Quest for immortality

New Scientist talks to Aubrey de Grey, Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg about how we could become immortal. More: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626251.800

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• immortality
• aging
• transhumanist
• new
• scientist
• newscientist

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

Really? Do I have to be an expert in the Ancient Hawaiian religion, whose creation myth states that the octopus is the last remaining survivor from the previous universe, to dismiss its claims as bullshit? What about the Ancient Norse religion which states that, if I am a worthy warrior, I will enter into Valhalla or Folkvangr, led by valkyries?

No. You do not have to be an expert in these things to dismiss them as being unworthy of you attention unless they can provide corroborating evidence.

[blankprobe]

we need more scientists and we need them to objectively communicate with eachother. The more of them there are sharing a challenge, the more complicated the leadership that guides them will get. I don't know how to solve that issue, but perhaps it won't be a problem to the most important scientific challenges.. So, to that first issue: How do we get more people interested in science and how do we come up with a system that can support both their passion for labour and research? Im all ears mate!

[neil dekok]

but then again the average scientist cannot think of a field which he / she is not a expert in.

[neil dekok]

The people who usually claim religions lack of evidence are usually the ones who are most ignorant about its claims.

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

"A) Drug companies bribe a lot of federal agencies, there are documented FDA bribery scandals B) Once the efficacy and potency of a drug has been discovered and is it somewhat safe it's immediately sent to the factory to begin production, there isn't really a lot more testing unless the companies are being targeted by lawsuits thanks to the prior poor testing."

Again, you need to send me references for these (as a postgrad, I'm sure you appreciate that the burden of proof is on the claim-maker).

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

(continued) Incidentally, this also applies to the afterlife argument too (don't think I haven't noticed your attempt to point-switch again). If we are nothing more than atoms organised together in a certain way (which current science supports overwhelmingly), then there is no reason to think that "we" will continue to exist once that organisation decays, i.e. once we're dead. However, there IS a reason to think that if the organisation were rebuilt in another medium that we would return.

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

Well, actually I was referring to your statement back at the start, regarding the existence of souls: "How do you know souls don't exist? Perhaps you shouldn't be so arrogant and read about the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson..." Since you called me arrogant there, *that* was the point I was addressing, saying we're pretty close to knowing the answer, as we know that the mind is contained entirely in the physical goo of the brain, take the effects caused by brain lesions for example. (continued)

[shiz777]

We're pretty damn close to knowing what is certain? That there isn't an afterlife? How?

[shiz777]

I sent you the links. Endless testing is testing a product over and over and over again. That does not happen. A) Drug companies bribe a lot of federal agencies, there are documented FDA bribery scandals B) Once the efficacy and potency of a drug has been discovered and is it somewhat safe it's immediately sent to the factory to begin production, there isn't really a lot more testing unless the companies are being targeted by lawsuits thanks to the prior poor testing.

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

What you call "arrogance", I call "unwillingness to say that we don't know the answer to something when we're pretty damn close to being certain". Which is, of course, as close as we can ever really get to knowing something in science.