76 replies to this topic

[addx]

Claiming that I do not have a purpose? No. As a case of fact, I have lucidly stated the contrary. Perhaps, in a rush, you mistook my affirmative clause for a negative one.

Yes I believe I acknowledged your autonomous will meaning infact self-actuated purpose or however you want to put it.

I meant a "designed purpose" of a design not autonomous to you.

These "switches," Instincts and emotions, are themselves directed from something. It's only reason, not emotion, that can purposefully directs us to a meaningful end, rather than from it.

Yes, and yours is directing you to a meaningful "neverend". Why is that? Because your reason can't direct you to anything unless emotion provides what.

A computer is just a dead calculator whom humans give purpose. The most intricate issue with creating an human-like AI is providing motivation for the intelligence to be used to behave like humans. And you stand here and state that reason alone can provide meaning or direction? Reason is a tool to calculate behaviour. Reason is a tool of emotion(state). It has always been, since the birth of life. And nothing in humans evolved to deny this.

Narcissism is the condition of being infatuated with oneself. Narcissism is egocentric, and egocentrism is a weakness, a movement inwords rather than from the center toward the circumference, as proper. This is not narcissism.

I'm not sure I understand what you said, but just of the top of my head I can say that I'm sure all immortality desirers and achievers ever imagined or depicted by anyone in any fictional writings or stories were quite narcissistic individuals. Just food for thought.

ironic as you may find it, reached the epiphany that the ellimination of aging is itself a part of my purpose.

Yes, this epiphany is reached by having your reason proped up by emotion of time running out. Reason resolves emotional problems by projecting the problems outside and defeating them in reality, as it is a tool of emotion, which in your case is projecting your mortality outside to be a problem to resolve in reality(by inventing immortality) rather than doing something meaningful before you die and change your emotional state to release you from this quest of immortality.


That's about it. I have nothing more to say about that really. I'm quite sure I'm not anyones favourite person here, but that had to be said.

And by relieving suffering I did not mean euthanasia but infact relieving mental suffering/pain/emotional blindness.

Releiving issues that make people want to be immortal for example would be much more fruitful for civilization progress than actually inventing immortality.

[Bogomoletz II]

Yes I believe I acknowledged your autonomous will meaning infact self-actuated purpose or however you want to put it.

I meant a "designed purpose" of a design not autonomous to you.

Ah, but, surprisingly to you perhaps, I hold the conviction that ultimate Purpose is not subjectively actuated, but is in fact objective, universal, one; that it can be inferred from fundamental abstract concepts and that I attained just that.



Such a conviction can only form within the context of ethical naturalism < moral realism < cognitivism. I reached it through a rather -- perhaps, excessively -- convoluted, acrobatic mode of thought that may not be as compelling to you, nor is it an easy thing to explain. Let me just tell you this one simple thing: whatever is the meaning of this Magnum Opus that is life itself, one has to be alive to accomplish it. When one is dead, there can be no meaning of life, because there is no life.



You may protest that even if you yourself were dead, other people would presumably be alive, but that would only mean that they may still be able to fulfill the purposes/meanings of their lives, but not you, since you would no longer have a life whose meaning to fulfill.

Yes, and yours is directing you to a meaningful "neverend". Why is that? Because your reason can't direct you to anything unless emotion provides what.



A computer is just a dead calculator whom humans give purpose. The most intricate issue with creating an human-like AI is providing motivation for the intelligence to be used to behave like humans. And you stand here and state that reason alone can provide meaning or direction? Reason is a tool to calculate behaviour. Reason is a tool of emotion(state). It has always been, since the birth of life. And nothing in humans evolved to deny this.

You've touched a significant subject. Yes, it's a generally accepted conjecture, which I too trust to be true, that reason is not magnetic, only emotion is (see Bernard Williams's internal/external reasons for action). Indeed, it was emotion, not reason, that provoked me to seek meaning -- not emotion in general, but a specific emotion, namely confusion, a vacuum of ignorance demanding to be filled by answers -- but no sooner had I accepted reason as my absolute, the modus operandi of my quest became solely logical. As for why reason is supreme and why it should be preferred over mere heuristics in most or all nonemergencies, some nice reads may be the AI researcher and life extensionist Eliezer Yudkowsky as well as the already mentioned Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

I'm quite sure I'm not anyones favourite person here, but that had to be said.

Well, isn't it bound to be so? I mean, nothing personal, but if someone joined a forum dedicated to a certain cause and proceeded to, you know, tell the forumers that they shouldn't be striving for what they are striving for, then he couldn't really expect to be praise, could he? In any case, I certainly have more respect for the person whose strong convictions differ from mine than the one who is willing to betray one's own convictions in the hope of winning approval.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 02 April 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[addx]

Well I'd give you more than 1 up for that answer but I can't

If my theory on the evolution of ageing holds(better explained on the thread I created especially by recent posts) than the meaning of life is to "better life" or "better your species/life form". Meaning to achieve a heritable increase in thriving and/or survival. And this simple wisdom explains the "purpose" of emotions of all eukaryotic(ageing and sexually reproducing) life.

This wisdom is actually known since the dawn of man. But my theory infact predicts and explains tangibly the exact mechanisms of why this came to be in the system of life since the inception of it. So this fundamental wisdom if proven to be scientifically strong as I beleive it can be proven, should be a major game changer, in gerontology as much as in any branch of science dealing with life.

I did not come to this forum for this purpose, it just happened as a tangent, but it seems if I can persuade smart people here to listen to my ideas and give them a chance and see how they work to explain things and if they can change their mind about the nature of ageging - then I've gone through the worse I guess. It was not intentional, the forum just drew me to it.

As for the logic guiding you. It is not a smart idea to live by logic with emotions denied or cornered. There is a mechanism that sees a wrongness in an emotion and surpresses the behavior it causes(logical finding of solutions to remove the emotion) when this mechanism, over a long term, determines that a behavior is self-defeating. This is wisdom. It can not be found without an integration of behavior and emotion to see the true future emotional result, not just the logical result and the idea that this logical result will remove the emotion. This is said to be integration of the ego that handles this. Without this integration you're stuck projecting your internal issues to defeat them externally in a neverending "learning curve" to figure out how to control this internal emotion better via external action. This is evolution of behavior(emotion removing behavior), but evolutino can go the wrong way and cause you to selfdefeat endlessly in a cognitive dissonance scenario of emotion denial. Wisdom lies in accepting the emotion, discarding the behavior and changing your set path to a more fruitful one. As one can see, so many people are here banging their heads agains the wall of immortality and will probably die doing so. Wisdom can be found in the fact that the meaning of life is not immortality but providing for the future of life, not of self. It has never been about the individual, and this individual perspective has seriously clouded evolutionary mechanisms and the gene-centric theory made it even worse and blind.


The lack of such wisdom in science obviously caused the inability of sceintific theories to truly explain anything important to us.

I am an extremely logical person. I hope rationality still shows in my "mystic" babblings, there is not much difference between us in that sense.

Edited by addx, 02 April 2014 - 04:16 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

If my theory on the evolution of ageing holds(better explained on the thread I created especially by recent posts) than the meaning of life is to "better life" or "better your species/life form". Meaning to achieve a heritable increase in thriving and/or survival. And this simple wisdom explains the "purpose" of emotions of all eukaryotic(ageing and sexually reproducing) life.

 

Biological theories cannot legitimately serve as bases for theories on meaning, purpose or morality. Biological sciences are natural sciences, which deal with the natural world. Meaning of life is an abstract concept; it is to be dealt with through philosophy and formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, certain branches of linguistics. Philosophy can make use of natural sciences, but only as auxiliary, not essential.

 

 

As for the logic guiding you. It is not a smart idea to live by logic with emotions denied or cornered.

 

Oh, certainly! All emotion should not always be denied; not all, not always. Oftentimes emotions help: joy rewards, shame disciplines by punishment, anger can help get one's point across, and so on and so forth.

"Any one can get angry -- that is easy -- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy" (Aristotle).

 

All I'm saying is that your emotions are to serve you rather than subjugate you.

"Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?" (interviewer). "Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions -- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows -- or makes it a point to discover -- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow -- then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction -- his own and that of others" (Ayn Rand).

 

 

 

 

Wisdom can be found in the fact that the meaning of life is not immortality but providing for the future of life, not of self. It has never been about the individual, and this individual perspective has seriously clouded evolutionary mechanisms and the gene-centric theory made it even worse and blind.

 

Here's something big you may want to ponder. Consider the following: beneficial human evolution may have halted.

There can be no evolution without reproduction. Before modernity, evolution worked favorably because the personal success of the (usually male) animal was almost interchangeable with its reproductive success. By contrast, in modern human society it's negatively correlated! Successful people have fewer biological children, and some even choose to have none. Tragically, there's no rational reason for the individual to reproduce. And when it comes to unintentional pregnancy, it's more common among inept people. Also, population growth today is higher in underdeveloped parts of the world. The reason why average IQ scores are increasing is presumably environmental, coming ultimately from economic progress, but generational genotypic intelligence is probably decreasing. Not that intelligence is the only good trait that's under threat, obviously: willpower, for instance, is a big one.

I repeat yet again: evolution is effective, not efficient, and only at developing reproductively successful organisms, vestiges all over the place.

Interestingly, if this is true, then the Orthodox Jewish community must be one of the few -- if not the only -- community where beneficial human evolution is still at work. Not only does this community value fertility and practice endogamy, but the man's reproductive success in this community is directly tied to his personal success. In traditional Orthodox families, boys start reading and studying the Torah at age 5, according to my rabbi. Personally, I taught myself literacy at age 4 but wasn't instructed in the oral Torah (Talmud) and hidden Torah (Kabbalah) until mitzvah age (13). I haven't researched the marital customs of the fertile and endogamous Amish Christian community, which might have something similar.
 

 

 

I am an extremely logical person. I hope rationality still shows in my "mystic" babblings, there is not much difference between us in that sense.

 

"Hope"? This is the Internet, and the forum is anonymous unless you provide personal information.

Importantly, rationality and intelligence are distinct qualities. Worryingly, there's some data suggesting that highly intelligent people are more likely, not less likely, than their less intelligent counterparts to be irrational, for example when it comes to drugs and some superstitious/groundless beliefs, such as ones about ghosts, goblins, witchcraft, Illuminati, all kinds of crazy ideas about evolution...

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 22 April 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[addx]

If my theory on the evolution of ageing holds(better explained on the thread I created especially by recent posts) than the meaning of life is to "better life" or "better your species/life form". Meaning to achieve a heritable increase in thriving and/or survival. And this simple wisdom explains the "purpose" of emotions of all eukaryotic(ageing and sexually reproducing) life.

 
Biological theories cannot legitimately serve as bases for theories on meaning, purpose or morality. Biological sciences are natural sciences, which deal with the natural world. Meaning of life is an abstract concept; it is to be dealt with through philosophy and formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, certain branches of linguistics. Philosophy can make use of natural sciences, but only as auxiliary, not essential.
 
 

As for the logic guiding you. It is not a smart idea to live by logic with emotions denied or cornered.

 
Oh, certainly! All emotion should not always be denied; not all, not always. Oftentimes emotions help: joy rewards, shame disciplines by punishment, anger can help get one's point across, and so on and so forth.

"Any one can get angry -- that is easy -- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy" (Aristotle).

All I'm saying is that your emotions are to serve you rather than subjugate you.

"Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?" (interviewer). "Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions -- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows -- or makes it a point to discover -- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow -- then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction -- his own and that of others" (Ayn Rand).

 
 
 

Wisdom can be found in the fact that the meaning of life is not immortality but providing for the future of life, not of self. It has never been about the individual, and this individual perspective has seriously clouded evolutionary mechanisms and the gene-centric theory made it even worse and blind.

 
Here's something big you may want to ponder. Consider the following: beneficial human evolution may have halted.

There can be no evolution without reproduction. Before modernity, evolution worked favorably because the personal success of the (usually male) animal was almost interchangeable with its reproductive success. By contrast, in modern human society it's negatively correlated! Successful people have fewer biological children, and some even choose to have none. Tragically, there's no rational reason for the individual to reproduce. And when it comes to unintentional pregnancy, it's more common among inept people. Also, population growth today is higher in underdeveloped parts of the world. The reason why average IQ scores are increasing is presumably environmental, coming ultimately from economic progress, but generational genotypic intelligence is probably decreasing. Not that intelligence is the only good trait that's under threat, obviously: willpower, for instance, is a big one.

I repeat yet again: evolution is effective, not efficient, and only at developing reproductively successful organisms, vestiges all over the place.

Interestingly, if this is true, then the Orthodox Jewish community must be one of the few -- if not the only -- community where beneficial human evolution is still at work. Not only does this community value fertility and practice endogamy, but the man's reproductive success in this community is directly tied to his personal success. In traditional Orthodox families, boys start reading and studying the Torah at age 5, according to my rabbi. Personally, I taught myself literacy at age 4 but wasn't instructed in the oral Torah (Talmud) and hidden Torah (Kabbalah) until mitzvah age (13). I haven't researched the marital customs of the fertile and endogamous Amish Christian community, which might have something similar.
 
 
 

I am an extremely logical person. I hope rationality still shows in my "mystic" babblings, there is not much difference between us in that sense.

 
"Hope"? This is the Internet, and the forum is anonymous unless you provide personal information.

Importantly, rationality and intelligence are distinct qualities. Worryingly, there's some data suggesting that highly intelligent people are more likely, not less likely, than their less intelligent counterparts to be irrational, for example when it comes to drugs and some superstitious/groundless beliefs, such as ones about ghosts, goblins, witchcraft, Illuminati, all kinds of crazy ideas about evolution...

It's been a long while since your last answer I kinda lost the thread but I'll try I hope things are as well as can be in Ukraine I kinda envy a revolution, we're now stuck pushing everything under the carpet. And our carpet joined the EU so its one huge carpet now :/

There's a scent of blind wrongness in what you want me to ponder, it can be explain in part by this short summary of evolution

 

The entire "evolutionary" line of thought(if evolution was a person) is based on weighing insvestment against immediate success.

Thus cell division used for growing bodies instead of bacteria colonies and evolution of sexual reproduction is an investement against immediate success.

The zygote instead of dividing asexually into 2 zyogtes uses the ability to grow a body. The sexual reproduction ability is used to reproduce but at a cost - an instance of the same life form must be found and willing to reproduce. So, that's 2 fold cost for eukaryotic life. The return on the investment is the "gene pool" (providing a return in "gene pool cleanlyness ensured by sexual selection" which then provides a slow forward evolution speed) and "the body"(allowing the cell to create a big body that can use or access new types of resources).

The body itself is always an investment. A huge expensive body is not that worthwhile to a species, depending on conditions.

Evolution continued to evolve "preemptive investement" mechanisms for bigger later payoff - the last of which is the awareness.

Each "status marker" later evolves its "reactive mechanism" which reacts when the derivation of state change spikes.

The first of such is the social hierarchy and territorialness.

Initially it is only instictual in the moment - who beats who gets to reproduce.

So top level investement is placed in senses, muscles, protection and reflexes - instinctual war machines.

But eventually higher order mechanism develops that keeps track of success as explained, social fights are kept track of and result in "social status" which branches out to female and/or territory posession, depending on the species.

The sense of social status is now the top level "investment" of the species resulting in females and/or territory.

This means the species can sacrifice the lower level investment for the higher level if it weighs it so. This means they can fight "for nothing"(apparent) but simply for social status. Such fights are obvious investements and the brain would not evolve to allow such reckless behavior if it didn't have a payoff.


As the bodies reproductive and life cycle are "invested" into the gene pool more bodies die due to intraspecies competition(ensured by among other more obvious things - aging), but the gene pool itself evolves steadily thanks to each body sacrificed or each refused spread of genes.

Mammals then evolve a game changer - consciousness. It allows for rapid adaptation of subconscious behavior. This allows mammals to use a body in multiple adaptive ways before discarding it or allowing it to procreate. The gene pool is still invested into, but there is something else now - the group - the meta-carrier of the "knowledge pool".

Consciousness reacts to subconscious error in state prediction. Again it responds to the derivation of state to induce an "investement response(consciousness) that endures momentary frustration(think of the rat reward dowhshift 8% sucrose moment) in order to detect a difference in context that will serve future endaveours. This investment does not pay off so much on itself, but since mammals evolved vicarious learning at the same time - this investment spreads easily and gives a huge pay off for the group whose member invested it. Aggregation of experience forms a new meta-entity of evolution "knowledge pool".

And finally awareness evolves, I've been bored I guess. But time for boredom is gone now, I think I've explained how awareness functions as reactive to state change and how it provides an investment into the future. No need to go into that further now.

this is on thread http://www.longecity...ss/#entry657757



So you see, evolution of knowledge is still proceeding. You just think DNA is the only thing evolving. Or the only thing the term evolution is applicable to.

Knowledge spreads and the millionaire with no children will not spread his genes, but his knowledge will serve the population more than the knowledge of a million children combined making his legacy of greater spread(in the knowledge pool) than any gene in the pool. It does cost the population a lot to be left without so much resources that the millionaire took but experience is the only teacher and the millionaire taught many how to earn money or how to lose it, either way, he evolved knowledge with his effort.

Any useful knowledge you have you feel forced to share it or use it. Either way it spreads. If there are no other people knowledge is hardly ever deemed a useful investement and does not motivate. This is installed by evolution, not some magical instrinsic subjective narcsissitic whatever kind of notion people have of this. It's not magical, its not "free will", its functional.

And also, without aging you wouldn't feel really forced to share it or use it, my #1 issue with "full biological immortality".

My understanding of evolution is far more fundamental and reaching than you allow it to. And for this you deem me wrong, rather than "allow me to take you there".


We do not evolve as individuals and never have, since sexual reproduction appeared.

We evolved as a gene pool(premammals) and then later a group(mammals) and society(humans). We evolve those meta-entities with our lives. This is what we have been 'breadth/selected' for. You can see how then this idea is almost completely interchangeable with the fundamental idea of religion. You have been given a life from God and it is your duty to serve God in the best possible way before he "calls your name". Evolution and God are extremely interchangeable once evolution is properly explained.

The dualism of rational progress driven by emotional disatisfaction( dukkha ) is inherent to our experience of the world. At all times we have to weigh - to invest effort or not. But both mechanisms were crafted by evolution for the same purpose -> evolution

So, I reject your claim that science and meaning of life/morality are separate. They are MADE separate in our "divide and conquer" attempts but can never be resolved unless resolved together. Both of those things are tools evolved by evolution for a single purpose that can UNITE them as tools rather than create extremes of each. They are also creations that provide their function from known physical matter on known physical rules. There's no grounds to dismiss science explaining the sense of morality or anything else for that matter. But it takes emotional wisdom to allow oneself to take science there. It takes a rejection of all emotional truths one has or has been infected with. It takes your awareness reducing you to a pawn and then contemplating existence.

As you can see, you're already making a great mistake by limiting your thought to only DNA evolution and thus in fact only demonstrating blind human-centric thought by not allowing nature to be responsible for the wonder of "society and knowledge". The confining of ones thoughts completely arbirtary(in fact emotionaly-subjectively) like that brings forth "science" as we know it.

Edited by addx, 22 April 2014 - 04:09 PM.

[addx]

I can give another example of our failure to discern truth. Physics fails to discern position, time and motion. These are the most fundamental aspects of physics and yet they are in fact completely arbitrary and overlapping. Our own human experience is invariably tied with a "notion of time" which is in fact not a true dimension at all.
The failure to see this causes apparent paradox in both quantum theory and relativistic theory. Calling for a "unified theory" which persistently does not seem to errect itself in spite of the limited success of both counterparts.

In fact both of the theories seem to be stuck at the same thing. Relativistic theory goes on to create a notion of space-time but is still severly infested with subjective thought about it causing it to flourish into a mathematical-physical garden of subtheories, field-tensor simulations and what not.

Quantum mechanics quite litteraly shows that a "wave-particle" can not be "observed for" position and moment at the same time basically demonstrating on the lowest level our own blindness.

Furthermore if one takes a look at only the basic unit system employed in physics one can see that the measure of distance/space is 1 meter but derived from "length light travels in vacuum per 1/c seconds".

The measure of time is derived as change from hyperfine energy position of caesium which are signalled by electromagentic radiation spikes - again - light.

If one presumes that complex particles are "entangled quanta" and if a photon is also a quanta and if the timing of its "exit" from the caesium atom is tied into its behavior as a light wave-particle which basicly is motion(imagine it orbiting, so its exit point is invaribaly tied with its speed/orbit trajectory) - then it seems our time and space measurements are both based/derived from a single observed phenomena - motion of the light wave-particle - thus cementing the flaw in the very root of physics as a circular definition. The duality is created/stressed artificially from our subjective experience of reality and really only "functions" within our subjective reality(regarding position/time/motion scales). Because of this, it takes us 2 theories to explain 2 extremes of scales and they are not compatible. Both of them are also not compatible with our intuitive notion of the world.

Edited by addx, 22 April 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[addx]

I can, for example, provide a mind experiment that quite literally explains the profoundness of this.

Imagine a photon to be a 2d particle. Imagine that it only "sees" whats in the plane perpendicular to its "motion"(or what we observe as motion).

Imagine that the path the photon travels is its "future"(from its own view point). Other particles appear and disappear in its plane as it passes them by. It cant "see" the future, it can only "wait" for it. The future "comes" at a fixed speed c.

By "see" I infact mean "interact" meaning attrach or repel.

Now imagine that a photon somehow gets caught in an orbit with another photon(like binary stars). Imagine that that the other photon came from the opposite direction(as in reverse-annihilation).

So, their perpendicular planes begin rotate as they start orbiting each other. We can presume that the photons speed along the orbit paths remains at c. So, each photon now "sees" all "possible futures" and all "possible pasts" per each orbit.

The "biphoton" so starts interacting as a 3d particle(it "sees" all now meaning it interacts with all and thus has inertia in all directions) and also loses its "light speed" into orbit speed but this is also converted into its 3d effect. The frequency of the orbit is determined by the attractive forces holding the orbit and the orbital speed which seems to be stuck at c(speed of time? in fact wave propagation). This is just an example of thought, I can not claim this is so and in fact this thought experiment should start with a 1d field-particle aggregating to a 2d wave-photon duality(and maybe some others) and finally combinining to complex multiorbit 3d particles.

Anyway, this thought experiment clearly shows how *time* can be imagined to arise from circular motion at the level of quanta without any necessary "dimensionality". And as such either "time" or "space" can be completely removed from physics then and theories need to be rewritten with this in mind.

Edited by addx, 22 April 2014 - 05:31 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

It's been a long while since your last answer

 

Yes, quite a while. Have been busy with college stuff, still kinda am. Thought you might have discontinued your presence on the forum.

 

I kinda lost the thread but I'll try

 

Fortunately, there's hardly a need to "keep track" here. No special context is involved in this post. These sentences stand independent.

 

I hope things are as well as can be in Ukraine

 

All is quiet here in the western parts of the country, unlike the eastern parts. Economic consequences, however, can be felt even here, especially the inflation and exchange rates.

 

I kinda envy a revolution
 

Is the situation in Croatia so bad as to require insurrection?

 

There's a scent of blind wrongness in what you want me to ponder, it can be explain in part by this short summary of evolution

That quotation doesn't address the possibility that "beneficial human evolution may have halted." It talks about social hierarchies, but those too are largely genetic.

 

The sexual reproduction ability is used to reproduce but at a cost - an instance of the same life form must be found and willing to reproduce. So, that's 2 fold cost for eukaryotic life.

 

So much to touch upon... First of all, evolution cares little who is willing to do what. Not all gamogenetic organisms, not even all gamogenetic animals, have minds, and of those who do, most, presumably, don't have the necessary intellectual capacity to be consciously "willing" something; they must be acting by impulse. Also, humans are not the only genus where forced copulation is observed.

 

From the perspective of the individual organism, the real, main price of sexual reproduction is not the hassle of searching or competing for a mate, but the reduction of concentration of your genetic material in your offspring (only 50% of your genetic material is passed to each individual offspring of yours). From the perspective of the species, the trouble is that it takes two organisms to create just one.

So you see, evolution of knowledge is still proceeding. You just think DNA is the only thing evolving. Or the only thing the term evolution is applicable to.

[. . .]

As you can see, you're already making a great mistake by limiting your thought to only DNA evolution and thus in fact only demonstrating blind human-centric thought by not allowing nature to be responsible for the wonder of "society and knowledge".

 

Now you're exploiting an ambiguity. In the context of biology, "evolution" is short for "biological evolution." Sure, "evolution" can refer to anything, not necessarily biological phenomena, but in this context, such as that of our conversation, unless specified otherwise, it's presupposed to refer to biological evolution alone. Biological evolution deals only with the evolution of genetic material -- by definition.

Elaboration: beneficial biological human evolution may have halted.

It does cost the population a lot to be left without so much resources that the millionaire took
 

The "millionaire" doesn't "take" resources; the "millionaire" creates resources. Wealth and welfare are not a zero-sum circumstance.

 

 

Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie; that one party can gain only at the expense of the other. --Milton Friedman

 

And also, without aging you wouldn't feel really forced to share it [information] or use it, my #1 issue with "full biological immortality".
 

That is simply untrue. After solving the problem of limited lifespan, my dream is to make the world the best place it can possibly be, and, obviously, that will involve a whole lot of information sharing and use.

 

We do not evolve as individuals and never have, since sexual reproduction appeared.
 

Here's that ambiguity again! "EVOLV" -- at one point you expand the definition of this morpheme, and now you bring it back to its restricted state.

 

So, I reject your claim that science and meaning of life/morality are separate. They are MADE separate in our "divide and conquer" attempts but can never be resolved unless resolved together. Both of those things are tools evolved by evolution for a single purpose that can UNITE them as tools rather than create extremes of each. They are also creations that provide their function from known physical matter on known physical rules. There's no grounds to dismiss science explaining the sense of morality or anything else for that matter. But it takes emotional wisdom to allow oneself to take science there. It takes a rejection of all emotional truths one has or has been infected with. It takes your awareness reducing you to a pawn and then contemplating existence.
 

Now each of us is not talking about the same thing as the other is, so I must have failed to express myself clearly enough. Allow me to elucidate my point with a specific example: trying to discover the meaning of life through biology, is like trying to discover the particle of Higgs through macroeconomics.

Physics fails to discern position, time and motion. These are the most fundamental aspects of physics and yet they are in fact completely arbitrary and overlapping.

 

I'm willing to argue that the most fundamental ones are rather space-time and, likely, matter-force. The rest of physics is reducible -- either to mathematics or to these same four fundamentals. For example, position, which you've mentioned, is only relative location in space. Motion is change in position through time.

 

Our own human experience is invariably tied with a "notion of time" which is in fact not a true dimension at all.

 

Time is a dimension in the sense that it only has two directions -- either "earlier," i.e. past, or "later," i.e. future.

 

If one presumes that complex particles are "entangled quanta" and if a photon is also a quanta and if the timing of its "exit" from the caesium atom is tied into its behavior as a light wave-particle which basicly is motion(imagine it orbiting, so its exit point is invaribaly tied with its speed/orbit trajectory) - then it seems our time and space measurements are both based/derived from a single observed phenomena - motion of the light wave-particle - thus cementing the flaw in the very root of physics as a circular definition.

 

You're declaring circularity in definitions. Please demonstrate it.

Two definitions independent from each other yet both dependent on a third one, are not a case of circularity.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 26 April 2014 - 04:34 AM.

[addx]

It's been a long while since your last answer
 
Yes, quite a while. Have been busy with college stuff, still kinda am. Thought you might have discontinued your presence on the forum.

Why's that?
 

All is quiet here in the western parts of the country, unlike the eastern parts. Economic consequences, however, can be felt even here, especially the inflation and exchange rates.

Yea, I remember how that feels..
 

I kinda envy a revolution
 
Is the situation in Croatia so bad as to require insurrection?

I think we're #1 or #2 country in the world in total tax pressure. And our government is horrible, you can't do anything, so many rules and so much bribery is required. It's really going downhill.
 

So much to touch upon... First of all, evolution cares little who is willing to do what. Not all gamogenetic organisms, not even all gamogenetic animals, have minds, and of those who do, most, presumably, don't have the necessary intellectual capacity to be consciously "willing" something; they must be acting by impulse. Also, humans are not the only genus where forced copulation is observed.
 

From the perspective of the individual organism, the real, main price of sexual reproduction is not the hassle of searching or competing for a mate, but the reduction of concentration of your genetic material in your offspring (only 50% of your genetic material is passed to each individual offspring of yours). From the perspective of the species, the trouble is that it takes two organisms to create just one.

You have to work it out from the start. Please, read the poll topic I opened.

Sexual reproduction since its inception in unicellular eukaryotes required SIGNALLING for the required cooperation of the cells to perform it. This signalling was the scaffold on which sexual selection evolved. It exists from the inception. Rape or no rape doesn't really challenge this. The signals evolved in complexity and the mechanisms became more elaborate.

Some species selection mechanisms went all into one sex, but there's still selection, nevertheless.
 

So you see, evolution of knowledge is still proceeding. You just think DNA is the only thing evolving. Or the only thing the term evolution is applicable to.
[. . .]
As you can see, you're already making a great mistake by limiting your thought to only DNA evolution and thus in fact only demonstrating blind human-centric thought by not allowing nature to be responsible for the wonder of "society and knowledge".
 
Now you're exploiting an ambiguity. In the context of biology, "evolution" is short for "biological evolution." Sure, "evolution" can refer to anything, not necessarily biological phenomena, but in this context, such as that of our conversation, unless specified otherwise, it's presupposed to refer to biological evolution alone. Biological evolution deals only with the evolution of genetic material -- by definition.

You're right, I did expand a bit, my efforts on other threads lead me there. But I'm not going back since I expanded as I see it can't be assessed divided like that.
 

Elaboration: beneficial biological human evolution may have halted.

It does cost the population a lot to be left without so much resources that the millionaire took
 
The "millionaire" doesn't "take" resources; the "millionaire" creates resources. Wealth and welfare are not a zero-sum circumstance.
 

Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie; that one party can gain only at the expense of the other. --Milton Friedman

Sometimes he creates, sometimes he takes. It's not really important, I just wanted to show that I didn't forget the cost of such a millionaire.
 

And also, without aging you wouldn't feel really forced to share it [information] or use it, my #1 issue with "full biological immortality".
 
That is simply untrue. After solving the problem of limited lifespan, my dream is to make the world the best place it can possibly be, and, obviously, that will involve a whole lot of information sharing and use.

If its one thing I learned in this life is that you can't know how you will feel until you get there, unless you've been there.

A dream is a dream. Most people who've arrived at some point in their dream didn't really feel as they expected to.

I like what your dream is, don't get me wrong.
 

We do not evolve as individuals and never have, since sexual reproduction appeared.
 
Here's that ambiguity again! "EVOLV" -- at one point you expand the definition of this morpheme, and now you bring it back to its restricted state.

No I didn't. We evolve the gene pool and knowledge pool meta-entities. The gene pool was just the first to appear with sexual reproduction.
 

So, I reject your claim that science and meaning of life/morality are separate. They are MADE separate in our "divide and conquer" attempts but can never be resolved unless resolved together. Both of those things are tools evolved by evolution for a single purpose that can UNITE them as tools rather than create extremes of each. They are also creations that provide their function from known physical matter on known physical rules. There's no grounds to dismiss science explaining the sense of morality or anything else for that matter. But it takes emotional wisdom to allow oneself to take science there. It takes a rejection of all emotional truths one has or has been infected with. It takes your awareness reducing you to a pawn and then contemplating existence.
 
Now each of us is not talking about the same thing as the other is, so I must have failed to express myself clearly enough. Allow me to elucidate my point with a specific example: trying to discover the meaning of life through biology, is like trying to discover the particle of Higgs through macroeconomics.



Physics fails to discern position, time and motion. These are the most fundamental aspects of physics and yet they are in fact completely arbitrary and overlapping.
 
I'm willing to argue that the most fundamental ones are rather space-time and, likely, matter-force. The rest of physics is reducible -- either to mathematics or to these same four fundamentals. For example, position, which you've mentioned, is only relative location in space. Motion is change in position through time.
 
Our own human experience is invariably tied with a "notion of time" which is in fact not a true dimension at all.
 
Time is a dimension in the sense that it only has two directions -- either "earlier," i.e. past, or "later," i.e. future.

No, you're not getting what I'm trying to say.

Time IS position. There's no extra dimension of time. It's an illusion.

Since the speed C is constant, two positions are in fact separated by "timespace".

Speeds of particles lower than C are achieved by quarks orbiting. Orbital speed of quarks is still C, but the centre of orbit "seems" to move at a lower speed.

From this comes the illusion of space and time.

Time expands from the orbit frequency, space from the lower than C speed of the orbit centre.

All waves in fields propagate at a fixed speed. All speeds lower than that are achieved by circular movement of quarks inside particles. That's my idea at least.

The unstable orbits of quarks cause the "half-life" of particles.
 

If one presumes that complex particles are "entangled quanta" and if a photon is also a quanta and if the timing of its "exit" from the caesium atom is tied into its behavior as a light wave-particle which basicly is motion(imagine it orbiting, so its exit point is invaribaly tied with its speed/orbit trajectory) - then it seems our time and space measurements are both based/derived from a single observed phenomena - motion of the light wave-particle - thus cementing the flaw in the very root of physics as a circular definition.


 
You're declaring circularity in definitions. Please demonstrate it.

Two definitions independent from each other yet both dependent on a third one, are not a case of circularity.

I think I explained above.

If the photon that exits the caesium atom and signals the pass of a second in fact orbits at the speed of C, that means its exit position(time position) is subject to photon motion and thus time is defined by photon motion as is length.

It also explains the inability of 3d particles(with mass) to achieve light speed, the orbits would fall apart, since the quarks would have to go faster than light speed to complete an orbit.
The quark orbits have to "skew" or "compress" when accelerating to keep orbiting at same speed and this might explain inertia and relativistic length contraction.
2d particles (photon) have a 2d orbit(electromagnetic) so they freely move at fixed speed c into one direction

Edited by addx, 26 April 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[addx]

I took a shallow look (wiki) at string theories and some quantum stuff.

It's all very complicated but in essence I see the possibility that my orbiting quarks are misunderstood for strings.

I see the possibility of them not figuring out what I did because of the following:


http://en.wikipedia....quantum_gravity

In classical mechanics a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.

Special relativity has modified the notion of time. But from a fixed Lorentz observer's viewpoint time remains a distinguished, absolute, external, global parameter. The newtonian notion of time essentially carries over to special relativistic systems, hidden in the spacetime structure.

You see how arbitrarily they decided to work in time into calculus.

If you "force" the dimension of time as they all do, you can't really explain the systems with this extra fake dimension messing with your formulas.

Resulting in them inventing string theory and an additional 10-11 or 26 dimensions to create workable systems.

Time is the "God" of science. They all believe in it and miscalculate both relativity and quantum mechanics.

Look how it is represented. A background variable that moves at a steady pace. Everything is quantified and yet time passage is NOT (there were some proposal but generally it is not). There's no real considering of time. It is taken for granted and simply put into equations as if it is something real.



Light moves at a steady pace. Not time. Time is created as an illusion of this. We measure everything with light. Light speed is constant. That means that the expression of meters per second is an illusion. There's no meters per second. It's just a "spacetime". It's meterseconds(or whatever), not meters per second. It's a single dimension.

Time is created by orbits of the quarks that constitute particle(represented by the center of the quark orbits, center of their interaction, forces) causing an illusion of slower than C motion.

Now if such a particle moves, the orbits start to depict a path that looks like a coiled string.



something like that, but you have to imagine looking at the spring from the top, and then holding the bottom and pushing the top of the coil to the right. What you see then is the path the quark orbits take when the particle moves.

As each orbit is completed with a different central position the particle center appears to more "jump" through positions rather than move steadily.

Time is "created"/"extracted"/"invented"/"illusioned" from the fact that such a particles center moves slower than light speed(even though the orbiting quarks that embody the particle in fact do still move at light speed but circularly).

The "amount of orbiting" creates an ILLUSION of possibility of anything moving slower than light speed and from the relative difference of this "observed slower speed" and the general light speed constant(seen as maximum speed, but in fact the only speed) an illusion of time is created. Observing existance of varying speeds calls for the invention of time. Nothing else. But the observation is wrong. All speeds are in fact fixed, wave propagation.

Time is always "extracted" from the difference in positions(achieved at by more or less circular motion embedded into larger scale straight line motion).

Time is always somehow measured as a difference in positions of objects whose speed is accepted as fixed and known. So even before we started using light for the general system of units, we comitted the same "inventing" of the time dimension using other fixed speed(usually rotating) objects such as clocks and what not.

There's no time.

That's why you can't go "back in time" or anything like that. That's why it's such a "strange dimension", taken for granted, never explained, never proven. That's why it is simply thrown into equasions. That's why all our universe math models are overly complicated and in fact not really working, they have to satisfy a makebeleive dimension.

[addx]

In regards to string theory.

String theory introduced 10-11 or 26 dimensioned space. Of that 4 dimensions are considered critical(our 3d space + time). The rest of dimensions are considered to be "microscale" and exist only if one "zooms in enough".

String are supposed to be 1 dimension, a line, but in fact a curly line. It is thought that if one zooms in enough the line becomes more of a tube and the inner surface of the tube is another extra dimension, the space within the tube is another 3 dimensions etc.

It is obvious that the "real world"(true dimensions) is separated from the "scientifically imagined world"(extra dimensions). The solutions to string theory demands are almost countless(with most prominent needing 10-11 dimensions or 26 dimensions) in fact and I'm quite sure none of them is actually correct but they're all cases of "deux-ex-machina" popping out of the extra dimensions.

It is all neccassary because of the "alien" time dimension that is forced into all matter interaction calculus and then requires "inventive" math of 26 dimensions to produce a system that works for itself but is not really applicable or detectable or observable in reality.

[Bogomoletz II]

Thought you might have discontinued your presence on the forum.

Why's that?
 

 People don't always stay on the same forums/websites.
 

All is quiet here in the western parts of the country, unlike the eastern parts. Economic consequences, however, can be felt even here, especially the inflation and exchange rates.

Yea, I remember how that feels..
 

Are you referring to the Breakup of Yugoslavia?

 

You have to work it out from the start. Please, read the poll topic I opened.

 

I have. Now what?

 

Sexual reproduction since its inception in unicellular eukaryotes required SIGNALLING for the required cooperation of the cells to perform it. This signalling was the scaffold on which sexual selection evolved. It exists from the inception. Rape or no rape doesn't really challenge this. The signals evolved in complexity and the mechanisms became more elaborate.

Some species selection mechanisms went all into one sex, but there's still selection, nevertheless.
 

How does that prove that beneficial human biological evolution has not halted? Remember what you said: "There's a scent of blind wrongness in what you want me to ponder." Diversion leads to oblivion.

 

Sometimes he creates, sometimes he takes. It's not really important, I just wanted to show that I didn't forget the cost of such a millionaire.
 

Cost? There is no cost, only revenue: the revenue of the employees he employs, the revenue of any possible shareholders he sold shares to, the revenue of the companies he buys from (whether for investment or consumption), the revenue of the financial institutions he entrusts his assets/savings in (such as banks), the revenue of the entrepreneur and investor funded by him (whether directly or indirectly via the financial institutions), the revenue of the charities he donates to (possibly for tax deductions), the revenue of the government he pays taxes to; and then, most importantly, there is the economic output he created to become a millionaire in the first place, unless he received the wealth by litigation or gift, such as inheritance and dowry, or banally stole it.

 

And also, without aging you wouldn't feel really forced to share it [information] or use it, my #1 issue with "full biological immortality".
 
That is simply untrue. After solving the problem of limited lifespan, my dream is to make the world the best place it can possibly be, and, obviously, that will involve a whole lot of information sharing and use.

 

If its one thing I learned in this life is that you can't know how you will feel until you get there, unless you've been there.

A dream is a dream. Most people who've arrived at some point in their dream didn't really feel as they expected to.

I like what your dream is, don't get me wrong.

 

One moment you're claiming to know that I will stop feeling the need to share information if I eliminate aging, and the next you're telling me that I cannot know that I will still feel it. With all due respect, should I suppose that you know better than myself how I will feel?

You're saying that it's impossible to know or predict how a person will feel in a certain situation until the person finds himself in that situation, yet you claim to know that a person will feel it unnecessary to share information if he is guaranteed not to age, even though no person has ever been guaranteed not to age. This is a contradiction.

There's plenty of cases where people know with certainty how a given situation will make them feel. For example, you know with certainty that unless you're on appetite suppressants or have some kind of weird gastrointestinal/food disorder, absolute fasting will make you feel hungry. Being nearly hit by a train will make you feel the fight-or-flight response from the norepinephrine release, winning the lottery will give you a feeling of serendipity from the dopamine release, regularly taking risperidone will make you emotionally flat from the dopaminergic, serotonergic and adrenergic receptors antagonism, and so on. It's all fairly predictable.

What emotion is distinguished by from other feelings (given that emotions are a kind of feelings) is thought. There can be no emotion without thought, whether conscious or subconscious. All emotion comes from thought; for example, thoughts of great immediate danger, without which you wouldn't have felt fear when you were nearly hit by a train. Thus, sine one's convictions often influence one's thoughts, one's convictions predict some of one's emotions. Knowing my convictions, I can assure you that being spared from aging would not make me emotionally less supportive of the propagation of knowledge. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it would?
 

We do not evolve as individuals and never have, since sexual reproduction appeared.
 
Here's that ambiguity again! "EVOLV" -- at one point you expand the definition of this morpheme, and now you bring it back to its restricted state.

 

No I didn't. We evolve the gene pool and knowledge pool meta-entities. The gene pool was just the first to appear with sexual reproduction.

 

In this case, you should concede that individuals can and do evolve QUA individuals: by growing, by learning, by changing for the better.

Time IS position. There's no extra dimension of time. It's an illusion.
 

If time is position, then, given that position is relative location in space, time is relative location in space. That doesn't make sense. Time is a kind of change or a kind of dimension, not a kind of location.

You should also concede that there is a time dimension. It's not even that much a question of physics; as it is a question of semantics. A dimension is anything within which any given point can only be specified by no more than two coordinates. Any given point in the timespan of the Universe can only be specified by no more than two coordinates: either earlier, i.e. toward the past, or latter, i.e. toward the future. Ergo, the timespan of the Universe is a dimension.

I, however, admit that the term "time" is ambiguous and that not every thing it describes is a dimension. The terminology is to this day very confused, and there is no clear consensus on the fundamental meaning of time. I venture to say that the word "time" is used erroneously to refer to two different things: first, to material and spatial change on the level of Planck units; secondly, the history of such change within the Universe, which is a dimension and which can more accurately be referred to as the timespan of the Universe.

 

Speeds of particles lower than C are achieved by quarks orbiting. Orbital speed of quarks is still C, but the centre of orbit "seems" to move at a lower speed.
 

Quarks do not move at the speed of light. Quarks have positive mass.

If the photon that exits the caesium atom and signals the pass of a second in fact orbits at the speed of C, that means its exit position(time position) is subject to photon motion and thus time is defined by photon motion as is length.

 

Circularity of definition is demonstrated by taking a definition or a set of definitions and highlighting the isolated recursion of at least one concept within it.

"a=_a," which is self-evident, is a cyclical definition, as is "Binary code is code that is binary." Now, "a=_xb; b=_cy; c=_az" is another, more complex case of circularity, this time not within the same definition but within a set of definitions. Define time, define length. "a=_bc; d=_ec" is not a case of circularity, as the recursion is not isolated within the set of definitions.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 02 May 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[fairy]

http://goo.gl/vKLiXx

[addx]

Are you referring to the Breakup of Yugoslavia?

We had the worst inflation for a decade or two before the breakup but also the decade after the break up
 

You have to work it out from the start. Please, read the poll topic I opened.
 
I have. Now what?

Well I'd expect a comment?

 

How does that prove that beneficial human biological evolution has not halted? Remember what you said: "There's a scent of blind wrongness in what you want me to ponder." Diversion leads to oblivion.

Biological evolution has halted. Evolution of behaviour has not. And in my thread I have connected the two into a single process, our observation of different mediums leads to the divide and conquer with one science branch handling biological and the other "anthropological" or whatever. The divide and conquer leads to inability to provide a coherent theory that encompasses both branches with the same underyling reasoning.

 

Cost? There is no cost, only revenue: the revenue of the employees he employs, the revenue of any possible shareholders he sold shares to, the revenue of the companies he buys from (whether for investment or consumption), the revenue of the financial institutions he entrusts his assets/savings in (such as banks), the revenue of the entrepreneur and investor funded by him (whether directly or indirectly via the financial institutions), the revenue of the charities he donates to (possibly for tax deductions), the revenue of the government he pays taxes to; and then, most importantly, there is the economic output he created to become a millionaire in the first place, unless he received the wealth by litigation or gift, such as inheritance and dowry, or banally stole it.

I'm not talking about economics.

Our last inprisoned corrupted official had a polar bear(among other rare animals) in his home which he hunted and prepared for display.

Now, he might have been a CEO of microsoft and earned it all by extraordinary insight, but his polar bear hunting or any other resource wasting activity is a cost for this civilization.

If he had exclusive knowledge which he used to acquire resources to build his castle, yes, the building of the castle provided for pay checks etc. But summing it all up, it's all useless. Little of the lives of these people or the activity of this company actually adds to civilization. The worker may have developed a new way to lay concrete, something minor, but it will spread among the workers. The contractor may have developed a new way to build. The millionare himself provided his knowledge of stock portfolio organising or something. But most of the effort of all the involved people is gone into waste. This waste is the cost of planet earth and our subjective time on it for this new knowledge to be conceived and applied.



 

And also, without aging you wouldn't feel really forced to share it [information] or use it, my #1 issue with "full biological immortality".
 
That is simply untrue. After solving the problem of limited lifespan, my dream is to make the world the best place it can possibly be, and, obviously, that will involve a whole lot of information sharing and use.

 
If its one thing I learned in this life is that you can't know how you will feel until you get there, unless you've been there.

A dream is a dream. Most people who've arrived at some point in their dream didn't really feel as they expected to.

I like what your dream is, don't get me wrong.
 
One moment you're claiming to know that I will stop feeling the need to share information if I eliminate aging, and the next you're telling me that I cannot know that I will still feel it. With all due respect, should I suppose that you know better than myself how I will feel?

I'm am trying to work out how I(or you) will feel by understanding how emotions work, how they evolved, given that thread I hope you can see that. I have my opinion based on that.

This is much different than you just simply thinking you will feel that way, it simply coming off your mind the way you'd like it to be.

Neither of us have experience how we would feel if immortal. But the difference is, it doesn't seem to bother you one bit to presume whatever you want about it without any(to my knowledge) rational discourse.
 

You're saying that it's impossible to know or predict how a person will feel in a certain situation until the person finds himself in that situation, yet you claim to know that a person will feel it unnecessary to share information if he is guaranteed not to age, even though no person has ever been guaranteed not to age. This is a contradiction.

You can not subjectively feel what you didn't feel and so your argument that this will be so is SUBJECTIVE.

I am trying to rationaly work it out and my argument is trying to be OBJECTIVE. I may be wrong rationaly, but your argument is in an invalid dimension - a subjective one, and thus it is not an argument at all, it's just a promise.
 

There's plenty of cases where people know with certainty how a given situation will make them feel. For example, you know with certainty that unless you're on appetite suppressants or have some kind of weird gastrointestinal/food disorder, absolute fasting will make you feel hungry.

You don't know you will feel hungry until the first time you stop eating.
 

Being nearly hit by a train will make you feel the fight-or-flight response from the norepinephrine release, winning the lottery will give you a feeling of serendipity from the dopamine release, regularly taking risperidone will make you emotionally flat from the dopaminergic, serotonergic and adrenergic receptors antagonism, and so on. It's all fairly predictable.

And all of those things happened some time in your life in some way or another.

Immortality never happened to anyone, nothing comes close.

If you want to compare, we can have many stories, since civilisation exists, that building towers of babylon is not the way to go. We have many examples of people finnally arriving at "the power" that the "willed" only to be corrupted and abusive with it. We have more examples of abuse of absolutistic positions than of altruism.
 

What emotion is distinguished by from other feelings (given that emotions are a kind of feelings) is thought. There can be no emotion without thought, whether conscious or subconscious. All emotion comes from thought; for example, thoughts of great immediate danger, without which you wouldn't have felt fear when you were nearly hit by a train. Thus, sine one's convictions often influence one's thoughts, one's convictions predict some of one's emotions. Knowing my convictions, I can assure you that being spared from aging would not make me emotionally less supportive of the propagation of knowledge. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it would?

Can you say what makes you emotionally supportive of the propagation of knowledge now, at this time, while being mortal?
 

We do not evolve as individuals and never have, since sexual reproduction appeared.
 
Here's that ambiguity again! "EVOLV" -- at one point you expand the definition of this morpheme, and now you bring it back to its restricted state.

 
No I didn't. We evolve the gene pool and knowledge pool meta-entities. The gene pool was just the first to appear with sexual reproduction.
 
In this case, you should concede that individuals can and do evolve QUA individuals: by growing, by learning, by changing for the better.

Yes, I can concede to that, and as pointed out on that other topic, that's just the first part of the deal. To "seal the deal" the evolved ability must be let go of into free replication.

Humans are reluctant to do that because it removes such acquired relative advantage compared to current competition (thus you have patent laws for example).

Humans are able to give knowledge that when they have trust towards those whom they're giving knowledge (or they're getting something in return).

 

Time IS position. There's no extra dimension of time. It's an illusion.
 
If time is position, then, given that position is relative location in space, time is relative location in space. That doesn't make sense. Time is a kind of change or a kind of dimension, not a kind of location.

That's exactly it.

*Passing of time* is ALWAYS OBSERVED as a change of position(of something we consider moving at a constant speed during the *passing of time*) in (premeasured)space.
 

You should also concede that there is a time dimension. It's not even that much a question of physics; as it is a question of semantics. A dimension is anything within which any given point can only be specified by no more than two coordinates. Any given point in the timespan of the Universe can only be specified by no more than two coordinates: either earlier, i.e. toward the past, or latter, i.e. toward the future. Ergo, the timespan of the Universe is a dimension.

Yes, semantics are confusing, but there is no time. It's just there to make semantics easier.

Every imagined future position in time can only be "observed" by agreeing it will "happen" when a certain position in space is reached. All observation is in fact subject to two separate chunks of matter colliding(meaning reaching a same position).

More importantly, you can not "move in time", but rather time "happens"(is observed to happen, which is a subjective illusion) as things move. In fact time is just invented for ease of understanding.

In fact it should simply be said that all motion(energy) happens rather than time. Motion never starts and never stops and is constant. It has always existed and all paths are set. The illusion of time is achieved by circular motion enabling you to rotate around yourself and see some other motion(a car going) in front of you advancing further during each of your own rotations/frames (this is just a thought excercise). If you do not know you are rotating you presume that there is "time" but is in fact the frequency of your rotation(frequency of observation).
If that thing seen advancing further has a mini circular motion embedded in long term straight line motion it can be seen to move slower than some other thing. This is a second motif to invent time.

The fact that you don't realise you're rotating doesn't mean your rotating motion spawns a new dimension. If you start rotating the other way, the rest of the motion in the universe continues as it did, so you can't reverse "time".

"person A travels 3 steps while person B travels 2 steps, how many steps will B have left when A reaches me" <- this the nature of the universe. There is no mention of time or distance in that problem. just steps which CAN BE EQAULLY UNDERSTOOD as distance or time. now, if you remember that we measure distance in light years, you have your answer why time IS position and why it is a circular reference.

Time can be and in fact is mostly imagined as a "step" of a kind of matrix-type simulation (derivation step). But this is just an aproximation that works on normal scale stuff. It breaks down with both relativity and quantum mechanics.
 

Quarks do not move at the speed of light. Quarks have positive mass.

Yea I know, I'm just using the word for its "elemental particle" meaning.

I dont dig deep into quantum mechanics as I deem they are riddled with elementary confusion.

Pair production cleary produces an electron-positron pair out of two photons and annihilation of them produces two photons.

Both particles display wave-particle duality meaning they are still composed of "wave like essence" which I consider to orbit at still the same fixed wave propagation speeds. Electrons and positrons are considered mass (I consider them to have quarks orbiting in all 3 dimensions, rather than simply have mass) and yet are still suffering the wave-particle duality, meaning mass is a wave as well.

Or we believe that once quarks merge into a particle they become something else by virtue of alchemy? Suddenly they're not 3 quarks anymore, they're something 4th?

The fact that all quark-composite particles have a half-life also supports that non-elementary particles are made out of orbiting quarks and the orbits are unable to go on forever and are destined to breakdown, otherwise, what would cause these half-lives? various orbit harmonics probably support the various particles that have a some kind of a half-life and exist to be observed at least for a while. some of the harmonics support very long half-life probably giving rise to particles such as electrons, neutrons, protons. these harmonics also play roles in atom stucture etc.

 

If the photon that exits the caesium atom and signals the pass of a second in fact orbits at the speed of C, that means its exit position(time position) is subject to photon motion and thus time is defined by photon motion as is length.
 
Circularity of definition is demonstrated by taking a definition or a set of definitions and highlighting the isolated recursion of at least one concept within it.

"a=_a," which is self-evident, is a cyclical definition, as is "Binary code is code that is binary." Now, "a=_xb; b=_cy; c=_az" is another, more complex case of circularity, this time not within the same definition but within a set of definitions. Define time, define length. "a=_bc; d=_ec" is not a case of circularity, as the recursion is not isolated within the set of definitions.

I think I explained it.

If time is defined as "events that happen"(in fact positions that collide) between two superfine energy positions of caesium atom and if energy positions are determined by energy moving, and if all energy is wave-like(and there's no proof of it not being) that means it is moving at a fixed speed. If energy is trapped in a single place then it is orbiting that single place. It is still orbiting at fixed speed and the point of breaking out the orbit for each separate quark is a result of its orbiting path, its orbiting motion.

If a caesium atom is composed of 100000 orbiting photon quakrs (for simplicity sake).

Lets say 1 quark "escapes" (as the radiation we wait for to click our stopwatch - which is a photon in essence) every second.

How did that photon quark move slower than C while IN the atom?

The photon quark was locked in a loop inside the atom - but still moving at the speed of C - there's no reason to forget this. If we imagine 1000000 of such orbiting loops and if we imagine that the orbits are not perfect and eventually the harmonics of them result in an orbit exiting the atom we can imagine all 1000000 of them doing so but being at different positions. So we notice one exit every second, while the others are still orbiting at the speed of C waiting to orbit their 10000000000000 orbits to leave the atom.

So, the time to exit the atom is determined by the speed c which is constant and the length of the all orbits a photon must endure inside the atom including the last exiting orbit (it's a bit simpplyfying).

So, time is measured as the time it takes for the photon inside the caesium atom to exit it via a string of many preset orbits/loops required and destined for him to travel along before exiting the atom. He still travels at the speed of C and so his exit position is ONLY determined by his PATH(distance) which is subject to forces within the atom traveled by a photon and depend on the atoms configuration. So time is measured by having a preset distance(all the orbiting-looping the photon must endure before exiting the caesium atom) traveled by a photon.

And distance we know is measured by having a photon travel for a preset time and measuring the distance it traveled.

take note that general relativity also does away with gravity being a force(meaning acting through time) but simply changing "spacetime geometry" causing photons not to be "accelerated" but rather to move in "preset" geometric orbits around black holes and mass bodies - this is because it encounters the same problem - "step" like nature of forces acting and things moving - but this "step like" nature is only a processing issue - not something real requiring a dimension. it is a mind melting proposal but its not like relativity can be understood intrinsically either.

I think it's really hard to dispute what I'm saying...and interestingly it so also points out the problems with relativistic thought and quantum thought.. and if anyone bothers to actually work some math up for this I'm sure it can be proven.

The reason caesium is used to "track time" is because we can't see the spinning clock hands and see that it is position and motion ONLY. This way, scientists claim there is some other "effect" that 'transparently goes on in the background' and the caesium atom picks it up and signals us with photons every second. Yet we can't do anything better with it than we can with the mechanic clock. There's no difference in "time tracking" between the two, both are equally affected by relativistic speeds.

Time is the "God" of science.

Edited by addx, 05 May 2014 - 04:00 PM.

[addx]

Forgot to link it up. Imagine the INSIDE of the atom as general relativity is imagined with geodesics and all(no gravity force or any other force acting but rather geodesics). There are no forces, but simply quarks(photons) moving at light speed along geodesic paths. That means that the harmonics of photon exit out(radiation) of the caesium atom is subject to the geodesics which seem to be more or less fixated by the atoms configuration resulting in periodic exiting of a photon. Many people do imagine elementary particles as kinds of singularities, and this would be similar. Many do imagine quarks performing some orbit-like motion in some n-dimensional space. It doesn't really matter.

There's no proof of photons of which the atoms are(at least partly) built of ever retard from the speed of c which means their intraatom orbiting paths have only an inseparable distance-time(depicted by the A and B person example) component bringing us to the same situation as when we're measuring distance with light. We're missing a time tracker that is not measuring time with light motion or any motion. And there wasn't, isn't and never will be such a thing. The best we can do is point at the ceasium atom and say that's it - the caesium atom is not measuring position change by another position change! It didn't move. Just the photon exited. But there's no proof that the exiting of the photon is not simply wave propagation along weird intraatom geodesic paths. So how come measuring wave propagation can measure both time and space? Because it's one and the same thing. The decision that the atom detects the passage of time is purely arbitrary. And given my case, I think they should disprove me if they can on drop it. Whoever they are. You I guess

Edited by addx, 05 May 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[boyko]

Dear Colleagues,
Eureka!

I think I know why we age at the level of the prime causes (did not believe myself). All the matter is that in our an evolutionary design (1) there is a pool of primary totipotent stem cells in the sense of Sköld et al.

Sköld H.N., Obst M., Sköld M., Åkesson B. 2009. Stem cells in asexual reproduction of marine invertebrates / Stem cells in marine organisms / Eds. Rinkevich B., Matrannga V. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2767-2

+ (2) in mammals, there are significant problems with neuronal turnover.

And everything !!! In detail:

 

Preprint http://boykoalexey.eto-ya.com/2014/12/31/the-third-concept-of-aging-of-metazoa/

THE THIRD CONCEPT OF AGING OF METAZOA

Olexiy Boyko,

I am sorry - Russian Language

 

 

++++++++++++++

Happy New Year

 

[free10]

Science

Health

Extending telomeres reverses ageing in human skin cells, finds study

http://www.ibtimes.c...s-study-1484948