120 replies to this topic

[BazzDropperz]

-

Edited by BazzDropperz, 14 July 2014 - 01:26 AM.

[HaoSenVastForest]

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.

Edited by nl010203, 20 April 2012 - 05:22 PM.

[BazzDropperz]

-

Edited by BazzDropperz, 14 July 2014 - 01:25 AM.

[HaoSenVastForest]

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.)

Edited by nl010203, 20 April 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[BazzDropperz]

-

Edited by BazzDropperz, 14 July 2014 - 01:24 AM.

[Xiombarg]

In fact there is almost no one researching the matter because some have mathematically proved it impossible.

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.

[HaoSenVastForest]

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?

Edited by nl010203, 20 April 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[Xiombarg]

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?

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..

[HaoSenVastForest]

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.

Edited by nl010203, 20 April 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[BazzDropperz]

-

Edited by BazzDropperz, 14 July 2014 - 01:24 AM.

[Xiombarg]

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.

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.

[HaoSenVastForest]

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.

[BazzDropperz]

-

Edited by BazzDropperz, 13 July 2014 - 09:11 PM.

[Lord Pickleton]

Ok I have no idea when your conversation started, so I'm just going to say this.

I can't wait to see that cloned Mammoth.

[HaoSenVastForest]

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.

[Mii]

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

[Waller]

Ignoring everyone and going to the original topic.

What is a conciousness? We don't even know what it is, how can we even think about creating it?

[Mii]

It basically means knowing you exist. Knowing you are here. When we look, we see. When a computer looks, he won't see anything.

It's a strong complex computer that can be recreated in the future I think. Life isn't as complex as it looks like.

[BazzDropperz]

-

Edited by BazzDropperz, 14 July 2014 - 01:22 AM.

[HaoSenVastForest]

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.