Enigma'07 said:Yeah, but why would He want that, why not just kill us all and not have to worry about it?
Why sterile? The primary difference is that people do not die through aging and related diseases. The quality, value, and variations of life would be significantly increased and if anything would be the opposite of sterility.The scientific world you propose Kat seems very sterile.
Well actually I doubt we’d want to remain in a biological form for too long – it’s too fragile, isn’t very flexible for alien environments, still subject to accidents, and limited in potential intelligence, etc. And I doubt we’d have much choice but to adapt to transhuman form as the singularity occurs, or we will more likely become extinct.I imagine you have thought about this carefully since you propose immortality of the flesh through biological means.
There ya go – if you have an unlimited lifespan then journeys to others stars of several thousand years or more won’t be too much of a problem.I assume you will deal with the resulting population issues that would occur as a result. I guess we could inhabit other planets ...
What power struggles? What natural causes?How would you deal with power struggles among a people that do not die of natural causes?
Who would want to fight in a war and risk losing their unlimited life – life would become extremely precious and wars would become a thing of the past.Would war take care of them?
Seems like a suitable punishment might be to condemn them to a mortal life like you have now, or perhaps cure them. Otherwise, no idea, and don’t really care, these are minority issues and I’ll let the moralists solve those problems.Would peadophiles. rapists and murders be permitted to live for ever or would you have them terminated?
Unlimited lifespans seem to be inevitable, and the singularity similarly inevitable. What will happen and how it will unravel is going to be very fascinating. One key aspect of the singularity is that it is impossible to predict the outcome. My only interest, which is the same as yours, is to survive.Please tell me about your world. The world that seems right to you.
Katazia said:C20,
Why sterile? The primary difference is that people do not die through aging and related diseases. The quality, value, and variations of life would be significantly increased and if anything would be the opposite of sterility.
Well actually I doubt we’d want to remain in a biological form for too long – it’s too fragile, isn’t very flexible for alien environments, still subject to accidents, and limited in potential intelligence, etc. And I doubt we’d have much choice but to adapt to transhuman form as the singularity occurs, or we will more likely become extinct.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
There ya go – if you have an unlimited lifespan then journeys to others stars of several thousand years or more won’t be too much of a problem.
What power struggles? What natural causes?
Who would want to fight in a war and risk losing their unlimited life – life would become extremely precious and wars would become a thing of the past.
Seems like a suitable punishment might be to condemn them to a mortal life like you have now, or perhaps cure them. Otherwise, no idea, and don’t really care, these are minority issues and I’ll let the moralists solve those problems.
Unlimited lifespans seem to be inevitable, and the singularity similarly inevitable. What will happen and how it will unravel is going to be very fascinating. One key aspect of the singularity is that it is impossible to predict the outcome. My only interest, which is the same as yours, is to survive.
If you want to understand some of the ideas that are expected then try these -
http://www.singularitywatch.com/
http://singularity.manilasites.com/
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
There is a great deal more on the web if you search.
Kat
Vernor Vinge Department of Mathematical Sciences San Diego State University said:Can the Singularity be Avoided?
Well, maybe it won't happen at all: Sometimes I try to imagine the symptoms that we should expect to see if the Singularity is not to develop. There are the widely respected arguments of Penrose [19] and Searle [22] against the practicality of machine sapience.
Unlimited lifespans seem to be inevitable, and the singularity similarly inevitable.
Enigma'07 said:It seems as through He created us with the lack of ability to even partially comprehend Him. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't He want us to understand Him somewhat?
Enigma'07 said:So then, in what ways can we understand Him?
Katazia said:Well actually I doubt we’d want to remain in a biological form for too long – it’s too fragile, isn’t very flexible for alien environments, still subject to accidents, and limited in potential intelligence, etc. And I doubt we’d have much choice but to adapt to transhuman form as the singularity occurs, or we will more likely become extinct.
Hathor said:KAT
LOL – I neither seek nor expect any apologies. Your offer seems very pompous and condescending – are you a Christian by any chance?
pardon. your attitude irks. and no, i am not christian
Don’t be silly, you are stretching your claim past breaking point now. Enthusiasm? Disdain and disgust seem more fitting.
regardless, both camps seem motivated by emotion. while it is understandable on one side, it is hardly befitting one that appears to side with scientific reason and objectivity
They are strong negative comments and opinions made about the post and not the poster specifically – do you see the difference?
i see it only in degree. posts reflect the thoughts of the poster. thoughts are representative of who the poster is. you have established a dichotomy between viewer and his viewpoints that is not viable.
I have no qualms about my disgust for religion and Christianity and their tactics, and I will voice my strong opinions whenever possible. If the protagonists cannot defend their claims then why should I show them sympathy?
again,, you refuse to acknowledge the "good works". innocuous proselytizing is hardly criminal considering that at one time, forced conversions were di rigeuer
Except for those who believe they have strong valid arguments. Why is that a bad thing? If I have dissuaded posters from posting more gibberish then I have succeeded.
ahh yes, this mission from.....!
But doesn’t that reflect society in general since this is an open forum with no artificial restrictions?
i said subforum. it is narrower and more restrictive in scope due to its focus.
At a simplistic level that appears to be true but I have found that over the longer term reality is different.
you miss the point. regardless of background, dogmatic attitudes in any form can be found in most. perhaps some examples
*Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one's research is "when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas." According to the New York Times (October 12, 1999, p. A29), these comments "drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium."
*Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson: "I … sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it down…. They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn't agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don't see it your way, or if they think it's something unusual, may turn it down." (Quoted from The Joys of Research, p. 130.)
*Everyone knows today that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago when a giant asteroid hit the Earth. Science did publish the article presenting this theory, but only after a fierce fight with the referees, as one of these referees later confessed. On the Nobel Prize web page one can read the autobiographies of recent laureates. Quite a few complain that they had great difficulty publishing the ideas that won them the Prize. One does not find similar statements by Nobel Prize winners earlier in the century. Why is there more resistance to new ideas today?
dogma
of course, you can make the assumption that the evildoers in the above mentioned cases were all closet christians. however what i feel at work here is a natural impulse to place irrational and arbitrary limits on one's (humans) potential. ie: man will never travel faster than 30mph...etc. thus i find a lack of imagination to be far more crippling to "future of mankind" than the retention of what is at present, a increasingly irrelevant religion. what i see in christians is lip service, hypocrisy and habit. this lack of commitment on their part hardly inspires me to embark on a jihad against them. they will self destruct or reform their religion to sync with other bodies of knowledge.
there are many fronts against the war on ignorance. some result in victory, others in a draw. even more in defeat. be efficent and effective in your choices
I was once a strong active Christian and I have been debating for many decades now. My doubts about my beliefs came through intense discussions and bible study – as I switched sides I found that my new perspective simply grew stronger and stronger, especially in the light of an utter and continuing absence of any scrap of evidence to support Christian claims.
hell hath no fury as a reformed christian.
I have tried every variation – I’d like to think that the carefully and logically reasoned friendly arguments are the best approach, but radical shock tactics stir the emotions much more and make people think even harder – that is good.
and you have evidence of this? nice tactics though. you shock and awe the fundies into submission. i however feel that real change comes from within. what you appear to settle for, is a lip service to your rhetoric and a whole lot of resentment. however kat, do what you must.
And then there is the truth – I do find puerile baseless Christian personal testimonies quite sickening, and that Christianity appeals more to the weak and dull minded,
sing it to me, sister kat
....and I have little doubt that Christianity is a deadly cancer that threatens the future of mankind.
.
repetition implies confidence. so does the unambiguous certainty of your statement. therefore, elaborate on the threats. conjecture will not suffice. neither will a crystal ball. show me patterns, logical progression and probabilities.
what i note is a lack of temporal perspective on your part
If Christians are offended by my comments then so be it, but what attempt do they make in restraining themselves so that I am not upset? Condescending politeness makes me vomit even more.
you require restraint on their part so your sensibilities are not offended? such arrogance! fortunately i am not the squeamish type that can be induced to vomit during a discourse. one can only wonder at your reaction if you were to come across some real sickos.
Enigma'07 said:I thought Jesus Christ was the Son?
Enigma'07 said:So, can you describe the three-in-one thing?
Through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Only through Him can we understand the Son, and only through the Son can we come to know the Father.
The Spirit that was poured out to me helps me understand Jesus. If the Spirit didnt help me none of it would make sense to tell you the truth. Even as I type here I learn by it.
Xev said:And if you send enough money to General Sbeki Sbeku from Nigeria, you will collect a tenth of the wealth of a Nigerian warlord whose widow cannot get his money out of the country...
Christianity - the ultimate pyramid scheme.
I daresay it doesn't make sense to one not suffering from your delusion!
Amusingly, you've managed to confuse the cause of your delusion (apprehending the holy ghost) with the consequence (apprehending the holy ghost)
Hilarious. You've managed to change one drug for another. While I've never shroomed, it's probably a healthier trip.
Can’t say I understood anything you said in those statements. I assume you are simply unaware of transhumanism, correct?chris reincarnated. sweet!
thought you werent religious, kat. i now have bloody red meat that has me licking my chops in rabid hunger.
will the crackpottery never end?