Google searching for immortality.

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Google searching for immortality.

Google vs. Death

Is there an "existential certainty of aging and death"? Many people seem to think there is, like it's written into the laws of nature by some divine authority.

I think science understands aging well enough now that stopping it is just an engineering problem(nanotechnology).

If science could give us immortality and an end to suffering, wouldn't that obsolete the need for religion?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
 There was thought of

 There was thought of altering the telomerase(sp?) in our genes.

I'm content with the amount of life I can have. Just existing to get older would suck.

I think 'immortality' would just give theists another reason to thank their god. Unless the godless refused to allow the believers access to it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4787
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm content with the amount

I'm content with the amount of life I can have. Just existing to get older would suck.

I think being immortal would completely, and totally, suck. How boring would it be to live 500 or 1000 years?

Though, you'd be sort of revered because you'd have all this knowledge about shit, like "first hand" stuff and not stuff from a text book. You'd be a like a master historian.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: There was

darth_josh wrote:

 There was thought of altering the telomerase(sp?) in our genes.

I think that is why they hired this Genentech guy. They want to find a way to get normal cell to produce enough telomerase so that when cells divide they are not damaged by telomere shortening. Interestingly, cancer cells already do this and are immortal, that is why they are so hard to kill off completely.

darth_josh wrote:

I'm content with the amount of life I can have. Just existing to get older would suck.

I suppose if one is a billionare many times over, life wouldn't suck so long as you don't age. That's why I think we're going to see even more of the super rich putting their money into creating a fountain of youth. If this enterprise succeeds, you'd have to be a billionare to afford it.

Personally I like to see open source medicine.

darth_josh wrote:

I think 'immortality' would just give theists another reason to thank their god. Unless the godless refused to allow the believers access to it.

I think the main reason we have religion is so many people are terrified of their own mortality. Belief in heaven is a soothing opiate.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I think being immortal would completely, and totally, suck. How boring would it be to live 500 or 1000 years?

I'm sure science would come up with 'pleasure engineering'(virtual reality, neural stimulation, etc...) so you would never get bored or feel depressed(as long as you could afford it).

But with the way the world is now, yes. Most people don't have money to enjoy life, a boring just to get enough to survive. Overpopulation would be more of problem than now. Even if we could stop cellular aging, disease, war, crime or accidents would probably still get you. It wold be hell unless other things change.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Though, you'd be sort of revered because you'd have all this knowledge about shit, like "first hand" stuff and not stuff from a text book. You'd be a like a master historian.

But I think unless they came up with technolgy to give you a bigger brain, you'd start forgetting most everything. The internet would eventually become our auxillary brain. If people wanted to know about life in the 20th century, they'd just go there.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No life extending strategy

No life extending strategy would really make anyone immortal. The problems with memory are much worse than EXC makes them out to be (and he paints a dark portrait as it is), and memory isn't the only problem either. Nothing lasts forever. Everything dies. Permanence is like the speed of light. You can get infinitely closer, but you cannot ever reach it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No life

Vastet wrote:
No life extending strategy would really make anyone immortal.

I'm just glad you weren't around to tell the Wright Brothers that man will never fly.

When biologists refer to immortal, they mean cells that don't age. There are already cells that are immortal(stem cells, cancer cells) and organisms such as hydras and some jellyfish are immortal. Scientist have had some success in mice life extension:

Harvard Scientists Reverse Aging in Mice 

Vastet wrote:
Nothing lasts forever. Everything dies. Permanence is like the speed of light. You can get infinitely closer, but you cannot ever reach it.

Where is that written? The only place if I've ever seen is the bible 'It is appointed unto man once to die'. Is that where your faith comes from?

The fact is no one knows enough about the true nature of the universe(or multiverse) to make such predictions.

 

BTW, "Nothing lasts forever" is a self contadictory statement. If forever exists, then time lasts forever.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I'm just glad you

EXC wrote:
I'm just glad you weren't around to tell the Wright Brothers that man will never fly.

I'd have never said that. You might have, but I wouldn't.

EXC wrote:
When biologists refer to immortal, they mean cells that don't age.

And when 99% of people refer to immortal 99% of the time (including yourself and everyone in this topic as well as Google), they are literally referring to living forever, which is literally impossible. Both scientifically and philosophically.

EXC wrote:
Where is that written?

Lots of places. But since you apparently skipped science along with all the theists you might want to check out the laws of thermodynamics.

Entropy will kill time. Sorry dumbass, time won't last forever.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: And when 99%

Vastet wrote:
And when 99% of people refer to immortal 99% of the time (including yourself and everyone in this topic as well as Google), they are literally referring to living forever, which is literally impossible. Both scientifically and philosophically.

The fact is we don't know anywhere near enough to know the fate of the universe(or mulitiverse). So the debate about end of time will continue in both in science and philosophy.

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:
Where is that written?
Lots of places.

Except you can't site any credible scientist that has any proof that time will end or that biological immortality is impossible.

 

Vastet wrote:
But since you apparently skipped science along with all the theists you might want to check out the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy will kill time. Sorry dumbass, time won't last forever.

"We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end." -- Steven Hawking.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Oh please, you sound just like a creationist that uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics to say evolution didn't occur.

P.S. Why don't you send in your proof of your "Entropy will kill time" theory to the Nobel committee. After you get your prize, then you can call me dumbass.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The fact is that nothing

The fact is that nothing lasts forever. Even the oldest structure ever built is a mere few thousand years old. Even stars and black holes pass on. You are delusional to think that any life form could live forever, especially when none of us have even existed for 10 years. The person you were 10 years ago is dead and gone. As are 65%+ of the experiences you aquired during that time.

"Except you can't site any credible scientist that has any proof that time will end or that biological immortality is impossible."

Except you can't name one who would prove the opposite, so your point is moot and pointless.
And I probably could actually, I just would never waste my time posting a source for you, since you'd just ignore it like you have the thousands of sources that have constantly and continuously proven you wrong on nearly every subject you've ever posted on here.

Entropy will kill time. Dumbass.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: "Except you

Vastet wrote:
 

"Except you can't site any credible scientist that has any proof that time will end or that biological immortality is impossible." Except you can't name one who would prove the opposite, so your point is moot and pointless.

The opposite would be that it is possible. I've sighted respected scientists that say we don't know if the universe will end and who believe biological immortality is possible.

Tech Can Make Immortality a Reality: Head Google Engineer

All you do is make blanket statements with no proof and talk out of your ass.

Vastet wrote:

And I probably could actually, I just would never waste my time posting a source for you, since you'd just ignore it like you have the thousands of sources that have constantly and continuously proven you wrong on nearly every subject you've ever posted on here. Entropy will kill time. Dumbass.

You sight nothing this is the exact same argument creationists make claiming the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes something impossible. You have no clue.

I googled "Entropy kills Time". Guess what pops up? A creationist website and then fantasy role playing sites.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
 Ugh!Calm the fuck down. Be

 Ugh!

Calm the fuck down. Be rational, but be reasonable. Both of ya.

 Philosophical immortality is only loosely equated with forever. Forever is a bastard word anyway.

Entropy governs systems and is not the end all/be all. The Big Bang is a lesson in entropy.

I am imagining something along the lines of heads in jars, like Futurama, as the overall conceptual idea i.e. on a shelf in a museum until a facet of history repeats itself.

The third, as yet unaddressed, problem is the definition of immortal meaning incapable of being killed. Even data can be purposefully lost.

So far, it seems the only immortality I have witnessed is the inevitable entropy of topics.

Step 1 poorly worded concept posited.

Step 2 extreme semantics after congenial discussion

Step 3 no less than four logical fallacies displayed

Step 4 return to step 2 until something else pops up on the super tracker

Congratulations, you've established a conditional goto loop. Of course, we could use this an example of the concept of immortality. lol.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The opposite would

EXC wrote:
The opposite would be that it is possible. I've sighted respected scientists that say we don't know if the universe will end and who believe biological immortality is possible.

Citing an engineer on biology is patently ridiculous. And saying 'we don't know the future of the universe' doesn't even imply that it can or will last forever. Every single observation we have implies that it won't. You're fucking retarded.
Also, just because a creationist says something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Only you are so stupid as to never be right on any subject. Even creationists and tea baggers have more brains than you ever will.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Step 1

darth_josh wrote:
Step 1 poorly worded concept posited.

Step 2 extreme semantics after congenial discussion

Step 3 no less than four logical fallacies displayed

Step 4 return to step 2 until something else pops up on the super tracker

You forgot step 5. Some smart ass jumps in to try and berate the parties arguing, playing with vague assertions and insinuations and failing to either make a point or accomplish anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Citing an

Vastet wrote:
Citing an engineer on biology is patently ridiculous.

So far you've only sighted yourself as the expert. We should all just take your word for anything.

If you knew anything about the topic, it would not be ridiculous. Science now knows what causes aging(telomere shortening leading to loss of information in genes). So at this point, it is an engineering problem to figure out how to lengthen telomeres. A biologist is not going to have the expertise to build and control nanomachines and nanoparticles, but an engineer would.

Vastet wrote:
And saying 'we don't know the future of the universe' doesn't even imply that it can or will last forever.

Perfect example of a strawman.

My only claim was that biological immortality was possible. Biologists are the ones that use the term immortal. Then you jump in not knowing anything and claim 'nothing lasts forever' when no one knows the ultimate fate of the universe. It is an active subject for research and debate in physics. So then you claim that I claim the universe will last forever and argue against that.

 

Vastet wrote:
Nothing lasts forever.

A violation of conservation energy and conservation of information. You claim the 2nd law of thermodynamics but ignore the 1st law.

Vastet wrote:
Every single observation we have implies that it won't. You're fucking retarded. Also, just because a creationist says something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Only you are so stupid as to never be right on any subject. Even creationists and tea baggers have more brains than you ever will.

So all you have after being shown to be wrong and irrational is personal attacks. Thank you Mr. irrational responder.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"So far you've only sighted

"So far you've only sighted yourself as the expert. We should all just take your word for anything."

I'm more qualified than the person you cited. I already explained I don't waste time giving you links you'll just ignore, like any theist would.

"If you knew anything about the topic, it would not be ridiculous. "

If you knew anything about the topic, you'd know it was absolutely ridiculous. But you know nothing.

"Science now knows what causes aging(telomere shortening leading to loss of information in genes)."

Wrong. Science has identified ONE way in which aging occurs. There is no evidence that regenerating telomeres would result in living forever. Which is impossible regardless.
And an engineer is in no way qualified to discuss biology. Period.

"Perfect example of a strawman."

Perfect example of your lies. I've never made a strawman, that's your specialty.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"My only claim was that

"My only claim was that biological immortality was possible."

A claim that has no more evidence to support it than the claims of a gods existence.

"Then you jump in not knowing anything and claim 'nothing lasts forever' when no one knows the ultimate fate of the universe."

Show me something that's lasted forever or shut your dumbass, ignorant, retarded, mouth.

"So then you claim that I claim the universe will last forever and argue against that."

See this is just blatant stupidity. I never claimed you claimed that, oh master of the strawman. I say it again: You are fucking retarded.

"A violation of conservation energy and conservation of information. You claim the 2nd law of thermodynamics but ignore the 1st law."

Another strawman, coupled with a complete lack of understanding basic and advanced physics. Entropy killing time does not equal the end of the universe.

"So all you have after being shown to be wrong and irrational is personal attacks."

Look in the mirror retard.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:darth_josh

Vastet wrote:
darth_josh wrote:
Step 1 poorly worded concept posited. Step 2 extreme semantics after congenial discussion Step 3 no less than four logical fallacies displayed Step 4 return to step 2 until something else pops up on the super tracker
You forgot step 5. Some smart ass jumps in to try and berate the parties arguing, playing with vague assertions and insinuations and failing to either make a point or accomplish anything.

The original story is that Google is throwing money at the concept of 'immortality' as loosely defined as it is. You chose an impossible definition and fucking ran with it. That's the kind of shit that pisses me off to no end (pun intended). The attitude that immortality can mean one damned thing and nothing the fuck else is as closed-minded as one can get. They're not approaching it from a theistic viewpoint, but a position of what is possible. They're not rewriting any physical laws.

We haven't even started carving our metaphorical initials into dark matter in the other aspect of the concept. As I said earlier, entropy covers systems. There are infinite numbers of systems in the universe outside of our present science.

Shit, we can't even completely destroy religion in its basest form because it migrates from one form to another when the adherents die off. Unfortunately, some of those passed/past zealots have been 'immortalized'.

I think this topic is interesting from both bases. To see it poo-pooed so quickly and half-assedly does it a disservice.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
 BLECH! I'm out.This talk

 BLECH! I'm out.

This talk will last forever in my mind even if it gets transplanted.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The original story is that

"The original story is that Google is throwing money at the concept of 'immortality' as loosely defined as it is. You chose an impossible definition and fucking ran with it."

I chose the common definition and ran with it. Ask ten people what immorality means smart ass. Idiots who interject themselves into a conversation and proceed to make asses of themselves piss me off to no end, pun intended. As do people who try to redefine a term to mean something it doesn't. Immortality: Immortality is the ability to live forever, or eternal life.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 If someone can find a way

 If someone can find a way for me to live 10,000 years I think I will forgive them if it turns out I am not precisely immortal. For all practical purposes that is immortal because I could choose when I wanted to die and I'm pretty sure I would want to die within 10,000 years. Besides, 10,000 years from now no one is going to have a fucking clue what the word immortal means.

I am skeptical that Kurzweil is going to be successful developing anything that approaches immortality, but it is quite probable he might find ways to extend our lives well beyond what is possible today and his research might very well lay the foundation for an entire field of research 100 years from now. I think EXC is correct in comparing it flying in that many people view it as foolish and dismiss it as impossible out of hand. The first attempts will probably be failures and all the Vastets of the world will laugh and say "see I told you so". Most of what we take for granted today was once considered "impossible".  

To sit around and point out the hundreds of problems in creating immortality is pointless. Of course it isn't easy otherwise we would have done it by now. No doubt, we will discover thousands of problems that we can't even think of today. So what? Even if we do discover that the ultimate dream of immortality is ridiculous we have a lot to gain from the research and inventions. Our greatest inventions and scientific discoveries came from people who had dreams which were ridiculous and impossible, not from those who sat around criticizing others who dared to dream. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 583
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Google vs. DeathIs

EXC wrote:

Google vs. Death

Is there an "existential certainty of aging and death"? Many people seem to think there is, like it's written into the laws of nature by some divine authority.

 

Aging is the basic way in which our molecular structure breaks down over time because the stability of our molecules cannot retain the same cellular disposition that it could when we are/were five years old, ten, twenty, fifty and so on.  We're already dead when we are born; it just takes awhile for the biology to finally catch up.  Diseases and viruses weaken our physiology so that our lifespan is shortened even if by a fraction.  Every time we get sick, we cash in some of our time chips.  Some infections and pathogens obviously being a lot more taxing on our bodies than others.  Of course, we still know virtually nothing in regards to how our bodies work, how to stop aging and if there is even a certifiable way.  The closest we've come to seeing anything even remotely close to immortality is Henrietta Lacks and the cultured HeLa genes that were extracted from her cervical cancer cells.  Fifty plus years later, we're STILL in the dark regarding anything in relation to why our body acts, behaves, fights and responds the way it does as we get older or why Lacks is the first and only case of "immortal cells."

 

The only divine rationale that people place on aging and death is one of ignorance and the unknown. 

 

EXC wrote:
I think science understands aging well enough now that stopping it is just an engineering problem(nanotechnology).

 

If it were that simple, we would have figured this out years ago and we'd all be walking around like people from the movie "In Time."

 

EXC wrote:
If science could give us immortality and an end to suffering, wouldn't that obsolete the need for religion?

 

No, it would give people a lengthier amount of time to ponder the world like Tibetan monks or Buddha under the Mahabodhi tree.  Religion has engrained itself in people generation after generation.  The only thing immortality would achieve is that previous generations would be around to pollute the newer generations creating a lot more bullshit and confusion.

 

 

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12947
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The first attempts will

"The first attempts will probably be failures and all the Vastets of the world will laugh and say "see I told you so". Most of what we take for granted today was once considered "impossible"."

Strawmanning my argument makes you as retarded as EXC. How disappointing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.