser beam. Specifically, through the skull and into the brain. The laser beam is really multiple laser beams. The first part of the beam is basically just used as a highly accurate cellular radar. It's possible to map the individual cells in the skin, skull, and brain. Using that information, aim the second part of the laser beam, the high energy cutting mechanism, in key locations that allow for tunneling deep into the brain while producing as little damage as possible. The final component is slowly accelerating individual brain cells extracted from either a clone or gene edited mammal using a large particle accelerator. The living human brain is situated in the particle accelerators path. The tunnel cut into the brain is just large enough for the fresh young brain cell to be decelerated neatly into place, guided by the particle accelerator. A straight path isnt really neccessary, using perhaps a graphene thread/rod you could prod the cell into place from many angles and through many tunnels. (Rotate the brain). The cutting and mapping mechanism wouldnt neccessarily be a photon beam either, such as in a laser or radar, but might instead consist of some other quantum beam only possible in a particle accelerator. Sever the beam, and if the tunnel you cut into the brain was narrow enough, then no neurons should have been severed. The fresh young cell would hopefully grow into the place of the old cell in the same neuronal network. It might seem simpler to edit the genes of brain cells to prevent aging - but that might be impossible.

Anyway, its an idea in the beginning stages. I havent looked into those papers where people mess with brain organoids. But thats where i would start to try and understand how this could work. Im fairly confident the tunneling component of the surgery would work (and im also fairly confident it could be done in a way that no stitches are needed and that patients could have cells implanted at a rate of hundreds per second at least, im just not sure if the human brain would be okay with extracting old cells and having them replaced with young cells. Additionally, even if the brain could survive such a procedure without neurons being severed, how would the mind be affected? Would it be something like a lobotomy?


Resource101 t1_j1pq2oc wrote

My answer is not well researched nor pure effort, but there is an anime called 'Astra lost in space' which does explore humans having their clones built out from their DNA, which, according to them will be a new body in case their original body gets damaged ( think swapping of internal organs).

But it does come with its consequences, rich people doing rich people stuff.


devinhedge t1_j1pq7ix wrote

Only an opinion, so take this for what it’s worth.

Just answering your question: there is a fundamental flaw with thinking of our brain as a computer. It doesn’t really store memories the way we talk of it. There was a recent article in MSM that really deconstructed how terrible our current analogy is for conveying how little we know about how the brain works. So, I don’t think your idea would work until we actually figure out how human brains work, and can agree on a common definition of consciousness.

Let me see if I can find that article.

Edit: found it. The article is an OpEd, so usual disclaimers of bias apply. At the same time, the author really does a decent job of illustrating that be know that we know less now than we have ever known before about the mechanisms of the brain and consciousness, partly because we tend to desire a metaphor to explain the mechanizations to non-neuroscientists, which then becomes a reinforcing loop in a complex adaptive human system called “collective understanding”.

Then, adding on my own thoughts on top of a science based answer…

There is an arc to a person’s life. It’s not necessarily really linear, but has definite stages to it. This arc is largely developmental and psychological in natural. There comes a point in a person’s life where they are generally “done” with what they hoped to do, or have experienced/seen enough, or set up the legacy they intended such that they consider their life’s work done. I think the jury is out on how much physiology plays into this as a factor.

Finally, there is a food source challenge that would play into how many people can the earth sustain?

So, even if we could stop aging at some point, I’m not sure a lot of people would want to. Maybe a better approach to facing mortality is to stop being so bad at facing mortality? Our struggles with mortality seem to largely be a Western thing. IDKW Eastern cultures seem to be better at accepting the temporal nature of life. There may be a religious aspect.

This is just what comes to mind. Love reading many of the thoughtful responses.


Specific_Main3824 t1_j1pqicz wrote

We're about as close to memory transfers as we are to when Jesus was born. We know so little it's crazy that we can do the things that we currently do, most of the medical tech we know is learnt from the equivalent of throwing S#!t at a wall and seeing what sticks.


Cascascap t1_j1prqh4 wrote

Flashbacks to that horrible brain transplant experiment. I'd we could stop our brain from aging, we could, in theory.


Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j1prspm wrote

What was stopping Benjamin Franklin from making rocket engines? He knew about wood stoves, so the technology was “in the works” in his day.


NotAnotherEmpire t1_j1pu6n6 wrote

Continuity / memory transfer is entirely speculative, as is the idea one could make a "wiped" clone. A realistic clone is just a time-shifted identical twin.

Treating aging doesn't violate any fundamental rules so it should be possible. It's just very complex with multiple different mechanisms.


SkylerSlytherin t1_j1pvdse wrote

This precisely sounds like San Junipero from Black Mirror series.


JesseB342 t1_j1px533 wrote

No. Even if complete memory transfer were possible consciousness is not. So say there were a clone of you walking around with all your implanted memories. An exact copy in every regard, it still wouldn’t be ‘you’ just a copy. So while it might be possible to have a very close version of yourself live on indefinitely in the distant future, it still won’t be you living on unless science can discover a way to transfer consciousness like what happens at the end of Chappie, or in the Altered Carbon universe.


pchandler45 t1_j1py0xu wrote

They are already using AI to create interactive holograms of dead people based on several hours of recorded interviews.


pchandler45 t1_j1pxwp4 wrote

I read an article that DNA is the next best medium for data storage so, I definitely think a form of immortality will be possible sooner than we think.

But the ethical ramifications will probably stall progress.


External_Dimension18 t1_j1q04jy wrote

Better question. Is it your memories that make you, you. Or is it your soul?


AzLibDem t1_j1q14q0 wrote

A clone would be a unique human being. To replace its mind would be murder.


Eur1sk0 t1_j1q1pon wrote

Yes, genes alter their behaviour and that why we age. How do they that? Via detection of accumulated chemicals or presence thereof in the human body.

Eliminate the chemicals and the genes will not be activated. Or change the functionally of genes (genes editing), too dangerous.


doku_tree t1_j1q30tv wrote

I think it's important to define what a human is first. Is our body of flesh really what defines us? Or is it just our consciousness? If our consciousness was uploaded to a computer for example, would we be immortal? Is a clone or even transfer of our consciousness really "us", or is it a new life now?


SeVenMadRaBBits t1_j1q6on1 wrote

Turritopsis dohrnii, also known as the immortal jellyfish, is a species of small, biologically immortal jellyfish[2][3] found worldwide in temperate to tropic waters. It is one of the few known cases of animals capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary individual. Others include the jellyfish Laodicea undulata[4] and species of the genus Aurelia.[5]

Telomere length shortens with age. Progressive shortening of telomeres leads to senescence, apoptosis, or oncogenic transformation of somatic cells, affecting the health and lifespan of an individual. Shorter telomeres have been associated with increased incidence of diseases and poor survival.

The rate of telomere shortening can be either increased or decreased by specific lifestyle factors. Better choice of diet and activities has great potential to reduce the rate of telomere shortening or at least prevent excessive telomere attrition, leading to delayed onset of age-associated diseases and increased lifespan. This review highlights the role of telomeres in aging and describes the lifestyle factors which may affect telomeres, human health, and aging.,of%20diseases%20and%20poor%20survival.


Grinagh t1_j1q7ll2 wrote

The Egyptians believed that we have 3 deaths, once we die, the second when everyone who knew you in life dies and finally when your name is mentioned for the last time

But I'm sure you mean biologically, maybe. When one hopes for immortality, the better postulation is why? Unless you can live in a body you want to, not much point in being immortal.

live forever


textorix t1_j1q7p0m wrote

Memory storage wouldn’t make you live forever. It would be just your copy, but you would still die when your brain dies. Find a way to make brain immortal and then we can talk about actual immortality. Our best chances are in field of longevity and age reversal, forget all this mind uploading bs.


JRock3r t1_j1q82hd wrote

I don't think our Brain works like a Computer's C: Drive with our current understanding. There's so much more to it that we have yet to grasp.

However, I wonder if Genes have more of an impact given that bodily memory is something we do kinda pass onto future gens don't we?


harlockwitcher t1_j1qhf9z wrote

Honestly, i think it will eventually come from contact with an alien race. We are essentially energy that eventually transfers itself to the ground when we die. We need to become vessels of untransferable energy, like a spacefaring species probably would be. They could show us how maybe.


e_smith338 t1_j1qi4nr wrote

I don’t think fucking around with memory is something we have any clue about, but we do understand a good amount about how aging works, and we have ways of slowing it down, though they aren’t pleasant. I believe this video can provide a little more insight into what we currently understand about the aging process:


3Quondam6extanT9 t1_j1qjl21 wrote

"Forever" is an abstract concept relative to the state of the universe. Nobody can "live" forever in our current state of being. One might eventually become immortal in the sense of perpetual existence dictated by the length of time the universe is stable and through various modes of storing consciousness.

Much of the answers to this question must come with additional definitions to the context and concepts of how we determine aspects to existence. What do we consider "living"? What is immortality to us? Can we can transfer and/or copy our consciousness into other states? How will our evolution be dictated?


bigboyeTim t1_j1qk42z wrote

Philosophically, yeah kinda. It also looks like technology is headed that way. The big issue is the end of the universe, but assuming we make it that long we may be satisfied with that, or we may have a way to cross into another dimension. We don't even know if the universe will end yet, so that's all too early for anyone to say.

What I want to give you guys is a nice solution to the stargate problem. The problem, if you haven't heard, is about how when you step through a stargate/teleporter and get picked apart, then reassembled on the other side, did you really survive? Are you just your atoms in a certain order, or are you also the cloud of electricity in your brain? I believe in the electricity being what meaningfully makes you concious. So to be transfered into any new body or device, it would have to happen without being ran through a blender. The solution is to in some way attach your brain to a another brain or brain-like thing, then with time let it become part of you, and later in time you begin phasing out parts of your original brain, leaving only the new brain/device. This way we have transfered consciousness without abrupt ends to it.

Sorry for the schizo vibes, I just didn't want to put so much effort into the post so I wrote it in one go.


ExRetribution t1_j1qo8if wrote

I mean, even if we manage to find a way to upload/download memories, we currently have no way of knowing whether the receiving brain will even be the same person, or even have the same thought processes and behaviors.

I am extremely under qualified to explain neural processes, but from my understanding, memories are stored and retrieved through neurons physically forming synapses. Additionally, like our fingerprints, the anatomy of our brains is unique to each individual, which further complicates any physical processes through which we could force a brain to "remember" artificially stored memories. Theoritically, through the right stimulus, you could coerce a brain make memories, but since each brain is anatomically different, there is no guarantee that the memories would be the same, or even stored in the same manner, or place. Heck, the receiving brain may have its own ego and be a unique individual altogether with the ability to just recall the memories that were injected into it. There is currently no way of knowing what will happen until it actually happens.


tunaburn t1_j1qqgrv wrote

This is so far beyond anything we are remotely capable of. Anything is possible given enough time I suppose but definitely not in our great grandkids lifetimes.


Whole_Bench_2972 t1_j1qsq82 wrote

I wonder if immortality becomes possible would people end up going insane after a few hundred years. Part of our fundamental identity is formed by the age we are born into. Imagine society changing so drastically that we are not unable to adapt but unwilling to adapt because the change is so startling to our core identity.


pete_68 t1_j1qv427 wrote

Depends on your religion and whether or not it's right.


Nkechinyerembi t1_j1qwazu wrote

We don't really know what consciousness is, or what "keeps that chain going" so to speak ... But, as for transferring our brain's contents it would just be a matter of data fidelity... Weather or not that would be "you" or not is a different story that I don't think we are prepared to figure out yet


THRONIX t1_j1qykgy wrote

Like the new avatar we could only prob accomplish a copy. Simply a clone of yourself


Night1218 t1_j1r3562 wrote

There's so much more untapped areas in human brain and genes. Our tech direction is certainly heading towards getting our consciousness/mind/memory uploaded/downloaded into a different carrier. For now just too soon to say this yet. In 50 years maybe?


dangit1590 t1_j1r366h wrote

I wouldn’t want to live forever. Maybe 300 years in my form rn but I wouldn’t wanna live to see literally a black hole swallow the earth


Jwagginator t1_j1r4g1a wrote

I honestly don’t believe the idea of immortality is up to debate at this point. It’s basically a guarantee.

Think about the human body. Eventually, every single organ (besides the brain) will be able to be artificially made or at the very least, taken from another similarly built animal (like pigs) to be transplanted into us if we need a back up organ.

We have creams, lotions, and moisturizers that are a step in the right directions in knowing what works in keeping the skin tight and smooth. Eventually, our tap water will literally be the fountain of youth, caking us in the chemicals needed to keep our skin youthful every morning when we go to take a shower.

Ideally at this point of total organ replication (excluding the brain) and skin rejuvenation, we would also be able to cure/eradicate all cancers and diseases.

The only issue that I believe will be the hardest to solve is the brain. The one thing that truly makes us all unique. Once we can reverse the process of dendrite-degradation, which is what increases the chances of diseases like Alzheimers and dementia, then we can really be immortal.

Aging at every level of the human body can be stalled. It’s just going to take a long time to get there.


MaybeACoder007 t1_j1owi42 wrote

Didn’t Queen sing it best?

“Who wants to live forever?”

But on a real note, memory storage isn’t forever. We may think of it as forever. But tapes stored under ideal conditions only last 20 or so years without degradation.

The same goes for many of the things we would think of as possible routes towards eternal life. They all decay relatively quickly (200-500) years of max viability under ideal conditions.

You up the conditions and the time table quickly degrades.


DoubleHookshots t1_j1oyv76 wrote

I don’t know if I’d want to live forever and if someone could live forever how would they no because there’s no finish line it never ends


amahaha1 t1_j1p0hvb wrote

Everyone here just completely accepts the statement “cloning been proven to work”. Cloning is decades if not centuries away from being perfected. The human body will reject organs from “regular donors”, cloning is as much of a fallacy as “memory storage”


jiovanni12 t1_j1p0qgc wrote

I've always thought about this since I was like 7, back in 2010. Which is a young age to think, but I've always said to myself "What if we don't die and we just get put into some type of ai or robot that'll make us live forever?" And how everything's seeming to turn out for the future, maybe it's possible😂


terretreader t1_j1p13fd wrote

I'm pushing 18000 years at this point... Figure your shit out peeps...


NathanTPS t1_j1p1v5l wrote

I can tell you right now that short of some metaphysical existence promised by religions that lies outside the plane of the mortal coil, it is not possible to live forever. I'm not saying we can't copy a conscience some day and through an overlay AI create something like eternal life. But even then, that can't last forever. Everything in the universe is finite, eventually energy will cease to exist to allow the AI to thrive. Hell, we can't even get a long term archiving process down, imagine an AI personality sitting in some dusty storage locker for thousands of years because 50 years after it was created, there weren't any terminals left to plug it jnto and allow it run, a la beta tapes.

We could transfer the AI between mediums, but then we are just making back up to the original, at what point do we say the original person who has been copied and transfered thousands of times over a million or so years is no longer the same person?

Also you need to clnsidder this, the AI would be replicated on a person who once lived for maybe 85 years, but the AI exists for thousands if not a million years, did the original person ever exist? Especially when the experiences and memories of the AI out number the progenitor 100:1, 1,000:1 or 10,000:1

Finnally who's going to keep the AI updated? The AI? Probably, it's funny, 100 million years from now, all that may remain of humanity would be the decendants of our AI overlays who for eons diligently copied and transfered the personalities of an extinct species from a planted that long since burnt to a crisp, and through that time those personalities too faded sending new AI overlays, shadows of themselves and hardly recognizable to the progenitors.

And like I said in the beginning, even if your AI decendants could make it to the end of the universe, eventually there won't be enough energy left to keep their circuits or whatever passes as information devices operational. Yes 10s of billions of years down the line in the darkness of space, of our decendants can even recall a time there were stars in the night skies, maybe somewhere in the recesses of their memory banks a floating sensation that can be remembered as warmth once felt by the progenitors will be their last conscious understanding as they too find their demise as everything else had done before and will do until the universe itself fades away.

So.... no its not possible to live forever


guy_fuckes t1_j1ptqrm wrote

Bro we don't know how consciousness or memory even work. If anything like that becomes possible it will be 100s if not 1000s of years away. We will destroy the planet first. I get why you're hopeful for this but you are going to die and you just have to get used to that fact.


causeofallproblems t1_j1q66sx wrote

This is a terrifying thought for me. I don’t want to live forever. Gotta let go of the past to make way for the future. I am slowly becoming the past, and I’m okay with that.


Nammoflammo t1_j1qd9n6 wrote

Isn’t all this just based on humans being afraid of dying or getting too old to enjoy future technology? Why do scared to die when it’s natural? Might even feel ‘right’ to die since it is a must and all that have come before us have done it.


scho4781 t1_j1qiztt wrote

You already have this ability. It's called... breeding. Fucking huma s are always so selfish. Your bio casing can barely make it 60 years. Sheeeesh!


Denseabirational t1_j1qotvp wrote

WHY would anyone want to live forever…there is a reason we expire, along with everything else living


jaimeerp t1_j1qq9jm wrote

I think any form of transfer creates other being, the concept of "me" requieres continuity


hawkwings t1_j1r0xj3 wrote

The other issue is random events: meteors, strokes, and murders. If you didn't age at all, you would still die eventually due to random events.


RonnieBlastoff t1_j1oz78b wrote

You live forever through your children. They are literally clones of you and everything you will ever become in the future.


shotsallover t1_j1p409n wrote

They're only half clones of you. And half clones of your counterpart. And you have no control over which half gets transferred.


Savings-Moment-6080 t1_j1p0r1w wrote

Simply no we can't.maybe we could figure out some ways to live longer but we can't be fact being mortal is what gives life meaning because if we live forever what is the point of doing anything.