flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Immortality

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
@revolution: if you make a copy of "you", which one will you experience in consciousness? Wink
Why not both?
Post 14 Nov 2009, 06:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
revolution wrote:
MHajduk wrote:
It could be a problem to me, because gender of my brain / mind is definitely male.
But the brain is not transferred. Just the thoughts and memories.
That's why I wrote "my brain / mind". My "thoughts and memories" also keep information about my gender, so it's not only question of the actual body gender. Wink
Post 14 Nov 2009, 14:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Borsuc wrote:
Oh that's pretty easy to solve.

No kids for immortal people.

Easy and no effort required.


Oh right, try telling people they have to either get their parts taken out or to not have sex anymore... It's not as easy as you think...
Post 14 Nov 2009, 15:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
kohlrak wrote:
Oh right, try telling people they have to either get their parts taken out or to not have sex anymore... It's not as easy as you think...
It's pretty easy actually. If you don't want to give those up, you don't get the immortal pill. It's not like people are automatically immortal, they should go through a controlled process first.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 14 Nov 2009, 16:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Convicts you could convince, but politicians automatically get the pill and get to keep their whores. How would you tell them they can't? Razz
Post 15 Nov 2009, 01:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
How can you tell the difference between politicians and criminals? Razz
Post 15 Nov 2009, 01:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.

guess this could sort of help us to the long road of immortality.
Post 15 Nov 2009, 01:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Take a look at this article on cellular senescence. Razz

The main reason I started this thread was that I'd like to seek the answer to the following big question:

Is death inevitable (at least from a biological point of view)?

Many religious salesmen regularly use the above question as a threat, like this - Since death is inevitable, if you don't believe in God you will be ... They argue that it's part of God's plan that every life will die (and afterward will face some sort of final judgment).

We now clearly know that death is NOT inevitable for at least one multicellular organism and lots of unicellular organisms. One day human beings may also become immortal through advances in biotechnology. Who knows?

Wink
Post 15 Nov 2009, 10:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
YONG, it is inevitable, because age is not the only one who's gonna kill you. Heck the whole Universe is gonna die someday, and trust me, 1 million years and 10 years is no difference when you look at infinity scale. When you'll be in the last day of your life, it won't make a difference to you. Wink (or in your "deathbed")

Hmm a gun is always more effective to prove it though.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 15 Nov 2009, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
we exists when we are conscious. if somehow science could transfer consciousness, we will exists even without body. i think so, maybe alien got such technology already, got to ask them later. Smile hehehe
Post 15 Nov 2009, 17:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Borsuc, I didn't want to argue with you because you control the terminator ... But you're always so annoying that I really need to shut you up this time!!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Borsuc wrote:
YONG, it is inevitable, because age is not the only one who's gonna kill you.
That's why I said "from a biological point of view"! I guess every known alloy will vapourize at 5000K! (Refer to this!) It's pointless to say that any lifeform can be killed.

Borsuc wrote:
Heck the whole Universe is gonna die someday ...
I guess you're talking about something like the big rip. Please note that it's just another cosmological hypothesis. Step back and show us, with verifiable evidence, the true nature of dark matter and dark energy first! (Btw, to me, the most reasonable explanation on the birth of the universe is this. Cool )

Wink
Post 16 Nov 2009, 06:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
How can you tell the difference between politicians and criminals?


This is why they always help each other out. Anyway, the difference is that one group is behind bars, the other group is behind a desk.
Post 16 Nov 2009, 17:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
YONG: regarding the Big Rip thing, it's not whether dark matter is understood or not.

We have the following scenario:

- The Universe currently acceleratingly expands based on our data (redshifts)

Now we can draw conclusion:

1) It will continue like this forever
2) Suddenly it would stop accelerating, and start decelerating.

Which one is more likely? I think a "sudden change" is much less likely Wink

Actually even with (2) it would lead to contraction into another Big Bang if it continues decelerating forever. So what it would need would be for the expansion forces to perfectly equal the gravitational forces. Something that is extremely unlikely, if you ask me.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 16 Nov 2009, 19:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Borsuc wrote:
YONG: regarding the Big Rip thing, it's not whether dark matter is understood or not.
I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this point. It's closely related to the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.

Borsuc wrote:
The Universe currently acceleratingly expands based on our data (redshifts)
Yes, based on the current obversation.

Borsuc wrote:
Now we can draw conclusion: ...
NO, NO, NO!!! We can't draw any conclusion yet! Because we still don't know the CAUSE of the acceleration! That's why we come up with the concept of dark energy. But the sad truth is that currently we have zero understanding of it!

Borsuc wrote:
1) ...
2) ...
Which one is more likely?
We don't know. That's why we should let the evidence speak for itself!

Wink
Post 17 Nov 2009, 06:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
YONG wrote:
I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this point. It's closely related to the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.
That is the hypothesis. See, it's simply believed that it's the cause Smile

YONG wrote:
Yes, based on the current obversation.
aka evidence.

YONG wrote:
NO, NO, NO!!! We can't draw any conclusion yet! Because we still don't know the CAUSE of the acceleration!
That doesn't matter. Like you said, let the evidence, aka accelerated expansion, speak for itself. Wink

We can always draw conclusions, because knowledge is not a measurable entity, the only difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that theories predict stuff.

In this case, we have a model that can predict the accelerated expansion. Since it will, no doubt, predict the expansion within the next few minutes, my bets are on it. You are free, of course, to come up with something else.

But until it predicts anything, it will not become a theory.

That's basically the scientific method in a nutshell.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 17 Nov 2009, 19:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Borsuc wrote:
We can always draw conclusions
Really? Rolling Eyes You are NOT DRAWING any conclusion; you are JUMPING to the conclusion!

Take a look at this scenario:


X ---------------------------------- O ---------------------------------- Y

M -->


User B, the mastermind behind the terminator, is observing the motion of a metal sphere, M. At the time User B begins his observation, M has just left X and is accelerating towards O.

Based on this observation, User B immediately draws the conclusion that M will go beyond Y and will keep accelerating towards the right hand side FOREVER.


User G, a pathetic dummy in the same reference frame as User B, is observing the same motion of M.

User G, however, does NOT think that we can JUMP to User B's conclusion. He thinks that we need first to understand the CAUSE of the motion of M.

User G then painstakingly makes many other observations. Finally, he finds that M starts to decelerate after passing through O and it comes to a halt at Y momentarily. Afterwards, M starts to accelerate towards O.

User G, with all these data on hand, hypothesizes that M is in SHM. But he says he still needs to make many other painful observations before he can confidently conclude that the motion of M is actually SHM. That is to say, the CAUSE of the motion is a net force acting on M directed always towards O.

Here comes the big question: Which User, B or G, is correct?

Rolling Eyes
Post 18 Nov 2009, 06:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
My predictions were correct: I bet myself yesterday that something will happen today and... I won! Wink


Last edited by MHajduk on 19 Nov 2009, 07:13; edited 1 time in total
Post 18 Nov 2009, 10:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
YONG wrote:
User B, the mastermind behind the terminator, is observing the motion of a metal sphere, M. At the time User B begins his observation, M has just left X and is accelerating towards O.

Based on this observation, User B immediately draws the conclusion that M will go beyond Y and will keep accelerating towards the right hand side FOREVER.
That's the scientific method:

Gather data, make a model (theory), if it predicts (within a margin of error), it passes the predictions, and is a theory. If it doesn't predict, it is a wrong theory and must be re-adjusted.

Gather more data, repeat process.

YONG wrote:
User G, however, does NOT think that we can JUMP to User B's conclusion. He thinks that we need first to understand the CAUSE of the motion of M.
How do you measure "understanding" of a cause? The laws of physics could change tomorrow. But that doesn't mean our theories and science was wrong, it was a good tool with our previous theories and it predicted stuff, we'll just need to come up with other theories. It's just a tool.

Knowledge is not measurable, it has nothing to do with science. Philosophy might draw a connection between them, but it doesn't mean it is related. Science is a tool for predictions, not for "knowledge", whatever that is (again, it cannot be measured, and unmeasurable things do not belong to science).

YONG wrote:
User G, with all these data on hand, hypothesizes that M is in SHM. But he says he still needs to make many other painful observations before he can confidently conclude that the motion of M is actually SHM. That is to say, the CAUSE of the motion is a net force acting on M directed always towards O.
That's a bit like philosophy mate. Can you measure why User G has more knowledge?

Science deals only with measurements and measurable things... as long as a theory predicts things, it's a scientific theory. If it hasn't yet, it's a hypothesis.

Furthermore truth can't change, and we all know science MUST change, it's one of its virtues -- wind back a bit how quantum mechanics shattered people's "knowledge" about the world. We still don't know the reason it's random, but who cares, as long as we have a model (like Schrodinger's equation) that can predict it? That's how science works.

Science doesn't work the way with truth, because science knows that truth is not measurable and futile to "seek" objectively. It's not a truth-seeking philosophy, it's for predicting phenomena.

Hope that makes my point more clear. Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 18 Nov 2009, 15:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Borsuc wrote:
Hope that makes my point more clear.
It should have been "clearer". Refer to this. Wink

Borsuc wrote:
Science doesn't work the way with truth, because science knows that truth is not measurable and futile to "seek" objectively. It's not a truth-seeking philosophy, it's for predicting phenomena.
Borsuc, you have just opened my eyes by saying "Science is NOT a truth-seeking discipline!" I'm shocked!!! Shocked Shocked Shocked

I now strongly believe that it's truly meaningless to argue with you any further. Confused
Post 19 Nov 2009, 06:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
MHajduk wrote:
In my opinion both Users are wrong.
Yeah, only User H is correct. Wink
Post 19 Nov 2009, 07:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.