While I applaud the development you've reported on here, I must register a minor quibble. Death is not an "unfortunate accident." It's an epiphenomenon, a characteristic that arises from innumerable other, more fundamental characteristics of the design of organic life.

Evolutionists will tell you that death is integral to the mechanism by which species advance and differentiate. Creationists will tell you that death is part of the Divine plan, that this world is merely a preparatory stage for the next, far more important one. Both these views are teleological, one obviously, the other more subtly. They deflect attention from the central value of life -- itself -- to its exact opposite.

Regardless of whether the evolutionist or the creationist is more correct, Man has more control over his life in this world than any of the lesser species. That we've come so far, and appear poised to go this much farther, is a truly wondrous thing, a ringing affirmation of the glory of the mind.

Curmudgeon Emeritus, Palace Of Reason

Prolonging life is good and possible, but how can we ever know if we have *combatted death*? It would take eternity to find out, wouldn't it?

Alice

http://libertarian_parent_in_the_countryside.blogspot.com/

Alice:

It's never possible to prove that death has been elliminated. Proof only works in maths, and even then it is not absolutely reliable. It is possible for the best avalible explanation to be that people don't have to die permantly anymore, though.

For example, if humans had multiple redundant backups of themselves in many locations throughout the universe, and it was known how to make them active again, it would be reasonable to say that people didn't have to die anymore.

~Woty
http://woty.blogspot.com

Woty wrote: "Proof only works in maths, and even then it is not absolutely reliable. "

Another way to say that is proof doesn't work in math.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.blogspot.com/

There is a form of argument called proof, that is an effective way of demonstrating things in maths, and that there is no equivilant of in other fields.

~Woty
http://woty.blogspot.com

Syllogisms are effective and seem equivalent to me.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.blogspot.com/

Predicate logic is even better than Aristotalian syllogisms, but both rely on the creation of tautological axioms, which I doubt many people can agree on outside of pure mathematics.

Anyway, I expect that degenerative diseases will be eliminated before radical life extension becomes a reality. People will always die, even if by accident.

Master of None

Michael:
What if there was a way to make accidental death non-permanant?

~Woty
http://woty.blogspot.com

"For example, if humans had multiple redundant backups of themselves in many locations throughout the universe, and it was known how to make them active again, it would be reasonable to say that people didn't have to die anymore."

Yes they would.

Having one or more "backups" of yourself doesn't do you any more good than having a twin sibling does.

I meant backups of the content of your mind, not genetic backups.

~Woty
http://woty.blogspot.com

Still doesn't help. A backup of the content of your mind simply produces other people who think they're you.

Short Answer: Yes.

Slightly Longer Answer (for people who have read The Fabric of Reality):

Imagine a bunch of universes, which are all different times in the last year, and are all in the history of this present. In each you will find a brain state, that is different than my present one, and is in a different time and a different place than my present one. But you won't balk at saying it's me.

Slightly Longer Answer (for people who have not read The Fabric of Reality):

The idea that the particular matter that makes up my brain, is privilaged, is mysticism.

Another Answer:

If we make a double of someone, and it acts *as if* it is that person, what sort of explanation will say it is not that person (besides a bad one)?

(Click link on sidebar to purchase The Fabric of Reality, the best book ever)

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.blogspot.com/

We should be satisfied with the good long lives modern medicine allow and then die with dignity.

See also this article.

Creating copies or backups of oneself clearly would not obviate death. As the previous poster pointed out, they would not be you, even though they would be just like you.

Even if the copies are fungible to other people, you yourself would still be dead. Same goes for transporters in Star Trek :)

Aside from my expectation that we will never be able to back-up a human.

Master of None

Brains are complicated, and I expect it will be a very long time before their emergent properties are fully understood.

However, the local structure of brains is relatively simple. Suppose artificial neurons are developed, that act just like the meaty ones, but can use a backup power source other than sugary oxygenated blood, and/or fully preserve their state when shut down. Nanoscale installers operate on your brain over the course of months or years, replacing individual original neurons one by one with copies of the improved model.

For the sake of argument, the installers only operate while you are conscious. Individual neurons die continually, with no detectable effect to us, so presumably the temporary loss of neuron while its state is copied would likewise have no detectable effect.

At the end of the replacement process, are "you" dead?

And the same goes for changing from one time to another, right?

How can that be the same person, if he's in a whole different universe? (To quote Fabric, "Other times are just special cases of other universes.")

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.blogspot.com/

"Imagine a bunch of universes, which are all different times in the last year, and are all in the history of this present. In each you will find a brain state, that is different than my present one, and is in a different time and a different place than my present one. But you won't balk at saying it's me."

No, but you would. And if you gathered them all together, and then I shot you (but not them),
their presence would not be much consolation.

Look, I understand your thesis: fungibility does not exist, all matter is special, blah blah blah, (or maybe only when conciousness is involved) but do you have an argument for this?

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.blogspot.com/

Our arguments are at least as weighty as your appeals to authority. Frankly, the question hinges on axiomatic beliefs, and I doubt that we'll agree on them.

If dying neurons were progressively replaced with artificial neurons, my intuition tells me that yes, it would still be "you". Additionally, I completely agree with Ken: the existence of other-universe-"yous" may be fine for the rest of us, but for you yourself it's meaningless.

I'm not sure what arguments you're putting in my mouth by saying "fungibility does not exist, all matter is special, blah blah blah". Special how? Fungibility is relative. What could possibly serve as proof?

Master of None

Our arguments are at least as weighty as your appeals to authority.

Erm, which appeal?

Frankly, the question hinges on axiomatic beliefs, and I doubt that we'll agree on them.

I have no such beliefs. The correct approach to knowledge, is to acknowledge that we cannot know anything with certainty, but still to hold our best explanations to be tentatively true.

(out of order) What could possibly serve as proof?

Of course, nothing, ala fallibility. That's not the point, we need good explanations. As a general rule, if reality behaves *as if* something is true, it's a good explanation that it's true.

the existence of other-universe-"yous" may be fine for the rest of us, but for you yourself it's meaningless.

The notion that the copy would act *as if* it was me, and be the same for other people, but would not be "me", is the notion that the specific matter making me up is privilaged (but can, apparently, gradually bestow this privilage on other bits of matter a little at a time ala artificial neuron replacement). In the absence of an explanation for this privilage, I have no choice but to consider it mysticism.

I'm not sure what arguments you're putting in my mouth

That was to Ken, who claims I will balk at considering me-2-secods-ago me. I know many adults disassociate from their former selves WRT things like hating highschool, but this is really pushing it.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.blogspot.com/

And what if the replaced natural neurons, rather than being discarded, were being assembled into a functioning recreation of your brain in exactly the state it was in at some point in time?

Which would be you?

The artificial, but continuous you?

Or the natural, discontinuous you in a state identical to a previous natural state?

I think, for most of us, the continuity seems more important than the material or the precision of the state-match. I think our sense of identity is tied to the idea of a single mind evolving rather than a sequence of brain states; so even perfect copies would still be "other people".

This might be an illusion, but it's a difficult one to shake off, because it's central to how we think of our existence.

Think about what happens if we elimnate death.

If it is universal, the population increases by over 328,000 people literally overnight (well, ok not literally, it would take 25hours).
The population growth rate not quite doubles.

If it is not universal it means the average age among wealthy populations gets higher and higher relative to everyone else, until they are prime for non-natural death at the hands of the younger, stronger, mortals.

It would mean birth control would have to become universal, and not optional. It would mean forced abortions. It would mean food shortages.

It is unpleasant that, as individuals, we have to die, but that's just the way reality goes.