Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We cannot live for a 1,000. I think the max that a human body could last is around 300 years. The reason for this is the molecule that allows the chromosomes to split will only last that long. So after 300 years your body would fall apart.

Irrelevant, this thread is asking if you'd accept biomedical life-extension if the technology somehow became emergent and readily available to you. Which it won't because the shadow government will have access to it first, and probably already do, and don't care to share.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We cannot live for a 1,000. I think the max that a human body could last is around 300 years. The reason for this is the molecule that allows the chromosomes to split will only last that long. So after 300 years your body would fall apart.

What arguments do you have for the information presented by Mr. Video in my hyperlink?

Originally posted by Dolos
Irrelevant, this thread is asking if you'd accept medical life-extension.



What arguments do you have for the information presented by Mr. Video in my hyperlink?

I can't look at youtube. It is blocked on my computer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't look at youtube. It is blocked on my computer. There are a lot of technicalities.

But you do not need to know them for this thread.

Agelessness, no adverse side-effects, yes or no?

Originally posted by Dolos
There are a lot of technicalities.

But you do not need to know them for this thread.

Agelessness, no adverse side-effects, yes or no?

I think that after a few hundred years I would commit suicide. Things would have changed too much. Just in my life time, the world has changed so much that I have a hard time keeping up.

I think a world like you are describing would be much like the one in Gulliver's Travels where the people could not die. The older you got the more of an outcast you became.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that after a few hundred years I would commit suicide. Things would have changed too much. Just in my life time, the world has changed so much that I have a hard time keeping up.

I think a world like you are describing would be much like the one in Gulliver's Travels where the people could not die. The older you got the more of an outcast you became.

You don't think you have what it takes to adapt, ay?

Rightfully so, that's why it's up to us to take evolution out of the hands of natural selection and into our own hands.

Immortality is already a form of human-enhancement, "transhumanism". So why not opt for super-intelligence, why not make it a point to conquer your limitations, along with everything else? You'd only become an outcast if you accept that you do not have what it takes to be happy.

Why not just give up right now? Humans are not set in their ways, a normal healthy person is the result of DnA being changed the environment.

Each and every one of our talents and abilities and good looks or lack thereof are the result of what nature has given us, yes. But not necessarily all we have available to us from what we were born with. We are the result of a set of selected genes telling their minds how to think and behave, and telling their bodies how to grow and what to look like. Even for an average person with average genetics, those selected genes are the tip of the iceberg, just a few, most of a person's genes are dormant at any given point in time. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes that's a bad thing. There's a gene that is responsible for your body's homeostasis that could be keeping you over weight, might want to shut that off through better lifestyle choices.

It is through lifestyle we can access any of them, any hapless individual, even with some disabilities, is capable of unlocking more talent than anyone else in history.

Genetic modification is just a more advanced form of a progressive lifestyle. Through transhumanism people with down syndrome can change entirely, no more down syndrome, but more, they'll become super-human, as capable of accomplishing daunting tasks as the transhuman versions of you and me, but very different in the way any one else thinks all the same.

I would rather reincarnate. I get a fresh new body that has evolved over time while your body is the old model. :-)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would rather reincarnate. I get a fresh new body that has evolved over time while your body is the old model. :-) I think that it is erroneous to concur that my entire existence is the result of what either you or some ancient book says it is - I think it's up to the individual to define their existence and I don't think groups should dogmatically share in that definition.

Anyway, I won't have the old model, even now I'm being shaped by my environment and by the choices I make.

Originally posted by Dolos
I think that it is erroneous to concur that my entire existence is the result of what either you or some ancient book says it is - I think it's up to the individual to define their existence and I don't think groups should dogmatically share in that definition.

Anyway, I won't have the old model, even now I'm being shaped by my environment and by the choices I make.

Are you on drugs?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you on drugs? Because I don't believe in reincarnation.

I don't believe death is the end of things. I don't think the universe functions according to "laws" (I like Rupert Sheldrake's idea of "habits" or even that it is possible for us to understand it with any degree of certainty.


I wouldn't mind sticking around for as long as I want, provided I'm in good health (mentally, physically and emotionally), there's lots to see and do and it would help to acquire a greater appreciation of the universe.

But what if we exist in another state, post-death, like the Hindu idea of cycles of existence between man and gods/demons etc... or some such?

Originally posted by Dolos
Because I don't believe in reincarnation.

Like I give a shit what you believe. I said "I" would rather... I'm not telling you what to do.

Originally posted by janus77
But what if we exist in another state, post-death, like the Hindu idea of cycles of existence between man and gods/demons etc... or some such?
I don't worry about whether or not a religion like Christianity is actually fact, I can't help but feel like that statement is silly and ridiculous. Moreover, "fearing God" is unnecessary and unscientific and religious dogma can have negative affects. Religious stories contain morals and insights, and it always helps to learn, but I read everything, not just religion, I find actual history far more insightful.

Only 1000? It'd be great and all, but I want the comfort and security that only eternal youth can bring.

Originally posted by Dolos
I don't worry about whether or not a religion like Christianity is actually fact, I can't help but feel like that statement is silly and ridiculous. Moreover, "fearing God" is unnecessary and unscientific and religious dogma can have negative affects. Religious stories contain morals and insights, and it always helps to learn, but I read everything, not just religion, I find actual history far more insightful.
I'm sorry but you've completely failed to comprehend the meaning of what I wrote.

He does that.

I think he has a cross up his butt.

Originally posted by janus77
I'm sorry but you've completely failed to comprehend the meaning of what I wrote. I did not fail to comprehend your belief in life after death, I simply refuse to indulge such thoughts because I understand them as purely products of the imagination, wandering too far out of the here and now can be time consuming, and a wasteful use of the mind.

Regarding Shakyamunison's crass statement, I am actually very glad that I am free to expressively disassociate from any religious institution, so that I can be free from the distraction, so that some slickly suggested fear of being a slave to my devices does not divert my attention or thwart my otherwise productive pursuits.

I knew it! Don't worry, you will get over it.

Get over what?

I'll certainly feel grounded in my decision to become a transhuman; despite religious claims that the world will end, or that it's against God's will. I'm not afraid to live, I simply choose to look at our existence as something for us to shape, something that we have always played a small part in shaping by working with what is under our control, not that we're being shaped by a primal super-intelligence of any kind what-so-ever.

Aging is part of what it means to be human... take that away, and you take away the very experiences that give meaning to humanity.
So, no.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Aging is part of what it means to be human... take that away, and you take away the very experiences that give meaning to humanity.
So, no. Your sentence is flawed and you should feel bad. If aging is a part of being human, then if you take it away you're only taking away a part of the experience. Not the whole "very" experiences itself. Silly human, you write funny.



Srsly, I'd argue the opposite. Aging is part of what it means to be a lifeform, nothing more. Conquering the aging process--on purpose and perhaps permanently, please--is closer to the "human experience". It's a direct, meaningful act on the part of earth's one and only thinking, understanding species who can comprehend death and mortality. I can think of few other expressions of sapience and humanity than the eternal fight to conquer old age, because we're the only ones here who really know what it is.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Aging is part of what it means to be human... take that away, and you take away the very experiences that give meaning to humanity.
So, no. I'm with you!

Lucien made a good point; trying to escape death is very human.

It's a selfish part of being human, sure. But if you respect the whole "Circle of Life" theory, the wheel that turns and returns, then you have to realize that death is as much a part of being a human being than birth is.
IMO, you shouldn't think of that as control, it should be thought of as... taking your place in the grand tradition of Nature.
Of course humans will always struggle to have longevity - I, myself, would have died at age 13 if it weren't for life-saving medicine and top-of-the-line medical advancements.
But avoiding death altogether is just not Natural, and so I don't believe in it.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
It's a selfish part of being human, sure. But if you respect the whole "Circle of Life" theory, the wheel that turns and returns, then you have to realize that death is as much a part of being a human being than birth is.
IMO, you shouldn't think of that as control, it should be thought of as... taking your place in the grand tradition of Nature.

I always thought of birth as a 10 pound creature of intricately intertwined young cells - that have the potential to grow into anything through interacting with its environment and by its own intrinsic motivations - being viscerally shot out of an organic body.

I always thought of death by aging as just that, cells deteriorating and ruining that life-form over time, until it cannot fend for itself and is eliminated, no longer able to experience. Death by fire, bullets, explosions, swords, drug overdose, are to me merely the quickening of that same process. It's all very real to me, not metaphorical, and definitely not comforting.

Is struggling for longevity - when do you draw the line between defying nature and just trying to live a long life? 100 years? 120?

Death is the absence of experience, all the possibilities are stripped away from you.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
It's a selfish part of being human, sure. But if you respect the whole "Circle of Life" theory, the wheel that turns and returns, then you have to realize that death is as much a part of being a human being than birth is.
IMO, you shouldn't think of that as control, it should be thought of as... taking your place in the grand tradition of Nature.
Of course humans will always struggle to have longevity - I, myself, would have died at age 13 if it weren't for life-saving medicine and top-of-the-line medical advancements.
But avoiding death altogether is just not Natural, and so I don't believe in it.

It's selfish to want to survive? What kind of madness is this? So you don't have survival instincts? You don't look forward to the future and all the good thingd you can experience or do? Do you not find the wisdom which comes with longevity a virtue?

Or do you think running in front of mack trucks is for a higher purpose? Really, this argument makes no sense, even from a neutral point of view.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
It's a selfish part of being human, sure. But if you respect the whole "Circle of Life" theory, the wheel that turns and returns, then you have to realize that death is as much a part of being a human being than birth is.
IMO, you shouldn't think of that as control, it should be thought of as... taking your place in the grand tradition of Nature.
Of course humans will always struggle to have longevity - I, myself, would have died at age 13 if it weren't for life-saving medicine and top-of-the-line medical advancements.
But avoiding death altogether is just not Natural, and so I don't believe in it. Not to be all smartass or anything, but plastic and steel aren't Natural either, but you're still using them to read these words.


No other creature here can grasp what life and death really are like we can, nor can they understand the impacts that an interrupted cycle can bring. No other creature has the option of "taking their place". For us it is an option. Given a very small amount of relative time we're the only ones capable of defeating the birth-life-death cycle. In each way we may (likely will) have the power and ability to stop being "born" the natural way, stop "living" the biological way, and stop "dieing" both physically and mentally.


We didn't steal or even truly create this power, it's something the "natural" universe already possesses, and we, as creatures of the very same universe have understood how to harness. We're breaking no laws, defying no code, uttering no taboo--other than our own self-imposed ones that we impose for strictly self-imposed purposes. And we only impose them because as humans, we're the only ones who think there's any value in their use.

The Circle of Life thing is self-regulating through an intricate manner of just the right amount of killing--something we are retardedly good at. We achieve true immortality, and we achieve the possibility to remove ourselves from Earth's Circle of Life. No longer a menace or threat to such a fragile, closed system. Literally transcending and sparing an entire planet's biosphere through choice. How is that not the ultimate expression of what some of you would call "the best" in humanity?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
the future and all the good thingd you can experience or do? I think that's an important thing to think about.

We should all start thinking about possibilities. Humans have what's known as multiple intelligence, each person's brains automatically develops a unique aggregate intellect composed of many pocket intelligences - and the combinations of intelligence type skills we have are one of endless assortment of what can truly be developed. Everyone is well within their own limits, and time, initiation, persistence and intensity allow us to mold ourselves to our liking. The longer you have to improve and grow into your skin, the more well-adjusted you become to life.

There is always going to be more to adjust to, death is an absence of that, your ability to experience something you've never experienced, to unlock something within you you've never known was there, is gone.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your sentence is flawed and you should feel bad. If aging is a part of being human, then if you take it away you're only taking away a part of the experience. Not the whole "very" experiences itself. Silly human, you write funny.



Srsly, I'd argue the opposite. Aging is part of what it means to be a lifeform, nothing more. Conquering the aging process--on purpose and perhaps permanently, please--is closer to the "human experience". It's a direct, meaningful act on the part of earth's one and only thinking, understanding species who can comprehend death and mortality. I can think of few other expressions of sapience and humanity than the eternal fight to conquer old age, because we're the only ones here who really know what it is.

IMO, aging provides wisdom, a better understanding of one's self, a better understanding of one's position in the grand scheme of things, plus an essential view of a person's past mistakes that can help that person learn and improve. It's why a parent tries to tell their children that doing "suchandsuch" is a mistake - because the parent knows from experience. [Although I admit that I'm the first person to say, "I can't know the consequence if I don't make the mistake for myself!" to anyone who tries that with me.

I don't mean to be so serious about this... obviously different people have different views, and I don't want to push mine. My purpose is more to inform than it is to persuade.

Sirius not.... serious? What is this heresy?

Without death, there is no road to awe.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
IMO, aging provides wisdom, a better understanding of one's self, a better understanding of one's position in the grand scheme of things, plus an essential view of a person's past mistakes that can help that person learn and improve. It's why a parent tries to tell their children that doing "suchandsuch" is a mistake - because the parent knows from experience. Experience doesn't really come with 'aging'--you know, senescence--it comes from... experience. Aging will give you experience in biological degradation and eventually death (if you can call personality obliteration 'experience'), but in terms of wisdom, that just means time. Knowledge + intelligence x experience = wisdom. You don't need to be a certain age, or in a certain state of "being old" in order to be wise. There are plenty of people who reached old age but never accrued wisdom or even much knowledge.


If wisdom is what you value, then more experience--i.e. longer life--is something you should view as an extraordinary tool. The ironic part is that, absent any damage or neurological disease, the brain becomes more capable and more efficient the older it gets. Having a brain stuck permanently at 25 would deprive someone of the plasticity inherent in the aging process. If we can somehow ensure the brain retains that trait while purging it of all the downsides of biological aging... f*cking A.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Sirius not.... serious? What is this heresy?

It's a life-long devotion to Harry Potter.

Without bad, there is no good. There's no such thing as a painless existence, whether you're 25 or 75. I'm not saying it's bad to want to live longer, I'm not saying it's bad to want to live forever - or work toward that goal.
All I'm saying is that if there was an option to be young "forever," or make it so that life has no death, I would not take that option.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If wisdom is what you value, then more experience--i.e. longer life--is something you should view as an extraordinary tool. The ironic part is that, absent any damage or neurological disease, the brain becomes more capable and more efficient the older it gets. Having a brain stuck permanently at 25 would deprive someone of the plasticity inherent in the aging process. If we can somehow ensure the brain retains that trait while purging it of all the downsides of biological aging... f*cking A.

You get it, you really get it!

bye

Big down side: The retirement age would be changed to 900 years. That is a lot of years of hard work for little pay.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Big down side: The retirement age would be changed to 900 years. That is a lot of years of hard work for little pay.

I can make a lot of money by virtue of being unbeatable in chess. I go from a dependent to a millionaire in one year of pro. Chess.

Millionaires don't have to work - if education continues to improve, it might be difficult to motivate anyone to do conventional work as they have been able to cheaply earn doctorates and worked high, high paying jobs for only a few years and earned millions: and as technology becomes increasingly advanced non-high education jobs might be eliminated altogether.

People will only need to work extremely scientific and education-related jobs for a decade before they've earned enough to just take breaks; there won't be businesses, corporations or politicians or people in government either, but rather scientists and computers accounting for resources and maintaining steady production on their own -- one generation only works for a decade before the next one works theirs, each successful generation has earned enough in that decade to get their pension.

All urbanized systems will contain the most efficient building blocks, every single manufactured product will be able to retrofit to another. Customized houses designed from a similar template will literally slide across an urbanized expanse into place out of an assembly line.

A good adaptation of this was the technology of Krypton in the New Man of Steel film. Indeed digitized versions of one's consciousness will be uploadable if nanites, introduced into the system via pills, can gradually fill in the space of, and operate as, all the neurons within the nervous system and brain.

Nanites will also have the capacity to rearrange matter by operating on the molecules, allowing for spontaneous generation/materialization of, for instance, a toy or a perfectly edible granola bar.

@Dolos

The expression pipe dream comes to mind. The truth is that a few people will take advantage of this to enslave the rest. Sounds like hell to me.

It would be more difficult to control a more sophisticated system, not easier.

As far as using the technology enslave the mind, they already are. That's why they're trying to keep the social hierarchy, that's why their banning scientific research through the government, slashing R&D funding through the oil companies, and that is why they, in fact, do not want a techno-utopian techo-progressive society.

All though your waking rational side couldn't be brainwashed without obvious and directly terminal implications, your subconscious, animal side, can be altered directly through its neural neural network as electrical signals within nanites generate stimuli to certain areas of the brain, changing it to match the projected opinions one's remote viewer, a "brain operative" of the shadow government.

If a person that you need to help you doesn't like you, there is a good chance that it's because a brain operative is acting under the order to sabotage your efforts to achieve a goal that might be conflicting to the shadow government's interests. That's why we must value our logical, rational thoughts more than our inward feelings and intuition.

Because personality is the product of intrinsic motivations redirected from their original purpose to adapt to its environment, our rational thoughts can become our inward desires, through harnessing emotions, for better regulation and control when its in our best interest to befriend someone that we're repelled by (because someone else is in us, making us repelled).

Originally posted by Dolos
All though your waking rational side couldn't be brainwashed without obvious and directly terminal implications, your subconscious, animal side, can be altered directly through its neural neural network as electrical signals within nanites generate stimuli to certain areas of the brain, changing it to match the projected opinions one's remote viewer, a "brain operative" of the shadow government.

If a person that you need to help you doesn't like you, there is a good chance that it's because a brain operative is acting under the order to sabotage your efforts to achieve a goal that might be conflicting to the shadow government's interests. That's why we must value our logical, rational thoughts more than our inward feelings and intuition. This. This part right here... this is...



My god you're just adorable.

Originally posted by Dolos
It would be more difficult to control a more sophisticated system, not easier.

As far as using the technology enslave the mind, they already are. That's why they're trying to keep the social hierarchy, that's why their banning scientific research through the government, slashing R&D funding through the oil companies, and that is why they, in fact, do not want a techno-utopian techo-progressive society.

All though your waking rational side couldn't be brainwashed without obvious and directly terminal implications, your subconscious, animal side, can be altered directly through its neural neural network as electrical signals within nanites generate stimuli to certain areas of the brain, changing it to match the projected opinions one's remote viewer, a "brain operative" of the shadow government.

If a person that you need to help you doesn't like you, there is a good chance that it's because a brain operative is acting under the order to sabotage your efforts to achieve a goal that might be conflicting to the shadow government's interests. That's why we must value our logical, rational thoughts more than our inward feelings and intuition.

Because personality is the product of intrinsic motivations redirected from their original purpose to adapt to its environment, our rational thoughts can become our inward desires, through harnessing emotions, for better regulation and control when its in our best interest to befriend someone that we're repelled by (because someone else is in us, making us repelled).

BINGO! I win buzzword Bingo!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This. This part right here... this is...



My god you're just adorable. Dreams are very easily influenced, because you aren't getting as much sensory input. But if you have breathed nanites that have found there way into all of your neural structures, they can disrupt what sensory input you get. When you're awake this is like static.

But when your asleep, your see and hear what a brain operative wants you to see and hear as their thoughts change the program that gives your sleeping mind icons and auditory messages to interpret.

But when you are awake and see someone, and a brain operative wants you to avoid or become hostile to that person, he'll have the system command select nanites to introduce impulses into certain structures so as to produce cortisol.

When you've communicated with this individual enough times, you shall associate that person with stress.

This is happening right now, and these people want more people like Shakya, who will be content with their programmed lives, and in the process allow the shadow government to gain more and more control in preventing a techno-utopia from emerging, making life worse for everyone.

Dolos, please take your conspiracy threads to the conspiracy forum. This thread has nothing to do with Philosophy. All you are now doing to trying to turn it into a spiteful thread for personal attacks.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BINGO! I win buzzword Bingo!

So why not stop them from stopping the world from becoming a better place?

By demanding the "medicine" to make someone young again, the scientific know-how and resources in which they no doubt keep to themselves, that is exactly what you're doing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Dolos, please take your conspiracy threads to the conspiracy forum. This thread has nothing to do with Philosophy.

3===>Whooo hooo.



It is not my fault if you mistake the philosophical scrutiny I displayed in questioning your entire life's belief-system as character assassination.

Dolos

My pointing out the fact that your posts are filled with buzzwords strung together has nothing to do with making the world a better place. You are not making the world a better place my posting in this forum, and if you think you are, then you are delusional.

Oh, I thought you were calling bingo! to successfully guessing the negative implications of this technology.

Originally posted by Dolos
Oh, I thought you were calling bingo! to successfully guessing the negative implications of this technology.

No. There is no real technology in this thread. Not to say that there isn't real science in this field, but scientists are talking about extending like by years not centuries. There are huge obstacles, and most scientists believe there is a limit to length of life.

Also, it is unethical. The world is already over populated. If everyone lived to 1000 years old, the world will become so overpopulated, that the human race will become extinct.

We should all grow old and die leaving room for the next generation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We should all grow old and die leaving room for the next generation. Except advances in technology can overcome overpopulation as well. Such as those cities, they can cover far larger surface area, are far more resilient to weather (weather which HAARP can manipulate via supercells), nano-assembly can make resources infinite, zero-point energy, geothermal self-sustained fusion, nano-solar panels can all make energy infinite, carbon-nanotubes can allow space elevators so we can launch faster rockets from space, helping us create stations on the moon or mars in which we could expand. Further in the future nuclear pulse propulsion, solar sails, and perhaps space-folding super-particle (dark energy) drives can allow us to go faster than light. We could terraform, colonize, and expand across space.

The idea here is that the natural order of things are limited only to man's ingenuity, and to our courageous explorations into the unknown, conquering stagnation and death.

You say let us die and let the next generation continue on, yet human society is not a constant like the rest of eco-system, we are different. Why would a God want us to be like our animal predecessors?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. There is no real technology in this thread. Not to say that there isn't real science in this field, but scientists are talking about extending like by years not centuries. There are huge obstacles, and most scientists believe there is a limit to length of life.

Also, it is unethical. The world is already over populated. If everyone lived to 1000 years old, the world will become so overpopulated, that the human race will become extinct.

We should all grow old and die leaving room for the next generation.

A viable alternative would be to reduce the birth rate to counter balance the longevity. But then again, as it is I think birth rates ought to be controlled worldwide, since we're stretching thin resources at an alarming rate.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
A viable alternative would be to reduce the birth rate to counter balance the longevity. But then again, as it is I think birth rates ought to be controlled worldwide, since we're stretching thin resources at an alarming rate.

The only good reason for something like living for 1000 years is interstellar travel.

I like how you didn't even consider my doer comment to reply to a can't-do comment.

Again, I feel very confident in my abilities to single-handily create a technocracy - but here I'm just venting to intensify my resolve in doing so. I don't expect people who're so simple-minded to want to be set free from a prison they won't acknowledge by writing walls of text.

It is my actions that will set you free.

Originally posted by Dolos
I like how you didn't even consider my doer comment to reply to a can't-do comment.

Again, I feel very confident in my abilities to single-handily create a technocracy - but here I'm just venting to intensify my resolve in doing so. I don't expect people who're so simple-minded to want to be set free from a prison they won't acknowledge by writing walls of text.

It is my actions that will set you free.

I'm sorry, but I get about half way through your posts and then I zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Perhaps when you become aware of me through my accomplishments, you'll be more motivated by my views.

Originally posted by Dolos
Perhaps when you become aware of me through my accomplishments, you'll be more motivated by my views.

Really, have you made any accomplishments yet?

What do you do for a living?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The only good reason for something like living for 1000 years is interstellar travel. Oh f*ck yes. Bussard's Ramjet could be within grasp.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, but I get about half way through your posts and then I zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I'm so happy that it's not just me doing that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, but I get about half way through your posts and then I zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's okay, Shaky, I don't even get that far through...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really, have you made any accomplishments yet?

What do you do for a living? I'm planning on beating Magnus Carlsen for the 150 mill reward. If I stay world champ for 10 years, by 35 I will be a billionaire who'll fund the Venus Project, and try and get techno-progressives and transhumanists involved with the thing. I will try to check mate capitalism, communism, and government in general in favor of something different.

Is a long lifespan against Buddhism? You're acting like using technology to evolve into a substrate independent being made of nanites, would be against Buddhism, when in fact Buddhist philosopher have said absolutely nothing about the technological singularity. I'm willing to bet most people, including Buddhists and practitioners of other religions, neither know nor care about the technological singularity. Agelessness, and nigh indestructibility does not necessitate infallibility. This is a Type I civilization (See, Kardashev Scale), that can be destroyed. And even if it couldn't, as Type II's are completely immortal, they can even prevent their system's star from going supernova, reincarnation is an abstraction written by man and - as any theism - understood as unquestionable fact. Bhuddists, Christians, theists, atheists, scientists; know very little about the secrets of the cosmos.

The difference is that I for one, am willing to take the plunge - to transform, free of religion.

Originally posted by Dolos
I'm planning on beating Magnus Carlsen for the 150 mill reward. If I stay world champ for 10 years, by 35 I will be a billionaire who'll fund the Venus Project, and try and get techno-progressives and transhumanists involved with the thing. I will try to check mate capitalism, communism, and government in general in favor of something different.

Is a long lifespan against Buddhism? You're acting like using technology to evolve into a substrate independent being made of nanites, would be against Buddhism, when in fact Buddhist philosopher have said absolutely nothing about the technological singularity. I'm willing to bet most people, including Buddhists and practitioners of other religions, neither know nor care about the technological singularity. Agelessness, and nigh indestructibility does not necessitate infallibility. This is a Type I civilization (See, Kardashev Scale), that can be destroyed. And even if it couldn't, as Type II's are completely immortal, they can even prevent their system's star from going supernova, reincarnation is an abstraction written by man and - as any theism - understood as unquestionable fact. Bhuddists, Christians, theists, atheists, scientists; know very little about the secrets of the cosmos.

The difference is that I for one, am willing to take the plunge - to transform, free of religion.

You will not be free of religion. You just showed me your religion. Sorry, but I am a Buddha, not a robot. I inhabit a flesh machine made by nature. You will never be able to top that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will not be free of religion. You just showed me your religion. Sorry, but I am a Buddha, not a robot. I inhabit a flesh machine made by nature. You will never be able to top that. Transhuman>human.

What's so good about being human anyway? I'm sure a neanderthal thought he was superior to the homo-sapiens that killed his kind off.

Humans are an affront to nature - we unbalance the eco system. Before us no single mammalian species was able to multiply to the billions and alter the eco-system; our technology seems to be transcendental, and you know for a fact that it's not going to be? We've outsourced our knowledge into it, its a apart of our flesh and blood now, as unnatural as us.

If you know humans are the end of the line, or that you can't change into something that transcends the definition of human (apart from death and rebirth), than you're very narrow minded.

As I said, the human species, and all the philosophers and scientists within it, live very short lives, their understanding has been limited to their life-span (which is why science helps us understand so much more, a collaborative enterprise spanning the generations down the line). So if there are more free-thinking minds, that have longer to develop in an exponential cycle - we will understand so much more about what is "natural" by not giving up and dying because it's "natural".

I get certain rush thinking about evolving, my mind becoming better and better, my abilities, my skills, my knowledge, better and better for thousands of years. Can you imagine the product? My body, my mind, my very dna will be totally different, I would be an entirely different person.

That's if I don't switch substrates with an in vivo neuron--->nanite transformation. Probably in pill form.

In the late 20th century this mad scientist mumbo jumbo has put the fear of God into any aspiring transhumanist. But that is all the New Order's public reputation - not at all what it is hyped up to be.

A religious group operates a lot like the New Order, preaching the word, handing out Bibles and Bhagavad Ghitas, trying to sale what they preach and hope for buyers to read it over and maybe initiate themselves and affiliate with this cult. It is all very nonsensical to me, what I preach is understood as crazy sci fi mumbo jumbo, and all the better for it.

A leader inspires through actions, not through words or doctrines or philosophies, but through results. In every religion a Savior or a Prophet performs miracles - yet we've never seen the actual miracles.

For me, I wouldn't want to inspire through supernatural miracles, but through abilities that can be understood and quantified - yet are miraculous in their own right, tasks that defy the odds. Magnus Carlsen is one such person.

@ Dolos

You have Anakin Skywalker as your avatar, and you don't get the lesson of Darth Vader.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@ Dolos

You have Anakin Skywalker as your avatar, and you don't get the lesson of Darth Vader. Star Wars is fictitious.

Homer wrote a similar character to Vader in his Iliad.

A man named Achilles - who would inspire Alexander the Great - who would inspire Augustus Caesar who would rule as the first Roman Emperor - who, incidentally, would inspire me.

In this way, am not inspired by the failures of the Achilles archetypes, like Vader, but by this notion to be exclusively great enough to conquer the evils that beset man.

Originally posted by Dolos
Star Wars is fictitious.

Homer wrote a similar character to Vader in his Iliad.

A man named Achilles - who would inspire Alexander the Great - who would inspire Augustus Caesar who would rule as the first Roman Emperor - who, incidentally, would inspire me.

I am not inspired by Achilles' failure, but by his plan to succeed.

Homer is fiction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Homer is fiction. No, he was a real author, who wrote the Iliad based on a long-forgotten war that actually didn't take place anywhere near Troja. The war was not fought over a woman, it was fought over tin. Many people speculate that Troy was, in fact, Atlantis.

Alexander the Great and Octavius Caesar were entirely real. Alexander is my greatest inspiration. And while he purportedly died short of his goal, he paved the way for Rome - a nation that shaped the modern world.

Originally posted by Dolos
No, he was a real author, who wrote the Iliad based on a long-forgotten war that actually didn't take place anywhere near Troja. The war was not fought over a woman, it was fought over tin. Many people speculate that Troy was, in fact, Atlantis.

Alexander the Great and Octavius Caesar were entirely real. Alexander is my greatest inspiration. And while he purportedly died short of his goal, he paved the way for Rome - a nation that shaped the modern world.

I was just kidding with you.

You know Homer Simpson?

No?

Originally posted by Dolos
No?
Well, you misted a good joke (I hope ).

D'oh?

If I could be 25 for a 1,000 years I'd do a lot... seriously. I'd learn to whistle really good, and run really fast, and play the kazoo, and I'd also learn to make one kickass cup of joe...

Oh the things I would do...

So many...

Pointless....

Hilarious...

Things.

I don't agree that aging is a disease.
I liked being young but I like being older better.
I'd stay the age I am today though.