To address the points raised in these comments:

1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange.

The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/">many neurons can we model on current hardware.</a> The answer to that is: not nearly enough... yet. At the current rate of technological growth, we can expect to model a full rat brain within ten years, with a human brain shortly to follow (remember, exponential growth moves fast!) Once we can fully simulate a brain, the only limit to its power is the speed of the processor it runs on.

This approach also addresses the "recognizing a dog" point. By accurately simulating a brain, they will use the same algorithm the brain does to recognize objects. It is also worth pointing out that <a href="http://www.onintelligence.org/index.php">advances</a> <a href="http://www.numenta.com/">are being made</a> in deriving the cortical algorithm directly and using it for the very type of pattern recognition you mention.

Finally, the point is subtly flawed. Cats recognize dogs "without having ever seen one before" because the knowledge of what a dog is is hardwired into their brains from birth. In effect, they <em>have</em> seen dogs before, or some part of their brains have.

2. The point applying survival of the fittest to robots is ridiculous. I barely know where to begin.

First, we will use the term AI instead of robot, as a robot is just an AI with a body. Second, the only thing that matters to an AI is how "smart" it is - how efficient its algorithms are and how fast those algorithms run. Having a big strong body doesn't even make sense in this context.

Additionally, the idea that AI's will design AI's smarter than them is also flawed. If an AI figures out an algorithm that allows for a more efficient thought process, what's to stop the AI from modifying itself to use that algorithm?

3. Pills: Pharmaceutical drugs have (often serious) side effects. Homeopathic medicines usually have very little side effects. I'm not saying that taking all those pills is healthy or beneficial, but the rampant side effects people seem to be suggesting probably won't manifest.

The heuristic that seems to crop up in all matters of health/eating is "in all things moderation."

4. Ray Kurzweil suggests that the final form of immortality will manifest as computer systems able to model/run our consciousnesses. That way we will be able to exist for as long as the machines do, as well as back up and transfer our consciousnesses.

I submit that, even if this is possible, it wouldn't make <strong>you</strong>. Rather, it would merely ensure that some copy of you persisted. Consider if you could make perfect clones of yourself, with all of your memories and developments. Those clones would act exactly like you, but they still wouldn't be you.

5. On a personal note, if we agree that it's possible that a method for achieving immortality will be discovered in our lifetimes, the logical course of action is to devote the entirety of ones efforts towards realizing this possibility. The reward surely justifies the risk.