In the Neo-Tech Discoveries, they believed that religion gums up the works in the human mind. It said that once it is cleared away completely, since we will be using specific parts more often, we might be able to access more areas of the brain in the future. I don't know if this is true, but it sounds about right.
Man will become dirigible. That means that our species will lose the vicissitudes of three-dimensional space and time and become hyperspatial, self-transforming iridescent machine elves as we approach the eschaton. Then, not only will we become God-like, but we will essentially become the all-encompassing one, we will become God. Of course, once all points become cotangent to every other point, and we essentially are God, we'll just blow up in a Big Bang and start over, and repeat this forever.
The round Earth theory has many flaws, there is so much wrong with it. The only reason everyone worships that theory like a religion is because the flat Earth scientist can't get their papers published. If the Earth was round then what would stop it from rolling away? And that would mean that the Chinese people and Americans are standing upside down to each other. If you fly an airplane from the US to china does the plane have to turn upside down in the middle of the flight?
@Khyrid Take a basketball & make a point A & point B on opposite sides of the ball. Now, take a piece of tape (sticky side down lol) and run the tape around the ball from A to B. Did you have to twist it upside down to get from A to B? NO. & if you did, you're doing it wrong haha (I really hope this your comment was satire.)
@allfitch84 WHAT!? THAT'S ABSURD!!! First off all who would waste tape on a baseball? Secondly you can't compare the Earth, which is flat to a round object like a baseball. MY HEAD'S GOIN TO EXPLODE#!!!
@Khyrid I didn't realize you valued tape so much haha... Are you really telling me that the planet isn't a sphere? I'm just going to assume you are a youtube troll leave you with this. If you really think the earth is flat, there is no hope for you & I understand why your head is going to explode. The earth isn't flat, stop being lame... or don't, whatever.
@allfitch84 Tape is what keep us from floating off the Earth's FLAT surface. Of course I don't mean just any tape, but the invisible tape. But still why chance it on a baseball?
It seems to me like we are reaching a point where we are aware of what is possible, it is just a matter of working out the technology to make it happen. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I would love to see something as amazing to me as a remote control would have been centuries ago.
You are good enough morally for man only not God and its God's judgement on satan and the fallen angels and rebellious man that God will judge and I know he judges righteously and trust his purity as he is perfect and holy in all his ways unlike man but the great white throne judgement hasnt happened yet.
@nettieheartful I said we don't believe we are gods. Get that crap out of here. We believe in the universe and we believe mythological, often ancient books, do not tell us the origins of the universe
@nettieheartful I see the universe, I see catastrophes EVERYDAY. I don't see an interfering God. Do you see catastrophes everyday? Yes I am a godless heathen. That's the definition. I don't need a God to have good morals. I don't need a god to love animals and humankind OR earth. I don't need a God to do anything. And you know what? I am liberated from an invisible threat of pixie fire and you aren't. How does it feel that you think people will suffer after they die? Does that make you feel good
@nettieheartful I don't live against him. I live without him. regardless of him, I do good things without him. I do good things because I care for the world regardless of a tyrannical dictator who condemns people to hell for no good reason
BTW, didn't your god created everything and set everything up and doesn't he know everything? If so, why did he create evil and sin? If he loves us so much, why did he set humanity up to fall? Why doesn't he make himself obvious and apparent to everyone? Why does his holy book contradict itself so much? Why is his holy book so easy to mininterpret? Why does his holy book endorse, condone and recommend atrocities like genocide, child sacrifice, rape and slavery?
@nettieheartful So if your god cannot make himself understood and good works don't matter to him, why do you follow him? Why do you follow the incomprehensible? Why do you follow that which cares not for the actions of good people but ONLY for those who believe?
You contradict yourself and are clearly trying to justify that which has no justification and makes no sense. It is you who are confused and doesn't understand how utterly ridiculous and impossible your claims make your god.
@nettieheartful There is no unconditional love. God doesn't love people if they don't believe in Jesus. That's infact hate. Torture is HATE. And until you get torture for eons through your head, you will never see the evil in christianity and other religions
@nettieheartful I don't have love for God because I don't believe he exist. If he did exist, he'd have a lot to explain to me and to others for the atrocities he's commited
@nettieheartful I wish I did see this God, but too bad God conceals himself in only some people and not everyone. Clear signs he must make for everyone to have eternal life. Very clear he is eh. A universe sitting here.. That's God? Nahhhh lol
How the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round: 1) When a ship came over the horizen, you could only see the top 1st, then the middle, then the entire ship. 2) The knew that the shadow of the Earth is what caused eclpises. The shadow was round. 3) The way shadows moved around could only happen if the Earth was round. They knew this several hundred years before Jesus.
Well obviously no one is becoming a god-like creature ever.
Otherwise god-like creatures would have shown up here at this point. Trying to rule the earth, or fix the earth, or rule and fix the earth, or just visiting their still-alive loved ones.
So... no god-like creatures that where former humans so far! Because they don't show up ever.
@SCAREDBANANA Nobody would die and more people would keep getting born! There'd not be enough food for everyone! Not enough space! Prices for everything would go up as the little things become scarce. People will fight for crumbs and a worst-case scenario would be war for the sake of war. Killing for the sake of killing. Survival of the fittest. Sons killing their fathers, students killing their masters in true Sith fashion (Star Wars reference there). Humans will become the greatest resource.
@viridismonasteriense At the same time, we'd have minds with a version of rapidly expanding knowledge, our chances of starfairing would skyrocket when a scientist had 2, 3 or more lifetimes to accumulate knowledge rather than waiting for the next generation to catch up.
Leaps in discovery of this knowledge would increase exponentially do to this simple factor. On top of this whose to say we'd keep reproducing if eternal life was achieved? A useless feature that would likely be cut out.
@DarkBunnyLord Interesting thoughts, but evolution of such kind would take thousands of years and the key to immortality might just lay around the corner if scientists and technology's capabilities keep growing exponentially. It'd be terrible if we lost our reproductive capabilities! Death by old age might be gone, but what about murder, car crashes, explosions? The human race comes to a stand still, will slowly become extinct, resorting to cloning or downloading into spare bodies like Cylons.
@viridismonasteriense Millions of years? Not so much, would not scientific process changing humanity be the same? After all, it would simply be a product of our brains having evolved to the point that we can create such things, no different than a beaver knowing how to damn a river (which is similarly an amazing feat).
Now that said do consider reproduction not necessarily just stopping but slowing. More accurate birth control would be a good example.
@DarkBunnyLord The 'evolution' of an idea is way different than actual physical transformation. I know that humans have changed subtly the last 2000 years, particulary in length, but I don't know about their brains, but I do know that they were not that dissimilar from ours as they are now. What I meant was that the actual process of evolution takes millions of years. Our understanding of things increases/improves everyday, but not the capacity of our brains to hold that knowledge. Correct?
@viridismonasteriense Not neccessarily. Physical evolution I would agree takes millions of years, however the concept of evolution is simply something changing over time to better survive.
If learning is not a form of evolution, albiet not a physical one, then I don't know what is. Think about it, it's a function governed by an organ that has been becoming more efficient since recorded history began and has extended our lives two-three fold.
@DarkBunnyLord In that sense I get it and I admit to have misread your words. You meant a 'version of the expanded knowledge' not a 'version of an expanded mind'. In that sense I agree that learning is a form of evolution of an idea, a model, a hypothesis, a theory, a fact and how it connects to the rest of the world and the universe. To reach such a level of understanding would be something to aspire to...immortal or mortal. (however not at the cost of living life itself of course)
@DarkBunnyLord It's either a choice *not* to conceive life or you are infertile. I thought you implied that through mutations we'd lose this ability and become infertile. If you meant choice, that would still have other consequences since we'll never know parenthood etc. (Sometimes a new perspective on things is good. Old age brings a fixed mind. Children have more open minds, in order to learn). And of course with sex still effective in an overcrowded world children might not be desirable -
@DarkBunnyLord (cont'd) Laws might be implemented, just like it had been in China, to favour for example boys over girls, or to favour no children at all. Contraception becomes a rule, not only to prevent STD, but to prevent more life to crowd Earth at all costs. I think it would be a bit dull to see the same faces every single day. Not to see a newborn's smile anymore...
I love this discussion. It's a welcome shift from debating Xtians. We put our minds together to speculate about the future
@viridismonasteriense That's the best I could assume would simply be that laws would be set in place, that or a mutation would occur simply do to humanity no longer needing that function to be as potent.
Ie, how rabbits breed very fast because they die fast from predators. I like the quote the book writer in Jurassic park used, "life will find a way".
Set minds would be an issue, but without the degrading effects of aging who knows how it would effect our mental state.
@DarkBunnyLord It's true that we don't know what life is like without the degrading effects of aging, but only our imagination can deduce how life is without death. Especially when it's arbitrary; everyone stays alive. I do fear that civilization would stagnate. Youth has the evolutionary rebellious ability to not only see the mistakes the older generations make, but aspire to be different, need to completely different. I fear without an endgoal humanity will stagnate, stop trying...-
@DarkBunnyLord (cont'd) If nobody dies, everyone will fear death more. Everybody is immortal, so everyone gets to go to the party see the end of time, but if you die you don't. Also, people in power will never give up their positions. In full health, they don't retire. They don't age. People will be stuck in their jobs, never promoted. In an overcrowded world jobs will be scarce. I fear immortality will be dull for most. There is no end. Some will start killing. Worst-case scenarios, obviously.
@DarkBunnyLord In an overcrowded world of immortal people, but not infertile people, teachers lose their jobs, so do daycares etc. but condoms will be the rule. In a dull endless life in the same dead-end job with your replacement eager to jump in people find pleasure in sex and must pay for contraceptives or abortions. People become robots in this endless system, until the sun goes supernova. They become nostalgic. Human nature turns a seemingly utopic idea into a dystopian nightmare.
@DarkBunnyLord Not that there is only darkness. Scientists can discover so much. Life can be appreciated to the fullest, of course with no end there is no full only much, but you can be sure to experience and see everything the world has to offer, until there is nothing left to see or no more money in the bank account. Money still has to be earned. What if your loved one dies in an accident but you're still immortal? Life is great. More life is excellent. But there are downsides. Many.
@viridismonasteriense Theorectically if there was a immortality pill it still wouldn't make you immortal.Unless invulnerability comes as a side effect.Eventually everyone would have a traumatic accident.Hit by a bus, fall from a high place, caught in a natural disaster etc...
There have been many essays that would suggest that people would do far less as a immortal than they do now because essentially life becomes a numbers game.If you don't do as much you tend to live longer.
@gamesmaster35 I'm reminded of the movie "Death Becomes Her" where Meryl Streep's body becomes more and more damaged until it eventually falls apart, but they're still alive! What a way to live.
Also, what if you get stuck underneath an avalanche? Forever freezing?
What if you live beyond the sun's expansion, or even the heat death of the universe? I'm picturing a man riding a bycicle which powers the last lightbulb in existence. Just peddling for the rest of time in the dark...
@viridismonasteriense That said I find it hard to believe that that would be the case.I think people are pesimistic when it comes to such things because they like to think that there is some great profound reason that we're mortal and that things not only can't but shouldn't be any different.
@DarkBunnyLord I'm making myself feel depressed, but these are all problems that can't be ignored. I think anyone who, lets simplify for the sake of argument, invents an immortality pill, has a lot to think about before putting it on the market.
Adding more life instead of complete immortality could be a good alternative, but fear of death never leaves. Postponing it only makes it worse. When given the choice people won't die. They'll only give up life if there's nothing left to live for.
People, you do not want immortality! what if the brain downloads started working? people would keep having kids, and with no one dying, massive overpopulation would kill us all!
@Malignis Telomerase, EGCG, Reservitrol. Then you have the fun work being done By the SENS foundation. The SENS foundation have moved aging out of just a medical problem into an engineering problem. Really quite fascinating. They seam to be making progress every year or two. The biggest problem they are having is intracellular amalgamates. I would hope to see something major happen there. Why don't they just leave out some dead animals and collect the bacteria that are there? Idk?
I do not think I would want to live forever; I would rather not live to see the end of the universe, what with either the "big freeze" or a "big crunch", and with both having ever-increasing entropy.
Well, then, technically you would not be living forever. Just until the death of the universe.
.
Personally, I think eternity would get quite boring after a while. I mean, after a few millennia, I would think even exploring other worlds would become passé. Mind you though, I wouldn't pass up the opportunity to find out....
@mtszabo Till heat death caused by entropy. The universe will continue to exist long after all the usable energy of the universe is gone. It may never come to an actual end. Speculation comes up at this point that maybe it will reverse at some point and shrink again. Then it would explode out again in a repeating cycle. Or it could rip apart. Nobody knows what will happen. I personally going out there and saying it will just expand forever and become more and more cold.
Eratosthenes not only figured out that the Earth was a sphere but he made a simple measurement that got it's circumference accurate within 1% of error. It wasn't a guess either. The method is still considered good science. That was in the 3rd century BC.
There are no valid bio text books or studies demonstrating how people will live to 1000 or predictions of people living to 150. THat is an extraordinary claim. You will have to back that one up or go smoke some more crack.
It's quite plausible though. It may be technologically infeasible *right now* but that does not represent future performance. We can already manipulate objects at the atomic level, eventually we should be able to manipulate ourselves at the atomic level.
maybe....and that is a very doubtful maybe. Don't get me wrong, living for 1000 years would be fascinating however if that became the norm then 1000 year lifespans would really be no different than an 80 year lifespan.
But at least to the first people who do live a 1000 years, it'll be awesome... And you'll need seeeeeveral 1000year old generation for it to become the "norm"
Manipulation isn't really the barrier at this point. We can create whatever we want just about.
We just don't know what to change to make it work. Evolution doesn't come with instruction manuals exactly because there is no designer. When you use an evolutionary process to "design" a computer program, a life form, or an engineering blueprint, you make the sacrifice of not understanding what the hell came out the other side beyond "it works, dammit" because the blind processes themselves don't.
People can't be godlike and still be people because non-godlikeness is an essential trait of humanity. To make sense the question should be is "Can we replace ourselves with something godlike?". And that brtngs up another question "Why would we want to?"
Going to a moon wouldn't be a good prophecy to me. It's not a meaningful prediction if the prediction itself is sufficient cause for people to work towards causing it.
One thing that has always fascinated me about the idea of "mind replication" as it were is the possibility of creating a plural self. That is, you could effectively write your mind onto several different mechanical bodies, all of which would be interconnected by a network, sharing the net collective experience of all the entities. Think of it as a virtual Multiple Man from the X-factor comics. You would truly be a demigod. Scary (but improbable) thoughts.
i saw some call in show where someone said "put your hand in front of your face" and the host did, then said "ok, now talk to it" and hung up XD that was awesome someone should do that on this show
that would be more right then wrong religious people have the wrong idea religion is just a lie. this reality would also be a lie and the so called christ would have lived a lie life in the ultimate game and the god would not be a god just a player of the ultimate game in the reality world .reality is not the real world fictional reality Created Character that makes more sence than what the religious people would think how life came too be they say god did it lol
The potential of Transhumanism is absolutely mind boogling. Imagine a whole generation born geneticaly perfect, or better than perfect, who then go on to augment themselves further with brain implants, cardio stimulators, etc. Or even further, imagine a people who tweak their DNA to the point that their physiology is no longer cellular but instead based upon 'naturally' generated organic nanaorobots. There would literally be no line dividing man from machine, just one pure hybrid organism.
That's where artificial life comes in. If we really could digitize human consciousness, you really could live forever as long as you maintained multiple up-to-date backups of your personality profile.
Of course, we don't know if such a process is even physically possible, let alone how to do it. But it's an interesting idea anyway.
However "you" in the sense of yourself wouldn't exist anymore, you would be dead. You would only exist to everyone around you. It's sorta like the teleporters in startrek every time a person teleported, they died. However the clone produced afterward made it seem like nothing happened.
"However 'you' in the sense of yourself wouldn't exist anymore"
How do you figure?
I've heard that argument before, and it's not convincing. If you're defining "you" as the physical body, then, by that definition, I am not the same person today as I was 20 years ago because every single atom in my body has changed since then.
It's a silly argument. If you can preserve every aspect of my personality and put me in a new body, I will still me. Changing the physical body makes little difference.
It's because your not understanding it. It's not defining you by the physical body. It's defining you by the continuity of your consciousness. The continuity of the pattern of matter that defines you is what's important (parts of the brain). If that continuity is breached its simply killing you and creating a copy. It's all about maintaing continuity.
Except there would be continuity. You're still not making any sense.
If I use windows explorer to copy a file from one hard drive to another, is it not still the same file? Technically, I've wiped out most of the data in one location, and re-created it in another. In effect, I have "killed" the original file, and made a duplicate in a new place. Yet it's still the same file. If we could do the same thing with a human being, why would that be any different?
In star trek the transporters break a body down atom by atom then move those atoms to another location and reassemble them according to the pattern of the person. This is the equivalent of cutting someone up(which would kill anyone), moving the pieces to another location then building an exact copy. It's not the same person. The original person died when they were disintegrated. You're just taking the parts of a dead body and making an exact copy.
The exact copy may seem like the same person for all practical purposes. But they aren't. There is no active consciousness in the in-between stage. No continuity.
It may be possible to "move" or "transfer" minds without breaking continuity. But that is a separate topic then continuity it's self.
What about people who are clinically dead for several minutes? When they're "brought back", are they a completely different person?
What if we could cryogenically freeze someone for X number of years, and then thaw them out again? Would they be a completely different person?
Continuity has nothing to do with it. When you power down your computer and then turn it on again the next morning, it's not a different computer. Your argument makes no sense.
I'm going to take the diplomatic route and just assume I'm not doing a very good job of explaining the concept.
Lack of "Active" consciousness is probably not the best way to phrase it. To answer both your questions: No, those are rather obvious examples where continuity isn't breached.
I'm going to go into detail and try and make this as clear as possible.
I define self as the continuity of the pattern of matter that forms our consciousness. This is a rather common philosophical conclusion, I did not make this up myself.
The aspect of continuity is important because as I've already demonstrated it's possible to completely deconstruct the pattern of matter that forms our consciousness to the point where it is no longer forming a consciousness.
It is at that point that the original consciousness it formed ends, it dies. Any new consciousness made out of the pieces of the old one, even an exact copy, is not the same consciousness. It is a new one. This new consciousness is indistinguishable from the original one in every way. But the old one has indeed died and this is simply a copy. And I think thats maybe what you're getting hung up on?
The examples of clinical death, cryonics and turning your computer off and on are examples of pausing and resuming the pattern of matter. It doesn't breach continuity in the sense I'm speaking about. It's a different philosophical matter all together.
Anyway I have better things to do then try and teach philosophy through youtube comments. :P If you've still having trouble I suggest you read some philosophy about Personal Identity and Self, the mind/body problem and the Ship of Theseus Problem.
"Any new consciousness made out of the pieces of the old one, even an exact copy, is not the same consciousness. It is a new one."
Yes, you keep saying that, but you've yet to provide any reason why I should agree with you. So far your argument is, essentially, "I'm right because I say I'm right".
"If you've still having trouble I suggest you read some philosophy..."
Ah, nice. If you're still having trouble, I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, you condescending prick.
"Any new consciousness made out of the pieces of the old one, even an exact copy, is not the same consciousness. It is a new one."
Well I didn't go into more detail regarding that point because I thought it was obvious enough. It relates to the ship of theseus problem. But I'll try at another example.
If we have two exact clones of each other that exist at the same time. They are obviously not the same person. They are separate entities regardless of the fact that they are exact copies of each other.
Now imagine that exact same scenario except by creating the clone we are destroying the original.
We take the original person poof them into a cloud of atoms then use those atoms to make the clone.
The only important difference between these scenarios is that the clones exist at different times then each other but yet this makes them no more the same person then it did in the first scenario.
You seem to be talking about teleportation,or something like it.If you created another 'you',it would be the 'same' person as you.Since,both of your bodies would be identical.The only way that the two of you would become two different entities,is if you had separate and different lives (with different experiences)after the teleportation took place. even then you would be probably the same. Look at twin studies for example.
The star trek style teleportation is simply a useful device for illustrating the concept. If your definition of self considers separate entities to be "the same person" I'd say it's in need of revising.
Actually, teleportation exists. Although, it's in it's infancy. As far as my 'same person comment', well, if the person that was teleported has the same neural structure as you do, then it would be the same person. The essence of an individual, is locked inside the neural/chemical workings of our brains. If you don't agree, then you're ignorant in regards to this topic.
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't correct me on things I never said. And I don't believe you actually addressed the issue I raised. If your definition of self considers separate entities to be "the same person" I'd say it's in need of revising. Even clones in their "initial state" before their life experiences diverge. As well I agree that a naturalistic/materialist view of the self and mind is the most realistic. I don't know what I've said that would you give you the opposite impression.
"If your definition of self considers separate entities to be "the same person" I'd say it's in need of revising" I use the term 'same person' in the context of teleportation, or anything akin to it. If you create a copy of someone else, that copy IS the same person. I got into your discussion haphazardly, so, if my comments are 'messy' I apologize. Just trying to start a conversation I guess.
Teleportation, is the 'scanning of a system' (inner workings/design of something),and transferring that information to another location. At the other location would be a devise that would use the same type of matter (albeit different matter)that the original had, constructing a duplicate of the original.Also,during this process,the original is destroyed (think of the film, 'The Prestige'). The mechanism that transports the info is called,Quantum entanglement. Hope that was good enough.
"If we have two exact clones of each other that exist at the same time. They are obviously not the same person."
If we classify them as separate people, it's only because after copying they each accumulate unique experiences. Over time they become less alike. But immediately after the copying process, they ARE the same person.
Once again, if I e-mail you a file, and I retain an identical copy, then we have the same file. If you then change your copy, it becomes a different file.
1. Immortality isn't easy because laws of statistics will catch up with you .You WILL eventually die in a transportation accident .Unless accidents are diminished significantly .
The bible says something along the lines of the earth being a circle when in fact the earth is a sphere. Circle pertains to 2-D object, while a sphere pertains to 3-D. Also the bible says that there are as many stars in the sky as there are grains of sand on earth when in fact we now know that there are a lot more stars in the universe than grains of sand. So there are two other points.
I don't mean to be nitpicky usually, but the "shadow" on the moon that Tracie mentioned is NOT the shadow of the Earth (unless it's during an eclipse), it's just that that particular part of the moon isn't facing the sun; and so it would not show that the Earth is spherical, but it would show that the moon is. Otherwise great video ^^
you're an idiot i watched this show and they would put up a tent around him at night and would make the cameras back up at night as well. You're an idiot
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
watch?v=wGMwa4yZLL4&feature=related
there ya go, proof. And dont even try to explain it with science you cant..sorry. Science HAS the have physical proof for something to be a fact yet when they cant explain it they completely ignore it and call it a hoax. Theres more to science than the physical world.
Meditation has many positive effects that may be explained by science. Everything will eventually be explained by science. Before, we had a rain God, a rainbow god, a sun god, a night god. Etc.
Now that science explains what causes rain/rainbows/sun/night, we have lost these Gods and replaced them with reason.
science will keep getting better no doubt, but there will always be something they cant explain, Physical evidence is a funny thing, bceause it HAS to be physical to be tested. Thats the problem with science..if science cant see outside of our universe then there isnt anything outside of it. Thats close minded, we arent evolved enough to just flat out say science can explain everything perfectly.
it's close minded of you to think that scientists aren't looking for things outside of our physical world. for instance, other dimensions have been hypothesized and the large hadron collider might actually bring some of them into that grand knowledgebase called science.
that's what seperates science from faith, scientists will actually look for evidence whereas the faithful are simply satisfied with an unproven idea.
No, real scientists will just say they dont know what is beyond what we can see... if we were continually satified with "god did it" we would still be dying of fairly minor infections and riding around on horses (probably). You also have to take into consideration our scientific knoledge is relatively primative... just because we can't fully explain something now, doesn't mean that we won't be able to in 200 years.
Which is why I said to watch the video of buhdda boy. Science cant explain it yet, Im just proving that science doesnt always have the answer. And no im not religious at all
"science doesnt always have the answer" is an interesting statement, since it seems to refer to existing knowledge. Isn't science the ongoing process of the discovery of fact?
Also, don't you think that ad hominem terms like "idiot" have no place in an inteligent discussion? There are some interesting concepts here, let's do them justice, okay?
Science clearly can't explain everything perfectly. However, it constantly proves and evolves.
Since we can't test (or even confirm the existence of) non-physical 'things', it is absolutely useless to assume for any practical purposes that they exist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Its not fake, scientist all over the world watched him for almost a month before leaving, he just sat there without food or water. Do I think he is some reincarnated buhdda? No I dont but he has some mind over matter skill thats for sure
The last question was Can entropy be reversed? and it was posed to a computer. The question remained unanswered until only a universal computer was left in the universe. Since it was the only unanswered question, the computer continued to work on it until it finally found the answer: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I believe it means (not God himself) but like his character someone who is Good and Loves (nothing more)
UkexP 1 month ago
In the Neo-Tech Discoveries, they believed that religion gums up the works in the human mind. It said that once it is cleared away completely, since we will be using specific parts more often, we might be able to access more areas of the brain in the future. I don't know if this is true, but it sounds about right.
skywize 1 month ago
REAL faith is nothing more then the highest level of human emotions.
rchasejr2003 1 month ago
Singularity speculated to come within the next 40 years. I for one, can't wait.
Genericdruid 2 months ago
Man will become dirigible. That means that our species will lose the vicissitudes of three-dimensional space and time and become hyperspatial, self-transforming iridescent machine elves as we approach the eschaton. Then, not only will we become God-like, but we will essentially become the all-encompassing one, we will become God. Of course, once all points become cotangent to every other point, and we essentially are God, we'll just blow up in a Big Bang and start over, and repeat this forever.
Hanahleia 3 months ago
Comment removed
Hanahleia 3 months ago
@Khyrid
You aren't serious are you?
DonMezzo 6 months ago
RAY KURZWEIL! - Check him out.
EdgePitSwing 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
5:11
Check out Tracie's face when she hears about how Matt answers his e-mails.
BlckSbthMan 7 months ago 7
@BlckSbthMan what about it?
yungchieffer 6 months ago
@yungchieffer It just looks like she's shocked and disgusted, haha.
BlckSbthMan 6 months ago
@BlckSbthMan
Maybe ever so slightly interested?
Surtak 4 months ago
@Surtak Mhmmm!
BlckSbthMan 4 months ago
The round Earth theory has many flaws, there is so much wrong with it. The only reason everyone worships that theory like a religion is because the flat Earth scientist can't get their papers published. If the Earth was round then what would stop it from rolling away? And that would mean that the Chinese people and Americans are standing upside down to each other. If you fly an airplane from the US to china does the plane have to turn upside down in the middle of the flight?
Khyrid 8 months ago 13
@Khyrid Yes the world is round, and yes you are upside down - that is why your brain is in your ass.
greenjelly01 8 months ago
@greenjelly01 You did understand that my comment was satire right?
Khyrid 8 months ago
@Khyrid My god...it's full of win/stupid in equal measures...
TheGeneralCritic 4 months ago
@Khyrid Take a basketball & make a point A & point B on opposite sides of the ball. Now, take a piece of tape (sticky side down lol) and run the tape around the ball from A to B. Did you have to twist it upside down to get from A to B? NO. & if you did, you're doing it wrong haha (I really hope this your comment was satire.)
allfitch84 2 months ago
@allfitch84 WHAT!? THAT'S ABSURD!!! First off all who would waste tape on a baseball? Secondly you can't compare the Earth, which is flat to a round object like a baseball. MY HEAD'S GOIN TO EXPLODE#!!!
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid I didn't realize you valued tape so much haha... Are you really telling me that the planet isn't a sphere? I'm just going to assume you are a youtube troll leave you with this. If you really think the earth is flat, there is no hope for you & I understand why your head is going to explode. The earth isn't flat, stop being lame... or don't, whatever.
allfitch84 2 months ago
@allfitch84 Tape is what keep us from floating off the Earth's FLAT surface. Of course I don't mean just any tape, but the invisible tape. But still why chance it on a baseball?
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid Loving the satire
Genericdruid 2 months ago
@Khyrid thats a joke right?
shroomwarrior 1 month ago
@shroomwarrior Maybe
Khyrid 1 month ago
Thumbs up if you cringed a little bit at the idea of Matt in his underwear answering emails.
Deanbass77 8 months ago
It seems to me like we are reaching a point where we are aware of what is possible, it is just a matter of working out the technology to make it happen. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I would love to see something as amazing to me as a remote control would have been centuries ago.
Deanbass77 8 months ago
a square is 360 degrees
diedie5 9 months ago
You are good enough morally for man only not God and its God's judgement on satan and the fallen angels and rebellious man that God will judge and I know he judges righteously and trust his purity as he is perfect and holy in all his ways unlike man but the great white throne judgement hasnt happened yet.
nettieheartful 9 months ago
this is what all your unbelief boils down to that you think you are gods in the end!
nettieheartful 10 months ago
@nettieheartful Your plain old wrong. We are a part of the universe and accept it as so.
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon you wont accept what I say and vice versa!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful I said we don't believe we are gods. Get that crap out of here. We believe in the universe and we believe mythological, often ancient books, do not tell us the origins of the universe
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon you are godless heathens I know you dont get to tell me the origins you dont know jack!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful I see the universe, I see catastrophes EVERYDAY. I don't see an interfering God. Do you see catastrophes everyday? Yes I am a godless heathen. That's the definition. I don't need a God to have good morals. I don't need a god to love animals and humankind OR earth. I don't need a God to do anything. And you know what? I am liberated from an invisible threat of pixie fire and you aren't. How does it feel that you think people will suffer after they die? Does that make you feel good
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon You mock obviously you think satan and the fallen angels are pixies?
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful I know satan and fallen angels are pixies. You don't
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon yeah like you know everything yawn!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@iliveon I know this earth is in a sinful fallen state far from God and the very people who live against him always blame him its mad that logic!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful I don't live against him. I live without him. regardless of him, I do good things without him. I do good things because I care for the world regardless of a tyrannical dictator who condemns people to hell for no good reason
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon sin is a good reason as is rebellion!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful Define sin.
BTW, didn't your god created everything and set everything up and doesn't he know everything? If so, why did he create evil and sin? If he loves us so much, why did he set humanity up to fall? Why doesn't he make himself obvious and apparent to everyone? Why does his holy book contradict itself so much? Why is his holy book so easy to mininterpret? Why does his holy book endorse, condone and recommend atrocities like genocide, child sacrifice, rape and slavery?
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
@iliveon not good enough for god only fallen man is impressed with good works and you dont know god and cant understand holiness and justice!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful So if your god cannot make himself understood and good works don't matter to him, why do you follow him? Why do you follow the incomprehensible? Why do you follow that which cares not for the actions of good people but ONLY for those who believe?
You contradict yourself and are clearly trying to justify that which has no justification and makes no sense. It is you who are confused and doesn't understand how utterly ridiculous and impossible your claims make your god.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
@iliveon unlike you I dont live for the feelgood factor!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@iliveon are you implying that you dont need agape godly love as theres no love like it God is true love!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful There is no unconditional love. God doesn't love people if they don't believe in Jesus. That's infact hate. Torture is HATE. And until you get torture for eons through your head, you will never see the evil in christianity and other religions
iliveon 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iliveon you dont experience it as you speak for yourself not those who have faith.
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@iliveon you dont have love for God and you dont care that you are heathen thats hard of you!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful I don't have love for God because I don't believe he exist. If he did exist, he'd have a lot to explain to me and to others for the atrocities he's commited
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon arrogant fool he doesnt answer to you mere man!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@iliveon finally, Im set free because Jesus dropped the charges against me and because of him I dont have to go to hell hallelujah!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nettieheartful "finally, Im set free because Jesus dropped the charges against me and because of him I dont have to go to hell hallelujah!"
Sounds like a mob boss to me. Hey, give us your rationality and I won't cut off your fingers for eternity lol
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon I was trying to meet you on your level but you dont see!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
@nettieheartful I wish I did see this God, but too bad God conceals himself in only some people and not everyone. Clear signs he must make for everyone to have eternal life. Very clear he is eh. A universe sitting here.. That's God? Nahhhh lol
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon you are full of confusion and I dont get it lol?!
nettieheartful 9 months ago
i fucking love john lennon
desconocidos27 11 months ago
How the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round: 1) When a ship came over the horizen, you could only see the top 1st, then the middle, then the entire ship. 2) The knew that the shadow of the Earth is what caused eclpises. The shadow was round. 3) The way shadows moved around could only happen if the Earth was round. They knew this several hundred years before Jesus.
xcellken1 11 months ago
"Standing on the backs of mental giants" is a quote I heard somewhere. I think it was said by Einstein or Newton. Matt plagiarised!!!
Pigroota 1 year ago
Jesus was a god because he could turn water into wine? I can do that too. Its called cool aid.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 lol omg man.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
Cool.
I've looking for an example of the Atheist Experience crowd tackling the concept of a tech singilarity.
celshader 1 year ago
The Last Question - one of the greatest books i have ever read!
Andermander 1 year ago
If you look at the Sun, you can see that it is round.
insectmind2k7 1 year ago
@insectmind2k7 Actually, you can only see that it is circular, not that its a sphere.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
Well obviously no one is becoming a god-like creature ever.
Otherwise god-like creatures would have shown up here at this point. Trying to rule the earth, or fix the earth, or rule and fix the earth, or just visiting their still-alive loved ones.
So... no god-like creatures that where former humans so far! Because they don't show up ever.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Any people that lives in a coastal area can see the world is round, because ships start to disappear from bottom up as they go farther.
That knowledge is very ancient.
fernbap 1 year ago
Trans-humanism is inevitable.
SirianKings 1 year ago
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C Clarke, inventor of geostational orbit, tentative "inventor" of the space elevator, author
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
It would be horrible if every body would live for ever
SCAREDBANANA 1 year ago
@SCAREDBANANA Nobody would die and more people would keep getting born! There'd not be enough food for everyone! Not enough space! Prices for everything would go up as the little things become scarce. People will fight for crumbs and a worst-case scenario would be war for the sake of war. Killing for the sake of killing. Survival of the fittest. Sons killing their fathers, students killing their masters in true Sith fashion (Star Wars reference there). Humans will become the greatest resource.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense At the same time, we'd have minds with a version of rapidly expanding knowledge, our chances of starfairing would skyrocket when a scientist had 2, 3 or more lifetimes to accumulate knowledge rather than waiting for the next generation to catch up.
Leaps in discovery of this knowledge would increase exponentially do to this simple factor. On top of this whose to say we'd keep reproducing if eternal life was achieved? A useless feature that would likely be cut out.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Interesting thoughts, but evolution of such kind would take thousands of years and the key to immortality might just lay around the corner if scientists and technology's capabilities keep growing exponentially. It'd be terrible if we lost our reproductive capabilities! Death by old age might be gone, but what about murder, car crashes, explosions? The human race comes to a stand still, will slowly become extinct, resorting to cloning or downloading into spare bodies like Cylons.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense Millions of years? Not so much, would not scientific process changing humanity be the same? After all, it would simply be a product of our brains having evolved to the point that we can create such things, no different than a beaver knowing how to damn a river (which is similarly an amazing feat).
Now that said do consider reproduction not necessarily just stopping but slowing. More accurate birth control would be a good example.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord The 'evolution' of an idea is way different than actual physical transformation. I know that humans have changed subtly the last 2000 years, particulary in length, but I don't know about their brains, but I do know that they were not that dissimilar from ours as they are now. What I meant was that the actual process of evolution takes millions of years. Our understanding of things increases/improves everyday, but not the capacity of our brains to hold that knowledge. Correct?
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense Not neccessarily. Physical evolution I would agree takes millions of years, however the concept of evolution is simply something changing over time to better survive.
If learning is not a form of evolution, albiet not a physical one, then I don't know what is. Think about it, it's a function governed by an organ that has been becoming more efficient since recorded history began and has extended our lives two-three fold.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord In that sense I get it and I admit to have misread your words. You meant a 'version of the expanded knowledge' not a 'version of an expanded mind'. In that sense I agree that learning is a form of evolution of an idea, a model, a hypothesis, a theory, a fact and how it connects to the rest of the world and the universe. To reach such a level of understanding would be something to aspire to...immortal or mortal. (however not at the cost of living life itself of course)
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord It's either a choice *not* to conceive life or you are infertile. I thought you implied that through mutations we'd lose this ability and become infertile. If you meant choice, that would still have other consequences since we'll never know parenthood etc. (Sometimes a new perspective on things is good. Old age brings a fixed mind. Children have more open minds, in order to learn). And of course with sex still effective in an overcrowded world children might not be desirable -
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord (cont'd) Laws might be implemented, just like it had been in China, to favour for example boys over girls, or to favour no children at all. Contraception becomes a rule, not only to prevent STD, but to prevent more life to crowd Earth at all costs. I think it would be a bit dull to see the same faces every single day. Not to see a newborn's smile anymore...
I love this discussion. It's a welcome shift from debating Xtians. We put our minds together to speculate about the future
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense That's the best I could assume would simply be that laws would be set in place, that or a mutation would occur simply do to humanity no longer needing that function to be as potent.
Ie, how rabbits breed very fast because they die fast from predators. I like the quote the book writer in Jurassic park used, "life will find a way".
Set minds would be an issue, but without the degrading effects of aging who knows how it would effect our mental state.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord It's true that we don't know what life is like without the degrading effects of aging, but only our imagination can deduce how life is without death. Especially when it's arbitrary; everyone stays alive. I do fear that civilization would stagnate. Youth has the evolutionary rebellious ability to not only see the mistakes the older generations make, but aspire to be different, need to completely different. I fear without an endgoal humanity will stagnate, stop trying...-
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord (cont'd) If nobody dies, everyone will fear death more. Everybody is immortal, so everyone gets to go to the party see the end of time, but if you die you don't. Also, people in power will never give up their positions. In full health, they don't retire. They don't age. People will be stuck in their jobs, never promoted. In an overcrowded world jobs will be scarce. I fear immortality will be dull for most. There is no end. Some will start killing. Worst-case scenarios, obviously.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord In an overcrowded world of immortal people, but not infertile people, teachers lose their jobs, so do daycares etc. but condoms will be the rule. In a dull endless life in the same dead-end job with your replacement eager to jump in people find pleasure in sex and must pay for contraceptives or abortions. People become robots in this endless system, until the sun goes supernova. They become nostalgic. Human nature turns a seemingly utopic idea into a dystopian nightmare.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Not that there is only darkness. Scientists can discover so much. Life can be appreciated to the fullest, of course with no end there is no full only much, but you can be sure to experience and see everything the world has to offer, until there is nothing left to see or no more money in the bank account. Money still has to be earned. What if your loved one dies in an accident but you're still immortal? Life is great. More life is excellent. But there are downsides. Many.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense Theorectically if there was a immortality pill it still wouldn't make you immortal.Unless invulnerability comes as a side effect.Eventually everyone would have a traumatic accident.Hit by a bus, fall from a high place, caught in a natural disaster etc...
There have been many essays that would suggest that people would do far less as a immortal than they do now because essentially life becomes a numbers game.If you don't do as much you tend to live longer.
gamesmaster35 1 year ago
@gamesmaster35 I'm reminded of the movie "Death Becomes Her" where Meryl Streep's body becomes more and more damaged until it eventually falls apart, but they're still alive! What a way to live.
Also, what if you get stuck underneath an avalanche? Forever freezing?
What if you live beyond the sun's expansion, or even the heat death of the universe? I'm picturing a man riding a bycicle which powers the last lightbulb in existence. Just peddling for the rest of time in the dark...
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense That said I find it hard to believe that that would be the case.I think people are pesimistic when it comes to such things because they like to think that there is some great profound reason that we're mortal and that things not only can't but shouldn't be any different.
gamesmaster35 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord I'm making myself feel depressed, but these are all problems that can't be ignored. I think anyone who, lets simplify for the sake of argument, invents an immortality pill, has a lot to think about before putting it on the market.
Adding more life instead of complete immortality could be a good alternative, but fear of death never leaves. Postponing it only makes it worse. When given the choice people won't die. They'll only give up life if there's nothing left to live for.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
People, you do not want immortality! what if the brain downloads started working? people would keep having kids, and with no one dying, massive overpopulation would kill us all!
PageofLegend 1 year ago
@Malignis Telomerase, EGCG, Reservitrol. Then you have the fun work being done By the SENS foundation. The SENS foundation have moved aging out of just a medical problem into an engineering problem. Really quite fascinating. They seam to be making progress every year or two. The biggest problem they are having is intracellular amalgamates. I would hope to see something major happen there. Why don't they just leave out some dead animals and collect the bacteria that are there? Idk?
NoogLeader 1 year ago
Transhumanism
Voice changer that gives you deep voice
LED contact lenses.
Flamethrower gauntlets that can also shoot firebombs.
Illusion tricks and gimmicks.
Giant exoskeleton.
Etc...
All hail new gods since goa'uld and ori are dead :D lol.
PhreakStep 1 year ago
I do not think I would want to live forever; I would rather not live to see the end of the universe, what with either the "big freeze" or a "big crunch", and with both having ever-increasing entropy.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
That said, any extension of the time I can spend with Maya and also learning about reality would be much appreciated.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
Well, then, technically you would not be living forever. Just until the death of the universe.
.
Personally, I think eternity would get quite boring after a while. I mean, after a few millennia, I would think even exploring other worlds would become passé. Mind you though, I wouldn't pass up the opportunity to find out....
mtszabo 1 year ago
Yes, it would.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@mtszabo Till heat death caused by entropy. The universe will continue to exist long after all the usable energy of the universe is gone. It may never come to an actual end. Speculation comes up at this point that maybe it will reverse at some point and shrink again. Then it would explode out again in a repeating cycle. Or it could rip apart. Nobody knows what will happen. I personally going out there and saying it will just expand forever and become more and more cold.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@ 5:00
Eratosthenes not only figured out that the Earth was a sphere but he made a simple measurement that got it's circumference accurate within 1% of error. It wasn't a guess either. The method is still considered good science. That was in the 3rd century BC.
jessemaurais 2 years ago
Interesting... Have you heard of telomerase ?
Acrimonator 2 years ago
Yep, perhaps an new age of enlightenment... With the potential humanity has actually, it could be promising for the whole specie... :)
Acrimonator 2 years ago
lollll,the religoues book is not supposed to have all the inventions or discovery of mankind,lolllllllllll
kuroshe1 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThieleM 2 years ago
Thanks, I looked up Grey, he gives an intereting TED talk.
Tapecutter59 2 years ago 4
There are no valid bio text books or studies demonstrating how people will live to 1000 or predictions of people living to 150. THat is an extraordinary claim. You will have to back that one up or go smoke some more crack.
ThieleM 2 years ago
It's quite plausible though. It may be technologically infeasible *right now* but that does not represent future performance. We can already manipulate objects at the atomic level, eventually we should be able to manipulate ourselves at the atomic level.
Gerafix 2 years ago
maybe....and that is a very doubtful maybe. Don't get me wrong, living for 1000 years would be fascinating however if that became the norm then 1000 year lifespans would really be no different than an 80 year lifespan.
ThieleM 2 years ago
But at least to the first people who do live a 1000 years, it'll be awesome... And you'll need seeeeeveral 1000year old generation for it to become the "norm"
LuigiPeach 2 years ago
thousand year spans would still become the norm and people would want more.
ThieleM 2 years ago
But for it to become the accepted norm, it would take countless generations, right?
LuigiPeach 2 years ago
Manipulation isn't really the barrier at this point. We can create whatever we want just about.
We just don't know what to change to make it work. Evolution doesn't come with instruction manuals exactly because there is no designer. When you use an evolutionary process to "design" a computer program, a life form, or an engineering blueprint, you make the sacrifice of not understanding what the hell came out the other side beyond "it works, dammit" because the blind processes themselves don't.
rkyeun 2 years ago
put the crack pipe down.
ThieleM 2 years ago
Are you serious? I will have to believe it cause you said it without evidence.
MrPerseus2009 2 years ago
People can't be godlike and still be people because non-godlikeness is an essential trait of humanity. To make sense the question should be is "Can we replace ourselves with something godlike?". And that brtngs up another question "Why would we want to?"
kaminarigaston 2 years ago
Going to a moon wouldn't be a good prophecy to me. It's not a meaningful prediction if the prediction itself is sufficient cause for people to work towards causing it.
rkyeun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never realized how much shit John Lennon's music sucks than by having to repeatedly hear that intro suck. Holy fuck.
highwind8124 2 years ago
Tracie has such a sweet smile. Seems like a nice lady. I'd love to chat to both of them given the chance.
Domzdream 2 years ago
One thing that has always fascinated me about the idea of "mind replication" as it were is the possibility of creating a plural self. That is, you could effectively write your mind onto several different mechanical bodies, all of which would be interconnected by a network, sharing the net collective experience of all the entities. Think of it as a virtual Multiple Man from the X-factor comics. You would truly be a demigod. Scary (but improbable) thoughts.
Mishalex 2 years ago
i saw some call in show where someone said "put your hand in front of your face" and the host did, then said "ok, now talk to it" and hung up XD that was awesome someone should do that on this show
zin11 2 years ago
ImTheRealJesusClone 2 years ago
I want my robot body to have X-Ray vision! And big chainsaw hands!
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
jgoemat 2 years ago 2
The potential of Transhumanism is absolutely mind boogling. Imagine a whole generation born geneticaly perfect, or better than perfect, who then go on to augment themselves further with brain implants, cardio stimulators, etc. Or even further, imagine a people who tweak their DNA to the point that their physiology is no longer cellular but instead based upon 'naturally' generated organic nanaorobots. There would literally be no line dividing man from machine, just one pure hybrid organism.
imnoromeo 2 years ago 6
Imno - resistance is futile
flyingscience 2 years ago
That's exactly what's going on in my head all the time... and that idea is just awesome.
I'm Transhumanist and (for good reason) damn proud of it! ;)
Raakiszh 2 years ago
That means you couldnt live forever because you could only live a few thousand years before youd get into a fatal accident of transportation .
flyingscience 3 years ago
That's where artificial life comes in. If we really could digitize human consciousness, you really could live forever as long as you maintained multiple up-to-date backups of your personality profile.
Of course, we don't know if such a process is even physically possible, let alone how to do it. But it's an interesting idea anyway.
c6gunner 3 years ago 3
However "you" in the sense of yourself wouldn't exist anymore, you would be dead. You would only exist to everyone around you. It's sorta like the teleporters in startrek every time a person teleported, they died. However the clone produced afterward made it seem like nothing happened.
RableRableRableRable 2 years ago
"However 'you' in the sense of yourself wouldn't exist anymore"
How do you figure?
I've heard that argument before, and it's not convincing. If you're defining "you" as the physical body, then, by that definition, I am not the same person today as I was 20 years ago because every single atom in my body has changed since then.
It's a silly argument. If you can preserve every aspect of my personality and put me in a new body, I will still me. Changing the physical body makes little difference.
c6gunner 2 years ago
It's because your not understanding it. It's not defining you by the physical body. It's defining you by the continuity of your consciousness. The continuity of the pattern of matter that defines you is what's important (parts of the brain). If that continuity is breached its simply killing you and creating a copy. It's all about maintaing continuity.
waltsimons 2 years ago
Except there would be continuity. You're still not making any sense.
If I use windows explorer to copy a file from one hard drive to another, is it not still the same file? Technically, I've wiped out most of the data in one location, and re-created it in another. In effect, I have "killed" the original file, and made a duplicate in a new place. Yet it's still the same file. If we could do the same thing with a human being, why would that be any different?
c6gunner 2 years ago
In star trek the transporters break a body down atom by atom then move those atoms to another location and reassemble them according to the pattern of the person. This is the equivalent of cutting someone up(which would kill anyone), moving the pieces to another location then building an exact copy. It's not the same person. The original person died when they were disintegrated. You're just taking the parts of a dead body and making an exact copy.
waltsimons 2 years ago
The exact copy may seem like the same person for all practical purposes. But they aren't. There is no active consciousness in the in-between stage. No continuity.
It may be possible to "move" or "transfer" minds without breaking continuity. But that is a separate topic then continuity it's self.
waltsimons 2 years ago
What the hell is up with you and continuity?
What about people who are clinically dead for several minutes? When they're "brought back", are they a completely different person?
What if we could cryogenically freeze someone for X number of years, and then thaw them out again? Would they be a completely different person?
Continuity has nothing to do with it. When you power down your computer and then turn it on again the next morning, it's not a different computer. Your argument makes no sense.
c6gunner 2 years ago
I'm going to take the diplomatic route and just assume I'm not doing a very good job of explaining the concept.
Lack of "Active" consciousness is probably not the best way to phrase it. To answer both your questions: No, those are rather obvious examples where continuity isn't breached.
waltsimons 2 years ago
I'm going to go into detail and try and make this as clear as possible.
I define self as the continuity of the pattern of matter that forms our consciousness. This is a rather common philosophical conclusion, I did not make this up myself.
The aspect of continuity is important because as I've already demonstrated it's possible to completely deconstruct the pattern of matter that forms our consciousness to the point where it is no longer forming a consciousness.
waltsimons 2 years ago
It is at that point that the original consciousness it formed ends, it dies. Any new consciousness made out of the pieces of the old one, even an exact copy, is not the same consciousness. It is a new one. This new consciousness is indistinguishable from the original one in every way. But the old one has indeed died and this is simply a copy. And I think thats maybe what you're getting hung up on?
waltsimons 2 years ago
The examples of clinical death, cryonics and turning your computer off and on are examples of pausing and resuming the pattern of matter. It doesn't breach continuity in the sense I'm speaking about. It's a different philosophical matter all together.
waltsimons 2 years ago
Anyway I have better things to do then try and teach philosophy through youtube comments. :P If you've still having trouble I suggest you read some philosophy about Personal Identity and Self, the mind/body problem and the Ship of Theseus Problem.
waltsimons 2 years ago
"Any new consciousness made out of the pieces of the old one, even an exact copy, is not the same consciousness. It is a new one."
Yes, you keep saying that, but you've yet to provide any reason why I should agree with you. So far your argument is, essentially, "I'm right because I say I'm right".
"If you've still having trouble I suggest you read some philosophy..."
Ah, nice. If you're still having trouble, I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, you condescending prick.
c6gunner 2 years ago
"Any new consciousness made out of the pieces of the old one, even an exact copy, is not the same consciousness. It is a new one."
Well I didn't go into more detail regarding that point because I thought it was obvious enough. It relates to the ship of theseus problem. But I'll try at another example.
waltsimons 2 years ago
If we have two exact clones of each other that exist at the same time. They are obviously not the same person. They are separate entities regardless of the fact that they are exact copies of each other.
Now imagine that exact same scenario except by creating the clone we are destroying the original.
We take the original person poof them into a cloud of atoms then use those atoms to make the clone.
waltsimons 2 years ago
The only important difference between these scenarios is that the clones exist at different times then each other but yet this makes them no more the same person then it did in the first scenario.
waltsimons 2 years ago
You seem to be talking about teleportation,or something like it.If you created another 'you',it would be the 'same' person as you.Since,both of your bodies would be identical.The only way that the two of you would become two different entities,is if you had separate and different lives (with different experiences)after the teleportation took place. even then you would be probably the same. Look at twin studies for example.
crazykb 2 years ago
The star trek style teleportation is simply a useful device for illustrating the concept. If your definition of self considers separate entities to be "the same person" I'd say it's in need of revising.
waltsimons 2 years ago
Actually, teleportation exists. Although, it's in it's infancy. As far as my 'same person comment', well, if the person that was teleported has the same neural structure as you do, then it would be the same person. The essence of an individual, is locked inside the neural/chemical workings of our brains. If you don't agree, then you're ignorant in regards to this topic.
crazykb 2 years ago
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't correct me on things I never said. And I don't believe you actually addressed the issue I raised. If your definition of self considers separate entities to be "the same person" I'd say it's in need of revising. Even clones in their "initial state" before their life experiences diverge. As well I agree that a naturalistic/materialist view of the self and mind is the most realistic. I don't know what I've said that would you give you the opposite impression.
waltsimons 2 years ago
"If your definition of self considers separate entities to be "the same person" I'd say it's in need of revising" I use the term 'same person' in the context of teleportation, or anything akin to it. If you create a copy of someone else, that copy IS the same person. I got into your discussion haphazardly, so, if my comments are 'messy' I apologize. Just trying to start a conversation I guess.
crazykb 2 years ago
Well before I continue I'd like to know precisely what you mean by teleportation. The details are important! :P
waltsimons 2 years ago
Teleportation, is the 'scanning of a system' (inner workings/design of something),and transferring that information to another location. At the other location would be a devise that would use the same type of matter (albeit different matter)that the original had, constructing a duplicate of the original.Also,during this process,the original is destroyed (think of the film, 'The Prestige'). The mechanism that transports the info is called,Quantum entanglement. Hope that was good enough.
crazykb 2 years ago
"If we have two exact clones of each other that exist at the same time. They are obviously not the same person."
If we classify them as separate people, it's only because after copying they each accumulate unique experiences. Over time they become less alike. But immediately after the copying process, they ARE the same person.
Once again, if I e-mail you a file, and I retain an identical copy, then we have the same file. If you then change your copy, it becomes a different file.
c6gunner 2 years ago
1. Immortality isn't easy because laws of statistics will catch up with you .You WILL eventually die in a transportation accident .Unless accidents are diminished significantly .
flyingscience 3 years ago
it might
wildreams 3 years ago
Very likely wont be diminished. But likely reduced.
Devilsnightforlife 2 years ago
Then again, if our future bodies aren't going to be as fragile as our current ones... well, then we simply WON'T die in transportation accidents.
Raakiszh 2 years ago
The final question by Asimov I saw in a paid planitariaum story presentationin the 70's .
flyingscience 3 years ago
Ancients observed the Sun and moon are round .You can observe that the the earth has no corners and is round like a disk .Its an easy guess .
flyingscience 3 years ago
The bible says something along the lines of the earth being a circle when in fact the earth is a sphere. Circle pertains to 2-D object, while a sphere pertains to 3-D. Also the bible says that there are as many stars in the sky as there are grains of sand on earth when in fact we now know that there are a lot more stars in the universe than grains of sand. So there are two other points.
SistemaKaoso 3 years ago
I don't mean to be nitpicky usually, but the "shadow" on the moon that Tracie mentioned is NOT the shadow of the Earth (unless it's during an eclipse), it's just that that particular part of the moon isn't facing the sun; and so it would not show that the Earth is spherical, but it would show that the moon is. Otherwise great video ^^
jaygee514 3 years ago
The Singularity is near.
gucker07 3 years ago
Bring on the Singularity
beriukay 3 years ago
Dude thanks for uploading all these Atheist Experience vids,they rule,I love watching them chillin out.
cheers and thanks.
funkchunck 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oops I meant here.
watch?v=cSKBYaVlYKU&feature=related
AsG1989 3 years ago
oops I meant here.
clock?pi=3.14159265358979323846SH1TH34D&failytale=re lated
smartarse001 3 years ago
you're an idiot i watched this show and they would put up a tent around him at night and would make the cameras back up at night as well. You're an idiot
meloveanna 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
watch?v=wGMwa4yZLL4&feature=related
there ya go, proof. And dont even try to explain it with science you cant..sorry. Science HAS the have physical proof for something to be a fact yet when they cant explain it they completely ignore it and call it a hoax. Theres more to science than the physical world.
AsG1989 3 years ago
Meditation has many positive effects that may be explained by science. Everything will eventually be explained by science. Before, we had a rain God, a rainbow god, a sun god, a night god. Etc.
Now that science explains what causes rain/rainbows/sun/night, we have lost these Gods and replaced them with reason.
sputnikowns 3 years ago 4
science will keep getting better no doubt, but there will always be something they cant explain, Physical evidence is a funny thing, bceause it HAS to be physical to be tested. Thats the problem with science..if science cant see outside of our universe then there isnt anything outside of it. Thats close minded, we arent evolved enough to just flat out say science can explain everything perfectly.
AsG1989 3 years ago
it's close minded of you to think that scientists aren't looking for things outside of our physical world. for instance, other dimensions have been hypothesized and the large hadron collider might actually bring some of them into that grand knowledgebase called science.
that's what seperates science from faith, scientists will actually look for evidence whereas the faithful are simply satisfied with an unproven idea.
mikemikemofo 3 years ago 3
No, real scientists will just say they dont know what is beyond what we can see... if we were continually satified with "god did it" we would still be dying of fairly minor infections and riding around on horses (probably). You also have to take into consideration our scientific knoledge is relatively primative... just because we can't fully explain something now, doesn't mean that we won't be able to in 200 years.
adsensus 3 years ago 3
Which is why I said to watch the video of buhdda boy. Science cant explain it yet, Im just proving that science doesnt always have the answer. And no im not religious at all
AsG1989 3 years ago
"science doesnt always have the answer" is an interesting statement, since it seems to refer to existing knowledge. Isn't science the ongoing process of the discovery of fact?
Also, don't you think that ad hominem terms like "idiot" have no place in an inteligent discussion? There are some interesting concepts here, let's do them justice, okay?
EcotecUSA 3 years ago
Science clearly can't explain everything perfectly. However, it constantly proves and evolves.
Since we can't test (or even confirm the existence of) non-physical 'things', it is absolutely useless to assume for any practical purposes that they exist.
sputnikowns 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its not fake, scientist all over the world watched him for almost a month before leaving, he just sat there without food or water. Do I think he is some reincarnated buhdda? No I dont but he has some mind over matter skill thats for sure
AsG1989 3 years ago
The last question was Can entropy be reversed? and it was posed to a computer. The question remained unanswered until only a universal computer was left in the universe. Since it was the only unanswered question, the computer continued to work on it until it finally found the answer: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
So god is a super universal computer?
It was also a planatarium show 40 years ago.
DustyMay1944 3 years ago