When will we see "Resurrection" Technology

[Bloodstripe]

Question; the things you write about - are these what you believe will happen and come to be? Such as the “Resurrection? I don’t consider myself to have a mind that is limited, other than by imagination. I’ve thought, but maybe haven’t ever been able to articulate a “digital” or “technology” species. Obviously, or maybe not obviously, we may not see these things in our lifetime, so the question begs to be asked. If “we” don’t see them in our lifetime, will be see them at all?

[HarryStottle]

The problem in addressing your question is "what part of the Resurrection technology you are asking about?"

There are two distinct technologies in "Resurrection". The first is the digital infrastructure which makes it possible for Humans to migrate to the digital environment and achieve "Omortality". The second is the technology which allows us to reassemble, in atomic level detail, arbitrary objects from the past (including, for the purposes of the story, human brains)

I believe we're close (in historical terms) to achieving the first of those technologies now. The second is entirely speculative "science fiction" and more accurately represents wishful thinking rather than expectation.

For the first technology, our initial requirement is the storage capacity. We know, roughly, what that implies and I discussed some of the developments and implications

Just in passing, a mere 6 years after writing that, I now routinely use cameras and smartphones where 32gb of storage fits on an SDMicro card about the size and weight of a thumbnail!

My (reasonably informed) guesstimate is that an exabyte will be sufficient to store the human brain at sufficient resolution to allow it to be digitally "revived". And, at the current rate of progress, we're going to achieve the storage target within the next 15-20 years. But that's just solving the main hardware problem.

The progress towards reverse engineering the algorithms which constitute the software running on that hardware is much more difficult to predict.

The main developments are in physical emulation - such as IBM's project to

and some of the remarkable progress in scanning actual minds as illustrated by stories of our emerging ability to

as well as the direct "neural-nanoengineering" projects summarised by articles like

These and other straws in the wind lead me to the optimistic conclusion that we'll be about ready to simulate the software which constitutes a human mind at about the same time we achieve the hardware capacity required to store a human brain. i.e. some time in the next 15-20 years

As with all new digital technologies, version 1 will probably be seen as a sick joke with potentially damaging consequences. But it won't take more than a decade to get to version 15 (or whatever) when the digital human is truly a working Omortal copy of the original.

So, my answer in regard to the first Resurrection technology is a confident "Yup, it's on its way". If I'm wrong, I'm sure it's only going to be on timescale, not principle. In other words, it's possible I am grossly underestimating the technical difficulties of brain emulation and it will take 50 or 100 years rather than 15-20. Either way I am very confident that it WILL happen and almost certainly while many of us around today are still alive to witness and to benefit from it.

The second part of the Resurrection technology is, however, still in the realms of pure science fiction. The basic principle of reverse calculation which I summarised in the to the earlier one is, I'm sure, mathematically sound. The pure speculation is on the question of what "resolution" we could achieve on reassembly.

Where someone has, during their lifetime, signed the Consent Form to indicate their desire to be digitally resurrected and had themselves properly digitally mapped before death, resurrection will be "trivial". Just a question of switching on the digital version in its new home.

But whether, even with a carefully preserved cryogenically frozen brain, we would actually be able to map it to the resolution required to reassemble it, digitally, as an identical, undamaged human mind is a huge unknown.

And as for tracking back a couple of hundred years and digitally mapping every relevant particle back to the point where it formed part of the brain of an ancestor, that might be mathematically feasible but remain technically infeasible until or unless we achieve truly godlike powers over our own universe.

[Sallice]

The answer to our timeline of when? is war. Why spend time bringing people back to life when we are so busy killing each other? Unfortunately many issues get in the way of progress as we have seen throughout history. Our futures as longer lasting individuals will have to wait until simpler matters such as land disputes and fiscal greed are dealt with, at least on a majority scale.
Maybe the Aliens have already given a few select groups the necessary tech to accomplish such goals long ago. Understanding such gifts is a far different task than applying them. Either way war lords need to be a thing of the past before we can truly thrive and live into eternity throughout the Universe rather than our confined existence on this beautiful rock. The tech will come eventually as Harry has said. The questions are, when? and will the tech be available to the average human? Will the average humans even exist or be tolerated in the future?
Mediocrity has become a trend for a reason. Possibly a very scary reason that could explain many things... or everything is as simple as the majority of our TV channels want us to believe? Agenda's are a powerful concept. Actions are a powerful reality.
(I really wish I could know If I am quoting someone or not.) Time for a new app. the quote conductor, someone get on that right away, I don't have time.

I certainly haven't set my beliefs in stone but the anticipation of the answers has me on the edge of my seat far more than any movie.

Infinite cell regeneration into the wild blue yonder my friends!!! Huzzah!!! I want to be Wolverine damn it!

[HarryStottle]

Greetings Sallice and welcome on board.

Your pessimism is, of course, more than justified by the scale of the problems we're up against. My own optimism is probably more genetic than rational. Nevertheless, we can glean some straws of comfort even from the "bad news" we're enduring at the moment.

For instance, Snowden's revelations about the extent of NSA surveillance on its own citizens may look like bad news. But for those of us who have been reading the runes (and James Bamford's books) for the last few decades, they're not really news at all, just confirmation of detail. And from my point of view, the revelations actually constitute good news, because it has massively increased awareness of the extent of corruption and abuse of power by government. (and please, dear reader, always remember that America isn't the only - or even the worst - abuser. It is, though, probably the most "professional")

The never-ending stream of revelations have definitely had the effect of making more and more punters take seriously my proposals (which are still the only serious and practical proposals I know of, which offer a serious prospect of reigning in the abuse of authority - whatever its source or ideology).

Elsewhere, look at what's happening in Egypt.

The main point is - you can.
Look at it, that is.

In other words, we're now seeing the story, in real time, often direct from some of the victims or those close to them. The mainstream media - who have sustained the existing corrupt hierarchies around the world for the last couple of centuries - are no longer able to filter out what the powers that be prefer us to see. This is even true for the most effectively authoritarian regimes like China.

The same transparency in Syria, for example, is probably what will stop our own corrupt regimes lending assistance either to the corrupt regime in Syria, or to its opponents. Why? Because the footage we're seeing makes it very clear that both sides contain really nasty people and we don't have any interest in getting involved. Prior to this kind of clarity, the warmongers would just send in the troops and manufacture the storyline to suit.

Iraq II is probably the last occasion on which they will ever get away with that bullshit. And look how much "leaked" from that criminal enterprise, despite their mammoth efforts at controlling the message (embedding journalists, imprisoning whistleblowers, scapegoating perpetrators etc)

My concern is not for all the batshit crazy stuff going on around the world. My concern is for how "We The People" react when they learn about it. And I have to admit, I'm not happy, so far, with what I'm seeing so far.

Why, for example, have we not seen at least one American police station torched? There have been plenty of publicly visible provocations which, in times past, would (and arguably should) have triggered such a response. I collected a couple of hundred examples for my Police State of America page (which I stopped updating when Obama was elected, stupidly believing he'd roll back the PSA) and on one classic example only a few days back.

The public response to the Snowden revelations ought to have been a wave of street protests and, at the very least, abandonment of google, facebook etc and mass migration to genuinely secure email (using pgp or similar); but no, "meek and obedient, they follow their leaders, down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel..."

My own efforts include trying to persuade the likes of Google/Amazon/Microsoft etc that, in the context of their coerced compliance with State demands for private data, there are plausible controls they can insist on (because they have the financial clout and potential customer support to win the public argument) which can be shown not to compromise the legitimate security concerns of the PSA but to make the NSA and it's subcontractors truly accountable. This alone has the potential to control the worst abuses. So wish me luck...

[Sallice]

The power role of who plays the global asshole has been raging for centuries. Let's just see how shit plays out. Before the surveillance we had drug lords and mobsters, before that everyone would just shoot every body else. Wild wild west everywhere you went. Very few countries have been able to figure out how to play nice with foreigners all the time. Cultural conflicts are bread and butter for most humans, without one going at some point we would all go crazy. That said, It would be nice to know what the UN talks about on a daily basis. The world is a huge difficult place to figure out, I think the best way to understand anything is to look at who is friends with who and why? Instead of judging the pawns, for example presidents and media figures. Lets see who hangs out together and judge countries off of that. It is no longer in the hands of men, it is in the hands of corporations.

So I suppose it is related to reincarnation if you think of it in a tech sense. Either way I still want to be Wolverine...

[HarryStottle]

[Stone1]

[HarryStottle]