The Calming Effect of Evoltion and Immortality

[Tom Sawyer]

We mostly have the same neurons for life. Although other cells die and are replaced (subject to Hayflick limit division) many neurons are not replaced when they die.

Not replaced but they are maintained for a lifetime. I've heard the claim that our entire organism is replaced at least annually. And that's rather astounding considering that "we" are only 10% of what we call "we" if we count DNA and cell population. We're 90% other organism by that measure.

But I am not biologist so I don't know if our neurons are more like car engines. They require fuel and maintenance but they don't divide/rebuild themselves.

The molecules which make up those neurons come and go on a regular basis. The patterns that the molecules are set in remains relatively the same.

 

[bilby]

Not replaced but they are maintained for a lifetime. I've heard the claim that our entire organism is replaced at least annually. And that's rather astounding considering that "we" are only 10% of what we call "we" if we count DNA and cell population. We're 90% other organism by that measure.

But I am not biologist so I don't know if our neurons are more like car engines. They require fuel and maintenance but they don't divide/rebuild themselves.

The molecules which make up those neurons come and go on a regular basis. The patterns that the molecules are set in remains relatively the same.

And it is the pattern, not the molecules or atoms, that are the person.

I am not sure that it is even sensible to discuss whether one hydrogen atom is 'the same' as another; If you swap two hydrogen atoms, all else being equal, then the system is identical to how it would be if you didn't; and due to quantum uncertainty, two hydrogens that are close to each other may have a significant overlap in their probable positions.

As anyone whose old broom has had three new heads and two new handles can tell you, the identity of a whole is more complex than the sum of the identities of its parts. That is even more true of dynamic systems. An ocean wave is clearly an entitiy in its own right; one can surf it for hundreds of metres, and any surfer will tell you he has stayed on the same wave all that time; You can even track it across thousands of km of open ocean. But the water molecules in the wave don't move much at all - the ones that started out 100 metres from the beach mostly stay about 100 metres from the beach, and the ones that are part of the wave as it breaks on the shore mostly stay within a few metres of the shore.

Life is both dynamic and (to some degree) self-repairing. A broom that replaces its own worn out handles, if you like. This is only surprising to humans because we live at a scale where identity is ubiquitous - Even two pool balls are never identical, as the pattern of scratches on their surfaces are unique. We are simply not equipped by our experience to truly grasp that identity of particles is ultimately meaningless - that you can't put a chalk mark on a proton, feed it into a living cell, and come back later to see where that particular proton ended up. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as 'that' proton. There are just protons.

 

[Kharakov]

The molecules which make up those neurons come and go on a regular basis. The patterns that the molecules are set in remains relatively the same.

Space was kneaded by the mad hatter. Those that flee you are no longer going too far down that road that they never know you again.. you're no Jack Kennedy when you eat a potato. They go in and out, sometimes angrily, sometimes cornily, almost always stinky on the way out. Barefoot servants too... who you think is in you Willis? A mindless automaton?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The molecules which make up those neurons come and go on a regular basis. The patterns that the molecules are set in remains relatively the same.

And it is the pattern, not the molecules or atoms, that are the person.

I am not sure that it is even sensible to discuss whether one hydrogen atom is 'the same' as another; If you swap two hydrogen atoms, all else being equal, then the system is identical to how it would be if you didn't; and due to quantum uncertainty, two hydrogens that are close to each other may have a significant overlap in their probable positions.

As anyone whose old broom has had three new heads and two new handles can tell you, the identity of a whole is more complex than the sum of the identities of its parts. That is even more true of dynamic systems. An ocean wave is clearly an entitiy in its own right; one can surf it for hundreds of metres, and any surfer will tell you he has stayed on the same wave all that time; You can even track it across thousands of km of open ocean. But the water molecules in the wave don't move much at all - the ones that started out 100 metres from the beach mostly stay about 100 metres from the beach, and the ones that are part of the wave as it breaks on the shore mostly stay within a few metres of the shore.

Life is both dynamic and (to some degree) self-repairing. A broom that replaces its own worn out handles, if you like. This is only surprising to humans because we live at a scale where identity is ubiquitous - Even two pool balls are never identical, as the pattern of scratches on their surfaces are unique. We are simply not equipped by our experience to truly grasp that identity of particles is ultimately meaningless - that you can't put a chalk mark on a proton, feed it into a living cell, and come back later to see where that particular proton ended up. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as 'that' proton. There are just protons.

Sameness is a myth, another pattern we invent that isn't there. That's my take. I don't think any two elementary particles or quanta are identical. As you say, they're all close enough so they interchange.

 

[DBT]

As most of the regulars on here know, I have been pro life (in the general sense of the phrase) and very much anti death to the point where I would be happy to be immortal (with the option to die) even if that means everyone alive today would be immortal too.

What if immortality became a reality but the treatment was so expensive that only the super rich could afford it? Perhaps also granted to those who are deemed to be of great value to humanity, genius, etc, but the vast majority being excluded?*

So how would you feel? What would you do?


* the theme for several sci fi novels that I've read.

 

[bilby]

And it is the pattern, not the molecules or atoms, that are the person.

I am not sure that it is even sensible to discuss whether one hydrogen atom is 'the same' as another; If you swap two hydrogen atoms, all else being equal, then the system is identical to how it would be if you didn't; and due to quantum uncertainty, two hydrogens that are close to each other may have a significant overlap in their probable positions.

As anyone whose old broom has had three new heads and two new handles can tell you, the identity of a whole is more complex than the sum of the identities of its parts. That is even more true of dynamic systems. An ocean wave is clearly an entitiy in its own right; one can surf it for hundreds of metres, and any surfer will tell you he has stayed on the same wave all that time; You can even track it across thousands of km of open ocean. But the water molecules in the wave don't move much at all - the ones that started out 100 metres from the beach mostly stay about 100 metres from the beach, and the ones that are part of the wave as it breaks on the shore mostly stay within a few metres of the shore.

Life is both dynamic and (to some degree) self-repairing. A broom that replaces its own worn out handles, if you like. This is only surprising to humans because we live at a scale where identity is ubiquitous - Even two pool balls are never identical, as the pattern of scratches on their surfaces are unique. We are simply not equipped by our experience to truly grasp that identity of particles is ultimately meaningless - that you can't put a chalk mark on a proton, feed it into a living cell, and come back later to see where that particular proton ended up. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as 'that' proton. There are just protons.

Sameness is a myth, another pattern we invent that isn't there. That's my take. I don't think any two elementary particles or quanta are identical. As you say, they're all close enough so they interchange.

I disagree completely. Sameness is a myth at our scale; but so is tunnelling through physical barriers.

At the atomic scale, all particles of a given type are the same, to the point where it doesn't even make sense to track them. When two electrons interact, you cannot say which is which afterwards. It's not even a legitimate question. Two electrons enter, two leave. If you pick one of the resulting electrons, then that could be one, both, or neither of the electrons you started with. All paths are real. All possibilities are followed. All electrons are interchangeable.

 

[Malintent]

Yes. your sentiment seemed to indicate that you equate the openness for discovery and integration of new information with an inability to judge the merits of one claim over another.

So do you know what theories are correct and what conflicting theories aren't? And regarding mysteries that have not even been observed yet, do you also know what theories are correct before they are even made?

Maybe you should think harder about what I wrote.

"Science". You are doing it wrong. the phrase "conflicting theories" is an oxymoron. one set of conflicting facts eliminates the conflicting aspect of a theory. It's called "learning". Theists are able to hold conflicting ideas as true, despite the conflict, through the human brain's powers of what is called "compartmentalization". Science does not allow such elasticity in judgment of 'truth'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sameness is a myth, another pattern we invent that isn't there. That's my take. I don't think any two elementary particles or quanta are identical. As you say, they're all close enough so they interchange.

I disagree completely. Sameness is a myth at our scale; but so is tunnelling through physical barriers.

At the atomic scale, all particles of a given type are the same, to the point where it doesn't even make sense to track them. When two electrons interact, you cannot say which is which afterwards. It's not even a legitimate question. Two electrons enter, two leave. If you pick one of the resulting electrons, then that could be one, both, or neither of the electrons you started with. All paths are real. All possibilities are followed. All electrons are interchangeable.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. I take it as axiom that no two things can be identical. Where are the mathematicians?

 

[fromderinside]

What about attributes of things? Same weight, size, shape, texture, birthday, etc. Who is to say that if all these can be the same that things can also be the same?

Seriously. Consider that the ability for the nervous system to group is a key fitness factor.

 

[ryan]

As most of the regulars on here know, I have been pro life (in the general sense of the phrase) and very much anti death to the point where I would be happy to be immortal (with the option to die) even if that means everyone alive today would be immortal too.

What if immortality became a reality but the treatment was so expensive that only the super rich could afford it? Perhaps also granted to those who are deemed to be of great value to humanity, genius, etc, but the vast majority being excluded?*

So how would you feel? What would you do?

I would be happy because I would be selected

The Western World is essentially set up this way. Products are tested on the rich, and depending on how well the product does, as the rich buy them, confidence is built for mass production. It's happening right now with people such as U.S. President Carter and hockey player Gordie Howe. It seems as though their money is keeping them alive.

* the theme for several sci fi novels that I've read.

I don't like sci-fi novels, but I did watch a bone-chilling but interesting take on an unfair future with immortality only afforded by the rich. It's called Time.

 

[DBT]

What if immortality became a reality but the treatment was so expensive that only the super rich could afford it? Perhaps also granted to those who are deemed to be of great value to humanity, genius, etc, but the vast majority being excluded?*

So how would you feel? What would you do?

I would be happy because I would be selected

What if you weren't selected and the price of the treatment was not expected to drop significantly during your lifetime? I can't imagine that being a relaxing situation to be in.

 

[ryan]

I would be happy because I would be selected

What if you weren't selected and the price of the treatment was not expected to drop significantly during your lifetime? I can't imagine that being a relaxing situation to be in.

I was just joking.

Your issue doesn't make sense to me. If the "Holy Grail" is out of my reach when my time is up, then I lose plain and simple, and believe me, I won't take losing myself, friends and family into the infinite abyss lightly. I still have a chance to win, and all I can do is play the best game I see possible - that's it, and I will not leave anything on the table.

Taking responsibility for my reality is a bitch sometimes, but the great thing about believing in free will is that I will know that if free will exists, I made the best use of it that I can imagine.

 

[DBT]

What if you weren't selected and the price of the treatment was not expected to drop significantly during your lifetime? I can't imagine that being a relaxing situation to be in.

I was just joking.

Your issue doesn't make sense to me.

I know that you were joking. It was a general question, so not related to your remark.

The issue is one that has been explored in science fiction novels and movies.

If the "Holy Grail" is out of my reach when my time is up, then I lose plain and simple, and believe me, I won't take losing myself, friends and family into the infinite abyss lightly. I still have a chance to win, and all I can do is play the best game I see possible - that's it, and I will not leave anything on the table.

Taking responsibility for my reality is a bitch sometimes, but the great thing about believing in free will is that I will know that if free will exists, I made the best use of it that I can imagine.

Not sure what 'free will' has to do with this....if, out of outrage at being excluded from the option of immortality because it is too expensive to afford, you are most probably going to feel driven to act in some way.

Whether your action succeeds or not depends on the quality of your planning and ability to carry it out, and not on the status of your will.

 

[another1]

Hey if nature is the chicken and the and a person's mind is the egg, which is immortal? One apparently can't be without the other and they both evolve. The brain says hey there goes nature doing her psychotic routine and nature says hey here comes another scourge of disease and an occasional rainbow. Nature is proven to have intuition and nature learns just like human brains. Nature in my opinion is the human brain, or an aspect of it. That (because of nature) is an unexplainable thing, so don't bother. If nature is your doing, you're already immortal. Sustaining our lives with stem cells and new hearts would be opting to use the busted and rusty can opener when there is a drawer full of shiny new ones right beside us. I vote brains on the immortality issue. Nature, though intuitive, is stupid and can be augmented in many ways in my opinion. The threshold you'd need to cross in order to prove this is physical death, but bear in mind I said physical, which is what nature is. The mind, or the things transmitted to the supposed mind, are what are immortal. I think that. Continue and pardon me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey if nature is the chicken and the and a person's mind is the egg, which is immortal?

For dinner last night, we had a chicken and veggie casserole topped with a layer of bread. We brushed the bread with an egg glaze before baking.
NEITHER one is immortal.

One apparently can't be without the other and they both evolve.

No, they don't.
The chicken evolves. Laying eggs is part of their evolution. The nature of the eggs they lay is part of the chicken's evolution. Hard shell, soft shell, internally fertilized, externally hatched, whatever. It's not a separate evolution.

Nature is proven to have intuition and nature learns just like human brains.

Where does nature store acquired information, then? Or better, what do you mean by 'learn' with respect to nature?

 

[iolo]

I find the notion of being immortal too dreadful seriously to contemplate. Anyway, unless your brain were replaced by a vast computer, how would you recall enough to retain any meaningful identity? I think the whole notion is based on a naïve notion of the Self.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I find the notion of being immortal too dreadful seriously to contemplate. Anyway, unless your brain were replaced by a vast computer, how would you recall enough to retain any meaningful identity? I think the whole notion is based on a naïve notion of the Self.

I find this fascinating. I'm not sure if that would change or not with immorality. I'm inclined to think of the self kind of illusory, I mean, I'm not who I was when I was 20, or 30. My memory isn't that great, but I still feel as if I'm me, whatever that means.

Myself, I wonder what would happen to religion once the ultimate carrot is removed? I think if immortality became cheap and reliable, it would separate the truly faithful from the posers.

 

[another1]

Thank you for responding Keith&C0. The metaphor I used with the chicken and egg was a loose metaphor. No need to pick the carcass clean. I think you got the idea. The evolution of nature as well as her capacity to build intuition over time can be found in A New Science of Life written by whatshisface. It is science and not just an a-hole spewing nonsense like you would naturally and without blame assume it to be.

Nature is like our brains and it is an entity of sorts. Nature learns and apparently thinks. The more important question would be where does the human mind store acquired information, not nature. You'll find a definitive answer to that with more difficulty than you may expect. Nothing is actually definitive and if I state something as fact, it probably is not. That is the nature of the brain and it's strange relationship with the expanse it creates. I call the expanse nature and I d believe the mind and nature can't be without each other because if so, neither would exist. You simplified a paradox and made it more complex. This is what happens and I'll do my best to give you references and avoid being silly.

Personally I sometimes think the notion of mortality applies only to the imagined physical world, and immortality is the state that consciousness remains in for all time, yet time does not apply on a fundamental level because it simply does not exist. I'd go on but at this point you probably have enough to argue. Skim the relevant portions of that book if you don't believe the aspects of nature I have pointed out. As an immortal you have plenty of time, so no hurry.

 

[ryan]

Not sure what 'free will' has to do with this....if, out of outrage at being excluded from the option of immortality because it is too expensive to afford, you are most probably going to feel driven to act in some way.

My grandmother just died from a long battle with uncontrollable diabetes. I loved her so much, and it hurts very much everyday to think about her gone. We were very close.

If I were rich, I may have been able to send her to the U.S. for the better treatment. But not once did it cross my mind to rob a bank or steal money in order to save her - that's just not in my nature. I still have a conscience and morals.

The issue is one that has been explored in science fiction novels and movies.

What is more interesting and more likely to sell copies, a novel where things are wrong and a protagonist tries to make them right, or things are right throughout the book and everyone is happy? Okay, Thomas More's Utopia somehow was successful, but I can't think of any other.

Whether your action succeeds or not depends on the quality of your planning and ability to carry it out, and not on the status of your will.

I brought up free will because my belief in it induces a tremendous amount of responsibility, ambition and motivation in me, especially when it comes to life/death/immortality.

 

[bilby]

I brought up free will because my belief in it induces a tremendous amount of responsibility, ambition and motivation in me, especially when it comes to life/death/immortality.

I can see how you would you have no choice but to feel that way.