Immortal Spectrum

[bricklayer]

I only see two categories of immortality: necessary and contingent.

 

[muichimotsu]

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

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Yup, contingent for me as well. Ideally, contingent on my choice, by which I mean a self-chosen time of death.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ElijahW]

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.

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.

So in order to live forever, by this notion, we need to be less intelligent, it seems.

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.

The supernatural doesn't have to involve coercion necessarily

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.

Some of it has to do most likely with Buddhist metaphysics, which I'm only somewhat familiar with.

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Much of this would require background and research into paleobiology, I imagine

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.

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.

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.

Of course, coercion can result with material immortality

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.

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

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.

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.

You mention big three, but you haven't really specified the categories of these major three kinds of immortality.

 

[ElijahW]

Much of this would require background and research into paleobiology, I imagine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How would you occupy space or change without a material body?

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.

I'm not sure what secular Buddhist means you believe. So you are a materialist? Nothing immaterial, nor supernatural realm?

You mention big three, but you haven't really specified the categories of these major three kinds of immortality.

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Fossil records could probably present something, though a lot of it gets into evolutionary ancestors, most likely

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.

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

How would you occupy space or change without a material body?

Pretty sure energy would still occupy space and energy by its nature is still subject to change.

I'm not sure what secular Buddhist means you believe. So you are a materialist? Nothing immaterial, nor supernatural realm?

There may be something immaterial related to our consciousness, but far as I understand, we are primarily material beings

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.

These are the supernatural immortalities, correct?

 

[ElijahW]

Fossil records could probably present something, though a lot of it gets into evolutionary ancestors, most likely

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.

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

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.

Pretty sure energy would still occupy space and energy by its nature is still subject to change.

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.

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?

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.)

 

[muichimotsu]

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 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

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.

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

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.

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

---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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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

 

[ElijahW]

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

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.

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

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."
​

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Yeah, the issue is understanding energy/fire without any matter/wood.

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

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

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 never said it would be easy, I said it was something we could consider

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."​

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


​

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 shouldn't our eating of so much processed food show some change in intelligence as well?

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah, the issue is understanding energy/fire without any matter/wood.

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

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.

Buddhists tend to not speak a lot about the afterlife in my understanding, because it isn't what's important in their philosophy.

I'd take a simple death over complicated undeath.

 

[ElijahW]

I never said it would be easy, I said it was something we could consider

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.

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 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.

So shouldn't our eating of so much processed food show some change in intelligence as well?

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.

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

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.

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

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'd take a simple death over complicated undeath.

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.

 

[Davian]

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.

Yes we should. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, in cases where we would expect to find evidence.

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>

No, your claims of longevity in the past can be dismissed until you present evidence for it.

 

[ElijahW]

Yes we should. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, in cases where we would expect to find evidence.

Yeah, we were discussing what evidence would we expect to find?

No, your claims of longevity in the past can be dismissed until you present evidence for it.

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.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, we were discussing what evidence would we expect to find?

That would depend on the nature of your claim. Do you have anything more than bible stories to work with?

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.

I wasn't making the argument, you were. Unless you concede my point?

 

[ElijahW]

That would depend on the nature of your claim. Do you have anything more than bible stories to work with?

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?

I wasn't making the argument, you were. Unless you concede my point?

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.

 

[Davian]

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?

Where did I do such a thing? Post # please, or retract your accusation.

And are you accusing me of being immature?

And how am I to provide examples of what evidence to expect if you evade questions?

I realize you weren't making any argument, which is why I was trying to help you contribute to the conversation.

Try again, without the blatant attempt to shift the burden of evidence from yourself.

Being skeptical isn't a making a point, and remaining skeptical isn't winning an argument.

Your arguments can fail without me 'winning'.

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.

No, I can justifiably dismiss your postion if you fail to clearly state and substantiate it.

And if you fail to clearly state your position and reasoning, I do not see how you could expect a counter position from anyone.

If there is a post in this thread where you have clearly stated your position and reasoning, please link to it.

 

[ElijahW]

If you can follow the conversation and contribute, then do so; if not then we are done.

 

[Davian]

If you can follow the conversation and contribute, then do so; if not then we are done.

Abdication accepted.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

As I've said, my background is not in biology, so my scientific thought process isn't quite there. Philosophy was my other remote specialization besides religious studies, so in that way, I'd consider that logically, it is possible, though the consideration that our hygiene wasn't the best, particular for teeth, means that it's not likely we lasted terribly long with even a fairly simple diet, just with cavities and tooth decay's wear and tear

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.

Structural change could be those related to sexual attraction. Evolution is a process of a species population, so theoretically humans could have come from a particular tribe of proto humans.

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.

Animals and plants have markedly different cellular structures as I recall, so that's a factor, since our cells take in sunlight very differently. Also, no osmosis.

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.

Incorporeal may be better in that regard. There is still some natural "material" basis perhaps, but there is no real tangible aspect to it, perhaps

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'm not giving up on living, I'm accepting that I will die as a part of nature