A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Rubbish. Where does he define the term "greater satisfaction" then? He never defines it at all.

Okay Spacemonkey, you won. This discovery is flawed, and you saved everyone from being hoodwinked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Death is no more a static state than is life. Have you never heard of the process of decomposition?

&feature=related
This post is dedicated to Ymir's blood.

So funny!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you explain the distinction between
1. movement in the direction of "greater satisfaction"
and
2. what one chooses

If there is no distinction, then they mean the same thing. If they mean the same thing it is a tautology.

Note I did not ask for his proof, nor did I ask on what he based his conclusions

A tautology is circular reasoning. He did not reason in a circle LadyShea. I can't believe I've spent all this time here and we're no further along than the very first page of the very first thread. This is what I call going in circles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

Ahh, I see. So the problem is that I missed the definition, not that there isn't one. Could you point me at where he defines the term "greater satisfaction"?

The whole chapter is devoted to explaining why man's will is not free, which has to do with the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. I forget what page I posted the chapter on, but I hope you hold onto it because I'm not going to be here for much longer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A tautology is circular reasoning. He did not reason in a circle LadyShea.

If there is no distinction to be made between 1. and 2. then it is circular reasoning.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no shades of gray LadyShea. Man's will is not free (even if you don't believe it); just as there are no shades of gray between death and life.

There are shades of gray, even if you don't believe it.

[The Lone Ranger]

There are quite a lot of animal species that can enter a state called cryptobiosis. During this state, all metabolic activity ceases. The animal can be frozen solid, or it can be almost completely desiccated. And it can remain in this state for years, even decades.

By any reasonable measure, it's dead.

But if you warm it up and put it in some water, it comes back to life and is just fine.

[seebs]

I would concede that Lessans did not "reason in a circle". There's no reasoning involved; the claim in question is a bald assertion. There's no premises, argumentation, and conclusion; just a claim.

[LadyShea]

TLR, if science manages to find a way to stop the accumulation of or quickly repair cellular damage from free radicals or find a way to maintain the more efficient and fast natural repair mechanisms found in human children, couldn't humans routinely live well into their 100's?

[The Lone Ranger]

Well, it's a big "if." There are lots of reasons why we accumulate poorly-functioning (and eventually non-functioning) cells as we age. But if and when we reach the point where we can repair cellular damage on a cell-by-cell basis, there's theoretically no reason why we couldn't live indefinitely. Especially if we learn to induce mitosis in nonmitotic cells like most mature neurons.

Some researchers are predicting that we'll be able to do this within the next few decades. I think that's wildly optimistic, but who knows?

[LadyShea]

Well yeah, just theoretically speaking.

[seebs]

It's been a few decades out for as long as I can remember.

Someone once told me that insurance folks, who care about this kind of thing in a wildly different way, had concluded that in the absence of death from old age, cancer, etc., life expectancy would be stable at around 200 years. Meaning, no matter how old you are, you're 90% likely to be dead in 200 years. If you're not, well. 90% likely to be dead in another 200 years.

[The Lone Ranger]

The maximum human lifespan seems to be about 130 - 140. That is, even if you're in "perfect" health, it seems that you can't live past about 130. There's actually considerable evidence that our genes are "programmed" to kill us if we don't die from accident or disease first.

There are excellent evolutionary reasons for this, by the way. The short answer is that after a certain point, the best way to increase your genetic representation in the future is to die, and thus stop competing for resources with your descendants.

We see that sort of thing in quite a lot of plant and animal species; individuals will remain (seemingly) perfectly healthy until they reach a certain age, at which time they enter into a "senescence" life stage where they more or less fall apart and die in short order.


But then again, if we could repair damage on a cell-by-cell basis and induce mitosis in nonmitotic cells like most mature neurons and skeletal muscle cells, that really wouldn't be an issue.

As mentioned, some researchers confidently predict that some of us will live long-enough to see "the conquest of death." I think it's highly unlikely, though.*

Still, it's a pretty intriguing idea.


*If and when we reach the point where we can reverse and halt aging, so that a person can be more or less immortal, I predict that -- at least initially -- it will be far too expensive a procedure for any but the wealthiest to afford.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Death is no more a static state than is life. Have you never heard of the process of decomposition?

&feature=related
This post is dedicated to Ymir's blood.

We sang a slightly different version when I was a kid, in the 60's

Did you ever think when the Hearse goes by,
That you might be the next to die?
They wrap you up in a big white sheet,
And bury you under 6 feet deep.
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The ants play pinochle on your scalp.
Your stomach turns a slimey green,
And puss squirts out just like whipped cream.

Just a bit shorter, same tune.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The maximum human lifespan seems to be about 130 - 140. That is, even if you're in "perfect" health, it seems that you can't live past about 130. There's actually considerable evidence that our genes are "programmed" to kill us if we don't die from accident or disease first.

There are excellent evolutionary reasons for this, by the way. The short answer is that after a certain point, the best way to increase your genetic representation in the future is to die, and thus stop competing for resources with your descendants.

We see that sort of thing in quite a lot of plant and animal species; individuals will remain (seemingly) perfectly healthy until they reach a certain age, at which time they enter into a "senescence" life stage where they more or less fall apart and die in short order.


But then again, if we could repair damage on a cell-by-cell basis and induce mitosis in nonmitotic cells like most mature neurons and skeletal muscle cells, that really wouldn't be an issue.

As mentioned, some researchers confidently predict that some of us will live long-enough to see "the conquest of death." I think it's highly unlikely, though.*

Still, it's a pretty intriguing idea.


*If and when we reach the point where we can reverse and halt aging, so that a person can be more or less immortal, I predict that -- at least initially -- it will be far too expensive a procedure for any but the wealthiest to afford.

I was involved in a discussion on this subject on another forum and the question becomes 'do we really want to'. There are posible variables as far as the condition in which life is being preserved that must be addressed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There are quite a lot of animal species that can enter a state called cryptobiosis. During this state, all metabolic activity ceases. The animal can be frozen solid, or it can be almost completely desiccated. And it can remain in this state for years, even decades.

By any reasonable measure, it's dead.

But if you warm it up and put it in some water, it comes back to life and is just fine.

But that's not what Lessans was talking about TLR. This is not about the confusion as to when someone is really dead. This is about that point in time at which this frozen solid animal, or any other living creature, cannot be revived. Would you then continue to say that there is no such a thing as death as opposed to life?

[The Lone Ranger]

The biggest obstacle may be the fact that some bodily structures are mostly or entirely made of non-living tissue and can only be produced during embryonic development. I'm thinking of the lens of the eye and the vitreous humor of the eye, for example.

But then, we can already replace the lens of the eye with an artificial version. And I'm sure that the same sort of thing could be done for the vitreous humor.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you then continue to say that there is no such a thing as death as opposed to life?

Name one person who said that.

The point is, as has been explained to you, that the line between "alive" and "dead" is often very hard to define.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

We sang a slightly different version when I was a kid, in the 60's

Did you ever think when the Hearse goes by,
That you might be the next to die?
They wrap you up in a big white sheet,
And bury you under 6 feet deep.
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The ants play pinochle on your scalp.
Your stomach turns a slimey green,
And puss squirts out just like whipped cream.

Just a bit shorter, same tune.

You must have had a really neat childhood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Name one person who said that.

Please don't tell me she didn't say that life and death are not mutually exclusive. She did. She said there are variances and therefore, according to her reasoning, Lessans can't be right. Is this the nuttiest thing you ever heard? That death and life is a false dichotomy???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The biggest obstacle may be the fact that some bodily structures are mostly or entirely made of non-living tissue and can only be produced during embryonic development. I'm thinking of the lens of the eye and the vitreous humor of the eye, for example.

But then, we can already replace the lens of the eye with an artificial version. And I'm sure that the same sort of thing could be done for the vitreous humor.

Changing the parts doesn't change the underlying mechanism.

[LadyShea]

Please don't tell me she didn't say that life and death are not mutually exclusive. She did.

I didn't say that, but feel free to post my quote where you think I said that in case I forgot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea. Please don't tell me she didn't say that life and death are not mutually exclusive. She did. She said there are variances and therefore, according to her reasoning, Lessans can't be right. Is this the nuttiest thing you ever heard? That death and life is a false dichotomy???

The real point is that even if life and death are opposites it does not lead to Lessans conclusion, it's just smoke and mirrors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

I would concede that Lessans did not "reason in a circle". There's no reasoning involved; the claim in question is a bald assertion. There's no premises, argumentation, and conclusion; just a claim.

Oh my god, you clinched it. I'm talking to morons. I hate to say that but those are my feelings. I've taken enough abuse and now it's over. You absolutely crushed any desire left in me to move forward. Who the hell are you Seebs? Are you that egocentric that you now know more than the author? You came into this thread late and now you have the nerve to tell me that there are no premises? You are the biggest jerk as far as I'm concerned, but you're no match for natural.atheist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The real point is that even if life and death are opposites it does not lead to Lessans conclusion, it's just smoke and mirrors.

Oh shut up thedoc. I'm sick of hearing your whining. Your just as bad as natural.atheist, and now you have lost the chance to learn about a major discovery. I am done with you.