How would you like to invest in immortality?
March 22, 2013
Dmitry Itskov (credit: 2045 Initiative)
With his 2045 Initiative, Russian Internet mogul Dmitry Itskov is looking for backers for the world’s first immortality research center.
The new venture sells itself: invest in his new research and development interest and the payoff could be immortality, reports Fortune.
A new corporate entity that the Russian multi-millionaire will formally announce at an event in June will allow investors to bankroll research into neuroscience and human consciousness with the ultimate goal of transferring human minds into robots, extending human life indefinitely. Early investors will be first in line for the technology when it matures, something Itskov believes will happen in the 2040s.
Itskov outlined a rough roadmap for the future of his 2045 Initiative, a multi-decade research and development push to understand human consciousness and ultimately how to transfer it from human bodies into robotic avatars:
- By 2020 scientists will figure out how to control robots via brain-machine interfaces (read: mind control).
- By 2025 the goal is to place a human brain into a working robot and have that person’s consciousness (memories, personality, and everything else that makes up the “self”) transfer along with it.
- By 2035, create robots with artificial brains to which human consciousness can be uploaded.
Itskov sees the 2045 Initiative as an engine for technological and economic development, one that will drive discovery in neuroscience, robotics, artificial intelligence — even spirituality.
(Credit: 2045 Initiative)
Comments (91)
by B_Low
the way i see it is this…once we are cyborg, we lose all of our human senses. touch, taste, sight, hearing, smell. our human senses will be replaced with computer “determinations” or “calculations”. rather than “sense” a smell or a sound we will calculate it, determine it. no more sex because there are really no more nerves…it’s strange….in the end there will be NO REPRODUCTION….unless humans are mass produced like in the matrix…..this isn’t good
by rico
i wonder how exactly our mind / thought would be transfer to other medium.?
by Dennis R.
Well, we’d effectively be moving from analog to digital although I’m sure some will argue that at the subatomic level, the analog part really can be converted to digital with no loss of information.
But at this point in time, I’d argue we’re essentially dealing with “faith-based technology.” We can certainly theorize such a data transfer. W can’t yet do it.
I assume I can eventually be proven wrong about the ability of the technology at some point. I’m not sure how effectively the transference will “copy” thoughts and memories though. But I’m not sure if such an individual would even notice a loss. Or, perhaps more importantly, if an individual would regret such a loss. In such a heightened state of existence, would memories of the past hold as much appeal as the discoveries of the new?
At any rate, I suspect it will be a real “leap of faith” for early adopters.
by Sotilrac
It is so sad to see so many people so afraid of dying. How evolved is it to let our most primitive wish for self-preservation determine where we put the most of our energy?
Also, on a technological stance, this is bollocks. If you want to be immortal, improve our healing capacity and then make our bones much stronger (Wolverine-style). It is so arrogant to think that we can make a robot from scratch better than millions of years of evolution could using primitive silicon technology.
And a final caveat: why wait till you are almost dead to transfer your brain, when it has lost most of its edge? It should be transferred/transplanted or whatever when you are young and at your best.
by Elvis Nkwentin
We replace our brain piece by piece with mechanical parts untill we completely replace the entire brain with machanical parts.
Just as a very well engineered mechanical heart will do a great job circulating the blood keeping us alive, so will a very well engineered mechanical neocortex do a great job doing the work of a real neucortex in our brains. You won’t feel different with the mechanical replacements aslong as they are very well engineered.
After the entire brain becomes mechanical, it will be able to download new information or transfer all of its information to the cloud and that way it is virtually immortal.
This point of view is Ray Kurzweil’s principal for becoming virtually immortal without ever dying.
by Dennis R.
Playing a little devil’s advocate here.
I’m not sure this creates an identical brain– not that brains don’t change over time. We are talking about really fundamental changes to peoples bodies. The analogy in today’s terms would be removing a limb and replacing it with a prosthetic device. Still functional. Advantages such as not needing hair removal or nail trimming. Won’t feel pain (or pleasure)– certainly not at the current level of progress– and I realize this can change as the technology and the interfaces improve. I’m just not convinced it won’t introduce a change that’s less beneficial than we’re being promised.
And if we’re being given mechanical implants, would it be correct to assume they’ll be available off-the-shelf? Manufactured by whom? Google? Microsoft? Apple? Linux? Disney? Samsung? Who has root access to these devices?
I realize this undermines many of the premises that Ray K. has been promoting over the years. It’s alarmist and luddite and very possibly wrong. But some of the comments I’m reading on this and other boards are as faith-based as any god-based religion. And that’s a little disconcerting.
I don’t deny the fact of technological improvement and that science and technology are making greater contributions than I can imagine. I’m not sure the mechanical/technical improvements which will become possible will change human nature– or maybe human nature won’t adapt quickly enough to the change. Others have commented about fear of “others” getting there first. It concerns me that we humans are the worrisome others we claim to fear.
by J-MON
“It is so sad to see so many people so afraid of dying.”
Not afraid – we just realize that death can be a choice instead of an eventuality.
by Iamwatchinu
Not everybody will be given the choice my friend… If you re a russian billionnaire oligarch yes of course.
by stu
evolution is not design, it is almost the opposite. If we are able to engineer a substrate that allows for the huge parallel processing we have as humans along with the huge liear capacity that processors have and will have in he future, we are in a position to improve almost every aspect of our thinking ability.
by Russell Swanborough
We have already developed much of this technology – human brain operation, natural language communication, duplicating human memory, 300 man-years of research – but we await interested parties to share its development. It seems no-one wants to admit that someone else may be closer than they are…
by Doug
Doesn’t the Buck Institute sort of qualify as the “first” immortality research center? Although they are more circumspect in stating their mission.
by Gabriel
Another topic on radical life extension? I guess it’s been awhile since I’ve said anything on this subject, so I might as well.
What are my personal thoughts? Would I augment myself like this? I do not know…and I’m not sure anyone really could, not until the means to actually change yourself existed in the real world. Until then, you create some pretty elaborate philosophies about why it may be a good or bad thing, to convince others and yourself, but until such things actually exist in the real world, I feel it’s all just talk.
I feel it’s important for anything that truly expands on human life to be invested in, including the means for achieving an indefinite lifespan….whether you would actually take it yourself, is another question entirely: I don’t feel it’s right to rob people, our children, of this chance …my feelings are akin to what Aubrey De Gray said when he was asked the question: “I don’t even personally know if I want to live to 100, but I do know I want to make that choice when I’m 99, instead of having that choice progressively removed from me by my declining health”.
I don’t subscribe to a religion at the moment: I would say I consider myself an atheist at this point, who believes heaven is a place, not that we go too, but that we create in our own lives (and as much as possible, the world at large), in much the same way we could create our own personal hell. I’m not waiting for a benevolent adult to pop into my life and “explain everything” to me, or build my life for me….I don’t subscribe to many of the beliefs that the religious do – nevertheless, I can’t pretend to have feelings, or make decisions, on things that simply do not exist or possibly never will.
I have to do my best with who I am and what I can do right now, and not complain that I never got to live an indefinite life…if such a thing happens in our lifetimes, I’ll make the decision then whether or not that’s the right thing for me….but I’m not going to necessarily live on the edge of my seat hoping for it, but instead, do what we all have been doing till now – make the most out of the life we have, which can be more than satisfying.
by Matt Reagan
There is no doubt that at some point in the future all of these goals will be achieved. However, my concern is that these avatars with the uploaded memories and personalities of human beings will only be replicas. They’ll think they’re the original person, they’ll act like the original person, and others will be able to continue relationships with them that were started with the original person. It seems that regardless of all this, the original person will still be dead and the original consciousness that has been replicated will not actually continue. Am I missing something?
by WakeUpNeo
I think about this all the time Matt and I’ve come to the following… Your body is the substrate that stores your “pattern” (consciousness, awareness, etc). Just like a DVD is the substrate that stores a movie. When you copy the DVD to your hard drive or upload it to the cloud or move it to any other substrate it is still the same movie, exactly in every way. Eventually you throw away the DVD because it is outdated. The copy of the movie on that DVD essentially dies, but an exact replica lives on another substrate. So, yes, your current copy of your pattern is doomed to end while an exact copy would go on living. Your copy will feel it is really you and will be thrilled to be alive, it may even mourn the original copy and remain conflicted about it. So, your current version of you is doomed to end regardless of any avatar technologies. Knowing this will you choose to not be transferred?
I am more hopeful for the biological enhancement route where your original pattern remains intact through the entire process to indefinite lifespan – but I will go with either.
by Cassini
The deadlines seem really tight. And I have my doubts whether a robotic avatar would really be a solution to death. It’s a philosophical question that should not be underestimated, otherwise, a lot of time and money could be lost in the wrong direction.
But this is a project that can inspire many people, especially in Russia. Russia is a land of great visionary scientists – but they seem to be scarce these days.
I also think that Dmitry Itskov hits on several points, such as getting a good media disclosure of your project and get the support of some spiritual leaders like the Dalai Lama. This is soft power.
I tend to think that instead of this cyborg humanity path, the solution would be more related to synthetic biology. I think Halcyon Molecular proposal and had a fantastic approach. And it is this type of project (Halcyon Molecular) that need funding.
Congratulations to Dmitry Itskov for his brave experiment. Even if his target is not reached, he will be remembered as a XXI century Gilgamesh.
by WakeUpNeo
His timeline is laughable, but anything that keep this topic in the social media is good for all of us. As the super rich become desperate to escape their own mortality they will spend everything funding technologies that will benefit all of society. This is not conjecture, it is a certainty due to our natural human instinct of survival. The cruel joke is that nobody alive today will likely see more than a few years of average increased lifespan. Ubiquitous life extension technologies are far away and government and the “moral majority” will fight to slow progress and keep the benefits from society as a whole.
by manorborn
Not the super rich in the US. They’re slaves to the cocktail party going on in their heads where all their peers are present reminding them that investing that doesn’t screw the underclass and make them instant money is capitulating with the godless, pinko anti-amurikan progressives.
by Dennis R.
That’s a little excessive to my way of thinking. Yes, some of the financial types seem to think that money is the only metric and gaining more is their sole purpose in life. It’s very possible that their attempts to retain their position can have disastrous consequences for a great many of us. But that’s only a few people, their influence is tenuous, and they’re being displaced by new generations who’ve made their money via technology.
And the older moneyed class may yet have an Ebenezer Scrooge-like change of heart under the correct circumstances. Aren’t we all talking about humanity itself changing? Why would we deny the possibility that they can change as well?
by Pete
A quote for doubters like you.
Mortality is for… mortals. I aspire to become more than that. – anonymous
by Dennis R.
My own take on this substitutes being human as a base-line. “I’m only human. But I aspire to something more…”
by Gabriel
Biotechnology can only get you so far…augmenting yourself with non-biological tech will get you farther.
by Mr. Frost
The problem with immortality or this project specifically, is that the cost of such a project would be astronomical, second only the really wealthy or the investors would even have the option of immortality, because they would be only one able to afford said body. Third if it were available to everyone, you would have to work to pay off the bodies you receive by via financing. Thus would cause huge issues in the already unstable job market, your children’s children would have no chance in hell to get a job because why take some college grad, when you can have someone with 100+ years experience in whatever field you are in . FLAWED FLAWED FLAWED. Want to be immortal? Find a way to become a vampire.
by Gabriel
1) There is no such thing as Immortality – that word denotes an infinite existence, which is impossible. An indefinite lifespan, where your life is figuratively in your own hands, is more realistic and what scientists are striving for.
2) In general, the world you are talking about seems too much like our world….the job market? What makes you think the market will still be unstable, or that “jobs” will even resemble what they are today? The notion of jobs and money could very well change by the time things like this appear.
by jerry searcy
For awhile longer humans will be separated by wealth. In a century or two or three (perhaps much sooner) that may change. With intelligent-driven automation complimented by inexpensive access to an entire solar system’s worth of raw materials & energy, all humans might be born into a lifestyle that would make Bill Gates turn green with envy. Everyone could afford immortality…or at least a lifespan no longer affected by or determined by biology.
by Dennis R.
Wandering slightly off from the main discussion again …
A lot may change in three centuries? You may be right … [smile]
Your comment on “all humans might be born” makes me wonder what birth rates will be like in the transhuman future. Will biological birth even continue? Will it be possible even? Will it be desirable if “parents” are virtually immortal or mostly non-living tissue?
It’s difficult to predict what the future will be like in thirty years. Dmitry Itskov has envisioned one possible future. Those of a dystopian mind-set will envision something different. Much will be affected by forces (currently) beyond our control. But there is much room for optimism.
by seeker
so many comments on some scam, schame on you ;-)
by Gofer
Actually, on the long run, this is much better than regenerative therapy projects as this gives us real immortality. In your body you are still vulnerable to fatal accidents. With this technique our conciousness could be uploaded to backup body when death occurs. Merging this method with bioprinting backup copies of your body and you don’t need regeneration at all.
by Carolyne K
BRAVO !!! Enfin un esprit évolué !
by Enric G. Torrents
This proposal is lame, timelines are just thrown at random and goals are unreallistic. This ‘Russian internet mogul’ may cash in on others hopes and wishes, but hardly make the cause and scientific research any favor.
by Carolyne K
Pourquoi critiquez vous ? TRY TO CONTACT THE RUSSIAN TO EXCHANGE YOUR OPINIONS AND MAKE THE SYSTEM BETTER !
by Paul in Vancouver
This is the modern day equivalent of the mythical fountain of youth. Experts will always claim that immortality is “only 20-30 years away.” No “expert” will ever come out and say that immortaliity is 200 years away, because that simply would not sell any books or raise any money.
by Rickhawk1944
Better to invest in preserving your bodyk and mind (mine are 69 already) as best you can, retro-aging.where possible given rapid advances in bio-, physio-’ and nano-technology plus immunology who knows what may be available in 30 years. Perhaps we are already on the cusp of vastly increased longevity without risking everything to a possible scam. Just be careful in traffic. Remember the Singularity is nigh.
by Carolyne K
Je pense que tous les systèmes de conservation sont bons à exploiter.
Il ne faut rien négliger !
by Vladislav
Seems very silly, I’ll be surprised if anyone invest anything in it.
by Carolyne K
Je suis triste de votre opinion. Elle est complètement réductrice !
by Deavman
Why are you so keen on commenting in French if you are able to read English so well.
by Dennis R.
I kind of appreciate Carolyne’s commenting in French. It’s a helpful reminder that these ideas and discussions aren’t limited to the English-speaking world. What language will we be using in 100 or 1,000 years?
by Pete
RE What language will we be using in 100 or 1,000 years?
Interesting question.
I wonder how will language evolve as we become augmented (hence gaining expanded mental capacity, as well as technology-enabled telepathy)? What modes of communication will we use, as we become super-intelligent?
I hope the following link may provide inspirations.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4c5b0c390d960
by Cybernettr
The rules of most message boards is to post in a common language. Makes it easier for all involved. By the way, Systran’s wonderful translation of the comment is: “I am sad of your opinion. It is completely reducing”
by Dennis R.
French is a pretty common language, isn’t it? Maybe not in my neighborhood but still…
GoogleTranslate is not much better at translating the message into intelligible English. But at least the message is more decipherable based on the software-enabled translation. So computer assisted translation is kind of wonderful in that it’s better than nothing. But I think it helps illustrates the mistaken assumption that technology will be error free as well.
We’re not out of the woods yet…
by Health
You must also remember that in this day and age, national security is the next arms race. Look at all the DARPA initiatives. We already are in a technological race with the next Superpower, namely China. Whatever is coming our way it will be stimulated by the military as a matter of fact.
Soon there will be automated self driven cars on the road. The likes of Asimo will evolve into military androids.
The race is already well along the path towards Exascale computing, and maybe real quantum computing won’t be far behind.
The future doesn’t involve one science. It’s the ever integration of them all, robotic, AI, synthetic biology. The commercial opportunities fuel the military ones and visa versa.
So as Ray Kurzweil says, we are in an age of synergistically accelerating technologies, that will evolve sooner than we think, because there are national security interests at play here also.
And yes, im not big on dying period.
by Gary Salter
The problem with letting military R&D and wars defining your future technology breakthroughs is that it is very wasteful of human resources and financial capital as extreme secrecy and excessive time delays are involved before you get a civilian application, if any at all. I am reminded of an article in Dicovery magazine in the mid 1980′s where an author joked about how their work they did in supercomputer design, done for the military was supposed to have immediat civilian application in the type of personal computers you could soon buy, the author stated that this would never happen ans was just the typical con that is used to finance height tech military toys and sciences…..we could do so much better directly funding universities and private corporations directly…I have read countless articles in the 1960′s and 1970′s in Popular Science magazine, Popular Mechanics magazine, Scientific American Magazines saying that this and that cool new high tech science/hardware breakthrough would eventually make it into civilian application in 10, 15, 20 years from now…. there are plenty of books that explain the very bad impact the worlds military industrial complexes have such a lock on our civilization’s ability to innovate rapidly….we just wasted 1.7 trillion (1,700 billion or 1,700,000,000,000) dollars on the two recent wars….and how much to come in future wars??? That much money could have given us Aubrey de Grey’s and Kurweil’s life extension programs many times (thousands) of times over and have it done and completed 5 years ago to boot, plus also given us super advanced nanotechnology too, so why all these wasteful wars, Vietnam, the Cold War wher we built 100,000 plus nuclear weapon systems AND the scrapped them…the worlds militaries are and have been the biggest polluters in history, the biggest waster of resources, smart people wasting their time building/ designing these war machines, millions killed from their use, for what good purpose I ask?
by Sea bass
I agree with your points, but you don’t really understand war or governments. War is a means to an end. The end, in this case and all cases involving governments, is for those with power to stay in power. The gov has a very comfortable living, much better then the 99% it governs. It wants to keep this lifestyle. War, politics, taxes, elections … All fuel Bri’s Illuminati so they can keep living a better lifestyle.
It is exactly why the Bipartisan system is an illusion of choice. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, these are face guys. Who is pulling the strings?
by Pete
Who can infiltrate the 1% (governing class, who control the military) and stop the technology-hoarding?
by Pete
Will post-Singularity beings discover a way to “compensate” the lost that we pre-Singularity beings had experienced? I hope so.
by JohnsonJohn
Yes, lets transfer out brains into a robot clones and when we die, our clones will live on.
Oh wait, whats the point of that? I don’t want a clone of me running around while i’m rotting in the ground, I want ME running around.
by Jerry
Avatar B is you’re best option then, the one I’d personally take too. Being able to deliver the perfect nutrition and environment for the brain should make it last an incredibly long time!
by Mats Svensson
It wont be more of a discontinuity, than what you already experience every time you sleep or lose consciousness.
by Tom
Or every time you replace a brain cell.
by Tj Green
SENS will increase our lifespan, but our evolved biological bodies are not ideal for space travel. We would need this 2045 initiative if we are to explore and colonize the cosmos.
by Dennis R.
Way off-topic, I realize, but I’d really like to see us come up with a different term than “colonize” when we talk about moving off planet. It just reminds me of our shameful attempts to exploit our fellow humans for our own profit. Not that we’ve stopped exploiting our fellow human beings…
Of course, the argument has been made that truly advanced minds wouldn’t necessarily engage in space travel since they could imagine/visualize all the various potential life forms on planets before their light-speed-capable ships could arrive at a “new world.”
Very little you could gain by having a conversation with a less intelligent life-form either.
But I suppose some of us would enjoy being viewed as gods. Adulation by lesser beings? “Oh, I suppose THEY might enjoy being in my presence.”
by Gary Salter
Supporting the SENS project (Aubrey de Grey) and the Mprize projects are the only ones that will have any chance of working by FIXING and REPAIRING your own EXSITING BODY……not some other entity copy of you that you will never see, experience, or live in, whatever, when you die..
by tedhowardnz
Does not seem realistic to me on several counts.
1 – it seems far easier to extend human life-spans indefinitely, than it does to create digital clones of oneself.
2 – there are many possible causes of death, age related, disease related, human related, and other (meteor, comet, volcano, earthquake, etc).
If one looks at extending life-spans to very long terms, then the probabilities of the various causes of death alter dramatically.
The biggest threat is then other people.
We need to develop systems that give all individuals a guarantee of freedom and security, if we are to avoid the threat from someone with a serious grudge. That cannot happen in a market based paradigm. We need to develop technology and culture to support a trust based system of abundance.
I suspect that if we do manage to create digital clones of ourselves, they will require similar amounts of mass to our physical bodies to accurately mirror the experience of being human. Personally, I think I’d rather stay with the biological version, and extend it indefinitely into the future.
The key to that seems to be to evolve our social systems past money and markets as rapidly as possible. The transition could get a little “interesting”.
by Pete
We need to massively augment (to a very deep level), and eventually upload. Otherwise, we will not be able to compete with the pure, superior-substrates-based AIs.
The AIs can think millions of times faster than humans, never make mistakes (in their numerical calculation) and never forgets. Natural humans will have to live under AIs’ mercy if unaugmented.
by tedhowardnz
Why try to compete?
I plan to cooperate!
I live with dogs, and dolphins and all manner of animals and plants.
I think we and hard AI can get along OK.
by Mats Svensson
Enjoy getting neutered.
by Pete
I suggest you to also think of swines, cattles, chickens and other food animals.
by lflood
Well, if the timeline is off, we had better get started as soon as possible.
What is interesting, even among K-AI readers, is that only a few have claimed “IMPOSSIBLE!! BOLLOCKS!!” so far. That alone, suggests a changing of priorities and cultural thought. I suspect most fairly intelligent people now agree that this is a real possibility, which is great for the initiative. The remaining debates seem mostly centered on how quickly it can be attained.
by GatorALLin
I think this idea is Epic Fail. Even if you can get a robot or Avitar to look like you, or act like you or even pick what you might choose….it will still NOT be you. It might be a really good twin or copy, but you can’t transfer your soul or consciousness. I do however think you might learn how to improve the current body you are in to live just 20 more years and in that time you learn to live another 100 years and thus live forever. Maybe you can give your brain an upgrade to repair itself, or even move your brain into a new human body that has robot like features. I just don’t think you can convert our carbon bodies to be 100% silicon without losing the soul. I do like the idea of making an Avitar or robot that can carry out your wishes if you die so it could live on forever looking out for your interests (so maybe you will your money to this avitar like you could will it to a company to do exactly what your ‘best self’ would do if you were alive). I just think there is a big disconnect and difference from actually offloading your soul and consciousness to a 2nd place. If you can do that then can there also be 2 of you simultaneously? if you say Yes, then can there be 1,000′s of you also? No, this is where the logic Fails for me. I am glad some billionaire is crowd-sourcing to work on expanding lifespans…. but for me this is just a creative software like program designed to carry out your wishes after YOU are dead.
by WakeUpNeo
Where exactly do you think your soul is? It’s not a part of your self-aware consciousness. It’s nothing more than a construct of religion & government used to control you. Wake up.
by GatorALLin
Soul is just a generic term to indicate a sense of self that differs from everyone else ever born or created in the future that may be self aware. It is Not used in with religious intentions or specific meanings as you might suppose. I think you are off on your own tangent with bringing in the Gov’t or religion into my comment…
Ambien = AMGood, = Good morning. This is your wake up call.
by Hopy Daddy
I am already working on the very idea myself, and I believe I can build a crude version of a self-autonomous self-aware AI system within the next 10 years – something which will come closest to approximating human intelligence. And another 10 years for it to evolve and become self-refined to a point when the AI system(s) can aid us in developing the human-machine interface necessary for human consciousness transfer. All in all, about 30 years is what will be needed as minimum.
by nowNZhen
In calculating scientific advancements u also have to factor that were advancing faster and faster every year. With quantum’s computing’s supercharging of the current system, u could argue that these numbers may be to conservative
by Pete
There are computational methods that we will eventually need when individual computational components reach nanoscale:
Reversible computing that does not generate heat, and recursive algorithms that will potentially speed up and maximize the the capability of quantum computing even further (than what available QCs can already do now)
by Waldo Hitcher
The only rational course, even if its one in a million.
People dont seem to grasp the fact that they will be gone forever. Any scientific chance beats no chance. I really dont understand why this isn’t taking the majority resources other than those for sustainability (food and shelter). Not sure what governments are for, if its not to stop their voters dying.
Is it religion that stops it? It would remove religion’s main benefit and retirement plan. I get the impression its not even that. Its just ingrained cultural beliefs.
We need another way to sell this. Just reminding people they are mad not to support it, wont help. Need to have a new story or belief, that appeals to everyone, that is where the genius will be. The PR campaign. By comparison the science is deterministic.
If we believed it was the major military threat it would be solved in no time. Humans only respond effectively to immediate threats.
by Pete
RE I get the impression its not even that. Its just ingrained cultural beliefs.
Agreed. Any theory of “soul-matrix”, “soul-independent-of-brain” and the likes totally violates logic.
The more I try to make sense of those concepts, the more nauseafied I become.
by nanotech.republika.pl
The sense of self-preservation is the answer I think. You can’t accept the fact your consciousness is going to vanish so you search for a way out. One of them is a soul solution.
I keep saying that you can convince people to sponsor the anti-aging cause if you show them that the hope is in a technology that is working or is going to work for sure. Otherwise it is just a science fiction. And most of the people will hope that the afterlife solution has more chance being true.
And I agree that this 2045 Initiative will fail in its ultimate goal within the timeline shown, but at least it may advance the robotics.
by C
Waldo- Your damn right it’s the only rational course of action. All our resources should be going towards neuroscience, robotics, artificial intelligence. Consciousness/Personality/Identity preservation is all that matters. We need to figure it out. I have also been pondering why so little interest in the most important project of existence. I use to blame religion for the resistance, but I think your right on the cultural beliefs and continuing the status quo of how things are. People hate change and need order: grow up, get career, save for retirement, raise kids, and hope your memory lives on through them. Not realizing a few generations down no one in our family will remember us. I also think the resistance has to do with biological drives from our evolutionary history.
I’m all for this and wish governments and the private sector got more serious like a Manhattan project. I do admit I’m skeptical that you can actual live on except through gradual upload or upgrade. I think it’s not possible to separate the mind from the brain. The mind is the brain and vise versa. There is no transferring or moving consciousness. Interesting they don’t explain how the process goes about for transferring personality (Avatar C). WBE, Chemical brain preserv. with mapping? Once my matter is gone so am I, but I would still pay to have my copy live. It’s the next best choice and I could probably convince myself at the end of my life it will be me :)
by Pete
When we become members of hive-minds, which one will we prefer:
individual immortality or group immortality?
The following link, from io9, is worth reading:
http://io9.com/5891143/could-humans-evolve-into-a-giant-hive-mind
by Roberto
Religion fools people because people WANT to be fooled. 90% of population thinks something like: “Hey, life sucks! I gotta break my back to earn a few bucks, do you want me to do this UNDEFINITELY?? I don’t even know the meaning of all this! Let’s hope there’s a Paradise and an afterlife to give a sense to all this!”.
Untill we’ll change our social system so that anyone will live with full satisfaction (or vast majority at least) people will always live with the hope of something better AFTER. That’s why Undefined Life Extension will NEVER become any Government primary task.
by Dennis R.
I vaguely remember a quote from somewhere that goes something like this: “Millions yearn for immortality who have no idea what to do with themselves on a Saturday night.”
I agree that self-preservation is a major part of being human. But I can also see that death has always been a major part of the human experience as well. Many of us view the increasing life span we’ve seen in the more recent generations as not only desirable but inevitable. Living a long life has always been viewed positively– even though most of us were taught that eternal life in heaven waits for us on the other side of death.
But many people are noticing a downside to long life spans in themselves or their friends and family members who are no longer physically or mentally active. Death may not be a relief for the ones who die but it probably is for their caretakers.
And some of us simply aren’t convinced that living forever is desirable. We’d willingly give up our seat in a lifeboat for our children. We don’t have the same faith in abundance that others have. And we’re not convinced that being enhanced or uploaded will be as fulfilling as the future life that some religions promise. Or even the lives we lived when we were younger…
I can understand the appeal of immortality. I’m not convinced the reality of what’s being promised (or, maybe, suggested?) would measure up. And I never thought I would live/exist forever so I don’t feel I’m missing out by not signing up to support a promise that might not come true.
If my skepticism seems irrational, I think I should point out that I no longer practice the religion of my parents either. I’m really not expecting to live forever either literally, figuratively, or metaphorically. But I’m not quite ready to die either.
Go figure, huh?
by Gabriel
Your neutrality is good Dennis, given that I feel I am the same….however, I feel it IS wrong that some people could have little faith in the future, yet cling to the afterlife that other religions follow.
I’ll post more of my own feelings later in a separate post.
by Joel C.
There still remains the possibility this may be next Madoff-type of scam. But I’ll have a open mind to how this develop.
by Wickedman9mm
Give me the Fountain of Youth and I will pay anything for it…
by Beatriz Valdes
YESS! Being 73 yrs. old, I would be quite ready to transfer mind and personality to a robot in about 5 years. So..HURRY UP!
by Dr. Spencer
Well within reason with the exponential explosion of knowledge taking place now.
by Max
I don’t think it’s unrealistic. It’s in line, or even conservative, from what Kurtzwiel, or what I understood him to be suggesting, in How to Create a Mind. I so want in on it.
by Bob Vasquez
The new born should be the investors.
by Thomas Kelly
BCI will be easy with nanobot tech. Why do you say 100 years? You think robot tech is that far off? AI controlled androids won’t take but another few years to hit retail and are projected to cost around 1000$. Given the prospect of exponential growth one could assume tech which makes this possible in the given timeframe.
by Helio Perroni Filho
I don’t think the 2020 deadline for a remote-controlled robotic avatar is unrealistic – there have already been a number of successful experiments on brain-machine interfaces, and first-gen commercial products are already in development – but to expect full-body bionic replacement to be developed in ten-odd years is completely bonkers.
That said, if Mr. Itskov can gather smart, motivated people to work his project, even if its ultimate goal isn’t achieved in the proposed time frame, it could well get us a lot closer to it.
by melajara
This has the potential to create more damage than help for our common cause.
Way too much hubris in this project, especially the time frame for Avatar A and Avatar B.
There is a huge difference in having some body part connected to a bunch of neurons retargeted for the occasion and a robotic COPY of a human body with full sensorimotor (re)mapping
For avatar B, is there any progress from the cruel Japanese experiment connecting the severed heads of rat pups to the thigh of their mother as reported here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3135-infant-rat-heads-grafted-onto-adults-thighs.html ?
I don’t think any animal brain, even an insect’s one could be maintained “alive” when extracted from the original body now or in the forthcoming years.
It is irresponsible IMHO to try to promote such an agenda as Avatar B for 2025.
It will even be counterproductive as this man will not be viewed by knowledgeable people as a visionary (even more so as he looks still young) but as a crook attempting to exploit the natural horror of a forthcoming death from mentally diminished old billionaire oligarchs.
In the mean time, judging from the relative failure of the Methuselah foundation Mouse prize (a genuine mouse already has a 3 years lifespan, making the experimentation way too long to achieve rapid collective progress), why not go for a more realistic Drosophila prize or a C. Elegans prize? Those humble organisms already have at the cellular level much in common with us. When a fruit fly will live for 1 single year, I will be really impressed!
by Justin Vonnegut
Timeline is realistic. Law of accelerating returns requires us to think along logistic rather than serial parameters. The bigger question is whether the robot paradigm will be the most efficient substrate for mind transference.
by mikecole858
I think it may be unrealistic…….but im thinkin the closer we get to uber rich people thinkin they may not die they may put up 50% of their wealth for a shot at beating death. I dont think his time table is realistic. But maybe hes only off 10-20 years. Time will tell.
by Elvis Nkwentin
Australian Dr. Henry Markram is already working on human brain simulation on a super computer . His aim is to oneday transfer human conciousness into machines, or super computers or quantum computers given that the technology works.
American scientist also have a similar goal to Dr. Markrams simulation, which is mapping out the human connectome to use as a template for all kinds of intelligence purposes, including mimicking an entire human self or being, memories and intelligence on a computer.
Dr. Miguel Nicolelis of Brazil has a very promising research which works all kinds of wonders with mind machine interfaces. Cyborgs now walk amongst us due to this research of his and others like his.
Now what I am curious to see is what Dmitry Itskov and his scientists has come up with worth investing in. I’m also curious if his ambitions is just to buy these researches already in progress and use them for his long term “immortality” goal.
I love the idea of being digitally immortal and I support the aims of Itskov, but what I won’t want to see is that the free data provided by the Human Connectome Project suddenly disappears because Itskov bought it for his business purposes.
by nanotech.republika.pl
I don’t think Markram is Australian, Wikipedia says he was born in South Africa.
by Ka Ma
Europe is also sponsoring a 1 billion Euro project in coöperation with +- 150 universities to build a human brain simulator. Amongst other things they also want to research the interaction of molecules with our brain via the simulation. Could lead to new ways of slowing down or stopping the aging effects/illnesses in relation to our brain…
by peter N
i think it would be good enough to just aim for a brain machine interface by 2060
this method will take over 100 years imo
by robb
I agree, his timeframe is unrealistic
by Alex
Well, we already control robotic hands, etc. Seems quite realistic to me. Maybe it won’t be a superbody like in Deus-Ex, but still…
by savee
The time frame is probably to help encourage investors. If honesty equaled information that suggested it wouldnt happen in anyones current lifetime, it would be much harder to get people to invest.
Its also safe to say that the people pushing for this type of technology are motivated by their own mortality, so they may be simply pushing for their own agenda. Deep down they probably know its a long shot, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with being optimistic.
by Knot
Out of curiosity, what makes you feel the time-frame is unrealistic? How do you get to 100 years?
EDIT: AMARA! You gave us an Edit button! I am so happy, thank you :D