• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 3 votes

Death is ...


  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

Poll: Death is ... (368 member(s) have cast votes)

Death is ...

  1. Oblivion (168 votes [47.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.32%

  2. A Portal Mystery (4 votes [1.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.13%

  3. A Chance to Roam the Earth (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Another Chance at Reincarnation (13 votes [3.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.66%

  5. My Ticket to Nirvana (6 votes [1.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.69%

  6. A Gateway to Heaven or Hell (10 votes [2.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.82%

  7. A Transition to Another Simulation (7 votes [1.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.97%

  8. A Bridge to Another Realm (15 votes [4.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.23%

  9. I Honestly Don't Know (120 votes [33.80%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.80%

  10. I Don't Know and I Don't Care (12 votes [3.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.38%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#181 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 October 2006 - 05:08 PM

Here is a definition of death not on the list:

Death is the end of life.

Sound simplistic?

No worse than trying to describe life as dependent on death (hence simply without life) or after death as some kind of a transition. The definition of death logically depends on a definition of life and the termination of it. Something cannot be dead unless it was once alive. The simple absence of life does not mean a thing is dead.

It could just be faking it by playing possum and being inert. :))

As for making life by the rules Stephen we have already synthesized viruses from scratch and we are soon going to go well beyond that limit with the ability to manipulate materials to self replicate according to the rules of genetics. If we can get the basic building blocks of life as proteins to be artificially self sustaining then we can begin developing bacteria synthetically by simply programming the molecules to behave as such.

Once that occurs we can demonstrate how life can begin from nothing more than chemistry and frankly a form of physical chemistry not so sophisticated that it could not occur randomly given sufficiently correct conditions.

This may not be very satisfying emotionally or spiritually to some but that does not mean it won't be factually demonstrative of how life could have begun on this planet. This is likely to happen sooner than most realize somewhere in the world's advanced laboratories but it is more than likely going to happen anytime in the next decade or two as the tools for accomplishing this task are being defined and refined along with some practical theoretical models for the conditions where this took place to be mimicked

#182 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 04 October 2006 - 05:13 PM

The concept of the singularity does not depend on the idea of a singlular creator at all.

Hm, I suppose the 'who' was redundant/irrelevant to the point.

That is one objective for some involved in that endeavor but clearly another option is for the reality of it to *evolve* out multiple attempts from different designers that become integrated, self aware and self perpetuating independently of a single initialization.

In order to get something like this to evolve, first of all there would need to be a population of AIs being evolved, and someone explicitly implementing an algorithm in which these AIs randomly recombine and integrate with each other. Evolving an AGI in ANY manner would be rediculously inefficient compared to actually intelligently designing one.

I think what you mean is that, as AI technologies become more advanced and proliferated, it would be easier and more natural to integrate these functions into even more complex functions, and so on, until one gets an intelligent entity. I would agree with that, and based on that premis, find my assertion of the Singularity happening in the 2020s very speculative, but not necessarily completely absurd. However, I think that intelligently designing an AGI as a specific, long term goal directed project based on a theoretical functional model of intelligence (eg. Novamente, Bitphase, Blue Brain, etc) is going to be successful more quickly than the former approach.

Edited by hankconn, 04 October 2006 - 05:24 PM.


#183 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 October 2006 - 05:24 PM

S.S. wrote>

Can you prove that the universe created itself? That *everything* came
from nothing?
[/quote]

L.L. wrote>

You are missing the point. I can demonstrate the universe exists even if as nothing more than a common illusion. We can certainly trade observations of empirically derived data and compare notes as to the physical properties of said universe. I do not need to prove OR disprove a creator or even a beginning to have that discussion rationally.

S.S. wrote>

I know the universe exitsts. How can something exist and be "nothing more than a common illusion"?

L.L wrote>


Prime mover arguments are specious without evidence and BTW the Big Bang (or Badda Bing Bang if you prefer my typo [lol] ) does not define the universe as coming from nothing; simply that the space/time continuum we experience and define as the present began with it. Space/time is still a definition in the works.



Anyway, regardless of our present perspective and definitions for space/time having a beginning that does not mean that the universe as it existed as a singularity (the one described by physics) did not exist infinitely before without a beginning and only changed into what we experience now with that event.

However most certainly if you are making claims dependent on these ideas the burden of proof is on you to PROVE them not for me to accept them because they are defined on metaphysical arguments that are not testable.

You can talk about the soul if you want but first you have to define it and the discussion is only meaningful if it is predicated on aspects that can be tested for credibility otherwise it not proof as much as philosophical fancy.[/quote]


S.S. wrote>

The above statement about the definition of space/time being in the works, means it is false and lacking.


Also your statement regarding:

"does not mean that the universe as it existed as a singularity (the one described by physics) did not exist infinitely before without a beginning and only changed into what we experience now with that event."

is unprovable now (to put it gently) and is therefore
based on faith. Either faith that the universe existed in some form or another always, and/or faith that science will someday
prove the universe that we now live in created itself without a Divine cause.

These to you are *not* "philosophical fancy" ? With respect I think there is a double standard here.
If you say science will prove such and such in the future this is 'faith' or a 'belief'. It seems to be based on a
premise that science has answered X questions so it will eventually answer all questions.

The best science will ever do to explain why you (or I ) exist is to state something like:

"A specific human life is a random (and therefore) meaningless event."

-Stephen

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#184 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 October 2006 - 06:13 PM

The above statement about the definition of space/time being in the works, means it is false and lacking.


Lacking perfection as a definition possibly but false on that basis is simply absurd. It is only an acknowledgement that we do not have all the facts. It would be false if presented as an unassailable truth not as a constructive theoretical model that is simply evolving as we acquire more knowledge. To assert otherwise as you have done is to be dogmatic and not rational.


Again:

Also your statement regarding:

LL
"does not mean that the universe as it existed as a singularity (the one described by physics) did not exist infinitely before without a beginning and only changed into what we experience now with that event."

SS
is unprovable now (to put it gently) and is therefore based on faith. Either faith that the universe existed in some form or another always, and/or faith that science will someday prove the universe that we now live in created itself without a Divine cause.



Not faith at all, although again your reply does describe a dogmatic position.

The theoretical models that are being constructed to describe the cosmological physics regarding the Big Bang and the Singularity are based both on mathematical proofs that adhere to the laws of physics we understand and also that we can rationally describe under conditions that the theoretical models predict and are able to be tested with.

These to you are *not* "philosophical fancy" ? With respect I think there is a double standard here. If you say science will prove such and such in the future this is 'faith' or a 'belief'. It seems to be based on a premise that science has answered X questions so it will eventually answer all questions.


These models are not based on faith nor do they they *need* your belief to make them true or your disbelief to make them false. They also do not depend on the false dichotomy you have presented as they are dependent on observable and empirically supported phenomenon (tangible evidence) along with demonstrable and testable laws of physics.

So no double standard as the rules are descriptive, predictive, logically consistent and not dependent on being believed, in fact quite the contrary please test them all you want and in any way imaginable so long as the results of your tests are replicateable independently and consistent with your assertions unequivocally.

Rational skepticism is always welcome.

The best science will ever do to explain why you (or I ) exist is to state something like:

"A specific human life is a random (and therefore) meaningless event."


Frankly this last claim is not even consistent from the premise to the conclusion.

#185 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 October 2006 - 06:29 PM

S.S. wrote>

I know the universe exitsts. How can something exist and be "nothing more than a common illusion"?


BTW

All you "know" is that you do not know any such thing for certain. What you are doing is relying without question upon your faith in concepts and your senses. You cannot claim knowledge unless you can explain in detail *why* your assertion is valid. Your reliance on sensory data and religious faith is not sufficient in itself to disprove the illusion scenario and to truly understand something means to be able to express that understanding but that in itself does not make the understanding true.

I am not assailing your belief in reality I was simply presenting the extreme case of philosophical argument that addresses the issue. I do not happen to *believe* in that extreme case but it is one that can be logically presented as an alternative to the universe exists as we understand it one.

I might understand Ptolemaic astronomy but that does not make that school of astronomical thought (or the astrology based on it) true either.

How could it be an illusion held in common?

The point is that if it was you couldn't tell the difference.

However if you described a practical test for such a surreality then we might call you Morpheus. :))

#186 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 October 2006 - 06:42 PM

Also I think that another aspect of what many of us see as a deathist position is that somehow life and death are mutually interdependent. That is not a given.

That the definition of death depends on life is without doubt as I have already described because the definition of death is basically the end of life but the definition of life does not depend on it being *mortal.*

For example, to use your idea of God: is your idea of God a living God?

Is that living God mortal?

If you do not believe your God to be mortal then you have accepted a definition of life not dependent on death. The concept of immortality is not mutually exclusive with the definition of life, life and death are not equivalently interdependent. The falsity of this proposition is an example of a Bayesian Logic.

Just because B depends on A does not mean that A depends on B.

The definition of death depends on mortality. The definition of life does not.

Hence those that see life as dependent on death are *deathist* because they have linked their definition of life to that of death.

#187 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 04 October 2006 - 08:26 PM

Well, i'm FAR FAR from being religious, but if life could ever be shown to emerge from nothing in a scientifically testable and chemically-induced manner, I will then kill myself for sure, for such an affront to our origins would be unacceptable in my book.

I'm alive because I hope that there is something that is beyond everything we know or ever be able to achieve (and that is not God, since again, i am NOT religious in any way or form) - call that my meaning or whatever other way you want.

If it proven to be incorrect, I see no reason to go on living since then I will be even more disappointed in this existence and HOW can anyone be MORE disappointed is beyond me.

#188 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 04 October 2006 - 08:29 PM

Infernity

Please continue. How *exactly* do non-living materials come to life?

-Stephen


Stephen,

If you want to have the short precise explanation you'll have to wait till the holiday here ends (16th) so I can take that thingie I have somewhere in my locker.



There were no oceans and no oxygen in the atmosphere. It was bombarded by planetoids and other material left over from the formation of the solar system. This bombardment, combined with heat from radioactive breakdown, residual heat, and heat from the pressure of contraction, caused the planet at this stage to be fully molten.
Heavier elements sank to the center while lighter ones rose to the surface, producing Earth's various layers. Earth's early atmosphere would have comprised surrounding material from the solar nebula, especially light gases such as hydrogen and helium, but the solar wind and Earth's own heat would have driven off this atmosphere.
This changed when Earth was about 40% its present radius, and gravitational attraction allowed the retention of an atmosphere which included water. Temperatures plummeted and the crust of the planet was accumulated on a solid surface, with areas melted by large impacts on the scale of decades to hundreds of years between impact. Large impacts would have caused localized melting and partial differentiation, with some lighter elements on the surface or released to the moist atmosphere.
The surface cooled quickly, forming the solid crust within 150 million years. From 4 to 3.8 billion years ago, Earth underwent a period of heavy asteroidal bombardment. Steam escaped from the crust while more gases were released by volcanoes, completing the second atmosphere. Additional water was imported by bolide collisions, probably from asteroids ejected from the outer asteroid belt under the influence of Jupiter's gravity. The planet cooled. Clouds formed. Rain gave rise to the oceans within 750 million years. The new atmosphere probably contained ammonia, methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, as well as smaller amounts of other gases. Any free oxygen would have been bound by hydrogen or minerals on the surface. Volcanic activity was intense and, without an ozone layer to hinder its entry, ultraviolet radiation flooded the surface.

It is likely that the initial cells were all heterotrophs, using surrounding organic molecules (including those from other cells) as raw material and an energy source. As the food supply diminished, a new strategy evolved in some cells. Instead of relying on the diminishing amounts of free-existing organic molecules, these cells adopted sunlight as an energy source.

Estimates vary, but by about 3 billion years ago, something similar to modern photosynthesis had probably developed. This made the sun’s energy available not only to autotrophs but also to the heterotrophs that consumed them. Photosynthesis used the plentiful carbon dioxide and water as raw materials and, with the energy of sunlight, produced energy-rich organic molecules (carbohydrates).
Moreover, oxygen was produced as a waste product of photosynthesis. At first it became bound up with limestone, iron, and other minerals. There is substantial proof of this in iron-oxide rich layers in geological strata that correspond with this time period. The oceans would have turned to a green color while oxygen was reacting with minerals. When the reactions stopped, oxygen could finally enter the atmosphere. Though each cell only produced a minute amount of oxygen, the combined metabolism of many cells over a vast period of time transformed Earth’s atmosphere to its current state.This, then, is Earth’s third atmosphere. Some of the oxygen was stimulated by incoming ultraviolet radiation to form ozone, which collected in a layer near the upper part of the atmosphere. The ozone layer absorbed, and still absorbs, a significant amount of the ultraviolet radiation that once had passed through the atmosphere. It allowed cells to colonize the surface of the ocean and ultimately the landwithout the ozone layer, ultraviolet radiation bombarding the surface would have caused unsustainable levels of mutation in exposed cells. Besides making large amounts of energy available to life-forms and blocking ultraviolet radiation, the effects of photosynthesis had a third, major, and world-changing impact. Oxygen was toxic; probably much life on Earth died out as its levels rose. Resistant forms survived and thrived, and some developed the ability to use oxygen to enhance their metabolism and derive more energy from the same food.


Modern taxonomy classifies life into three domains. The time of the origin of these domains are speculative. The Bacteria domain probably first split off from the other forms of life (sometimes called Neomura), but this supposition is controversial. Soon after this, by 2 billion years ago the Neomura split into the Archaea and the Eukarya. Eukaryotic cells (Eukarya) are larger and more complex than prokaryotic cells (Bacteria and Archaea), and the origin of that complexity is only now coming to light. Around this time period a bacterial cell related to today’s Rickettsia entered a larger prokaryotic cell. Perhaps the large cell attempted to ingest the smaller one but failed (maybe due to the evolution of prey defenses). Perhaps the smaller cell attempted to parasitize the larger one. In any case, the smaller cell survived inside the larger cell. Using oxygen, it was able to metabolize the larger cell’s waste products and derive more energy. Some of this surplus energy was returned to the host. The smaller cell replicated inside the larger one, and soon a stable symbiotic relationship developed. Over time the host cell acquired some of the genes of the smaller cells, and the two kinds became dependent on each other: the larger cell could not survive without the energy produced by the smaller ones, and these in turn could not survive without the raw materials provided by the larger cell. Symbiosis developed between the larger cell and the population of smaller cells inside it to the extent that they are considered to have become a single organism, the smaller cells being classified as organelles called mitochondria. A similar event took place with photosynthetic cyanobacteriaentering larger heterotrophic cells and becoming chloroplasts. Probably as a result of these changes, a line of cells capable of photosynthesis split off from the other eukaryotes some time before one billion years ago There were probably several such inclusion events, as the figure at right suggests. Besides the well-established endosymbiotic theory of the cellular origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, it has been suggested that cells gave rise to peroxisomes, spirochetes gave rise to cilia and flagella, and that perhaps a DNA virus gave rise to the cell nucleus though none of these theories are generally accepted. During this period, the supercontinent Columbia is believed to have existed, probably from around 1.8 to 1.5 billion years ago it is the oldest hypothesized supercontinent.

Archaeans, bacteria, and eukaryotes continued to diversify and to become more sophisticated and better adapted to their environments. Each domain repeatedly split into multiple lineages, although little is known about the history of the archaea and bacteria. Around 1.1 billion years ago the supercontinent Rodinia was assembling. The plant, animal, and fungi lines had all split, though they still existed as solitary cells. Some of these lived in colonies, and gradually some division of labor began to take place; for instance, cells on the periphery might have started to assume different roles from those in the interior. Although the division between a colony with specialized cells and a multicellular organism is not always clear, around 1 billion years ago the first multicellular plants emerged, probably green algae. Possibly by around 900 million years ago true multicellularity had also evolved in animals. At first it probably somewhat resembled that of today’s sponges, where all cells were totipotent and a disrupted organism could reassemble itself. As the division of labor became more complete in all lines of multicellular organisms, cells became more specialized and more dependent on each other; isolated cells would die. Many scientists believe that a very severe ice age began around 770 million years ago, so severe that the surface of all the oceans completely froze (Snowball Earth). Eventually, after 20 million years, enough carbon dioxide escaped through volcanic outgassing; the resulting greenhouse effect raised global temperatures. By around the same time, 750 million years ago, Rodinia began to break up.

As we have already seen, the accumulation of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere resulted in the formation of ozone, forming a layer that absorbed much of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. As a result, unicellular organisms that reached land were less likely to die, and prokaryotes began to multiply and become better adapted to survival out of the water. Prokaryotes had likely colonized the land as early as 2.6 billion years ago, prior even to the origin of the eukaryotes. For a long time, the land remained barren of multicellular organisms. The supercontinent Pannotia formed around 600 million years ago and then broke apart a short 50 million years later. Fish, the earliest vertebrates, evolved in the oceans around 530 million years ago. A major extinction event occurred near the end of the Cambrian period, which ended 488 million years ago.

Several hundred million years ago, plants (probably resembling algae) and fungi started growing at the edges of the water, and then out of it. The oldest fossils of land fungi and plants date to 480–460 million years ago, though molecular evidence suggests the fungi may have colonized the land as early as 1000 million years ago and the plants 700 million years ago. Initially remaining close to the water’s edge, mutations and variations resulted in further colonization of this new environment. The timing of the first animals to leave the oceans is not precisely known: the oldest clear evidence is of arthropods on land around 450 million years ago, perhaps thriving and becoming better adapted due to the vast food source provided by the terrestrial plants. There is also some unconfirmed evidence that arthropods may have appeared on land as early as 530 million years ago. At the end of the Ordovician period, 440 million years ago, additional extinction events occurred, perhaps as a result of a concurrent ice age. Around 380 to 375 million years ago the first tetrapods evolved from the fish. It is thought that perhaps fins evolved to become limbs which allowed the first tetrapods to lift their heads out of the water to breathe air. This would let them survive in oxygen-poor water or pursue small prey in shallow water. They may have later ventured on land for brief periods. Eventually, some of them became so well adapted to terrestrial life that they spent their adult lives on land, although they hatched in the water and returned to lay their eggs. This was the origin of the amphibians. About 365 million years ago, another period of extinction occurred, perhaps as a result of global cooling. Plants evolved seeds, which dramatically accelerated their spread on land, around this time.

Some twenty million years later , the evolution of the amniotic egg allowed eggs to be laid on land, certainly a survival advantage for the tetrapod embryos. This resulted in the divergence of amniotes from amphibians. Another thirty million years saw the divergence of the synapsids (including mammals) from the sauropsids (including birds and non-avian, non-mammalian reptiles). Of course, other groups of organisms continued to evolve and lines diverged—in fish, insects, bacteria, and so on—but not as much is known of the details. 300 million years ago the most recent supercontinent formed, called Pangaea. The most severe extinction event to date took place 250 million years ago, at the boundary of the Permian and Triassic periods; 95% of life on Earth died out, possibly as a consequence of the Siberian Traps volcanic event. The discovery of a crater hidden under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet has risen up a new theory that a meteor caused the mass extinction and possibly began the breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent by creating the tectonic rift that pushed Australia northward. But life persevered, and around 230 million years ago dinosaurs split off from their reptilian ancestors. An extinction event between the Triassic and Jurassic periods 200 million years ago, spared many of the dinosaurs, and they soon became dominant among the vertebrates. Though some of the mammalian lines began to separate during this period, existing mammals were probably all small animals resembling shrews. By 180 million years ago,Pangaea broke up into Laurasia and Gondwana. The boundary between avian and non-avian dinosaurs is not clear, but Archaeopteryx, traditionally considered one of the first birds, lived around 150 million years ago. The earliest evidence for the angiosperms evolving flowers is during the Cretaceous period, some twenty million years later, Competition with birds drove many pterosaurs to extinction, and the dinosaurs were probably already in decline for various reasons when, 65 million years ago, a 10-kilometer meteorite likely struck Earth just off the Yucatán Peninsula, ejecting vast quantities of particulate matter and vapor into the air that occluded sunlight, inhibiting photosynthesis. Most large animals, including the non-avian dinosaurs, became extinct. Marking the end of the Cretaceous period and Mesozoic era. Thereafter, in the Paleocene epoch, mammals rapidly diversified, grew larger, and became the dominant vertebrates. Perhaps a couple million years later, the last common ancestor of the all primates lived. By the late Eocene epoch, 34 million years ago, some terrestrial mammals had returned to the oceans to become animals such as Basilosaurus which would later give rise to the dolphins and whales.

Apes have consciousness, that's proven. I don't need to tel you of man's evolution (I hope), although that's also here. ... :

http://en.wikipedia....istory_of_Earth


A while ago, someone linked someone to http://FuckingGoogleIt.com/
I suggest you to just "FuckingWikiThat"..,



-Infernity

Edited by infernity, 07 October 2006 - 04:05 PM.


#189 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 October 2006 - 08:49 PM

Well, i'm FAR FAR from being religious, but if life could ever be shown to emerge from nothing in a scientifically testable and chemically-induced manner, I will then kill myself for sure, for such an affront to our origins would be unacceptable in my book.

I'm alive because I hope that there is something that is beyond everything we know or ever be able to achieve (and that is not God, since again, i am NOT religious in any way or form) - call that my meaning or whatever other way you want.

If it proven to be incorrect, I see no reason to go on living since then I will be even more disappointed in this existence and HOW can anyone be MORE disappointed is beyond me.



dimasok

You have value. "science" can't tell you that. -Stephen

#190 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 October 2006 - 08:53 PM

Infernity

Infernity wrote:

There were no oceans and no oxygen in the atmosphere. It was bombarded by planetoids and other material left over from the formation of the solar system. This bombardment, combined with heat from radioactive breakdown, residual heat, and heat from the pressure of contraction, caused the planet at this stage to be fully molten...

This is the most comprehensive "life from a rock" story I've seen. Still don't
buy it.

-Stephen

#191 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 04 October 2006 - 09:28 PM

Evolution or the alternative. Hrmmm....



#192 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 October 2006 - 10:08 PM

Lazarus

Lazarus wrote:

All you "know" is that you do not know anything such thing for certain. What you are doing is relying without question upon your faith in concepts and your senses. You cannot claim knowledge unless you can explain in detail *why* your assertion is valid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some matters that are unprovable. Heck some people have a
favorite color. I doubt if all those that love 'yellow' could explain in detail
why it's their favorite color.

I appreciate the science stuff (what I can comprehend) but there are things
that are beyond science. When I wrote:

"""The best science will ever do to explain why you (or I ) exist is to state something like:

"A specific human life is a random (and therefore) meaningless event.""""

I was trying to cut through the science to get to something more important.

There are certain True or False statements that science can't deal with.

God exists.

God so loved the world He gave His only Son.

I have a soul that can't be destroyed.

and others as well.

These are not trivial things. All I'm asking is for people to keep an open mind.
The reason...if you're wrong you're wrong forever (and in torment forever).

I haven't read every word or clicked on every link in the thread. Interest
in what I've been saying is pretty much non-existent from what I'm getting.

As I've been
told 'thin ice' and all that. I'm happy to continue here if possible or on another
thread *IF* someone wants to join with me. Not sure what else to say.

-Stephen

#193 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 04 October 2006 - 11:01 PM

stephenszpak
If God exists:
1) Let us not call him God.
2) Let us not read anything from a bible that was written out of the imagination of other humans who lived before us.
3) Consequently, let us not say that he had a son or the holy ghost or any of that horsecrap cause that puts God in a really really bad light.

If this Higher-Entity exists, it absolutely wouldn't meddle with such trivial stuff as "Son" or any of the human categories known to man so if you insist on using the Bible teachings, you will just be fooling yourself since I (yes ME) can write a better version of the Bible than any of those stark-raving lunatics.

#194 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 04 October 2006 - 11:39 PM

A person can only be told so many times that God will answer prayers before they realise they're being tricked.


God is fake... can we move on please?

#195 attis

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Earth

Posted 05 October 2006 - 01:40 AM

Carl Sagan, George Orwell, Charles Darwin, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, and etc were atheists. They died not caring for the idea of God, not because it 'felt wrong', but rather that life itself warrants no interest in such a concept nor did they see it warrant the need to find out. Life itself was God to these people, as it is to me, and it is what matters the most for the simple fact that the alternative cannot validate itself no more than the Teapot in Space can be validated.

You really have two choices in this matter. Accept that life is all there is for your existence and make the best of it, possibly extending it to an indefinite span. Or, you accept ideas and dreams that have no possibility, no bearing, and no evidence for their being. That's all there really is in this debate. Anymore is just intellectual dishonesty.

#196 marcus

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 October 2006 - 07:22 AM

Prometheus,

You should take another look at the work of Ben Goertzel and also take a look at Sam Adams AGI work for IBM. Both of them have a real grasp of what it will take to build a mind in a machine and a solid approach based on the best knowledge we have from computer science, cognitive psych, neuroscience, etc. Novamente in particular has a fascinating architecture I think you would find very interesting. I don't subscribe to the Singularity magical moment when everything changes type of ideas, but there have been some real breakthroughs like weighted hypergraph knowledge representation and true evolutionary learning that are completely different from the narrow AI approaches of the past. I hope you get a chance to look into Novamente in particular in more detail. I'd like to get your critical eye on their approach.

Marcus

#197 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 06 October 2006 - 02:42 PM

This is the most comprehensive "life from a rock" story I've seen. Still don't
buy it.

-Stephen


Did you read other than what you quote me, AKA the 1st verse?

-Infernity

#198 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 06 October 2006 - 10:00 PM

Yeah... um Stephen do you have any other theories you would like to contribute to explain how non-animate matter became animate? Because the text that infernity quoted seems very plausible to me (and most everyone on this board)...

Have you heard of Conway's Game of Life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life It shows how complex animate systems can be derived from unguided and random processes, much like that of a steamy pool of primordial ooze... just a few billions times more simplistic.

To me, that is evidence enough however incredible or improbable it may seem... it would make sense that after billions of years of such processes going on that some sort of propetual system would eventually arise...

So what do you not believe here?

#199 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 October 2006 - 06:09 PM

This is the most comprehensive "life from a rock" story I've seen. Still don't
buy it.

-Stephen


Did you read other than what you quote me, AKA the 1st verse?

-Infernity



Check personal e-mail for a reply. -Stephen

#200 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 October 2006 - 06:44 PM

Yeah... um Stephen do you have any other theories you would like to contribute to explain how non-animate matter became animate? Because the text that infernity quoted seems very plausible to me (and most everyone on this board)...

Have you heard of Conway's Game of Life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life It shows how complex animate systems can be derived from unguided and random processes, much like that of a steamy pool of primordial ooze... just a few billions times more simplistic.

To me, that is evidence enough however incredible or improbable it may seem... it would make sense that after billions of years of such processes going on that some sort of propetual system would eventually arise...

So what do you not believe here?


====================================================

See personal e-mail. -Stephen

#201 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 09 October 2006 - 07:51 PM

dimasok:

http://xkcd.com/c167.html

I rest my case.

:)

#202 kgmax

  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 October 2006 - 02:04 AM

hankconn,
Thanks so much for that link

http://xkcd.com/c154.html

#203 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 10 October 2006 - 10:55 AM

Check personal e-mail for a reply. -Stephen

I haven't had time to read and response, though I will when I return on Sunday..

-Infernity

#204 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 10 October 2006 - 12:48 PM

Hey Stephen, I read your personal response, is there a specific reason why it isn't posted here on the forum? Just curious.

#205 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 10 October 2006 - 09:46 PM

hankconn
Uhmm... i don't know what you find funny or true about it but so be it.

#206 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 October 2006 - 10:07 PM

dimasok:

http://xkcd.com/c167.html

I rest my case.

;)


wow, i have seen that strip before, but just assumed the one I saw was an unusually good one....the quality of the strips there are awesome....or, just my type of humor

#207 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 11 October 2006 - 02:58 AM

Yeah, they have some pretty good stuff

#208 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 October 2006 - 01:33 PM

(josephjah)
Hey Stephen, I read your personal response, is there a specific reason why it isn't posted here on the forum? Just curious.


Josephjah

Lararus Long posted this to me on this thread. This is the reason it was a personal e-mail. -Stephen
================================================================================
==
BTW Stephen you are walking a thin line with respect to religion.

As we are all well off topic we have tolerated it up to now but if you want to continue to *preach* about specific doctrines or to evangelize, proselytize or in any manner promote your religious beliefs to others then I suggest you start a topic to that effect in the appropriate area; the Religion Forum.
================================================================================
==

#209 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 October 2006 - 03:00 PM

Joseph I asked him not to continue to seek converts and proselytize in his responses and I believe this is his way of complying. You can read my previous comments in the thread and his quote. He is overreacting or he believes himself incapable of being objective in this respect. Anyway we offer more than enough space for that kind of perspective too.

If he wants to continuously tell people that finding his personal Jesus is the *be all end all answer to everything* then I really do think that should be a personal side dialog as well. If he is willing to address the subject in the religious forum for debate as to the validity of his doctrine that is fine also but frankly that repeated response here goes way too far off topic but I have not told him not to respond here. I only as you can read before, asked him to stay on topic and refrain from evangelizing.

He made his point more than once, after that it is not merely redundant, it is way too far off topic. I think he has a right to continue such discussion in the religious forum if anyone wants to have it with him and I asked him to do so but this thread is really about the definition of what is death. BTW, I have not edited or deleted anything he has said to this point.

For example Stephen believes in a prime mover but offers no rational and tangible evidence. Fine he has the right to say that and he has but he doesn't have the right to derail the entire discussion by continuous preaching and not answering arguments substantively.

Anyway (with his permission out of courtesy) if you think that there are germane parts worth quoting and addressing in your responses here in this thread then you are free to quote them.

#210 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 16 October 2006 - 08:27 PM

To spur the discussion a bit:
What isn't a man-made object? Love, wealth, health, technology, religion, etc are all man-made creations and unless they could be satisfactory in and of themselves (which is impossible since they are, after all, our invention and have no bearing on the universe), life is meaningless.

There is no meaning to life, other than the one we create for ourselves; Sartre said that, Heideingger did too (hence, Existentialism). Hell, with an exertion of a little pressure, anyone would come to agree that on a cosmic scale, life is meaningless, but people will keep arguing for a meaning, because:

1) They can't live without a meaning
2) They can't and will never accept that there is, in fact, no meaning.
3) They need to justify their status quo, mainly that of being here and observing themselves in relation to society and the universe.
4) Therefore they will come up with a bevy of putative meanings, which upon further inspection, turn out to be absolutely ludicrous but they will, make no mistake, vehemently defend them, because they are, in fact, a mechanism out of order.

And why is all that? Because:

1) They were born and this resonance is dreadful for them since it is without meaning or purpose, as random and chancy as the emergence of life on earth.
2) They are going to die and they have no idea where are they going afterwards.

Anyone who comes to terms with the fact that they are thrown into an unfathomable existence that has no meaning or purpose, thrown randomly and forcefully and then are ejected out of that "save haven" into the previous chaos of the unknown, again, ironically, without meaning or purpose will never experience illusion again.

Every human category is an illusion, every suffering or happinessunnecessary, chancy and random, love a bunch of chemical reaction (although sex is fun, I'm not underplaying that), knowledge unnecessary, education unasked for, religion unsubstantiatied and farcical, wars unjustified, government and society a malevolent bunch of self-assured screwups who nevertheless succeeded in creating a pendulum which has been followed after since the advent of the first communal, etc etc etc.

Once you realise there is no meaning to life, any act of violence or goodness is justified oh and suicide becomes a long overdue beckon of hope, although wherever that leads and whether it's worth destroying "nothing" for "nothing" is a subject for one's dialogue with him/herself.

Whatever anyone says, the best route, is without a doubt one of never being born, but unfortunately, it is within no one's reach. I'm not a Buddhist, a Hinduist, an Atheist, an Agnostic, I don't belong to anything. I just see things as they are.

Do I want to go on living? NO! Do I have any say in the matter? Since i'm afraid of death, again NO! Do I want an afterlife? NO! Any idea of an afterlife, conceivable by our feeble intellects is compressed and redundant. So NO! Do I want to enter oblivion? Again, since I fear death, NO!

What is the best way out? There is no way out. Sit and do nothing, draw a balance sheet for each passing second-minute and continuously resist in following your meaningless "mission" as a human being.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users