Post-humanist Probability?

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9375
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Post-humanist Probability?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I am wondering if anyone here is taking the potential of post-humanism into account in current health maintenance? IOW, does anybody here believe that there is a measurable probability of radical extension of human longevity or maintenance of consciousness through advanced technology in the reasonably near future, and, if so, how is that influencing your current health practices?

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

Nah. If I can someday download a backup of my brain to a hard drive, that'd be a cool bonus, but I'm not counting on it. Maintaining my mind's meat vehicle remains a priority. Fortunately that maintenance has its own benefits and fits into my lifestyle permaculture.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9375
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I meant to include the possibility of greatly extended preservation of the meat vehicle in the post-humanist possibility. For instance, current bio-technology that can cause the proliferation of a flood of a rabbit's own stem cells to rush to the site and grow a new hip. As of 2009, the interface between computation and synthetic biology was able to produce 4.3 million variations of e coli towards 500% increase in lycopene production in altered tomatoes. Also, the scientists associated with ProtoLife are working on something in between. "Life" that consists of container, code and some kind of metabolism, but no necessity for DNA or proteins.

EdithKeeler
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by EdithKeeler »

I don't know about "post humanist," but watching some of these "old" Olympians has made me realize the difference diet and fitness can make, and that I think we GREATLY underestimate what our bodies are capable of with an optimal diet and training. (Assuming, of course, no performance-enhancing drugs were used--I know--questionable these days).

I think stuff like immunotherapy for cancer is amazing. I'm intimately involved with my mom's medical stuff, and she's had successful treatment for medical conditions that would have killed her or left her crippled if they'd been diagnosed just 10 years ago.

So.... Who knows what the future holds. Amazing stuff, I suspect.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by cmonkey »

7Wannabe5 wrote:maintenance of consciousness through advanced technology in the reasonably near future
Absolutely not. Scientists cannot even agree on what consciousness is or where it comes from, let alone how to transfer it to another medium. The best we can do is simulate it and even that is questionable.

This area is one of the 'final frontiers' I believe. That and the deep ocean.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Dragline »

I do follow people who live by the post-humanist thesis and would recommend Dave Asprey as someone who is doing his darndest to live to 180 with all manner of interventions. He brings on all kinds of people on his podcast from revered scientists to quacks, so its pretty lively listening and tests your critical thinking skills.

Of course we all know Ray Kurzweil as well, although what's more interesting about him than the singularity thesis is how much healthier (or not) he is since he went on a 100s of pills regimen in 2004 (Read his book "Fantastic Voyage" from that era -- he is trying to survive long enough biologically to transfer his mind to a machine). So I always look at him as an aging guinea pig. Still can't figure out what's going on with his hair and those strange rings he wears.

Overall, I remain very skeptical -- although are living decades longer, we've never been able to change the basic shape of Gompertz mortality curve, which tells you that your chances of dying approximately double every eight years. Which means if you can reduce your chances of dying by half at mid-life, chances are you are only getting another 8 years on average.

As for transferring human consciousness to a machine, I'll believe it when I see it. The most up-to-date neuroscience (read M. Gazzaniga "Who's In Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Human Brain" (2011)) reveals that human brain structure is both fundamentally different from animal brains and more complex than previously thought (interlaced multiple networks), such that it is properly modeled as a complex system (it's fractal, dammit). What we call the mind is most likely an emergent property of the brain, meaning that we cannot predict the outputs from given inputs for a particular mind, but only make probabalistic guesses. Moreover, any tiny variation (initial condition) in the structure of a "machine brain" from a "bio brain" transferee would probably result in the mind created by the bio-brain being lost in the transference. It's really a much more difficult problem than simply coming up with faster and more capable processors (the "Moore's Law" thesis).

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by daylen »

The problem with transferring your consciousness into a machine is that it wouldn't be you, it would be a digital copy of you.

What does make sense is reversing the decay of telemeres, but this alone isn't enough since there are a host of other problems that can still go wrong. I am not optimistic about post-humanism (ie. with being able to keep MY consciousness).

Though perhaps there is a way to ease into the process by replacing a small part of your brain with a digital neural network a little bit at a time; each time you would loose part of your self and gain another.
Last edited by daylen on Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by cmonkey »

Dragline wrote: What we call the mind is most likely an emergent property of the brain, meaning that we cannot predict the outputs from given inputs for a particular mind, but only make probabalistic guesses.
What are your thoughts on the idea that the brain acts more as a concentrator/receiver of consciousness (sort of like a radio with radiowaves) rather than a generator? I haven't read anything recently, but I remember the experiments were pretty interesting.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by daylen »

Dragline wrote: As for transferring human consciousness to a machine, I'll believe it when I see it. The most up-to-date neuroscience (read M. Gazzaniga "Who's In Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Human Brain" (2011)) reveals that human brain structure is both fundamentally different from animal brains and more complex than previously thought (interlaced multiple networks), such that it is properly modeled as a complex system (it's fractal, dammit). What we call the mind is most likely an emergent property of the brain, meaning that we cannot predict the outputs from given inputs for a particular mind, but only make probabalistic guesses. Moreover, any tiny variation (initial condition) in the structure of a "machine brain" from a "bio brain" transferee would probably result in the mind created by the bio-brain being lost in the transference. It's really a much more difficult problem than simply coming up with faster and more capable processors (the "Moore's Law" thesis).
That would make sense though, neurons work at a small enough scale that quantum effects across neuronal chains would have a significant chance factor. I agree that computational power is the least of the problems that arise.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Dragline »

cmonkey wrote:
Dragline wrote: What we call the mind is most likely an emergent property of the brain, meaning that we cannot predict the outputs from given inputs for a particular mind, but only make probabalistic guesses.
What are your thoughts on the idea that the brain acts more as a concentrator/receiver of consciousness (sort of like a radio with radiowaves) rather than a generator? I haven't read anything recently, but I remember the experiments were pretty interesting.
The problem with theses such as these is that we've never been able to identify any particular part of the brain where this "true self" or "collector/receiver" resides. Gazzaniga would call this a variation of the "humunculus" theory of brain/mind. So it likely works as a model of consciousness in some contexts, but not in others.

Structurally, he says that the brain is composed of a series of networks that are tightly connected amongst themselves, but loosely connected with others -- and there is no "one predictable method" as to how these networks grow and are connected, which quickly gets you to that infinite variety of people/personalities. He says that one of the major failings of early experimentation was reliance on the false assumption that the human brain was "close enough" to animal brains to use the latter as an accurate model of the former. It just didn't pan out that way.

So for instance, one of my youngest son's friends has been beset by strange seizures most of his life and recently had corrective surgery. But to figure out exactly where to do the surgery, they could not rely on theory, but had to empirically test his brain to see which parts were active during the seizures.

Those old brain maps from the early/mid part of the 20th century are considered kind of franken-science doo-doo now. (For some reason I always remember Charlton Heston screaming "You cut out his brain, you bloody baboon!" in the original Planet of the Apes whenever this topic comes up.) And to think they gave a Nobel to the guy who invented the frontal lobatomy . . .

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by cmonkey »

Dragline wrote:The problem with theses such as these is that we've never been able to identify any particular part of the brain where this "true self" or "collector/receiver" resides.
Thinking of it like a radio has perhaps led scientists to look for this particular area, when maybe they should think of the entire brain as the receiver instead. What you describe forms a picture in my mind of some kind of morphing, pulsating network that is unique to every person and so no two areas of the network would necessarily be the same, even if particular areas have similarities. So one person's receiver would never be another person's, IOW.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Dragline »

cmonkey wrote:
Dragline wrote:The problem with theses such as these is that we've never been able to identify any particular part of the brain where this "true self" or "collector/receiver" resides.
Thinking of it like a radio has perhaps led scientists to look for this particular area, when maybe they should think of the entire brain as the receiver instead. What you describe forms a picture in my mind of some kind of morphing, pulsating network that is unique to every person and so no two areas of the network would necessarily be the same, even if particular areas have similarities. So one person's receiver would never be another person's, IOW.
Yes, but its even more complicated, because its not just one network. In his history of 20th century neuroscience, Gazzaniga notes that the "one brain" hypothesis that was prevalent in the mid-20th century and was so prominent in the "we can definitively program people" literature of that era (e.g., the "Manchurian Candidate") has been debunked. Thus, a brain that loses part of one of its networks cannot "grow it back", and might behave quite strangely depending on what has gone missing. So in the radio receiver analogy, its more like an array of receivers and networks that are interconnected but don't have one central controller.

He does rely on the fiction of an "interpreter", which he says has the effect of recording the "reasons" for particular actions post-hoc as memory (or imagination) and feeds back into future actions, but does not physically exist as part of the brain. The upshot is that you can have a perfect map of a human brain and know what the input is, but still not be able to predict the output in a replicable manner. So its not really like a machine or computer (or a rat brain or even a monkey brain).

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9375
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think this is very interesting and relevant research if you imagine the possibility of transferring consciousness from one container of wetware to another. It seems like "tabula rasa" is increasingly less of an accepted theory. Makes sense to me on very basic level of experience of being pregnant with one child who was clearly destined to forevermore be wired in alignment with "quite likely to kick like the devil if Theme from Superman was played at high volume" and another who was the opposite. I read somewhere that people who receive artificial heart transplants that don't change pumping speed in reaction to external stimuli start experiencing a different emotional field. Also, not unlike how older men with complete erectile dysfunction sometimes experience arousal.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3845406/

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9375
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

One way of looking at the human being (and, therefore, the human brain) is "simply" as a collection of unthinking tiny biomachines computing away-reading genetic code and spewing out "computed" proteins and the rest. We're machine too, just "wet" biological ones.- Mark Stevenson
daylen said: What does make since is reversing the decay of telemeres, but this alone isn't enough since there are a host of other problems that can still go wrong.
Right, since the process of aging is directly correlated with the inability of our cells to infinitely make correct copies of themselves. The "Hayflick limit" in humans is around 40 -60 divisions. Higher levels of telomerase, which are obviously somewhat reflexively correlated with a healthy lifestyle, therefore increases longevity by a fairly easy to understand mechanism. IOW, the simple mechanism that results in the "Hayflick Limit" is likely the primary cause of the mortality curve observed by Gompertz. However, my understanding is that telomerase functions somewhat like the glue sticking the binding together on yet another, perhaps imperfectly completed copy, of the cellular DNA. So, telomerase can function to bind a crappy or even harmful (for example, cancerous) copy, as well as a good-enough copy. It seems like individual cells, as they become more defective copies, are likely to fail in their own reproductive capabilities prior to failing completely (dying), just like the larger organisms that are made up of individual cells.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by enigmaT120 »

Why is it called "post-humanist" if we figure out how to live longer?

In Genesis it says "Man for his part shall live 120 years." though I guess there is debate on whether he's referring to human lifespan (in which case it's pretty accurate for a maximum) or if it refers to how long until the flood.

I don't actually live in a blue zone but try to live like the people in them.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Dragline »

enigmaT120 wrote:Why is it called "post-humanist" if we figure out how to live longer?

In Genesis it says "Man for his part shall live 120 years." though I guess there is debate on whether he's referring to human lifespan (in which case it's pretty accurate for a maximum) or if it refers to how long until the flood.

I don't actually live in a blue zone but try to live like the people in them.
You're right -- what we have been talking about here is really called "transhumanism", which concerns using technology in radical ways to vastly expand human longevity and capabilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Without technological intervention, about 120 years is the best the best outlier can do even in the most favorable circumstances.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9375
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Post-humanism is also concerned with enhancing human abilities beyond the current outlier limit through technology. Of course, we already do this in many simple ways, such as when we wear a bike helmet and sunglasses. It does kind of change the "rules" of the ERE game if you lend any weight to the possibility of surviving in decent shape until you are 120 years old. Since most everybody on this forum seems to be concerned with health as much as wealth, maybe Jacob needs to come up with some new metric that takes into account the counter-productivity of simultaneously trying to save up enough money to live on until you die, while engaging in other practices likely to place that date further out :lol:

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15910
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by jacob »

@7wb5 - Hence the 3% active/pessimistic investing recommendation. It's a perpetual solution. Somewhat ironic since the 4% Trinity optimists are implicitly counting on being bailed out by the grim reaper on a 30 year time scale.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Ego »

I think we'll have gene editing technologies that allow us to significantly extend life fairly soon. Unfortunately, repairing a wonky hip is not the same as fixing a wonky hippocampus. For those of us on the cusp of the change, the question comes down to whether we are able to hold off mental decline so that our neural network on the day of treatment is actually worth extending.

High intensity exercise, blueberries, meditation, metacognition, turmeric, healthy fats, leafy greens, sleep, friends, learning new things, fasting, thinking about complex subjects......

And then there are all of the things to refrain from doing.

The tangled neural wiring that comes with age is not necessarily a good thing. Like software that has been patched a thousand times with half-assed work-around fixes, the brains of old people have a lot of strange quirks that are present not because of age related decline but because they've lived long, complex lives that caused the programming of buggy code. Life extension without a gradual debugging of that code will result in a some freaky people. But who gets to decide what characteristics get debugged out of existence?

Lucky C
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:09 am

Re: Post-humanist Probability?

Post by Lucky C »

This seems to mainly be a problem of those who want to get all income earning over with in their early years and then never have to work for money for the rest of their lives no matter what. I think it's important to always be open to the idea that you might just have to work for money again later in your life for some reason or another. But in the meantime maybe you'll get a nice 20 or 30 year vacation!

I'm going to plan for the typical American 80-year lifespan, even though 100+ years may be typical by the time I'm that age. I'll be FIREing with a high probability that my wife and I would be OK through age 80 or so without ever having to earn another dime, but I am planning to use a great deal of my free time to try and make money from home / run my own business / learn new skills with eventual income in mind. I think I will certainly be able to bring in some amount of income, or at least be well on my way to getting the skills required to get people to pay me, after a few years of this. This plan should sufficiently cover whatever comes our way, be it unexpectedly higher expenses or extended lifespans.

On the other hand, if you really want to play it safe then maybe it makes sense to just work a couple years longer? Based on my projection, it will take me 12 total working years to reach 4% SWR but just 14 years to reach 3% SWR. It could turn out to be a great deal to work those 2 extra years if it means having expenses covered for an additional 10, 20, 30... years of life.

Post Reply