that autistic brains should be able to hold onto long-term memories and skills without practice or active recollection for longer than allistic brains do, and thus autistic people should have a much easier time being able to withstand eternity
oh and my sources for that statement cause i forgor
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
and it’s also not in all types of autism, but the genes that cause it could be used to make a set of genes that can be implanted in place of the normal genes for it, that cause you to go through a phase of typical synapse pruning during development, then turn synapse pruning Way down, or even gradually turn it off, after the age of 8 or so
1 Like
An immortal being would be able to cope with immortality better with a reduced long-term memory, as they would more easily forget the activities they did billions of times.
personally i’m against selecting any one group of people as the blueprint for a new species, unless it’s via natural specieation
however
you could pick the best genes for everything, from all of humanity, to make the closest to perfect for lasting as long as possible, that a natural human genome could get, (and even then, your genome really just determines the proteins and some RNA stuff, and a lot of those make or are morphogens, or control the production or spread of morphogens, which determine cellular differentiation, division, and death, during development, and the others are either for chemical communication, or controlling/catalysing stuff within the cell)
an even better option though, make a new species almost from scratch, using all the genes that have been discovered to pick from.
really it depends on how they react to forgetting
if they’re like me, improved long term memory is better, because they’ll be afraid of forgetting too many things or losing skills, and like being able to remember things
if they don’t mind forgetting things or losing skills, then yeah, reduced long term memory would be better
I think we were talking about the possibility of humans being “immortal” and not some artificial species made specifically for that purpose…
That being said, this discussion is now like a hundred posts long. Should we perhaps consider moving it to some other (new) thread if we wish to, or let it lie in the thread of many threads?
probably, but it’d probably be better to ask a moderator to move the old posts to a new thread and then, if it’s decided that it gets moved, wait until it gets moved to continue any discussion on it
and if said thread gets created it should be in the science category so it has the rules of the science category, to prevent circular reasoning from being used
Except this isn’t a scientific discussion, as we aren’t discussing the possible mechanics of immortality, but a philosophical one.
I also don’t think this needs to be separated in another thread.
Welp, guess the 8K posts milestone will be claimed by the immortality discourse too then if it seems to have no end…
philosophical discussions should still go in the science category, or a separate philosophy category(probably not a good idea), to prevent people from claiming pointless, objectively false, or circular statements, like roman and greek philosophers apparently loved to
(for example, at least one of them tried to argue that motion did not exist.)
Didn’t Diogenes do something funny to disprove that, like just walking away?
1 Like
I’m not even going to unpack this. Even though we now know that they did do mistakes in their reasonings because of modern advancements in philosophy, their claims aren’t so easy to dismiss.
1 Like
As far as I can tell this talk got really out of hand with basically devolving on one side to talking about scifi and what might be true and the other people sticking to science. So I’ve split this out to be a separate thread. Feel free to continue the discussion, but I just hope it doesn’t devolve past civil discourse.
3 Likes
We should make catgirls immortal so they can serve us forever! “Ye-ye-yes Ma-ma-ma-master!”
2 Likes
Are you trying to kill this thread BJS?
1 Like
oh i forgot to respond to this.
so, oriented dipole electrets do it by being made of a bunch of polar molecules, all or most of which are oriented in a certain direction, and thus preferentially move any free electrons in the matrix in one direction via extremely small scale electrostatic attraction.
conductive real charge electrets(in this example, space charge electrets) are unidimensional conductors [1] in which the insulator has an ion gradient across it, frozen in it, where it can’t be neutralized or modified, unless the electret is heated up to its softening or melting point.
in real charge electrets, electrons are pulled by large scale electrostatic attraction.
conductive real charge electrets provide a path of extremely low resistance for the electrons to go through the electret, typically using metal traces through the insulator which the electrochemical gradient is frozen inside, but could be done with stuff like carbon nanotubes, or crystals of oddly polar sugars(for example, siloxylithanes, or carboxybutane(unless that’s already another chemical’s name)[2], which could make semiconductive or insulative oriented dipole electrets just by crystallizing), where the ion gradient is created while the sugars are dissolved in water, and the water is removed or frozen to solidify the solution, however that’s getting too far into molecules that have not been proven to exist.
the paths of extremely low electrical resistance allow the strength of the electret to be much higher, as the electrons don’t have to bounce around in an insulator like they typically have to inside dielectric electrets, meaning that the voltage produced by it is proportional to the electrochemical gradient, via coloumb’s law, and the ion gradient being trapped in a solid insulator makes it quasi-permanent
2 Likes
What does “quasi-permanent” even mean?
1 Like
that it is, for all intents and purposes, permanent, but that it can be pushed into a lower energy state
in the case of dielectric thermoelectrets, by heating them up to the point where their molecules can rotate
in the case of real charge electrets, by melting the insulator
2 Likes
So functionally they are permanent as long as you don’t artificially change their environment?
1 Like
that’s over-generalizing it by a Lot, but basically yeah.
a real charge electret that uses glass as the insulator would realistically only be able to lose its field by shattering, if kept in the normal use conditions, though
2 Likes
Why do you think no one tried creating this “energy generator” up to this point?
1 Like
because modern electrets are too weak to be useful to generate a current usable for electronics.
which i already mentioned.
someone else has undoubtably had the idea already, but without better electrets than currently exist, it’s kinda useless unless you have something that can run on a few milivolts
1 Like