I will never die

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

manored
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 10:22 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;156815 wrote:

Aside from the fact that the first premise needs support before it is accepted as true,
But it falls in the same problem as mortality: We cannot prove we are or are not inside an ilusion.

Pyrrho;156815 wrote:

From the idea that most of the common experiences of life are an illusion, we cannot reasonably conclude that we are immortal.
Indeed, but that leaves the game fair for immortality.

xris;156820 wrote:
When im dead, will I ask the same question about death ? will I ever live? did I ever live? If I do, did I die? If I can ask any question, then what is life what is death?
If you can ask such questions after you die, then you arent dead, at least from your point of view =)

Unless, off course, the meaning of the word changes for you. Maybe after you die you will know that your human existence has ended, and then you can say you are dead if you want.

Marat;156851 wrote:
Russian filosopher Fyodorov

Wiki: Immortality for all
Achieving immortality and revival of all people who ever lived are two inseparable goals, according to Fedorov. Immortality is impossible, both ethically and physically, without revival. We can't concede that our ancestors, who gave us life and culture, are left to die, that our relatives and friends die. Achieving immortality for living individuals and future generations is only a partial victory over death, only the first stage. The complete victory will be achieved only when everyone is returned to a transformed immortal life.
I Disagree with this. First because I cant see how not reviving those who have died in the past would make it impossible for us to attain immortality. Second because this is assuming that those who died are in a state of suffering, that is, leaving then dead would be a cruel, not a neutral, thing. Third because reviving all humans that ever lived is far, far more unrealistic than making those who are alive immortal.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 10:30 am
@manored,
manored;155521 wrote:
I believe life never ends due to the infinity of the universe, that is, there is always somewhere the mind can escape to. You died? Someone froze your brain and ressurected you eons later, or you realize it was all a dream, or christians turn out to be correct, etc. But you dont die =)
Excatly where from the big bang to an infinitive universe did the infinitivly take place? Imo the universe is finitive.

Things changes in the universe, and nothing is static in the universe, things changes. Galaxies collide and things blows up ..etc.

Where are the billion of other humans who have lived?

Sounds more like pure poetic spekulation.
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 12:13 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;157578 wrote:
Excatly where from the big bang to an infinitive universe did the infinitivly take place? Imo the universe is finitive.

Things changes in the universe, and nothing is static in the universe, things changes. Galaxies collide and things blows up ..etc.

Where are the billion of other humans who have lived?

Sounds more like pure poetic spekulation.
The big bang and its consequences are not everything there is to the universe, only everything we can see.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 12:31 pm
@manored,
manored;158022 wrote:
The big bang and its consequences are not everything there is to the universe, only everything we can see.
And excatly how do you know? Please elaborate.
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 12:58 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;158029 wrote:
And excatly how do you know? Please elaborate.
The fact that there is something rather than nothing is a paradox. But if something came from nothing, despite the logical impossibility that is, then that ought to happen ad infinitum, since there is infinite nothingness.

After your last reply I forgot to mention that immortalily only applies to the conscious mind, that is, me, or, in your case, you. In other worlds, the billions of people who have already died need not to be in this world.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 01:10 pm
@manored,
manored;158034 wrote:
The fact that there is something rather than nothing is a paradox. But if something came from nothing, despite the logical impossibility that is, then that ought to happen ad infinitum, since there is infinite nothingness.

After your last reply I forgot to mention that immortalily only applies to the conscious mind, that is, me, or, in your case, you. In other worlds, the billions of people who have already died need not to be in this world.
Seems you fool youself with pretty rethorics.
 
sitkaa
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 12:52 pm
@HexHammer,
Of course you will die. Common sense tells you this.

What dies, though? The sense of self?

Perhaps you should ask people who have been through this experience before.

And what is there after death?

only love
 
Ergo phil
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 01:26 pm
@xaul,
"I" will die.

Eventually.

When all humans who have a spoken language die, then the "I" will die.

Animals don't have a problem with identity. They is. Isness was hijacked by the human mind to create an image of a person in their head. So someone created an image and projected that and then identified with that projection. That's okay because it did indeed create great personalities that were born and died. Probably, the most famous "I"s were Buddha, Plato, Jesus, Krishna and Muhammed. Their bodies died but their minds in the form of written consciousness have lived on for centuries. But those "I"s (in the form of consciousness) will die too when the Earth's human race perishes.

Now getting back to the "I will never die" scenario regarding the not-so-great.

You die but your perspective will be taken up by another human life. Sure, not everyone will know your individual secrets but the place that you experienced will outlast you. That feeling you had when you looked over the Grand Canyon Rim will be experienced again by somebody else. That is, another I. Just because the I has a name does not change the experience of awe, for instance. In this sense, then, the I will live for a long time as long as the structure remains. If the Grand Canyon gets filled up by the oceans then a future I won't experience what you as an "I" experience in your time.

But like I said before, all things change and one day when the Earth is no longer viable for human life then "I" will simply pass away.
 
mark gamson
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 01:30 pm
@xaul,
there is a great thread on de-javu that I think will answer your question.

happy hunting.

Mark
 
longfun
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 01:52 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;158038 wrote:
Seems you fool youself with pretty rethorics.

Turn it around, what if you die? Clearly your observed world ends with you. :cool:
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 02:29 pm
@longfun,
longfun;162483 wrote:
Turn it around, what if you die? Clearly your observed world ends with you. :cool:
Does it now? We still speak the name of Einstein and his relativity theory, the founding fathers of USA are still spoken of, even though they have died long ago.

With our genetics, we can bring back the dead.
 
longfun
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:30 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;162491 wrote:
Does it now? We still speak the name of Einstein and his relativity theory, the founding fathers of USA are still spoken of, even though they have died long ago.

With our genetics, we can bring back the dead.

:bigsmile: Notice that the only proof you have sits on the inside of life.
But I agree, What is spoken of is spoken of, just as in genetics time evolution is previous but decaying data with a slightly new/changed data adding.
It acts in the same way as our genetic patern, our DNA.
It breaks and merges anew on every decision or observer-dead or action etc.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 07:53 am
@sitkaa,
HexHammer;158038 wrote:
Seems you fool youself with pretty rethorics.
Seems like you dont understand what I am saying and thus launch an argument-less attack against it out of not wanting to seem like a fool and having a general disposition to disagree with people.

sitkaa;162460 wrote:

And what is there after death?

only love
What fun would be that? =)

Ergo;162467 wrote:

But like I said before, all things change and one day when the Earth is no longer viable for human life then "I" will simply pass away.

"I" will always exist one me =)

HexHammer;162491 wrote:
With our genetics, we can bring back the dead.
Not at all. We can, or rather, could, since we havent got at that point yet (mostly due to opposition against the practice, I believe) clone the said dead person, however it would be just a person with the same DNA, a twin brother/sister.

To revive people we would need to extract/record the information on someone's brain before it was lost. Im not sure how long it would take for this information to be beyond recover, but it would at least require the brain to be avaible and in one piece.

Then, we would need to find a way to grow a human body quickly and in total stasis (as to prevent it from forming a mind), as obviously it wouldnt be nice to replace a growing baby's/kid's mind with someone's else (pretty much murder, actually), and it wouldnt be adequate if we had to wait like 50 years to revive a 50 years old person. Then we would have to figure out a way to put those memories in the clone's brain.

So, I dont think we are even close yet, and its probally easier to just robotize ourselves =)
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 07:59 am
@manored,
manored;162917 wrote:
Not at all. We can, or rather, could, since we havent got at that point yet (mostly due to opposition against the practice, I believe) clone the said dead person, however it would be just a person with the same DNA, a twin brother/sister.
That's close enough for me.

manored;162917 wrote:
To revive people we would need to extract/record the information on someone's brain before it was lost. Im not sure how long it would take for this information to be beyond recover, but it would at least require the brain to be avaible and in one piece.

manored;162917 wrote:
Then, we would need to find a way to grow a human body quickly and in total stasis (as to prevent it from forming a mind), as obviously it wouldnt be nice to replace a growing baby's/kid's mind with someone's else (pretty much murder, actually), and it wouldnt be adequate if we had to wait like 50 years to revive a 50 years old person. Then we would have to figure out a way to put those memories in the clone's brain.
Memories can also be implanted, through past videos of the person, photos ..etc.
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 08:10 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;162921 wrote:
That's close enough for me.
While it may be enough depending of your reasons, we cant really call that a revival.

HexHammer;162921 wrote:

Memories can also be implanted, through past videos of the person, photos ..etc.
Indeed, but it wouldnt be a perfect revival less we transfered the full contents of the old brain to the new one. I think through things such as photos and videos you would be able to transfer certain memories and behaviors the dead people had, but would still be very far from reproducing its mind perfectly.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 09:30 am
@manored,
manored;163397 wrote:
While it may be enough depending of your reasons, we cant really call that a revival.

Indeed, but it wouldnt be a perfect revival less we transfered the full contents of the old brain to the new one. I think through things such as photos and videos you would be able to transfer certain memories and behaviors the dead people had, but would still be very far from reproducing its mind perfectly.
Since your refusal are so great, have you actually witnessed any such revival in order to know? I do admit that I havn't.
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 08:45 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;163439 wrote:
Since your refusal are so great, have you actually witnessed any such revival in order to know? I do admit that I havn't.
No. But it is not necessary to see a clone to know its mind is different from the original person. Even the body wouldnt be the same, since through life our body suffers changes that are not written on DNA.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 03:31 am
@manored,
manored;163870 wrote:
No. But it is not necessary to see a clone to know its mind is different from the original person. Even the body wouldnt be the same, since through life our body suffers changes that are not written on DNA.
That is true enough per se, but I do think our understanding has become advanced and in few decades we may be able to actually revive people, not in 100% ..but something near.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 03:49 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;164176 wrote:
That is true enough per se, but I do think our understanding has become advanced and in few decades we may be able to actually revive people, not in 100% ..but something near.
I agree with this, though I think it will probally be very dependent on the circunstances of death, at least in the few next decades.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 04/20/2014 at 12:56:32