• Tech Billionaire Peter Thiel Transfuses Young Blood To Avoid Aging, Getting Old
    62 replies, posted
[quote]It is still unknown if the tech billionaire is already undergoing parabiosis and injected himself with young blood. [/quote] Did Gawker fund this article? Thiel says he's funding research into anti-aging therapies and the article offers no evidence or statement that he's injecting himself with blood. Sounds like a smear piece.
I used to take human growth hormone. Shit was cash
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50826175]Be honest who the fuck wouldn't do that. If I was a billionaire extending my lifespan would be just one of the crazy shit I'd have in mind.[/QUOTE] To be honest, though this is probably the conspiracy theorist in me talking, I wouldn't be surprised if this was already a relatively common practice in certain celebrity circles, just involving some sort of obscure grey market. (or in this case, a red market?) But if this practice becomes more commonplace, all the better. Though I do wonder if it'd enable a culture where students would be able to sell their young blood. It'd be a pretty neat thing, but also maybe a little disturbing. [QUOTE=Matthew0505;50826251]The goal is to stave off the effects of ageing, which indirectly increases lifespan since the effects of ageing include higher risks of organ failure.[/QUOTE] And in turn, increases our chances of living long enough to see the commercialization of future life-extension tech and attain relative immortality. Like casting off our old flesh to dwell in brain cylinders, or converting our carbon-based cells into more durable and efficient machines. (basically turning ourselves into androids)
[QUOTE=nox;50826710]Alright, gather the ritual herbs and the young virgin woman, I'll get Satan.[/QUOTE] What if Satan was in the can? Would he cancel?
[QUOTE=Exploders;50826996]I'd rather spend billions on creating a fully functional cybornetic body and the ability to transfer my consciousness to a synthetic brain.[/QUOTE] I was with you till you said synthetic brain, at that point, its just a copy of you, not you.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50827976]I was with you till you said synthetic brain, at that point, its just a copy of you, not you.[/QUOTE] In the purely theoretical situation where you're able to transfer your consciousness with no loss of signal during the entire transfer then it's still you. That is of course only implying it is somehow feasible to transfer the entire array of signals that form the human consciousness with no interruption and one way only.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50828200]In the purely theoretical situation where you're able to transfer your consciousness with no loss of signal during the entire transfer then it's still you. That is of course only implying it is somehow feasible to transfer the entire array of signals that form the human consciousness with no interruption and one way only.[/QUOTE] Not to start a big debate on it but the way I sees it is you'd have to connect yourself to the Synthbrain and it would steadily replicate what your current bran was doing such that it became an extension of your brain, your "consciousness" would persist across both brains, you would then steadily have the synthbrain take over functions of the organic brain and then shut those parts of the organic brain down. In theory if you did this while awake and alert it would be a seamless continuous transfer of your consciousness and in theory 'you' would have 'moved'. This of course relies upon the principle that 'you' are actually a continuous stream of conscious thought and not actually directly tied to something biological. If you can keep that stream flowing from one point to the next in theory you can "move".
paging doctor belmont
[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;50828276]paging doctor belmont[/QUOTE] I work at a small shop and it's become a running gag that every time someone comes up with more than two bulbs of garlic to ask them "Huh, Vampire season already... early this year isn't it?" Someone actually came back with "Christopher Lee work up early this year." it was the hardest I ever laughed at work.
This is a shit article by Gawker. This is even on the article: "It is still unknown if the tech billionaire is already undergoing parabiosis and injected himself with young blood. " These threads should be completely removed.
[QUOTE=thisguy123;50828261]Not to start a big debate on it but the way I sees it is you'd have to connect yourself to the Synthbrain and it would steadily replicate what your current bran was doing such that it became an extension of your brain, your "consciousness" would persist across both brains, you would then steadily have the synthbrain take over functions of the organic brain and then shut those parts of the organic brain down. In theory if you did this while awake and alert it would be a seamless continuous transfer of your consciousness and in theory 'you' would have 'moved'. This of course relies upon the principle that 'you' are actually a continuous stream of conscious thought and not actually directly tied to something biological. If you can keep that stream flowing from one point to the next in theory you can "move".[/QUOTE] we would have to make some very major strides in our knowledge of how the brain and consciousnesses works before this becomes feasible. as of now, we're pretty fucking clueless on what consciousnesses is.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;50826184]Thats pretty fucking crazy, lets be honest here. Appreciate him for killing Gawker, but damn dude.[/QUOTE] wanting to live forever = crazy? Well then I'm sure as hell crazy. [editline]4th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50826452]This is the guy that says democracy and freedom are incompatible Yeah cause you can't freely be a vampire I guess [editline]4th August 2016[/editline] Red blood cells have no dna thus no telomeres[/QUOTE] They do have different amounts of blood-borne proteins and hormones and other things. Through some not-yet-understood pathway, it's conceivable they could trick the body into thinking it's younger than it is and healing itself.
An actual corporate vampire. :v:
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50829037]wanting to live forever = crazy? Well then I'm sure as hell crazy.[/QUOTE] wanting to live forever shows a distinct terror of mortality which can drive you insane once your time starts running out. it is healthier for your mind to accept that we all die someday, no matter how fast you run. [editline]4th August 2016[/editline] we've become so disconnected with death that it seems like some unnatural terror to be scared of, when it is equally as natural as birth. imo, we should embrace it as such. i might want an extended life, but i don't want to live forever. i want to die, someday.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50829092]wanting to live forever shows a distinct terror of mortality which can drive you insane once your time starts running out. it is healthier for your mind to accept that we all die someday, no matter how fast you run. [editline]4th August 2016[/editline] we've become so disconnected with death that it seems like some unnatural terror to be scared of, when it is equally as natural as birth. imo, we should embrace it as such. i might want an extended life, but i don't want to live forever. i want to die, someday.[/QUOTE] I ain't scared of death but if I can avoid it I sure as hell want to.
[QUOTE=thisguy123;50829302]I ain't scared of death but if I can avoid it I sure as hell want to.[/QUOTE] Doing that perpetually means you have a very strong motivation. I would suggest fear of death over love of life for most people as a driver.
Eternal President did that too.[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10461560/Kim-Il-sung-ordered-doctors-to-make-him-live-to-120.html"] [/URL][URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10461560/Kim-Il-sung-ordered-doctors-to-make-him-live-to-120.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50827976]I was with you till you said synthetic brain, at that point, its just a copy of you, not you.[/QUOTE] Copying it onto it would make it a copy. Transferring it fully would still make you, well, you.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50826223]thus begins the age of the immortal 1%[/QUOTE] Blood from young people isn't exactly rare. Honestly if this wasn't utter bs, young people selling blood en masse would keep costs really low. Longevity for everyone. It obviously is bs though, i mean come on. A middle school biology book will tell you that.
[quote]a California-based company called [B]Ambrosia[/B] has already started a trial involving humans.[/quote] Is it bad that the first thing that comes to mind when I hear Ambrosia is: [img]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/deusex/images/6/61/AmbrosiaFlyer.gif/revision/latest?cb=20100626081301&path-prefix=en[/img]
[QUOTE=nagachief;50829731]Is it bad that the first thing that comes to mind when I hear Ambrosia is: [img]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/deusex/images/6/61/AmbrosiaFlyer.gif/revision/latest?cb=20100626081301&path-prefix=en[/img][/QUOTE] Peter Thiel is basically Bob Page so no.
[QUOTE=Exploders;50826996]I'd rather spend billions on creating a fully functional cybornetic body and the ability to transfer my consciousness to a synthetic brain.[/QUOTE] Honestly the school of thought about slowing aging or stopping is lame. Becoming a cyborg is way cooler.
[QUOTE=srobins;50826192]As someone who works with the elderly.. This is a [I]really[/I] stupid idea. Getting old is horrific, I don't know why people are obsessed with extending the lifespan further and further. It just means we'll burn up the planet even faster and spend more time and money taking care of old people who are in pain half the time. [editline]4th August 2016[/editline] They need to address quality of living before pushing people into the 120's.[/QUOTE] unless we can remove the selection shadow, aging is just keep gonna extending the crap people go through as they get closer to the end
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50829457]Copying it onto it would make it a copy. Transferring it fully would still make you, well, you.[/QUOTE] I believe the generally accepted idea is that we're just huge and complex chemical reactions. we still have a lot to learn about the brain, but studies like [URL="http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html"]this one[/URL] made in the 1980's showed us that scientists were able to determine what a person would do before said person was consciously aware of what they wanted to do. all they did was monitor their neurons. with that said, I'd assume it's physically impossible to transfer "you" from one brain to another seamlessly. maybe you could copy it, but the actual "you" will be stuck in that old brain. there's no soul to transfer, those chemicals reactions in that brain is what makes you. the copy is still "you" kinda, the new copy will always believe that it's still the original. but think about the real deal? that poor guy technically dies while the copy lives in the false belief that it is the real deal.
Shit, I probably would too. I want to stay young and healthy as long as possible. Losing my faculties and independence as a result of old age or degenerative mental conditions sounds absolutely horrifying.
[QUOTE=PredGD;50833603] with that said, I'd assume it's physically impossible to transfer "you" from one brain to another seamlessly. maybe you could copy it, but the actual "you" will be stuck in that old brain. there's no soul to transfer, those chemicals reactions in that brain is what makes you. the copy is still "you" kinda, the new copy will always believe that it's still the original. but think about the real deal? that poor guy technically dies while the copy lives in the false belief that it is the real deal.[/QUOTE] the hugest problems with human duplication after actually achieving it are psychological. If I could create a perfect clone of myself I probably would but I wouldn't want to live alongside him (or rather "me", there is no difference unless my clone me continuing life after "my" death can't cope with the knowgledge of being cloned). edit: maybe some sort of self repairing technology that could incrementally replace dying braincells with new ones could work to create immortality that doesn't totally break our view of self.
[QUOTE=PredGD;50833603]I believe the generally accepted idea is that we're just huge and complex chemical reactions. we still have a lot to learn about the brain, but studies like [URL="http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html"]this one[/URL] made in the 1980's showed us that scientists were able to determine what a person would do before said person was consciously aware of what they wanted to do. all they did was monitor their neurons. with that said, I'd assume it's physically impossible to transfer "you" from one brain to another seamlessly. maybe you could copy it, but the actual "you" will be stuck in that old brain. there's no soul to transfer, those chemicals reactions in that brain is what makes you. the copy is still "you" kinda, the new copy will always believe that it's still the original. but think about the real deal? that poor guy technically dies while the copy lives in the false belief that it is the real deal.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't completely close that option... Your head contains system of individual neurons which'll born, die and self-organize constantly. From your birth to death the system formed by those individual neurons is nearly completely different than in the begining without single neuron surviving from birth to death (unless one dies young). The process is slow and individual change compared to the whole is negligible. Because of this it may be possible to transfer "you" by slowly building new system inside the current one by replacing individual neurons by something new. But process like this will be extremely costly and time consuming, it could takes even years to complete. Also it would be impossible (and useless) to transfer to computer, due computers not consisting self organizing units. Well, one could try to transfer oneself to computer, but it would just create a status-quo clone of oneself and resulting to Darwin award by destroying the orginal.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50828200]In the purely theoretical situation where you're able to transfer your consciousness with no loss of signal during the entire transfer then it's still you. That is of course only implying it is somehow feasible to transfer the entire array of signals that form the human consciousness with no interruption and one way only.[/QUOTE] I never understood why people think that continuity is an absolute necessity for someone to remain himself. Every argument I've heard was tautological. I mean, the end result is the same either way, how can one argue that there's a difference between two physically identical entities unless they are linked to something immaterial? Besides, don't humans experience discontinuities when they get into a coma for instance? Does that mean it's not the same person that wakes up? That doesn't make sense to me. [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50829026]we would have to make some very major strides in our knowledge of how the brain and consciousnesses works before this becomes feasible. as of now, [B]we're pretty fucking clueless on what consciousnesses is.[/B][/QUOTE] I think it's kind of absurd that we give so much importance to the concept of consciousness when it comes to intelligence. People say it's something we must look into before creating an actual intelligent device but as you said, nobody knows what it is. If nobody knows what it is, how do we even know it's important in the first place? That's another tautology. It seems to me that consciousness is another arbitrary concept that's been present in our culture to set us apart from the rest of the world as human beings, kind of like free will, ie the ability to make choices without external influence.
Its because the original would cease to exist. This me would prefer to continue on instead of having a clone of me continue on.
is this actually possible or is he just scared of being old
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.