A "cure" for aging...

[s2a]

Humans procreate, producing progeny that replicates our individually paired ontogeny (ie, we make inexact copies of ourselves). We do so in the full knowledge that human life spans are extremely limited in the measure of years. Even the most stout and healthy examples of our species rarely live beyond 110-120 years of age.

What if that were to change...dramatically?

What if medical science were to stumble upon a "cure" for cellular degradation, or aging? What if anyone (once born) could live on without aging further...without experiencing genetic disease. mutation, or physical degradation?

What if...you could be (physically) 18 years old for hundreds, if not thousands of years? What if...anyone could be?

Let's then suppose that this "remedy" was imminently available, but prohibitively expensive (say, $100,000,000 in cost) to all but the wealthiest people on the planet. Should such a "cure" be available to only the wealthy, that can afford the expense? What say you?

Now, let's suppose that this "remedy" was indeed available to virtually anyone that wished to live a very long time in perpetual youth and vitality. Perhaps a "treatment" or "cure" as accessible (both financially and ubiquitously available) as...aspirin. A "pill a day keeps the mortuary away"? Then what? Does your religious/philosophical understanding either define or limit the potential boundaries of human longevity?

Let's suppose further that you alone possess the knowledge of this "cure" for aging...

...would it be moral/ethical to then share this knowledge with humanity, or not?

If medical science is devoted to a concept of extending natural life as long as possible...then is there anything wrong with extending that natural life indefinitely?

What about replacement robotics, or stem-cell growth replacement? Are these alternatives "natural", or "unnatural" manifestations of medical science and technological advances?

Is it less, or more, "ethical/moral" to sustain any person that has suffered a loss of limb or sense (like eyesight or hearing) if medical science can provide a complete healing/replacement/cure for the afflicted?

If Terry Schaivo's brain could've been medically restored, would it not be the ethical/moral thing to do..no matter the available methods or means?

But then again...where does man impinge upon the domain/plan of a "god"?

Is mankind's prospective measure of mortal longevity an imposed constraint of a particular deity's wish/plan...or is it not? If so, what limit's of human longevity are mandated or proscribed by said deity? If ALL life is considered both precious and sacred, then what are the outlined boundaries of care and cure for humankind's inevitable occurrences of illness and death? When is "saving" a life considered to be an unnatural extension of life?

Is there any valuable wisdom derived from a aged perspective steeped in full realization of limited years? Does a realization of personal mortality temper an individual's estimations of tolerance, justice, compassion, or rationalism? Does a physical vulnerability foster insight and wisdom more than youthful confidence or ambition might provide?

Do you believe that it would be more ethical/moral to share a "cure" for human aging with the world, or would it be better to withhold that information?

Please feel free to engage your expository skills in answer...

 

[s2a]

*sigh*

Another one bites the dust...

Oh well.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Interesting question. I believe it would be ethical to reveal such a "cure", as long as using it did not require the sacrifice of another human life. I have my personal doubts that such a cure could be found, but I believe if it were found, that our bodies would still degenerate to some degree and that technology could not indefinitely sustain us.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Not being able to tell what the impact would be of immortality I would have a hard time with the responsibility of having some way to prevent death from aging. Preventing the loss of knowledge and wisdom gained over a lifetime would be my main reason for wanting to reveal such a thing, but would it actually improve people's lives and their effect on the world? I really don't know.

 

[mingmty]

I think man wants to live longer, forever if possible; it has nothing to do with God or theology, and is not unnatural, whatever the means, we are coded to struggle for survival.

Imagine if we discover the workings of the brain and consciouses, imagine we discover a way to put our thoughts inside a machine; I don't know you but I would copy my mind hoping that this ghost of myself is going to preserve and learn more, its ideas, my ideas, would evolve forever and become wiser every age.

I don't think it would be unnatural, everything is natural, we are natural and our creations are the creations of nature for we were created by nature and never will be free from it, whoever think we create "unnatural" things is sub-estimating millions of years of evolution without us, from suns to living consciouses beings, the last step is the highest kind of consciouses, the super human.

I don't think it would be unethical to "artificially" make ourselves evolve, I think it should be our goal; to explore space, and to evolve knowledge and perceptions to the unknown. Maybe humanity is destinated to become the "God" it has been searching for.

But I just came from a party and maybe had too many beers, so I may be talking nonsense.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Imagine if we discover the workings of the brain and consciouses, imagine we discover a way to put our thoughts inside a machine; I don't know you but I would copy my mind hoping that this ghost of myself is going to preserve and learn more, its ideas, my ideas, would evolve forever and become wiser every age.

The problem is a computer is discrete, and any "brain" running in a computer would just be a simulation. It would still be running on discrete clock cycles (state A -> state B -> state C) and would not be part of the substrate of space and time. Just like a space shuttle simulation on your computer does not take place in real space or time. I can't imagine that something can be "conscious" without being in real time.

 

[mingmty]

The problem is a computer is discrete, and any "brain" running in a computer would just be a simulation. It would still be running on discrete clock cycles (state A -> state B -> state C) and would not be part of the substrate of space and time. Just like a space shuttle simulation on your computer does not take place in real space or time. I can't imagine that something can be "conscious" without being in real time.

Yup, you are talking about current technology, the state machine, I know about it since I live from designing it, but since we don't really know from where does our conscious arise is an error to say that it can't be replicated, we are already researching advanced AI alghoritms like neural networks that work well to create intelligent instruments that can learn.

One of my hobbies is to study neurology (I know I could have been an neurobiologist instead of an electronic engineer, is so interesting) and there are many theories and experimentation going on about this. One thing that I can tell you is that the brain doesn't process information in real time, and in fact some tasks take longer than others, there is a specialized part of our brain that fix the delays to make us feel like if everything is occurring in real-time and at the same time. In fact, we have a inner clock in the brain, whatever happens between one "tick" and another is experienced as happening at the same time, some drugs accelerate this clock making the person feel more lucid, or as if everything was going in slow motion, and as an interesting side-note this mechanism isn't working in a just born baby in his first week of life, so he can't feel time flowing, or understand the perceptions he is getting from the environment coherently.

If you ask me I would say it's possible to create a consciouses artifact, your example about the computer simulated rocket is flawed, because what is making it not to work as in the real world is the noise and that the mathematical models used by the simulator aren't precise enough, but developing AI look much more like to develop a fuzzy control system, not a modern system that tries to model all forces mathematically, so noise and errors in the model aren't really a problem in the long run, that curiously is very close that how it has been discovered that the brain works. For example when you see a moving object the brain gets the information from the eyes and before "elevating" it to the conscious it tries to predict where object will be a fraction of second after the captured image and this is what you actually see: the prediction, this prediction is necessary to account for the time that the brain takes since the image is captured by the eyes to the time it gets processed and launched to the consciouses, so you can act according to where the object is when you consciously get the image, but it has been discovered that this prediction is often wrong but not wrong enough so it can be corrected in the next "cycle" when the brain discovers the error after a new image arrive: The more it predicts the better the prediction and since this happens very fast we don't even notice. Again this works pretty much like a fuzzy control system.

 

[Ori]

I'm all for finding ways to cure genetic defects and such, but death is natural part of life, in my opinion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is a possibility that such a thing could be found.

As we are now, our cells have a maximum number of times they can reproduce themselves.
This is not true of all cells e.g. cancer cells.
Because of this simple fact we are constantly running out of cells capable of replacing them selves.
This is ageing...
some cells have an extreme ability to repair organs, e.g. the liver. Given time most livers can repair them selves, however serious disease and self damage can prevent this.
Some animals can replace entire limbs, some replace teeth continuously as they wear out.
Genetic research will eventually find ways to to modify our cells to to have unlimited exact reproduction.
that will result in greatly extended useful life spans.

 

[kadzbiz]

My wife and I have been taking 1000mcgs of folate for a couple of weeks now after watching a doco on the subject of cells copying themselves better when folate is taken. Apparently 9 out of 10 people do not have enough folate in their system it said. It said that people lose 3 - 8 out of a 1000 cells to inexact replication upon each replicatation. I must already be on the lower end because I, and my parents, don't look as old as we are. Perhaps I can get it down to 1 or 0 and live to 100 barring any misfortunes?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Yup, you are talking about current technology, the state machine, I know about it since I live from designing it, but since we don't really know from where does our conscious arise is an error to say that it can't be replicated, we are already researching advanced AI alghoritms like neural networks that work well to create intelligent instruments that can learn.

We certainly have created many impressive AI systems that perform the pattern matching that imitates the mechanical behaviors of our brian. I am a software engineer and have written artificial neural nets (I use one to do my march madness picks). However, this is still based on a state machine and is a far cry from something that is conscious.

One of my hobbies is to study neurology (I know I could have been an neurobiologist instead of an electronic engineer, is so interesting) and there are many theories and experimentation going on about this. One thing that I can tell you is that the brain doesn't process information in real time, and in fact some tasks take longer than others, there is a specialized part of our brain that fix the delays to make us feel like if everything is occurring in real-time and at the same time. In fact, we have a inner clock in the brain, whatever happens between one "tick" and another is experienced as happening at the same time, some drugs accelerate this clock making the person feel more lucid, or as if everything was going in slow motion, and as an interesting side-note this mechanism isn't working in a just born baby in his first week of life, so he can't feel time flowing, or understand the perceptions he is getting from the environment coherently.

Using the term "tick" does not imply that the brain is like a state machine. It still experiences the flow of time, even if physical/mechanical things like drugs alter that experience.

If consciousness does not require the "flow" of time and can be created from a representation of logical states, is it possible for something like a hard copy book of data to be conscious?

If you ask me I would say it's possible to create a consciouses artifact, your example about the computer simulated rocket is flawed, because what is making it not to work as in the real world is the noise and that the mathematical models used by the simulator aren't precise enough

Hold on a second... the impreciseness of the mathematics is a separate issue than the fact that it is still in virtual space and virtual time.

but developing AI look much more like to develop a fuzzy control system, not a modern system that tries to model all forces mathematically, so noise and errors in the model aren't really a problem in the long run, that curiously is very close that how it has been discovered that the brain works. For example when you see a moving object the brain gets the information from the eyes and before "elevating" it to the conscious it tries to predict where object will be a fraction of second after the captured image and this is what you actually see: the prediction, this prediction is necessary to account for the time that the brain takes since the image is captured by the eyes to the time it gets processed and launched to the consciouses, so you can act according to where the object is when you consciously get the image, but it has been discovered that this prediction is often wrong but not wrong enough so it can be corrected in the next "cycle" when the brain discovers the error after a new image arrive: The more it predicts the better the prediction and since this happens very fast we don't even notice. Again this works pretty much like a fuzzy control system.

I understand fuzzy logic, but it still runs in virtual time. For example, how quickly it runs depends on the clock speed of the computer. Also, you can programmatically slow it down or pause it without altering the logic or output.

To me the best argument against a "conscious artifact" is that fact that there is no way to tell if it is conscious. If consciousness were a mechanical phenomenon that could be replicated in a turning machine, then it would be a logical process that could be measured and verified. However, we know this is not the case because it is impossible to verify that something besides yourself is actually conscious.

As a related issue, there is no way to assign a mathematical structure to our conscious sensations. We cannot describe the sensation of the color red to a color-blind person so that they can know what red feels like. We are certainly capable of comprehending mathematical structures, however, there is something missing that keeps us from encoding conscious experience into language. If it cannot be encoded into language, then it cannot be encoded in a turning machine.

 

[Scott1]

Let's suppose further that you alone possess the knowledge of this "cure" for aging...
...would it be moral/ethical to then share this knowledge with humanity, or not?

Tough one there for me.... this would pretty much shoot Christianity down the crapper for the most part.... the Catholic Church teaches "It is in regard to death that man's condition is most shrouded in doubt." In a sense bodily death is natural, but for faith it is in fact "the wages of sin." For those who die in Christ's grace it is a participation in the death of the Lord, so that they can also share his Resurrection."(CCC#1006).... this "cure" and a indefinate life on this planet sound pretty good in some ways, but I can't see puttering around this joint for 10,000+ years (for instance)... that's a long freakin time.... I'd probably keep my mouth shut and hope heaven is better than an eternity watching "Seinfeld" reruns on earth with my now ETERNALLY cranky mother.

Peace in Christ,
S

 

[s2a]

Tough one there for me.... this would pretty much shoot Christianity down the crapper for the most part.... the Catholic Church teaches "It is in regard to death that man's condition is most shrouded in doubt." In a sense bodily death is natural, but for faith it is in fact "the wages of sin." For those who die in Christ's grace it is a participation in the death of the Lord, so that they can also share his Resurrection."(CCC#1006).... this "cure" and a indefinate life on this planet sound pretty good in some ways, but I can't see puttering around this joint for 10,000+ years (for instance)... that's a long freakin time.... I'd probably keep my mouth shut and hope heaven is better than an eternity watching "Seinfeld" reruns on earth with my now ETERNALLY cranky mother.

Peace in Christ,
S

Hello Scott,

Thanks for tendering a candid reply.

I ask that you might consider...

1) How long should unredeemed souls be allowed to find personal redemption and repentance in Jesus? 5 years? 20 years? 80 years? 200 years?

Does Scripture limit, in any way, the prospective longevity of any human individual?

2) How long should a priest/preacher/witness to Christ live, if they are especially "successful" in winning converts to Him and His message?

3) Did Moses live too long?

4) If Jesus had lived on (undying) for 2000+ years, would that not have been just as inspirational or compelling a testament as to the power and presence of God of any mortal existence and promises/claims of a "life everlasting"?

Does doctrine/dogma address/answer these inquiries to your satisfaction, or my curiosity?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't think it would be a problem for most churches.
Death at some time or another is inevitable even for the near immortal.

 

[rojse]

Humans procreate, producing progeny that replicates our individually paired ontogeny (ie, we make inexact copies of ourselves). We do so in the full knowledge that human life spans are extremely limited in the measure of years. Even the most stout and healthy examples of our species rarely live beyond 110-120 years of age.

What if that were to change...dramatically?

What if medical science were to stumble upon a "cure" for cellular degradation, or aging? What if anyone (once born) could live on without aging further...without experiencing genetic disease. mutation, or physical degradation?

What if...you could be (physically) 18 years old for hundreds, if not thousands of years? What if...anyone could be?

Let's then suppose that this "remedy" was imminently available, but prohibitively expensive (say, $100,000,000 in cost) to all but the wealthiest people on the planet. Should such a "cure" be available to only the wealthy, that can afford the expense? What say you?

Now, let's suppose that this "remedy" was indeed available to virtually anyone that wished to live a very long time in perpetual youth and vitality. Perhaps a "treatment" or "cure" as accessible (both financially and ubiquitously available) as...aspirin. A "pill a day keeps the mortuary away"? Then what? Does your religious/philosophical understanding either define or limit the potential boundaries of human longevity?

Let's suppose further that you alone possess the knowledge of this "cure" for aging...

...would it be moral/ethical to then share this knowledge with humanity, or not?

If medical science is devoted to a concept of extending natural life as long as possible...then is there anything wrong with extending that natural life indefinitely?

What about replacement robotics, or stem-cell growth replacement? Are these alternatives "natural", or "unnatural" manifestations of medical science and technological advances?

Is it less, or more, "ethical/moral" to sustain any person that has suffered a loss of limb or sense (like eyesight or hearing) if medical science can provide a complete healing/replacement/cure for the afflicted?

If Terry Schaivo's brain could've been medically restored, would it not be the ethical/moral thing to do..no matter the available methods or means?

But then again...where does man impinge upon the domain/plan of a "god"?

Is mankind's prospective measure of mortal longevity an imposed constraint of a particular deity's wish/plan...or is it not? If so, what limit's of human longevity are mandated or proscribed by said deity? If ALL life is considered both precious and sacred, then what are the outlined boundaries of care and cure for humankind's inevitable occurrences of illness and death? When is "saving" a life considered to be an unnatural extension of life?

Is there any valuable wisdom derived from a aged perspective steeped in full realization of limited years? Does a realization of personal mortality temper an individual's estimations of tolerance, justice, compassion, or rationalism? Does a physical vulnerability foster insight and wisdom more than youthful confidence or ambition might provide?

Do you believe that it would be more ethical/moral to share a "cure" for human aging with the world, or would it be better to withhold that information?

Please feel free to engage your expository skills in answer...

Great question.

Firstly, for genetic engineering so that you remain youthful permanently. I believe, even if it was prohibitively costly initially, the costs would come down after some time, as procedure became more well-understood, and the mechanisms of the capitalist market and competition came into play. Originally, penecillin fit into this category, and now it is a regular antibiotic. I do agree that such a procedure would not become so cheap, but it would be within the realms of financial possibility for many moderately-wealthy people... eventually.

For mechanical and biological limbs, I would completely support that idea. No one should go around as a cripple should there be adequate replacements.

For life extension, I have no problems with that morally. I don't see it impeding God or anything along those lines. But socially, there would be a lot of problems, such as where everyone would go when there was no death, excepting unfortunate accidents or murder. Our population growth would be far more rapid without the attrition of natural death. Economically, I could see that there would be some serious problems, too.

I wonder what sort of quality of life would exist, should we start to fit in a multitude of permanently unageing people.

I am unsure who Terry Schaivo is, or her situation. Please elaborate.

As for how ageing can assist in mental thought, I could not speak on the subject.

I personally could not withhold any cure. Even though quality of life would definitely decline, as there would be far more people alive that need housing, work, and materials, such a cure could prevent everyone from dying from old age. Obviously, people would be able to choose whether they accept any cure or not.

Perhaps, with people able to take a longer view on everything, would allow them to concentrate on larger, more pressing problems, which would be encountered in this situation.

 

[s2a]

*nudge*

Start here please...

 

[Marble]

The only cure for aging is death.

 

[s2a]

The only cure for aging is death.

Brilliant.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Humans procreate, producing progeny that replicates our individually paired ontogeny (ie, we make inexact copies of ourselves). We do so in the full knowledge that human life spans are extremely limited in the measure of years. Even the most stout and healthy examples of our species rarely live beyond 110-120 years of age.

What if that were to change...dramatically?

What if medical science were to stumble upon a "cure" for cellular degradation, or aging? What if anyone (once born) could live on without aging further...without experiencing genetic disease. mutation, or physical degradation?

What if...you could be (physically) 18 years old for hundreds, if not thousands of years? What if...anyone could be?

Let's then suppose that this "remedy" was imminently available, but prohibitively expensive (say, $100,000,000 in cost) to all but the wealthiest people on the planet. Should such a "cure" be available to only the wealthy, that can afford the expense? What say you?

Now, let's suppose that this "remedy" was indeed available to virtually anyone that wished to live a very long time in perpetual youth and vitality. Perhaps a "treatment" or "cure" as accessible (both financially and ubiquitously available) as...aspirin. A "pill a day keeps the mortuary away"? Then what? Does your religious/philosophical understanding either define or limit the potential boundaries of human longevity?

Let's suppose further that you alone possess the knowledge of this "cure" for aging...

...would it be moral/ethical to then share this knowledge with humanity, or not?

If medical science is devoted to a concept of extending natural life as long as possible...then is there anything wrong with extending that natural life indefinitely?

What about replacement robotics, or stem-cell growth replacement? Are these alternatives "natural", or "unnatural" manifestations of medical science and technological advances?

Is it less, or more, "ethical/moral" to sustain any person that has suffered a loss of limb or sense (like eyesight or hearing) if medical science can provide a complete healing/replacement/cure for the afflicted?

If Terry Schaivo's brain could've been medically restored, would it not be the ethical/moral thing to do..no matter the available methods or means?

But then again...where does man impinge upon the domain/plan of a "god"?

Is mankind's prospective measure of mortal longevity an imposed constraint of a particular deity's wish/plan...or is it not? If so, what limit's of human longevity are mandated or proscribed by said deity? If ALL life is considered both precious and sacred, then what are the outlined boundaries of care and cure for humankind's inevitable occurrences of illness and death? When is "saving" a life considered to be an unnatural extension of life?

Is there any valuable wisdom derived from a aged perspective steeped in full realization of limited years? Does a realization of personal mortality temper an individual's estimations of tolerance, justice, compassion, or rationalism? Does a physical vulnerability foster insight and wisdom more than youthful confidence or ambition might provide?

Do you believe that it would be more ethical/moral to share a "cure" for human aging with the world, or would it be better to withhold that information?

Please feel free to engage your expository skills in answer...

Good questions....

I personally see no moral dilemma with thr extension of life via advance scientific manipulstion of the body, My only question is why should one seek to extend their life to delay the inevitable. The extension of life in an overly populated planet is not necessary. I can see why a person who feel they haven't accomplished a set goal would want to extend life but it really isn't a practical thing.

 

[michel]

The way I have watched the decline (as I see it) in the behaviour, the respect for the law and others of the "general population", the greed of large corporations, I don't want to live any longer than I have to.