Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:30 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Right. One must realize that you are a note, not the song.
only human arrogance (which the subject of this thread possesses a surfeit of) would lead one to think we're entitled to immortality of any kind.

it's a religion unto itself.
  #102  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:45 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
only human arrogance (which the subject of this thread possesses a surfeit of) would lead one to think we're entitled to immortality of any kind.

it's a religion unto itself.
Human arrogance is actually what led us to think that we were entitled to control fire and everything that came after that. I am nowhere as optimistic as the subject of the thread on the matter, but the steady march of progress and technology should lead to extending our* life spans by substantial, maybe even indefinite amounts.


*by "our" I mean humans as a species, I am not all that optimistic that we will live to see it, maybe our kids or grandkids.
  #103  
Old 12-27-2017, 08:51 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
I'm afraid most of you will drive SamuelA off if you don't stop being so mean to him. He's Gulliver and we're all little Lilliputian brained players shaking sticks at modern technology. All he wants you to do is listen and learn.

A scientific renaissance is upon you and you mock him. No wonder the last one took 300 years to complete.
  #104  
Old 12-27-2017, 08:57 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
I'm afraid most of you will drive SamuelA off if you don't stop being so mean to him. He's Gulliver and we're all little Lilliputian brained players shaking sticks at modern technology. All he wants you to do is listen and learn.

A scientific renaissance is upon you and you mock him. No wonder the last one took 300 years to complete.
It's actually a bit annoying, as I am a fan of futurism, I like to think about what may lay down the road for our children, and maybe even ourselves.

The problem is is that there are two issues there, timeline and actual feasibility. Some of the technologies expressed may end up working out, some of them may not. We will not know until we try. And we will not know how long it will take for us to get to the point of trying until we get there.

The issue I have with Sammy here is not that he is a fan of future technologies, most of what he has predicted is conceivably possible, it is that he is very adamant that those technologies will emerge in the time and manner in which he states that makes his posts a bit on the insufferable side.

Well, that and the reliance on nanobots to fix everything.
  #105  
Old 12-27-2017, 09:07 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
This^^. He seems to assume the simple exponential growth curve with no hiccups or obstacles or human objections along the way. And a short time constant.

In a few posts he's acknowledged that he's ignoring all that stuff, but recognizes it's an intractable drag on adoption.

Then comes the next post blithely predicting a Singularity on Tuesday and the rest of us go and wonder if we're talking to a teenager.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-27-2017 at 09:09 AM.
  #106  
Old 12-27-2017, 10:01 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Wait until you find out he was one of Kelly Johnson's senior project engineers.

Then you'll be sorry. All of you.
  #107  
Old 12-27-2017, 12:24 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
For your reading pleasure, Sammy will tell you how to get bad guys out of a building.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...0&postcount=14

No, no shaped nuclear charges yet.
  #108  
Old 12-27-2017, 12:43 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
For your reading pleasure, Sammy will tell you how to get bad guys out of a building.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...0&postcount=14

No, no shaped nuclear charges yet.
I cited my sources. I also have personal experience I didn't mention. I didn't say how to do it. I said from the sources I have seen, generally the commander on the ground is going to want to blow the bad guy's fortress to rubble. This is reasonable and you end up with this if the fighting goes on long enough. (image from ww2)

Modern weapons do not change much other than making it possible to be a little more selective on what you blow up. We don't have the hunter-killer nanobot fogs yet, and I don't think they'll be ready by next Tuesday...might take a little longer...
  #109  
Old 12-27-2017, 12:51 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I cited my sources. I also have personal experience I didn't mention. I didn't say how to do it. I said from the sources I have seen, generally the commander on the ground is going to want to blow the bad guy's fortress to rubble. This is reasonable and you end up with this if the fighting goes on long enough. (image from ww2)

...

No, no. I'm with you here. Blowing fortresses to rubble with nanobot frogs would be so effing cool.
  #110  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:04 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Right back atcha.

Yes, death tends to be absolute not relative, short of religious discussions.



The alternative that they will now be a rotting corpse with a frozen brain? The improvement is where exactly? The only thing that has changed factually is that you have removed time that person might have spent with their family.


Newsflash - we are all going to die. It may be 99.9% with research studies (I haven't checked that number) but if the disease doesn't get them, life will. Your method will 100% get your "study group". No one is getting out alive.
Obviously we're not having a productive back and forth here. It doesn't appear that either of us can ever change the other's mind no matter what facts or logic is brought in.

With that said, I'm going to just point out 3 reasoning errors you have made here :

a. Have you ever seen a severely demented patient? Death is relative, not absolute. I would argue that a human being that only has enough brain function left that they continue to breathe is about 99% dead. If they barely remember their own name, but not their present time, place, any recent events, or how to speak many other words, they are somewhere around 90% dead. These percentages are estimates but if we could objectively measure how many neurons are left functioning we could probably actually come up with a measurable scale for this.

Even if you disagree with me on everything else, if you really work at Stanford, you must be smart enough to see that you're incorrect about this. Your worldview just doesn't fit what actually happens. What makes a person more than a sack of meat with a pulse is their mind, and if their mind is mostly destroyed, they are mostly dead.

I am aware that our brains have redundant neural pathways, so you could not use a linear percentage. If a person lost exactly 50% of their neurons but the losses were smoothly distributed throughout, they might seem almost normal because of the backup neural paths.

b. What I was trying to express when I compared the two cases was information transfer.

case 1 : the person says a few last words to their family. Basic concepts like "I love you, Steve is a murderer", touching stuff. How many bytes of information is that? Not many.

case 2 : the very last-last words are missed, but their brain is frozen. It will later be sliced and destructively scanned, 50 years hence. Petabytes of data are recovered from it.

The person's descendants will know far more about their relatives than you or I ever do. All I have are vague stories, heavily distorted from retelling. I know my grandaddy saw ww2 but don't know if he saw combat. I suspect an enormous amount could be recovered. Maybe not enough to actually 'bring them back to life', but vast amounts of data.

So from my worldview, my instinct says that case 2 is better. I am not saying we should force this on people without their consent...though for small children, it should be subject to the same laws we have regarding withholding of medical care...but you, if you are really Stanford material, should at least be able to see why I have this view and how it is a reasonable view to have.

c. We are all going to die, yes. Would you agree there's a significant difference between dying at 30 and dying at 75? Because if we applied your defeatist logic to this, we should go back and time and tell Alexander Fleming to put away his tools, there's no point, even if he invents a treatment for bacterial infection, everyone thus treated is still going to eventually die.

I'd say there's a similar difference between dying at 75 and possibly surviving for centuries or longer. Maybe it isn't possible to achieve that...but if it were possible, does your top of the line education give you the reasoning ability to see how it would be worth pursuing if you thought it was feasible?

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 01:05 PM.
  #111  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:07 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No, no. I'm with you here. Blowing fortresses to rubble with nanobot frogs would be so effing cool.
So why not just embed explosives in regular frogs or frog-robots and skip the nanobots?
  #112  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:17 PM
Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
So why not just embed explosives in regular frogs or frog-robots and skip the nanobots?
Because Trump has small hands and the frog robots will frighten him.
__________________
I am a guest
  #113  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:23 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
if you really work at Stanford, you must be smart enough to see that you're incorrect about this. Your worldview just doesn't fit what actually happens. What makes a person more than a sack of meat with a pulse
On the other hand, some people are just a sack of shit with a pulse.
  #114  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:24 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
So why not just embed explosives in regular frogs or frog-robots and skip the nanobots?
They would need to be flying frogs for this to really work. Radar guided flying frogs with special stealth skins and vertical thrusting nanojets in their nanoasses.
  #115  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:28 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
On the other hand, some people are just a sack of shit with a pulse.
This is why you're on my ignore list. What are you contributing here?
  #116  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:34 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Human arrogance is actually what led us to think that we were entitled to control fire and everything that came after that. I am nowhere as optimistic as the subject of the thread on the matter, but the steady march of progress and technology should lead to extending our* life spans by substantial, maybe even indefinite amounts.


*by "our" I mean humans as a species, I am not all that optimistic that we will live to see it, maybe our kids or grandkids.
Right, and the logical step to take after that is to ask "is there any way with the technology we have now to do something so we don't have to be the last (or second to last) generation to die? Because if you concede that it's inevitable that human ingenuity will find a way to defeat aging and certain death, and then in such a society, take many safety measures to reduce to near zero most homicides and accidental deaths, it makes you feel really shitty if you think you'll end up dying 10 years before there's a treatment for aging.

And then you realize that it just might be possible to solve the problem now. Maybe. To reuse your fire analogy, maybe you don't need a complete theory of lightning and spontaneous combustion. Maybe you can just rub 2 sticks together really fast. Maybe, since liquid nitrogen seems to preserve every other living thing, if it's real small and frozen really fast, maybe there's a way to preserve your whole brain well enough that you could fix the damage done later. Maybe we as a society could be researching this on a large scale instead of giving tax cuts to the rich*.

*Which I find obscenely short sighted. Who benefits most from reliable medical care that allows for indefinite lifespans? Rich billionaires, of course. Aging and death is the only thing that threatens them and their lavish existence. So why aren't there foundations with a trillion dollars of donated money working round the clock on every promising avenue of human life extension?

If every billionaire was long-sighted enough to donate half their fortune to longevity research, each one individually would face no discernible degradation of their lavish lifestyle. Even being a 500-millionaire is pretty damn nice. And they might make progress. It's a bet that might not pay off - but they shouldn't be defeatist about it. Even if it's just a pill + immune cell transplants that gets them to 110, that's a very large, personal reward for their investment.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 01:38 PM.
  #117  
Old 12-27-2017, 02:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Right, and the logical step to take after that is to ask "is there any way with the technology we have now to do something so we don't have to be the last (or second to last) generation to die? Because if you concede that it's inevitable that human ingenuity will find a way to defeat aging and certain death, and then in such a society, take many safety measures to reduce to near zero most homicides and accidental deaths, it makes you feel really shitty if you think you'll end up dying 10 years before there's a treatment for aging.
I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

There are some other medical concerns that may not be so easily waved away. Pushing past 150 is going to require more than just simple advances in medicine, it's going to need complete retooling of our cellular machinery.

Is dying 10 years before immortality comes about any shittier than your parents dying 10 years before it comes out either? Or how shitty is it if we can create new humans with aging "removed" from their DNA, but that treatment doesn't work on already living people?

Someone always has to be the last one to die for any cause.

And I don't know that it is inevitable that humanity itself will make it another 3 years, much less with the growing technology that is required to make any sort of increased lifespan.

Quote:
And then you realize that it just might be possible to solve the problem now. Maybe. To reuse your fire analogy, maybe you don't need a complete theory of lightning and spontaneous combustion. Maybe you can just rub 2 sticks together really fast. Maybe, since liquid nitrogen seems to preserve every other living thing, if it's real small and frozen really fast, maybe there's a way to preserve your whole brain well enough that you could fix the damage done later. Maybe we as a society could be researching this on a large scale instead of giving tax cuts to the rich*.
What research? Dropping things into a cold dewar doesn't need much practice.

I might suggest that we try liquid helium, at least for initial freezing, as that would make it freeze faster and lead to less crystallization, but that's pretty much it, research done.

Without the technology to revive such a person, we will not know how well we did, so there literally is no point to research, as there is no way to check the results of the experiments.

Quote:
*Which I find obscenely short sighted. Who benefits most from reliable medical care that allows for indefinite lifespans? Rich billionaires, of course. Aging and death is the only thing that threatens them and their lavish existence. So why aren't there foundations with a trillion dollars of donated money working round the clock on every promising avenue of human life extension?
Good point, if life extension was so easy, then why do the ultra-wealthy not pursue it?

Maybe because it is not all that feasible, even with nearly unlimited resources for research. That alone should tell you something, that those with the resources to do what you are saying aren't doing it. That may just mean that all the wealthy and ultra wealthy people are stupid.

I have many questions about the ethics of some of our wealthiest citizens, but I do not ever think that they are stupid.
Quote:
If every billionaire was long-sighted enough to donate half their fortune to longevity research, each one individually would face no discernible degradation of their lavish lifestyle. Even being a 500-millionaire is pretty damn nice. And they might make progress. It's a bet that might not pay off - but they shouldn't be defeatist about it. Even if it's just a pill + immune cell transplants that gets them to 110, that's a very large, personal reward for their investment.
Somehow I think that it's gonna be a bit more invasive than a pill and immune cell transplants.
  #118  
Old 12-27-2017, 02:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This is why you're on my ignore list. What are you contributing here?
Can't get much stupider than this, folks.
  #119  
Old 12-27-2017, 02:55 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.
I would.
  #120  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:00 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

There are some other medical concerns that may not be so easily waved away. Pushing past 150 is going to require more than just simple advances in medicine, it's going to need complete retooling of our cellular machinery.
I'm implicitly assuming we'll develop a form of superhuman intelligence, whether that be actual "conscious" machines like the popular conception or just really amazing data analysis software that is capable of active design and control of robotic systems. The software doesn't just sit there and make recommendations, it can issue commands to massive arrays of robotic waldos to order prototypes constructed, experiments performed, and so forth. Humans oversee but their efforts are incredibly amplified.

Since this stuff actually is starting to work, and I genuinely think we'll go from solvers that can approximate animal motion badly (like the stuff at Boston Dynamics) to superhuman motion control (robotic systems that can move more efficiently and correctly, given the same joints and actuator specs as the animal they are modeled on, than the actual animal or human can) in a decade*. A little after that we'll have robotic systems that can look at a tray of parts in a factory and put together most objects better than human technicians. *maybe a lot less, this is a planning problem that new research has hit superhuman levels very rapidly on a number of problems.

I feel my assumptions are quite grounded, I am not talking about anything that you wouldn't know about if you were paying attention.

We don't need actual sentient AI to revolutionize our study of biology. What you would need to do to crack this problem is perform experiments on a colossal scale, with all the data feeding into an increasingly accurate predictive model. To summarize the way I'm picturing it, there's a factory full of hundreds of thousands of individual robot cells. Each one has a cell culture or a sample of a biological protein or a tissue sample, etc. Each machine is performing a specific experiment to reduce the machine's uncertainty about how that biological particular component works. All this data is going into a predictive model, which is really just a very large array of neural network weights, and each experiment's results change the weights. So if then query the model "what happens if this drug is given to patients with this genetic profile" it can actually give an accurate answer. Other solvers which act as planners are trying to design new drugs. They query the model to find out what the model thinks the proposed molecule will do, and winnow down the drug candidates to ones that have a reasonable chance of working. (then there is the usual escalation to trials in cell cultures, then animals, then maybe mockups of human beings which are separate containers of living tissues made of cloned organs, then finally actual living human trials)

I do not know what the end findings of this kind of effort would be, but it does seem plausible that eventually all the organs of the human body could probably be replicated and transplanted. At that point, the only reason you'd die of old age is your brain itself was failing, and with drugs you could probably block at least all the mechanisms that cause dementia and make it to at least 120 in your Frankenstein body of replacement parts.

Humans are overseeing but the actual lab experiments are all robotic, since you can record an exact sequence of the actions taken from the robot's telemetry and replicate it autonomously elsewhere, in a different facility, to confirm.

This is the kind of effort you would need to make real progress. In a rational civilization, since the same technology would have also automated all the farms, mines, factories, stores, and transportation, our civilization would have the spare human capital to do something like this.

You know, if we were rational beings who did what was best for us personally and our peers*. Everything I talk about is technically feasible...but like LSLguy points out, I can't even attempt to model what stupid thing our civilization would do instead.

*since if all the essentials for human life can be produced without more than a tiny amount of human labor, what other topic is worth cracking besides aging and death? Every other topic can wait until you have centuries to spare. But INSTEAD, we might use all that spare production capacity to elevate 0.1% of our population to Feudal lords, protected by armies of robotic private security and living in vast palaces built autonomously, while the majority of the population starves or lives in extreme poverty...

And those same Feudal lords might decide to, instead of investing resources in making sure they at least personally get to live in their palaces to the age of 120, they might instead invest all their resources into more physical security...

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 03:04 PM.
  #121  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:21 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I meant hundreds like 100-109, not hundreds like 100-999.

Inartfully phrased on my part, apologies.

Though I did say later in the post that reaching and passing 150 is going to require more than just medical advance, but retooling of our cellular machinery, specifically because I am aware of those limits on human lifespan.
  #122  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:22 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,512
I can think of few punishments more horrific than immortality.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #123  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:27 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
I thought we were talking about armed frogs and battlefield commanders?
  #124  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:29 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
I can think of few punishments more horrific than immortality.
If you can't experience anything at all, you can't experience horror, but you also can't experience anything good, either. I don't think your 'belief' is well grounded, I think you are typing this because you were taught this idea by someone else and you haven't really thought it through.

I mean, most religious people also believe in some nonsense they shouldn't if they actually thought it through, so don't feel singled out. It's normal for most humans to be like this, and I am not perfect either.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 03:30 PM.
  #125  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:29 PM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Consider compound interest. Over a long period of time it's more powerful than gravity.

If only those people in 1400AD & 1500AD had invested all their ducats in the future instead of consuming their pitiful ration of moldy meat we'd have easily double the standard of living today.

Given all we really do have here in 2017, it seems rather churlish to sentence the ancients to an even more deprived existence than they had for our benefit.

IMO the world's billionaires, at least the techies, ARE looking towards inventing immortality. Given the lack of a full court press on the project, I conclude that they've decided, based on good advice from folks more expert than me, that the time is not yet ripe.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-27-2017 at 03:32 PM.
  #126  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:15 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
IMO the world's billionaires, at least the techies, ARE looking towards inventing immortality. Given the lack of a full court press on the project, I conclude that they've decided, based on good advice from folks more expert than me, that the time is not yet ripe.
This is true, and we may not have the pre-requisites. The prerequisite for rockets that could reach the Moon was large scale manufacturing, large military industrial complex, reliable digital computers, liquid cryogenic fueled engines, and so forth. You might note that a bunch of that was rush-developed during ww2, if ww2 had not happened, the Apollo landings might have been 20 years later if ever.

It's quite possible that no amount of small scale graduate student + professor biomedical research will ever develop the understanding needed for this kind of manipulation of biology. Any more than a village full of blacksmiths can make the components for the Golden Gate Bridge...no matter how many years they have.

The reason is that all the findings are being made by separate human hands, each of whom sometimes screws up and thus creates false data. Different equipment and techniques. Then the data is published in basically a cryptographic code of a scientific paper, yet due to journal publication length requirements, critical information is often missing. Then you don't publish "negative" findings (even though such findings would reduce the uncertainty bands on a large scale machine learning system)

My above post proposes replacing all of it with machines and large scale, integrated efforts.
  #127  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:22 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
After you invent immortality, you need to invent a way to stop the universe from burning out. I'm thinking a reverse osmosis solar filter with brass fittings would create about 12 x 10 to the 24th megaplacks of matter per hour. If we only made hydrogen from that matter and we superheated it with leftover spaceship exhaust we could create our own sun, and make that sun immortal with mirrors. We could also program it to turn off at night to save energy, or have it switch to battery backup if it's stormy or something. It's easy really.
  #128  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:23 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What research? Dropping things into a cold dewar doesn't need much practice.

I might suggest that we try liquid helium, at least for initial freezing, as that would make it freeze faster and lead to less crystallization, but that's pretty much it, research done.
Rapid freezes preserves living things. But it has to be rapid - slow freezing allows ice crystals to damage them.

So the thing to be researched is how to rapidly freeze a volumetric object like a brain. You cannot just dunk it into liquid nitrogen or helium - only the outer part will freeze rapidly, the inner parts will be crushed by expanding ice crystals and the data you are trying to preserve is damaged* or lost.

One promising method is magnetic refrigeration. You would run oxygenated cold fluid through a brain, with drugs to force the arterioles to stay open. Similar to conditions for bloodless surgery, where patients can be revived. You prevent the ice from forming with very powerful magnetic fields that are oscillating - the oscillating heats the liquid, keeping the water a liquid, even though the supply liquid would be below freezing.

Turn off the magnet (send the current to resistors) and you should get immediate, rapid, demolition-man style instant freezing.

Revival has to be done a similar tricky way. You would have had to leave metal containing nanoparticles that are non-toxic inside all these blood vessels. Then through magnetic induction, evenly heat the whole volume.

If you don't heat quickly enough, the same problem with ice crystals happens when you rewarm.

As you can imagine, actually doing this physically and getting someone to wake up with enough intact tissue to prove they lived through the experience would be a colossal, multi-billion dollar effort. But you only need do it a few times. Then you could start a mass freezing program for all patients, not reviving them (since revival is going to do a lot of damage) until some future date when you can also treat all their diseases and replace their missing body.

And if you're wondering, this basic idea is mine, but the proof that it might work is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cells_Alive_System

Here's a video of it working :
https://youtu.be/fehdWAefXWw

*you might be able to recover the original synaptic states computationally if you had an atom by atom scan of the whole thing, but the original person is dead.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 04:26 PM.
  #129  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:28 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
After you invent immortality, you need to invent a way to stop the universe from burning out. I'm thinking a reverse osmosis solar filter with brass fittings would create about 12 x 10 to the 24th megaplacks of matter per hour. If we only made hydrogen from that matter and we superheated it with leftover spaceship exhaust we could create our own sun, and make that sun immortal with mirrors. We could also program it to turn off at night to save energy, or have it switch to battery backup if it's stormy or something. It's easy really.
I know you're trolling, but something created the universe. If it wasn't a "god" and it isn't a simulation, that something might be replicable using resources we have in this universe. Even I think this is far fetched, I'm just saying, if you have trillions of years to work on the problem, it might not be as intractable as we humans think it is.
  #130  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:37 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I know you're trolling, but something created the universe. If it wasn't a "god" and it isn't a simulation, that something might be replicable using resources we have in this universe. Even I think this is far fetched, I'm just saying, if you have trillions of years to work on the problem, it might not be as intractable as we humans think it is.
Me trolling? No way. This shit is way to serious to mess with. I could accidentally open some kind of portal and be swept away to some fucking red state, or even worse, Florida. I'd never mess with a portal.

Anyway, this trillions of year things. I think our sun goes to sleep in about 5 billion, so I'll have to have it done by then.
  #131  
Old 12-27-2017, 04:39 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I know you're trolling, but something created the universe. If it wasn't a "god" and it isn't a simulation, that something might be replicable using resources we have in this universe. Even I think this is far fetched, I'm just saying, if you have trillions of years to work on the problem, it might not be as intractable as we humans think it is.
Please don't try to create a new universe until we are done with this one.

ETA: I'm pretty sure I know how to do it, it's just that it would replace this one, and we are all having such a wonderful time.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 12-27-2017 at 04:42 PM.
  #132  
Old 12-27-2017, 05:12 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Me trolling? No way. This shit is way to serious to mess with. I could accidentally open some kind of portal and be swept away to some fucking red state, or even worse, Florida. I'd never mess with a portal.

Anyway, this trillions of year things. I think our sun goes to sleep in about 5 billion, so I'll have to have it done by then.
No worries. Just combine enough laser beams and you'll create a synthetic black hole. Easy peasy.

I mean, once you have self replicating robots, just send some to the Moon, wait a decade or 2, then order the super-swarm to make your laser apparatus.

Don't know how to make the lasers yet? Have some of the super-swarm make prototypes using an evolutionary algorithm to find the best laser design.

Should just be a few mouse clicks, really, anyone armed with post singularity tech could do it.

*Now I am somewhat trolling myself here but if you did have self replicating robots and very powerful AI, this would be technically possible. Maybe not the harnessing a black hole part, but the apparatus to build a small one to see if you can harness it would be.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 05:13 PM.
  #133  
Old 12-27-2017, 05:20 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
No, I don't know how to make a laser. But I helped invent the electric sextant for a submerged nuclear submarine.
  #134  
Old 12-27-2017, 05:28 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No, I don't know how to make a laser. But I helped invent the electric sextant for a submerged nuclear submarine.
Really? I mean you had to ascend to periscope depth, right?

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 05:28 PM.
  #135  
Old 12-27-2017, 05:51 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Really? I mean you had to ascend to periscope depth, right?
That was the problem, the subs had to take their noontime sightings 2 hours after sunset to avoid detection on the surface. But for those times the exec is playing Call of Duty on the GPS computer, you have no other choice. It's a back up.
  #136  
Old 12-27-2017, 06:51 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
That was the problem, the subs had to take their noontime sightings 2 hours after sunset to avoid detection on the surface. But for those times the exec is playing Call of Duty on the GPS computer, you have no other choice. It's a back up.
Ok. So you didn't find a way to solve that problem. By like a mixture of very sensitive magnetic field detectors and gravitational field detectors or something. (since both the earth's magnetic field and the strength of gravity vary very very very slightly depending on where you are on Earth, if you had sensitive enough detectors and a big table of values for every location, you could determine your position that way...)

Or releasing a drone sub to go check the starfield while the mothership hides safe in the depth.

You know, something else.
  #137  
Old 12-27-2017, 06:56 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok. So you didn't find a way to solve that problem. By like a mixture of very sensitive magnetic field detectors and gravitational field detectors or something. (since both the earth's magnetic field and the strength of gravity vary very very very slightly depending on where you are on Earth, if you had sensitive enough detectors and a big table of values for every location, you could determine your position that way...)

Or releasing a drone sub to go check the starfield while the mothership hides safe in the depth.

You know, something else.
Like something that exists?
  #138  
Old 12-27-2017, 06:59 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Like something that exists?
Yeah I thought there was a way to determine your position that way, not sure if it's very accurate. And the drone sub obviously works perfectly as a concept, it's just tough to execute since it's a separate vehicle that has to work reliably in the sea, which is extremely cruel to all machinery.
  #139  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:02 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Yeah I thought there was a way to determine your position that way, not sure if it's very accurate. And the drone sub obviously works perfectly as a concept, it's just tough to execute since it's a separate vehicle that has to work reliably in the sea, which is extremely cruel to all machinery.
Isn't accuracy the important part?

Everything works perfectly as a concept. But there's this pesky thing called reality that keeps rearing it's ugly head.
  #140  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:08 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Detection? This isn't classified anymore, but they use compressed steam balls for that. So totally simple. That came with the 688 subs.
  #141  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:09 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Isn't accuracy the important part?

Everything works perfectly as a concept. But there's this pesky thing called reality that keeps rearing it's ugly head.
Well, yeah. Technically though even fuzzy measurements can be used to reduce the drift from dead reckoning through, using some fairly complex to work through math. And obviously a satellite fix from a drone sub would be quite accurate and torpedoes work and are basically guided drone subs, so I wouldn't want to sit here and claim "reality" is in the way. It's just too expensive.

And no, lots of things don't work as a concept. Faster than light travel doesn't work. No known mechanism of physics lets you do it, and if it were possible, time travel would be, and that also doesn't work out conceptually or otherwise. And even then, if you take it a step further, if FTL travel were possible and there was no true upper speed limit, we should be up to our necks wading through all the alien tourists who have filled our skies with self replicating machinery.
  #142  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:19 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,853
Consistently wrong but never in doubt, eh Sam?

JFC, you are one seriously boring asshole.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #143  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:20 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
...

all the alien tourists who have filled our skies with self replicating machinery.
That's how the friendly skies filled up with all those damn RJs? I knew those RJs were alien bots.
  #144  
Old 12-27-2017, 08:09 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.
why would anyone want that?

seriously?

you can't stop senescence. you might extend your lifespan via various means, but you're still going to end up feeble and demented.

I would much rather drop dead cleanly at 60 than live to 100 after 30 years unable to care for myself.

and I'm not really interested in these bullshit wishy-washy mealy mouthed "discussions" about how immortality is possible so long as we ignore all of those impossible things immortality relies upon.

it ain't gonna happen, and there ain't one damn person on this planet important enough to deserve it.
  #145  
Old 12-27-2017, 08:37 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
why would anyone want that?

seriously?

you can't stop senescence. you might extend your lifespan via various means, but you're still going to end up feeble and demented.

I would much rather drop dead cleanly at 60 than live to 100 after 30 years unable to care for myself.

and I'm not really interested in these bullshit wishy-washy mealy mouthed "discussions" about how immortality is possible so long as we ignore all of those impossible things immortality relies upon.

it ain't gonna happen, and there ain't one damn person on this planet important enough to deserve it.
You old man. You past 50 winters. You all washed up, never be a hunter again. Don't tell me about things like "glasses" and "anabolic steroids", it's impossible. Me certain, me village chief, me live many seasons.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 08:38 PM.
  #146  
Old 12-27-2017, 08:43 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
And senescence? It is a property of the universe set by sky daddy. Don't tell me you could just culture my cells, reset their clocks back to zero, then grow them back into functional organs. That is impossible, space wizard stuff. Wake Forest Medical school hasn't gotten prototype printed organs to work.
  #147  
Old 12-27-2017, 08:52 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And senescence? It is a property of the universe set by sky daddy. Don't tell me you could just culture my cells, reset their clocks back to zero, then grow them back into functional organs. That is impossible, space wizard stuff. Wake Forest Medical school hasn't gotten prototype printed organs to work.
How is it any more impossible than the crap you've been peddling?
  #148  
Old 12-27-2017, 09:45 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Ah, makes me remember a The Futurist Magazine I read back in the late 80's that was insisting that all heavy manufacturing would move to Earth Orbit by the year 2000.

Seriously.

Like, "Wow, you really didn't think that through, did you. Millions of tons of materials have to go to orbit - along with millions of workers - everyday? And then back down?

And we'll have this in less than 15 years?"
  #149  
Old 12-27-2017, 09:48 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
How is it any more impossible than the crap you've been peddling?
Because it's real? Google it. Of course it's not ready for prime time, like any really promising biomed, but the idea works. Hundreds of experiments have been performed where it has been shown you can reset adult, "senescent" cells back to past states. If you get the growth factors right, you can move them forward down a particular differentiation path.

Your cells that are "old" are only old because a computer program written in base-4 (with some extra tags and forms of memory) has a high value in a counter*. If you set that counter to zero again, the cells will act "young" again. It's damn hard to do this for a lot of reasons, but this is essentially our best hypothesis about reality. The reason you age and die isn't because your cells are doing their best, it's because they are sabotaged right in their source code.

Why the fuck do you think dogs and cats get basically the same diseases as humans in a mere decade or 2 instead of needing 60-80 years to hit that point? Moron.

And to the mouth breather above : I have never said anything about any of this shit happening in "15 years" or any of that bullshit. I mentioned robotic movement maybe being superhuman in 10 years...it's basically superhuman already. All I have ever said is that this is where the trends are going and we really should be actively pushing them harder.

*it's not 1 counter, that hypothesis has been disproven, but the cells do have a state and that state can be reset.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-27-2017 at 09:52 PM.
  #150  
Old 12-27-2017, 09:53 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And senescence? It is a property of the universe set by sky daddy. Don't tell me you could just culture my cells, reset their clocks back to zero, then grow them back into functional organs. That is impossible, space wizard stuff. Wake Forest Medical school hasn't gotten prototype printed organs to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Because it's real? Google it. Of course it's not ready for prime time, like any really promising biomed, but the idea works.
You said it doesn't work and it won't work.
Such a turnaround in an hour.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017