When I say we I mean that from an egocentric point of view if you're 20 like me! ^_^ (Not quite sure about what everyone's age is, so post on behalf of YOUR age like me)
So I'll be in my prime pretty soon, then apparently ill blink and already be 30 years old. Ive already kind of noticed how fast it will be, since highschool ended all my lifes goals and obstacles wont happen for 5 to 6 years, in the mean time I'll just work, sleep, eat, do lots of women, rinse and repeat. Before I even know it my kids will have kids and ill be dead, OR WILL I?!?!?
I've watched a special on Through The Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about Science reversing aging and ultimately making mankind immortal, do you believe that we'll get there in our lifetime? I know for a fact TL has some smart peeps, so what do you guys think? Do you believe that you'll live forever??
I am almost but not completely convinced that I might live forever but I intend to do so, maybe cryonic freezing will work when I die... I'll have to be like a dragoon :D
I hope so, but probably not. As it is right now, death from any cause other than simple aging is the norm, so even if aging itself is prevented, which itself is highly unlikely to happen in this century, you're going to die some way or another eventually.
Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
Make everyone immortal, then make them sterile, then kill 1/3 of population. Problem solved?
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
You assume people would populate just as readily and frequently if we removed the "ticking of inevitable death." I have a feeling culture would change away from that (to an extent) given the ability to avoid aging. Other ways of dying would likely leave us with a dwindling population, believe it or not.
I doubt it. And even if such technology did come into being, I doubt it would be available to anyone except the hyper-rich. If anyone's read Altered Carbon, you know what kind of social stratification I'm talking about.
Also, I used to think that living forever was unquestionably a good thing. I no longer believe this.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
You assume people would populate just as readily and frequently if we removed the "ticking of inevitable death." I have a feeling culture would change away from that (to an extent) given the ability to avoid aging. Other ways of dying would likely leave us with a dwindling population, believe it or not.
We would be like the nobles from Noblesse x)
But another thing is, we don't know if it will cost (money/currency) to achieve this immortality, if it's achievable. So, therefore there would be a lot of jelousy, more murders, more crimes. Who says somebody is gonna give 7 billion people immortality. (I don´t know much about it, but like the universe is now, everything costs.)
You should check this article out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4003063.stm Heres a quote taken from the article by a geneticist from Cambridge University, "I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already."
On March 31 2013 13:59 Iranon wrote: I doubt it. And even if such technology did come into being, I doubt it would be available to anyone except the hyper-rich. If anyone's read Altered Carbon, you know what kind of social stratification I'm talking about.
Also, I used to think that living forever was unquestionably a good thing. I no longer believe this.
When I was younger I used to feel the same way. When I was around 16 or so I was so scared of dying, but then I thought about the alternative of living forever and I found that I definitely wouldn't be happy with that. This kind of stemmed from me being an Agnostic and not being able to comprehend non-existence. Note the irony of trying to comprehend non-existence. I have made peace over the possibility of not existing or living forever. So I have pretty much become content with dying and nothing happening or dying and going to some stupid heaven type thing. To me heaven just seems like a type of living forever which seems boring.
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who's they? This is not an illuminati thread.
Neither is this a lose your common sense thread either but thats beside the point. Maybe not letting the public know about it is a bit hard considering the fact that someone is living for 200 years, but giving it to the public is another thing.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
You assume people would populate just as readily and frequently if we removed the "ticking of inevitable death." I have a feeling culture would change away from that (to an extent) given the ability to avoid aging. Other ways of dying would likely leave us with a dwindling population, believe it or not.
We would be like the nobles from Noblesse x)
But another thing is, we don't know if it will cost (money/currency) to achieve this immortality, if it's achievable. So, therefore there would be a lot of jelousy, more murders, more crimes. Who says somebody is gonna give 7 billion people immortality. (I don´t know much about it, but like the universe is now, everything costs.)
We don't even give 7 billion people access to clean drinking water despite having the supply to do so... Also, the way populations are already segregated by socioeconomic factors, I doubt we would experience an increase in murders and crimes.
On March 31 2013 13:46 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: When I say we I mean that from an egocentric point of view if you're 20 like me! ^_^ (Not quite sure about what everyone's age is, so post on behalf of YOUR age like me)
So I'll be in my prime pretty soon, then apparently ill blink and already be 30 years old. Ive already kind of noticed how fast it will be, since highschool ended all my lifes goals and obstacles wont happen for 5 to 6 years, in the mean time I'll just work, sleep, eat, do lots of women, rinse and repeat. Before I even know it my kids will have kids and ill be dead, OR WILL I?!?!?
I've watched a special on Through The Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about Science reversing aging and ultimately making mankind immortal, do you believe that we'll get there in our lifetime? I know for a fact TL has some smart peeps, so what do you guys think? Do you believe that you'll live forever??
I am almost but not completely convinced that I might live forever but I intend to do so, maybe cryonic freezing will work when I die... I'll have to be like a dragoon :D
Well, I certainly hope they do it soon. Imagine those kinds of programs without Morgan Freeman, would you ever watch them?
I don't know if anybody knows the answer to that question. I would definitely be willing to bet every limb on my body that even partial solutions in the near future won't involve any pop-culture dystopian fable bullshit like robot bodies or other people's organs or unicorn blood, come the fuck on people.
Whoever develops it will not keep it from the public. That's just asking for terrible, terrible trouble.
if scientific advances don't end up wiping out everybody via engineered viruses etc, we'll have immortality by the end of the century if not sooner. However, we'll also be creating machines which are probably more intelligent than us, even after we've converted ourselves from our biological form into this "immortal" physicality.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
You'd have to be really, really pessimistic to think that we won't invent some pretty awesome space travel and possible colonization within the next 100 years. Ingenuity is driven in large part by need. Once or population gets way too pick, human desperation will finally kick in, and morons will realize that we should have invested in space travel back in 2000.
Same goes for immortality. Mankind has a never-ending and undefeatable fear of death, so it's almost guaranteed that we'll find a way to stop deaths via natural aging, as well as eliminating most diseases. Only question is when. Could be 10 years. Could be 10,000. No real way to tell, especially since science is progressing so incredibly quickly.
Well if we ever developed a "cure to aging" as it were then I'd imagine that it would be incredibly expensive (at least for a long while), and chances are you'd have some elite caste of society which basically lives forever while the rest of us work and die. Sounds kinda dystopic really...
On March 31 2013 14:38 Chvol wrote: if scientific advances don't end up wiping out everybody via engineered viruses etc, we'll have immortality by the end of the century if not sooner. However, we'll also be creating machines which are probably more intelligent than us, even after we've converted ourselves from our biological form into this "immortal" physicality.
That's only true if we do not advance in bio-medical engineering. The processing power of a machine only doubles every year. The biological mind has potential to over take a machine if we figure out how to engineer it. I'd say, genetically modified human cyborg will be much more intelligent than a pure machine.
On March 31 2013 14:42 IPA wrote: Even if given the opportunity, I would still want to die. Life is grand but immortality? Staleness taken to its furthest possible permutation.
Considering your chance of death is still pretty high without aging, you will die before it gets stale. Also permutation of such events, is a projection of a static world. We have developed from wheels to spaceships past century, I doubt it will get stale next 500 years or so, by then most likely you will die from something anyway.
We are certainly all going to die. Medicine will extend our lives but immortality is probably never going to happen. Why would we want to invent immortality anyway, we don't even have the resources to care for our current population.
On March 31 2013 14:42 IPA wrote: Even if given the opportunity, I would still want to die. Life is grand but immortality? Staleness taken to its furthest possible permutation.
Life gives you plenty of opportunities to die, whether you wish for them or not.
Even if you could theoretically live 'forever', a lot of things can happen in only 200 years.
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who's they? This is not an illuminati thread.
They being whoever gains control of the technology... Who the fuck ever said anything about illuminati...???
To answer OP I don't want to live forever in this body on this planet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible before we die.
Seriously dude if you've just invented a gold mine do you really think that in the world of twitter and Facebook that this would remain a secret? In today's world you can fart in Europe and the United States will know about it in minutes. Secrets are a thing of the past now, just ask the USA and wiki leaks.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
Make everyone immortal, then make them sterile, then kill 1/3 of population. Problem solved?
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who's they? This is not an illuminati thread.
They being whoever gains control of the technology... Who the fuck ever said anything about illuminati...???
To answer OP I don't want to live forever in this body on this planet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible before we die.
Seriously dude if you've just invented a gold mine do you really think that in the world of twitter and Facebook that this would remain a secret? In today's world you can fart in Europe and the United States will know about it in minutes. Secrets are a thing of the past now, just ask the USA and wiki leaks.
Yeah, someone with the brains to make humans immortal would never be smart enough to realize how utterly stupid it would be to make immorality available to anyone with enough money.
Anybody saying immortality sucks is a complete moron. The fact that you don't want to live forever because it would be "boring" is complete and utter bullshit. Face it, the vast, and by vast I mean 99.99 (repeating) percent of the population would take this as being a good thing, so I doubt we have even close to .0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of the ones who would rather die from stupidity here, or you're the only ones. You don't want to die, because you think the world is over populated, you want others to so you can live forever and then justify it. So you might as well say that we just need less people and this would be perfectly viable when it does, and it will, happen.
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who's they? This is not an illuminati thread.
They being whoever gains control of the technology... Who the fuck ever said anything about illuminati...???
To answer OP I don't want to live forever in this body on this planet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible before we die.
Seriously dude if you've just invented a gold mine do you really think that in the world of twitter and Facebook that this would remain a secret? In today's world you can fart in Europe and the United States will know about it in minutes. Secrets are a thing of the past now, just ask the USA and wiki leaks.
??? I never said it would remain a secret, I was just annoyed that you brought illuminati into this when he said nothing of the sort. He was referring to whoever gains control of the technology...
We will almost definitely not unlock immortality in our lifetimes, and even if we do, for fear of population increase it will probably only go to famous people until we can colonize other worlds/the ocean/the moon/have WWIII/learn how to use the Earth properly, and with the exception of WWIII none of those will happen in our lifetimes.
On March 31 2013 15:04 FSUrequiem wrote: Anybody saying immortality sucks is a complete moron. The fact that you don't want to live forever because it would be "boring" is complete and utter bullshit. Face it, the vast, and by vast I mean 99.99 (repeating) percent of the population would take this as being a good thing, so I doubt we have even close to .0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of the ones who would rather die from stupidity here, or you're the only ones. You don't want to die, because you think the world is over populated, you want others to so you can live forever and then justify it. So you might as well say that we just need less people and this would be perfectly viable when it does, and it will, happen.
Quoting made up percentages and yelling profanities surely does get your point across. What about religion, that's a reason to die isn't it? To go to heaven or such depending on the religion.
I doubt it will ever be okay to murder billions of people so the rich can live longer. I think that the only possible way to reach immortality is through transplants or robotics. Transplants means you need bodies of people and that opens an ENTIRE can of worms on the ethics of killing one person to continue another's life due to lack of consenting donors (think about the waiting lists for heart transplants). Robotics I'm not so sure about because I don't know much about them. But keeping the brain healthy is my main concern, from what I understand the older you get the easier it is for the brain to get sick.
All my opinion of course, I won't pretend to be intelligent.
Quoting made up percentages and yelling profanities surely does get your point across. What about religion, that's a reason to die isn't it? To go to heaven or such depending on the religion.
I doubt it will ever be okay to murder billions of people so the rich can live longer. I think that the only possible way to reach immortality is through transplants or robotics. Transplants means you need bodies of people and that opens an ENTIRE can of worms on the ethics of killing one person to continue another's life due to lack of consenting donors (think about the waiting lists for heart transplants). Robotics I'm not so sure about because I don't know much about them. But keeping the brain healthy is my main concern, from what I understand the older you get the easier it is for the brain to get sick.
All my opinion of course, I won't pretend to be intelligent.
even though the beginning was probably right, we can already transplant, and there are ways to grow organs now to. So I personally do not believe everlasting life is far off. I guess all I was trying to say is that just about everyone wants to live longer, so you might as well admit it, because it is human instinct to preserve one self.
Quoting made up percentages and yelling profanities surely does get your point across. What about religion, that's a reason to die isn't it? To go to heaven or such depending on the religion.
I doubt it will ever be okay to murder billions of people so the rich can live longer. I think that the only possible way to reach immortality is through transplants or robotics. Transplants means you need bodies of people and that opens an ENTIRE can of worms on the ethics of killing one person to continue another's life due to lack of consenting donors (think about the waiting lists for heart transplants). Robotics I'm not so sure about because I don't know much about them. But keeping the brain healthy is my main concern, from what I understand the older you get the easier it is for the brain to get sick.
All my opinion of course, I won't pretend to be intelligent.
even though the beginning was probably right, we can already transplant, and there are ways to grow organs now to. So I personally do not believe everlasting life is far off. I guess all I was trying to say is that just about everyone wants to live longer, so you might as well admit it, because it is human instinct to preserve one self.
Well your brain is going to degrade sooner or later and you can't transplant a brain.
I don't want to live forever, but I wish I could at least live long enough to see first contact with extraterrestrial sentience happens. If there isn't any, then I'll just have to keep living until it does.
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who's they? This is not an illuminati thread.
They being whoever gains control of the technology... Who the fuck ever said anything about illuminati...???
To answer OP I don't want to live forever in this body on this planet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible before we die.
Seriously dude if you've just invented a gold mine do you really think that in the world of twitter and Facebook that this would remain a secret? In today's world you can fart in Europe and the United States will know about it in minutes. Secrets are a thing of the past now, just ask the USA and wiki leaks.
Information filtering is problematic. The problem is there is way too much info about everything almost everywhere. It is really hard figure out which one is true or not and back it up with proper data. In today's world when someone leaks "they have found immortality" when you can't back it up with proper data and actual demonstration it will just stay as a myth.
And yes, i do believe people that are in control of technology can hide this if they want to. There are leaks that USA goverment has tons of tech weapons that are being used everywhere which improves with military funding. But we never know about the details and there are no proof of them. Do you ever wonder why?
Well your brain is going to degrade sooner or later and you can't transplant a brain
While this is true, there might eventually be a way to prolong the tissue or even reverse tissue decay/ cell death in the brain. Then we just have to work about? Bones?
Well your brain is going to degrade sooner or later and you can't transplant a brain
While this is true, there might eventually be a way to prolong the tissue or even reverse tissue decay/ cell death in the brain. Then we just have to work about? Bones?
As someone who very recently started studying a bit of robotic and is looking forward to ( hopefully ) work in the field of bionics ( hence i read a few things about it ) id say no... it won't be possible.
Let's consider you live to be 80 ( so it's year 2073 ) and you are relatively healthy... you might have a chance to see the people that are "starting" to become "immortal" but unless you are a billionaire you won't be able to have a go at it. I believe the most positive point of view I ever read about having a completely robotic body estimated it would take at least until 2060 and that brain transfer will likely only be possible 10-20 years later.
But you have to also take in consideration that the estimations we have now could be the equivalent of Space odyssey in the 50s, so although people approximate this things now based on the fact that the brain connected prosthesis industry is growing very fast and it's looking very promising in 20 years people might just loss interest and research founding from states could drop up until the point where it would take hundreds of years more to achieve what you want.
And last when you see this "industry" hit its prime you will likely have each and every church goer out on the streets protesting about it, so you could go as far as to say that it might get banned/frowned upon by the state in countries like America, Russia, Polland, Mecix, Argentina, Brazil and even England,France or Spain.
So if we are to be pessimistic you will have only a handful of European countries, China and Japan with private developers that research the things you need for "cyborgs" and do so mostly for immediate commercial purposes and a handful of universities that get state founds to study the field. So even if you are Warren Buffet , one of the Waltons or a king in one of the Arab emirates you will still have to hang in til about 2080-2100 to become (relatively) "immortal".
I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
Every time I think of not-existing, I get this black feeling in my heart for a couple days that doesn't go away. I reckon at best I have 70 years of life assuming perfect macro, micro and scouting of potential timing attacks, hope they come up with something, if not i'll keep watching the clock tick counting away my life...
On March 31 2013 16:00 FSUrequiem wrote: I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
On March 31 2013 16:00 FSUrequiem wrote: I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
On March 31 2013 16:00 FSUrequiem wrote: I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
Or you can pick up the latest book out by Dan Brown. That'll do the trick as well.
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who's they? This is not an illuminati thread.
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I have to agree with the 'public wont' have access to it' sentiment. Just out of common sense, first of all immortality for everybody and anybody would be very problematic. Does every jackass on the block deserve the gift of the Gods? Immortality is not any kind of right guaranteed by any government so people won't be able to demand it. And ye, whoever unlocks this secret will have the most coveted thing on earth. I think that a hush hush circle of people will certainly form around any such discovery. It will attract wealth, power, and secrety if I understand anything about human nature.
On March 31 2013 16:00 FSUrequiem wrote: I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
Bingo! The belief in a loving creator has never led to anything bad, though the superimposing of aspects of the ego on the creator's character along with other manipulations of religion certainly have.
The thing that worries me most is how our minds will be reacting if we get over even a 100 years of life. the human brain i doubt is made for a 1000+ years of life no matter how immortal we are, there simply also is a mental aspect to it.
Seriously, with all the bullshit happening today. Don't you think death is the only way out.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live to deal with all this bullshit society has put up forever (I won't be specific about what because I know everyone would get mad). Not saying I want to die now but come on, if you live forever you'd see various shit that would make you want to kill yourself. And if you look at history, it's just shit on a merry-go-round
On March 31 2013 16:30 Lysanias wrote: The thing that worries me most is how our minds will be reacting if we get over even a 100 years of life. the human brain i doubt is made for a 1000+ years of life no matter how immortal we are, there simply also is a mental aspect to it.
I believe it is between 200-300 years of capacity last time I checked. I just cannot imagine a world where we discovered how to be immortal but not figured out how to store more data in our brain.
On March 31 2013 16:32 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote: Seriously, with all the bullshit happening today. Don't you think death is the only way out.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live to deal with all this bullshit society has put up forever (I won't be specific about what because I know everyone would get mad). Not saying I want to die now but come on, if you live forever you'd see various shit that would make you want to kill yourself. And if you look at history, it's just shit on a merry-go-round
I agree, our society is pretty fked up. However, I believe society will get better. I mean imagine the life in the 50's, then 1900 then before that... Just keep looking back. We have advanced (though do not know how much), our sense of morality allowed us to put forward human rights, environmental protection policies and such. And these advances are only getting better. Maybe we do live in a fked up society, however, your parents were living in a worse society, and their parents before that. Perhaps, the society will suddenly get worse but not according to the current projection.
Having the option to live forever is good, doesn't mean you actyally have to take the option.
I for one want to see a day where we can sip wine on battlecruisers, get a spunge bath on a medivac and pontificate on the meaning of the universe with a "high" templar. My grand grand grand grand (you get the idea) children will marvel at their grandx4father's military prowess as I command 4 simultanously nuking of zerg hatcheries.
On March 31 2013 16:40 sths wrote: Having the option to live forever is good, doesn't mean you actyally have to take the option.
I for one want to see a day where we can sip wine on battlecruisers, get a spunge bath on a medivac and pontificate on the meaning of the universe with a "high" templar. My grand grand grand grand (you get the idea) children will marvel at their grandx4father's military prowess as I command 4 simultanously nuking of zerg hatcheries.
On March 31 2013 16:32 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote: Seriously, with all the bullshit happening today. Don't you think death is the only way out.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live to deal with all this bullshit society has put up forever (I won't be specific about what because I know everyone would get mad). Not saying I want to die now but come on, if you live forever you'd see various shit that would make you want to kill yourself. And if you look at history, it's just shit on a merry-go-round
I agree, our society is pretty fked up. However, I believe society will get better. I mean imagine the life in the 50's, then 1900 then before that... Just keep looking back. We have advanced (though do not know how much), our sense of morality allowed us to put forward human rights, environmental protection policies and such. And these advances are only getting better. Maybe we do live in a fked up society, however, your parents were living in a worse society, and their parents before that. Perhaps, the society will suddenly get worse but not according to the current projection.
On March 31 2013 15:54 Aterons_toss wrote: As someone who very recently started studying a bit of robotic and is looking forward to ( hopefully ) work in the field of bionics ( hence i read a few things about it ) id say no... it won't be possible.
Let's consider you live to be 80 ( so it's year 2073 ) and you are relatively healthy... you might have a chance to see the people that are "starting" to become "immortal" but unless you are a billionaire you won't be able to have a go at it. I believe the most positive point of view I ever read about having a completely robotic body estimated it would take at least until 2060 and that brain transfer will likely only be possible 10-20 years later.
But you have to also take in consideration that the estimations we have now could be the equivalent of Space odyssey in the 50s, so although people approximate this things now based on the fact that the brain connected prosthesis industry is growing very fast and it's looking very promising in 20 years people might just loss interest and research founding from states could drop up until the point where it would take hundreds of years more to achieve what you want.
And last when you see this "industry" hit its prime you will likely have each and every church goer out on the streets protesting about it, so you could go as far as to say that it might get banned/frowned upon by the state in countries like America, Russia, Polland, Mecix, Argentina, Brazil and even England,France or Spain.
So if we are to be pessimistic you will have only a handful of European countries, China and Japan with private developers that research the things you need for "cyborgs" and do so mostly for immediate commercial purposes and a handful of universities that get state founds to study the field. So even if you are Warren Buffet , one of the Waltons or a king in one of the Arab emirates you will still have to hang in til about 2080-2100 to become (relatively) "immortal".
Your failing to consider the advancements in general medicine. Chances are, if your below 30 (especially if your a young child) you will live at least to be 100 years old. And this is simply due to better treatments and so on.
Also, unless some drastic happens, I seriously doubt religion will have much say in matters like these in 80 years. Especially in European countries like UK and France. (They are pretty much secular in most issues already.)
And those who say they wouldn't want to live forever, you're missing the point. While immortality does by definition say that you can't die, what we are really talking about here is freeing us from the shackles of our biological clock. (Be it through reversing aging, transplants or us becoming one with machines.)
I fully agree - living for ever does sound dull. But what we are offered here is immortality - until we choose to end our lives. And for me, that sounds just fine. And I can't see why anyone would not want that. But then again, most TLers are young and don't really understand what it is to be like 80. (Myself included.)
On March 31 2013 15:54 Aterons_toss wrote: As someone who very recently started studying a bit of robotic and is looking forward to ( hopefully ) work in the field of bionics ( hence i read a few things about it ) id say no... it won't be possible.
Let's consider you live to be 80 ( so it's year 2073 ) and you are relatively healthy... you might have a chance to see the people that are "starting" to become "immortal" but unless you are a billionaire you won't be able to have a go at it. I believe the most positive point of view I ever read about having a completely robotic body estimated it would take at least until 2060 and that brain transfer will likely only be possible 10-20 years later.
But you have to also take in consideration that the estimations we have now could be the equivalent of Space odyssey in the 50s, so although people approximate this things now based on the fact that the brain connected prosthesis industry is growing very fast and it's looking very promising in 20 years people might just loss interest and research founding from states could drop up until the point where it would take hundreds of years more to achieve what you want.
And last when you see this "industry" hit its prime you will likely have each and every church goer out on the streets protesting about it, so you could go as far as to say that it might get banned/frowned upon by the state in countries like America, Russia, Polland, Mecix, Argentina, Brazil and even England,France or Spain.
So if we are to be pessimistic you will have only a handful of European countries, China and Japan with private developers that research the things you need for "cyborgs" and do so mostly for immediate commercial purposes and a handful of universities that get state founds to study the field. So even if you are Warren Buffet , one of the Waltons or a king in one of the Arab emirates you will still have to hang in til about 2080-2100 to become (relatively) "immortal".
Your failing to consider the advancements in general medicine. Chances are, if your below 30 (especially if your a young child) you will live at least to be 100 years old. And this is simply due to better treatments and so on.
Also, unless some drastic happens, I seriously doubt religion will have much say in matters like these in 80 years. Especially in European countries like UK and France. (They are pretty much secular in most issues already.)
And those who say they wouldn't want to live forever, you're missing the point. While immortality does by definition say that you can't die, what we are really talking about here is freeing us from the shackles of our biological clock. (Be it through reversing aging, transplants or us becoming one with machines.)
I fully agree - living for ever does sound dull. But what we are offered here is immortality - until we choose to end our lives. And for me, that sounds just fine. And I can't see why anyone would not want that. But then again, most TLers are young and don't really understand what it is to be like 80. (Myself included.)
Not even religious but religion wont be as small as you think in this lifetime.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
Considering we can't reliably cure most cancers yet, and a big chunk of what we do generally is unsustainable, I don't think we'll be able to achieve immortality any time in our lifetime, if ever. Science is pretty sick awesome, but there is limits.
Will sience be ready? Maybe, depends on what you consider as immortal. I would say yes.
But way more important: Will society be ready? Never. Immortality will need some heavy changes in the organism. And if i think about how hard it is to get i.e. transgenic food to the marked. It takes YEARS of approval and even then noone realy wants to use it. And that is only a minor change in the plants...
I'd like to just not get old. Even if I die at like 75, I just want to look like I'm 25 for 50 years (I'm 28 now and I'm already noticing the long descent).
The ripple effects of even allowing people to live an extra 20 years on average would be incalculable. Think about how that would change the economy, people would be able to work longer, or play longer, or both. It would delay inheritance. It would allow people who are geniuses in their field to continue their work. Think about how it sometimes takes a lifetime to reach the point where one is able to make a breakthrough in their field, but then they die. What if they had an extra 20 years? Their momentum would continue.
Whether we'll see it. I doubt it. One of my biochemistry professors last year is studying aging. Basically they're stil trying to figure out what even causes aging. Shortening DNA telomeres? Oxidation? Other processes? Combination? We still don't even have a cure for male pattern baldness. I think we're more likely to see techniques/compounds that increase youthfulness, and might allow for a few more decades within our lifetime, but I'm doubtful of an all out cure. What's most likely going to be the method of granting immortality is genetic engineering. So those of us who are born already, might be at a disadvantage.
As for religion, there's really no way to say objectively if it's done more bad or more good. My opinion is that religion is so deeply rooted in our culture, that even if you're athiest 100%, there's still been so much influence on you that "X is bad, Y is good" that has it's roots in religion, it's hard to say. I think we'd be like African tribes if we never had religion in our culture/history where it's all about short term selfishness. Watch "Blood Diamond". Interestingly, I feel like the Starcraft universe is a pretty close depiction of what the future could be like once religious vestiges has continued to fade. The campaigns are basically "Blood Diamond" in space. I mean with so much treachery, traitors, manipulation, using violence just as often as diplomacy. Where might is almost always right, with the one exception of the love the characters have for one another which makes for a better story, but I think would be pretty much gone if the universe were really in such a state in the future.
I find quite amusing that later you are born, the better if humanity keeps dodging anihilation (asteroid, random aliens with faster than light travel capabilities, Marvel villain, etc). We have the chance to do things ppl didn't even consider possible 50-500 years ago (internet, computers, robots, planes, going to the moon, etc). Our grand grand kids (dunno how many more years) might have the chance to live 200-300 years, travel to other planets, etc.
Thing of stargate sg-1, many of that stuff might be achievable.
sorry, doubt it lol. For one, there will always be death from other causes so even if you could reverse aging, there is still a chance you'll die from another cause. Second, I'm not sure it's even possible. Aging is due to oxygen radicals that chip away at your body as time passes. I just can't help but feel like there is more to it than that and that there isn't a ton we can do(didn't research much into causes of aging so my guess). Keep in mind that cells have a limit to their replication(read it somewhere) so even if you remove aging, eventually, your body won't keep recovering from any injuries. Third, as someone mentioned, doubt it'll be available to the common folk, likely those who have a ton of money to throw around. Going to space costs $20M so imagine cost of immortality? Finally, umm I forgot XD
On March 31 2013 16:00 FSUrequiem wrote: I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
I totally believe in maybe 50 years we´ll see (when third world war won´t happen) that we will be able to alter many things of the human body. Not immortality like in Perry Rhodan but a form of longlivity.
The universe is big, really really big. If I was immortal, there would be a lot of things that would keep me occupied. How long would it take to walk the Earth? By the time you finished, it would have changed. Walk it again? Come back in 3 million years and walk it. Study the new fauna and flora that have evolved. Track the life of a planet or planets. I think if my body was immortal, my mind would become something I never dreamed of. Give me mortality any day.
On March 31 2013 18:42 Celadan wrote: Immortality is impossible as not even our universe is immortal or eternally sustainable, so no immortality wont ever happen.
Let's say "artificial life extension". True immortality is obviously impossible.
I'm happy to say no, we won't be alive. I'm 26 right now and I don't think living forever would be cool at all.
1. It's bad for human evolution, because if people are staying alive, room will soon run out and we'll be forced to stop having children. 2. It's bad for innovation, for the same reason as reason 1. No new people means fewer and eventually no new ideas. Youth tends to think against the mainstream and a child's imagination is limitless. 3. You wil have to pay taxes all your life and probably work all your life, yes that's eternity. You can kiss that retirement goodbye. 4. Mental damage from past trauma's will continue to accumulate, even if your physical body doesn't age. There is evidence that seeing a loved one pass away, seeing a terrible accident or the like will imprint a permanent malformation in your ability to function normally all the time. Now I know that if people don't die, you won't be sad about it, but there will surely be other traumatic experiences to accumulate. 5. As a result of #4, we will all eventually go insane. I'm pretty sure no one wants to live forever (watch Highlander). Some people may take 300 years to realize this, and then end their life (if they still can).
That being said: I wouldn't mind becoming ~200 years old in a healthy state (still able to live by myself is important) to see how the world changes, watch my great grand children grow up and enjoy the good parts of life. I think 200 years is my personal limit though. I have been through a lot already and im only 26, I don't think I'd be able to handle it if for example my wife died now. For that I'm glad theres always an escape route out of life.
I don't think being completely immortal is possible: even if you stop ther aging, you will die in a very long time (billins of years) because of entropy. Even universe will "die", unless some crazy scientist discover how to create free energy or something like that.
The truth is, aging is not so simple, and taking a magic pill will not stop your body from deteriorating, working less efficiently as time goes on. The longer you live, the more damage your cells take, and the bigger the chance of a life threatening issue (cancer).
From a realistic point of view there is absolutely 100% nothing in the field of medicine that can turn back the wear and tear your cells accrue over time. The only thing one can do is live a healthy lifestyle to slow this passage of time. The more our standard of living increases, and the more optimal our lives become (in terms of nutrition and living space, etc.) the higher our life expectancy becomes. A telling fact though, is that people even hundreds of years ago, could become as old as people today. This shows that the maximum life span has not even gone up, despite our technological advances, only our average life expectancy, due to better living conditions.
Though you never know what people could discover in the future, it seems almost contradictory that we could be immortal.
On March 31 2013 15:54 Aterons_toss wrote: As someone who very recently started studying a bit of robotic and is looking forward to ( hopefully ) work in the field of bionics ( hence i read a few things about it ) id say no... it won't be possible.
Let's consider you live to be 80 ( so it's year 2073 ) and you are relatively healthy... you might have a chance to see the people that are "starting" to become "immortal" but unless you are a billionaire you won't be able to have a go at it. I believe the most positive point of view I ever read about having a completely robotic body estimated it would take at least until 2060 and that brain transfer will likely only be possible 10-20 years later.
But you have to also take in consideration that the estimations we have now could be the equivalent of Space odyssey in the 50s, so although people approximate this things now based on the fact that the brain connected prosthesis industry is growing very fast and it's looking very promising in 20 years people might just loss interest and research founding from states could drop up until the point where it would take hundreds of years more to achieve what you want.
And last when you see this "industry" hit its prime you will likely have each and every church goer out on the streets protesting about it, so you could go as far as to say that it might get banned/frowned upon by the state in countries like America, Russia, Polland, Mecix, Argentina, Brazil and even England,France or Spain.
So if we are to be pessimistic you will have only a handful of European countries, China and Japan with private developers that research the things you need for "cyborgs" and do so mostly for immediate commercial purposes and a handful of universities that get state founds to study the field. So even if you are Warren Buffet , one of the Waltons or a king in one of the Arab emirates you will still have to hang in til about 2080-2100 to become (relatively) "immortal".
Your failing to consider the advancements in general medicine. Chances are, if your below 30 (especially if your a young child) you will live at least to be 100 years old. And this is simply due to better treatments and so on.
Also, unless some drastic happens, I seriously doubt religion will have much say in matters like these in 80 years. Especially in European countries like UK and France. (They are pretty much secular in most issues already.)
And those who say they wouldn't want to live forever, you're missing the point. While immortality does by definition say that you can't die, what we are really talking about here is freeing us from the shackles of our biological clock. (Be it through reversing aging, transplants or us becoming one with machines.)
I fully agree - living for ever does sound dull. But what we are offered here is immortality - until we choose to end our lives. And for me, that sounds just fine. And I can't see why anyone would not want that. But then again, most TLers are young and don't really understand what it is to be like 80. (Myself included.)
Even with advancements in medicine you will die at around 100-120 simply because you body cells aren't made to "reproduce" for much more than that, cells can't produce a 100% accurate replica of themselves when they divide and with time that means your body is getting overall worse as you age ( in some areas ) despite you living "healthily". The current advancements in medicine are will likely increase the average lifespawn of this generation by a lot but that is mainly due to stopping people from dying young from a variety of things that range from cancer to infections.
So while you will have a huge load of people reaching 80 and reaching 100 might be seen as normal you will still have a 1 in a million chance to live past 110-120 and your body (likely )won't be fit enough to undergo long and stressful surgeries.
And also, while religion might not have as much of a say as they have today they will still have a say and you can't forget the people that will oppose this simply due to fear of change. Just imagine the fact that most college/high school teachers would likely not agree with a student having and eye/glasses implant that allows him to use google during an exam. And those are the relatively smart people in our society.
The fact that someone could become smarter, faster, healthier... basically a few times better than you due to implants is something most people aren't comfortable with. You would also have to rewrite the basic definitions of freedom and existence. So if now you are still having arguments over man fucking each other in the ass and a few months old baby being aborted imagine having those arguments over the fact that a computer with the similar brain functions o you is as much a citizen of a country as you are even tho he is not a human.
So while "religion" as it is today might not come into play as much, I can assure you there will be an outlet for the people that are afraid of changing our whole civilization and perception of what a human is to complain and delay the process.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
Make everyone immortal, then make them sterile, then kill 1/3 of population. Problem solved?
Sounds fine. But having a child is the closest a human can get to create something completly new.
Livling longery (healthy) would be okay, living forever; sounds kinda boring.
If humans would get immortal, they will stop evolving at this early stage of their development, which is rather unfortunate. And if they discover it, costs will be so high that only the top 0,1 % of population would be able to acquire it.
It would be nice. Just think of all the other ways to die. The chances of you dying to something horrible like say, your house goes up in flames or you get hit by a truck just goes up a ton by every year. Or getting stabbed 10 times during a robbery. Better yet, if you're a woman.. just think of how long they can keep you in trafficking if you cant die and you don't age.. that would be fun ..
On March 31 2013 16:00 FSUrequiem wrote: I'm sorry in advance for anybody who is religious.
IMO (please keep this in mind) religion has caused so many problems in the world that as soon as everyone realizes it, they will stop being religious. Just think what would have happened if we all devoted our lives to science instead of gods. This could already be accomplished by now, and war would probably be non existant under the right circumstances.
Again, I'm sorry to all those who are religious, this is just my experience.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
As to the first guy apologizing to religious people, your apology is just because religion barely caused anything, it is the people causing problems, ordinary people like you and me cause the major problems.
Then to the second guy..
God..... you come up with "Researching history" and then post such nonsense? That's disgusting. It still angers me to see so many people claiming history for arguments while they have zero knowledge of actual scientific history, tell me how much you read on for example the dark ages, and what the different historiographic discussions were.... i highly doubt you know any. So stop saying u spend time researching history, since even if you did read up on all the historiographic discussions it could still not be considered actual research, besides that even if you only read the basic historical knowledge in the basic studybooks for example you wouldnt have said what you did.
I really don't even feel like explaining because of the last sentence.... come on you are just some guy who probably believes in illuminati and free mason conspiracy kind of stuff..... so your "Researched History" is nothing but made up stuff.
Being inmortal would be nice, but kinda pointless when you are killed because your super advanced GPS system has a hiccup and you are sent off flying with your car over a cliff.
I wouldn't mind becoming a robot, or my mind inplanted in a pc. I like myself, would be a waste to not be anymore.
Immortality, such a bullshit. I would already be happy if science found solutions to a few more illnesses like the one I am suffering from.
Or solutions to our energy and other resource problems, which are already affecting many and will affect much more. We have much bigger problems than immortality for a select few.
My knowledge on this kind of a subject is very lacking but i heard something about research at 'zebrafish' which can eat parts of themselves and then grow them back. It was linked to all the dna material in humans that is not used. Couldn't there be a solution? i mean there is so much in nature, if science could somehow copy it....
Please tell me if this thought makes absolutely zero fucking sense :D
Prolonging live expectancy will lead to huge problems if we not at the same time slow the aging process (these are 2 different things) Who is going to pay for all thoose people plugged in to machines to keep them alive? As a socieity we are much better off with people dying to be replaced by new borns then to keep the elders alive forever,untill off course we have made enough robots and improved productivity so that we dont need to work at all annymore. The biggest problem with prolonging live is not medical, its social economic.
There is no business in making everyone immortal. Sell it to a few for let's say 500million usd and you'll do great. Then you can help a select few getting immortal and call yourself humane. Actually you could do even better business by selling it in 100year packages. 500m/100years is probably the best way to milk that cow and not destroy earth with trillions of people.
Immortality poses some problems and even if it will be discovered the general public will not know about it. Just think about the problems created by the increasing demand in food, living space, healthcare and other.
I highly doubt it. But if it was the case, I hope it doesn't come true. Think of all the overpopulation and lack of resources we (and other animals and plants) would have. I damn well wish I'd die in that age.
Well the question of the op is, will science be able to stop the aging process in his lifetime.
In theory i say, yes. With the ability of better and better computer systems, calculating power for gen models and knowledge of genetics scientist will find out how aging and reparing mechanisms of the human genom work. Gen-Therapys in form of viruses or nanobots are absolutly possible. Those technologys are already used today.
No, because it'll never happen, because it's impossible to be immortal. Maybe in the future people will live till they're 150, maybe but we'll never be immortal.
I'm planning on it working out. Worst case scenario is that I stop caring when I die, but I imagine it's quite probable.
I have to say though, one of the objections brought up here a few times bugs me.
"But, we'll run out of space!"
That is such a selfish response, in my opinion. First, you're suggesting we should condemn literally billions of people to death, because it's logistically challenging? Second is the presumption that you should be able to fill the world up with new lives and those who don't have to die to make up for your decision, that's not fair either.
If you want to have kids then immortality might be problematic (in the short term) but you certainly shouldn't deny it to everyone else because you wanted to have a kid. Not everyone is filling the world up with more people.
I don't know if I've just been overthinking this for too long, but I just can't comprehend that position. I plan to see the universe end and if I don't, I tried.
On March 31 2013 21:09 cilinder007 wrote: Dying isn't fair, are you joking, its the single most fair thing that can happen to a living thing. Everybody, everything dies, no exceptions
Dying isn't fair when it's for someone else's decision, was my point. Everybody dies because it's currently unavoidable, not because it's fair.
Should fix monetary system first to work towards collective improvement and not personal enrichment first, props to those trying to invent a method for society to work in such a way and push it through. Else any new technology developed will be used for the latter anyway, and if that's the case your average, non-forbes butt won't be the one seeing it.
Aside from this little rant against capitalism: The mechanism of aging hasn't even been figured out completely, as hasn't sleep. It's speculated that with the shortening of telomeres over aging, the replicative functions of cells go lost (but there are enzymes able to extend them afaik). These are sequences of non-transcripted DNA with some essential role in the process, cba to look it up atm.
Even if you manage to extend telomeres and it works, you won't be able to beat the problem of somatic mutations that lead to cancer (of which the cells are apparently immortal). Additionally, your memory and consciousness rely on synaptic connections, which are "branches" of neurons. Even if you manage to replace your old neurons with newer ones, I doubt you would be able to "export" your synaptic connections, which makes the whole condition of keeping your old consciousness impossible. When you lose your former self it's the same as dying, I'd say.
tl dr: "Brain in machine" type of stuff (Mr. House) might become immortal (rather not), other stuff likely not.
I would be very surprised if we won't reach it in 300 years. It's very exciting if you look it from historical point of view. In this relatively short time there will be the most important thing ever happened to mankind. After thousands of years of relatively straight forward progress thing like this will make historians divide history before and after this event. And you or our grand/children have a chance to be at thing like this and possibly all other that will follow. Very cool.
But chances we will live to see it are very slim I think. At least it's better to not make any hopes.
On March 31 2013 21:16 Vivax wrote: Should fix monetary system first to work towards collective improvement and not personal enrichment first, props to those trying to invent a method for society to work in such a way and push it through. Else any new technology developed will be used for the latter anyway, and if that's the case your average, non-forbes butt won't be the one seeing it.
Aside from this little rant against capitalism: The mechanism of aging hasn't even been figured out completely, as hasn't sleep. It's speculated that with the shortening of telomeres over aging, the replicative functions of cells go lost (but there are enzymes able to extend them afaik). These are sequences of non-transcripted DNA with some essential role in the process, cba to look it up atm.
Even if you manage to extend telomeres and it works, you won't be able to beat the problem of somatic mutations that lead to cancer (of which the cells are apparently immortal). Additionally, your memory and consciousness rely on synaptic connections, which are "branches" of neurons. Even if you manage to replace your old neurons with newer ones, I doubt you would be able to "export" your synaptic connections, which makes the whole condition of keeping your old consciousness impossible. When you lose your former self it's the same as dying, I'd say.
tl dr: "Brain in machine" type of stuff (Mr. House) might become immortal (rather not), other stuff likely not.
for anyone interested in this topic, you should check out the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kursweil. He's this inventor that believes in 2029 humans will be able to live forever. He may be wrong, but the watch is worth your time. It extrapolates a ton on what will be available to humans at that time.
Immortality? Never ever possible. Long lifes? Yes. Medicin is progressing very fast, and if it isn't the case that mobile phone waves damaged the whole planets cells and made humans incapable of reproducing, I suppose that in a few (hundred?) years, people will be able to live very long (About 500 years?). And since plastic surgery is that popular, I also think they will look like barbie doll mummies.
Physical immortality as in: We are able to reproduce every part of the human body and able to replace degenerating parts? Sure. This is actually already in its infancy, excuse the pun. There are several major obstacles that needs to be resolved before we get there (finding the cells to reproduce, avoiding these cells decay or mutate and the simple problems with making the immune system to accept the new organ etc.), However the problem is that the replacement eventually will wipe your memory and your abilities with current technology since the brain is such a fickle thing.
Mental immortality: You may be able to relearn, but essentially you are not the same person at that point! Unless you are able to program fresh brain-cells and place them at exactly the right place in the brain, mental immortality is not yet relevant and will therefore be a lot further in the future. Since the understanding of the signal processes in the human body are so rudimentarily understood still, we are far away from mental immortality if we ever reach it!
On March 31 2013 21:16 Vivax wrote: Even if you manage to extend telomeres and it works, you won't be able to beat the problem of somatic mutations that lead to cancer (of which the cells are apparently immortal).
Ja, although, there are few species who can control telomere production with each duplication; no form of cancer have been observed from these species interestingly enough. The main cause of cancer is that this function is controlled poorly.
On March 31 2013 21:53 Prugelhugel wrote: Immortality? Never ever possible. Long lifes? Yes. Medicin is progressing very fast, and if it isn't the case that mobile phone waves damaged the whole planets cells and made humans incapable of reproducing
On March 31 2013 13:58 Aelfric wrote: No, even if they do i don't think they will let public know about it.
Who is they?
Illuminati offcause. They are everywhere..in the shadows plotting and controling world events. Them and the evil jews! huehuehuehue >____<''
(off-topic) Which makes me kinda laugh since there are surprisingly alot of peple beliveing in shadow goverments etc in the world O_o
That being said I doubt that immortality is something the humen kind ever will perfect/make.
I think we definitely can make a human being live twice the amount of time he's supposed to (from the todays western standard). Even though thats kinda subjective because medicin/medicle care etc. keeps improving, making humans live longer and more healthy.
I hold out for being turned into some sort of robot is my hope for living for a good innings. But i don't think immortality in a human body is even possible unless you some how can stop the "aging" gene but then still imo bones/muscles will still break and you will still lose out that way.
It bothers me that people even think this is slightly plausible. There is so much crap not being accounted for -- literally. The decay that occurs throughout every fiber of your being. Maybe because I hang around the elderly a lot -- there isn't much to be salvaged. It may be crass, but there just isn't any point. Best you could hope for is to somehow "transfer" consciousness into a mechanical and easily-maintained product -- but that's science-fiction to the highest degree.
Any talk of maintaining the human body to extensive lengths is disturbing and naive. The surgical pains wouldn't be worth the small benefits, and there would always be some part of the human body not accounted for to bring it all down anyways.
It takes an incredible amount of self denial to even want to live forever. How could any thinking person want that? It isn't thinking people who want that, it is feeling people, people who are terrified of our inevitable end.
Imagine life as a balance, on one side all the good things, joy, pleasure, and on the other side everything terrible in life, pain, anguish, suffering... If you do an honest assessment, it is undeniable that life is more suffering than pleasure. The moments of pleasure are short, shallow. Enjoying a meal, having an orgasm, whatever. Have you ever broken a bone, or had a terrible flu? The pain is immensly more powerful and terrible than any joy you can experience unless you take up heroin or something. Would you trade an orgasm for the flu? Hell no. Then you have disease, crime, natural disasters, loss, depression, whatever. The whole pursuit of life so far has been to try and escape the billion ways that the universe can harm or kill us.
Then consider the sheer amount of time that is dedicated to things you don't want to do. Working for hours day after day, for decades, just so you can have some time left at the end of the day or the weekend to try and make up for all the time you spent working, but it is never equal in balance. You will always do more undesirable work than you can justify with the rewards or time off.
The truth is undeniable: Life is more work and more suffering than good. It is only your fear which keeps you clinging so dearly to your own suffering. This suffering is all you could possibly know, like how a child might love a horrible, abusive parent.
The 21st century man who spends hours "educating" himself on the technological possibility of immortality is not so different from the harried early Modern peasant who wasted his week's pittance at the local alchemist's shop. The clouds may be digital, but they are still clouds at this point.
On April 01 2013 03:12 cozenage wrote: It takes an incredible amount of self denial to even want to live forever. How could any thinking person want that? It isn't thinking people who want that, it is feeling people, people who are terrified of our inevitable end.
Imagine life as a balance, on one side all the good things, joy, pleasure, and on the other side everything terrible in life, pain, anguish, suffering... If you do an honest assessment, it is undeniable that life is more suffering than pleasure. The moments of pleasure are short, shallow. Enjoying a meal, having an orgasm, whatever. Have you ever broken a bone, or had a terrible flu? The pain is immensly more powerful and terrible than any joy you can experience unless you take up heroin or something. Would you trade an orgasm for the flu? Hell no. Then you have disease, crime, natural disasters, loss, depression, whatever. The whole pursuit of life so far has been to try and escape the billion ways that the universe can harm or kill us.
Then consider the sheer amount of time that is dedicated to things you don't want to do. Working for hours day after day, for decades, just so you can have some time left at the end of the day or the weekend to try and make up for all the time you spent working, but it is never equal in balance. You will always do more undesirable work than you can justify with the rewards or time off.
The truth is undeniable: Life is more work and more suffering than good. It is only your fear which keeps you clinging so dearly to your own suffering. This suffering is all you could possibly know, like how a child might love a horrible, abusive parent.
So why havent u killed urself when life is so horrible, are you too afraid ? Stop making urself look like a fucking emo, the fact alone that you have internet, be nutured enough to survive, and have a dry spot to sleep makes ur life times better than a majority of mankind.
On April 01 2013 03:12 cozenage wrote: It takes an incredible amount of self denial to even want to live forever. How could any thinking person want that? It isn't thinking people who want that, it is feeling people, people who are terrified of our inevitable end.
Imagine life as a balance, on one side all the good things, joy, pleasure, and on the other side everything terrible in life, pain, anguish, suffering... If you do an honest assessment, it is undeniable that life is more suffering than pleasure. The moments of pleasure are short, shallow. Enjoying a meal, having an orgasm, whatever. Have you ever broken a bone, or had a terrible flu? The pain is immensly more powerful and terrible than any joy you can experience unless you take up heroin or something. Would you trade an orgasm for the flu? Hell no. Then you have disease, crime, natural disasters, loss, depression, whatever. The whole pursuit of life so far has been to try and escape the billion ways that the universe can harm or kill us.
Then consider the sheer amount of time that is dedicated to things you don't want to do. Working for hours day after day, for decades, just so you can have some time left at the end of the day or the weekend to try and make up for all the time you spent working, but it is never equal in balance. You will always do more undesirable work than you can justify with the rewards or time off.
The truth is undeniable: Life is more work and more suffering than good. It is only your fear which keeps you clinging so dearly to your own suffering. This suffering is all you could possibly know, like how a child might love a horrible, abusive parent.
you're talking about "undeniable truth", but for me it just looks like you have a terrible life, maybe you should re-think the way you live.
I have a job I like that I enjoy doing everyday (even on week-end for free), I spend a lot of time with people I like, i'm having fun everyday. I honestly can't remember the last time I really "suffered" about anything.
I see these all the time and I just think, god I hope not. I hope we never unlock immortality, because the things that could be abused with immortality vastly outweight the positives.
On April 01 2013 04:13 docvoc wrote: I see these all the time and I just think, god I hope not. I hope we never unlock immortality, because the things that could be abused with immortality vastly outweight the positives.
More so than killing every human alive?
Edit: I mean the abuses would have to be worse than killing every human alive, as the outcome without it is that everyone dies. I realised that someone might think I was suggesting that opposition meant you were literally killing people, which I'm not.
lol fuck that I don't wanna be immortal anyway. The world is overpopulated, there are too many miseries in daily. I just wanna live happily until may be 60-70 and die easily.
I read this really interesting article titled "5 Reasons Immortality Would be Worse than Death" and I thought they made some pretty funny points. If you lived forever, eventually you would get stuck somewhere for eternity..
We spend so much time being afraid of death that we forget the one, overwhelming benefit death offers every species: cutting short suffering. Obviously when we talk about immortality we're picturing always being young and healthy, not laying in a bed suffering from lung cancer forever and ever.
But it's a dangerous world out there, and any number of freak accidents could get you stuck somewhere, with no escape, for the rest of time.
Say an earthquake strikes the building that you're in, and it collapses while you're in the basement parking garage. You're pinned under a million tons of concrete and drywall. All you can do is wait for rescue. Only don't count on being rescued, because the people in charge of doing that tend to give up when shit gets too hard to dig through and they've pulled enough people out to say, "We tried."
The only hope you might have is that when they build on the newly vacant spot a decade later, they might discover you along with other dead bodies while moving the rubble. But if the city of Savannah is any indication, people find it easier to just build on top of all the corpses instead of moving them somewhere else.
OK, but really what are the odds you'll be caught in an earthquake (or any other disaster of that nature)? Well, if you live forever, the odds are pretty much 100 percent. Unless the world ends before it has a chance to happen. So now instead of getting trapped in a building, you have to worry about being the lone survivor of a nuclear war, or a giant meteor strike, or another Ice Age, or collision with another planet, or the sun dying. Even if you make it out unscathed, you're now alone. You'll be forced to live out your life slowly going crazy like a less awesome Will Smith without any zombies to shoot. You won't even have the dog.
And that's assuming the Earth stays intact. A comet could come smashing into the planet like the Kool-Aid Man and send you hurtling through infinite space. Best case scenario is you only float through the void for a few decades before you crash on Mars. At that point you're basically passing the time until intelligent life evolves there. You're going to get really good at making sand castles.
So enjoy your life while you're alive. But if you run across the Holy Grail, don't drink from it. It's going to end badly.
really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
On April 01 2013 08:19 HeavenS wrote: really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
People would kill eachother for a recipe that gives immortality. Quite a paradox and just another reason for why it will never happen.
On April 01 2013 08:19 HeavenS wrote: really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
You seem to be confusing the definitions of temporary and eternal. We are talking about immortality, not adding a few years to a life.
I feel like if they did, you would have to justify why you should live longer. Probably a lot of the "justifications" will be "i have a lot of cash". To be honest, I think at this point I would prefer death. Thank you depression
On April 01 2013 08:19 HeavenS wrote: really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
I'd like to see a link to that or a DOI so I can look it up. As far as I know, we don't really know all the causes of aging. We know about telomeres shortening but that doesn't explain everything about aging.
On April 01 2013 06:34 shizaep wrote: No. I'm utterly convinced that no one will ever unlock the secret to immortality.
Same here. Death will always find a way.
Btw time travel will never be "unlocked" either.
Just as flying, going into space and walking on the moon were impossible (which is what you're referring to). It's as irresponsible and ignorant to state the impossibles as it is to say said impossibles are possible on a lack of evidence, all one can say is that time and time again the only thing humanity has managed to do is shape the definition of possible while always seemingly surpassing their own expectations.
Will we one day unlock FTL travel and possibly time travel or immortality? No idea, and neither do you which means both the statement that it's either inevitable or impossible are equally undetermined and as such can be removed from a discussion.
On April 01 2013 08:19 HeavenS wrote: really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
You seem to be confusing the definitions of temporary and eternal. We are talking about immortality, not adding a few years to a life.
Also immortality is a misnomer in the context used in this thread, all it means is "living forever" but a bus crash will still kill you (that is how I'm taking this).
maybe, with nano technology and stem cell research, we may go to an age where your body simply redefines aging (i.e. ages backwards, some animals can do this process) and can instantly mend any wound through nano processing.
On April 01 2013 08:19 HeavenS wrote: really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
there are different kinds of immortality. the perfect godlike immortality will never be achieved. a gun will always kill a man, so will famine and dehydration. i also doubt eternal youth will be achieved. which leaves an immortality in which we become very old bit retain a sort of physical fitness. sadly what they have achieved for regular cells does not seem to work for braincells. so we would be fit in body but still age in mind. its not appealling imo, with an average lifespan of 80 in rich countries alzeimer is already becoming a big issue. imagine if we lived for much longer.
I'm decently sure it's at least within the realm of possibilities that we can "cure" aging within 500 years or so, and that's all I would ever hope for in immortality, the ability to live for as long as you want. Actual immortality in the sense that you literally can't die, would be terrible and would be quite impossible unless we could regenerate our whole body instantly if it got harmed, and this somehow didn't wipe our brains.
We don't really know how aging works, but we already do experiments in prolonging life successfully, and one could say that it's all you need. If we within 50 years become able to prolong life by 30 years... then within those 30 years, we come up with a way to prolong life 50 years... then within those 50 years, we come up with a way to prolong it 100 years.. with some luck, you could be in the segment which benefits from each improvement and thus are always a few steps ahead of death. There is a TED talk on this exact matter.
I don't think it's really comparable to time travel or FTL travel. By our current knowledge, we know both to be impossible, we need to find something completely new to make it possible, physics as we know them today do not permit it. Prolonging life and thus effectively fighting aging, doesn't break physics, we just don't know how to do it and how well we could make it work. However, we know of animals who aren't affected by senescence because they can regenerate themselves, so to compare that to FTL or timetravel, we would have to know about elements moving faster than light/through time. Which we don't because if we did, we wouldn't consider it impossible.
Yes dear Hug-A-Hydralisk, you will live forever if you can survive 20 more years. Life expectancy in 15 years will increase by 1 year per year because of all the new medical technologies including growing synthetic organs in labs that uses your own cells to make it so it is like your own organ and your body does not reject it, so that means when you are 60 you can just get a new heart like you are 20. Just this step will increase lifespan by a LOT and that is just the surface of whats to come.
New ways of treating diseases and slowing down aging are being worked on atm that will revolutionize the biology of humans. DNA analysis is available to the public allready, I paid 160$ to have my genome analyzed and it showed me all the odds that i will get certain diseases so I can prevent them better. In 10 years DNA sequencing will become even more efficient and we will be able to manipulate it directly in many amazing ways to increase our health and longevity.
In 20-30 years computers will be so powerful that they will be able to make blood-cell sized nanorobots programmed of fighting infections and disease as well as providing oxygens in a more efficient way. Such blood nanorobots might sound sci-fi to some people but it is not, even today scientists are making microscopics robots they can inject in the eyes of patients and control it with a joystick to fix a specific condition. Another one made tiny devices that cured diabetes in some animals when injected in the bloodstream.
Your iphone today is 1 million times more powerful than all the computers the nasa had COMBINED when they went on the moon, in 20 years that iphone will be the size of bloodcells. This also make rise to real artificial intelligence which will increase the speed of technology even more.
Most people think this will happen only in 100 or 300 years because they see the world in a linear way while it is augmenting exponentially. In 1970 a scientist by the name Jacques Monod published a book that won him a nobel prize that said: that size of the DNA prevent any modification to ever be made. In 1976 the first DNA manipulations started.
In 1990 the global consensus of geneticists agreed that we will NEVER be able to completely decode the human genome, the most optimistic said it will take 3 to 5 century The Human genome project was completed in: 2003
All these ideas are based on real solid evidences and statistics of the current world and speed which it is evolving
I am convinced some people in here will live a thousand years
On April 01 2013 08:19 HeavenS wrote: really? utterly convinced? pretty strong statement right there.....got anything to back it up?
there have been plenty of studies on this you know, and we are actually fairly close to achieving it. theyve already gotten a mouse to reverse its aging process. it really shouldnt be too hard, definitely achievable. and no way that it doesnt get released to the public. i would pay a shitton of money for it.
there are different kinds of immortality. the perfect godlike immortality will never be achieved. a gun will always kill a man, so will famine and dehydration. i also doubt eternal youth will be achieved. which leaves an immortality in which we become very old bit retain a sort of physical fitness. sadly what they have achieved for regular cells does not seem to work for braincells. so we would be fit in body but still age in mind. its not appealling imo, with an average lifespan of 80 in rich countries alzeimer is already becoming a big issue. imagine if we lived for much longer.
Hm. The long term goal of nano bots have this very purpose and more.
You all thinking about a magic pill. That won´t happen. But a mix of major technologys is approaching that will change humanity forever. You can argue about the ethic and how long it will take but not that those technologys won´t ever come.
I do believe that at some point we will be able to live 200 years on average, but immortality ? I wouldnt bet the house on it.
Maybe we can find a way to transfer minds into new bodies, or something like that, but I dont think we will manage to get everlasting bodies, or transfer ourselves to a machine
Funny some people say noone will ever "unlock" immortality, when there alleready is a jellyfish capable of it.
Also lobsters so far haven't shown decline with age and are believed to possess immortality, but we simply haven't found out or even looked into it for many enough years to know.
As for whetever we will actually manage it within this century I really can't say.
It wills like a lottery, and there is the smallest of chance we pull out the winning number, stumbling upon the answer to regenerate cells faster than they die out.
I do hope we manage it, but it is more hope than realistic expectations.
On April 01 2013 09:06 D10 wrote: Entropy will always win.
I doubt anyone would ever believe in, or hope for, a form of immortality where you can survive the heat death of the universe.
Entropy isn't just a cosmological term. It isn't just the end of the universe, it's the correct assumption that every molecule, cell, and atom that exists in your body, and elsewhere, will eventually "dissolve" or dissipate.
And if we're going to talk about extreme longevity, then call it longevity, not immortality.
But aside from that, even extreme longevity in humans is getting overly hyped by some people here. Someone mentioned that there was a study that showed a procedure could reverse the aging in mice. Let's just assume that's true and this procedure can apply to humans. There are soooooo many systems our bodies depend on, that all deteriorate in different ways, that whatever procedure worked on strengthening these mice would only be solving one aspect out of thousands that would be required to elongate the human lifespan in any meaningful and desirable way.
Maybe we develop this procedure and are able to indefinitely prevent decay of our organic tissue. Great! -- but what does that do for someone who's immune system is simply wearing out?
Nothing. They still die.
What makes this whole concept ridiculous is the idea that there is ONE thing that could possibly reverse the deterioration of EVERY system we require for healthy living. This "secret" will keep our immune systems intact, our bloodflow intact, our organs all performing their functions as they should, our vision, our hearing, our brain synapses, etc., etc., etc.
It isn't just implausible, it's impossible and really does fly in the face of basic physics. Entropy and decay are everywhere. Everything in us dies eventually. The only immortality possible would be to somehow salvage our consciousness from our body -- which is currently completely impossible, because we don't even know what a consciousness is. Even if you copied all the information in a person's brain, all you've done is made a copy.
Because a scientist can reverse the "age" of a mouse's organic tissue doesn't mean we've found immortality. Optimistically, it means we might get better medical procedures to cure a few of our many ailments. Realistically, it probably is an over-hyped advertisement for a new skin-cream.
"This will be the last generation to die, or the first to live forever"
I read this quote many years ago and it always stuck with me, though I'm not sure of the original source.
I think it's inevitable that 'medical' immortality will be achieved in the future. By that I mean being able to live forever free from aging and death from disease. I think this is the intent of the OP's post. Yes there will be accidental death, and you can't beat 'heat death', but for all intents and purposes, you'd be immortal.
Will it be in my lifetime? Maybe. This will be a huge century for biology. We're starting to tinker with DNA manipulation, experimenting with growing major organs and unravelling what it actually means for the body to age. As far as I'm aware, there's no hard law that says 'the body must die' ala 'the speed of light is the limit'.
Medical research into saving life, and curing disease has the inevitable side-effect of leading to an immortal body. "Oh you have liver cancer? Have a new one we grew for you." "Oh your liver is old? Well we actually can grow you a new one now, because we did the research for transplants". See how it works?
Aside from getting the body to live forever, there's always silicon. Once we can copy a brain state to silicon then, immortality is easy. This also solves the 'accidental death' problem because you can make periodic backups. This will probably not be achievable in my lifetime though. In 200 years? Maybe. All the sciences (chemistry, physics, biology) have progressed immensely in the last 200 years. One can only imagine what will come in the next 200.
Some people are getting sidetracked on whether we should become immortal which is certainly an important question, but misses the point of the OP I think which is whether we can. There's a wealth of good SF out there which deals with the implications of people who live forever and I encourage you to search it out. For anyone who wants to read about a universe where 'brain backups' are commonplace, read any of the 'Culture' novels by Iain M. Banks.
On April 01 2013 09:06 D10 wrote: Entropy will always win.
I doubt anyone would ever believe in, or hope for, a form of immortality where you can survive the heat death of the universe.
Entropy isn't just a cosmological term. It isn't just the end of the universe, it's the correct assumption that every molecule, cell, and atom that exists in your body, and elsewhere, will eventually "dissolve" or dissipate.
And if we're going to talk about extreme longevity, then call it longevity, not immortality.
The thread is perhaps unfortunately titled, but to me it was clear the OP was referring to extreme longevity when using the term immortal. No-one really believes becoming truly immortal is possible, not in the least within our lifetimes. The only sensible interpretation is 'extreme longevity'.
But aside from that, even extreme longevity in humans is getting overly hyped by some people here. Someone mentioned that there was a study that showed a procedure could reverse the aging in mice. Let's just assume that's true and this procedure can apply to humans. There are soooooo many systems our bodies depend on, that all deteriorate in different ways, that whatever procedure worked on strengthening these mice would only be solving one aspect out of thousands that would be required to elongate the human lifespan in any meaningful and desirable way.
Maybe we develop this procedure and are able to indefinitely prevent decay of our organic tissue. Great! -- but what does that do for someone who's immune system is simply wearing out?
Nothing. They still die.
What makes this whole concept ridiculous is the idea that there is ONE thing that could possibly reverse the deterioration of EVERY system we require for healthy living. This "secret" will keep our immune systems intact, our bloodflow intact, our organs all performing their functions as they should, our vision, our hearing, our brain synapses, etc., etc., etc.
So it's just too hard? I don't believe that there is ONE solution that will cure us of aging. But neither do I think the problem is intractable. The body is complex, but not infinitely so. There are a limited number of problems to solve and lots of time to solve them.
It isn't just implausible, it's impossible and really does fly in the face of basic physics. Entropy and decay are everywhere. Everything in us dies eventually. The only immortality possible would be to somehow salvage our consciousness from our body -- which is currently completely impossible, because we don't even know what a consciousness is. Even if you copied all the information in a person's brain, all you've done is made a copy.
It doesn't fly in the face of physics at all. The universe will increase entropy inevitably. Things within that universe, like the human body, do not obey the same rule (closed systems and all that).
Because a scientist can reverse the "age" of a mouse's organic tissue doesn't mean we've found immortality. Optimistically, it means we might get better medical procedures to cure a few of our many ailments. Realistically, it probably is an over-hyped advertisement for a new skin-cream.
You're right it doesn't. But it's a step forward and an indication that it may actually be possible to become immortal.
On April 01 2013 10:15 Keitzer wrote:... There's a lot of people who DON'T want to live forever... I do... And I hope it comes to light before I reach my 50s (30 years from now)
I don't think you have to worry about your age, as long as you won't be after the point of no return. After treatment you wouldn't definitely look like 60 :D.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but anyone interested in this topic should check out the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kursweil. Super interesting ideas about what enhancements we will have and why he thinks the technological singularity will happen in 2029. The guy eats 40 pills a day trying to hold on until then, lol.
I'm really surprised this is apparently a new thread, I could swear it's been discussed before here! I think it's unlikely, extended life maybe, but I wouldn't have thought you could really continually receive treatment to keep you from ever ageing past a certain point just from continually getting updated treatment/shots/whatever. You'd think there would be a limit. It wouldn't stop people from dying from 'unnatural' causes like being shot, hit by a car or mauled by zerglings though, but perhaps that is for the best in the long run.
I am pretty sure I will be the first to reach 300 years of age. Stay tuned.
The life energy is immortal, so I am doing my best to reverse aging, by keeping youthful and stressfree. However, even though the progress is slowed, my body do age. By the time I reach 300, I have had 200-250 years, where I want to die, but dare not end it, fearing my life energy will be transferred to something not my organic existence. So I wait, and wait for me to genetically reproduce my organic self, to reach immortality in body, as well as in spirit.
But trust me, you do not want to become immortal in your organic self. By the time you reach 150, you do not only want to kill yourself, but mankind. I am 42 now, and I already want to kill half of the people inhabiting the internet. Mostly males. The other half, I adore. I want to become immortal, so I can follow NesTea, and Team Liquid to the bitter end, when I turn off the machines. I do this, because the pains that I have lived with for hundreds of years, get the better of me, accepting the next phase in immortality.
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
...if immortality exists, it will probably occur in technological stages. For example, from near to far future: cyborg limbs and other major body parts; only organic parts are brain and spine; no organic parts -> mind transfer to microchip. One thing for sure is that we will become more and more machine than flesh and blood, unless the scientists can maintain a flesh and blood body at a certain health level indefinitely. Being more machine, such as being in a microchip or some kind to 'collective' as one 'dies or become immortal' may be a good thing as it would let the rest of the population be more sustainable on earth. We could interact with the immortals through various displays like holograms, monitors, any communications etc.
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
On April 01 2013 10:39 KING CHARLIE :D wrote: I don't know if it's been mentioned, but anyone interested in this topic should check out the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kursweil. Super interesting ideas about what enhancements we will have and why he thinks the technological singularity will happen in 2029. The guy eats 40 pills a day trying to hold on until then, lol.
Yes...someone did already mention it. :p
On March 31 2013 21:47 KING CHARLIE :D wrote: for anyone interested in this topic, you should check out the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kursweil. He's this inventor that believes in 2029 humans will be able to live forever. He may be wrong, but the watch is worth your time. It extrapolates a ton on what will be available to humans at that time.
At any rate, was an interesting watch until the whole "bring back the dead" bit, which was interesting and a bit weird.
On April 01 2013 09:23 NTTemplar wrote: Funny some people say noone will ever "unlock" immortality, when there alleready is a jellyfish capable of it.
Also lobsters so far haven't shown decline with age and are believed to possess immortality, but we simply haven't found out or even looked into it for many enough years to know.
As for whetever we will actually manage it within this century I really can't say.
It wills like a lottery, and there is the smallest of chance we pull out the winning number, stumbling upon the answer to regenerate cells faster than they die out.
I do hope we manage it, but it is more hope than realistic expectations.
well in a sense humans can do it too, we only have to find a way to live without oxigen...
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
People in here completely misunderstand what is being talked about. This is about biological immortality, meaning "not dying of old age". You would still die at some point, be it from cancer, or a car accident, or a gunshot to the head.
I for one would have no problem living 1000+ years since I see a lot of interesting things happening in that space of time. First contact would be pretty damn awesome.
Potential for tumor formation and malignancy is a hallmark of aging, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your version of immortality doesn't prevent cancer, you will not make it even remotely close to 1000 years.
On April 02 2013 02:52 heishe wrote: People in here completely misunderstand what is being talked about. This is about biological immortality, meaning "not dying of old age". You would still die at some point, be it from cancer, or a car accident, or a gunshot to the head.
I for one would have no problem living 1000+ years since I see a lot of interesting things happening in that space of time. First contact would be pretty damn awesome.
dying of old age is a multitude of deceases, including cancer. the freak thing about modern day age is that people seem to get cancer at a younger age (and it may actually be that we only notice this more often because of more people and better technology to spot it). otherwise people been getting cancer since the dawn of time.
there are chromosomes which shorten over time and when they reach a certain point something that works as a sort of deathswitch flips on and the cells die. some cells regenerate, but the problem is that other cells, the most important cells do not seem to regenerate (aka braincells).
Assuming it's even the realms of possibilities for us, I would say that we aren't even remotely close to being capable of anything other than fantasizing about it.
Also to people saying that this would just prevent death from old age. If that is your standpoint then this really wouldn't change anything at all since none really dies just from "getting old" as far as I'm concerned.
On April 02 2013 03:13 Cereb wrote: Assuming it's even the realms of possibilities for us, I would say that we aren't even remotely close to being capable of anything other than fantasizing about it.
Also to people saying that this would just prevent death from old age. If that is your standpoint then this really wouldn't change anything at all since none really dies just from "getting old" as far as I'm concerned.
It's never the direct cause but it's normally the underlying reason.
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
Biological immortality will probably be achieved sometime after the technological singularity. I suspect that will not come until most of us are dead, or too old to be treated.
Of course, even then nobody will actually live forever. If nothing else, the heat death or other demise of the universe puts a cap on how long anything can survive.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife.
I hope not, I don't want to live forever, the thought of that scares me really. I enjoy life but I imagine living forever, or atleast 200+ years would be terrible.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
lol
On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:
On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife.
I never said "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb.", I said that using science to force false metaphysical dilemmas like
"So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
lol
On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:
On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife.
I never said "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb.", I said that using science to force false metaphysical dilemmas like
"So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
is to miss the point of using science altogether.
How is it to miss the point of science? Fine, if your point is that it's close-minded to say something can't possibly be when we don't have proof that it doesn't exist, point taken. However, you have to realize the difference between going "Something probably happens after death because... Um.. yeah, I can't think of a rational explanation, but I just believe it, life would be pointless otherwise", and instead going "Everything I know from existence stems from the fact that I have a functioning brain, once it stops working, I can't appreciate existence anymore". One is a theory founded on blind faith, one is a theory founded on some form of reasoning. Neither is provable, nor disprovable, but one is rational while the other is not.
Unless I'm wrong and you or someone else can come up with a rational basis for belief in an afterlife, something which points us in the direction that we don't stop existing once our bodies stop existing.
Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum
It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true.
And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
lol
On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:
On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:
On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing.......
When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty.
How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife.
I never said "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb.", I said that using science to force false metaphysical dilemmas like
"So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
is to miss the point of using science altogether.
How is it to miss the point of science? Fine, if your point is that it's close-minded to say something can't possibly be when we don't have proof that it doesn't exist, point taken. However, you have to realize the difference between going "Something probably happens after death because... Um.. yeah, I can't think of a rational explanation, but I just believe it, life would be pointless otherwise", and instead going "Everything I know from existence stems from the fact that I have a functioning brain, once it stops working, I can't appreciate existence anymore". One is a theory founded on blind faith, one is a theory founded on some form of reasoning. Neither is provable, nor disprovable, but one is rational while the other is not.
Unless I'm wrong and you or someone else can come up with a rational basis for belief in an afterlife, something which points us in the direction that we don't stop existing once our bodies stop existing.
Well, my entire point is that something like the afterlife deals with those corners of our existence that are especially difficult to approach rationally. In fact, I'd wager that such a thing is impossible (at least within our lifetime).
In the end, I'm not arguing against science or rationality; I'm simply arguing that not all facets of human existence, death and life included, can be explained rationally.
On April 02 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote: Potential for tumor formation and malignancy is a hallmark of aging, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your version of immortality doesn't prevent cancer, you will not make it even remotely close to 1000 years.
we're making a ton of progress towards curing cancer. id wager we manage to cure cancer before we manage to achieve immortality
On April 02 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote: Potential for tumor formation and malignancy is a hallmark of aging, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your version of immortality doesn't prevent cancer, you will not make it even remotely close to 1000 years.
we're making a ton of progress towards curing cancer. id wager we manage to cure cancer before we manage to achieve immortality
You say that, but my best friends father was diagnosed with a form of hematological cancer of indeterminate origin less than a year ago, and it killed him in 3 months flat, no questions asked. You are right to say that we've made progress in fighting cancer; but in terms of curing it, we can really only claim success in a few select areas (those mostly being breast cancer, lymphomas, and leukemia amongst a few others). If you get pancreatic cancer, even with early detection, you are almost 100% dead within a few years. Certain sorts of malignant melanomas can kill a person in mere weeks. And like my friends father, if your cancer happens to be "of indeterminate origin", although incredibly rare, you will die very quickly. The problem is that for every type of cancer we figure out a successful treatment modality we discover a slightly different form of that cancer that resists all treatment, all the while there are those kinds that will simply kill you.
Hmm, I think the actual question will be, when will we kno we have created a technology that can give immortality.
How long would it take to say get subject A to live, before they are known as Immortal.
Or after that how long would it take before enough of a test was done, so that it wouold be safe to give to the population, these things aren't like tests that can be done at the moment bu only through a whole lifetime going and then SUBJECT A is deemed immortal. So everyone suggesting it could be done theoretically in our lifetime, is correct, but in practicality, no it won't happne for a very long time. Unless how science is tested changes radically.
And before people suggest that that wouldn't be needed because you would be able to see at a cellular level the regeneration, that can already happen now in terms of technology.
The issue would still be, will the cells keep regenerating, or will they just stop after a period, only through trials and re-trials would you know(Which would take lifetimes). SO the above would still have to happen.
And secondly, whatever the cellular constuct is, how do we know it will work for all? It could be the only 5percent of the population could have it, all this talk of the rich and the poor is pretty much redundant, as at a cellular level, that would be where it is decided, not at a monetary one.
On April 02 2013 05:27 Emporium wrote: Hmm, I think the actual question will be, when will we kno we have created a technology that can give immortality.
On April 02 2013 05:27 Emporium wrote: Hmm, I think the actual question will be, when will we kno we have created a technology that can give immortality.
How long would it take to say get subject A to live, before they are known as Immortal.
Or after that how long would it take before enough of a test was done, so that it wouold be safe to give to the population, these things aren't like tests that can be done at the moment bu only through a whole lifetime going and then SUBJECT A is deemed immortal. So everyone suggesting it could be done theoretically in our lifetime, is correct, but in practicality, no it won't happne for a very long time. Unless how science is tested changes radically.
And before people suggest that that wouldn't be needed because you would be able to see at a cellular level the regeneration, that can already happen now in terms of technology.
The issue would still be, will the cells keep regenerating, or will they just stop after a period, only through trials and re-trials would you know(Which would take lifetimes). SO the above would still have to happen.
And secondly, whatever the cellular constuct is, how do we know it will work for all? It could be the only 5percent of the population could have it, all this talk of the rich and the poor is pretty much redundant, as at a cellular level, that would be where it is decided, not at a monetary one.
Well, the breakthrough I would imagine would be one where the problems with aging are fixed in small increments over time, so it wouldn't be necessary to test for immortality, because you would never really get there, you would just increase the maximum life span of humans faster than that lifespan runs out. Either that, or some miraculous fix which allows regeneration similarly to Turritopsis nutricula, and that shows that it wouldn't really be a problem on the cellular level. We are all humans, just like all Turritopsis nutricula are Turritopsis nutricula, it works for all of them as a species, so hopefully if such a solution was found, it would also work for the whole species.
And this science is supposed to be different than religion? We see a slow progression in average lifespan, some progress on disease (though new ones evolve, and it remains expensive), and then we leap to immortality. I'd wager the blind faith here is that science will never be corrupted (politics, media), will always be questioned and confirmed, and the righteousness of millions dedicated enough to the pursuit of knowledge to purify the faith of others.
I don't think science will be our Savior from death. Diseases, parasites, and the rest combined with an unperfect human body will continue to limit average lifespan to below a hundred years. The closest we'll get is someone aged in a permanent comatose state with most bodily functions on machines having his/her lifespan extended a few years.
On April 02 2013 05:48 Danglars wrote: And this science is supposed to be different than religion? We see a slow progression in average lifespan, some progress on disease (though new ones evolve, and it remains expensive), and then we leap to immortality. I'd wager the blind faith here is that science will never be corrupted (politics, media), will always be questioned and confirmed, and the righteousness of millions dedicated enough to the pursuit of knowledge to purify the faith of others.
I don't think science will be our Savior from death. Diseases, parasites, and the rest combined with an unperfect human body will continue to limit average lifespan to below a hundred years. The closest we'll get is someone aged in a permanent comatose state with most bodily functions on machines having his/her lifespan extended a few years.
A valid belief. However, people 500 years ago would probably have the same belief, and would call you a liar if you told them we would have an average life expectancy of >80 years nowadays. Now, 30 years higher life expectancy might not be considered a massive jump over 500 years, but at the same time, technology is progressing faster and faster and has for quite some time. Some people believe there's a cap to this development, others do not. Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far.
On April 02 2013 05:55 Tobberoth wrote: Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far.
walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion...
grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it
edit: you can't use this "in the past, people would have been surprised at how things have changed, so now things are also going to keep changing."
what's going to REALLY surprise US is when things STOP changing. that would be the analogy here. "in the past, people used to think that they lived in a state of perpetual change. then it turned out that some things never change. surprise!"
On April 02 2013 05:55 Tobberoth wrote: Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far.
walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion...
grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it
Yes. I am suggesting some introspection for the posters here. Step back and consider what you accuse every religion on the planet of doing. Now, look at what you're typing now, in this thread. Maybe your superiority over the blind faith masses isn't quite as stark as it would seem.
On April 02 2013 05:55 Tobberoth wrote: Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far.
walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion...
grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it
Yes. I am suggesting some introspection for the posters here. Step back and consider what you accuse every religion on the planet of doing. Now, look at what you're typing now, in this thread. Maybe your superiority over the blind faith masses isn't quite as stark as it would seem.
On April 01 2013 10:39 KING CHARLIE :D wrote: I don't know if it's been mentioned, but anyone interested in this topic should check out the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kursweil. Super interesting ideas about what enhancements we will have and why he thinks the technological singularity will happen in 2029. The guy eats 40 pills a day trying to hold on until then, lol.
On March 31 2013 21:47 KING CHARLIE :D wrote: for anyone interested in this topic, you should check out the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kursweil. He's this inventor that believes in 2029 humans will be able to live forever. He may be wrong, but the watch is worth your time. It extrapolates a ton on what will be available to humans at that time.
At any rate, was an interesting watch until the whole "bring back the dead" bit, which was interesting and a bit weird.
Wow, i'm an idiot lol. I type out comments all the time and don't send them because I think i'm not contributing much, and then change my mind. Hopefully science comes up with a way to fix stupidity, or else i'm fucked.
On April 02 2013 05:55 Tobberoth wrote: Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far.
walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion...
grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it
edit: you can't use this "in the past, people would have been surprised at how things have changed, so now things are also going to keep changing."
what's going to REALLY surprise US is when things STOP changing. that would be the analogy here. "in the past, people used to think that they lived in a state of perpetual change. then it turned out that some things never change. surprise!"
Just stop with your nonsense. Science never "promised" immortality. The OP is just speculating if the current medical advancements will eventually lead to immortality. Besides, science has constantly evolved over the past 2000 years, continuously redefining our expectations of it, and expanding its own boundaries. If it weren't for science and its rapid progress, you wouldn't even be posting on this forum sitting in a corner of your house.
Can you say the same about any religion? Has there been any evolution or any new knowledge about Christianity, Islam or any other major faith in 2000 years? The only thing religion promotes is blind hatred for people of other faiths (and non-conformists) and close minded faith in an unknown, intangible entity.
Science is provable and tangible. It does not demand blind faith in vaguely defined constructs. Religion is the exact opposite.
[/Offtopic]
Now stop derailing this thread, and discuss the contents of the OP instead of using TL as your personal propaganda platform.
On March 31 2013 13:53 Vallz wrote: Certainly not for atleast 100-300 years, so no we won't be alive.
But why is immortality good when we can't even live on other planets? If everyone was immortal, the earth would be overpopulated very very fast and resources, food, rain forest and such would get ruined pretty quickly.
Just hope you won't be alive.
Make everyone immortal, then make them sterile, then kill 1/3 of population. Problem solved?
Just had to point out this brilliant gem, well played sir.
I'm kind of with smdzat on the whole science as a religion. It is distinct in certain ways for sure but science is venerated by some in exactly the same ways.
The question of immortality/enlongated life is pretty interesting though. However, kind of redundant to pursue that aim when:
1. Resources are so badly distributed to our existing global population as it is. 2. Creating a sub-section of society who won't die out as easily will exacerbate the issues of the first point.
If this technology ever advances, it's hardly the poor who will get to use it. For fuck's sake we live in a world where many of the poorest aren't afforded basic medical care, it's obscene to be advocating some kind of ageless world when we haven't fixed those glaring problems yet.
These are of course issues of political and economic systems at work, and interesting research can go ahead into other 'trivial' matters independent of that. I for one do find it lifts my mood to hear of the world's most brilliant scientific minds solving such intractable issues, but let's fix the world for the little guys first huh?
OP needs to determine the parameters for "immortality". Does this mean you are immune to age, or disease, like Elvish immortality, or are we talking about some sort of bullet-proof, regenerative vampire thing.
Anyway, immortality is unachievable in absolute terms because not even the universe is immortal. Whether you believe in heat-death or the big crunch, it will all end someday. Our galaxy will collide with Andromeda in some billion years, tossing us someplace uninhabitable. That's if our sun doesn't melt us before then. Put things in a cosmic scale and living 'forever' becomes a silly notion.
On April 02 2013 02:52 heishe wrote: People in here completely misunderstand what is being talked about. This is about biological immortality, meaning "not dying of old age". You would still die at some point, be it from cancer, or a car accident, or a gunshot to the head.
I for one would have no problem living 1000+ years since I see a lot of interesting things happening in that space of time. First contact would be pretty damn awesome.
dying of old age is a multitude of deceases, including cancer. the freak thing about modern day age is that people seem to get cancer at a younger age (and it may actually be that we only notice this more often because of more people and better technology to spot it). otherwise people been getting cancer since the dawn of time.
there are chromosomes which shorten over time and when they reach a certain point something that works as a sort of deathswitch flips on and the cells die. some cells regenerate, but the problem is that other cells, the most important cells do not seem to regenerate (aka braincells).
Well, I'd consider biological immortality achieved if we can stop our genes from failing to copy some parts every time they reproduce. This would also get rid of "old age cancer" and stuff like that.
my claim is not that science is a religion. science is science. my claim is that the social construction of "scientific progress" and people's attitudes towards this construct are religious in nature, and these ideas are appealing to people for precisely the same reasons that all messianisms are appealing.
On April 02 2013 07:24 Griffins wrote: OP needs to determine the parameters for "immortality". Does this mean you are immune to age, or disease, like Elvish immortality, or are we talking about some sort of bullet-proof, regenerative vampire thing.
Anyway, immortality is unachievable in absolute terms because not even the universe is immortal. Whether you believe in heat-death or the big crunch, it will all end someday. Our galaxy will collide with Andromeda in some billion years, tossing us someplace uninhabitable. That's if our sun doesn't melt us before then. Put things in a cosmic scale and living 'forever' becomes a silly notion.
In absolute terms, caiming it's unachievable is a bit odd, also. Sure, it seems obvious at the moment that the end of our universe is something unvoidable, but that doesn't mean that will still be the case in 10 billion years. It also relies on us not gaining technology to avoid general things that'll kill us and spreading out over the universe and all of that still relies on another universe not being reachable.
Though, to be fair I think the end of our universe likely marks the end of us too, just arguing the point.
To the thread in general, I'm not really sure how the idea that science is religion is relevant, but the statement itself is asinine.
On April 02 2013 07:31 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm not really sure how the idea that science is religion is relevant
we're discussing immortality...
edit: people ALWAYS want to believe that they're somehow, somehow, dear lord please somehow, not going to die. I don't see what's different about all of this. that's the point.
On April 02 2013 07:31 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm not really sure how the idea that science is religion is relevant
we're discussing immortality...
We're discussing the possibility of technology augmenting biology in accordance with the current trends in technology and spaces of research to question whether biological death might be averted. There might be some issues for religious people in that, but the topic itself is not religious, nor is discussing the potential boundaries of science and ethics behind it.
Even if you were to claim that all of that were though, getting to the point where science itself could be argued to be religious is a long way off.
Edit: In response to your edit, hoping to avoid death is not limitted to religion. Neither is discussing the fact that people really are making nano-technology etc which could augment health concerns.
science itself obviously isn't religious. the way people in our culture think about science, what science means, and what science is going to do for them, is religious.
(edit: god isn't religious either. god is just god. the way people think about god, what god means, and what god is going to do for them, is religious)
the reason that people want to talk about science making them biologically immortal is exactly the same basic human urge that makes people want to believe in the afterlife. the only difference is the decorations.
On April 02 2013 07:40 Iyerbeth wrote: hoping to avoid death is not limitted to religion.
"avoid death" no. "transcend death" yes.
edit: it will be possible to extend human life indefinitely. it won't work very well, the only people who will have it will be our tyrants, and it probably won't make them happy
edit: oh, this reminds me! you should all go read Shadrach in the Furnace, great book
Firstly it is extremely wrong that you state religion hasn't changed when it has changed a TON. Google The Reformation, Martin Luther, the amount of changes that the Popes have given to Catholics by allowing a LOT more stuff then they used too. Christianity has actually changed a lot, based on science for example, a Christian may think in 400AD the Sun revolves around the Earth, now they are free to integrate all the scientific discoveries into their worldview. (Talking real world here not Catholic doctrine which can be pretty stupid sometimes)
That's just recent this year stuff, of course most of the biblical stories have been proven by archeology in the last few hundred years but you can Google all that.
Its become this new thing for young people to think religion must be the opposite of science, it doesn't have anything to do with opposites! As a Christian, most of us believe that science is a way to discover the nature of the works of God, you can be a science respecting Christian, or a anti-science guy but we aren't all the same. Mostly Christians are indifferent or even up to the point of loving science.
Religions may decide to impede science when it threatens the sanctity of human life, for example Stem Cells from aborted fetuses, there are objections there. Also religion can influence science too in some ways mainly in the way they began perceiving their ethics.
I am NOT saying we have gotten as far as we can go, we still could live longer or be happier than we are now. We as a planet need to decide how far our ethical boundaries can go and then operate under that new framework.
The level of deterioration within the human system just increases with time, its a lost battle unless you made a whole new body rigged to be everlasting
edit: people ALWAYS want to believe that they're somehow, somehow, dear lord please somehow, not going to die. I don't see what's different about all of this. that's the point.
The difference is that the OP asks a scientific question, i.e. the answer will be falsifyable. Religion doesn't offer that insecurity.
On topic: there are many hurdles to overcome, not only 'bad copying of genes' as someone posted earlier. I wouldn't say it's impossible but I don't think we'll live to see the day of an immortal human (i.e. not dying by means of age). I imagine major points of critique on the work of dr. de Grey are that his ideas yet have to be implemented in any organism succesfully and that they are symptomatic by nature. But then again, many people not so long ago thought it would be impossible to discuss biology with people around the world on 'the internet'...
I don't follow the sudden religion debate thingy going on...
But anyways, I don't see any advantages in living forever that I would enjoy. I'd be bored to tears. There are only so many things a human can do in a life, at one point I'd just sit around and just browse TL forever and play minesweeper all day.
On April 02 2013 07:43 sam!zdat wrote: science itself obviously isn't religious. the way people in our culture think about science, what science means, and what science is going to do for them, is religious.
the reason that people want to talk about science making them biologically immortal is exactly the same basic human urge that makes people want to believe in the afterlife. the only difference is the decorations.
On April 02 2013 07:40 Iyerbeth wrote: hoping to avoid death is not limitted to religion.
"avoid death" no. "transcend death" yes.
edit: it will be possible to extend human life indefinitely. it won't work very well, the only people who will have it will be our tyrants, and it probably won't make them happy
edit: oh, this reminds me! you should all go read Shadrach in the Furnace, great book
I've no doubt that there are some people in all cultures who might overestimate the reach of science, but even that is still different to religious faith. There are no religious aspects to it, there is no dogma, ritual or belief associated, no faith required and obviously no superstitious elements typically. I'm not meaning to claim that religion is inferior or bad or anything, but it is something very different. Some (perhaps many) of the hopes and aspirations might come from the same place, but that isn't sufficient to claim the two are the same, they're simply part of the human condition.
On this issue specifically though, it is certainly incorrect to suggest that it's a religious belief when there are people working in fields that really might make progress towards it.
A quick google search of the book you recomended sounded interesting though, so just picked it up on Audible (had a credit to use, lol).
On April 02 2013 07:59 sorrowptoss wrote: I don't follow the sudden religion debate thingy going on...
But anyways, I don't see any advantages in living forever that I would enjoy. I'd be bored to tears. There are only so many things a human can do in a life, at one point I'd just sit around and just browse TL forever and play minesweeper all day.
If you live long enough you could be captain of the USS enterprise
On April 02 2013 07:31 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm not really sure how the idea that science is religion is relevant
we're discussing immortality...
We're discussing the possibility of technology augmenting biology in accordance with the current trends in technology and spaces of research to question whether biological death might be averted. There might be some issues for religious people in that, but the topic itself is not religious, nor is discussing the potential boundaries of science and ethics behind it.
Even if you were to claim that all of that were though, getting to the point where science itself could be argued to be religious is a long way off.
Edit: In response to your edit, hoping to avoid death is not limited to religion. Neither is discussing the fact that people really are making nano-technology etc which could augment health concerns.
Yeah, machines have been made immortal, some rats have been made immortal, so it's pretty clear that given this current trend in technology, Humans will be next. The current trend in technology has not produced any of this. Even our attempts to make a self-sustaining ecosystem have been spectacular failures. It's faith in the utopia of scientific progress that goes from miracle drugs to miracles. I analyze the jump from finite lives to infinite as much different than slide rules to computers, mail to email, the horse-powered vehicles to modern cars. Earlier, we talked about how current technology would look to someone 500 years ago. Maybe someone of that time would ask, in his terminology, "Why do they have any expectation of soon becoming like gods?"
Well well, here is my two cents. If immortal means that you can stop aging, several new problems arises.
I don't think immortality is a good thing, because death means that life can develop or evolve. Death means that life can evolve by leaving the living-space it occupied to other species. This is simple to understand, life adapts to the environment, not the other way around. Humans are humans because of the complex (hostile) and always changing environment around us.
What do I mean by that?
First, if you are immortal, you also deny evolution, and if you deny evolution you put the entire species at risk. For instance a change in oxygen-levels could trigger necessary changes to(evolve) the lung -functions. These changes could later be passed on to children. If you are immortal you must fix this with technology. Your children however might adapt eventually.
Second, you probably do not want children, because if you allow it, a population-explosion will be inevitable.
Third, immortality will mean that humans no longer should reproduce due to environment problems it will create plus the human species will be even more fragile to environmental changes because death is no longer present to leave living-space to a more adapted human sub-species. Humans will be even more dependent on technology than ever before. It could even mean that an immortal human might not be able to live without for instance a breathing apparatus if let say 10 million years from now.
It could also mean, ironically that humans are even more fragile to infections since the evolution has not stopped for viruses or bacteria. The microbes will simply win the evolution-race. So if a technology breakdown of some sort would occur for the immortal human, the entire human species could easily vanish in an "evolutionary second".
On April 02 2013 07:59 Iyerbeth wrote: On this issue specifically though, it is certainly incorrect to suggest that it's a religious belief when there are people working in fields that really might make progress towards it.
Those aren't incompatible. People still relate to it with the same religious structures of thought (science is fundamental principle of reality, science offers salvation, etc). The possibility of life-extension and the social construction of the possibility of life-extension are different things. the former is just a technical matter-of-fact, that second is a religious idea. the fact that your religion is based on something real doesn't mean it's not a religion (of course, I believe that ALL religions are based on something Real).
I also don't think it's even going to be possible in the way that people want. we'll have some tycoons-in-vats, but that's about it. which is to say, I think 'immortality' (in the sense of 'much longer than normal human lifespan) is probably possible but not very feasible, and certainly not economical.
On April 02 2013 07:59 Iyerbeth wrote: A quick google search of the book you recomended sounded interesting though, so just picked it up on Audible (had a credit to use, lol).
On April 02 2013 07:59 Iyerbeth wrote: On this issue specifically though, it is certainly incorrect to suggest that it's a religious belief when there are people working in fields that really might make progress towards it.
Those aren't incompatible. People still relate to it with the same religious structures of thought (science is fundamental principle of reality, science offers salvation, etc). The possibility of life-extension and the social construction of the possibility of life-extension are different things. the former is just a technical matter-of-fact, that second is a religious idea. the fact that your religion is based on something real doesn't mean it's not a religion (of course, I believe that ALL religions are based on something real).
I also don't think it's even going to be possible in the way that people want. we'll have some tycoons-in-vats, but that's about it. which is to say, I think 'immortality' (in the sense of 'much longer than normal human lifespan) is probably possible but not very feasible, and certainly not economical.
The social construction around life-extension is extremely varied though. You seem to be suggesting that hope (no matter the basis) and religion are interchangeable? If there are people out there who know that there will be life extension available for them through personal experience or revelation of some kind then I would have to agree. If there are people who live their life according to the fact they will be immortal through science, then maybe so too (especially if they do so without an understanding of where we’re at as a species in that regard). I think though, that this thread goes someway to suggesting that it's certainly not the prevalent thought, and the idea that it almost certainly will be possible in some form someday muddies the water somewhat.
Eventually our Sun will convert all of it's hydrogen to helium. When that happens the Sun will expand into a red giant and will destroy earth. Sure it's not due to happen for a couple of billion years but do you really want to be around for that? Considering that evolution will slow to a crawl since no one is dying, and our genome isn't evolving, we will probably get wiped out by a super virus before the Sun implodes anyways. Nothing is meant to last forever - even our physical universe has an end - either a big crunch or a deep freeze. We are all meant to return to the source. Energy isn't destroyed - its only converted.
On April 02 2013 07:59 Iyerbeth wrote: On this issue specifically though, it is certainly incorrect to suggest that it's a religious belief when there are people working in fields that really might make progress towards it.
Those aren't incompatible. People still relate to it with the same religious structures of thought (science is fundamental principle of reality, science offers salvation, etc). The possibility of life-extension and the social construction of the possibility of life-extension are different things. the former is just a technical matter-of-fact, that second is a religious idea. the fact that your religion is based on something real doesn't mean it's not a religion (of course, I believe that ALL religions are based on something real).
I also don't think it's even going to be possible in the way that people want. we'll have some tycoons-in-vats, but that's about it. which is to say, I think 'immortality' (in the sense of 'much longer than normal human lifespan) is probably possible but not very feasible, and certainly not economical.
The social construction around life-extension is extremely varied though.
just like the social construction around god!
i'm not really sure what specific point is being disputed here. all I'm saying is that, when you put on your anthropologist hat and take a look at your own culture, the whole "modern"/"premodern" thing starts to feel a little shakier. and the difference between the way people talk about science and the way people talk about religion is, well, not that much of a difference, most of the time
I just want people to be careful about how they fetishize science (it's a big problem in our culture), and this is just a specific arena in which that danger is very close at hand. that's all.
edit: because it really seems to me that the logic here is "science can give us anything we can imagine, we can imagine immortality, therefore science is going to give us immortality. furthermore, since science always makes progress, and always accelerates, science is going to give us immortality very soon! thanks, science! let me send my children to the STEM priesthood, so that they might help accelerate Your coming!"
edit: and we should definitely be thinking about the fact that evolution can create diseases faster than we can find ways to beat them, and I don't think that's an arms race we're going to win.
On April 02 2013 08:43 sam!zdat wrote: I just want people to be careful about how they fetishize science (it's a big problem in our culture), and this is just a specific arena in which that danger is very close at hand. that's all.
Do you believe that in the next ~60 years human science would be able to develop methods to stop death from aging or even reverse aging.
Yes/No , plus why
Yes.. IF human mankind would focus on that target.
The problem is that science and technology progress is based on economic factors. If science would have all the money in the world. We would solve many problems. In the long term with those focus it´s just stupid not so say: Yes we can beat aging. Yes we can cure all diseases now. Yes, no human need to starve from hunger anymore. We also would have no energy problems whatsoever. We could even colonize other planets or terraforming our planet even better.
But that´s not going to happen because that would be against economical laws. Like AI. There is just no interest in the market to produce artificial intelligence. Since decades now we didn´t have jumps in that technology. Market is focusing on highly specialized problem solvers for single tasks. That´s happening from the 1970 till now.
I agree it would be terrible for human evolution and growth as society. People not dying with a tendency to have less children it would mean more elder, which by simple learning patterns tend to keep old structures, which might slow down social change (not saying a scientific genius would stiffle growth in its area, but I do think social paradigms would take a lot longer to change)
On April 02 2013 08:52 Rash wrote: I agree it would be terrible for human evolution and growth as society. People not dying with a tendency to have less children it would mean more elder, which by simple learning patterns tend to keep old structures, which might slow down social change (not saying a scientific genius would stiffle growth in its area, but I do think social paradigms would take a lot longer to change)
Post like this are implying that the technology of youth is NOW available. The time a technology like this is available for everyone you need to accumulate the society that has established has other paradigms then we have now today. It´s not so long ago i could keep myself a slave and that was normal by the whole society.
edit: To your invention thing. The moment we could solve aging i very believe we would have built up AI. Inventions beyond your imagination.
On April 02 2013 07:59 Iyerbeth wrote: On this issue specifically though, it is certainly incorrect to suggest that it's a religious belief when there are people working in fields that really might make progress towards it.
Those aren't incompatible. People still relate to it with the same religious structures of thought (science is fundamental principle of reality, science offers salvation, etc). The possibility of life-extension and the social construction of the possibility of life-extension are different things. the former is just a technical matter-of-fact, that second is a religious idea. the fact that your religion is based on something real doesn't mean it's not a religion (of course, I believe that ALL religions are based on something Real).
I also don't think it's even going to be possible in the way that people want. we'll have some tycoons-in-vats, but that's about it. which is to say, I think 'immortality' (in the sense of 'much longer than normal human lifespan) is probably possible but not very feasible, and certainly not economical.
How can we not look at science as being fundamentally different to religion when it provides reproducible evidence where classic religion can not. With that in mind people's faith in science, while still faith, is based in a much more credible way than classic religion. Qualifying it as something exclusive of what is normally called religious.
The result of whether an individuals belief in science would qualify as religious is also entirely independent of whether immortality is feasible. Which brings into question why it is even relevant to begin with.
Is your second paragraph just an opinion or do you have any evidence to support your idea of what may be immortality in the future. I've seen the "tycoons-in-vats" on Futurama before, but it didn't do much in the way of convincing me that this is what "immortality" will look like.
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: Is your second paragraph just an opinion or do you have any evidence to support your idea of what may be immortality in the future. I've seen the "tycoons-in-vats" on Futurama before, but it didn't do much in the way of convincing me that this is what "immortality" will look like.
nobody has any evidence about much of anything, really. just a hunch
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: How can we not look at science as being fundamentally different to religion when it provides reproducible evidence where classic religion can not.
i've written several times that what is religious is not science, but the way that science is positioned in our symbolic order. science is not religion, but the way people think about science is religious. that's the problem. people should think about science scientifically, and they should think about religion religiously. that would be more reasonable.
science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object, so the fact that science and theology operate on different methodological paradigms is kind of a red herring.
however, we should note that, in the ur-time, there was no difference between theology, science, or any of it. it was all just philosophy. the differentiation of these spheres of inquiry is itself the product of philosophical inquiry. the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry is perhaps a problem that should be looked into.
but never forget that religion had to produce the notion of a rationally-governed, well-ordered, empirically accessible reality (Deism) before anyone could go about inventing any scientific method.
What good is it if we just keep self replicating. In terms of a polymath, one of 30 years is still very young. In terms of a common man his life is a third over. It is true that for a time such technology may be in the hands of the few. But better would it be if in 1944 every country had atomic power? The question that should be asked is not when will we be able to develop such technology, but when will the great we be ready for it. Understanding the fears of a scientist who would be a watchmaker.
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: Is your second paragraph just an opinion or do you have any evidence to support your idea of what may be immortality in the future. I've seen the "tycoons-in-vats" on Futurama before, but it didn't do much in the way of convincing me that this is what "immortality" will look like.
nobody has any evidence about much of anything, really. just a hunch
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: How can we not look at science as being fundamentally different to religion when it provides reproducible evidence where classic religion can not.
i've written several times that what is religious is not science, but the way that science is positioned in our symbolic order. science is not religion, but the way people think about science is religious. that's the problem. people should think about science scientifically, and they should think about religion religiously. that would be more reasonable.
science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object, so the fact that science and theology operate on different methodological paradigms is kind of a red herring.
however, we should note that, in the ur-time, there was no difference between theology, science, or any of it. it was all just philosophy. the differentiation of these spheres of inquiry is itself the product of philosophical inquiry. the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry is perhaps a problem that should be looked into.
but never forget that religion had to produce the notion of a rationally-governed, well-ordered, empirically accessible reality (Deism) before anyone could go about inventing any scientific method.
Why use the term "religious" then, it obfuscates the situation when you describe people as having a religious belief in science, when science and religion's paths diverge increasingly from one another. "science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object" In your own words this is more than enough reason not to use the word "religious" to describe science. Call it faith or ignorance, as they are far more accurate terms.
Deism was not required for the scientific method to be created. Deism itself defined by Wikipedia as: The belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. It was not Deism that allowed the scientific method to manifest, but the components that also created Deism: Reason and Observation .
I fairly certain most people are happy with the "the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry" within philosophy. Not sure too many people actually wish to throw science and religion under the same umbrella again, I would in fact venture to say very very few would.
On April 02 2013 09:49 DonKey_ wrote: Why use the term "religious" then, it obfuscates the situation when you describe people as having a religious belief in science, when science and religion's paths diverge increasingly from one another.
because people think about science religiously when they don't realize they are doing so. they think that they are better than all other people who are "religious," when they are "scientific," but actually they are looking at science incorrectly, i.e. religiously. that is why it can replace religion for people - because for them it IS religion.
Why will science keep going? why won't we run up against a limit, and never discover anything again? that seems perfectly likely to me. to think that science can figure everything out, building up a big heap of Progress, is an article of faith!
Wikipedia
idk about that man, is that a website or smth?
I fairly certain most people are happy with the "the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry" within philosophy.
they're not. there's a whole tradition about the critique of instrumental reason, big issue for 20th century theory. The whole problem of science-as-religion is a pretty hot topic right now. I'm very skeptical about a lot of the work being done on this problem, but the question is a real one.
let's not talk about the differentiation/dissociation problematic, too much baggage. i shouldn't have brought it up probably
On April 02 2013 09:49 DonKey_ wrote: It was not Deism that allowed the scientific method to manifest, but the components that also created Deism: Reason and Observation .
that's a very religious sort of capitalization you have going on there Are Reason and Observation angels in your pantheon?
Provided with endless natural life it may prove difficult for individuals to understand personal narrative structures. Already we touch on the edges of the biological mechanisms associated with aging, and moving forward it appears inevitable that we will understand how to mitigate or alter these aging processes at least to some extent. The take home point is that the science isn't the real challenge here -- far more difficult to tackle are the ethical questions and problems associated with that reality.
On April 02 2013 09:49 VTPerfect wrote: What good is it if we just keep self replicating. In terms of a polymath, one of 30 years is still very young. In terms of a common man his life is a third over. It is true that for a time such technology may be in the hands of the few. But better would it be if in 1944 every country had atomic power? The question that should be asked is not when will we be able to develop such technology, but when will the great we be ready for it. Understanding the fears of a scientist who would be a watchmaker.
Is the "great we" ready for nuclear weapons now?
As long as human mankind thinks in countrys, lands, continents and whatsoever As long as we aren´t able to share our complete knowledge and ressources with each other we won´t make any great steps in the near future.
And i don´t see a terran dominion raising with a eagle and laurel wreath flag in the next 100 years.
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: Is your second paragraph just an opinion or do you have any evidence to support your idea of what may be immortality in the future. I've seen the "tycoons-in-vats" on Futurama before, but it didn't do much in the way of convincing me that this is what "immortality" will look like.
nobody has any evidence about much of anything, really. just a hunch
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: How can we not look at science as being fundamentally different to religion when it provides reproducible evidence where classic religion can not.
i've written several times that what is religious is not science, but the way that science is positioned in our symbolic order. science is not religion, but the way people think about science is religious. that's the problem. people should think about science scientifically, and they should think about religion religiously. that would be more reasonable.
science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object, so the fact that science and theology operate on different methodological paradigms is kind of a red herring.
however, we should note that, in the ur-time, there was no difference between theology, science, or any of it. it was all just philosophy. the differentiation of these spheres of inquiry is itself the product of philosophical inquiry. the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry is perhaps a problem that should be looked into.
but never forget that religion had to produce the notion of a rationally-governed, well-ordered, empirically accessible reality (Deism) before anyone could go about inventing any scientific method.
Good shit. I am also of the opinion that science and religion deal with fundamentally different spheres, the confluence (and comparison!!) of which is often contrived, convoluted, fruitless, faulty, or some combination of these. Damn I finished reading the last two paragraphs and you already used "spheres" so now it just looks like I'm stealing from your diction too =P
What is meant by we should "dissociate the sphere of science"? I absolutely understand the need for the separation of science and religion, as they are two very different "spheres", but how is the concept extended to science as a sphere, and its dissociation? Is there some part of science that ought not to belong?
because people think about science religiously when they don't realize they are doing so. they think that they are better than all other people who are "religious," when they are "scientific," but actually they are looking at science incorrectly, i.e. religiously. that is why it can replace religion for people - because for them it IS religion.
This is the same thing you repeated before without any explanation as to why "religious" is good term to use when describing peoples faith or ignorance of science. Religion is intrinsically antithetical to science, yet you keep using "religious" as a describer in relation to science.
idk about that man, is that a website or smth?
No need for ad-hominem.
I figured the definition for Deism was pretty universal, but since you don't seem convinced. Here are some relevant definitions of Deism from various other sources.
Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism
Deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism
Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/deism
No where is it stated the scientific method was a product of Deism. The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
they're not. there's a whole tradition about the critique of instrumental reason, big issue for 20th century theory.
On a vaguely related note, as somebody who doesn't actually like the idea of living such a prolonged life, I would still love to have the option to sort of stick around and observe the world, as a kind of brain in a jar. Let us make this achievable first I say
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
Edit: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method
Ill make another list of sources if I have too.
Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
Deism included a "rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge." in favor of "the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God" So ya your sarcasm aside it's quite evident their thinking leads to mine.(mine being another irrelevant ad-hominem, but hey you went there again.)
From a purely self-centered point of view I think I would like to be immortal. Because I'm just that curious about what mankind's fate will be :D I can't really fathom what would happen if immortality was available though. Society would probably change beyond my imagination, and I don't think it would change for the best or in the most innovative forward-going fashion.
As a computer scientist, I like thinking about the advent of a Strong AI and the following so-called singularity more.
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Deism included a "rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge." in favor of "the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God" So ya your sarcasm aside it's quite evident their thinking leads to mine.(mine being another irrelevant ad-hominem, but hey you went there again.)
yes! it leads to yours, but it isn't yours.
a rejection of revelation and authority is not incompatible with religion. religions often undergo periods of rebellion against received interpretations of scripture and the power of the priesthood (like... oh... Christ!)
just because you shouldn't put the new wine in old vessels, doesn't mean the old vessels didn't use to have wine in them
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Science isn't complete.... and it's not a timeline that has to have a beginning or end... and no we don't have to make a "leap of faith" with incomplete information and say "well nothing else works atm so it has to be god."
Well that's a good question what other answer indeed. Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that "the answer is god" until someone can prove otherwise though.
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead?
On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote: Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though.
the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about )
edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers.
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
A tree falls in the forest and makes a noise. It is trivially true to say that the reason for trees making noise as they land is that trees make noise as they land.
Reality is organized according to natural laws. Obviously it follows that this is "because" reality is organized according to natural laws. The question sam is asking is about whether these natural laws have any particular logical cause other than tautology. I mean, we don't use this kind of reasoning anywhere else in our studies. It's only when someone asks "why are the physical laws like this?" that someone else replies "because they simply are!"
Imagine we could do that elsewhere. Why is fire hot? Because fires have been observed to be hot!
Rational techniques are designed to reflect reality, not the other way around. One might as well argue that the universe is fine-tuned for B-2 Bombers, because B-2 Bombers work in our universe. (Which of course is proof of an intelligent designer, because B-2 Bombers are so specific they could not possibly have come into existence in a universe with even slightly different underlying laws... therefore God. QED.)
If we learn to stop ageing, would our bodies lose the ability to gain knowledge? Like, say we stopped ageing at 25... Would we stop developing? Mental and otherwise?
Yeah, machines have been made immortal, some rats have been made immortal, so it's pretty clear that given this current trend in technology, Humans will be next. The current trend in technology has not produced any of this. Even our attempts to make a self-sustaining ecosystem have been spectacular failures. It's faith in the utopia of scientific progress that goes from miracle drugs to miracles. I analyze the jump from finite lives to infinite as much different than slide rules to computers, mail to email, the horse-powered vehicles to modern cars. Earlier, we talked about how current technology would look to someone 500 years ago. Maybe someone of that time would ask, in his terminology, "Why do they have any expectation of soon becoming like gods?"
Source? They have been made live 5 times as long, in a lab.
Side note prior to actual statement: We have not observed all of reality, not even 1% of it. We have observed a very very small slice. We know what the scientific laws are here, where we are - but just as some constants are not really constants, we have no way of knowing what kinds of surprises science may have for us if we ever see a stranger slice of reality. That said, not beating any dead horses.
Actual statement on immortality - it's kind of irrelevant to me. I'm 36 - antigerone treatments that could stop the clock of aging and provide theoretical immortality, even if developed, would not be widely available to the masses. It simply cannot be - even with people dying, Dr. Malthus is quietly chuckling at the strain our population puts on our available resources. If any kind of immortality were to become possible, it would be hideously expensive or quite possibly seized and regulated by governments. If not outlawed quickly. Death is a very important, very common, and vital thing to our biome, our species, and our culture and arts. Sure, it sucks if you're the one that dies. But it happens.
Everything dies. Everything. Even if medical science could keep you alive for a long long time, something comes along. A meteor. A volcano. A bus crashing through the 3rd floor of your apartment building. The heat death of the universe. The only true immortality exists in fiction (some SciFi, some Fantasy, and of course religious works).
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead?
On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote: Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though.
the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about )
edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers.
Here is the disagreement, what you call fundamentally religious (coping with death/longing for eternal life) others would just attribute to the conditione humaine. It is human nature I'd say. Some rely on religion to answer these questions, others rely on science. The 2 are/should be completely seperate because of the scientific method. You can prove a scientist wrong.
The "why" question on the natural laws is valid of course, but used to end a debate it seems like an argument of the gaps to me. Scientists can't throw in a ''because of something unfalsifyable".
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead?
On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote: Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though.
the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about )
edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers.
Here is the disagreement, what you call fundamentally religious (coping with death/longing for eternal life) others would just attribute to the conditione humaine. It is human nature I'd say. Some rely on religion to answer these questions, others rely on science. The 2 are/should be completely seperate because of the scientific method. You can prove a scientist wrong.
The "why" question on the natural laws is valid of course, but used to end a debate it seems like an argument of the gaps to me. Scientists can't throw in a ''because of something unfalsifyable".
but you cant prove the scientific method wrong. You can prove a scientist wrong only if you accept the method, which is something you have to do without rational reasoning. Its something called a fundamental choice, some people say that such a choice is irrational, imo its neither rational nor irrational.
and btw please stop talking about falisfication, it makes you (not you specifically, but people in general) look stupid. Falsicifation is an outdated theory with more problems than solutions and its no longer really used as a method to check for the value and truth of a scientific theory. there might be some diehard popper fans left but most scientists and philosophers of science have dropped it.
humans have the notion of God because humans are suppose to become Gods (in the most absolute sense of the word). <- the purpose of human existence. this physical immortality thing = baby steps
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god.
funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then
Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide.
yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise
it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism)
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet?
for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god.
edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff!
edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know
"the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep)
right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh.
I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god".
what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it.
Reality is organised according to natural laws because all of reality has been observed to conform with these natural laws. You can prove existence follows these laws through observation so where is the problem?
that it does, and why it does, are different questions, you are confusing them. we see THAT. but WHY? where did the laws come from? and why those laws, and not other laws instead?
On April 02 2013 11:16 DonKey_ wrote: Edit: You shouldn't be claiming that the answer is god until someone can prove otherwise though.
the answer is definitely god, I just don't know anything at all about god, so I don't know what the answer means. whatever answer somebody finds (if they ever do), that's god. but I don't believe that anyone will ever find an answer about why reality is the kind of reality that it is. (but thanks, god, for giving us this question to think about )
edit: anyway, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread so people can talk more specifically about the life extension thing. I don't care about that, I just care about the mysteries of existence. cheers.
Here is the disagreement, what you call fundamentally religious (coping with death/longing for eternal life) others would just attribute to the conditione humaine. It is human nature I'd say. Some rely on religion to answer these questions, others rely on science. The 2 are/should be completely seperate because of the scientific method. You can prove a scientist wrong.
The "why" question on the natural laws is valid of course, but used to end a debate it seems like an argument of the gaps to me. Scientists can't throw in a ''because of something unfalsifyable".
but you cant prove the scientific method wrong. You can prove a scientist wrong only if you accept the method, which is something you have to do without rational reasoning. Its something called a fundamental choice, some people say that such a choice is irrational, imo its neither rational nor irrational.
and btw please stop talking about falisfication, it makes you (not you specifically, but people in general) look stupid. Falsicifation is an outdated theory with more problems than solutions and its no longer really used as a method to check for the value and truth of a scientific theory. there might be some diehard popper fans left but most scientists and philosophers of science have dropped it.
While you can't prove the actual scientific method wrong, you could come up with a better alternative. Which would obviously be pretty hard considering all the massive benefits the scientific method has brought us so far. And it's not like it stops there, the scientific method develops over time, it's not a dogma you have to live by even if circumstances change.
well when it comes to understanding the world its hard to talk about better alternatives. when it comes down to the pragmatic level, then yes, there are better and worse alternatives. but you shouldnt confuse the theory of science with the practice of science. and neither should you confuse the theology with practiced religion. theology does use proof and argument (though they are logical arguments and not scientifical ones), the dogma wasnt as rigid as many people want to believe (although it wasnt very flexible either ofcourse, but to be honest science has some dogmas as well, not that this a valid argument against or for anything, but its just an observation). everything changes over time, the catholic church was not the same around the time of Consantine as it was at the time of Galilei or now. There are many striking similarities between scientific theories and religious ones, though neither side is really willing to admit it and in the end, the funniest thing is, its a futile discussion because its kinda based on a category mistake and 2 groups blatantly talking past each other.
You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less): I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
Life is already far too long and tiresome. By the time most people hit 30 they've stopped being curious about books, music, etc. It's just about raising your kids and preparing for them to take over.
On April 02 2013 21:53 Leafren wrote: You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less): I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
like i said, it was not aimed at you specifically, it just annoys me that many people randomly throw that word in without knowing anything about it. if that is not the case for you, then dont feel adressed.
I'm not claiming i know a better method on a pragmatic level, but what you described in your opening sentence, accepting a method that is better than the current one, that is a pragmatic decision. we would go for the alternative because it works better not because you can say it is better on a theoretic level (assuming that both theories/method are atleast adequately worked out). To compare practical science to practical religion is a futile exercise imo, they really have nothing in common and it is due to arrogance on both sides that they want to claim something about the other they have no right to claim. practical religion should shut up about science and the age of the earth, and vica versa science has really nothing to say about a potential existence of any type of god. or about a religious experience.
theoretic science and theology have more in common, but still they make use of different methods and usually discuss different domains. (to make a comparison, its like trying to explain certain social phenomenon through psychology or through economy or through biology.)
in the end science is based on a few fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method because it would be a circulary argument, and even if the method would change (which it has over the years) it is only a pragmatic change, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that the foundations (eg these assumptions) are touched. we can go into detail about it but i dont want to derail the thread further. you can pm if you want to talk about it some more
On April 02 2013 21:58 jdsowa wrote: Life is already far too long and tiresome. By the time most people hit 30 they've stopped being curious about books, music, etc. It's just about raising your kids and preparing for them to take over.
That is a pretty depressing place you are living/growing up in, also it is not true. Some people stop doing something with their life when they are 12, others when they are 90/when they die.It is a personal choice though, age has very little to do with it as long as you are healthy.
Also, hell no, we won't live forever in this lifetime. I also think that there are other priorities. So far with every new generation human life has improved a bit roughly at least and each new generation does introduce a new world perspective. I don't think stagnating this will be beneficial to mankind. But, I think just living a bit longer in good health, like to a 150/200 might actually benefit mankind as a whole. We will also need some kind of age manipulation to make space travel viable. So I am sure it will get a higher priority once we start space traveling more.
Should have known this was prone to be googled. Did you read section 5? This doesn't compare to a religious dogma at all, just an err by Crick that stuck.
I think we appreicate each others positions, no need to take it further into PM. I'll just leave you with this gem of a teaser (always a good way to try to round something up, NOT :p):
"Philosophy of science is about as useful for scientists as ornitology is for birds"
There is so much we don't understand about cellular chemistry and the complex inter-dynamics in even a single cell, that I doubt it will be soon. The more you study and learn about biology especially on the cellular level the more you realize just how far we have to go. There is a LOT of work to be done before this could ever become a reality.
(credentials: I'm a research engineer for a major orthopedics company)
What's considered unlocking immortality? The concept, biological chemistry and living immortal organisms already exist so wouldn't that be already considered 'unlocking' immortality in science?
Or is the question when it will be applied? Because biological immortality would be defined on the genetic level and you cannot change the DNA of every cell in an full grown human being with our modern day technology. So it's impossible for our generation to experience that kind of immortality regardless of whether we know how it works and what needs to be done to a human DNA to create an non-aging human body.
Should have known this was prone to be googled. Did you read section 5? This doesn't compare to a religious dogma at all, just an err by Crick that stuck.
I think we appreicate each others positions, no need to take it further into PM. I'll just leave you with this gem of a teaser (always a good way to try to round something up, NOT :p):
"Philosophy of science is about as useful for scientists as ornitology is for birds"
ye i read section 5, i thought it was funny but ye as a joke, it means pretty much nothing to our conversation.
if i was a philosopher of science i would be offended XD luckily im more at home in metaphysics!!!
On April 02 2013 21:53 Leafren wrote: You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less): I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
like i said, it was not aimed at you specifically, it just annoys me that many people randomly throw that word in without knowing anything about it. if that is not the case for you, then dont feel adressed.
I'm not claiming i know a better method on a pragmatic level, but what you described in your opening sentence, accepting a method that is better than the current one, that is a pragmatic decision. we would go for the alternative because it works better not because you can say it is better on a theoretic level (assuming that both theories/method are atleast adequately worked out). To compare practical science to practical religion is a futile exercise imo, they really have nothing in common and it is due to arrogance on both sides that they want to claim something about the other they have no right to claim. practical religion should shut up about science and the age of the earth, and vica versa science has really nothing to say about a potential existence of any type of god. or about a religious experience.
theoretic science and theology have more in common, but still they make use of different methods and usually discuss different domains. (to make a comparison, its like trying to explain certain social phenomenon through psychology or through economy or through biology.)
in the end science is based on a few fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method because it would be a circulary argument, and even if the method would change (which it has over the years) it is only a pragmatic change, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that the foundations (eg these assumptions) are touched. we can go into detail about it but i dont want to derail the thread further. you can pm if you want to talk about it some more
What assumptions would those be? Are you talking about basic axioms? I really can't think of any assumptions which aren't there for pure pragmatism, and they aren't really seen as assumptions, but rather constraints without which we would not get anywhere.
i read a while ago that scientists are trying to upload knowledge into a human brain. so you dont have to read a book anymore, you just upload the whole story in your brain and thats it, like they did in The Matrix. What if scientist will be able to download everything we experienced and know into a robot, i think it could work similar to uploading something into a brain, wouldnt it?....just think about that. Everyone would be immortal and we wouldnt have to deal with ageing or deaseses. And as far as i can remember, the text said that it shouldnt take that much time till they are able to do so.
On April 02 2013 21:53 Leafren wrote: You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less): I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
like i said, it was not aimed at you specifically, it just annoys me that many people randomly throw that word in without knowing anything about it. if that is not the case for you, then dont feel adressed.
I'm not claiming i know a better method on a pragmatic level, but what you described in your opening sentence, accepting a method that is better than the current one, that is a pragmatic decision. we would go for the alternative because it works better not because you can say it is better on a theoretic level (assuming that both theories/method are atleast adequately worked out). To compare practical science to practical religion is a futile exercise imo, they really have nothing in common and it is due to arrogance on both sides that they want to claim something about the other they have no right to claim. practical religion should shut up about science and the age of the earth, and vica versa science has really nothing to say about a potential existence of any type of god. or about a religious experience.
theoretic science and theology have more in common, but still they make use of different methods and usually discuss different domains. (to make a comparison, its like trying to explain certain social phenomenon through psychology or through economy or through biology.)
in the end science is based on a few fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method because it would be a circulary argument, and even if the method would change (which it has over the years) it is only a pragmatic change, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that the foundations (eg these assumptions) are touched. we can go into detail about it but i dont want to derail the thread further. you can pm if you want to talk about it some more
What assumptions would those be? Are you talking about basic axioms? I really can't think of any assumptions which aren't there for pure pragmatism, and they aren't really seen as assumptions, but rather constraints without which we would not get anywhere.
that there is a world which exists independently of our perception and that we can understand it with our senses and reason, that there is such a thing as (absolute) truth and that we can know it, causality, there are probably more but id have to read up. theyre all trivial on the pragmatic level, but any serious theory will have to account for the inherent problems it brings. but ye in the end, as mentioned by the other guy, for the practice of science its pretty much obsolote and we do not need to know the answers to these questions in order to cure diseases, make cars and blow up the earth 100x. we do not need to know if there is actually something that corresponds to an atom or a quark as long as the model works and helps us invent stuff we need.
you are right, without assuming these things or something which would replace them, you would get nowhere and would have to embrace total skepticism which is the only thing which is pretty much 100% true but is also practically impossible. which is why i said before, that it comes down to something called a fundamental choice, you will have to choose between a few of these assumptions and from there on out you will start to make sense of the world. you cannot really say that one choice is better than the other except that one choice seems to have more useful/agreeable/etc consequences.
On April 02 2013 21:53 Leafren wrote: You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less): I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
like i said, it was not aimed at you specifically, it just annoys me that many people randomly throw that word in without knowing anything about it. if that is not the case for you, then dont feel adressed.
I'm not claiming i know a better method on a pragmatic level, but what you described in your opening sentence, accepting a method that is better than the current one, that is a pragmatic decision. we would go for the alternative because it works better not because you can say it is better on a theoretic level (assuming that both theories/method are atleast adequately worked out). To compare practical science to practical religion is a futile exercise imo, they really have nothing in common and it is due to arrogance on both sides that they want to claim something about the other they have no right to claim. practical religion should shut up about science and the age of the earth, and vica versa science has really nothing to say about a potential existence of any type of god. or about a religious experience.
theoretic science and theology have more in common, but still they make use of different methods and usually discuss different domains. (to make a comparison, its like trying to explain certain social phenomenon through psychology or through economy or through biology.)
in the end science is based on a few fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method because it would be a circulary argument, and even if the method would change (which it has over the years) it is only a pragmatic change, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that the foundations (eg these assumptions) are touched. we can go into detail about it but i dont want to derail the thread further. you can pm if you want to talk about it some more
What assumptions would those be? Are you talking about basic axioms? I really can't think of any assumptions which aren't there for pure pragmatism, and they aren't really seen as assumptions, but rather constraints without which we would not get anywhere.
you cannot really say that one choice is better than the other except that one choice seems to have more useful/agreeable/etc consequences.
On April 02 2013 21:53 Leafren wrote: You can come up with an alternative method which would be judged on its merits and accepted if better that the current scientific method.
If you genuinely want a debate you might want to avoid the word stupid in your first sentence. I was not talking about the practical application of the falsification scientific philosophy. You're right, it is not used in scientific practice generally. I was however talking about the criterion of testability to distinguish between practical science and practical religion.
Too get this back on topic (more or less): I'm intrigued, would you elaborate on better methods on the "pragmatic level" and scientific dogmas in (molecular) biology as this is the scientific field covering this topic?
like i said, it was not aimed at you specifically, it just annoys me that many people randomly throw that word in without knowing anything about it. if that is not the case for you, then dont feel adressed.
I'm not claiming i know a better method on a pragmatic level, but what you described in your opening sentence, accepting a method that is better than the current one, that is a pragmatic decision. we would go for the alternative because it works better not because you can say it is better on a theoretic level (assuming that both theories/method are atleast adequately worked out). To compare practical science to practical religion is a futile exercise imo, they really have nothing in common and it is due to arrogance on both sides that they want to claim something about the other they have no right to claim. practical religion should shut up about science and the age of the earth, and vica versa science has really nothing to say about a potential existence of any type of god. or about a religious experience.
theoretic science and theology have more in common, but still they make use of different methods and usually discuss different domains. (to make a comparison, its like trying to explain certain social phenomenon through psychology or through economy or through biology.)
in the end science is based on a few fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method because it would be a circulary argument, and even if the method would change (which it has over the years) it is only a pragmatic change, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that the foundations (eg these assumptions) are touched. we can go into detail about it but i dont want to derail the thread further. you can pm if you want to talk about it some more
What assumptions would those be? Are you talking about basic axioms? I really can't think of any assumptions which aren't there for pure pragmatism, and they aren't really seen as assumptions, but rather constraints without which we would not get anywhere.
that there is a world which exists independently of our perception and that we can understand it with our senses and reason, that there is such a thing as (absolute) truth and that we can know it, causality, there are probably more but id have to read up. theyre all trivial on the pragmatic level, but any serious theory will have to account for the inherent problems it brings. but ye in the end, as mentioned by the other guy, for the practice of science its pretty much obsolote and we do not need to know the answers to these questions in order to cure diseases, make cars and blow up the earth 100x. we do not need to know if there is actually something that corresponds to an atom or a quark as long as the model works and helps us invent stuff we need.
you are right, without assuming these things or something which would replace them, you would get nowhere and would have to embrace total skepticism which is the only thing which is pretty much 100% true but is also practically impossible. which is why i said before, that it comes down to something called a fundamental choice, you will have to choose between a few of these assumptions and from there on out you will start to make sense of the world. you cannot really say that one choice is better than the other except that one choice seems to have more useful/agreeable/etc consequences.
While I agree that, for example, one could say it's an assumption that there exists a world independently of our perception, I would say there's still a clear difference between the scientific "assumption" and religious blind faith. The difference being that in science, you don't claim to know that there's an independent world, and you don't claim to know anything about it. You don't even really assume there is one. What you do, is say that our current perceptions indicate a certain pattern, and we use this pattern as groundwork to predict patterns. If there happens to be no independent reality, that doesn't really matter much to science, because the groundwork works, so it becomes mostly a matter of definition.
The same isn't true for religion. In religion, you blindly do assume that there is something beyond which we can't comprehend, which effectively controls us, and you don't accept this as an abstract constraint to work from, you in fact do see it as absolute truth. This has "benefits" in the sense that it gives some people comfort, but it slows down progress since it doesn't give us any effective means of progression. You can ask god for better medicine, but compared to the patterns found by science, the pattern that praying works has left us wanting.
So yeah, I agree with what you're coming from in regards to science, but I still find gap between religious faith and scientific belief to be quite big. That said, some people certainly have blind faith in the products of science. I guess this thread relates to that, though I personally don't see it as blind faith to think that a development we have seen historically (average life span increasing a lot) has a good chance of continuing.
As with many things in science, it is always 10-20 years away..... always. We have been 10 years away from a grand unified theory of physics since the 1940's and we are still 10 years from a grand unified theory today, the simple fact is that nobody knows when we will crack it!
Immortality may be impossible, it would after all violate the laws of entropy. All things die, even the universe. It is inevitable. We may one day learn to stall death, we may even be able to extend our lives to many hundreds of years but we will, in the end, die. Why would you want to live forever anyway? Only the young want to live forever, I promise you that once you hit thirty you won't be quite so keen to live forever. Forever is a looooooong time. I would love to live for a couple hundred years and I might get to do that, predictions say that people of my generation (those hitting 30 now) will probably live to be 120-150 and spend most of that in good health. Thats enough for me.... especially if they don't raise the retirement age, I can't imagine what I'll do from the age of 65-150 if I was retired!
The key thing to immortality is that we are now approaching the point at which the rate we age and the rate science can extend your life are beginning to close, every year the life expectancy of most people goes up, eventually life expectancy increase will outstrip the ageing process and then we will live for many many many years. Will we be immortal? I doubt it. You can repair the body quite easily, replace your organs with cloned parts etc but the human brain is so far beyond our comprehension at this point that we have no clue how to repair the damage that simply being alive does to it. How long your brain can keep functioning without repair will ultimately be the thing that determines how long we can live. You can't clone a brain, the brain requires your entire life experience to create "you", so our only option would be to repair damage. You might have to even replace obsolete parts of your brain if you lived long enough, we have no idea how much information it can store, maybe living longer than 150 years would mean your brain runs out of space and needs a format/disk clean up to make room for new information.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
sigh and here come all the cliches...
it is the argument that makes the belief justified, it is accepting the argument that makes the belief your own. i never said people in times before our own did not reject these arguments, many did, even within the catholic church (taking catholicism as the proto religion for this now).
most of what you say really makes it look like you havent read what i said or havent understood it, no offense intended. God is actually a very simple idea, it is vastly more simple than many scientific theories. just because you can put the law of gravity into 5 little digits doesnt make it simple. Thats like saying that God is even simpler because it has only 3 digits. cmon...
and as to your last point, which is a valid one to raise, only sadly it is misguided. You can read Thomas Kuhn about it, his research makes clear very well that within science alot is more rigid than many people want to believe. things do not change within a heartbeat, in fact they often barely change at all. if you allow me this caricature, from the christian explanation to the big bang theory now, actually very little has changed, we went from first there was god and nothing, then god created something out of nothing to there was no god and nothing and then nothing created something out of nothing (buuut there actually couldve been a god before the big bang we just cant say anything about it...)
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
sigh and here come all the cliches...
it is the argument that makes the belief justified, it is accepting the argument that makes the belief your own. i never said people in times before our own did not reject these arguments, many did, even within the catholic church (taking catholicism as the proto religion for this now).
most of what you say really makes it look like you havent read what i said or havent understood it, no offense intended. God is actually a very simple idea, it is vastly more simple than many scientific theories. just because you can put the law of gravity into 5 little digits doesnt make it simple. Thats like saying that God is even simpler because it has only 3 digits. cmon...
and as to your last point, which is a valid one to raise, only sadly it is misguided. You can read Thomas Kuhn about it, his research makes clear very well that within science alot is more rigid than many people want to believe. things do not change within a heartbeat, in fact they often barely change at all. if you allow me this caricature, from the christian explanation to the big bang theory now, actually very little has changed, we went from first there was god and nothing, then god created something out of nothing to there was no god and nothing and then nothing created something out of nothing (buuut there actually couldve been a god before the big bang we just cant say anything about it...)
Very accurate description of the big bang, I guess.
I honestly do not think that we will unlock immortality before we die. or i rather. However, there is a chance that we will be able to make medications that will make our life longer.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
sigh and here come all the cliches...
it is the argument that makes the belief justified, it is accepting the argument that makes the belief your own. i never said people in times before our own did not reject these arguments, many did, even within the catholic church (taking catholicism as the proto religion for this now).
most of what you say really makes it look like you havent read what i said or havent understood it, no offense intended. God is actually a very simple idea, it is vastly more simple than many scientific theories. just because you can put the law of gravity into 5 little digits doesnt make it simple. Thats like saying that God is even simpler because it has only 3 digits. cmon...
and as to your last point, which is a valid one to raise, only sadly it is misguided. You can read Thomas Kuhn about it, his research makes clear very well that within science alot is more rigid than many people want to believe. things do not change within a heartbeat, in fact they often barely change at all. if you allow me this caricature, from the christian explanation to the big bang theory now, actually very little has changed, we went from first there was god and nothing, then god created something out of nothing to there was no god and nothing and then nothing created something out of nothing (buuut there actually couldve been a god before the big bang we just cant say anything about it...)
Very accurate description of the big bang, I guess.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
On March 31 2013 13:52 Demonhunter04 wrote: I hope so, but probably not. As it is right now, death from any cause other than simple aging is the norm, so even if aging itself is prevented, which itself is highly unlikely to happen in this century, you're going to die some way or another eventually.
Completely agree with you. And as far as I know, we're not exactly close to being rid of aging/ death by natural causes anyway.
Why are people talking about the existence of a deity? Even if a god exists, he's not going to help us solve the restrictions on longevity. That's all been thanks to science and its breakthroughs (e.g., medicine, vaccination, cleanliness, etc.).
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
very eloquently put, better than i could explain it
and yes what you say in the end is the root of the problem really, though imo both sides overstep their bounderies (ofcourse this is a generalisation) and not just religion.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution.
On April 03 2013 02:51 V6 wrote: i think we someday can be immortals but without our body! we will be able to upload our mind in some digital exact clone of our own brain -_-
On March 31 2013 13:46 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: When I say we I mean that from an egocentric point of view if you're 20 like me! ^_^ (Not quite sure about what everyone's age is, so post on behalf of YOUR age like me)
So I'll be in my prime pretty soon, then apparently ill blink and already be 30 years old. Ive already kind of noticed how fast it will be, since highschool ended all my lifes goals and obstacles wont happen for 5 to 6 years, in the mean time I'll just work, sleep, eat, do lots of women, rinse and repeat. Before I even know it my kids will have kids and ill be dead, OR WILL I?!?!?
I've watched a special on Through The Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about Science reversing aging and ultimately making mankind immortal, do you believe that we'll get there in our lifetime? I know for a fact TL has some smart peeps, so what do you guys think? Do you believe that you'll live forever??
I am almost but not completely convinced that I might live forever but I intend to do so, maybe cryonic freezing will work when I die... I'll have to be like a dragoon :D
I like your points and I'm 15 and still in high school enjoying SC2. But the way I see it is that people want immortality so they can do things they couldn't in a limited life span but that's my take on it. I do think that immortality is possible but in our lifetime of say within 60-70 years I'd say the a theory that it is possible immortality exist but technology to do the procedure is most likely out of reach for some time. I'm just putting the Halo Universe and Starcraft Universe together so I'd say within 300-500 years because the dominion resocialized marines by 2488 and Halo Universe had flash cloning technology by say 2400's to 2500's. I thought this because cloning organs and full humans in Halo along with neural tech in SC2 existed by that time I'd say with that tech you can have immortality and we're Terrans not Protoss so we can't live in Dragoon shells.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution.
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works". ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yeah, because when has that ever happened?
The crucial difference between science and religion is that science attempts to endlessly disprove itself in search of truth whereas religion likes to declare itself as having all the answers and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.
The science vs religion discussion is a fucking joke and doesn't belong in this thread.
On topic, pretty extreme question. I've watched and read a fair amount on this topic and it seems feasible that we are going to be able to slow down the aging process significantly within our lifetime, incidentally Jurassic Park looms closer every day too so there's loads of cool messing-around-with-the-building-blocks-of-life going on right now.
Immortality? Definitely not before we die. I think every time we expand the average human life by a decade or so we are going to hit an unexpected hurdle that will hinder anti-aging R&D. The most optimistic projections seem to say if you are still young today in 2013 that there's a good chance if you're rich enough that you could live for a very long time, but I think that assumes constant progression. I think, within our lifetime, it's much more likely we will manage to expand a human lifespan to something like 150-200 years with a majority of those years being fit and healthy, before we hit some kind of problem and can't extend our lives any further, yet.
That's my hope, I'd love to live for 1,000 years or something but it's equally possible we barely manage to extend our lives at all =/
The only thing more "fucking stupid" than a science vs. religion debate (which is a mischarecterization of the discussion) is someone who swoops into a thread, ready to hurl epithets, without, oh, you know, reading the thread.
On March 31 2013 13:59 Iranon wrote: I doubt it. And even if such technology did come into being, I doubt it would be available to anyone except the hyper-rich. If anyone's read Altered Carbon, you know what kind of social stratification I'm talking about.
Also, I used to think that living forever was unquestionably a good thing. I no longer believe this.
When I was younger I used to feel the same way. When I was around 16 or so I was so scared of dying, but then I thought about the alternative of living forever and I found that I definitely wouldn't be happy with that. This kind of stemmed from me being an Agnostic and not being able to comprehend non-existence. Note the irony of trying to comprehend non-existence. I have made peace over the possibility of not existing or living forever. So I have pretty much become content with dying and nothing happening or dying and going to some stupid heaven type thing. To me heaven just seems like a type of living forever which seems boring.
I'm also happy with dying, with that being the end of it all. Living is a novelty which becomes tedious and boring after a while.
On April 03 2013 07:14 farvacola wrote: The only thing more "fucking stupid" than a science vs. religion debate (which is a mischarecterization of the discussion) is someone who swoops into a thread, ready to hurl epithets, without, oh, you know, reading the thread.
Would you care to actually make a point instead of some snide, factually incorrect comments?
FYI, I don't swoop, I log in.
Edit: Since I haven't posted in this thread yet/for a long time I'm not allowed to express my opinions? Just because you loved that post and I didn't doesn't give justify you making shit up and insulting me.
On April 03 2013 07:14 farvacola wrote: The only thing more "fucking stupid" than a science vs. religion debate (which is a mischarecterization of the discussion) is someone who swoops into a thread, ready to hurl epithets, without, oh, you know, reading the thread.
Would you care to actually make a point instead of some snide, factually incorrect comments?
FYI, I don't swoop, I log in.
Edit: Since I haven't posted in this thread yet/for a long time I'm not allowed to express my opinions? Just because you loved that post and I didn't doesn't give justify you making shit up and insulting me.
Hey now Mr. Reason, high atop the horse of Rationality, you are the one entering into a discussion, mischaracterizing the position of those who disagree with you, and then calling them fucking stupid. Numerous posters have already described exactly why our insistence that people be more suspicious of their interaction with science does not amount to an adversarial "science vs. religion" argument. You'd know that if you had read even just the last few pages.
This is not Twitter; there is an expectation that someone reads as well as writes if they partake in a discussion. Your insistence that you need not read the thread, combined with the ease with which you call something "fucking stupid", actively harms productive discussion.
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution.
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works". ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yeah, because when has that ever happened?
it happened with the age of the earth? i think thats an example of what he describes "could" happen. he was fairly careful in his wording. but its true that its not a discussion for this thread, and that the discussion itself is mostly based on mistakes more than it is an actual debate. its still interesting tho
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist.
I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods.
everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go?
If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense.
Anyways that was way off topic!
The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite.
One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution.
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works". ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yeah, because when has that ever happened?
it happened with the age of the earth? i think thats an example of what he describes "could" happen. he was fairly careful in his wording. but its true that its not a discussion for this thread, and that the discussion itself is mostly based on mistakes more than it is an actual debate. its still interesting tho
I was being sarcastic and yes that's a prime example.
It´s a bit sad that the questions "If, how and when a form of immortality will rise" is derailed with interesting but nontheless derailed talk about deist, god vs science and believe vs evidence.
On March 31 2013 13:52 Demonhunter04 wrote: I hope so, but probably not. As it is right now, death from any cause other than simple aging is the norm, so even if aging itself is prevented, which itself is highly unlikely to happen in this century, you're going to die some way or another eventually.
Completely agree with you. And as far as I know, we're not exactly close to being rid of aging/ death by natural causes anyway.
Why are people talking about the existence of a deity? Even if a god exists, he's not going to help us solve the restrictions on longevity. That's all been thanks to science and its breakthroughs (e.g., medicine, vaccination, cleanliness, etc.).
The religion debate confuses me too... I thought this was a thread about science discovering a method to remain corporeally immortal. Other possible forms of immortality that are unable to interact directly with reality we perceive are kind of outside the topic. Sure, there could be immortal souls and what not. There might not be. We won't know, because everyone that has solid, first hand observations of such a state are, well... dead.
As for aging, I think halting the decay inherent in constant cellular division and arresting any further growth or degeneration of the body's systems would have to be a prerequisite. Immortality as the prisoner of a decaying, barely functional physical body would be absolutely horrid. Hell, being a prisoner of any kind of body (ie, catatonic and unresponsive) is pretty fucking scary.
So if you tie stopping the aging process somehow to immortality, you would also be addressing a lot of the underlying causes of "non-natural causes" death. You'd have to find a way to inhibit cancerous growths, ensure blood vessels remain clear, musculature and skeleton remain strong and not prone to weakness. Doing those things, you would also be curing (incidentally) a lot of the medical but "non-natural" causes of death. And then of course, you can't fix stupid - and accidents can be fatal. (More amazing are the ones that should be but aren't - a medical science that could achieve immortality should be able to take care of just about anything short of massive trauma to the head. We can already replace the heart, lungs, and various other bits.)
Of course, there's always immortality on computers "in the cloud". But I can't talk about that too much...
Perhaps not immortality but maybe I think medical progress might make us live at least 150 years, possibly more. And I'd be perfectly happy with 150 tbh.
True immortality will never be achieved,its physically impossible 2nd law of termo dynamics and such. Live for a long time yes,maybe 1000 years will be achieved one day. But we are still very far away from that i think,probably over 1000 year away. It would have enormous social and possibly economical implications,not all of which will be positive.
If look at past 100 years,then there has not been made much progress in life expectancy. Sure average life gets longer but the oldest people are not getting that much older then they where 100 years ago or even 2000 years ago. Oldest person now is like 115 or so,born around 1900. I dont think people who are born now will make it to 130,lets make it 140 to be 100% safe. we wont see a confirmed 140 year old person in this century.
I don't know man. We have extreme knowledge on what control cell health at the moment. I think with the correct use of metabolites, people might be able to live perhaps to 150 years. Couple that to the advances made with genes known to promote cell longevity, we could push 200 pretty soon.
I think the huuuuuuge problem becomes the physical storage your brain has. Old memories blending with newer ones, older ones being erased for newer ones, quality of newly formed memories. Solve neurodegeneration before you solve ageing, because I don't want to see a world full of 150+ year old people all suffering from dementia, or dementia life features.
On October 19 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote: I don't know man. We have extreme knowledge on what control cell health at the moment. I think with the correct use of metabolites, people might be able to live perhaps to 150 years. Couple that to the advances made with genes known to promote cell longevity, we could push 200 pretty soon.
I think the huuuuuuge problem becomes the physical storage your brain has. Old memories blending with newer ones, older ones being erased for newer ones, quality of newly formed memories. Solve neurodegeneration before you solve ageing, because I don't want to see a world full of 150+ year old people all suffering from dementia, or dementia life features.
Well neurodegeneration is just a part of ageing, so one presumes that if the later is solved, so is the former. However it really is a race with time, we are all losing a percent of brain mass per year (some of us sadly more) and any reversal is even more of a wet dream than merely stopping it, so the older we are when ageing is stopped, the worse are we off. Then there is true dementia, which can come from a variety of causes - of which a lot is actually related to bad protein function, amyloid buildup and so on - and all these things are actually in general needed to be solved anyway (almost all people who lived over 100 had terminal or soon-to-be terminal amyloidosis at the time of death). So this is all kinda related to everything else.
But then you have a valid point about the limited memory. Have you seen the Dr. Who arch with immortal Arya? Anyway, nobody really knows how that would work, as it is simply not testable.
No because we haven't even figured out to keeps cells cancer free. Because however long Cells will sooner or later develop some type of cancer the longer time goes on. Getting weaker and weaker.
that's where they're all wrong - you are supposed to keep the cancer cells and have them mutate into functional organs. ... 'cause cancer cells are immortal so we'll be too.
"I've watched a special on Through The Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about Science reversing aging and ultimately making mankind immortal." ...I came here thinking you'd link some deep cross-meta analytics of a couple hundred pubMed studies- concluding the possibility of long life. Nope, literally just a "can I live forever" sci-fi fueled thread. oof.
On October 19 2018 18:00 Nebuchad wrote: If immortality is unlocked under a capitalist system we are so, so fucked
It aint gonna be unlocked elsewhere.
Tangentially related: I always find it incredibly ironic when people present themselves as secular humanists and rationalists and yet they have this complete faith in capitalism. They can't even conceive of an alternative system, basically demonstrating that capitalism is far from being the innovative force that it pretends to be since it stifles the imagination. I think it's fair to say we will sooner destroy ourselves than become disenchanted with this crypto-religious view that capitalism = freedom = innovation = "the future". Even as everything collapses around us, we'll keep saying that's just part of a healthy growth cycle.
Human would never achieve immortality. Long living - yes, but not immortality.
On the other hand it seems like humans will become a creator of AI and excellent robotics, which leads to a merger. And it all follows the same rule of evolution of species.
Only merging would allow us to make long interplanetary travel possible, human body simply does not work properly in space.
Granted this guy's startup has already been bought and the tech he is speaking about is almost 5 years old. But this will be the most likely outcome of the human race is less than 100 years. Some of the tech he talks about is already here.