bricklayer
Well-Known Member
- Dec 26, 2009
- 3,928
- 328
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I only see two categories of immortality: necessary and contingent.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The problem remains when we discern that one is preferable to another. I'd rather have immortality I could refuse rather than that which I could only accept as part of life from birth
It may be a safe assumption that we have always had average health if we didn't see any reason to believe that wasn't the case. If we have reason to believe that we had longer lifespans, then we should realize we don't have nearly enough information about how that could be possible and really don't have enough information about our ancestors to say that it is impossible or that there should be some other unspecified evidence.A fair point, but the idea is still that with diet as it was back then, not to mention probably no real medical care, people probably had fairly average health at best.
Not less intelligent but less habitual. We all inherit the habits of the people around us, who inherited those habits from those who came before us. This goes all the way back to us imitating the habits of people who had no idea that their behavior was going to have an adverse effect on their mortality. Poor diet, exercise, breathing and doing whatever we can with clothes and housing to avoid the environment that created us, all have adverse effects on our biology, that we still don't fully understand, but can still acknowledge as being a part of what we need to change to have a healthy life.So in order to live forever, by this notion, we need to be less intelligent, it seems.
Yes, but when you talk about an all powerful deity that could coerce you then you are speaking of a supernatural understanding of the deity. Material immortality can involve coercion from a more powerful person or from a regular person, angry with someone in the past and the technology to reconstruct them in order to punish them.The supernatural doesn't have to involve coercion necessarily
Get wikiing. The immortality they are discussing is one of the big three I would think, and can't really discuss immortality without including them. Especially if you are going to wear their label, you should at least explain the immortality you are working towards, even if you can't speak for the spectrum of belief within Buddhism.Some of it has to do most likely with Buddhist metaphysics, which I'm only somewhat familiar with.
It may be a safe assumption that we have always had average health if we didn't see any reason to believe that wasn't the case. If we have reason to believe that we had longer lifespans, then we should realize we don't have nearly enough information about how that could be possible and really don't have enough information about our ancestors to say that it is impossible or that there should be some other unspecified evidence.
Not less intelligent but less habitual. We all inherit the habits of the people around us, who inherited those habits from those who came before us. This goes all the way back to us imitating the habits of people who had no idea that their behavior was going to have an adverse effect on their mortality. Poor diet, exercise, breathing and doing whatever we can with clothes and housing to avoid the environment that created us, all have adverse effects on our biology, that we still don't fully understand, but can still acknowledge as being a part of what we need to change to have a healthy life.
Now living as we are biologically intended can only get a person so far in my opinion but we can't know for certain until we see it done; that is after we figure out how we are intended to live.
Yes, but when you talk about an all powerful deity that could coerce you then you are speaking of a supernatural understanding of the deity. Material immortality can involve coercion from a more powerful person or from a regular person, angry with someone in the past and the technology to reconstruct them in order to punish them.
With the immaterial, the activity is constant. There isn't going to be a temporal location nor any type of activity on your part or an all powerful genie living there. You aren't going to get bored because no time is going to pass, because everything is constant. Now you can look at your existence being constant as some kind of coercion but that is just the nature of being immaterial, not the product of actions of another person.
Get wikiing. The immortality they are discussing is one of the big three I would think, and can't really discuss immortality without including them. Especially if you are going to wear their label, you should at least explain the immortality you are working towards, even if you can't speak for the spectrum of belief within Buddhism.
Clarify what you think the research would be? Maybe it's available online. If you can think of what research would confirm or deny the possibility of longevity in our evolutionary timeline we can see if it already been looked at. If you can't think of the research then you are just going to have to resign yourself to consider the possibility rationally on your own.Much of this would require background and research into paleobiology, I imagine.
It's not about lacking free will, it's about knowing what's good for us and still doing what is bad because of those habits that are hardwired into our behavior, from us doing that negative behavior repeatedly.If we could break habituation entirely, seems like we'd be too indeterminant in nature. Our having some determinant aspects doesn't mean we lack free will. Genetic engineering is rightly a concern, since it gets into possibilities and results that we didn't see coming.
How would you occupy space or change without a material body?Of course, coercion can result with material immortality
Who's to say there is no temporality in immaterial immortality? It merely means there isn't any material. Doesn't mean we don't still occupy space. Immateriality is merely not possessing a body composed of matter, if we're going to be strict about this.
I'm not sure what secular Buddhist means you believe. So you are a materialist? Nothing immaterial, nor supernatural realm?As a secular Buddhist, I'm not working towards any immortality except the kind that results from people remembering me as a good person, etc, which is the best kind, I'd say, though it's virtual and superficial, technically.
Afterlife: where usually it's a supernatural realm you go when you die that obeys laws similar to our dreams, instead of typical matter.You mention big three, but you haven't really specified the categories of these major three kinds of immortality.
Clarify what you think the research would be? Maybe it's available online. If you can think of what research would confirm or deny the possibility of longevity in our evolutionary timeline we can see if it already been looked at. If you can't think of the research then you are just going to have to resign yourself to consider the possibility rationally on your own.
It's not about lacking free will, it's about knowing what's good for us and still doing what is bad because of those habits that are hardwired into our behavior, from us doing that negative behavior repeatedly.
There is no arguing that how humans live isn't as healthy as we could be living. All you can argue is that there is some limit to the benefit that prevents us evolving to reach an age to explain the intellectual jump.
How would you occupy space or change without a material body?
I'm not sure what secular Buddhist means you believe. So you are a materialist? Nothing immaterial, nor supernatural realm?
Afterlife: where usually it's a supernatural realm you go when you die that obeys laws similar to our dreams, instead of typical matter.
Persian Resurrection: The dead return here after some event.
Reincarnation: You body dies but you have a soul that is eternal so you return here to occupy a new body with a new life. Often has reunification with God as an end goal.
What do you think it would present? What do you think the probability is that out of the handful of human fossils that we have there is an example of one of these longed lived humans that is being suggested? It's looking for a needle in a haystack, without knowing what a needle looks like, and with only having a handful of the hay to look at.Fossil records could probably present something, though a lot of it gets into evolutionary ancestors, most likely
I'm a believer in lamarckism so I think that our use of tools could be a source of intelligence growth. I don't think that a dna mistake made our brains larger and our intelligence increased from that. I think it is similar to what you see with people who play music so they have structural changes in the brain. At some point we were doing something new to us, that devolved the frontal lobe.Our intellectual jump was a result, from what I understand, of a development of the pre frontal lobe of our brain, from which resulted our ability to make complex tools, etc
We talked about this a bit earlier. Energy separate from matter is speculation that on the surface doesn't seem rational. Energy seems temporal because what we know of it is from the affect and effect, on and from matter. Without matter it doesn't seem possible for there to be energy, but maybe you have a specific form of energy in mind I am unaware of.Pretty sure energy would still occupy space and energy by its nature is still subject to change.
Not necessarily. The afterlife understanding is almost always going to be supernatural but the reincarnation doesn't until you get past the death cycle and end up in the standard afterlife. The resurrection doesn't either but plenty of people are awaiting supernatural intervention for that to happen.There may be something immaterial related to our consciousness, but far as I understand, we are primarily material beings
These are the supernatural immortalities, correct?
What do you think it would present? What do you think the probability is that out of the handful of human fossils that we have there is an example of one of these longed lived humans that is being suggested? It's looking for a needle in a haystack, without knowing what a needle looks like, and with only having a handful of the hay to look at.
I'm a believer in lamarckism so I think that our use of tools could be a source of intelligence growth. I don't think that a dna mistake made our brains larger and our intelligence increased from that. I think it is similar to what you see with people who play music so they have structural changes in the brain. At some point we were doing something new to us, that devolved the frontal lobe.
We can assume that it was either an unique act, like figuring fire out, or something special about our tool use, or language use. Or it could be from a unique combination of things we did which includes activities and benefits derived from our environment, usually food that is dependent on our natural environment.
For this discussion, the two main competing theories for where our "Garden" was, is in the prairie of Africa, or along a coast. I'm firmly on the later less popular beach monkey side. Though the other theory that we were cracking skulls open with tools and eating brains left over from other predators kills in the prairie is a possible explanation. It has similarly been suggested that on the coast we received an abundance of omega3 and that is what kicked us up a notch.
I think that the key comes down to long lifespans, and in that regard, I think that the most important scientific discovery has been about calorie restriction increasing lifespans. We could have moved to the beach and not got the calories we were used to, but enough to survive. Or we could have just made extinct what brought us there but were now adapted to an environment that couldn't support our nutritional needs. CR done right for a few generations could explain the longevity that explains our intelligence.
---entering cooky area----
Now if we wanted to take it a step further and consider if it wasn't just longevity, but actual immortality that we achieved, then I personally think that we began to process sunlight in some way that did something to explain what was unique about us. I think if you are group of starving hairless monkeys on the beach then utilizing sunlight in someway is going to happen.
Plants don't have a problem converting sunlight into energy, they don't have the ability to move, in order to eat food, so that is necessary. Maybe when push came to shove one of our ancestors did what was necessary and sustained himself some with sunlight. Maybe like plants who don't necessarily have age limits like animals do, we picked that ability up.
It could be similar to how a seasonal plant can be tricked with artificial light into continually growing. Until you want it to start it's reproductive cycle so it can be harvested, then you decrease the amount of light it receives, and it starts preparing for death. Maybe the reason all animals age and die is because all animals are eating, instead of using sunlight and there is some base coding we aren't aware of that is triggering the aging process.
Energy is still a physical thing, even if it doesn't have a strictly material nature, though it does seem to involve the motion of atoms, as I recall. When you ignite a piece of wood, it burns, that fire and heat are forms of energy, for instance.We talked about this a bit earlier. Energy separate from matter is speculation that on the surface doesn't seem rational. Energy seems temporal because what we know of it is from the affect and effect, on and from matter. Without matter it doesn't seem possible for there to be energy, but maybe you have a specific form of energy in mind I am unaware of.
Not necessarily. The afterlife understanding is almost always going to be supernatural but the reincarnation doesn't until you get past the death cycle and end up in the standard afterlife. The resurrection doesn't either but plenty of people are awaiting supernatural intervention for that to happen.
For the resurrection I personally have my chips on scientific progress until we get a Star Trek teleporter, and then find an imprint of the matter passing thru an aether. So we can retrieve the information of those who lived in the past, by going to where the planet was at that point in the past, and data mining the imprint in the aether. (Comic book story line, prob never coming to a shop near you.)
Maybe that would make sense if I was suggesting they were eating something new that could be seen by how the teeth developed. I'm suggesting though they were just eating less and calorie restriction was what first gave them some more years to develop mentally. Also the ancestors we are looking for, because of the melting of the ice caps, is under some feet of ocean water, which makes it even more unlikely we have a sample.I'm not a biologist, so I can't say with exact certainty or specificity, but the nature of the dental structure could be part of it, suggesting diet and the like to an extent
The wiki is more favorable then it used to be and I think as our understanding of epigenetics increases, as with our overall understanding of biology, then we can understand the process of how adaptions made in your life can be passed onto your offspring. It's not about skills, but if those skills lead to biological changes that can be passed on.This suggests that people can evolve just by passing on practiced traits to children, which is markedly without any grounds. My parents have skills that I have no aptitude for, nor does my brother. We developed skills independently of their particular interests and skillsets, though I will admit there are some shared things, but that's coincidence more than any intelligent design or the like
No that is one of the current competing theories for where we gained our intelligence, along with the brain eating theory, they are not mine. I agree about what we did, we aren't currently doing, to explain why the brain hasn't developed further. Which is a reason to give consideration to behavior that is outside the norm of current human behavior for our intellectual jumps. Such as periods of longevity brought about from something similar to what is going on with calorie restriction research.So ingesting fish oil should by your hypothesis, still continue to evolve us further, which doesn't seem to be the case. We still have our base level of homo sapien intelligence by all basic facts and the brain hasn't developed any further. This should especially be the case in Meditteranean areas, since I believe they have a fairly strong fish diet. Or Japan
It could be about limits but I think the CR studies show a flexibility to the aging process that gives hope that the age limits can be manipulated and possibly just a genetic response we established extremely early in the evolutionary process.Aging is, from what I recall, a basis in the limits of our DNA. It stretches and duplicates itself to a point and then it can no longer do so, which then starts our degeneration of the body. Sunlight has some importance to humans, as I recall, though I wouldn't say it's on the genetic level, but perhaps a molecular level, with levels of melatonin and stuff that help us resist UV ray damage
Yeah, the issue is understanding energy/fire without any matter/wood.Energy is still a physical thing, even if it doesn't have a strictly material nature, though it does seem to involve the motion of atoms, as I recall. When you ignite a piece of wood, it burns, that fire and heat are forms of energy, for instance.
I wouldn't assume a supernatural afterlife of a Buddhist but that could be because in the West we get a bias towards a more rational understanding of Buddhism, because people go looking for something more rational then what what they find with a superstitious Christianity.Nirvana isn't always understood as an afterlife though. Pure Land in Buddhism, maybe. Even Star Trek's immortality wasn't perfect, since the imprint could be corrupted in some way and you'd be stuck without a body, at least that's what I recall
Maybe that would make sense if I was suggesting they were eating something new that could be seen by how the teeth developed. I'm suggesting though they were just eating less and calorie restriction was what first gave them some more years to develop mentally. Also the ancestors we are looking for, because of the melting of the ice caps, is under some feet of ocean water, which makes it even more unlikely we have a sample.
The wiki is more favorable then it used to be and I think as our understanding of epigenetics increases, as with our overall understanding of biology, then we can understand the process of how adaptions made in your life can be passed onto your offspring. It's not about skills, but if those skills lead to biological changes that can be passed on.
"As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
No that is one of the current competing theories for where we gained our intelligence, along with the brain eating theory, they are not mine. I agree about what we did, we aren't currently doing, to explain why the brain hasn't developed further. Which is a reason to give consideration to behavior that is outside the norm of current human behavior for our intellectual jumps. Such as periods of longevity brought about from something similar to what is going on with calorie restriction research.
It could be about limits but I think the CR studies show a flexibility to the aging process that gives hope that the age limits can be manipulated and possibly just a genetic response we established extremely early in the evolutionary process.
Sunlight is used to help produce vitamin d with the skin so maybe it is possible for other organic compounds to be made, when the demand is recognized and adapted to.
Yeah, the issue is understanding energy/fire without any matter/wood.
Buddhists tend to not speak a lot about the afterlife in my understanding, because it isn't what's important in their philosophy.I wouldn't assume a supernatural afterlife of a Buddhist but that could be because in the West we get a bias towards a more rational understanding of Buddhism, because people go looking for something more rational then what what they find with a superstitious Christianity.
I don't know what you are recalling, the aether imprint is an idea from my comic book. It could be a star trek storyline as well but I'm not consciously aware of it. No it's not perfect immortality, you could have your body destroyed, and it may be even possibly to have your imprint obscured in a way that I can't figure out right now. But I'll take it over nothing.
Yeah, we should consider it and realize that expecting evidence to be extremely unlikely. We shouldn't use the lack of evidence as an argument against the position. If you don't believe that longevity was possible in our past, you are going to have to present other rational behind that belief, other than a lack of evidence.I never said it would be easy, I said it was something we could consider
I don't know about genetics playing into preferences. I'm speaking strictly of structural changes to our bodies being passed down. Epigenetics is like the volume to the traits the genes are generating. The structural changes that would be made in us adapting to something new wouldn't change our dna sequence but it could alter the volume some of those traits.Epigenetics is not necessarily about acquired characteristics, like being good at sports or having some talent for languages. Recent discoveries suggest homosexuality may be the result of epigenetics, triggers activating in families because of genetics, not because they have gay people prior in their family history
I don't know why it would. We are talking about the long life spans leading to intelligence. If one half of the world suddenly started living a thousand years while the other stayed the same, then maybe you would see some different mental development. That is if the main development of prolonged life spans, being the development of the frontal region of the brain, hasn't already been accomplished. If that is the main adaptation then going back to the same life spans isn't going to produce something new.So shouldn't our eating of so much processed food show some change in intelligence as well?
Correct, completely reasonable to expect that through trial and error, with enough time we can figure out how to expand our lifespans, but nature is also running a similar experiment. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that an animal evolves past the normal aging process in some way, somehow, given enough time. It's just crazy to think that we were that animal. Also it wouldn't be far fetched to think of an animal adapting back to use sun to fuel itself, until we consider we are that animal who made that adaptation.It's not unlikely we could synthesize genes and lengthen ours on a molecular level, which could theoretically extend our life indefinitely if there weren't negative sideaffects or the like from doing this by some form of injection,e tc.
Seems like science fiction to the extreme in suggesting our cells can sustain us merely with sunlight or the like. Or Daoist sage stuff, living off the air and such
The supernatural understanding of immaterial and the scifi understanding of energy are almost exactly the same. Energy is understood as being related to matter, without matter we have no understanding of energy being possible. If you want to describe existence without matter then you are going to need a better word than energy because we associate that word with the work of matter.Energy and matter are intertwined on some level, but a being of pure energy could exist if we're talking about cycling of energy types, perhaps. This way, there'd be no need for a material basis. Infinite energy of sorts even
Life can get better and even if it doesn't don't just assume it will suck in the future when they develop the ability to resurrect the dead. I wouldn't give up on living in the future until you see what it's like first.I'd take a simple death over complicated undeath.
Yes we should. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, in cases where we would expect to find evidence.Yeah, we should consider it and realize that expecting evidence to be extremely unlikely. We shouldn't use the lack of evidence as an argument against the position.
No, your claims of longevity in the past can be dismissed until you present evidence for it.If you don't believe that longevity was possible in our past, you are going to have to present other rational behind that belief, other than a lack of evidence.
<snip>
Yeah, we were discussing what evidence would we expect to find?Yes we should. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, in cases where we would expect to find evidence.
Our intellectual jump is the "evidence" we are trying to explain with the claim of longevity.No, your claims of longevity in the past can be dismissed until you present evidence for it.
That would depend on the nature of your claim. Do you have anything more than bible stories to work with?Yeah, we were discussing what evidence would we expect to find?
I wasn't making the argument, you were. Unless you concede my point?Our intellectual jump is the "evidence" we are trying to explain with the claim of longevity.
You can either argue a) longevity doesn't equal intelligence, b)that intellectual change can't be passed on to offspring, c) a simpler explanation for our intelligence d) our intelligence isn't something that needs to be justified because it's just in our perception.
Instead of having the maturity to admit you can't think of the evidence we should expect, you instead accuse me of just thoughtlessly following what the bible says?That would depend on the nature of your claim. Do you have anything more than bible stories to work with?
I realize you weren't making any argument, which is why I was trying to help you contribute to the conversation. Being skeptical isn't a making a point, and remaining skeptical isn't winning an argument. You have to actually put forward a counter position or point to an error in my reasoning, if you want to justifiably dismiss the position.I wasn't making the argument, you were. Unless you concede my point?
Where did I do such a thing? Post # please, or retract your accusation.Instead of having the maturity to admit you can't think of the evidence we should expect, you instead accuse me of just thoughtlessly following what the bible says?
Try again, without the blatant attempt to shift the burden of evidence from yourself.I realize you weren't making any argument, which is why I was trying to help you contribute to the conversation.
Your arguments can fail without me 'winning'.Being skeptical isn't a making a point, and remaining skeptical isn't winning an argument.
No, I can justifiably dismiss your postion if you fail to clearly state and substantiate it.You have to actually put forward a counter position or point to an error in my reasoning, if you want to justifiably dismiss the position.
Yeah, we should consider it and realize that expecting evidence to be extremely unlikely. We shouldn't use the lack of evidence as an argument against the position. If you don't believe that longevity was possible in our past, you are going to have to present other rational behind that belief, other than a lack of evidence.
I don't know about genetics playing into preferences. I'm speaking strictly of structural changes to our bodies being passed down. Epigenetics is like the volume to the traits the genes are generating. The structural changes that would be made in us adapting to something new wouldn't change our dna sequence but it could alter the volume some of those traits.
I don't know why it would. We are talking about the long life spans leading to intelligence. If one half of the world suddenly started living a thousand years while the other stayed the same, then maybe you would see some different mental development. That is if the main development of prolonged life spans, being the development of the frontal region of the brain, hasn't already been accomplished. If that is the main adaptation then going back to the same life spans isn't going to produce something new.
Correct, completely reasonable to expect that through trial and error, with enough time we can figure out how to expand our lifespans, but nature is also running a similar experiment. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that an animal evolves past the normal aging process in some way, somehow, given enough time. It's just crazy to think that we were that animal. Also it wouldn't be far fetched to think of an animal adapting back to use sun to fuel itself, until we consider we are that animal who made that adaptation.
The supernatural understanding of immaterial and the scifi understanding of energy are almost exactly the same. Energy is understood as being related to matter, without matter we have no understanding of energy being possible. If you want to describe existence without matter then you are going to need a better word than energy because we associate that word with the work of matter.
I'm not giving up on living, I'm accepting that I will die as a part of natureLife can get better and even if it doesn't don't just assume it will suck in the future when they develop the ability to resurrect the dead. I wouldn't give up on living in the future until you see what it's like first.