If they arent public then why did it say I had 0 warning posts? NVM that was taken out. You can delete this post now.

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.

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.

I think it depends on what you define as "people" because some define them as human and others define them as beings capable of thought. They are capable of thought and have an astonishing ability to reason. They have even social systems. So in some sense they are and in some they aren't.

Well, they would fit perfectly on the psycho side of people.

I mean, the Simpsons weren't a joke, the dolphins are really the jerks of the ocean. Kidnapping females, killing for pleasure, eating people...

They're worse than the sharks, but that's not much, since sharks aren't evil.

Inb4alotofquotestellingmedolphinssavepeopleandareallgoodbecausetheyhaveagoofysmileontheirfaces.

I never knew they kidnapped females. O.o and there are only few cases of them eating people. Thanks you opened my eyes.

I like your avatar, and if they did do you think they will keep it secret or tell the public immediately.

lol! Well thanks! But even if they did create it in labs then why dont we know how our own brains work?

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.

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).

I'm talking purely aesthetics, so please don't post your own country's flag just because you're feeling patriotic :3
Personally, my favorite flag is...

North Korea!
I was strolling through Wikipedia and decided to add to my knowledge of North Korea when I was struck by design of the flag, I mean just look at it! I dunno, for a crazy totalitarian pseudo-communist monarchy (lol, a communist monarchy is kind of contradictory) they sure have a nice looking flag.


So yeah, what flag do you think looks the best? (feel free to post an image)

LOL I WAS JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT! Yeah I was impressed with the design too! Anyways I always liked the Soviet Union.

Crows? Really?

Yeah you can even teach them hoe to talk they are really cool! I think elephants and cockatoos are closer though.....

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

Well the thing is that we dont even know what life is exactly so replicating it would be impossible is really what I am trying to say. Also I agree that religion is now no longer needed but I think we still need to respect those who believe in it. Just saying before this gets out of hand . And also the scientific definition of life is an object that follows the eight universal laws to a living organism (Only applies to life in this universe.) it must require water, nutrients, made of cells, react to the environment, eliminate waste, grow and mature, and reproduce. But we still dont know what life is.

About the we aren't able to create life, it has been done before.

It has not been done before and if it has enlighten me.

The brain or just the cells? If it is just the cells, it is a biologic failure as the original purpose was to replace the useless cells with newer ones.

I wasn't using any true reasoning, I was saying that through evolution, the body has learned how to deal with death, but not to kill itself.

If the circular reasoning was the math POV, I didn't go into detail. The basic premise goes like this: the only verifiable truth is "I think therefore I am", not god, other peoples, human senses, or even experience. human experience and math is nothing more than ideas created by the human mind. Human senses can be fooled, so it is impossible to rely on senses, experience, and perception. Math is a perfect concept, but it cannot be connected to any of your own reality, as your current reality is flawed, while math is not. Math connected to such a reality still fails to prove anything, as it is unusable in a subjective or non-perfect world. Science cannot be true as you must assume that our reality can be studied by our flawed senses and observations.

Ok this goes against everything in human history. For math can be applied to everything and can prove anything. It is very interesting. For example mass x acceleration=force. Or e=mc2. Math proves pretty much everythIng. And science is law pretty much. It is the one absolute thing that cant change. The law of gravity for example is science and can be applied to everything.

That doesn't add any difficulty.
Hormones are slow signals replaceable by wires.
The chemicals are just to keep the electricity level in your body high enough. Replaceable by wires.

Humans can do nothing more then a computer should be able to. But right now, we didn't invent intelligence yet for computers.

Actually these arent replaceable by wires at all. They have to be absorbed into the brain tissue to work. It needs to be a conductive material that has the same properties as the brain tissue or else it wont work.

Which is well within our capabilities.  Besides, that is essentially a wire.  The inner wire is conductive, while the outer is insulation; its not too hard to modify that, ever hear of bionic body parts or stem cells?

I did but the problem is that it requires actual cells and you cant just create life.

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.

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.

When we get better at manipulating matter in the atomic realm, I'm sure we'll be able to create something from scratch that most people would consider alive.

Uh.... Just saying but that is practically impossible. Imagine how the Christians would feel. Creating life would practically destroy the religion and also it isn't quite physically possible because we know almost nothing of creating organisms. The closest we can get is growing them.

And PS I said nothing about emotions I was talking about thought.

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.

But what if the body stays healthy? Why would your brain decide to kill you then?

Anyway, through science I believe we'll be able to fundamentally change the human condition. We won't have to rely on what the body and brain have evolved to do.

We will always have to rely on it because that is litterally what we are. Your reasoning would make us rely on machines and the we may not even be considered human. And your brain never kills you unless it has to and you are in an irreversible situation. This is with the exception of less than 10 cases of what is called "Alien Hand Syndrome" where you are constantly trying to kill yourself but cant control what you are doing.

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?

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 honestly believe that the biggest flaw is ignorance and arrogance of the USA. The USA is just a little too cocky. Take a look a the Vietnam war, the USA thinking that it is the invincible army and government can shape all others took a beating from North Vietnam for nothing. Almost the same think happened with the Korean War, another beating for nothing and it is all thanks to the ignorance of the USA.