61 replies to this topic

[John Schloendorn]

It is logically impossible to prove that something is technically impossible. Whatever proves that aging can't be cured must be defying logic. So in that scenario, it might be very rewarding to study whatever it is that makes me so sure that aging can't be cured. (Magic? There has to be some good we can do with it...! -- Demons? How can we get in business...?)

[VidX]

I would do nothing differently.


The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

Why do you waste your time on a board that's pathetic? In such a case you sir are pathetic, however you look at it. It's like I'd lurk on a christian board and would try to bash their ideas. I'd really find myself pretty pathetic after some time..

Edited by VidX, 03 April 2010 - 05:55 PM.

[atp]

The present evidence is this:

http://www.imminst.o...rians-f245.html

http://www.imminst.o...ple-t12979.html

http://www.imminst.o...cts-t26418.html

http://www.imminst.o...rch-t35413.html

http://www.imminst.o...o...=21582&st=0

http://www.imminst.o...o...t=0&start=0

http://en.wikipedia....upercentenarian

Few live to 100 years and only a very few in the entire world live more than 110 year. They are mostly women, very small (well under 5'8') and finish life in a rest home. Most suffer from the afflictions of old age. Want to be scientific and rational? The existing reality and evidence points to the position that 100 years from now we will all be dead,

Like everyone else I see life is a gift, good and valuable. I do not want tp die. I take lots of vitamins, exercise and study life extension but in the end....

you underestimate the power of technological progress.
the number of supercentenarians explodes. the following is fact, no prediction:

http://www.nature.co...re08984_F2.html

http://www.nature.co...ature08984.html

Edited by atp, 03 April 2010 - 09:03 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Life is something we all desire and few want to die. The hope and love of life is a hope and love of a good thing. It has been a hope of humankind since recorded history and I certainly am no exception to this. However, to not notice that, with the exceptions of a few miracles that must be comprehended with faith, all humankind past membership is dead after a few decades of life. Hundreds of millions, all dead. It is wishful thinking to claim this is not evidence and that the present reality is everyone dies. Science will save us?

If you are a small woman, thin and well under 5"8" you have a small chance of living to be a super centurion and live into the second decade after 100. Chances are you will live in a rest home.

What of the future? I “hope” (correct word) we all live longer. I am big on the Paleo diet but as far as I know all Paleo humans are now dead. (Oh, I did see a couple of cave men in an insurance add on TV.) We have no hard scientific evidence that they lived longer than we are. We fight over what is Paleo because they are all dead and there is no one alive to tell us if they ate grains.

The entire Cosmos is running down, to eventually suffer a heat death. What compelling evidence is there that we will not suffer the same fate?? I suspect 100 years from now, no matter how many times we claim it is Scientific to claim otherwise, we will likewise be cold in the grave. Is there life after death?

As for the two links above they do not contradict anything I’ve said.

[atp]

As for the two links above they do not contradict anything I’ve said.[/b]

They contradict your prediction that we all will be dead in 100 years.
The probability to become older than 100 years obviously grows very very very fast.

[N.T.M.]

I would do nothing differently.


The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

lol sardonic

Give yourself a hug.

I would do nothing differently.


The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

Why do you waste your time on a board that's pathetic? In such a case you sir are pathetic, however you look at it. It's like I'd lurk on a christian board and would try to bash their ideas. I'd really find myself pretty pathetic after some time..

^^^A good point.

There are so many holes here that I'm not even gonna begin to argue.

*edit*

Thread has digressed to stupid remarks predicated only on intuition. Now that is pathetic.

For those intent on dying... You go right ahead.

Edited by N.T.M., 04 April 2010 - 09:13 AM.

[VidX]

Exactly. Intuition is not the best way in this case, as it may be biased or just plain wrong/unsupported by facts/statistics (as we can see from some posters).

Life span would increase dramatically if we'd "just" cure cancer and CVD (which is very preventable anyway). Step by step, one body part after another and the chances of living longer are increasing a lot. And there are a good possibillity of some breaktrhroughs in various therapies, maybe based even on some accidental discovery on some of the regulating genes. A huge amount of information is moving around and it's increasing. + informational technologies based biology. There are good examples from the past of experiments with old pcs (for more - R.Hawkins early work), which are fascinating, seeing how evolution may help to find an answer for you (or the "wing experiment"). Keeping in mind ever growing computational abilities and various soft, it shouldn't take too long while we'll be able tweak virtual genes and see the outcome and stuff like that. It doesn't even sound too futuristic at the moment.
+ underground labs which I'm sure already exists, exploring early methods with stem cells and such, in unregulated countries. Everything adds up. Wait till the major financial groups will sense the potential. And sooner or later there will appear one of the multibillionaires/people with a lot of power who'll set a goal to live long. And just ONE person can make a big change, step forward. Every single of us too may contribute as you all know.

We can't know at the moment what awaits us. We can only make a guess based on factual data and statistics, like Ray does.
As one poster said "It's no point, we already lost the war".. yeah, right. People who won various wars in history probably had the same line of thought. I don't even want to hear/read that, esp. on this board. We are here to fight that shit, and we aren't going to surrender alive (pun intended).. Anyway, various studies with animals shows that it's far from "Do it while still in the womb, or it's not gonna happen" so the assumption is flawed already.

I'm a bit worried about brain aging thou, this is the field that needs to be picked up a lot more seriously asap, as we don't need a young body with rotting brain.

Edited by VidX, 04 April 2010 - 05:06 PM.

[N.T.M.]

I'm a bit worried about brain aging thou, this is the field that needs to be picked up a lot more seriously asap, as we don't need a young body with rotting brain.

No worries, man. There are 3 primary things that constitute brain aging: cell aging, and intracellular/extracellular aggregates.

2 of the 3 have already been done. Stem cells have been introduced into a brain where they diversified into all necessary neurons to aid whatever atrophied regions necessary. And a couple successful vaccines for beta amyloid (the predominant extracellular aggregate) have already been proven effective. Also, it seems as though the remaining issue is likely the most innocuous too.

I'd say things are looking decent.

I bet some of those methods are already in practice (perhaps in one of those places you were referring to).

[bacopa]

I'd sigh at whatever fools think they've proven such a negative.

I'd always hold out hope.

To not do so would be irrational.

One should never bet on the end of one's life - one can't collect on it

I'd have to logically agree with David

[VidX]

No worries, man. There are 3 primary things that constitute brain aging: cell aging, and intracellular/extracellular aggregates.
2 of the 3 have already been done. Stem cells have been introduced into a brain where they diversified into all necessary neurons to aid whatever atrophied regions necessary. And a couple successful vaccines for beta amyloid (the predominant extracellular aggregate) have already been proven effective. Also, it seems as though the remaining issue is likely the most innocuous too.
I'd say things are looking decent.
I bet some of those methods are already in practice (perhaps in one of those places you were referring to).

It's good to know this. I'm just getting into whole brain field in terms of understanding, that's why it may look very complicated to me. Probably what's really complicated is the understanding of HOW brain work, but that's not our worries/goal. I've found this paper interesting, posted by user boyko a few weeks ago: http://elementy.ru/g...tracts?artid=79 (radial glia cells and brain renegeration). Seems that's the mechanism (or something similar) we need to get working in our brain (without the overall growth, as the head size of a two basketball balls doesn't sound too good lol).
Have you any relevant refs on the hand to read about the stem cells introduced into brain to create new neurons, to avoid some unnecessary skimmin through outdated articles and such? I remember I've red something somewhere, but can't remember the details.

[Ben]

I'm already expecting the worst but hoping, and acting, for the best.

[shadowhawk]

“The present evidence is this:

http://www.imminst.o...rians-f245.html

http://www.imminst.o...ple-t12979.html

http://www.imminst.o...cts-t26418.html

http://www.imminst.o...rch-t35413.html

http://www.imminst.o...o...=21582&st=0

http://www.imminst.o...o...t=0&start=0

http://en.wikipedia....upercentenarian
“
I cited mostly imminist sources to answer the question, what is the present reality? Mind states, “It is an interesting discussion in that what drives most of us is this purpose - to extend human life indefinitely.” My purpose is to extend life period. I do not think the present physical universe exists indefinitely and I as a part of it will not live forever either. That is not my hope but I do support extending life and have never heard anyone who believes as I do express otherwise. I do not believe present science supports this cosmos supporting “indefinite” life either. There is a good book, “Atheist Delusions,” by David Bentley

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270507701&sr=1-1

We have Just concluded the age of the great atheist empires where death not life has been in evidenced everywhere. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and many more have shown us how Atheists do life. I do not feel theists are not on the side of life extension when the present reality of human life, abortion and death is noted.

[VidX]

Either I misunderstood something ^^ or just - go away..

Back on topic - if I'd see that my body is failing hard and I'd have enough money - I'd go for any experimental treatment, that has at least SOME potential, legal or not I wouldn't care. And if everything fails, well - cryonics.

Though I hope that at least hybernation will be available in a few coming decades.

Edited by VidX, 06 April 2010 - 12:26 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Either I misunderstood something ^^ or just - go away..

Back on topic - if I'd see that my body is failing hard and I'd have enough money - I'd go for any experimental treatment, that has at least SOME potential, legal or not I wouldn't care. And if everything fails, well - cryonics.

Though I hope that at least hybernation will be available in a few coming decades.

What would you do If there was no way to cure aging?, hypothetical situation.

You are right, back to the question. What would you do If there was no way to cure aging?, hypothetical situation. What does it mean to cure ageing? I do not think there is ultimately a way to cure ageing but there are ways to extend life and health and happiness. How long? Who knows, keep taking your vitamins and supplements! Watch your weight, exercise moderately eat well but lightly, be happy. Educate yourself. Love well. Wonder! That is what I am doing.

[N.T.M.]

No worries, man. There are 3 primary things that constitute brain aging: cell aging, and intracellular/extracellular aggregates.
2 of the 3 have already been done. Stem cells have been introduced into a brain where they diversified into all necessary neurons to aid whatever atrophied regions necessary. And a couple successful vaccines for beta amyloid (the predominant extracellular aggregate) have already been proven effective. Also, it seems as though the remaining issue is likely the most innocuous too.
I'd say things are looking decent.
I bet some of those methods are already in practice (perhaps in one of those places you were referring to).

It's good to know this. I'm just getting into whole brain field in terms of understanding, that's why it may look very complicated to me. Probably what's really complicated is the understanding of HOW brain work, but that's not our worries/goal. I've found this paper interesting, posted by user boyko a few weeks ago: http://elementy.ru/g...tracts?artid=79 (radial glia cells and brain renegeration). Seems that's the mechanism (or something similar) we need to get working in our brain (without the overall growth, as the head size of a two basketball balls doesn't sound too good lol).
Have you any relevant refs on the hand to read about the stem cells introduced into brain to create new neurons, to avoid some unnecessary skimmin through outdated articles and such? I remember I've red something somewhere, but can't remember the details.

Hmm.... IIRC it was in Aubrey's book. Probably in the afterword.

Either I misunderstood something ^^ or just - go away..

Back on topic - if I'd see that my body is failing hard and I'd have enough money - I'd go for any experimental treatment, that has at least SOME potential, legal or not I wouldn't care. And if everything fails, well - cryonics.

Though I hope that at least hybernation will be available in a few coming decades.

What would you do If there was no way to cure aging?, hypothetical situation.

You are right, back to the question. What would you do If there was no way to cure aging?, hypothetical situation. What does it mean to cure ageing? I do not think there is ultimately a way to cure ageing but there are ways to extend life and health and happiness. How long? Who knows, keep taking your vitamins and supplements! Watch your weight, exercise moderately eat well but lightly, be happy. Educate yourself. Love well. Wonder! That is what I am doing.

You "cure" biological aging by simply repairing all the accruing damage. It's conceptually very facile.

Many of the treatments for the SENS platform are already progressing. In conjunction with that, realize that there are many animals that are biologically immortal, the very intuitive argument that aging is universal and thus ineluctable is quite obviously flawed.

Do some research. Things are changing. Using the past as a gauge for life expectancy no longer applies.

Edited by N.T.M., 06 April 2010 - 05:18 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You "cure" biological aging by simply repairing all the accruing damage. It's conceptually very facile.

The question if this subject is: “What would you do If there was no way to cure aging?, hypothetical situation. ‘ I wasn’t, and am not, suggesting a “cure.” You appear to be doing so. You need to read the subject carefully or you will continue to conceptually miss the point.

Many of the treatments for the SENS platform are already progressing. ( I read SENS every day along with other life extension sources) In conjunction with that, realize that there are many animals that are biologically immortal, ( What animals are immortal? What is your definition of immortality?) the very intuitive argument that aging is universal and thus ineluctable is quite obviously flawed.

Do some research. Things are changing. Using the past as a gauge for life expectancy no longer applies.

This is nonsense, unscientific and wishful thinking.

[shadowhawk]

http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2009/11/30/vs.clinic.immortality.cnn

Here is a discussion on the subject of longevity and what we can hope for and what we can expect. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, discusses ageing with Aubrey de Grey and Dan Buttner, you will see the strength and weakness of the current positions and state of the life extension movement.

[N.T.M.]

You "cure" biological aging by simply repairing all the accruing damage. It's conceptually very facile.

The question if this subject is: “What would you do If there was no way to cure aging?, hypothetical situation. ‘ I wasn’t, and am not, suggesting a “cure.” You appear to be doing so. You need to read the subject carefully or you will continue to conceptually miss the point.

Many of the treatments for the SENS platform are already progressing. ( I read SENS every day along with other life extension sources) In conjunction with that, realize that there are many animals that are biologically immortal, ( What animals are immortal? What is your definition of immortality?) the very intuitive argument that aging is universal and thus ineluctable is quite obviously flawed.

Do some research. Things are changing. Using the past as a gauge for life expectancy no longer applies.

This is nonsense, unscientific and wishful thinking.

My response was predicated on your digression, so any inadherence to the OP is solely your fault. Are you trolling?

Also, I referenced only things that I have read that've been corroborated scientifically so to speak. I don't understand your sardonicism.

*edit* I've already seen that vid, but more importantly there are just too many discrepancies throughout your posts now to take you seriously. There's no continuity so much so that it's a joke.

*edit again* Just to answer some of your questions:

by Michael R. Rose, Ph.D.:

"If we use a definition of aging based on declining survival
and fertility, we can define immortality intelligibly. If aging
can be defined as the persistent decline of these biological
variables, then it makes sense to define immortality as a property
of organisms that do not exhibit such declines. They may
have never exhibited declining survival and reproduction, or
they may have reached a point of equilibration at which further
sustained declines have ceased."

"Instead, the demonstration of immortality requires the finding
that rates of survival and reproduction do not show aging.
There are many cases where such patterns are inferred anecdotally
among plants and simple animals, like sea anemones.
But the best quantitative data known to me were gathered
by Martinez [2], who studied mortality rates in Hydra,
the aquatic animal that used to be a staple of high school biology.
Martinez found that his Hydra showed no substantial
fall in survival rates over very long periods. They still died, but
not in a pattern that suggested aging. Other scientists have
gathered comparable data with small animals. [e.g. 3] Some
species were immortal and some were not."

Edited by N.T.M., 09 April 2010 - 09:39 AM.

[shadowhawk]

My response was predicated on your digression, so any inadherence to the OP is solely your fault. Are you trolling?

I thought you were trolling. Hmmm. By the way I noticed that many beside me were off subject. Apparently you can’t recognize this. Read the posts again if you think otherwise. If you don’t get it then, I am not interested.

Also, I referenced only things that I have read that've been corroborated scientifically so to speak. I don't understand your sardonicism.

*edit* I've already seen that vid, but more importantly there are just too many discrepancies throughout your posts now to take you seriously. There's no continuity so much so that it's a joke.

*edit again* Just to answer some of your questions:

by Michael R. Rose, Ph.D.:

"If we use a definition of aging based on declining survival
and fertility, we can define immortality intelligibly. If aging
can be defined as the persistent decline of these biological
variables, then it makes sense to define immortality as a property
of organisms that do not exhibit such declines. They may
have never exhibited declining survival and reproduction, or
they may have reached a point of equilibration at which further
sustained declines have ceased."

I have no problem with this.

"Instead, the demonstration of immortality requires the finding
that rates of survival and reproduction do not show aging.
There are many cases where such patterns are inferred anecdotally
among plants and simple animals, like sea anemones.
But the best quantitative data known to me were gathered
by Martinez [2], who studied mortality rates in Hydra,
the aquatic animal that used to be a staple of high school biology.
Martinez found that his Hydra showed no substantial
fall in survival rates over very long periods. They still died, but
not in a pattern that suggested aging. Other scientists have
gathered comparable data with small animals. [e.g. 3] Some
species were immortal and some were not."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Hydra_(genus)

“...they appear to undergo senescence (aging) very slowly, if at all.”

The earth itself has a life span. It had a beginning, a present and a finite future. So does the cosmos. Time is a basic condition of this reality on earth. Things like continental drift move so slowly that they appear not to move at all. I can think of many examples. Immortality for Hydra is far from demonstrated. I am rooting for the Hydra but so far I see no reason to accept Immortality as their eventual future. Different life spans appear to be common to all existing life forms. Some live long lives while others short. Humans are no different and what is long and short is relative to our own life span.

Life is a great value to me and I want to live as long as possible. At the same time I can’t not help but notice an almost cult like belief that goes far beyond the existing evidence on the part of some. It is not negative or heretical to wish my fellow humans long life while at the same time noticing immortality appears to have many problems. What if there is no cure for ageing?

[N.T.M.]

My response was predicated on your digression, so any inadherence to the OP is solely your fault. Are you trolling?

I thought you were trolling. Hmmm. By the way I noticed that many beside me were off subject. Apparently you can’t recognize this. Read the posts again if you think otherwise. If you don’t get it then, I am not interested.

Also, I referenced only things that I have read that've been corroborated scientifically so to speak. I don't understand your sardonicism.

*edit* I've already seen that vid, but more importantly there are just too many discrepancies throughout your posts now to take you seriously. There's no continuity so much so that it's a joke.

*edit again* Just to answer some of your questions:

by Michael R. Rose, Ph.D.:

"If we use a definition of aging based on declining survival
and fertility, we can define immortality intelligibly. If aging
can be defined as the persistent decline of these biological
variables, then it makes sense to define immortality as a property
of organisms that do not exhibit such declines. They may
have never exhibited declining survival and reproduction, or
they may have reached a point of equilibration at which further
sustained declines have ceased."

I have no problem with this.

"Instead, the demonstration of immortality requires the finding
that rates of survival and reproduction do not show aging.
There are many cases where such patterns are inferred anecdotally
among plants and simple animals, like sea anemones.
But the best quantitative data known to me were gathered
by Martinez [2], who studied mortality rates in Hydra,
the aquatic animal that used to be a staple of high school biology.
Martinez found that his Hydra showed no substantial
fall in survival rates over very long periods. They still died, but
not in a pattern that suggested aging. Other scientists have
gathered comparable data with small animals. [e.g. 3] Some
species were immortal and some were not."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Hydra_(genus)

“...they appear to undergo senescence (aging) very slowly, if at all.”

The earth itself has a life span. It had a beginning, a present and a finite future. So does the cosmos. Time is a basic condition of this reality on earth. Things like continental drift move so slowly that they appear not to move at all. I can think of many examples. Immortality for Hydra is far from demonstrated. I am rooting for the Hydra but so far I see no reason to accept Immortality as their eventual future. Different life spans appear to be common to all existing life forms. Some live long lives while others short. Humans are no different and what is long and short is relative to our own life span.

Life is a great value to me and I want to live as long as possible. At the same time I can’t not help but notice an almost cult like belief that goes far beyond the existing evidence on the part of some. It is not negative or heretical to wish my fellow humans long life while at the same time noticing immortality appears to have many problems. What if there is no cure for ageing?

Oh c'mon! You can be more creative than just regurgitating my trolling comment lmao.

What you're saying is accurate though. However it was rather equivocally written (your first comment which piqued my response). In fact it was technically wrong, but whatever. In its context it seemed like you were implying that people being able to achieve a balance between damage and repair through regenerative therapies was infeasible. And of course that balance would constitute biological immortality.

*edit*

I thought you were trolling. Hmmm. By the way I noticed that many beside me were off subject. Apparently you can’t recognize this.

Well clearly I can't. Simply because my being o/t was undergirded by your post, that obviously means that nobody else could have possible been o/t either. Deduction right? lol WTF is wrong with you? I merely elucidated my reason for being o/t in defense of your spurious remark. Ironically the same criticism would apply to yourself. Then you go off and randomly interject that others were digressing as well?!?!?! You must be incompetent. It's absolutely laughable. It's like talking to an idiot. There's no continuity with your thinking.

Edited by N.T.M., 10 April 2010 - 07:26 AM.

[shadowhawk]

My response was predicated on your digression, so any inadherence to the OP is solely your fault. Are you trolling?

I thought you were trolling. Hmmm. By the way I noticed that many beside me were off subject. Apparently you can’t recognize this. Read the posts again if you think otherwise. If you don’t get it then, I am not interested.

Also, I referenced only things that I have read that've been corroborated scientifically so to speak. I don't understand your sardonicism.

*edit* I've already seen that vid, but more importantly there are just too many discrepancies throughout your posts now to take you seriously. There's no continuity so much so that it's a joke.

*edit again* Just to answer some of your questions:

by Michael R. Rose, Ph.D.:

"If we use a definition of aging based on declining survival
and fertility, we can define immortality intelligibly. If aging
can be defined as the persistent decline of these biological
variables, then it makes sense to define immortality as a property
of organisms that do not exhibit such declines. They may
have never exhibited declining survival and reproduction, or
they may have reached a point of equilibration at which further
sustained declines have ceased."

I have no problem with this.

"Instead, the demonstration of immortality requires the finding
that rates of survival and reproduction do not show aging.
There are many cases where such patterns are inferred anecdotally
among plants and simple animals, like sea anemones.
But the best quantitative data known to me were gathered
by Martinez [2], who studied mortality rates in Hydra,
the aquatic animal that used to be a staple of high school biology.
Martinez found that his Hydra showed no substantial
fall in survival rates over very long periods. They still died, but
not in a pattern that suggested aging. Other scientists have
gathered comparable data with small animals. [e.g. 3] Some
species were immortal and some were not."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Hydra_(genus)

“...they appear to undergo senescence (aging) very slowly, if at all.”

The earth itself has a life span. It had a beginning, a present and a finite future. So does the cosmos. Time is a basic condition of this reality on earth. Things like continental drift move so slowly that they appear not to move at all. I can think of many examples. Immortality for Hydra is far from demonstrated. I am rooting for the Hydra but so far I see no reason to accept Immortality as their eventual future. Different life spans appear to be common to all existing life forms. Some live long lives while others short. Humans are no different and what is long and short is relative to our own life span.

Life is a great value to me and I want to live as long as possible. At the same time I can’t not help but notice an almost cult like belief that goes far beyond the existing evidence on the part of some. It is not negative or heretical to wish my fellow humans long life while at the same time noticing immortality appears to have many problems. What if there is no cure for ageing?

Oh c'mon! You can be more creative than just regurgitating my trolling comment lmao.

What you're saying is accurate though. However it was rather equivocally written (your first comment which piqued my response). In fact it was technically wrong, but whatever. In its context it seemed like you were implying that people being able to achieve a balance between damage and repair through regenerative therapies was infeasible. And of course that balance would constitute biological immortality.

*edit*

I thought you were trolling. Hmmm. By the way I noticed that many beside me were off subject. Apparently you can’t recognize this.

Well clearly I can't. Simply because my being o/t was undergirded by your post, that obviously means that nobody else could have possible been o/t either. Deduction right? lol WTF is wrong with you? I merely elucidated my reason for being o/t in defense of your spurious remark. Ironically the same criticism would apply to yourself. Then you go off and randomly interject that others were digressing as well?!?!?! You must be incompetent. It's absolutely laughable. It's like talking to an idiot. There's no continuity with your thinking.

This is a waste of time. Not interested in this nonsense.

[N.T.M.]

This is a waste of time. Not interested in this nonsense.

After painting yourself into a corner, that's about all anybody could say.

[mikeinnaples]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

I don't fear the great beyond, because if it actually existed I would have nothing to fear of it. What I fear is that there is no great beyond, just oblivion. Thus I want to cling to life for as long and as desperately as I can.

However, on topic ....if there is no way to cure aging, then simply put, I cease to exist like each and every human that has passed on before me.

[shadowhawk]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

I don't fear the great beyond, because if it actually existed I would have nothing to fear of it. What I fear is that there is no great beyond, just oblivion. Thus I want to cling to life for as long and as desperately as I can.

However, on topic ....if there is no way to cure aging, then simply put, I cease to exist like each and every human that has passed on before me.

Nothing in the physical universe goes out of existence. (Basic law of physics) The material “you,” changes into something else not obviation. Is the “you,” the same as your body and nothing more? What if the seer (you) was something beside your body? Does it change into another form or does it continue to exist without change? Is the “you,” the same nature (physical) as the physical body or is it different? Can Science help answer these questions?

[mikeinnaples]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

I don't fear the great beyond, because if it actually existed I would have nothing to fear of it. What I fear is that there is no great beyond, just oblivion. Thus I want to cling to life for as long and as desperately as I can.

However, on topic ....if there is no way to cure aging, then simply put, I cease to exist like each and every human that has passed on before me.

Nothing in the physical universe goes out of existence. (Basic law of physics) The material “you,” changes into something else not obviation. Is the “you,” the same as your body and nothing more? What if the seer (you) was something beside your body? Does it change into another form or does it continue to exist without change? Is the “you,” the same nature (physical) as the physical body or is it different? Can Science help answer these questions?

It is the lost of self, the stuff that makes me 'me'. My consciousness. I understand that my body will return to the elements and all my energy will return as well. However, this is not persistance of conciousness even if it is persistance of the physical elements that make up a human being. I fear my consciouness being cast into oblivion, the loss of 'me' for eternity. We can argue about loss of humanity and potential loss of self should some technological wonder arise merging mankind with machine ...but that is a different discussion.

[shadowhawk]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

I don't fear the great beyond, because if it actually existed I would have nothing to fear of it. What I fear is that there is no great beyond, just oblivion. Thus I want to cling to life for as long and as desperately as I can.

However, on topic ....if there is no way to cure aging, then simply put, I cease to exist like each and every human that has passed on before me.

Nothing in the physical universe goes out of existence. (Basic law of physics) The material "you," changes into something else not obviation. Is the "you," the same as your body and nothing more? What if the seer (you) was something beside your body? Does it change into another form or does it continue to exist without change? Is the "you," the same nature (physical) as the physical body or is it different? Can Science help answer these questions?

It is the lost of self, the stuff that makes me 'me'. My consciousness. I understand that my body will return to the elements and all my energy will return as well. However, this is not persistance of conciousness even if it is persistance of the physical elements that make up a human being. I fear my consciouness being cast into oblivion, the loss of 'me' for eternity. We can argue about loss of humanity and potential loss of self should some technological wonder arise merging mankind with machine ...but that is a different discussion.

Reasonable distinctions I think. If the physical does not cease to exist, do we have any evidence that what you call “me,” ceases to exist? You use the word “consciousness.” You point out it may be of a different nature than the physical part of us. It has been called the “I” or the “spirit,” by ancient cultures. You also used the word “lost,” what would be so bad with oblivion except it implies aloneness, the me by itself. Science is a process not a position. Perhaps someday we can ask questions about “spirit.” For now it is beyond us.

[mikeinnaples]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

I don't fear the great beyond, because if it actually existed I would have nothing to fear of it. What I fear is that there is no great beyond, just oblivion. Thus I want to cling to life for as long and as desperately as I can.

However, on topic ....if there is no way to cure aging, then simply put, I cease to exist like each and every human that has passed on before me.

Nothing in the physical universe goes out of existence. (Basic law of physics) The material "you," changes into something else not obviation. Is the "you," the same as your body and nothing more? What if the seer (you) was something beside your body? Does it change into another form or does it continue to exist without change? Is the "you," the same nature (physical) as the physical body or is it different? Can Science help answer these questions?

It is the lost of self, the stuff that makes me 'me'. My consciousness. I understand that my body will return to the elements and all my energy will return as well. However, this is not persistance of conciousness even if it is persistance of the physical elements that make up a human being. I fear my consciouness being cast into oblivion, the loss of 'me' for eternity. We can argue about loss of humanity and potential loss of self should some technological wonder arise merging mankind with machine ...but that is a different discussion.

Reasonable distinctions I think. If the physical does not cease to exist, do we have any evidence that what you call “me,” ceases to exist? You use the word “consciousness.” You point out it may be of a different nature than the physical part of us. It has been called the “I” or the “spirit,” by ancient cultures. You also used the word “lost,” what would be so bad with oblivion except it implies aloneness, the me by itself. Science is a process not a position. Perhaps someday we can ask questions about “spirit.” For now it is beyond us.

Being alone is atleast being something. What if you are simply gone.

[shadowhawk]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that the great majority of immortalists here, are the equivalent of the great many theists out there that believe in religion simply out of fear of the great beyond. It's quite pathetic.

I don't fear the great beyond, because if it actually existed I would have nothing to fear of it. What I fear is that there is no great beyond, just oblivion. Thus I want to cling to life for as long and as desperately as I can.

However, on topic ....if there is no way to cure aging, then simply put, I cease to exist like each and every human that has passed on before me.

Nothing in the physical universe goes out of existence. (Basic law of physics) The material "you," changes into something else not obviation. Is the "you," the same as your body and nothing more? What if the seer (you) was something beside your body? Does it change into another form or does it continue to exist without change? Is the "you," the same nature (physical) as the physical body or is it different? Can Science help answer these questions?

It is the lost of self, the stuff that makes me 'me'. My consciousness. I understand that my body will return to the elements and all my energy will return as well. However, this is not persistance of conciousness even if it is persistance of the physical elements that make up a human being. I fear my consciouness being cast into oblivion, the loss of 'me' for eternity. We can argue about loss of humanity and potential loss of self should some technological wonder arise merging mankind with machine ...but that is a different discussion.

Reasonable distinctions I think. If the physical does not cease to exist, do we have any evidence that what you call "me," ceases to exist? You use the word "consciousness." You point out it may be of a different nature than the physical part of us. It has been called the "I" or the "spirit," by ancient cultures. You also used the word "lost," what would be so bad with oblivion except it implies aloneness, the me by itself. Science is a process not a position. Perhaps someday we can ask questions about "spirit." For now it is beyond us.

Being alone is atleast being something. What if you are simply gone.

It makes me think of being in isolation in prison. Being just with yourself is possibly the path toward insanity. It might be better to just be gone. I have a personal experience with this which I will share later.

[chris w]

I would really believe Quantum Immortality holds some water

[Dorho]

Chris, since you're from Poland, could you give a short summary of what the news in this pdf are about: http://www.uwm.edu.p...pob/2003_05.pdf

(off-topic)