Math is not the objective reality, it is something to back up science. Math alone is useless.
Age is inevitable, but that is the fragility of the human body. As we die, through evolution, we have ways by dealing with death. But we are not programmed to die.
As for suicides, that is a subjective argument, as the choice to die isn't predetermined by evolution.

One thing, though, you are dealing with someone who is a subjectivist, so any argument about math(without science) will end in a stalemate when I bring up Hume or Nietzschean ideals..

Okay now you are trying to argue with human neurology. The brain is programmed to kill itself and self destruct when the body is rendured useless. This is a fact. You are built to live, adapt, and die and not much else. And not to be rude but you were just using a circular reasoning fallacy.

Tell me who has supposedly "mathematically proved it's impossible".

A lot of people are working on it, and many believe that they'll eventually cure aging.

Creating life definitely won't be easy, that's why we have professional scientists working on it.

Nanotechnology isn't only concerned with nanobots, it's about everything that's extremely small XD Having said that, we could use Nanobots to build actual cells.

A cure for cancer and extending life are linked together because cancer cells are actually normal cells that have become biologically immortal, they just keep multiplying and refuse to self destruct. We've created a "miracle drug" (I forgot what it's called, I think it starts with the letter c) that can actually reverse aging. The problem is that it causes cancer too, sometimes the new cells mutate and become cancer cells. If we had a way to quickly defeat the cancer cells, say nanobots or something, the aging would essentially be cured.


On a side note, (since you mentioned Mars) it's kind of interesting because some scientists think that earth's primordial cells could've actually come developed on Mars (when it had an atmosphere) and come to earth on an asteroid o-0

Your "cure" for aging actually causes more problems than it cures. And it is actually renforcing what is known as FOX-0. This is what maintains your body like a janitor at school. The problem is it is more of a bandage than a cure. You will still age but very slowly. You can averagely live 100 years. Also cancer isnt that indestructible as you depicted. For it is only a DNA mutation when the cells split that causes an information strand to go bad (similar to mad cow) and when this cell reproduces it creates other mutated cells. Normally this information strand causes it to kill off other cells. And with your creating life idea it isn't possible because it took 6 million years for the earth under the best possible scenarios to make single celled organisms according to one theory. What makes you think we can do it while our race still exists? And besides after 5000 years worth of research we dont even know fully how our own bodies work. So how in the fudge can we all of a sudden create any life at all? It just doesn't add up. And even if we do create life, technological singularity isn't really technological, more of biological singularity. At this point I think I can safely say technological singularity is just science fiction.

I'm calling BS on that, humans are not programed to die. There are scientists, right now, working on ways to prevent the deterioration of the body as it ages.

One more thing, math can never be applied to an imperfect world.

Well here is the thing that dude who mathematically proved it impossible was my dad. And the deteriation of the body like I said can only slow it down. Aging is inevitable no matter how hard you try there is nothing in this world that doesn't age. And math just saying has and can prove practically anything. This includes things like what we call beauty. (1.68 is the exact number) and actually humans are litterally programmed to die. There is a certain prosses implanted in your brain that helps shut down your body as you are dying. And if that were true tha you aren't the why are there suicides?

I'm not sure, but Mii might have been talking about iChells, inorganic cells made of metals. They aren't able to reproduce yet, but they can do some of the stuff that normal, organic cells can do. Look up iChells on google.

Okay, I looked em up! Well they aren't living organisms because of two things. A. In order to become a living thing you must be able to reproduce. If it cant do that it isnt an organism. B. they have no way to eliminate waste. If you can fix that then they are living organisms. It is kind of like saying Fire is an organism because it eats wood and makes smoke waste. Or it reproduces by growing and splitting. It is still an inanimate object.

If you change the DNA of the clone you can create new life. Both stuff have been done before, just not together yet.

You are still only manipulating it and we are only able to change the genes.

Yeah but in order to obtain intelligence you need to have life.

If you change the genes you change the DNA.

Genes=Sticks of infomation
Sticks of information=Deoxyribonucleicacid
Deoxyribonucleicacid=DNA

Genes and DNA are pretty much the same it is just that Genes are made of DNA. So still my argument stands. No one has created life (Maybe with the exception of a god if he exists).

There's nothing stopping us creating life in the long run, or course it'll be possible for us to do it eventually. Assuming that living creatures are physical structures, without a "life force" or some magical thing that makes living creatures special, then what makes it "impossible for humans to do" in the long run, as we become developed in nanotechnology etc?

There are plenty of things keeping us from it. And like I said it is just as hard as keeping people from dying. In fact there is almost no one researching the matter because some have mathematically proved it impossible. If creating life was so easy we would have done it or at least found a cure for cancer. There is no possibility humans can create life. And nanotechnology has nothing to offer in creating life because though they may work similarly they aren't made of the same materials. Creating life has so many problems that we are so far the only known planet to have ever had it. (Without the suspicion of Mars.)

I actually meant that they are able to take cells from someone, and create a twin of it from him. Has been testing this in labs with some sorts of animals already.

This is called cloning and it isn't creating life it is manipulating it.

No, you are taking this the wrong way. This is a philosophical argument.
Acceleration, gravity, science, none of those are possible to prove as we need human experience to observe them. Math is used in science to prove natural phenomena, but you must assume that what you experience is actually what is happening. It could all just be an illusion of the mind, as human sense are flawed (our observations are flawed).
Plus, it is impossible to ever account for causality and causation, as it is possible for anything to happen after a "cause".
The only thing that can ever be proven is "I think therefore I am."
Math is what your mind makes up to be true according to certain principles like 2+2=4. But even then, it brings in numbers impossible to use our world like repeating decimals and negative measurements.

But then you have to take in account that you could be an illusion and even if you think you may still just be an illusion. Also thinking proves nothing. It only makes you self aware of your own existence.

You need to define thought, though. Thought can be just the firing of neurons in brains. Humans are essentially the same as computers, just carbon based rather than silicon.

Oh, and we have created organisms before, we have cloned animals and are capable of recreating certain extinct species.

We have not created animals we have simply raised them. You can't create any form of life from scratch at the moment because now even the simplest of all creatures can't be duplicated. And humans are somewhat similar to a computer but at he same time entirely different. A computer can never have its own point of view, morals, beliefs, or bias while a human can. This is what mentally seperates us from machine. But to get the mental gap fixed you have to fix the physical gap. Now a big problem is that in a circuit board you can't change anything or else you will jack it up. But in your brain things are constantly changing by forming connections to other cells. This is what causes you to think and get your personality. Now a circuit board can't magically for wire connections by itself. This is what I mean when I say you need an actual organism.

PS Recreating certaint species is only a matter of mutating genes and so far we are getting pretty close. And cloneing isn't creating for you simply take the Deoxyrobonucleicacid (20 points to whoever knows what that is) out of an egg cell and insert the selected DNA of the organism. We can't grow this in labs they actually have to be stored in a yuterus. So no this isn't creating life we are simply controlling it.

It's practically impossible at the moment, but we're getting there. As long as the organisms we create are safe, it really doesn't matter what religious groups think. And I personally don't think that all religions would disappear, for example in Bhuddism people don't necessarily have souls. I'm sure that would still wreck some religious organizations though, but only ones with their beliefs set in stone - like the Catholic thurch (but they're extremely currupt anyway so in my opinion that'd be a good thing).

We are not getting there. In fact we are so far away people still die. Dying and creating life will be both fixed at the same time. So just a little show of how hard this will be. You can't create life no matter what (at least we cant). This is the one thing that keeps religion possible. Creating life is just not possible for a human to do and we have to face that fact.

In a more free perspective, artificial means man-made. The strict technological definition for AI is a limited one, however, people can talk about it in philosophical terms as a simple man-made definition. It being artificial can simply mean that man created the ancestor robot, but (I don't know how) its byproducts or new version created itself to become a truly intelligent being.

This is just interpretation of the word, though.

How about those androids and cyborgs?

Androids and cyborgs are completely different. Androids are completely robotic and man made while a cyborg doesnt exist yet and are considered actual living creatures. And what modern science tells us is that technological singualrity is nothing but a dream.

Technological singularity it truly impossible. You cant program a robot to do that no matter how long you try. Heck we can barely get a robot to play violin. In order to make a robot capable of thought isn't possible whatsoever. The only way to accomplish this is to actually create life. All robots are is circuits reacting and sending signals. Although this is similar to what the brain does, you cant accomplish this because a robot cant learn and adapt on its own or else it will have to rewrite all of its programming over again. People will have to have inhuman intelligence for this to happen. It just isnt possible.

Artificial intelligence is still intelligence - It's man-made intelligence, however crude it's been so far.

Artificial intelligence isn't true intelligence for it is only a bunch of numbers interacting with each other. It isnt thinking at all, its programing is just interacting.

A computer won't even know what he's doing. He won't learn anything, which clearly is a part it has to have to talk about intelligence. AI is just a bad word for "Complex user input based output system".

Yes but the memory required to learn is just too much. You will end up with needing much more than 1000 TB. Modern computers normally have no more than 2 TB. It will be a very big feat of engineering.

Also it would be kinda impossible to create emotion because the human brain cant even do that without the help of chemicals and hormones.

Really all that I want is clickable sliders and a HD screen. Other than that I really dont see anything wrong with it!

I dont think it will be in last because at the rate Sony is going I think that the PS4 is and then the next Xbox will be the powerhouse with the Wii U comparably close to the PS4.

Same here it is kinda surprising to me too now that you bring it up! I exercise too. Mainly for wrestling. I have become very fond of it and good at it as well. I am very strong and I am proud of it. I exercise daily to keep it up and I have biceps the size of most people's thighs lol.

Do you work out your entire core? (Triceps, Back, Legs)

Yeah I do. I do allot of wall sits and squats. Pull ups are essential when preparing for wrestling and my book bag for school is a work out in itself. Anyways yeah I try to exercise everything so that I have no weakness when I do go into wrestling competitions.

I see.

How many days of the week do you exercise? I go to the gym about four days out of the week. Also, do you use the power rack or the smith machine? Also what does you your diet consist of? Lean meats, vegetables, whole wheat, fish, fruits, and brown rice?

Sorry for all the questions.

It is alright. I exercise about five times a day but I rarely ever use a gym because I simply don't need one. All you really need to get the proper work out is gravity. I do those basic push ups and sit ups. I was actually sent to boot camp for being too fat . But anyways that is when I picked up my exercise. Like I said I rarely go to gyms because I can still work out just as effectively without one. My diet is mainly vegetables with little sugar because it burns too fast. I am Chinese so I eat few meats and contrary to popular belief you dont really need to eat many meats at all when working out. Vegetables can give you close to the same nutrients but without the fat. In the long run you have allot more energy. (Trust me I used to be a fast food junkie) Fish is always good and so is chicken but I try to avoid red meats although things like livers, intestine, blood, and hearts is great for you! Anyways that is pretty much me and the way I do things and it is working out great! How do you work out?

But how would Sony know beforehand that it would be inferior? And besides we have been confirmed that the Wii U is technologically superior to its competitors.

Obviously they didn't have to show it. Not one game for wii u looks close to level of graphics of ps3 best.

Uhhhh..... I dont know about you but ZombiU looked pretty good too....

There wont be a PS4 at E3 this year. There might not even be one at all. This could very well be Sonys final E3. Anyone who has done abit of research will know Sony is in HUGE!!! trouble finacial wise.

They lost $6.4 Billion last year which is 1/3 of the entire Sony Companys worth. Sony said they predict that will happen again this year. Meaning in 2 years they lost 2/3 of their companies worth. If that happens they cannot recover. Sony Investors have lost all faith in Sony, not to mention Sony hasnt made a profit for 4 years in a row...

The Playstation 3 is still selling decently announcing a PS4 would cut the PS3 sales and people would wait for that. If they made the PS4 a powerhouse to destroy Wii U then it would be expensive as hell and would be a repeat of the PS3 launch. Sony would be shooting themselfs in the foot.

They need to MAKE money not shovel out more money to make a new console.

Also have you not heard that they plan on introducing IN GAME ADVERTISEMENTS! Your fighting a boss then all of a sudden an ad pops up. Your playing COD and your in a fight with someone all of a sudden on your screen you see "Catch the best romantic comedy of the summer" and a video starts playing...

Sony is in huge trouble currently THERE WILL NOT BE A PS4 THIS E3. They will focus heavily on Vita games. It will be a snooze fest again cause Sony people are like robots no personality.

Not to mention the heads of Sony and the Xbox division of microsoft have said numerous times WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW THIS E3 INVOLVING THE PS3's SUCCESSOR OR THE 360'S SUCCESSOR.

Finally someone who knows what they are talking about! And it does not matter if thy sell Vita's because they are selling it for a 60$ loss already! They need to sell software and name one good title other than uncharted!

Hey where is your PS4 now! WHERE IS IT! WHERE IS IT HUH?!

This game looks really cool and I cant wait until it comes out! I really would like to see this game on the Wii U. I am not so sure if the graphics are truly next gen.

I hate three things on the internet:
1. Trolls
2.  Racism
3. My slow computer

Your computer isn't the Internet, mate.

Or is it!?

Thee Things I hate about  the internet. I wasnt really asking you.

The Wii is small enough....