It is impossible to technologically cure aging. Even if you patch up all the holes, you cure cancer, cure prion disease, cure heart disease, cure organ failure, there is still a nonzero chance of you dying in a given year. Over an infinite time period this small chance asymptotically approaches 100%. Checkmate, you're gonna die.

>>105897210 (OP)
Why do you keep spamming? You really have nothing better to do?

>>105897210 (OP)
upload your mind into the database. that's the solution.

>>105897210 (OP)
it is possible if you move to a different medium. that can more easily be repaired/replaced. bio is too messy and still complicated. will take too long to crack, and is vulnerable, no backup, shit I/O speeds

>>105897222
Just spreading the truth of doom and gloom for all to hear

>>105897210 (OP)
biological immortality is possible, what you are referring to is absolute immortality which is a silly goal, as not even the space you reside in is immortal.

You wouldn't want immortality anyway as you would go insane eventually.

>>105897210 (OP)
Can't you just keep getting organ transplants from younger people

>>105897564
The three things that come to mind that would likely do a biologically immortal person in are: infectious disease, accidents, and cosmic phenomena such as gamma ray bursts.

>>105897243
Many singularity folks believe that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would figure out how to reverse entropy

>>105897701
>The three things that come to mind that would likely do a biologically immortal person in are: infectious disease, accidents, and cosmic phenomena such as gamma ray bursts.

the answer is simple, make as many copies of yourself as possible.

>>105897701
entropy is not a problem. keeping ahead of it is. we do not have a muh entropy issue, it's not being able to deal with it in current form that's the real issue. no rule or law of this universe that says we can't keep going forever as long as we get access to low entropy energy. atm our issue is of a different nature.

>>105897720
>the answer is simple, make as many copies of yourself as possible.
literally what we've been doing since the first form of life decided to just do that

>>105897796
and its worked for billion of years, i dont see how you can realisticaly expect to do better than that.

>>105897810
works but you lose data, constantly. we are all the same thing, slightly tweaked, on slightly different paths. you pay in basically total amnesia. but we figured out reading and writing and communication so we pass knowledge between our versions and we get to keep some of it. pretty shit game if you ask me. I'd upgrade.

immortality is for narcissistic retards. just give me an extra ten years

Why would you not want to die?
Dying is release. Like finally taking a poop that you've been holding in for a lifetime.
Imagine the relief.

>>105897837
>just give me an extra ten years
why not just 5 minutes and that's it? moron

>>105897838
>Why would you not want to die?
because it solves fucking nothing, you instantly pop back in your next individual, and you just lose all the data. pretty retarded.

>>105897867
yeah and then you have to go through all that stupid shit that young people have to do instead of just vibing in your old age

>>105897867
>you instantly pop back in your next individual
Was this revealed to you in a dream by a six armed blue goddess

>>105897210 (OP)
>asks about aging
>talks about death
Apples to oranges. Aging can be cured, even if currently only theoretically and with ethically questionable methods.
Death cannot. For everything eventually crumbles.
>>105897837
Nah, not even that just expand the natural "peak time" of the human body so people can have the vitality of youth for more time
What's the point of a long life if for the most part of it your body is very suboptimal and in the tail end that is what is usually extended you're a decrepit sack of barely working muscle and denerating brain matter

>>105897905
It's common sense to any individual who has ever put any thought into the matter. We are literally all the same consciousness just with different context information. Kind of like how ChatGPT gets your conversation history but if you start a new convo it doesn't remember what you previously said in the other convo. Both of them are the same ChatGPT, just with different context data

>>105897883
well, it's abstract. either you have some continuity, instantly, no matter how much subjective time passes here or wherever you "continue", so there's no "rest" in the classical sense, either you start experiencing again fresh and blank, which again is not so great. you either pay in a lot of external time, like being rebuilt at the end of the universe at judgement day or by some alien in another galaxy by pure chance through some randomization algorithm, either pay in losing all your memories and experiences if you "go back" into another new body. this doesn't really help you in any way. if you really need to give up memories and experience you can do that in a more resilient and controllable form. at least you get control.
I don't get this spiritual primitive bullshit "oh dying is le cool" it's pretty retarded and we do it so we can keep going on in this shit environment. it's like choosing to be a whipped slave because you do not know better and got used to the beatings and built some kind of meaning around that pain to keep you alive.

>>105897831
data loss is inevitable, if you did manage to keep yourself alive for a billion years, do you think you would remember anything from the beginning? I see no reason to believe anything of "you" would survive that long, simply due to the way our brains work, and a copy of your mind in a machine would be no different, because it wouldn't be you.

>>105897923
Even if that's true, that doesn't imply reincarnation

>>105897940
it's about control, I choose what I keep and what I give up. doesn't matter. seems like a problem I'll deal with when I get there lmao we'll debate it then
>might as well jump off a bridge because of heat death of the universe in 10000000 trillion years
it's that retarded, yes. why live any second longer? why not longer? why not shorter? how do you decide? it's based on your feefees and posturing in your social group adhering to these norms. you body goes to shit and all of a sudden "oh it's actually cool to die" no it fucking isn't, that's cope. and you have no guarantee that solves anything for you. you're just guessing.

>>105897959
it's not reincarnation. you cannot but experience, by definition of what you are. you have no choice in the matter, you cannot not experience. that is not experienced time, thus it doesn't register for you. all you know is people who were here aren't anymore, you got no clue of the experience from their perspective. you're only guessing shit.

>>105897210 (OP)
So how do we stop it bros? Is it possible to build a custom pocket universe where we can't die?

>>105897983
I believe that reincarnation is true, but I still think that to abolish death is a good idea because things get easier in many ways as you age and I would prefer to remain on the easier end of life than have to experience the traumas of youth again.

>>105897968
you wouldn't get a choice, humans lose brain tissue as they age, and if you were to become biologically immortal, there is going to have to be turnover of brain cells, copying yourself to a machine, is not survival, its still means death for you.
where as if you were to copy yourself from your own tissue, that is technically you, even if its only in part.

best chance of anything remaining of you from the beginning will have the best chance of surviving with many copies, you have to use the odds in your favor, if there is a 1 in a billion chance that you remember your name in a few billion years, then the only way to do that is to make a billion copies. what you seem to have a problem with continuity , not dataloss.

>>105898031
you want control and having a choice, which is natural. we are experience machines, if you will. we like to experience, we're kind of built around experiencing. we actually cannot avoid it, we'd be vegetables/braindead if we didn't. we want to experience, that's why death is frightening. seems to stop what we like doing.

>>105897983
Interesting synthesis. I suppose that fits some bullshit new age quantum gravity theory of something too. It's sort of creepy trying to think of death as something like pre-birth, absolutely nothing. I suppose the concept has to go on somehow though. Either way it doesn't matter if *I* never experience again since *I* will be totally oblivious.

What I don't get is, did *I* already converge into millions, if not gorillans of individual experiences in the form of like bacteria, and other life? They say most your bodymass is effectively replaced constantly, so I imagine the recycling of it ends up being an experience in some way.

>>105898056
>is not survival, its still means death for you.
not your fucking problem tho. you can do whatever the fuck you want anon. mind your own business

>>105898056
reminds me of a comic i forget who made it where a character goes in for a procedure to be uploaded into a computer. he's uploaded, then wakes back up in the same chair. he asks what happened, and they point out that his copy is there in the computer, which confuses him.
that's the problem with copies, one copy perceives the procedure as having worked, and the other does not. guess which one (the current) you are?

>>105898004
Experimental data seems to suggest that any additional spatial dimensions that might exist are quite useless when it comes to engineering a pocket universe for us to live in, unfortunately.

>>105898056
Gradual replacement of brain tissue with mechanical components, possibly neuron-by-neuron, might be able to preserve one's continuous chain of experience.

>>105898081
kek, hope your machine copy doesn't get obliterated by some random celestial event anon.

>>105898110
It's possible that our understanding of physics that allows for things like Boltzmann brains, etc. is flawed or incorrect

doesnt cyberpunk solve this issue by turning old niggas into pure tech?

>>105898078
the recently unfroze some ancient worm that got frozen like 50k years ago or smth. it just continued doing its thing. so if your experience here is stopped, I don't think you'd register anything until you'd somehow get rebuilt. following the logic, you can get rebuilt as you were before dying. or slightly different. would still be you, like you are still you one second to the other, even if your material info CRC is different one planck second to the other. you diverge too much and you 'become someone else'. what is the difference between you and fully amnesiac you? suppose you hit your head and full amnesia. is it still you? why? because of your material structure? is that really the same? got different checksum anyway. we are the collection of experiences shaped by the material body's abilities, strengths and weaknesses, no? that's what separates two identical twins anyway. their paths/stories.

>>105898098
>Gradual replacement of brain tissue with mechanical components, possibly neuron-by-neuron, might be able to preserve one's continuous chain of experience.
it might be possible , but you run into the problem of maintenance, biology is already really good at maintenance, and all you do is eat some nutrients to do it.

>>105898138
>biology is already really good at maintenance

>>105898094
it's also related to things like star trek style transporters. how would they actually work, and is the you on the other side just a clone, with your original body destroyed/killed? would it even matter? like it only becomes a problem externally if both the original and copy co-exist, but if you went through a transporter, do YOU die? leaving only someone else that looks and acts like you where nobody else can tell the difference? or does it actually do some magic to transfer your live consciousness/soul/whatever it is over to the new body?

>>105898162
that's too complicated tho, simpler thought experiment is you wouldn't even register, or care, if you were replaced with an identical clone in your sleep last night. if you'd be told this now, you wouldn't give a fuck, because you keep existing, so it's pretty much irrelevant. better to think about it this way, to understand WHAT we are.

>>105897210 (OP)
You forgot amyloidosis. No matter what that will always kill you.

>>105898149
Given biological entities can't just fully back up and restore their existence, I can say they do a pretty good job sustaining their singular bodies.

>>105898172
I think that the physical and temporal continuity of the substrate is important to preserve any specific instantiation of consciousness.

>>105898149
you share 50% of genes with a banana, anon, genes that have been duplicated for hundreds of millions of years thats pretty good if you ask me.

>>105898189
temporal not so much. get this body destroyed, info saved and somehow rebuilt in 10 big bang cycles (supposing it's pulsing big bang/big crunch) and would be an absolute instant for you. body might also not be required, but "something" that generates the activity. we don't know how else we could..experience. could be more ways than just physical material body.

>>105898195
>you share 50% of genes with a banana
imagine being a banana lmao

>>105898239
Being a banana sounds pretty chill honestly

>>105898246
ye hanging all day in a tree, a light breeze swinging you at times. I could probably be a banana

The Alters wasn't bad

>>105898221
This reminds me of what Plato said about the soul in the Phaedo: since the soul is the principle of life, its existence can not be destroyed, for that would be contrary to its nature as the very principle of life. Still, I would be hesitant to step into a teleportet.

>>105897210 (OP)
>Over an infinite time period this small chance asymptotically approaches 100%
Not necessarily, mathematically speaking. However I agree that curing ageing is practically impossible in 2025. Our technology is not even close.

>>105898295
Have you heard of the law of accelerating returns? We're accelerating toward some really big advancements.

>>105898302
That's a meme, not a natural law, and I disagree. Logistic or logarithmic growth of technological capability is more likely in the long term, according to (me).

>>105898302
Or even just continually expanding your lifespan until you live love enough for the next life extension. If we can extend our life 10 years by eating healthy and good then who knows what will be able to extend your life in what would've been your last 10 years of life.

>>105898312
We've seen some pretty big advancements here recently, I mean ChatGPT and Waymo didn't exist when I was in high school, and I'm 25. That's pretty big.

>>105898343
I disagree and furthermore I think you're an idiot.

>>105898295
>Our technology is not even close.
And it won't be for very long time.
We sky rocketed with scientific and technological progress over the past few centuries, but that's over. It's plateau time.
Hope you enjoy pointless gimmicks every few years that die before they even get started.

>>105898366
Akshually I there is a great deal of progress to be made by improving/simplifying/integrating existing technology. We have barely scratched the surface because all we do is
>more growth
>more data
>more cars

>>105898376
But will we be making progress in those areas?

>>105898295
we have the keys to the kingdom(crispr), its only a matter of opening the right doors

>>105897210 (OP)
this may help

>>105898620
Shut up QTard here's your (((You)))

>>105897210 (OP)
yes but stem cells or some shit

>>105897210 (OP)
If you continue to reduce the chance as time passes through increasingly robust backups/improving your method of technological immortality, the total expected chance as time approaches infinity can cap out lower. For example, imagine if you have a 1% chance of dying this year, and your anti-aging techniques halve that chance next year to 0.5%, and continue halving it every year. Your total chance of dying over an infinite amount of time will be 2%.

The entropy of the universe is likely a hard limit so you'll still die for sure eventually, but it's in principle possible to survive as long as the laws of physics allow with a high degree of confidence. In other words: it's impossible to live forever in this universe as far as we know, but the probability over arbitrarily long periods of time is not the reason for it.

>>105898293
>Still, I would be hesitant to step into a teleportet.
for how long tho? now in health, probably. what about when you got 1 hour to live on your deathbed? you will risk it, nothing else to lose. we know this from pascal's wager. humans do that.
since it seems we always have control over committing sudoku, the logical choice is to try and experience for as long as possible, or for as long as it's bearable (the experience of it). seems like we can always die, that's not the issue really.

>>105897210 (OP)
the fact that we already can magically heal cuts is hint enough that it could go much further

>>105900261
as far as we know we were inevitable. >>105900261
>The entropy of the universe is likely a hard limit so you'll still die for sure eventually,
>is likely
>you'll still die for sure
make up your mind.
also you have no clue what will happen later, what we will discover, what that will enable us. reverse entropy, switch universes, who fucking knows. deciding your forever now as a chimp is the most retarded thing you can do, because you have no clue what new information will enable us do, or how will it shape our understanding.
take the concept of informational hazard for example. there is no way to understand the implications of new information, without it. don't make final calls because you do not know better, it's just fucking dumb and primitive.

>>105897210 (OP)
k

Just don't die.