|
| Thread: Immortality and the definition of life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
posted September 11, 2009 03:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You do not know, which is why your opinion should not be forced down on anyone.
I can follow you want to know and risk your very existance for this knowledge, I however won't if I have the choice, and I believe that's what differs us.
Beside I think everyone makes up their own meaning of existence, the idea of a common meaning or a already prethought meaning is for me absurd, and for others very realistic, it's something that splits many appart.
ill be honest here,it seems you know better and for sure.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 04:37 PM |
|
|
Good debate, I see that you have given this some thought.
Quote:
You do not know, which is why your opinion should not be forced down on anyone.
I can follow you want to know and risk your very existance for this knowledge, I however won't if I have the choice, and I believe that's what differs us.
Beside I think everyone makes up their own meaning of existence, the idea of a common meaning or a already prethought meaning is for me absurd, and for others very realistic, it's something that splits many appart.
I'm not forcing my opinion on someone, I'm just expressing it.
I'd actually give you the chance to experience it and see how your opinion changes in about 2000 years. But that's pure theory. Right now you are thinking this because your life is limited and you know it and your opinion. You are faced with your own mortality and you're trying to escape it. Don't blame you, many have the same tendencies.
Quote:
I disagree with this, that's not the way I see time, and I do not believe every movement needs an end, and if you insist then you can always define an end to every movement as you wish, because time is infinite does not mean that parts of it does not exist.
Movement is practically a change or a process, which implies that it has to have a starting point. From our understanding of time and space, what has a start must have an end. Unless you can show me an example that debunks this.
Quote:
I understand, and in my understanding (I don't recall if I wrote this before) life, or existance is not dependent of death. If you read some of the very first links I give in the very first post of this thread you'll see there exist animals that are believed not to age, they're alive (at least in our definition of the word), but they do not age.
I've read through, aging and immortality are two different things. Aging is just the outward sing of a time progress.
as with the Hydra's their life is very cyclical and age very slowly, but eventually they die.
Quote:
I'd like to suggest that you read the link I gave on the "myth" part, which explains why we've no reason to accept death as something natural.
Secondly you can define natural on several ways, but either everything would be natural (or they wouldn't exist) or stuff like cell phones aren't natural as well, but everyone still uses those.
The reason I see it as natural, it the cycle of life and death is repeating in nature. Things die away to make space for new. Living things die as life is defined by it's start birth and ends at death. That is the definition of life - an experience of being alive.
To understand immortality is to move out of our understanding of time and space.
Quote:
Which you'd always be free to do.
that is a different topic. I would not be so sure. For immortality to be achievable, would mean for a very drastic change in our society, either towards techoncracy or a different totalitarian system that would control not just society but the individual and his life.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The internet part is incorrect, it originates from CERN, and was original an idea to share information fast and easy.
Secondly, what is useless research is for us all to find out, not only you.
CERN? Are you joking? CERN is not in USA, and yes americans "invented" it. Actually, they wanted a fail-safe method to store information, in case the Soviets nuked some area; so the information couldn't be lost. By the way, I'm obviously talking about military information, because that was its initial point. CERN only reaped on the seeds already there, and that is later on, much later on. (I think it was 1984!)
Not to mention the computers themselves were at first designed for military purposes... I'm talking 1960s here!
Quote:
Humanity have always desired to achieve something inaccessible
This is what I hate, people who say that all humans have the same desires. For me, I think it's like imposing religious views on people like "humanity always desired to believe in God" or something like that.
Quote:
You're quite right, it's because of the fear of death I want immortality for all those who wants it.
So you let fear take control of you? This is only going to get worse as each day passes, not talking about aging here, there are other ways to die you know. Statistically they are far more probable.
Quote:
Good idea. Automatizing work is something I think would be a great benefit, though capitalism could get in trouble, the real question would be, what do we need money for, if we automatizise so we do not need money I think this could work. Though it belongs to another thread.
What would money do in an Utopia? Burn it! 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 05:16 PM |
|
|
|
Certain bacteria are immortal.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Doomforge
The question is not if it needs, it is if you want.
Beside I read what you're writing a lot like what you wrote in this thread:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=30818&pagenumber=3
Note how you write you want to live the life you want and no one shall come and tell you something else, and then you tell others something else?
I tell others... umm, what? Since when is it a possibility to live forever?  If we can choose, then you can accuse me if telling others how to live.. right now it's talking about something abstract and how we imagine it. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of choice of life or any choice at all because it doesn't exist.
Quote:
We're not all emotion dependent, for me, life is about to live, and not what my emotions tells me, not what experiences/adventures I can make, I don't need or want excuses for being alive.
Huh? Live to live? Like an amoeba? It also "lives for the sake of living"...
Quote:
Not even to say, if you're are afraid of your emotion, afraid to become bored, then travel space, sleep for what you like, in principle it's not much different, now you play computer games when you're bored and your emotions tells you what to do, but you're 1 person, you'll never be able to play all computer games as long as the amount of computer games rises faster than you can complete one.
Though it's okay to be scared of your emotions, don't put this belief down on others please.
I'm not afraid to become bored, neither here, nor in the other thread.. where did I say anything that hints so...? And why am I "scared of my emotions" ? Huh? I Don't understand what are you trying to say here. Care to elaborate?
Quote:
For your second post, no it's not the truth, because you assume that emotions are what defines people in the first place, which makes it false, since it's not the case for everyone.
Nothing emotional in stating that some (most..) people have lives that are not globally important. Heck, nothing wrong in it, either.
Quote:
Secondly you do again write about what is needed, need is not the question, the question is what is wanted.
Nope. If we talk about global problems, it's definitely NOT the need of individuals that has the priority. In fact it's the very last factor to consider. Immortality would be a global problem. We
Quote:
So you'd rather beat AIDS then live forever? If you live forever AIDS cannot exist, otherwise you wouldn't. I agree it'd take a lot of hard work, but it's the ultimate goal of medical research.
Why aren't we working on teleportation yet instead of inventing a vaccine for some mutations of flu?
I'll tell you why: science works best when taking small steps. That's why cure for AIDS first, immortality second. It's like asking why in the middle ages didn't they work on space shuttle.
So I say: There are things of higher priority, needs of the moment (stop AIDS and similar) that are more important right now, and probably 10000x easier to reach.
Quote:
First of all, if we live forever you cannot get in problem with overpopulation in relation to your health, that makes no sense.
Ouch. Nope, but being trampled does. If the density gets too high, what kind of life would it be? A nightmare instead of life where every meter^2 is crowded with people.
Quote:
However I do understand your point, but don't you think we'd travel space honestly? Space is vast, probably enough room for all of us.
Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows...
Quote:
Peoples life aren't valued in what they contribute to society, we're all equal important.
Of course every life is important. But not every life is productive.
Quote:
If you live forever why would you be sitting in an office, working?
Umm, to get cash? You still have to eat. Or if you don't have to eat, you still have to live somewhere. What's the point of being immortal and living in the sewers? And how do you plan to live without money? You need money. So you need some kind of moneymaker. Which means most of us would probably be stuck in their pitiful little jobs for eternity. What a horror.
Quote:
Again you can easily imply immortality without having to be concerned of global problems, it's after all immortality we're talking about, you're not really bound anymore.
Us being immortal won't make the world stretch. Paradoxically, even if there are 10^1000000000 inhabitable planets in the universe, at certain time they will ALL become overpopulated to a point where you can't live normally. If we're going into abstraction like "immortal=all problems solved", we can also acknowledge this.
What would we do with criminals, btw? Put them in prison for eternity? Kill them? Because obviously sentences like "20 years in prison" don't work anymore if your lifespan is infinite or near infinite.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 05:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However I do understand your point, but don't you think we'd travel space honestly? Space is vast, probably enough room for all of us.
This is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. If it is vast then what is the point of populating it, as surely we wouldn't be able to communicate with the ones from the other corner easily.
Please don't convert the Universe into billions of copies of the same Earth with dull human cities. What the heck is the point, in fact, there's already too many!
Is that your only solution by the way? Only viruses think that the solution is to move on to another host. Eventually you'll run out of hosts, no virus can live infinitely because of its tyrannical design (wasn't that the point of immortality? to live forever?). I've compared humans to viruses before, but NEVER heard anyone thinking that this is a solution due to our arrogance that we must BOTH live forever AND have kids...
If we become immortal we have to give up on kids. Not possible otherwise.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
Edited by ihor at 17:52, 11 Sep 2009.
|
I agree with a lot in DF's post.
But it seems that you are talking about different things.
You should give a definition of Immortality.
1)Immortality - antiaging, but you still can die in the car accident or commit suicide.
2)Immortality - nothing can cause you to die, immortal like gods.
I think the first definition is more appropriate in the current issue.
____________
Your advertisement could be
here only for 100$ per day. 
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 06:30 PM |
|
|
@SirDunco
Thanks for your reply I'll get back to that later, now I need to log off for a bit.
Quote:
Quote:
The internet part is incorrect, it originates from CERN, and was original an idea to share information fast and easy.
Secondly, what is useless research is for us all to find out, not only you.
CERN? Are you joking? CERN is not in USA, and yes americans "invented" it. Actually, they wanted a fail-safe method to store information, in case the Soviets nuked some area; so the information couldn't be lost. By the way, I'm obviously talking about military information, because that was its initial point. CERN only reaped on the seeds already there, and that is later on, much later on. (I think it was 1984!)
Not to mention the computers themselves were at first designed for military purposes... I'm talking 1960s here!
You're maybe right, I was mixing it with the world wide web it seems. In my language internet and world wide web often is placed at being the same, and first today when I read on wikipedia I can see it may very well not be the case.
Quote:
Quote:
Humanity have always desired to achieve something inaccessible
This is what I hate, people who say that all humans have the same desires. For me, I think it's like imposing religious views on people like "humanity always desired to believe in God" or something like that.
How can you misinterpetate that quote so badly?
It says nothing about all humans, it says something about the general behaviour, and it's true that according to history there seems to always have been some people among us who were searching for something inaccessible at that time.
Quote:
Quote:
You're quite right, it's because of the fear of death I want immortality for all those who wants it.
So you let fear take control of you? This is only going to get worse as each day passes, not talking about aging here, there are other ways to die you know. Statistically they are far more probable.
Given you were talking about irrational fear, then I'd agree, but this isn't the case in my opinion.
Fear is a very good response we've as long as it's a rational fear, that's why I've analysed it and came to the conclusion between either do something and maybe exist forever or give up and do nothing about it, I'd choose to do something. It was the fear that made me realise the problem, but it wasn't what made me decide to want to do something about it.
When we all finds out our goals in life, we look at the things there are, which we don't want, fear is a great tool for this, and from this I found out lots of things that I believe is wrong with this world that I want to change.
The other part is finding out what isn't there yet, but what you want, they may sound alike, and in many cases are, but there are still differences, and often this is the part where emotional troubles rises, not in the first part.
Quote:
Quote:
Good idea. Automatizing work is something I think would be a great benefit, though capitalism could get in trouble, the real question would be, what do we need money for, if we automatizise so we do not need money I think this could work. Though it belongs to another thread.
What would money do in an Utopia? Burn it!
I wouldn't write getting rid of money completely, because you might had been one of those people who stops reading on when someone says "no more capitalism".
I agree however, I think capitalism is a great tool, but it's a temporary tool at most, we'd get rid of the money system when we have invented a future where there's no need for work, as you've everything automated, unless you of course wishes to work.
@Seraphim - I think I've heard about that, some researchers have found bacterias that are millions of years old, however I never found out if it's the colony (meaning the single bacteria doesn't survive) or if it's the single bacteria and then there's a very low reproduction grade?
Quote:
I tell others... umm, what? Since when is it a possibility to live forever? If we can choose, then you can accuse me if telling others how to live.. right now it's talking about something abstract and how we imagine it. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of choice of life or any choice at all because it doesn't exist.
It doesn't make it okay to tell other people how to live just because there's no choice as of yet.
Quote:
Huh? Live to live? Like an amoeba? It also "lives for the sake of living"...
What I define as the meaning of my life does not make me who I am, it however decides the goals I try to reach.
Given anyone else should have the same meaning of their life does not make us the same, and you know it, your example is quite bad.
Quote:
I'm not afraid to become bored, neither here, nor in the other thread.. where did I say anything that hints so...? And why am I "scared of my emotions" ? Huh? I Don't understand what are you trying to say here. Care to elaborate?
Certainly, you must admit with your sense of reasoning ("What should I be doing?") and ("I do what I feel like") and ("Oh no the horror of doing the same stuff over and over again") really make it seem like some sort of fear of boredom and being controlled by ones emotion, don't you think?
Quote:
Nope. If we talk about global problems, it's definitely NOT the need of individuals that has the priority. In fact it's the very last factor to consider. Immortality would be a global problem. We
Listen now, what we do globally is for the sake of the individual, the only reason we look at stuff globally is to protect every individual that may be affected, therefore it's always the need of the individuals that count, and again no immortality will not be a global problem, like written before, read my previous posts.
Quote:
Why aren't we working on teleportation yet instead of inventing a vaccine for some mutations of flu?
We actually are working on teleportation, but we use our ressource on what's needed, and often we also use our ressources wrong sadly.
Oh and thanks for reading my post, it's nice of you to do that. 
Quote:
I'll tell you why: science works best when taking small steps. That's why cure for AIDS first, immortality second. It's like asking why in the middle ages didn't they work on space shuttle.
I do agree with this, the problem was you wrote you'd rather want a cure for AIDS than immortality.
Quote:
Ouch. Nope, but being trampled does. If the density gets too high, what kind of life would it be? A nightmare instead of life where every meter^2 is crowded with people.
Talking about true immortality, space is no problem.
Talking about immortality in the more realistic way, don't you think we'd already have crossed the bounds to outer space at this time? Not to mention with the ressources on earth it's not hard to build shuttles that'd orbit in space or be on different planets.
Quote:
Umm, to get cash? You still have to eat. Or if you don't have to eat, you still have to live somewhere. What's the point of being immortal and living in the sewers? And how do you plan to live without money? You need money. So you need some kind of moneymaker. Which means most of us would probably be stuck in their pitiful little jobs for eternity. What a horror.
If any threads invite the use of imagination I'd guess it's this one so an automated system would make money unnecessary and let's combine that with food made out of the components of food in stead of getting it from animals and voila you can completely automate the stuff you just wrote, no need for money and you can have whatever home you like.
Quote:
Us being immortal won't make the world stretch. Paradoxically, even if there are 10^1000000000 inhabitable planets in the universe, at certain time they will ALL become overpopulated to a point where you can't live normally. If we're going into abstraction like "immortal=all problems solved", we can also acknowledge this.
Well actually, this is of course merely my belief, but I believe that the number of configuartions that can uniquely determine someone is much smaller than the vast of the universe, which means plenty of room as long as we keep to the rule of one body pr. mind.
Secondly why inhabit planets? We can take ressources from all kinds of planet inhabitable or not, and use those to create space stations if we wanted to.
Quote:
What would we do with criminals, btw? Put them in prison for eternity? Kill them? Because obviously sentences like "20 years in prison" don't work anymore if your lifespan is infinite or near infinite.
Good question, now let me ask you this, what kind of crimes can be done in a society where people are immortal, where there's no need of money and where everyone can get everything they want (except those obvious paradoxes)?
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 08:26 PM |
|
|
I think the close one can get to immortality is if u take urself a photo or plant a tree or have a child or build a statue or write a book. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It doesn't make it okay to tell other people how to live just because there's no choice as of yet.
uhh... so if I tell a kid "hey kiddo, quit flying to the moon every night", I'm bad? Uhh. Makes no sense.
Quote:
What I define as the meaning of my life does not make me who I am, it however decides the goals I try to reach.
Given anyone else should have the same meaning of their life does not make us the same, and you know it, your example is quite bad.
Just rephrasing what you said - you need to be more accurate so I can't simplify things like that
Quote:
Certainly, you must admit with your sense of reasoning ("What should I be doing?") and ("I do what I feel like") and ("Oh no the horror of doing the same stuff over and over again") really make it seem like some sort of fear of boredom and being controlled by ones emotion, don't you think?
You're telling me you don't fear boredom (alternatively, you don't feel it - never), or you just don't fear anything, you never succumb to any emotions and you're pretty much a stoic at the extreme? If not, what kind of argument is that - that I don't want something BAD or BORING to happen? It doesn't "control my life", I'm just aware enough to rate things and give them "bad" or "boring" or "good" marks. Nothing to do with fear at all. doing the same stuff over and over again is boring, no doubt, especially if it's not something fun, but just a sad "must" that we do for a living. Like office work.
Quote:
Listen now, what we do globally is for the sake of the individual, the only reason we look at stuff globally is to protect every individual that may be affected, therefore it's always the need of the individuals that count, and again no immortality will not be a global problem, like written before, read my previous posts.
Because it's for the sake of individual, it doesn't mean it's meant to follow certain individuals. It's more of a collective good that we should take in consideration.
What does it have to do with immortality? That you can't judge whether it's good or bad for everyone based on your dream.
Quote:
We actually are working on teleportation, but we use our ressource on what's needed, and often we also use our ressources wrong sadly.
We do, but it's not a high priority, more of a "research for the sake of research". What you seem to suggest here (when I mentioned AIDS) is that AIDS is less important than immortality, well, at least that's what I understood. So following your logic, global science should be shifted towards it and other things neglected. I just happen to disagree, thinking that little things should come first. If that's not what you meant, then sorry for misunderstanding.
Quote:
Oh and thanks for reading my post, it's nice of you to do that.
No prob. Always glad to discuss.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2009 09:47 AM |
|
|
|
I agree with ihor. Immortality as a concept is nonsensical - LONGEVITY is the thing we are talking about here, because immortality gives a wrong impression. No matter, how long the life span of an individual being can prolonged by science or whatever, humans will always be MORTAL, and if someone wants to die, they generally can do so.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 12, 2009 12:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If it is vast then what is the point of populating it, as surely we wouldn't be able to communicate with the ones from the other corner easily.
Sure you wouldn't be able to communicate easily, I can't see the problem in that really however, I kind of expect you'd go together with those you love and care for, and yes it may end up in some though choices along the way, but it do solve the overpopulation problem.
Quote:
Please don't convert the Universe into billions of copies of the same Earth with dull human cities. What the heck is the point, in fact, there's already too many!
If you ask me, this is some kind of emotional bias, there's no argument in this, you're pretty much just writing you don't feel like it honestly. Otherwise you've to make your point more clear.
Quote:
Is that your only solution by the way? Only viruses think that the solution is to move on to another host. Eventually you'll run out of hosts, no virus can live infinitely because of its tyrannical design (wasn't that the point of immortality? to live forever?). I've compared humans to viruses before, but NEVER heard anyone thinking that this is a solution due to our arrogance that we must BOTH live forever AND have kids...
I believe it's the best solution, and though I've tried to explain it several times, it seems like I've not been good enough at it, though I'll try again, however don't expect me to continue writing the same stuff.
Let us say we've a uniquely defined existance, through something that happens in our brains components.
Now there'll always be a limited amount of configuration of existance since it has to be uniquely defined.
The limited amounts means after enough kids have been born, no new uniquely defined existance may happen, and all you get is one mind - several bodies.
Make a rule that says one mind pr. body, now the population have a maximum amount of people.
Most likely there won't be enough room on Earth for this, which means overpopulation, but space is certainly most likely big enough, if you've any ideas of how big the known space is today, I'll tell it's most likely at a sufficient size already, so I believe there's enough room for space cities that takes ressources from nearby energy supplies to be able to make us survive.
Yes you may come up with that the energy is then limited and due to entropy we can't continue exist, but read the part I wrote on teleport on that one, and you'll see that exactly due to entropy we may actually live forever.
So where does this differ with a virus? A virus would most likely continue production eventhough it'd reached the one mind several bodies category, we won't, we've a maximum population.
Of course this is all stuff I merely think may be, as a kind of argument against what you write. For all we know we could just as well be brains in a jar with no real ability to change things.
Quote:
If we become immortal we have to give up on kids. Not possible otherwise.
Disagree, read this or previous posts.
However we'd have to stop making new bodies at some point, that's correct.
Quote:
I think the close one can get to immortality is if u take urself a photo or plant a tree or have a child or build a statue or write a book.
I know a lot of people who believe immortality equals being remembered I wonder where this comes from
Quote:
You're telling me you don't fear boredom (alternatively, you don't feel it - never), or you just don't fear anything, you never succumb to any emotions and you're pretty much a stoic at the extreme? If not, what kind of argument is that - that I don't want something BAD or BORING to happen? It doesn't "control my life", I'm just aware enough to rate things and give them "bad" or "boring" or "good" marks. Nothing to do with fear at all. doing the same stuff over and over again is boring, no doubt, especially if it's not something fun, but just a sad "must" that we do for a living. Like office work.
I don't think it matters much what I do, something can be "wrong" no matter who does it.
First of all, to make it make any sense, if what you want (what you want in life) equals what you lust to do (your emoions), then there's no problem.
The problem arrises when we loose control of ourself to emotions, doing stuff we really don't want, but believe so in the moment of doing.
I do succumb to emotion, most often when I'm unprepared, but no not often, and mostly I ignore emotions, the emotions I agree with, I welcome, and if I don't know, I'll ignore it.
The reason I wrote fear was because you seem to avoid stuff you've given the bad or borring mark like the plague and would rather give up your existance than to risk to have to get bored for an unpredictable time-span, yet so is it also when we're mortals, though now you don't seem to complain.
Beside, if you don't like your job (office work) why are you in that business?
Quote:
We do, but it's not a high priority, more of a "research for the sake of research". What you seem to suggest here (when I mentioned AIDS) is that AIDS is less important than immortality, well, at least that's what I understood. So following your logic, global science should be shifted towards it and other things neglected. I just happen to disagree, thinking that little things should come first. If that's not what you meant, then sorry for misunderstanding.
I thought I explained this well enough before, I do agree that we've to take small steps, and urgent causes should have more focus, of course. I understood you as writing as curing AIDS was more important (understanding important as higher goal given infinite time).
Quote:
Movement is practically a change or a process, which implies that it has to have a starting point. From our understanding of time and space, what has a start must have an end. Unless you can show me an example that debunks this.
I don't know where you got this from, that's not my impression at all, though I can quote one of the things that inspired me, which gives a suggestion of a forever being universe:
Quote:
I would prefer not to talk about multiple universes since universe means everything. In stead of one could call it collection of mass seperated by further distance than light can travel between these masses ever since they started to form.
By started to form I litteraly mean the Big Bang. Since we are limited to the distance light can travel in the time since Big Bang then we do only know about the limited mass of our part of the universe, where our part includes all the mass we can calculate, simply since the information light (or gravity actually, but gravity waves travel with the speed of light) delivers are limited by its speed.
We assume the universe follows the second law of thermodynaics, rise of entropy, however this rise is global, not local, so if one assumes there is infinite much space, infinite much mass (and thereby energy as well), and infinite much time, then according to statistics there is always a minimal risk, so small that it will practically take infinity long time for it to ever happen, that all matter will be collected at the same spot in the universe. However since there is infinite time, then this will happen as long as it keeps on being possible, but it is much more probable that all mass will be collected in various points distributed through out the universe.
When this happens (when matter gets close enough in connection for another Big Bang), then the entropy will change dramatically due to a new Big Bang scenario, and therefore matter will distribute itself, however the matter that was seperated will take time until the gravity waves from eachother meet again so to say, since the collected matter before Big Bang will not only change how time goes, but just as well keep light (and thereby gravity waves) back in such a way, that one could say the matter of the universe is redistributed.
Now since there is infinite much matter there are also infinite many Big Bangs, and therefore any possible line of event will all happens, though distributed through the worlds, since there are infinite many worlds, there will for each event be infinite worlds following eachother allowing every type of event possible covered in each mass distribution world. There might be worlds where the Big Bangs was not far from eachother, so these begins to feel eachother after 6 billion years, and other worlds that are so far form each other (remember infinite range) that these will never experience other worlds before any new mass collection.
As mentioned this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as seen on a long enough time scale the mass gets as distributed as possible.
Quote:
The reason I see it as natural, it the cycle of life and death is repeating in nature. Things die away to make space for new. Living things die as life is defined by it's start birth and ends at death. That is the definition of life - an experience of being alive.
We don't know exactly what makes us alive, so any definition is still an opinion, and you're welcome to have yours, but I don't share it, for me death does not have to be a part of life, for me to be alive.
Quote:
that is a different topic. I would not be so sure. For immortality to be achievable, would mean for a very drastic change in our society, either towards techoncracy or a different totalitarian system that would control not just society but the individual and his life.
Why do you think so? If we're immortal, in principle nothing could stop us, only isolate us.
Unless we're talking about immortal relative to age, but then again I must ask, why do you think society would change in such a negative direction?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 12, 2009 05:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure you wouldn't be able to communicate easily, I can't see the problem in that really however, I kind of expect you'd go together with those you love and care for, and yes it may end up in some though choices along the way, but it do solve the overpopulation problem.
How would it "solve" it?
By making humans on the other end of the Universe with which you don't have contact with anyway?
What is the point of going there in the first place then?
Sorry I find it absurd.
Quote:
If you ask me, this is some kind of emotional bias, there's no argument in this, you're pretty much just writing you don't feel like it honestly. Otherwise you've to make your point more clear.
Nah, the emotional bias is those which think humanity is special... after all, there is nothing scientific about it, or about glory. They do so because they feel that their life is good.
I don't understand why lack of life can't be considered a solution -- care to enlighten me, eh, without emotional bias?
Quote:
The limited amounts means after enough kids have been born, no new uniquely defined existance may happen, and all you get is one mind - several bodies.
Make a rule that says one mind pr. body, now the population have a maximum amount of people.
And more "minds" is good because...?
Maybe it's time for the "old minds" to retire?
Quote:
Most likely there won't be enough room on Earth for this, which means overpopulation, but space is certainly most likely big enough, if you've any ideas of how big the known space is today, I'll tell it's most likely at a sufficient size already, so I believe there's enough room for space cities that takes ressources from nearby energy supplies to be able to make us survive.
Quote:
Disagree, read this or previous posts.
However we'd have to stop making new bodies at some point, that's correct.
Alright I get what you mean now, but tell you what: we are made to forget stuff. Forgetting is just the same as acquiring a new mind. That's how our brains are made -- we wouldn't be human if we didn't have them, we would most likely be cyborgs/robots (and I'm talking in mentality).
Which is a different thing altogether, in my opinion. (I am actually an advocate of AI, but that was in another thread).
Quote:
I know a lot of people who believe immortality equals being remembered I wonder where this comes from
What is the similarity between you today, and you 1000 years later in:
1) a different body
2) barely remembering (or not at all) anything about your life -- your brain is made that way
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 13, 2009 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree with ihor. Immortality as a concept is nonsensical - LONGEVITY is the thing we are talking about here, because immortality gives a wrong impression. No matter, how long the life span of an individual being can prolonged by science or whatever, humans will always be MORTAL, and if someone wants to die, they generally can do so.
I believe I should make it clear what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking abou age-specific immortaliy, nor immorality in its true meaning.
I'm talking about the best we can achieve in he fight against both microscopic damage (such as aging, disease, radioactive attacks, etc.) and macroscopic damage (such as violence from other people, accidents involving transportation mechanics, celestial bodies hitting us, etc.).
I believe the suggestions I've made makes it clear that I'd like to focus on both of these as death is most probably death no matter where it comes from, which might be our luck actually.
Quote:
Quote:
Sure you wouldn't be able to communicate easily, I can't see the problem in that really however, I kind of expect you'd go together with those you love and care for, and yes it may end up in some though choices along the way, but it do solve the overpopulation problem.
How would it "solve" it?
By making humans on the other end of the Universe with which you don't have contact with anyway?
What is the point of going there in the first place then?
Sorry I find it absurd.
Well if you can't remember the point, then let me rephrase our debate:
1) I claim immortality is a good thing
2)You claim there'll be problems with overpopulation
3)I claim that we might will reach a maximum population and therefore given the size of outer space, we'll most likely have no problems with overpopulation if we go to space.
4) You ask what the point is -> go back to 1).
Quote:
Quote:
If you ask me, this is some kind of emotional bias, there's no argument in this, you're pretty much just writing you don't feel like it honestly. Otherwise you've to make your point more clear.
Nah, the emotional bias is those which think humanity is special... after all, there is nothing scientific about it, or about glory. They do so because they feel that their life is good.
I don't understand why lack of life can't be considered a solution -- care to enlighten me, eh, without emotional bias?
Certainly, the objective of the thread have always been immortality (in the sense I wrote above) for all who wants it. Non-willingly (will of those whose life is in question) lack of life goes against the very premise of the objective.
Quote:
Quote:
The limited amounts means after enough kids have been born, no new uniquely defined existance may happen, and all you get is one mind - several bodies.
Make a rule that says one mind pr. body, now the population have a maximum amount of people.
And more "minds" is good because...?
Maybe it's time for the "old minds" to retire?
Because, when I wrote mind, I basicly mean existance, I mean what uniquely defines us, I mean our consciousness.
As the whole thread are about preserving consciousness of all who wants for as long as possible (hopefully forever) then every mind that can exist should exist.
Quote:
Quote:
Disagree, read this or previous posts.
However we'd have to stop making new bodies at some point, that's correct.
Alright I get what you mean now, but tell you what: we are made to forget stuff. Forgetting is just the same as acquiring a new mind.
No, most likely not, we're defined by more than our memory, read this:
Quote:
Here is my view on the subject, I strongly believe that some collection of cells in our brain define our existance, where existance = consciousness + memory. Consciousness is existance relative to ourself, and memory is existance relative to others.
Quote:
Quote:
I know a lot of people who believe immortality equals being remembered I wonder where this comes from
What is the similarity between you today, and you 1000 years later in:
1) a different body
2) barely remembering (or not at all) anything about your life -- your brain is made that way
That I'm still me, I've the same consciousness, that's of course if we're uniquely defined, which I thought we'd agreed upon was a premise for the whole debate all together. Though if you're one of those who think we're never the same between two time seperated moments, and we're merely like robots, then there really isn't much to debate.
Edit: Oh and I forgot one thing.
The purpose of we having a society at all is for the common good of every single individual, it may take some sacrficies in present pleasents department, and some won't notice the difference much, but in the long run it's the best way to achieve the common goal of every living being, freedom to do what you want, and security of said freedom (certainly this implies restrictions in itself, but the only restriction would be not to have the freedom to affect the freedom of others).
Immortality is, as so much else simply a freedom that we, from the very moment we were given life, should have had the ability to have, you know life is a gift, you don't just take a gift back, and as life is a truely wonderful gift (believing the difference of life and non-life to be difference of something and nothing at all), removing life is just as terrible a crime as life is a wonderful gift.
So immortality suits the idea of society as I see it, and the whole idea of immortality not being a good idea globally partly destroys the meaning of why we've a society all together and aren't merely every man for himself.
So yes, I do know there'll be problems, problems I believe my suggestions would solve, however emotional bias, such as regret and boredom have no saying, because those are merely irrational fears, which only have negative consequences for us globally, as well as individually.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2009 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well if you can't remember the point, then let me rephrase our debate:
1) I claim immortality is a good thing
Why?
Because you actually claim that one's own life is a good thing -- which is distinct from "arbitrary" life because of his/her realisation of self, right?
Quote:
2)You claim there'll be problems with overpopulation
No I claim there are consequences to every decision, consequences that don't involve only humans. (for example, on Earth, animals...)
Quote:
3)I claim that we might will reach a maximum population and therefore given the size of outer space, we'll most likely have no problems with overpopulation if we go to space.
4) You ask what the point is -> go back to 1).
You still don't get it?
What is the point of having that big of a maximum population? Why not make it lower so overpopulation would not happen in the first place?
Quote:
Certainly, the objective of the thread have always been immortality (in the sense I wrote above) for all who wants it. Non-willingly (will of those whose life is in question) lack of life goes against the very premise of the objective.
No I'm just discussing why immortality is a good thing or not, which goes to a more fundamental question: why is life special?
Quote:
Because, when I wrote mind, I basicly mean existance, I mean what uniquely defines us, I mean our consciousness.
As the whole thread are about preserving consciousness of all who wants for as long as possible (hopefully forever) then every mind that can exist should exist.
And I'm question, again, the point of this and its consequences. Or is this thread supposed to not have any criticism on immortality/life at all?
Quote:
No, most likely not, we're defined by more than our memory, read this:
Quote:
Here is my view on the subject, I strongly believe that some collection of cells in our brain define our existance, where existance = consciousness + memory. Consciousness is existance relative to ourself, and memory is existance relative to others.
Yes but what I meant was like this:
1) I am myself and know I am myself
2) I learn X, Y and Z.
3) After 300 years I forget them
Go back to 2.
What is the point of my life? I would find it like just rewinding a 300-year-length movie all over again. What is the point for me to continue rewinding it? Is that what you do when you watch movies?
Quote:
The purpose of we having a society at all is for the common good of every single individual
Not only. Individuals are usually short-sighted. With every action comes consequences, and every decision comes a responsibility. Individuals shouldn't be the authority to handle them because it's like giving a kid a life-and-death responsibility -- some kids handle it well, but most just **** it up.
Quote:
So yes, I do know there'll be problems, problems I believe my suggestions would solve, however emotional bias, such as regret and boredom have no saying, because those are merely irrational fears, which only have negative consequences for us globally, as well as individually.
Are you joking? See my above example with the movies.
The irrational fear here is fear of death (well actually ANY fear is irrational). Boredom isn't even a fear, just something we're used to, as humans. Surely, if we wouldn't be humans anymore then immortality may sound more reasonable, like for computers/artificial intelligence.
The human body, and brain, are made to die, and this is exactly why. That's why boredom even exists. I don't know if it's some "advanced algorithm" or "hidden agenda" behind it, but I do know, the human body is not made for immortality.
And that's what I'm arguing about: humans becoming immortal, not computers or stuff that isn't made to die or have a limited lifespan (or get bored, or fear something).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 13, 2009 05:58 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath - Thanks for your reply
Yes every action have consequences, but as the only goal (at least in the spirit of the thread) is to remain alive (though I agree we should always go for what we "want", that's the whole point of the last part of the previous post), then any consequences that affects things that aren't alive does not matter as long as it doesn't affect life in the long run.
We don't decide the value of the maximum population.
Life is special because we choose to, we can choose that because we're alive.
You're more than welcome to raise criticism, I think there've been a lot of good criticism, which have been debated so far in this thread.
Why do you need a point to life at all is what I'm wondering. It's in a sense a lot like those people who seek out a "meaning of life", and can't accept there might not be anything else than what they decide. The same problem religous people often have when they consider either there be a god and they're special or it's all just random, and they in reality are no more special than what they decide for themselves.
Fear can be irrational, but not always, if it was you should never act upon fear. No fear is one of the best responses we've actually, if you've the choice of fight or flee, it's often the better choice to flee, and the reason you flee is because of fear. Of course those who value truely irrational emotions such as pride would often choose to fight.
I never wrote we needed to stay in the same body, merely we needed to preserve whatever it was that defined us.
I did also write fear of boredom, and not boredom is fear.
Humans are neither build to live forever, nor not to live forever, unless you believe in some higher existance that decide these things. Humans are merely build out of pure random mechanisms that've happened during the last millions of years.
Whether or not it's actually possible for a human (with or without body, again I'm talking about the existance part, and not anything with memory, but consciousness) to live forever only time will tell I believe.
Finally let's note this about emotions, if we're in such a high control of ourself that we actually can decide exactly how long we exist, what makes us not able to likewise decide actually how we want to feel at any given time? After all emotions are merely chemicals getting transported in your brain.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2009 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for your reply
Yes every action have consequences, but as the only goal (at least in the spirit of the thread) is to remain alive (though I agree we should always go for what we "want", that's the whole point of the last part of the previous post), then any consequences that affects things that aren't alive does not matter as long as it doesn't affect life in the long run.
We don't decide the value of the maximum population.
This is why individuals making choices for individuals don't make the best choices.
However, if the only goal is to stay alive in this thread, then what should there be discussed? The technical aspects of immortality (i.e biology)?
Quote:
Life is special because we choose to, we can choose that because we're alive.
The reason I raised this question was because you mentioned that I am emotionally biased, and I wanted to show, it's the other way around.
As you can see I'm not against immortality at all, if it's used properly and not "due to emotional bias". Just "wanting" to survive is not enough, you have to make reasonable choices and bear consequences. I.e to me saying "I want to live forever" is a bad argument, on the other hand saying "I want to live more, and my plans to get over that are X, Y and Z." (for instance, not having children as at the current situation (that is, children=humans, not robots or some meta-physical mind) is unreasonable if you're going for immortality).
To me choosing children while not choosing death is dumb because it is keeping one of nature's designs (reproduction) but not the other. These two things are calibrated to work together in nature. If you want to not go in nature's way, be my guest and become immortal, but don't have kids (which is "nature's way")
Because otherwise it's like submerging your computer in water: it just doesn't tick with its design (since it's not insulated). We are designed to age and have kids, you have to give up to both if you want to go against nature's way.
Quote:
Finally let's note this about emotions, if we're in such a high control of ourself that we actually can decide exactly how long we exist, what makes us not able to likewise decide actually how we want to feel at any given time? After all emotions are merely chemicals getting transported in your brain.
You should really watch the Matrix
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 14, 2009 12:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is why individuals making choices for individuals don't make the best choices.
I don't follow your point here, how's it related to the quoted part?
Quote:
However, if the only goal is to stay alive in this thread, then what should there be discussed?
You're welcome to debate this part, but you asked for the point, and as you're the challenger I merely wrote the point was my claim that you challenged.
Quote:
The technical aspects of immortality (i.e biology)?
That'd be awesome.
Quote:
Quote:
Life is special because we choose to, we can choose that because we're alive.
The reason I raised this question was because you mentioned that I am emotionally biased, and I wanted to show, it's the other way around.
I'm sorry, but there's no emotion bias in that, if there's you've to pinpoint it out.
I'll however give a short explanation of non-emotion produced actions contra emotion produced actions.
We due to our consciousness have the rare opportunity to not only behave as what our emotions tells us, but to actually make decisions of actions. We can devide it up in emotions are lusts and our decisions are wants.
Given our decision is not equal to what our emotion tells us, or if we actually agree with the emotion before the emotion took place, it's a want.
Again I should emphazise that when I write we're alive, I mean we're consciouss, or to say, we've the ability to do what we want, if you read it that way I believe you'll see there's no emotional bias in what I wrote.
Quote:
As you can see I'm not against immortality at all, if it's used properly and not "due to emotional bias". Just "wanting" to survive is not enough, you have to make reasonable choices and bear consequences. I.e to me saying "I want to live forever" is a bad argument, on the other hand saying "I want to live more, and my plans to get over that are X, Y and Z."
That's faulty logic, simply because logic cannot work without a premise, there's no absolute logic that is the premise for all things, otherwise we could derive the entire universe through mathmatics that'd forever hold true, no need for uncertainity, etc.
So you're probably thinking now, how do you then get the premise, the definition? You choose it, in the real world by a measure and for your goals in life, you choose.
Thereby you cannot create anything rational, without something irrational (something that has no logic reason to be) to start with. The irrational part is what other may say is what we thing of as the "meaning of life" or maybe our "purpose in life", or what they want. It's something you derive for yourself, and it may always be irrational, but to avoid confusion here, it does not have to be derived through emotions.
Often it's something we derive by looking at the conclusion if we let time go to infinity and compare this with the world we want, where the part "want" is unique for all of us and irrational. From this point of it's all rational however, let's say that now if the future doesn't match what you want you'll compare each time span and see what needs to be fixed, parts that are, which you don't want, and parts that aren't which you want, and you've a goal in life. This way it continues with finding the method, knowing in general terms how you'll achieve this goal, then improving yourself, first so nothing inside of you stops you, then increase your skills in collecting information, and then collect and use information, find new information, and continue this until you've achieved your goal.
Quote:
(for instance, not having children as at the current situation (that is, children=humans, not robots or some meta-physical mind) is unreasonable if you're going for immortality).
To me choosing children while not choosing death is dumb because it is keeping one of nature's designs (reproduction) but not the other. These two things are calibrated to work together in nature. If you want to not go in nature's way, be my guest and become immortal, but don't have kids (which is "nature's way")
I've gone over why you can choose both children and immortality wihtout long-term problems, unless you come with a counterargument to that part, then there's not much more to debate in the children department.
Quote:
You should really watch the Matrix
I've watched the matrix.
What's your point about the matrix?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 14, 2009 01:12 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:13, 14 Sep 2009.
|
My thoughts on immortality (which may or may not have ANYTHING to do with the current discussion).
Why anybody would want to be immortal is beyond me, heck why anybody would want to live a couple hundred years is beyond me. Life would probably get awful boring even if you stayed in peak physical health. It would probably be fun for awhile, but then tedium would almost certainly set in.
Population would be an issue, and even if no kids were ever had again there would be another problem. Accidents. Right now there are 7 billion people (give or take in the world) so it wouldn't be an issue for a VERY long time, but there is a finite number of people. So here are somethings that would/could become issues.
Overpopulation. IF immortal AND reproducing THEN this becomes a huge problem.
Limited Resources. Especially IF the above is true THEN this becomes a huge problem. Even if not..unless we found other planets eventually all the resources would be used up.
Accidents that kill people. IF no reproducing THEN this can eventually become a problem. Now, if there was some sort of 'backup' system, this might not be an issue...but there would have to be a way of replacing the ones lost OR humanity eventually becomes extinct. It might take a LONG time, however.
Boredom. Yeah it sounds good on paper, but eventually people are gonna get bored.
Now lets assume that we have an artifical body that can be replaced if we have an accident (no need to eat, sleep, etc). We don't have children (so no overpopulation), and we eliminate the limited resource problem. Then another problem will come up (besides boredom).
Lack of drive. Survivial drives us humans, a lot of the things we create are to make our lives easier or to extend our lives (or basically make them better). Once those things are no longer needed..we will lose a LOT of our drive to create things. Stagnation would then happen. No..immortality is not a good choice, even if the option should ever present itself.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2009 04:57 PM |
|
|
I kinda agree with Mytical..
But I think most brilliant and creative of minds would perhaps endure their life being extended tenfold. Perhaps.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
