|
| Thread: Immortality and the definition of life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted September 08, 2009 02:14 PM |
|
|
Immortality and the definition of life
I really enjoy reading about progress in human anti-aging technology, progress against diseases and other microscopic dangers, and progress against macroscopic dangers such as, well just something heavy.
The other day I read about a species that've cheated death through aging, or so it at least seems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
I do not know if it has microscopic dangers such as diseases, but it's not like it's immortal, it still gets eaten (macroscopic danger) sadly.
However what it made me think about is whether this animal is truely immortal of if its rebirth is another existance reusing the old body?
For us to know so we need to know what defines life/existance, what defines that inner observer/concsciousness/awareness that we (or at least I, I can only know for myself until some method have been discovered) all have, which makes us something that exists, that gives us a kind of a "soul"?
Until we can measure this I do not think we can know for sure if this animal actually is immune to aging, nor can we become truely immortal unless we know exactly what defines us, when we know, we know what we need to preserve.
Another example is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus)#Senescence
However this doesn't include nearly as much info (the senescence part).
There's also trees, some trees that're belived to many thousands years old, or even more, however again we arrive the problem, how do you define what does in fact have an existance, and what's merely biomechanical processes?
Vira are most likely merely biomechanical processes, but how much up in complexness must we go before we arrive at beings that've existance?
Finally please do not confuse being intellegent with what I call having existance, being intelligent has nothing to do with that, or so do I at least believe.
Edit:
Links that may be of interest, added:
http://www.afar.org
http://www.mfoundation.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_aging
http://www.grg.org
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/15612.html
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/15417.html
http://www.geron.com
http://juvenon.com
http://sageke.sciencemag.org
http://www.geron.com
http://juvenon.com
http://sageke.sciencemag.org
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:37 PM |
|
|
I think the cells themselves are intelligent, and not just "a bunch of chemical reactions". Many conservatives who don't want to admit it say that, but what they forget is that the BRAIN is also MADE UP OF CELLS, so it's implicitly "a bunch of chemicals" too -- but they don't want to admit it, saying that nerves and neural systems are "special" even though they are just made up of cells as well.
Bottom line: if you consider the brain "special" (example: more than just chemicals), then consider cells as well; otherwise you have no basis apart from "just an opinion".
I think we'll never reach immortality unless we become cyborgs/robots, but that's another story.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:40 PM |
|
|
|
I have seen cells moving around in the microscope in school. They moved around like small insects.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think we'll never reach immortality unless we become cyborgs/robots, but that's another story.
Mind transfer too  .
But I seriously hope we never become immortal  (Unless we all turn into buddhists by then  ).
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mind transfer too .
Yeah actually "cyborgs" implies that, after all, machines break from time to time too, like all things in life.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:54 PM |
|
|
Two words: stem cells.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:56 PM |
|
|
Hey thanks for participating, I've a few comment.
Quote:
Bottom line: if you consider the brain "special" (example: more than just chemicals), then consider cells as well; otherwise you have no basis apart from "just an opinion".
This I don't understand, are you saying that because what I consider special, let's call it mtjC short for (more than just chemicals), is made up of cells, then the cells themselves have to be mtjC?
Given that's what you mean, then remember by the very same logic cells are made of atoms, therefore atoms should be mtjC, and atoms are made of even smaller parts, following that sense of logic the smallest entity of the universe should be mtjC, however if everything is made out of this smallest part, then everything should be mtjC or should have a soul / be special.
I think that configuartions should also be considered, everything does consist of pretty much the same stuff if we go into a small enough size (protons, neutrons and electrons) however all assembled with different configurations and the configurations represent the exact same uniques as different subsets of matter, why should it not also hold true for configurations of cells in the brain?
Quote:
I think we'll never reach immortality unless we become cyborgs/robots, but that's another story.
I think that'd be very interesting to debate, I'm not familiar with the exact definitions of cyborgs/robots, and won't look them up now, so I won't continue this part right now, but it could be very interesting for later.
Quote:
But I seriously hope we never become immortal (Unless we all turn into buddhists by then ).
Why is that? You see I personally really hope for it to be invented (a way of immortality). 
Edit:
I think you're right that stem cells have a great prospect Doomforge, especially if they can get used in a level like with the animal in my example in my OP.
However why don't you think our minds would be able to handle immortality? We can handle beeing in existance, I'd think that'd be the hardest part to handle, though it's of course hard to know really.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 03:57 PM |
|
|
I bet our minds wouldn't handle immortality anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 04:03 PM |
|
|
You know, if you will be immortal, there is no going back...
Oh and think about all the bad experiences your mind has to hold
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This I don't understand, are you saying that because what I consider special, let's call it mtjC short for (more than just chemicals), is made up of cells, then the cells themselves have to be mtjC?
Given that's what you mean, then remember by the very same logic cells are made of atoms, therefore atoms should be mtjC, and atoms are made of even smaller parts, following that sense of logic the smallest entity of the universe should be mtjC, however if everything is made out of this smallest part, then everything should be mtjC or should have a soul / be special.
I think that configuartions should also be considered, everything does consist of pretty much the same stuff if we go into a small enough size (protons, neutrons and electrons) however all assembled with different configurations and the configurations represent the exact same uniques as different subsets of matter, why should it not also hold true for configurations of cells in the brain?
Except that many people actually agree that "life" is special, unlike atoms, and cells are alive -- only stubborn people who live in the 20th century don't believe that.
However, logically speaking, you cannot create a new quality by assembling smaller parts which lack that quality -- it is just human illusion. In fact, when you actually look at it from the basic level (of that "quality"), you will see that it's made up of cells/whatever, so in actuality the "macro" world is an illusion, you can just as well say that "the cells together do X and Y and Z, which results in the illusion that TOGETHER they have the W quality".
Quote:
I think that'd be very interesting to debate, I'm not familiar with the exact definitions of cyborgs/robots, and won't look them up now, so I won't continue this part right now, but it could be very interesting for later.
What I meant was that the human body is very vulnerable, not just to aging, but to diseases and all sorts of stuff (cancer etc). In fact, even if we become immune to current diseases it doesn't mean that new ones won't pop up or adapt, that's the problem with biological life.
Quote:
Why is that? You see I personally really hope for it to be invented (a way of immortality).
I think you'll change your opinion soon.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 04:33 PM |
|
|
Sorry for the semi-random quoting here:
Quote:
Why is that? You see I personally really hope for it to be invented (a way of immortality).
I think you'll change your opinion soon.
Well I would really appreciate your guys viewpoints on this matter, but be warned, it's something I've wanted for over a decade and nothing I've met so far (and I've challenged the belief several times) have been able to change my mind. 
Quote:
Quote:
This I don't understand, are you saying that because what I consider special, let's call it mtjC short for (more than just chemicals), is made up of cells, then the cells themselves have to be mtjC?
Given that's what you mean, then remember by the very same logic cells are made of atoms, therefore atoms should be mtjC, and atoms are made of even smaller parts, following that sense of logic the smallest entity of the universe should be mtjC, however if everything is made out of this smallest part, then everything should be mtjC or should have a soul / be special.
I think that configuartions should also be considered, everything does consist of pretty much the same stuff if we go into a small enough size (protons, neutrons and electrons) however all assembled with different configurations and the configurations represent the exact same uniques as different subsets of matter, why should it not also hold true for configurations of cells in the brain?
Except that many people actually agree that "life" is special, unlike atoms, and cells are alive -- only stubborn people who live in the 20th century don't believe that.
However, logically speaking, you cannot create a new quality by assembling smaller parts which lack that quality -- it is just human illusion. In fact, when you actually look at it from the basic level (of that "quality"), you will see that it's made up of cells/whatever, so in actuality the "macro" world is an illusion, you can just as well say that "the cells together do X and Y and Z, which results in the illusion that TOGETHER they have the W quality".
Well first of all, we've defined life out of chemical processes, that's life, not existance, we don't know what specifically defines existance/inner observer/soul or let's just say mtjC. Therefore I don't see the point of we agreeing on what is alive as of todays standards have anything to do with what have an existance and what doesn't.
I do not follow your logic, for me there's no problem in new quality rising from assembling smaller parts in different ways, eventhough each of the parts themselves don't have this quality, a very normal term of everyday life for this would be electricity, take every part needed and you won't have electricity, but assemble them and you've it.
It has nothing to do with illusions, you're correct that if we look at it from the basic levels (atoms, etc.) then the whole macro world is made out of the same laws that governs the laws of micro world, the laws of quantum dynamics, but the thing is when we let the variables of these equations go to the size of macroscopic levels, we get out of the whole statistics world, illusion if you want to call it that, and into something with a probability of 1, or so to say something that really is.
If quantum mechanics did not have this result, no one would believe it, because physics theories after all are meant to describe the world we observe.
Finally I can say I know my existance is no illusion, how can I know this? Because in the whole definition of meaning of existance, any existance can never be an illusion (that sounded a bit weird in english though)
Quote:
I think that'd be very interesting to debate, I'm not familiar with the exact definitions of cyborgs/robots, and won't look them up now, so I won't continue this part right now, but it could be very interesting for later.
What I meant was that the human body is very vulnerable, not just to aging, but to diseases and all sorts of stuff (cancer etc). In fact, even if we become immune to current diseases it doesn't mean that new ones won't pop up or adapt, that's the problem with biological life.
I completely agree with your points, that's one of the reasons I believe we need to pinpoint what exactly defines our mtjC parts and conserve this through the best method possible, maybe even be able to recreate on automatic level whereby we'll always be.
This may lead to ideas of movies where people are cloned and suddenly the two clones are both existence by themselves and have nothing to with eachother except they act the same and look the same (don't know what the other are thinking, are going to do, want, etc.), these people are in my opinion not true clones, as they're not the same existance in two bodies, but two existances in two bodies.
Quote:
You know, if you will be immortal, there is no going back...
Oh and think about all the bad experiences your mind has to hold
In the true meaning of immortal, I agree, but that's a bit much to hope for, nevertheless that's one freedom I wouldn't mind not having.
About bad experience, well I must admit I don't care, really, as long as I've those I love I'd not have any problems with it.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 04:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
About bad experience, well I must admit I don't care, really, as long as I've those I love I'd not have any problems with it.
After 500 years of living, your opinion would probably be really different
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
About bad experience, well I must admit I don't care, really, as long as I've those I love I'd not have any problems with it.
After 500 years of living, your opinion would probably be really different
Well if nothing changes for over a decade, why then for over 50? 
Joke a side, let's keep all that "do not do this, because you'll regret it" stuff away please, I'm not scared of regretting stuff, that's a part of life and nothing I mind, the only thing I won't do is to say no, because I'm scared I might regret it.
After all, it's just emotions, emotions have nothing to do with me, I'm who I want to be, not who I feel, emotions are triggered from outer stimulie and really have nothing to do with me, therefore let's leave the whole emotion bias out of this please. 
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 04:46 PM |
|
|
Of couse being an immortal machine would be cool.
But being immortal and having a human body...NO.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 05:00 PM |
|
|
Well those cute little phoenix thingies? Well they are immortal to age, so they are immune to death by natural causes. I think all diseases get purged out when it gets reborn, and it also evolves at the point a bit more.
Something of a dream, well I kind of want immortality. But that is another matter.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 05:14 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:19, 08 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
I do not follow your logic, for me there's no problem in new quality rising from assembling smaller parts in different ways, eventhough each of the parts themselves don't have this quality, a very normal term of everyday life for this would be electricity, take every part needed and you won't have electricity, but assemble them and you've it.
Well since you bring the electricity as an example:
A CPU is made of billions of transistors (well at least the latest ones have hit that billion mark). A transistor by itself doesn't seem "cool" does it? I mean just a simple 'switch' right?'
Do you seriously think the CPU is more than just "a bunch of transistors"? When you make a complicated calculation on your computer, do you think that it's "more than just transistors"? 
Imagine this: if you halted time when it was doing those computations, and looked at each individual transistor in super-slomo mode, you will see that it's simply the transistors, connected in various ways, that do the respective computation.
Even though, as humans, it is hard to realize this, because we "prefer" macro-views of the world, as illusions, like I said.
And of course existence is an illusion! Have you not watched the Matrix? It explains perfectly why everything you see is an illusion (that's what I'm talking about, not the movie itself).
Put in another way, when people say "computers can calculate 1+1", logically this actually means "the CPU transistors switch on, decode the instruction, then the electrons go through the first bit etc etc (too complicated to list), and at the 'output' we get '10' (2 in binary) from '1' and '1' being at the inputs"
It is a remarkable complex phenomenon, just as cells are remarkably complex themselves, but humans prefer to think in "macro" terms -- i.e the "obvious effects", the "big scale" effects, and ignore the REAL effects that make it happen, at the nano level.
That doesn't mean that things actually have "macro" qualities, it means humans are biased, and that human vision & sensors are not precise enough
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 05:20 PM |
|
|
Macro is still a convenient way to look at things. It's often more useful than looking at every individual component.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 05:22 PM |
|
|
Useful or not, it doesn't mean it's true, or that it's not an illusion. When people start to make a difference, an actual physical difference, is what bothers me, not the "it's useful" type -- do what you think is useful.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 05:35 PM |
|
|
A lot of it is unknown or poorly known to begin with. It's hard to define what makes something a consciously existing entity when we don't fully understand the nature of consciousness to begin with. We know it's there, we have an idea of where it functions in the brain, but we also know that the ocean has a floor; but that isn't to say that it's been thoroughly examined as much of it remains a mystery.
If we're going to look at continued life as keeping the same body, we've already failed at the function. The "you" from 15 years ago has since been replaced down to the last molecule, and your memory has likewise been duplicated, like copying a CD. So on a molecular level, we've all "died", but we don't realize it because we preserve the memories. Of course, we generally look at life on a macro level, like Mvass said, and don't consider ourselves dead until our body stops duplicating itself. Our body is like a regime, and our consciousness is the line of prime ministers. Eventually, the regime itself dies too.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 05:46 PM |
|
|
Well whether consciousness is special or not isn't what I meant -- I meant that, if the brain has something special (which I somewhat believe), it comes from the cells and how they are connected, so the remarkable things here are the cells, not the brain. The real wonder in a CPU, to me, is the transistor, not the completed CPU.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
