Minus Quantum Mechanics- A Fun Theory on Immortality

Here is the theory: Given a powerful enough computer, one may be able to duplicate the algorithms of the brain and essentially create artificial human brains out of silicon. Assuming there is no transcendental soul, all we amount to are billions of atoms. Those atoms make up molecules, and those molecules then make up our brains. Our brains function as a result of billions of atomic algorithms. Put simply, if we duplicate those algorithms, we can duplicate a person’s brain.

Imagine plugging these algorithms into a computer, one should be able to put a copy of a person on a computer. On a computer, your thoughts and emotions will be free from a human body. There would be complete mind/body separation. You would exist in the buzz of a hard drive. Imagine further that you could be placed into a virtual world much like the matrix, or that you could construct a robot that was capable of moving in new and fascinating ways. Your body could be as strong and as unique as you’d like.

One question immediately surfaces: Does that mean I could live forever? The answer is maybe, but not if I was “copied.” A hypothetical illuminates this point. Much like the 2006 film “The Prestige,” where Hugh Jackman goes into the magic box and is copied, imagine that you enter into a magic copying box. Three, two, one, a flash and a copy of yourself stands right outside the box. He is an exact replica of every atom in your body at the moment the flash went off. You now stand outside the box starring at each other. Which one are YOU? YOU would be the original, right? You never went anywhere. A copy was made of you, but it wasn’t you. Applying this reasoning to my theory about downloading your atomic algorithms and you get the same outcome, computer you isn’t YOU.

However, immortality isn’t that far off. While “copying” would not do the trick, “integration” might. Integration would involve a medical procedure wherein your brain is slowly replaced piece by piece with the silicon parts that carry out the YOU algorithms. Imagine a procedure that could take place while one maintained consciousness, ensuring the stream of thought was uninterrupted and the YOU is still you. The procedure of integration may provide much more assurance that YOU would still be YOU, though now existing in a computer.

One last point. While you may actually die at some point if integration didn’t work, to those around you, a computer “copy” would suffice. Given sufficient technology, computer-you might find himself a nice squeezable human-like android to occupy. To your loved ones, you’d still be alive. Imagine the creation of “back-up yous.” There appears to be two types of death: your death, and your death in the eyes of others.

I highly recommend “Unready to Wear,” a short story by Kurt Vonnegut published in 1953. You can find it in Welcome to the Monkey House.

Is there Sacrifice in Capitalism? What is...happiness?

.....

"Speed of light isn't fast enough for some of us. Duh." Text Sent at 2:00am 7/29/09

Please watch the following video for a tickling of your tummy:
"Everything is amazing, and no one is happy.."


.....

The Importance of Being Diverse

As we move through our lives, we all begin to experience some worlds more than others. Whether we see more of the office than the outdoors, more of the streets than the school, more of the city than the jungle, or more of the computer than any thing else, each of us begins to see more of a few and less of the rest.

This past weekend I ventured past the computer, past the front door, past the streets and the buildings of New York, past the suburbs, past the small towns in Upstate New York, and into the Catskill Mountains. I went hiking on a very difficult trail called “Devils Path” by Tannersville, New York. We arrived at 12am and, with our headlamps, hiked to the first peak

It was at the top of the first peak, looking out at the lights from the small towns, the mountains visible by moonlight, and the few clouds that hung about the sky, that I noticed I was far from my world. My world currently consists of a large, shabby apartment in Brooklyn and a Federal Courthouse on Long Island. In between those two, I’ve found a half-world on the LIRR. But these, day in and day out, fill what I call my life, and for that I am grateful. But I understand the extent to which they are limiting. My situation could be much worse. I know many people who spend most of their waking life in front of a computer at a desk in an office. One can imagine the lack of real world stimulation, and cnn.com doesn’t count.

I propose that a limited routine, if not understood in the context of life, can become a health threat and long-term crisis. First, in keeping one’s world small, one misunderstands the relevance of his or her situation. For example, the people who enjoy Dunkin’ Donuts each morning forget that there are others, standing on the same Earth, who, by mere chance, were born into a situation where water is a privilege. They forget all the details that make our world possible. We begin to take life for granted. In doing so, forgetting the rest and focusing on the few, we box ourselves in mentally and physically. This often leads to depression and the fear that any given night we might just fall asleep and wake up thirty years later without really doing anything we wanted to. The illusion our small worlds paint for us seem to lie in wait, until we are old and a bit wiser, at which time they spring up and our mid-life crises set in.

There are some great counterarguments to this point. One argument is that those who are very focused are often the leaders in their fields, the ones who truly represent achievement. I would contend that those who truly enjoy their work actually maintain a much deeper understanding of life because they are more in tune with their dreams, that their mind’s hunger is never crippled, but rather satisfied and expanded with each new discovery, each project they finish. Another argument is that, to a certain extent (and this is certainly true for law students), we limit our routine because it will pay off one day. Concededly, this is the strongest challenge I face. If anyone has any rebuttals now would be the time to voice them. My reservation stems from my belief that this problem is rooted in the structure of American society, specifically, a lack in creative education, but let’s save this for another discussion.

Second, a limited routine cripples the mind’s unusual ability to dream. My assertion depends on the assumption that our minds cannot create something that is absolutely new, meaning, we cannot form an image if we have never seen an image before. Simply put, a limited routine stifles one’s dreams. I believe that all dreams are derivatives of experiences we have actually had. Therefore, if we limit our experiences, we limit our dreams.

To state it clearly, I propose that a limited routine is harmful, but only if one fails to understand the context of one’s life. So how does one understand the context? One option would be to ensure our life is speckled with thoughtful catalysts, such as the one I described above. Any input would be appreciated.