Biological Immortality.

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: ribbon13
One of my most favored topics ever.

Cool, mine too. It is my main interest in life. I plan on becoming an M.D. / Ph.D. and help research a cure for aging.

I'm confused. Since when did AGING become a medical problem like the common cold?

I was under the impression it was a natural consequence of being human. Really, this medicalization thing has gotten out of hand. Apparently PREGNANCY is now considered to be a medical illness in some areas.

People are going to get OLD, like it or not...because (hide the thought) it might be...natural? Incidentally, I have a perpetual motion machine I'd like to sell you.

 

[Boze]

Originally posted by: her209
Even if scientists figured out a way for you to not die of old age, still doesn't mean you won't die from other things. One of the benefits of death is that it frees up resources (mainly food) for the offspring. Also, can you imagine if you lived to be over a thousand years old but in the process had to watch all your children, your spouse, your friends, all die?

Yes, I can imagine this, I used to watch Highland The Series... still doesn't mean I wouldn't wanna live to be old as dirt and super rich, minus the someone always trying to kill you setback.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Salvation? Can you prove salvation exists?

Same as asking if God exists. Because if He exists, then salvation exists. That's not even what we are talking about. My point, still being, what if it does exist, what then? Where do you go?

Originally posted by: Gibsons
More assumptions. Even if there is a correct god (that's an assumption), how do we know that we even know it's among the ones we know about? Perhaps the slime beings of Bolthazad 4 are correct in worshiping Crumulon of the Great Flagella, and all of ours are wrong. And finally, maybe our supposed god doesn't give a crap if we believe in him or worship him.

All irrelevant anyway, as the Great Blue Unicorn from the Dark Side of the Moon is the One True God.

All good points. The real question remains: what security do you have from hell, if it exists? I believe in God, the chances of whose existence are, say 1 in a million, according to an atheist. That's still a chance, albeit a very small one. What chance/hope do you have of not meeting eternal damnation? None.

By "you", I generally mean an atheist, not necessarily you, Gibsons. I don't know if you are one.

I think that doesn't constitute belief or faith, but rather hedging a bet. Perhaps that's sufficient reason for damnation also?

Of course that's just a bet and far from faith. But what you have said is still dodging the question.

Let me clear a misunderstanding. This argument of mine or Pascal's wager is not the ONLY basis for faith or religion. For some reason, you seem to have taken it as such and Astaroth for that matter. There are many and much more convincing, logical, rational and historical arguments in defence of faith; welcome to organized religion.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that Pascal's wager is the only justification for faith, the atheist still loses.

Originally posted by: Gibsons
You assume the existence of a god, an afterlife, a judgement, to know the basis of that judgement and the consequences of said judgement. Six assumptions all piled on top of each other. But your only basis for distinguishing between the possibilities of any of them is some oddsmaking in order to max out your chances for playing harps in the clouds.

fwiw, this argument has been done to death by people much better at it than you or me. I've probably heard every argument you're going to make, you can find any counter-argument I make out there somewhere too.

There are not six assumptions. There is only one assumption and that of the existence of God, everything else follows from there. Furthermore, don't forget that these are not naive assumptions. We are not assuming fantastical or incredulous things.

Creation, evolution, afterlife ... science doesn't have satisfactory answers to any of these fundamental unknowns. Heck, paleontologists discover these skulls and bones every other month now claiming a better understanding of evolution only to be set back after yet another discovery that contradicts their established beliefs. Quite frankly, there are many things for which their are no better explanations than belief in God. Therefore, the atheist has no good reason to disbelieve God.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Where does the mind go after death? It has to exist somewhere, in some form. Your consciousness can't fade into a void. Otherwise, dreams have no basis.

This isn't true. IF consciousness is nothing more than electrical charges shifting across the surface of neurons then, when the cells die, the consciousness dies too. Your statement about dreams doesn't make much sense. Dreams can exist if the mind is a product of biology.

I was trying to make a tentative case based on logic. It's not hard facts, I admit. Still, science can't explain self-consciousness. It is something that is unique to human beings. For example, a dog sitting in a room doesn't know that it is sitting in a room. A human being, however, does.

You are also assuming that consciousness is nothing more than electrical charges.

Dreams can exist, biologically, okay. But how do you explain them? Ramblings of a tired mind? The jury's still out on that.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
For example, a dog sitting in a room doesn't know that it is sitting in a room. A human being, however, does.

You are also assuming that consciousness is nothing more than electrical charges.

Dreams can exist, biologically, okay. But how do you explain them? Ramblings of a tired mind? The jury's still out on that.

I think a dog knows it's sitting in the room. My dog loves riding in a car, and when it sees my car door open it jumps in. When it's in the car, it's happy. You can tell that it knows it's riding in the car. So it can definitely see the coorelation between the car and it being inside of the car.

And dreams are nothing special. Animals dream, too.

 

[kobymu]

Gibsonsand and GreatBarracuda
will stop alredy, U CANNOT ARGUE FAITH WITH LOGIC AND VICEVERSA

 

[Siva]

I wouldn't count on any cure for aging in my lifetime. Make your peace now, life isn't meant to be lived forever. That's one of the few things that science and religion actually agree on.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
For example, a dog sitting in a room doesn't know that it is sitting in a room. A human being, however, does.

You are also assuming that consciousness is nothing more than electrical charges.

Dreams can exist, biologically, okay. But how do you explain them? Ramblings of a tired mind? The jury's still out on that.

I think a dog knows it's sitting in the room. My dog loves riding in a car, and when it sees my car door open it jumps in. When it's in the car, it's happy. You can tell that it knows it's riding in the car. So it can definitely see the coorelation between the car and it being inside of the car.

And dreams are nothing special. Animals dream, too.

Ahhhh, a "sentient being" argument.
I, too, wholeheartedly agree that there are many animals out there that are much smarter than our race. I can make an excellent argument for a lot of plants, too.
People are overwrought with their imagined superiority when quite frankly, we're borderline retarded.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: kobymu
Gibsonsand and GreatBarracuda
will stop alredy, U CANNOT ARGUE FAITH WITH LOGIC AND VICEVERSA

You're right.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I kind of like the method the late Robert Heinlein advocated in his Future History: The Howard Foundation was dedicated to extending human life by approaching the problem from the point of view of breeding animal stock. They would match men and women together on the criteria that they would have long-lived parents/grandparents, and keep track of all of the lines of lineage thus created over generations, working toward optimizing this trait.

Did he ever mention if the long-lived humans whose genes defined long life also tended to have genes that produced other desirable traits like natural intelligence, good skeletal/muscle structure, etc.?

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: Promethply
But of course -- doesn't everyone knows that already? Every living organisms have a set of genes that's uniquely defines it, unless they are identical twins or the product of asexual reproduction, such as in bacteria, for example.

Every sexual reproduction involves exchange of genetic material between chromosomes (crossover) ensuring that our offspring will never be exactly like us.

I stated that "in a sense, we will live forever", meaning that some of our genes will be carried over by our offspring.

hooooo "in a sense" ......well now that changes everything :laugh:


edited to add myoooo

myoooo

Oooops, faux pas, eh

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Promethply

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: Promethply
But of course -- doesn't everyone knows that already? Every living organisms have a set of genes that's uniquely defines it, unless they are identical twins or the product of asexual reproduction, such as in bacteria, for example.

Every sexual reproduction involves exchange of genetic material between chromosomes (crossover) ensuring that our offspring will never be exactly like us.

I stated that "in a sense, we will live forever", meaning that some of our genes will be carried over by our offspring.

hooooo "in a sense" ......well now that changes everything :laugh:


edited to add myoooo

myoooo

Oooops, faux pas, eh

u know that we (the heavy elemant in our body) are star dust.
so "in a sence" all the stars that supernove'ed continue to live is each and every one of us.
so "in a sence", all the stars live forever

sing along
"We are stardust, we are golden
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden"

lol

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: ribbon13
One of my most favored topics ever.

Cool, mine too. It is my main interest in life. I plan on becoming an M.D. / Ph.D. and help research a cure for aging.

I would suggest neurology... it's the biggest frontier imo.

Neurology would be very interesting indeed... but I am more interested in nanomedicine and stem-cell research.

Also, can you imagine if you lived to be over a thousand years old but in the process had to watch all your children, your spouse, your friends, all die?

Umh, yeah. Why would you live and they would die? Wouldn't they be biologically immortal too?

----------------------------------------------

About the telomere restriction (or Hayflick Limit of 86 cell divisions in humans). That limit has been extended in a lab, not in a human test subject, to a little over 600. We don't think that a larger limit is impractical at all.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
---snip---

About the telomere restriction (or Hayflick Limit of 86 cell divisions in humans). That limit has been extended in a lab, not in a human test subject, to a little over 600. We don't think that a larger limit is impractical at all.

The Hayflick limit (btw - it's usually referenced as about 50, but that's only the longest/best dividing cells of a population. for the 'average cell' iirc it's 20 or less) really only applies in the absence of telomerase activity. If there's any telomerase activity you sort of have to throw it out the window. There are almost certainly human cells that will exceed it in vivo - some stem cells, I'd guess some EBV-immortalized B-cells might, maybe others. Text

As for culturing in lab, immortalized and transformed cells seem to have an infinite capacity to divide, limited only by our willingness to keep them fed and watered.

 

[PingSpike]

74 percent want to live forever.

If its assumed that death = oblivion, only 73 percent want to live forever. Apparently heaven is a worse fate than turning into nothingness?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I can almost guarantee you will not find a "cure" for aging. You might develop some kind of treatment to extend it, but not cure it. How about linking to some real science journals instead of bs online websites?

Yes, I don't assume we will find a cure any time soon, but treatments that can extend our lifes indefinitely will be developed and I plan to work on those treatments. About the links, look around a little bit before you make statements like that.

The competitors in the M Price.

Dr. Sell is an Associate Investigator at the Lankenau Institute for Medical Research.
Dr. Guarente is a Novartis Professor of Biology at MIT, Boston, Mass.
Dr. Cutler is a Senior Scientist at the Kronos Longevity Research Institute, Phoenix
Dr. Leeuwenburgh is an Associate Professor at the Biochemistry of Aging Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville
Dr. Sinclair is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Weindruch is a Professor at the Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin

Immortality Institute links to many legitimate institutions and groups.

For some reason I forgot to link to this website.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: ribbon13
One of my most favored topics ever.

Cool, mine too. It is my main interest in life. I plan on becoming an M.D. / Ph.D. and help research a cure for aging.

errr I didnt read the whole topic. But if everyone could chose when to die then our planet would be even more FVcked then it is now. Over population is already here and at its current exponential rate...we are screwed

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: RadioHead84

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: ribbon13
One of my most favored topics ever.

Cool, mine too. It is my main interest in life. I plan on becoming an M.D. / Ph.D. and help research a cure for aging.

errr I didnt read the whole topic. But if everyone could chose when to die then our planet would be even more FVcked then it is now. Over population is already here and at its current exponential rate...we are screwed

Anwser to overpopulation.

Here is PART of his response.

The Earth's population will probably grow quite rapidly in the period immediately after these treatments become available, and we'll be faced with a simple choice: either we use the treatments and live a long time and have very few children, or we carry on having children at the current rate and we avoid using the treatments, so that we carry on dying of old age just like now. I don't say that I know which choice society will make at that time. What I do say is that that era's population has the right to make that choice itself, and not to have it made for it by today's society. If we delay the development of rejuvenation therapies, we are condemning future society to die at the ages that we are dying at today, whether they like it or not. We have no right to do that; we have a duty to develop these therapies as fast as possible in order to give future society the choice. Just as parliament has no right (in the UK) to constrain the choices of subsequent parliaments, so society today has no right to constrain the choices of society in the future.

 

[RadioHead84]

errr i dont think there will be a choice. Heck if a group of 100 people cant agree on which people to elect how is an entire society going to decide if they want to have sex or live a long time...its just not going to happen. And I dont think you will ever stop people from having kids sooooo when old age is cured its gonna be bad.


Also when aids and cancer are cured...not saying i dont want them to be cured..i sure as hell do.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: RadioHead84
errr i dont think there will be a choice. Heck if a group of 100 people cant agree on which people to elect how is an entire society going to decide if they want to have sex or live a long time...its just not going to happen. And I dont think you will ever stop people from having kids sooooo when old age is cured its gonna be bad.


Also when aids and cancer are cured...not saying i dont want them to be cured..i sure as hell do.

Overpopulation has always been a problem and we have always passed it. With the many technologies that are being developed, nanotechnology and genetic engineering to name a couple, overpopulation will not be a problem when we have to deal with it. The overpopulation "problem" today is not a lack of resources but a lack of the fair distribution of resources.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: RadioHead84
errr i dont think there will be a choice. Heck if a group of 100 people cant agree on which people to elect how is an entire society going to decide if they want to have sex or live a long time...its just not going to happen. And I dont think you will ever stop people from having kids sooooo when old age is cured its gonna be bad.


Also when aids and cancer are cured...not saying i dont want them to be cured..i sure as hell do.

Overpopulation has always been a problem and we have always passed it. With the many technologies that are being developed, nanotechnology and genetic engineering to name a couple, overpopulation will not be a problem when we have to deal with it. The overpopulation "problem" today is not a lack of resources but a lack of the fair distribution of resources.

Hmm i dont know about that. When you say overpopulation will not be a problem when we have to deal it is whats wrong. If we want to deal with it we should start now. I do agree that part of the problem is the distribution of resources but that can only spread so far. The planent can only support so much before it reaches a limit. True if everyone stopped eating meat..ate only plants, didnt polute, and took care of the planet we could go far..but still even then..there is a limit.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: RadioHead84

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: RadioHead84
errr i dont think there will be a choice. Heck if a group of 100 people cant agree on which people to elect how is an entire society going to decide if they want to have sex or live a long time...its just not going to happen. And I dont think you will ever stop people from having kids sooooo when old age is cured its gonna be bad.


Also when aids and cancer are cured...not saying i dont want them to be cured..i sure as hell do.

Overpopulation has always been a problem and we have always passed it. With the many technologies that are being developed, nanotechnology and genetic engineering to name a couple, overpopulation will not be a problem when we have to deal with it. The overpopulation "problem" today is not a lack of resources but a lack of the fair distribution of resources.

Hmm i dont know about that. When you say overpopulation will not be a problem when we have to deal it is whats wrong. If we want to deal with it we should start now. I do agree that part of the problem is the distribution of resources but that can only spread so far. The planent can only support so much before it reaches a limit. True if everyone stopped eating meat..ate only plants, didnt polute, and took care of the planet we could go far..but still even then..there is a limit.

Nanotechnology should be significiently developed to deal with these problems in about 25 to 30 years. Nanotechnology will be incredibly good for the environment.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Salvation? Can you prove salvation exists?

Same as asking if God exists. Because if He exists, then salvation exists. That's not even what we are talking about. My point, still being, what if it does exist, what then? Where do you go?

Originally posted by: Gibsons
More assumptions. Even if there is a correct god (that's an assumption), how do we know that we even know it's among the ones we know about? Perhaps the slime beings of Bolthazad 4 are correct in worshiping Crumulon of the Great Flagella, and all of ours are wrong. And finally, maybe our supposed god doesn't give a crap if we believe in him or worship him.

All irrelevant anyway, as the Great Blue Unicorn from the Dark Side of the Moon is the One True God.

All good points. The real question remains: what security do you have from hell, if it exists? I believe in God, the chances of whose existence are, say 1 in a million, according to an atheist. That's still a chance, albeit a very small one. What chance/hope do you have of not meeting eternal damnation? None.

By "you", I generally mean an atheist, not necessarily you, Gibsons. I don't know if you are one.

Which is essentially how catholicism was engineered, to leave the "what if im wrong" question to SCARE you into believing.

Its silly to begin with. Would you believe me if i said "I created heaven and earth, now everyone must commit suicide before tomorrow or you will all be damned to hell." You would shake me off as a frigging lunatic, and its based on the same idea. Just because they wrote it in a book thousands of years ago that has been revised hundreds of times, now its more plausible? Please.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Bump.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Bump.