rogue_pixie said:

Nutter

---

deCypher said:

rogue_pixie said:

Nutter

---

Was this directed to me?  Why is seeking to survive as long as I can irrational?

---

deCypher said:

Just leave me the option of committing suicide if I get bored.

---

Poid said:

One of the qualities of life is that it dies; if something is immortal (i.e.- incapable of dying), then by definition, it was never alive. But, also by definition, something that is immortal is said to have eternal "life".

Am I the only one here who is being sorta mind fucked by this?



From Immortality - Wikipedia:

Quote:

Immortality (or eternal life) is the concept of living in a physical or spiritual form for an infinite or inconceivably vast length of time.

As immortality is the negation of mortality—not dying or not being subject to death—it has been a subject of fascination to humanity since at least the beginning of history. The Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the first literary works, dating back at least to the 22nd century BC, is primarily a quest of a hero seeking to become immortal. What form an unending human life would take (as well as whether it is subject to incapacitation), or whether the soul exists and possesses immortality, has been a major point of focus of religion, as well as the subject of speculation, fantasy, and debate.

It is not known whether human physical immortality is an achievable condition. Biological forms have inherent limitations which may or may not be able to be overcome through medical interventions or engineering. As of 2009, natural selection has developed biological immortality in at least one species, the jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula, one consequence of which is a worldwide population explosion of the organism.

Certain scientists, futurists, and philosophers, such as Ray Kurzweil, advocate that human immortality is achievable in the first few decades of the 21st century, while other advocates believe that life extension is a more achievable goal in the short term, with immortality awaiting further research breakthroughs farther into an indefinite future. Aubrey de Grey, a researcher who has developed a series of biomedical rejuvenation strategies to reverse human aging (called SENS), believes that his proposed plan for ending aging may be implementable in two or three decades. The absence of aging would provide humans with biological immortality, but not invulnerability to death by physical trauma: According to 2002 statistical data, the odds of an individual being traumatically killed are once in every one thousand and seven hundred years.

Eternal life can also be defined as a timeless existence, which is also not known for certain to be achievable, or even definable, despite millennia of arguments for eternity. Wittgenstein, in a notably non-theological interpretation of eternal life, writes in the Tractatus that, "If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."

---

---

skullhuman said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

Extend your education by realizing that it's the smallest increment of time physics as of present can reason.

---

What part of 'theoretical' did you not get?

---

Must have been this part:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

Every second can be divided infinitely.

---

False.

---

Oh? doesn't sound too theoretical of you.

---

Quote:

Planck time is the limit- the smallest amount of time- that physics is capable of talking about.

---

Quote:

That doesn't mean it's the smallest amount of time that can be discussed in relation to things non-physical.

---

Quote:

You said my input was false, I said your backing for that was theoretical.

---

You win. Because in your imagination you can divide time indefinitely, you are therefore immortal. Yay!

Of course, if that were true, you would never have arrived at this point in time.

Quote:

I don't believe we are capable of reaching an understanding here.

---

Well then, we have met the metric for a standard PSP thread.

OrgoneConclusion said:

Thoughts and neural processing time is many magnitudes slower than planck time.

---

Quote:

This is also false.  Consciousness, although not fully understand is still limited to the computational processes of the human brain.  Synaptic connections have limited speed of informational processing which is actually quite slow, around 100m/s.  Chemical processing is even slower.

---