The possibilities for immortality

Author: Singularity
Radical life extension
Transhumanism
Immortality

Posts

Total: 76
#31
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
Actually I just noticed you mentioned NDEs. For you debate. I think NDEs as evidence would be a fun debate topic. If not I can just write about it here

Are you asking me for a formal debate? I don't have the time to commit to that so if you'd like we can discuss it here. I'm pretty familiar with it.
#32
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
Actually I just noticed you mentioned NDEs

Lol well I hope you read everything I wrote...
#33
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
Did you know that the brain shuts down just four minutes after the heart stops beating? and that NDE experiences (outside the physical body) take place long after that?
Topic's author
#34
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
1.Personal experience/intuition/observation
2.Correlated sources
3.Correlating evidence
4.Cross referencing sources
5.Spirituality 
1. personal/experience is not persuasive to me, and I think it should be left out of the discussion, unless you have some way to show that it is something I can replicate and trust the results of. I don't think you would trust my personal experiences to guide you in your beliefs either.

2. correlated sources- If you have sources that correlate these facts, I would appreciate if you provide me with the sources or tell me where to find them, so I have the opportunity to gain the same knowledge that you apparently have.

3. What evidence? Saying you have evidence is not convincing, you need to show evidence to be persuasive.

4. I'm not sure what this even means.

5. spirituality seems like the personal experience argument and can probably be lumped in with that.

Are you asking me for a formal debate? I don't have the time to commit to that so if you'd like we can discuss it here. I'm pretty familiar with it.

Yes I was asking for a formal debate, but we can discuss it here in a more relaxed fashion. No big deal. The problem I find with NDE's is that they seem to just be a psychological phenomenon, like dreaming that happens when your pineal gland responds to trauma by sending out chemicals that simulate light to your minds eye, and you can basically dream more vividly. I believe I have ran into some studies cited in the book "SpooK" by Mary Roach where experimenters have put cards on the ceiling during surgeries, to see if they could be recalled when people claimed to have had NDE's and the experiencer has failed to recall the specific card 100% of the time. 

NDE's caused by a psychological phenomenon, and not be evidence of an after life. 
Topic's author
#35
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
Brain activity has been detected up to ten minutes after death and seems to be more alert moments after death by a flood of chemicals entering the body. NDE's happening 4 minutes after death are to be expected. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/life-after-life-does-consciousness-continue-after-our-brain-dies

NDE's are interesting but it is not evidence for an after life. In fact I think NDE's as evidence is just an attempt to cherry pick data to confirm biases, and not a legitimate attempt to understand whether there is actually an afterlife or not, which is why all attempts to read a card after a patient has been put under, and have had their heart removed, has failed. 
#36
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
NDE's happening 4 minutes after death are to be expected.

That's not what I claimed, NDE's occur HOURS after brain death, even up to days ma'am. 
That's why I was going to link you a source if you were interested. 

"Permanent brain damage begins after only 4 minutes without oxygen, and death can occur as soon as 4 to 6 minutes later"

Yes I'm aware it CAN go up to ten minutes, irrelevant to what I'm going to show you. 

NDE's are interesting but it is not evidence for an after life.

Absolutely they are included as evidence that the conscious soul survives a physical death. But, if you're not interested or in doubt no reason to discuss it. Let me know if you have any questions. 
#37
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
NDE's are good evidence because of our own normal experience with consciousness. When have you ever left the physical body and brain and observed not only your own physical body but also everything going on around it? 
Now, this correlates perfectly with religious propositions, does it not?
#38
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
1. personal/experience is not persuasive to me, and I think it should be left out of the discussion, unless you have some way to show that it is something I can replicate and trust the results of. I don't think you would trust my personal experiences to guide you in your beliefs either.

That's ridiculous, testimonials are a huge part of evidence, actually half of what is considered as evidence. Personal observation is one of the few things you can be sure of. Considering you have a sound mind and good intelligence. 

2. correlated sources- If you have sources that correlate these facts, I would appreciate if you provide me with the sources or tell me where to find them, so I have the opportunity to gain the same knowledge that you apparently have.

Sure, but you have to be willing to at least consider those who are an expertise in this area, even if that source happens to be a religious source.

3. What evidence? Saying you have evidence is not convincing, you need to show evidence to be persuasive.

NDE's, spiritual encounters, religious sources, OBE's, soul travel, paranormal activity. All these things line up with the nature of what exists beyond the physical sense perception. If you're not open to that, then it's okay to remain ignorant of it. However, that's not a good approach to understanding something.

4. I'm not sure what this even means.

I use cross referencing through a wide range of sources to determine what could be true.

5. spirituality seems like the personal experience argument and can probably be lumped in with that.

Spirituality is the method we use to reach that which transcends the physical sense perception, as opposed to the scientific method.

Topic's author
#39
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
I used to meditate and experience astral traveling. It felt very real and I could swear I was looking down on myself, but common sense and logic say that it is more likely it was just my mind playing tricks on me. The sensation of astral traveling was not evidence for it, and it would be stupid to call it evidence
#40
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Singularity
So basically EtrnlVw still does not have evidence.

Here is a link to read about the "reliability of eye witness testimony.

Correlated evidence? Can't even point to one to even correlate too and asks you to believe essentially assume he is true without assessing it yourself. You could say I believe and wait for evidence but I doubt he even has any.

The third one he is literally spouting words. Apples, bananas, pears and oranges when you ask him to show them not list them.

Remember cross referencing requires sources which he is so adamant in not giving. From my view he is clearly a bad faith actor intentionally avoiding the key thing to make his ideas grounded. This has happened multiple times which is why I consider this to be bad faith and I doubt he has changed since then.

Remember he is trying to distance spirituality from science because there is no scientific backing for what he says while also having different standards thus making it easier to defend.

Maybe you have already picked up on this so I guess I am simply wasting my time. Oh well. 



#41
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The fact you dismiss evidence as what it is defined as is uneducated. It being accurate depends upon the source and the claim, it's irrelevant...IT IS evidence. 
The point here, is to match up evidence that correlates with the nature of that which transcends the physical sense perception. Whether you find it convincing is subjective, and most likely filtered through your bias towards the subject. That's sad.
#42
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
I used to meditate and experience astral traveling. It felt very real and I could swear I was looking down on myself, but common sense and logic say that it is more likely it was just my mind playing tricks on me. The sensation of astral traveling was not evidence for it, and it would be stupid to call it evidence

Thanks for the opinion. I'm sorry your own experiences aren't convincing, perhaps if you were to evaluate the number of claims involving all of spirituality you might say to yourself...ya know, what's going on here? am I stupid or is there a reality involved? does my conscious being really end with the death of the physical body? am I just a series of impulses and neural firing?
Experiences can vary from subtle to extremely intense but when you evaluate them as a whole you might find it more convincing. 
#43
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheRealNihilist
EVIDENCE
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
something that furnishes proof : testimony
an outward sign : indication
one who bears witness especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
TESTIMONY
"evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.
firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence
Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.
 a declaration of truth or fact
 evidence testifying to something:"

Evidence-
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,[2] and physical evidence
Topic's author
#44
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
hanks for the opinion. I'm sorry your own experiences aren't convincing, perhaps if you were to evaluate the number of claims involving all of spirituality you might say to yourself...ya know, what's going on here? am I stupid or is there a reality involved? does my conscious being really end with the death of the physical body? am I just a series of impulses and neural firing?
Experiences can vary from subtle to extremely intense but when you evaluate them as a whole you might find it more convincing. 
The number of claims wouldn't matter. The number of people being fooled into thinking a psychological phenomenon is not merely perception but reality, would not be evidence for the fact it is true. We have tests where people experiencing NDE's had opportunities to prove it by identifying hidden objects in the room only visible from an elevated position when they thought the were having an OBE, but fail to do so 100% of the time. The multitude of evidence just points to NDE's being a psychological phenomenon, and I agree with TRN's assessment of you to be honest. You are not debating in good faith, which is why you don't provide evidence or even back up your premises, and dodge everything thrown at you out of fear of being proven wrong. You are not seeking any truth, you are merely seeking to proselytize because perhaps you believe that you are equal to god and already know everything, so you think you have no room to learn. I disagree that you are god and all knowing though.
#45
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
The number of people being fooled into thinking a psychological phenomenon is not merely perception but reality,

How can you intellectually make such a claim lol? that is really an assumptive claim. One I find quite absurd, to dismiss the direct observation of untold number of witnesses. 
#46
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
TRN's assessment of you to be honest. You are not debating in good faith, which is why you don't provide evidence or even back up your premises, and dodge everything thrown at you out of fear of being proven wrong. You are not seeking any truth, you are merely seeking to proselytize because perhaps you believe that you are equal to god and already know everything, so you think you have no room to learn. I disagree that you are god and all knowing though.

Awe, no need to go any further then because I don't want to cause any conflict or tension toward each other, like I tell others there are two ways to find out who is full of shyt. You can wait until you slip from the material body or you can consider and get involved with spirituality at a level you become familiar and comfortable with. If you can't tell I'm genuine and here on good faith you are a poor judge of character. 
Topic's author
#47
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
Millions of kids every year perceive Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Are they real? Millions claim to have experienced UFO abductions, do you believe in those? 

How can you intellectually make such a claim lol? that is really an assumptive claim. One I find quite absurd, to dismiss the direct observation of untold number of witnesses. 

I find it absurd that you don't realize that humans have perceptual problems that are just naturally a part of being human and have been experienced by just about everyone in existence. I perceived Santa to be real at one point also, and at another time I thought I saw Bigfoot, but it is clear neither of those things exist.
#48
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
You chose to focus primarily on NDE's when I gave you many things to consider in my OP. You never even acknowledged the other points I made. You can believe that kids believing in Santa is an equal equivalent but that is intellectually dishonest. And yes, UFO sightings should be considered as evidence. Why would you assume we are the only creatures God created in an entire universe full of planets and solar systems? 
#49
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
and at another time I thought I saw Bigfoot,

Lol, who am I to say you and thousands of others did not see something you believed to be Bigfoot? I can't testify to that because I never have witnessed that, but I sure have witnessed spiritual entities. 
Topic's author
#50
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
I have experienced a spiritual entity as well. It was Santa Clause.
#51
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Singularity
and I agree with TRN's assessment of you to be honest. You are not debating in good faith, which is why you don't provide evidence or even back up your premises, and dodge everything thrown at you out of fear of being proven wrong. You are not seeking any truth, you are merely seeking to proselytize because perhaps you believe that you are equal to god and already know everything, so you think you have no room to learn. I disagree that you are god and all knowing though.
Finally being recognized for my good deeds. Thank you for acknowledging what he's doing instead of attempting to try to get to him or not even understand what he is doing at all. It is of course okay to seek out new ideas but if they can't be bothered to meet a pretty easy criteria as in linking a source I don't think that person really wishes to have an honest discussion more so engage in rhetoric to persuade you of what he is saying is true not proving it. 

#52
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
We have tests where people experiencing NDE's had opportunities to prove it by identifying hidden objects in the room only visible from an elevated position when they thought the were having an OBE, but fail to do so 100% of the time.

You are making the assumption that NDE's are a controlled experience when in fact they are not. Often times it's completely uncontrolled, the recipient is mesmerized by what is taking place they have no real conscious control over the situation because they are placed within an environment they thought was never possible. Shock, surprise, traumatism, confusion, hysteria or excitement are not experiences you want to play hidden objects with.
Actually that is what makes them even more convincing, the fact they are not controlled but average people not trying to sell any religious ideas or propaganda. They are just caught up in the moment.
It would be like me throwing you in a great white shark tank asking you to focus on how many fingers I'm holding up as I dip my hand in the tank lol. So I fail to see how this "hidden object" experiment disproves anything at all, it is quite dumb and not really worth addressing. But considering you are actually serious maybe take what I'm saying in this post serious. 

#53
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Singularity
I have experienced a spiritual entity as well. It was Santa Clause.

Very mature, and we see who is really here on good faith. 

#54
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sure, play little games without addressing me personally while I clown you. Big intelligent man you are. A boy perhaps?
#55
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you can't tell I'm genuine and here on good faith you are a poor judge of character. 
lol

Un-ironically saying this when you have shown countless time to not meet a very easy criteria, back up your statements instead of acting like a priest. Me and Singularity don't already believe in your ideology so you require something to get us on your side. Instead of actually doing that you preach to the choir as if we are an audience jerking off the immaterial. 

#56
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sure, play little games without addressing me personally while I clown you. Big intelligent man you are. A boy perhaps?
lol


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
#57
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Let me know where you want to begin, I'll be here waiting. 
Topic's author
#58
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
If they are looking down and calm enough to recite what doctors are saying to each other among other claims why would they be unable to notice a picture of a penguin on a book shelf. Whether the person is religious or not is beside the point. This psychological phenomenon feels very real, regardless of your belief system
#59
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,968
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Singularity
We will all die for old age. Genetics catch up. You can't prevent Type 1 diabetes or other things that are passed on genetically through you. Cancer is genetic as well. Autism is genetic too. if you are taller, you are more likely to die sooner as well

Topic's author
#60
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Vader
Genetics is certainly a component, but that doesn't have to be our destiny