Helmling

One more thing, SecularFuture...

At the website you posted a link to, somethign caught my eye:

"Science and technology, steered by human values, could enable us to transcend our limitations."

Ah, but how long will that be true...after all, you don't want to be "human" anymore? How long will human values be relevant?

Primal

Well like I said I;m going by probability and you are too. The use of past examples of techonological progress are used to establish the claim that "we will have unimaginable innovations in the future".

I agree with that. But the second law of thermodynamics is very strong, stronger then germ theory. To say it may be found wrong in the future is like saying "well maybe in the future we will find that bad air, not germs, caused sickness". The second law is the greater of probabilities when comparing past progress to future plausibilities. Perhaps in two second I will get eaten by big foot, perhaps, but I wouldn't put much thought into entertaining this.

Well there's no harm in trying unless one focuses too much in it to the detriment of other values. Forgoing present values for some dream of immortality is like quiting your job cause you might win the lotto.

Also keep in mind scientific progress, especially those huge leaps of technology like this one would be, rarely come from individual effort but normal technological progress. Hence it's unlikely one could offer more then support to help maybe speed up a process for technology that would extend light. Hence it seems even if you tried to bring longetivity technology to fruit, the part you play will be very,very minor in proportion to the effort you expend.

In any case, harm can be done. You may waste valuable time,energy,money etc. pursuing a pipe dream when you could be doing something else. Sometimes not trying is the best route, it certainly is when I consider the big foot claim. Should I try and catch a big foot, cause I might then win the Nobel Prize? It's easy to see how that would be a waste.

If you enjoy searching for immortality and promoting transhumanism though, then that's fine. That is what you should do prolly. However you should also be aware of how bleak the possibility is and how such a pursuit is not for everybody.

SecularFuture

Helmling
They’ll always be relevant. Why shouldn’t they be? Should physical immortality equate ignorance and sloppiness?

Primal
I’m not quitting anything. I divide my attention accordingly.

Oh – there are groups already working on it today. They aren’t cryogenically freezing people for nothing, ya know.

You believe in the impossible, don’t you? If you can’t tell me 3 of the technological breakthroughs we may have 1,000 years from now, you shouldn’t criticize physical immortality.

Anyhow - nothing matters when you’re dead.

You’re equating physical immortality with big foot?
You’re starting to piss me off.

How bleak? So – now you’re saying it’s not impossible? Please make up your mind.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: SecularFuture ]</p>

SecularFuture

NOTE TO EVERYONE:
To understand physical immortality (TODAY) you must use your imagination. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb he first used his imagination. Our greatest ideas, and breakthroughs, evolve through our imaginations. Nothing is impossible. There is no harm in trying. We do not know everything about everything, so there are still many untouched areas that quietly await our understanding.

Amie

Hi SecularFuture
I really want to learn more about transhumanists...because of you

Primal

SF:

I never, ever said that physical immortality was impossible. Just very,very imrpobable given what we know now. I admit this can change. In the future we may be able to make new technologies. We may also find god, establish YEC, and all get hit by lightning at the same time. A dimensional portal may bring in hostile aliens....that mean we should spend time and energy preparing for a potential invasion?

Again SF, I am dealing with probabilities.

Your argument is this; in the past there have been unexpected technological break throughs which through out scientific doubts. For example, air planes were thought to be impossible. Many said a modern computer would weigh no less then 3.5 tons, that man couldn't land on the moon because flags for communicating would be too long.


All fine and dandy. But the second law of thermodynamics is stronger then those past claims ever were, stronger in terms of evidence then what can be inferred from the above cases. The second law is also gaining strength as science advances....not losing it. This makes immortality very,very unlikely.


Also for every time skeptic got it wrong and the inovaters got it right, there are a thousand times when the skeptic had it right and the believers were wrong. For every Galileo there are a thousand L.Ron Hubbards. The odds are too stacked against physical immortality for me to place much into it, I may as well believe in an afterlife for all that.

SecularFuture

Amie
That’s good to hear!
Thank you!

:
:
:
:

Primal,

Quote:

”I never, ever said that physical immortality was impossible. Just very,very imrpobable given what we know now. I admit this can change.”

Exactly.

Some of us want to live forever, or for a very – very long time, and to achieve this we need to spend some of our spare time doing the research to make this happen, if not now, sometime in the future. Do you have a problem with this?

Hostile aliens, big foot, God, etc are all creatures that we haven’t seen, and will probably never see. I can see me, and through a lot of science I can gain more control of me.

People like you always try to discourage those with new, or unconventional, ideas. I’m sure there were people like you trying to tell many of the great inventors of the past that what they were trying to create was impossible, or near impossible. But the inventors kept trying, and through trying they achieved what they were dedicated to achieving.

Are you Sapient from the AN? You seem just a little too dedicated to disproving physical immortality. Why?

Anyhow ~ if the “laws” we developed recently can’t be broken in the future, we will find a way to work around the laws. Within the past 10 years A LOT has happened. No one today can say anything about what may happen 200 years from now, or 1,000 years from now. And nothing special, or significant, will happen later if we do not start working now.

:
:
:
:

Everyone,

A Link
<a href="http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag95/95sep3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag95/95sep3.htm</a>


Interesting Reading
* <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1581127243/qid=1036506737" target="_blank">Forever for All: Moral Philosophy, Cryonics, and the Scientific Prospects for Immortality By R. Michael Perry</a>

* <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380793180/qid=1036506871" target="_blank">Immortality: How Science Is Extending Your Life Span and Changing the World By Dr. Ben Bova</a>
“The first immortals are already living among us. You might be one of them.”

:
:
:
:

IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN!

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: SecularFuture ]</p>

Infinity Lover

Hi Secular Future

Considering the scenario of living (virtually) forever, my guess is that equal thought, if not much more thought, should be put into what kind of world one would be spending that eternity in.

Do you think the people you converse with ascribe enough importance to that side of the equation? Or is it a lot of talk about prolonging life, advanced artificial intelligence, and not much else?

And what are your thoughts on my statement?
(Where do you see room/nesecity for improvement).

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

Demosthenes

A lot of people when discussing immortality talk about how they won't want to live in a future world of whatever they imagine such as overpopulation and so on. As it stands now, we're less inclined to care about the future because it's never going to be within our lifetime and if it's not going to happen to us, then why do we care? If we end up figuring out how to live without death hanging over our head, long-term planning will be very important, afterall, we're going to be making the world we'll be living in centuries from now. Personally, I'd rather be helping remaking the world, making it more beautiful, ecologically rejuvenated, and full of knowledge instead of pushing up daises mere 60 years from now.

John M3

Seems to me that primal is arguing against this with "entropy". But that is only an argument against eternity. Not against living the life of the universe. That indeed will become a probability.

SF, I strongly encourage you to read some of my arguments in the other forums here ( <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000685" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000685</a> , <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000341" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000341</a> , and <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001598" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001598</a> ). No one here seems to agree with me but I think you may on a few points.

After reading your post I am convinced that I am a transhumanist like you. But I talk with you about it at that forum you showed us earlier (imortality institute forum). These guys here are bent on shitting on the world and then dieing in it. Its pretty vile.