Inmortalidad

Reglas del Foro
Por favor procura que tus comentarios estén relacionados con la entrada y no pongas enlaces no relevantes. Intenta también respetar a los demás, los comentarios promocionales, ofensivos o ilegales serán editados y borrados. La información o los datos presentes en la web se suministran únicamente a título informativo. Por tanto, corresponde a cada usuario verificar esta información antes de tomar ninguna decisión basada en ella. El usuario es el único responsable del uso que haga de los datos y la información provenientes de la web.
Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8868
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Inmortalidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 18 Mar 2013 18:48

A Russian multi-millionaire is targeting the business community to raise money to fund a project that aims to make immortality a reality by 2045.

It may sound like something straight out of a science fiction novel, but Dmitry Itskov, a 35-year-old media mogul, is seeking investors to fund research for technology that will make eternal life possible by transferring human consciousness in an artificial form to avatars (robotic bodies).

"It's the next space race," Itskov said at a question and answer meeting on Friday to a handful of journalists.

Itskov is the founder of Initiative 2045, a non-profit organization focused on creating an international research center where scientists will research and develop the technologies to make eternal life possible.

Last year, Itskov wrote a public letter to individuals on Forbes billionaires list asking them to invest in his project. While Itskov did not receive any public responses, he did accomplish his goal of getting word out about the project and he is continually in talks with wealthy individuals about his project, he said.

"The goal was to get the public's attention," Itskov said. "I do communicate with some of the richest people in the world, but I can't share who they are."

This summer, Itskov will make a pitch to not only to the world's most wealthy individuals, but the entire business community, to invest in his project as well as research and development in areas that help further his cause.
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

firehand
Especulador Listillo
Mensajes: 317
Registrado: 02 Sep 2012 05:29

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor firehand » 19 Mar 2013 06:02

Será cuestión de 3 ó 4 generaciones que se consiga reprogramar y detener el proceso de envejecimiento, pero aún así seguirá habiendo accidentes, enfermedades...

Lo de traspasar la consciencia humana es la primera vez que lo oigo. Creo que primero habría que definir qué es eso de la consciencia y dónde está!

Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8868
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 19 Mar 2013 06:11

Efectivamente, yo opino lo mismo, el cuerpo humano envejece ya que esta programado geneticamente para hacerlo, si no fuese asi las especies no evolucinarian, la muerte es necesaria para la evolucion, pero una vez comprendido como funciona este proceso y como esta codificado en el ADN, estoy seguro de que se podria eliminar y simplemente no envejeceriamos.

Con respecto a la conscencia opino lo mismo que tu, si traspasas todo lo que hay en tu cerebro a una maquina, eso no implicara que tu estes en dicha maquina y te te traspases, en todo caso que habria una replica tuya ahi, pero no es lo mismo! No se, me parece bastante dificil de creer que para 2045 se pueda alcanzar eso!
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

diegog
Iniciandose
Mensajes: 17
Registrado: 28 Jun 2012 15:25
Ubicación: Berna, Suiza

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor diegog » 19 Mar 2013 22:23

Me hizo acordar a In time (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/) solo que protagonizado por Russian billionaires :)

firehand
Especulador Listillo
Mensajes: 317
Registrado: 02 Sep 2012 05:29

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor firehand » 20 Mar 2013 08:33

Hasta donde yo sé, la parte del genoma que es responsable del envejecimiento ya está identificada y decodificada desde 2007 (por esa fecha es cuando leí sobre este tema). Supongo que el reto ahora es investigar cómo está relacionado con el desarrollo (es decir, ¿se puede programar una edad máxima de envejecimiento, detenerlo alos 30 años por ejemplo?).

Al margen del debate estéril que produciría (la Iglesia vislumbrando la obsolescencia de su idea empresarial, que pesadilla para ellos! jajaja), creo que no se le da mucho bombo porque es más importante y lucrativo intentar resolver las enfermedades que minarían la puesta en marcha de la inmortalidad (cáncer, alzheimer, etc.).

So, step by step :)

Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8868
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 20 Mar 2013 08:56

jeje yo creo que hay pecas de creer en conspiraciones! ;-)

El que descubriese la forma de no envejecer, y obtuviese ya no la patente (a quien le importa) sino la exclusividad de su uso, seria inmediatamente la persona o empresa con mas dinero del mundo, acaso no daria la mayoria de la gente la totalidad de sus vienes a cambio de la vida eterna? Despues tendrian tiempo infinito para generar bienes y riqueza de nuevo...

Yo creo que si no se investiga mas, es porque hay mucho que descubrir antes de poder hacerlo, o quiza si que se investigue, no lo se! Pero dudo mucho que los investigadores, laboratorios, universidades del mundo, no lo investiguen ya que les es mas lucrativo investigar enfermedades una por una, eso seria algo imposible de coordinar, cualquier investigador preferiria ser conocido durante toda la historia por haber descubierto la fuente de la eterna juventud que por descubrir la cura de una enfermedad, ademas de que ya solo por propio interes lo primero tendria prioridad, nadie quiere ganar dinero para morir, no?
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8868
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 20 Mar 2013 10:01

“We’ve lost her,” she heard the doctor say, but Nathalie was already moving on and upwards, into a tunnel of light. She first felt a pang of anxiety at leaving her husband and children, but it was soon overwhelmed by a feeling of profound peace; a feeling that it would all be okay. At the end of the tunnel, a figure of pure radiance was waiting with arms wide open.

This, or something like it, is how millions imagine what it will be like to die. In 2009, over 70 percent of Americans said they believe that they, like Nathalie, have a soul that will survive the end of their body.

That figure may well now be higher after the phenomenal success of two recent books describing vivid near death experiences: one from an innocent—the four year old Todd Burpo—the other from the opposite: a Harvard scientist and former skeptic, neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander.

Both argue that when their brains stopped working, their souls floated off to experience a better place.

This is an attractive view and a great consolation to those who have lost loved ones or who are contemplating their own mortality. Many also believe this view to be beyond the realm of science, to concern a different dimension into which no microscope can peer. Dr. Alexander, for example, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Our spirit is not dependent on the brain or body; it is eternal, and no one has one sentence worth of hard evidence that it isn’t.”

But he is wrong. The evidence of science, when brought together with an ancient argument, provides a very powerful case against the existence of a soul that can carry forward your essence once your body fails. The case runs like this: with modern brain-imaging technology, we can now see how specific, localized brain injuries damage or even destroy aspects of a person’s mental life. These are the sorts of dysfunctions that Oliver Sacks brought to the world in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat.

The man of the title story was a lucid, intelligent music teacher, who had lost the ability to recognize faces and other familiar objects due to damage to his visual cortex.
Since then, countless examples of such dysfunction have been documented—to the point that every part of the mind can now be seen to fail when some part of the brain fails. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has studied many such cases.

He records a stroke victim, for example, who had lost any capacity for emotion; patients who lost all creativity following brain surgery; and others who lost the ability to make decisions. One man with a brain tumor lost what we might call his moral character, becoming irresponsible and disregarding of social norms. I saw something similar in my own father, who also had a brain tumor: it caused profound changes in his personality and capacities before it eventually killed him.

The crux of the challenge then is this: those who believe they have a soul that survives bodily death typically believe that this soul will enable them, like Nathalie in the story above, to see, think, feel, love, reason and do many other things fitting for a happy afterlife. But if we each have a soul that enables us to see, think and feel after the total destruction of the body, why, in the cases of dysfunction documented by neuroscientists, do these souls not enable us to see, think and feel when only a small portion of the brain is destroyed?

To make the argument clear, we can take the example of sight. If either your eyes or the optic nerves in your brain are sufficiently badly damaged, you will go blind. This tells us very clearly that the faculty of sight is dependent upon functioning eyes and optic nerves.

Yet curiously, when many people imagine their soul leaving their body, they imagine being able to see—like Nathalie, looking down on her own corpse surrounded by frantic doctors.6 They believe, therefore, that their soul can see. But if the soul can see when the entire brain and body have stopped working, why, in the case of people with damaged optic nerves, can’t it see when only part of the brain and body have stopped working? In other words, if blind people have a soul that can see, why are they blind?

So eminent a theologian as Saint Thomas Aquinas, writing 750 years ago, believed this question had no satisfactory answer.7 Without its body—without eyes, ears and nose—he thought the soul would be deprived of all senses, waiting blindly for the resurrection of the flesh to make it whole again. Aquinas concluded that the body-less soul would have only those powers that (in his view) were not dependent upon bodily organs: faculties such as reason and understanding.

But now we can see that these faculties are just as dependent upon a bodily organ—the brain—as sight is upon the eyes. Unlike in Aquinas’s day, we can now keep many people with brain damage alive and use neuroimaging to observe the correlations between that damage and their behavior. And what we observe is that the destruction of certain parts of the brain can destroy those cognitive faculties once thought to belong to the soul. So if he had had the evidence of neuroscience in front of him, we can only imagine that Aquinas himself would have concluded that these faculties also stop when the brain stops.

In fact, evidence now shows that everything the soul is supposed to be able to do—think, remember, love—fails when some relevant part of the brain fails. Even consciousness itself—otherwise there would be no general anesthetics. A syringe full of chemicals is sufficient to extinguish all awareness. For anyone who believes something like the Nathalie story—that consciousness can survive bodily death—this is an embarrassing fact. If the soul can sustain our consciousness after death, when the brain has shut down permanently, why can it not do so when the brain has shut down temporarily?

Some defenders of the soul have, of course, attempted to answer this question. They argue, for example, that the soul needs a functioning body in this world, but not in the next. One view is that the soul is like a broadcaster and the body like a receiver—something akin to a television station and a TV set. (Though as our body is also the source of our sensory input, we have to imagine the TV set also has a camera on top feeding images to the distant station.)

We know that if we damage our TV set, we get a distorted picture. And if we break the set, we get no picture at all. The naive observer would believe the program was therefore gone. But we know that it is really still being transmitted; that the real broadcaster is actually elsewhere. Similarly, the soul could still be sending its signal even though the body is no longer able to receive it.

This response sounds seductive, but helps little. First, it does not really address the main argument at all: Most believers expect their soul to be able to carry forward their mental life with or without the body; this is like saying that the TV signal sometimes needs a TV set to transform it into the picture, but once the set is kaput, can make the picture all by itself. But if it can make the picture all by itself, why does it sometimes act through an unreliable set?

Second, changes to our bodies impact on our minds in ways not at all analogous to how damage to a TV set changes its output, even if we take into account damage to the camera too. The TV analogy claims there is something that remains untouched by such damage, some independent broadcaster preserving the real program even if it is distorted by bad reception. But this is precisely what the evidence of neuroscience undermines. Whereas damage to the TV set or camera might make the signal distorted or fuzzy, damage to our brains much more profoundly alters our minds. As we noted above, such damage can even change our moral views, emotional attachments, and the way we reason.

Which suggests we are nothing like a television; but much more like, for example, a music box: the music is not coming from elsewhere, but from the workings within the box itself. When the box is damaged, the music is impaired; and if the box is entirely destroyed, then the music stops for good.
There is much about consciousness that we still do not understand. We are only beginning to decipher its mysteries, and may never fully succeed. But all the evidence we have suggests that the wonders of the mind—even near-death and out of body experiences—are the effect of neurons firing. Contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of people on Earth, from Hindus to New Age spiritualists, consciousness depends upon the brain and shares its fate to the end
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

nuvanda
Iniciandose
Mensajes: 3
Registrado: 27 May 2012 15:08

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor nuvanda » 20 Mar 2013 10:50

Interesante.
A mi cuando surgen estos temas, siempre me viene a la cabeza lo que pasara despues. La gente siempre dice "no te preocupes, sino te vas a enterar". Bien, puede ser asi. Pero ahora que aun tengo consciencia pienso, y pienso en lo que significa el infinito, el concepto de infinito, porque una vez que nos apaguemos es para siempre. Y ese "siempre" es lo que no acabode comprender de ninguna de las maneras.

Avatar de Usuario
Dalamar
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8868
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 20 Mar 2013 10:56

No te preocupes una vez apagado, no vas a necesitar comprenderlo!

Yo tenia una novia que me decia cuando me veia muy preocupado "No te tomes la vida tan en serio... Ya pasara!"
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

firehand
Especulador Listillo
Mensajes: 317
Registrado: 02 Sep 2012 05:29

Re: Inmortalidad

Mensajepor firehand » 21 Mar 2013 08:28

Dalamar escribió:jeje yo creo que hay pecas de creer en conspiraciones! ;-)

El que descubriese la forma de no envejecer, y obtuviese ya no la patente (a quien le importa) sino la exclusividad de su uso, seria inmediatamente la persona o empresa con mas dinero del mundo, acaso no daria la mayoria de la gente la totalidad de sus vienes a cambio de la vida eterna? Despues tendrian tiempo infinito para generar bienes y riqueza de nuevo...

Yo creo que si no se investiga mas, es porque hay mucho que descubrir antes de poder hacerlo, o quiza si que se investigue, no lo se! Pero dudo mucho que los investigadores, laboratorios, universidades del mundo, no lo investiguen ya que les es mas lucrativo investigar enfermedades una por una, eso seria algo imposible de coordinar, cualquier investigador preferiria ser conocido durante toda la historia por haber descubierto la fuente de la eterna juventud que por descubrir la cura de una enfermedad, ademas de que ya solo por propio interes lo primero tendria prioridad, nadie quiere ganar dinero para morir, no?


No tenía en mente nada conspiranoico pero es cierto que mis palabras se pueden interpretar así jaja.

Lo que quería expresar es que, tal como yo lo veo, lograr detener el proceso de envejecimiento es un proyecto muy ambicioso que a priori implica un nivel de conocimiento y detalle de los procesos vitales que aún no se ha logrado. Identificar la parte del genoma responsable no fue difícil (se logró apenas 10 años después de decodificarlo) pero modificarlo a conveniencia parece harina de otro costal! Por ejemplo... ¿qué diferencia el desarrollo del envejecimiento? Es decir... ¿a qué edad desactivar el envejecimiento? El clímax físico del hombre se alcanza entre los 30-35 y el de las mujeres 10 años antes... ¿tomamos esa edad? (prepárate con las feminisas como programes a tu hija para que de crecer a los 20... jajaja). ¿Le das 10 años más para que complete su desarrollo mental? (uff, tu hija se verá 10 años más vieja que la competencia y te lo echará siempre en cara! jajaja). Por tanto, comprender el mecanismo de algún tipo de cáncer parece un objetivo más cercano y realista y es lógico que se afronte antes, nada de conspiraciones!


Volver a “Off-Topic”

cron

Ingresar