EPTWill Science Unlock Immortality Before We Die? - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rash
Mexico45 Posts
| ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
On April 02 2013 08:52 Rash wrote: I agree it would be terrible for human evolution and growth as society. People not dying with a tendency to have less children it would mean more elder, which by simple learning patterns tend to keep old structures, which might slow down social change (not saying a scientific genius would stiffle growth in its area, but I do think social paradigms would take a lot longer to change) Post like this are implying that the technology of youth is NOW available. The time a technology like this is available for everyone you need to accumulate the society that has established has other paradigms then we have now today. It´s not so long ago i could keep myself a slave and that was normal by the whole society. edit: To your invention thing. The moment we could solve aging i very believe we would have built up AI. Inventions beyond your imagination. | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On April 02 2013 08:09 sam!zdat wrote: Those aren't incompatible. People still relate to it with the same religious structures of thought (science is fundamental principle of reality, science offers salvation, etc). The possibility of life-extension and the social construction of the possibility of life-extension are different things. the former is just a technical matter-of-fact, that second is a religious idea. the fact that your religion is based on something real doesn't mean it's not a religion (of course, I believe that ALL religions are based on something Real). I also don't think it's even going to be possible in the way that people want. we'll have some tycoons-in-vats, but that's about it. which is to say, I think 'immortality' (in the sense of 'much longer than normal human lifespan) is probably possible but not very feasible, and certainly not economical. How can we not look at science as being fundamentally different to religion when it provides reproducible evidence where classic religion can not. With that in mind people's faith in science, while still faith, is based in a much more credible way than classic religion. Qualifying it as something exclusive of what is normally called religious. The result of whether an individuals belief in science would qualify as religious is also entirely independent of whether immortality is feasible. Which brings into question why it is even relevant to begin with. Is your second paragraph just an opinion or do you have any evidence to support your idea of what may be immortality in the future. I've seen the "tycoons-in-vats" on Futurama before, but it didn't do much in the way of convincing me that this is what "immortality" will look like. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: Is your second paragraph just an opinion or do you have any evidence to support your idea of what may be immortality in the future. I've seen the "tycoons-in-vats" on Futurama before, but it didn't do much in the way of convincing me that this is what "immortality" will look like. nobody has any evidence about much of anything, really. just a hunch On April 02 2013 09:08 DonKey_ wrote: How can we not look at science as being fundamentally different to religion when it provides reproducible evidence where classic religion can not. i've written several times that what is religious is not science, but the way that science is positioned in our symbolic order. science is not religion, but the way people think about science is religious. that's the problem. people should think about science scientifically, and they should think about religion religiously. that would be more reasonable. science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object, so the fact that science and theology operate on different methodological paradigms is kind of a red herring. however, we should note that, in the ur-time, there was no difference between theology, science, or any of it. it was all just philosophy. the differentiation of these spheres of inquiry is itself the product of philosophical inquiry. the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry is perhaps a problem that should be looked into. but never forget that religion had to produce the notion of a rationally-governed, well-ordered, empirically accessible reality (Deism) before anyone could go about inventing any scientific method. | ||
|
VTPerfect
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:18 sam!zdat wrote: nobody has any evidence about much of anything, really. just a hunch i've written several times that what is religious is not science, but the way that science is positioned in our symbolic order. science is not religion, but the way people think about science is religious. that's the problem. people should think about science scientifically, and they should think about religion religiously. that would be more reasonable. science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object, so the fact that science and theology operate on different methodological paradigms is kind of a red herring. however, we should note that, in the ur-time, there was no difference between theology, science, or any of it. it was all just philosophy. the differentiation of these spheres of inquiry is itself the product of philosophical inquiry. the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry is perhaps a problem that should be looked into. but never forget that religion had to produce the notion of a rationally-governed, well-ordered, empirically accessible reality (Deism) before anyone could go about inventing any scientific method. Why use the term "religious" then, it obfuscates the situation when you describe people as having a religious belief in science, when science and religion's paths diverge increasingly from one another. "science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object" In your own words this is more than enough reason not to use the word "religious" to describe science. Call it faith or ignorance, as they are far more accurate terms. Deism was not required for the scientific method to be created. Deism itself defined by Wikipedia as: The belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. It was not Deism that allowed the scientific method to manifest, but the components that also created Deism: Reason and Observation . I fairly certain most people are happy with the "the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry" within philosophy. Not sure too many people actually wish to throw science and religion under the same umbrella again, I would in fact venture to say very very few would. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:49 DonKey_ wrote: Why use the term "religious" then, it obfuscates the situation when you describe people as having a religious belief in science, when science and religion's paths diverge increasingly from one another. because people think about science religiously when they don't realize they are doing so. they think that they are better than all other people who are "religious," when they are "scientific," but actually they are looking at science incorrectly, i.e. religiously. that is why it can replace religion for people - because for them it IS religion. Why will science keep going? why won't we run up against a limit, and never discover anything again? that seems perfectly likely to me. to think that science can figure everything out, building up a big heap of Progress, is an article of faith! Wikipedia idk about that man, is that a website or smth? I fairly certain most people are happy with the "the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry" within philosophy. they're not. there's a whole tradition about the critique of instrumental reason, big issue for 20th century theory. The whole problem of science-as-religion is a pretty hot topic right now. I'm very skeptical about a lot of the work being done on this problem, but the question is a real one. http://www.amazon.com/Dialectic-Enlightenment-Cultural-Memory-Present/dp/0804736332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364863917&sr=8-1&keywords=dialectic of enlightenment let's not talk about the differentiation/dissociation problematic, too much baggage. i shouldn't have brought it up probably On April 02 2013 09:49 DonKey_ wrote: It was not Deism that allowed the scientific method to manifest, but the components that also created Deism: Reason and Observation . that's a very religious sort of capitalization you have going on there  Are Reason and Observation angels in your pantheon? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:49 VTPerfect wrote: What good is it if we just keep self replicating. In terms of a polymath, one of 30 years is still very young. In terms of a common man his life is a third over. It is true that for a time such technology may be in the hands of the few. But better would it be if in 1944 every country had atomic power? The question that should be asked is not when will we be able to develop such technology, but when will the great we be ready for it. Understanding the fears of a scientist who would be a watchmaker. Is the "great we" ready for nuclear weapons now? As long as human mankind thinks in countrys, lands, continents and whatsoever As long as we aren´t able to share our complete knowledge and ressources with each other we won´t make any great steps in the near future. And i don´t see a terran dominion raising with a eagle and laurel wreath flag in the next 100 years. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:18 sam!zdat wrote: nobody has any evidence about much of anything, really. just a hunch i've written several times that what is religious is not science, but the way that science is positioned in our symbolic order. science is not religion, but the way people think about science is religious. that's the problem. people should think about science scientifically, and they should think about religion religiously. that would be more reasonable. science and theology don't have the same goals or investigate the same object, so the fact that science and theology operate on different methodological paradigms is kind of a red herring. however, we should note that, in the ur-time, there was no difference between theology, science, or any of it. it was all just philosophy. the differentiation of these spheres of inquiry is itself the product of philosophical inquiry. the dissociation of these spheres of inquiry is perhaps a problem that should be looked into. but never forget that religion had to produce the notion of a rationally-governed, well-ordered, empirically accessible reality (Deism) before anyone could go about inventing any scientific method. Good shit. I am also of the opinion that science and religion deal with fundamentally different spheres, the confluence (and comparison!!) of which is often contrived, convoluted, fruitless, faulty, or some combination of these. Damn I finished reading the last two paragraphs and you already used "spheres" so now it just looks like I'm stealing from your diction too =P | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
because people think about science religiously when they don't realize they are doing so. they think that they are better than all other people who are "religious," when they are "scientific," but actually they are looking at science incorrectly, i.e. religiously. that is why it can replace religion for people - because for them it IS religion. This is the same thing you repeated before without any explanation as to why "religious" is good term to use when describing peoples faith or ignorance of science. Religion is intrinsically antithetical to science, yet you keep using "religious" as a describer in relation to science. idk about that man, is that a website or smth? No need for ad-hominem. I figured the definition for Deism was pretty universal, but since you don't seem convinced. Here are some relevant definitions of Deism from various other sources. + Show Spoiler + Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism Deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/deism No where is it stated the scientific method was a product of Deism. The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god. they're not. there's a whole tradition about the critique of instrumental reason, big issue for 20th century theory. http://www.amazon.com/Dialectic-Enlightenment-Cultural-Memory-Present/dp/0804736332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364863917&sr=8-1&keywords=dialectic of enlightenment let's not talk about the differentiation/dissociation problematic, too much baggage. i shouldn't have brought it up probably That's fine I'm confident the majority of individuals involved in the topic are happy with things as is. I don't really need convincing of this. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25131 Posts
| ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 10:27 DonKey_ wrote: The idea of the scientific method is contradictory to Deism itself, which is fundamentally a belief in a god. funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then edit: by which I guess I mean, you're right, it IS contradictory, but only in the same way that everything is contradictory | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On April 02 2013 10:38 sam!zdat wrote: funny how the scientific method got developed by deists, then Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. Edit: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method Ill make another list of sources if I have too. Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote: yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) Deism included a "rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge." in favor of "the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God" So ya your sarcasm aside it's quite evident their thinking leads to mine.(mine being another irrelevant ad-hominem, but hey you went there again.) | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
I can't really fathom what would happen if immortality was available though. Society would probably change beyond my imagination, and I don't think it would change for the best or in the most innovative forward-going fashion. As a computer scientist, I like thinking about the advent of a Strong AI and the following so-called singularity more. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Who didn't call themselves a Deist in the 17th and 18th century? To oppose Deism during those times was akin to academic suicide. yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Remember from my other post how 4 sources stated Deism to be a belief in a god. Has anyone empirically and measurably proved him yet? for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know On April 02 2013 10:43 DonKey_ wrote: Deism included a "rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge." in favor of "the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God" So ya your sarcasm aside it's quite evident their thinking leads to mine.(mine being another irrelevant ad-hominem, but hey you went there again.) yes! it leads to yours, but it isn't yours. a rejection of revelation and authority is not incompatible with religion. religions often undergo periods of rebellion against received interpretations of scripture and the power of the priesthood (like... oh... Christ!) just because you shouldn't put the new wine in old vessels, doesn't mean the old vessels didn't use to have wine in them | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On April 02 2013 10:46 sam!zdat wrote: yes, secretly they thought just like you, but they weren't allowed to say it, so they pretended otherwise it's that big bad religion again, suppressing the natural state of mankind (viz. late 20th early 21st century atheistic positivism) for a Deist, the rational organization of reality (and its consequent accessibility to empirical inquiry) IS proof. that's the point. the fact that you can do science at all proves that god exists, for a deist. if there weren't any god, why would the world be so well organized? every time you're measuring ANYTHING, you're measuring god. edit: but I'm going to have to go read a book about deism now, because this is just what I remember from the humanities curriculum. interesting stuff! edit: really! think about it! why is the world the kind of world that is accessible to science? why do we live in the kind of world where things happen for reasons? is there a reason for that? fuck if i know "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god". | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 11:05 DonKey_ wrote: "the rational organization of reality" is neither empirical or measurable.(Now we're getting deep) right! so if you believe that reality is rationally organized, then that is a religious belief! you can't prove it with science, because it's a belief that is required for science to make sense in the first place. so therefore, if you want to do science, you have to believe something which is not scientifically proven, which is an epistemological headache if I ever saw one. guess we'll have to make a leap of faith here, huh. I hope those are not rhetorical questions with the answer being "because god". what other answer would there be? "god" is just a name for whatever the answer would be, if you knew it. | ||
| ||
