Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Chemical route to Immortality

plante1999 - 18-12-2011 at 18:23

My bigest fear is the death , fallowing my understanding of this concept , with a chemist mind. Death is the end of catalists cycles in the cells, which imediatly stop the possibility of thinking.This realy scare me.But there is chemicals that are able to extend life like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol
But is-it possible to extend more than 50% the lifespan? I will not ingest chemicals , but I will probably try on other cells like Saccharomyces cerevisiae ....

Thanks!!!

[Edited on 19-12-2011 by plante1999]

entropy51 - 18-12-2011 at 18:35

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999  
My bigest fear is the death , fallowing my understanding of this concept , with a chemist mind. Death is the end of catalists cycles in the cells, which imediatly stop the possibility of thinking.This realy scare me.But there is chemicals that are able to extend life like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol
But is-it possible to extend more than 50% the lifespan? I will not ingest chemicals , but I will probably try on other cells like Saccharomyces cerevisiae ....

Thanks!!!
Science Madness is going to hell in a handbasket. Jeez.

Endimion17 - 18-12-2011 at 23:18

Yes, it is possible, in vitro, on cell cultures. But we are not in vitro, and we're certainly not cell cultures.
There is an immense amount of uncertainty with extension of human life and I'd say that any attempt to declare something as a cure for greatly extending life or even an elixir of life is actually pseudoscience which when applied to medicine yields quackery.

No one will live forever. Even if we ever manage to handle our bodies perfectly (including the brain and our consciousness it stores in the form of charged molecules) and avoid accidents which would've kill us, the entropy of the universe is increasing. The energy is turning from a useful form into waste heat.

Memento mori. ;)
If we (as our minds) will cease to exist permanently, which is very likely (though I hope it isn't), there's nothing really to worry about, as we will be in the same state of mind before we were born. A point in the coordinate system beyond the definition of function.

As Epicurus said, when we die, we feel no pain because we no longer exist. When we exist, death does not, and when death exists, we exist no more. It's not a quote, I'm paraphrasing.
Supposedly, his epitaph was "Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo", meaning "I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."

Rarely anyone feels an instant relief reading this. It's something one has to settle with, and it takes time. Hell, it's still isn't over for me, and I've started thinking about it long time ago.

[Edited on 19-12-2011 by Endimion17]

phlogiston - 19-12-2011 at 00:56

@entropy, there is actually lot of professional research going on to investigate aging, and what causes it.

Currently, however, immortality is out of reach still, although in some experiments indeed up to approx 50% increase was shown. But this is a lot actually, imagine people living to become 120 _on_average_! Image what that would to do retirement funds...!

One of the best investigated 'methods' that has so far yielded results in every species investigated (suggesting it works through a highly conserved mechanism) is called caloric restriction. Essentially, it just means eating a lot less than you normally would. Some work has shown that altering the composition of the diet rather than dramatically limiting food intake may also be somewhat effective.
There have been spectacular results with primates that become a lot older in good health, so it is very likely that it will work in humans as well, but obviously nobody has tried that and it is not very ethical to do so. Perhaps some individuals are crazy enough to test it on themselves, but any results will then be anecdotal at best, and therefore nearly useless from a scientific perspective.

[Edited on 19-12-2011 by phlogiston]

fledarmus - 19-12-2011 at 05:02

An interesting book review from a blog dedicated to exposing poor science in alternative medicine...

Life Extension: Science or Pipe Dream?

At least a start into the literature on the subject...

Endimion17 - 19-12-2011 at 06:53

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  
@entropy, there is actually lot of professional research going on to investigate aging, and what causes it.

Currently, however, immortality is out of reach still, although in some experiments indeed up to approx 50% increase was shown. But this is a lot actually, imagine people living to become 120 _on_average_! Image what that would to do retirement funds...!

One of the best investigated 'methods' that has so far yielded results in every species investigated (suggesting it works through a highly conserved mechanism) is called caloric restriction. Essentially, it just means eating a lot less than you normally would. Some work has shown that altering the composition of the diet rather than dramatically limiting food intake may also be somewhat effective.
There have been spectacular results with primates that become a lot older in good health, so it is very likely that it will work in humans as well, but obviously nobody has tried that and it is not very ethical to do so. Perhaps some individuals are crazy enough to test it on themselves, but any results will then be anecdotal at best, and therefore nearly useless from a scientific perspective.

[Edited on 19-12-2011 by phlogiston]


It's not "a lot less". It's just eating in a way to avoid feeling full. Always "leave a little extra room" in your stomach. That's basically what it is.
If combined with good healthcare, it could statistically improve a nation's health and life span, without producing lots of chronically sick old people.

But people like to stuff their faces and the whole concept falls apart.

Adas - 19-12-2011 at 08:43

This is my opinion, if you don't agree, just don't read it:

I believe in God. I believe that death is just the beginning of something new and beautiful. This is my only hope - because we won't live here forever. That's impossible. There are many people who went through NDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience). There are many articles about it. And I know God exists and helps me, because I feel it everyday. If I didn't feel it, I wouldn't be where I am. And my experiences with God are not just ordinary, like he helps me in my math test or so, but I even have some "supernatural" experiences. But God's existence can't be DIRECTLY proven, because it is individual, everybody must go through it themselves. PM me if you wanna know more.

Again, if you don't agree with this, just simply ignore this post.

Mr. Wizard - 19-12-2011 at 09:10

I'm theorizing out loud here. The one proven chemical route to immortality is called reproduction. Life is a chemical reaction with a history. It is a 'program' that 'runs' in a certain chemical environment, just like a computer program runs in a computer's environment. Life allows memories of 'working', that is surviving, chemical reactions to move forward. The actual living contemporary organisms can also be programmed and their 'thinking' is analogous to a program running in a computer. Bad programs tend to be removed as non functional. Civilization and social organizations are programming that exists among the living beings.

I've never seen this actually printed anywhere, but it just seems an obvious extension from computer programming.

When you speak of immortality, do you just mean the living DNA of your cells? I'm guessing you also mean the cognitive awareness that comes with the programming of your life's experience, which adds another layer of difficulty to your project. Simple DNA immortality does seem to be a possibility, as in cloning, but even then there are problems. If civilization, the program that runs among some of us, continues to operate, I think the answer to everlasting life can and will be solved. This will only happen if civilization has enough wealth to afford the non essential explorations we associate with scientific advancement, and the mindset to allow it. Current trends are not bullish.

In short, find a nice promising DNA partner and make lots of babies, and teach them about the world. It's hard work, but proven successful. ;)

edit: spelling

[Edited on 19-12-2011 by Mr. Wizard]

Wizzard - 19-12-2011 at 09:54

Gravity, degeration of grown organs and structures, and mental capacity degradation are all causes of death beyond natural cell longevity :) Sure, a stone on the ground can live eons. How about a structure, like the Greeks and Romans built, made of stone?

Bot0nist - 19-12-2011 at 10:00

Quote: Originally posted by Wizzard  
How about a structure, like the Greeks and Romans built, made of stone?


"What we do in life echos in eternity."

Have kids and teach them.
Leave a legacy.

fledarmus - 19-12-2011 at 10:20

Chemical route to immortality - discover, develop, and popularize a new and incredibly useful synthetic reaction.

2nd chemical route to immortality - develop a new framework for understanding and expanding our current chemical knowledge.

3rd chemical route to immortality - teach and mentor a new generation of chemists.

Make sure that the life you have now is worth living before worrying about trying to extend it.

Bot0nist - 19-12-2011 at 10:49

Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  


Make sure that the life you have now is worth living before worrying about trying to extend it.



Very wise words fledarmus. Everybody dies. Not everybody really lives.

OK, I met my cliche quota for the day.:P

plante1999 - 19-12-2011 at 12:20

Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  

Make sure that the life you have now is worth living before worrying about trying to extend it.


I prefer to be imortal without any reason for it than die and have an un-aclomplished mission... But studying chemistry is a good reason to be imortal! ;)


Mr. Wizard: If ''Bad programs tend to be removed as non functional'' Why not making an realy well working ''programs''...

Now back on the subject: In fact from immortality I want to said the ability of one antity (complete organism) to be unalterable to time.

Sedit - 19-12-2011 at 15:00

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/could-age-reversal-mice-be-ap...

Just the first hit off of google to bring the topic up, there is much better resources out there for this branch of life extension. Antioxidants may be quackery but i think there is great promise in the area of Telomeres to make man live much longer. I am impressed with the progress that is being made since I first heard of this when I was a teen.

Mr. Wizard - 19-12-2011 at 22:46

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999  
Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  

Make sure that the life you have now is worth living before worrying about trying to extend it.


I prefer to be imortal without any reason for it than die and have an un-aclomplished mission... But studying chemistry is a good reason to be imortal! ;)


Mr. Wizard: If ''Bad programs tend to be removed as non functional'' Why not making an realy well working ''programs''...

Now back on the subject: In fact from immortality I want to said the ability of one antity (complete organism) to be unalterable to time.


Studying chemistry to prolong life is like studying electronics to write computer programs. Yes, life is chemicals, but the way the chemicals are ordered is essential, just like the coding in a computer.

My comment on bad programs refers to evolution. Given enough time we could learn the secret to eternal or very long life. Many steps will eventually get us there. I would love to see it as I approach my 'allotted span'.

Hurray for your dreams and wishes. I do not mean to splash cold water on them. All progress in this field and most others will come from scientific knowledge.

Endimion17 - 20-12-2011 at 00:57

Quote: Originally posted by Adas  
This is my opinion, if you don't agree, just don't read it:

I believe in God. I believe that death is just the beginning of something new and beautiful. This is my only hope - because we won't live here forever. That's impossible. There are many people who went through NDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience). There are many articles about it. And I know God exists and helps me, because I feel it everyday. If I didn't feel it, I wouldn't be where I am. And my experiences with God are not just ordinary, like he helps me in my math test or so, but I even have some "supernatural" experiences. But God's existence can't be DIRECTLY proven, because it is individual, everybody must go through it themselves. PM me if you wanna know more.

Again, if you don't agree with this, just simply ignore this post.


While there's nothing in the world that could be a reason to say there isn't a god (it is impossible to prove its nonexistence or existence), "near death experiences" are just woo woo.

A pertaining scientist can believe there's something beyond this existence (I myself hope there is, that's it), but saying that near death experiences are any proof of it is a hammer in the head of a nail in the coffin of his credibility.

NDE is brain getting messed up while dying. Period. It's all physiology and while its proven explanation is not so old, it was thought it happens like that for more than 50 years.

I really have no problems with anyone's beliefs, but when faced with absolute statements based on nothing, I react.
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
I'm theorizing out loud here. The one proven chemical route to immortality is called reproduction. Life is a chemical reaction with a history. It is a 'program' that 'runs' in a certain chemical environment, just like a computer program runs in a computer's environment. Life allows memories of 'working', that is surviving, chemical reactions to move forward. The actual living contemporary organisms can also be programmed and their 'thinking' is analogous to a program running in a computer. Bad programs tend to be removed as non functional. Civilization and social organizations are programming that exists among the living beings.

I've never seen this actually printed anywhere, but it just seems an obvious extension from computer programming.

When you speak of immortality, do you just mean the living DNA of your cells? I'm guessing you also mean the cognitive awareness that comes with the programming of your life's experience, which adds another layer of difficulty to your project. Simple DNA immortality does seem to be a possibility, as in cloning, but even then there are problems. If civilization, the program that runs among some of us, continues to operate, I think the answer to everlasting life can and will be solved. This will only happen if civilization has enough wealth to afford the non essential explorations we associate with scientific advancement, and the mindset to allow it. Current trends are not bullish.

In short, find a nice promising DNA partner and make lots of babies, and teach them about the world. It's hard work, but proven successful. ;)

edit: spelling

[Edited on 19-12-2011 by Mr. Wizard]


I think he's talking about our awareness. That's the only thing that truly matters when talking about immortality. Whether it's in the form of neural pathways in a squishy brain, or electrical charges in a tomorrow's vastly complicated supercomputer, it's about preserving out consciousness and memories.

Genome is nothing, really. Just a blueprint for making a host.
Reproduction saves half of our genome. Our grandchildren will possess one quarter. Their children one eighth, etc. It gets dilluted heavily by the time we reach fifth generation.

Immortality is just impossible, but extension of quality life... I'm all for that.
Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  
Chemical route to immortality - discover, develop, and popularize a new and incredibly useful synthetic reaction.

2nd chemical route to immortality - develop a new framework for understanding and expanding our current chemical knowledge.

3rd chemical route to immortality - teach and mentor a new generation of chemists.

Make sure that the life you have now is worth living before worrying about trying to extend it.



That is a beautiful post to read in the morning before going to work. Thank you. :)
Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/could-age-reversal-mice-be-ap...

Just the first hit off of google to bring the topic up, there is much better resources out there for this branch of life extension. Antioxidants may be quackery but i think there is great promise in the area of Telomeres to make man live much longer. I am impressed with the progress that is being made since I first heard of this when I was a teen.


Antioxidants aren't quackery. Selling them and saying they will give you 30 extra years is. ;)
They're quite useful for cell biochemistry.


Telomeres are one of the keys, true. It's an exciting era for molecular biology.

[Edited on 20-12-2011 by Endimion17]

peach - 20-12-2011 at 01:38

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  

There have been spectacular results with primates that become a lot older in good health, so it is very likely that it will work in humans as well, but obviously nobody has tried that and it is not very ethical to do so. Perhaps some individuals are crazy enough to test it on themselves, but any results will then be anecdotal at best, and therefore nearly useless from a scientific perspective.


People have started trying it on themselves. Many people around the world also have it forced on them by not having access to the gross indulgence we enjoy food wise.

I think an idea like that could only be successful in countries like the US and UK, where obesity and a piss poor diet are prominent. It's not going to work. At least, anywhere close to the way they're thinking, as is. The effect only works well in lifeforms that have genetically adapted to run on next to nothing to begin with. There is a base level below which we can't go with our normal metabolism.

What they're really perposing, under a different name, and what's actually at work, is a.) not being a jabba, b.) eating things the body was designed to function on (not a diet designed mainly around refined corn and modified versions of corn, carbohydrate and sugar fillers in every bite, drenched in fats).***

The standard approach for prolonging life so far has been to wait for the pathology of aging to appear and to then try to remedy that, usually with some form of drug (e.g. for Alzheimers).

After genetics became a big deal, people started thinking it wouldn't be long until we could engineer babies to be super humans that could live exponentially longer. Modifying DNA at such a base level (metabolism and other body wide complex, life sustaining systems) is not as simple as scanning embryos for one missing gene, or swapping a gene for eye colour.

A more interesting approach is that there are not many root causes of the serious problems associated with aging and there are already systems in place in the body to repair the damage they normally cause, up to a point.

Metabolism, for instance, requires the constant mopping up of free radicals and repair where they have managed to damage some cell component. The process occurs continually throughout life. But not perfectly. Over time, the damage gradually accumulates.

The same is true of other systems, such as plaques forming in the brain. Which causes little harm to younger people, but lead on to neurological issues (Alzheimers / dementia) later in life.

And the unwinding of the telomeres.

There are a few others as well, but not that many, lying at the root of the pathologies seen in later life. Rather than try to engineer those out entirely at a genetic level (very difficult), or wait for their effects to appear and use drugs (too late on), more focus is now being put on preventative intervention earlier in life to instead help the body fix the wear and tear it's self. That seems like the most realistic method of extending lifespans by any major step in the near future.

Aubrey De Grey is a name you will likely find appearing frequently in searches related to aging.
Quote:
Dr. Aubrey de Grey is a biomedical gerontologist based in Cambridge, UK, and is the Chief Science Officer of SENS Foundation, a California-based 501(c)(3) charity dedicated to combating the aging process. He is also Editor-in-Chief of Rejuvenation Research, the world’s highest-impact peer-reviewed journal focused on intervention in aging. He received his BA and Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in 1985 and 2000 respectively. His original field was computer science, and he did research in the private sector for six years in the area of software verification before switching to biogerontology in the mid-1990s. His research interests encompass the characterisation of all the accumulating and eventually pathogenic molecular and cellular side-effects of metabolism (“damage”) that constitute mammalian aging and the design of interventions to repair and/or obviate that damage. He has developed a possibly comprehensive plan for such repair, termed Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS), which breaks aging down into seven major classes of damage and identifies detailed approaches to addressing each one. A key aspect of SENS is that it can potentially extend healthy lifespan without limit, even though these repair processes will probably never be perfect, as the repair only needs to approach perfection rapidly enough to keep the overall level of damage below pathogenic levels. Dr. de Grey has termed this required rate of improvement of repair therapies “longevity escape velocity”. Dr. de Grey is a Fellow of both the Gerontological Society of America and the American Aging Association, and sits on the editorial and scientific advisory boards of numerous journals and organisations.


***I think a lot of you would enjoy the documentary Food Inc. It is not about vegetarianism or veganism, it is about how the food industry works; e.g. Monstanto owning most of the farms via intellectual property, sending their rough boys round to visit the farmers and their ex employees sitting on the boards that regulate food products (blocking the labeling of products containing genetically modified strains and the nutritional content labels on fast food).

[Edited on 20-12-2011 by peach]

Adas - 20-12-2011 at 08:55

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  


While there's nothing in the world that could be a reason to say there isn't a god (it is impossible to prove its nonexistence or existence), "near death experiences" are just woo woo.

A pertaining scientist can believe there's something beyond this existence (I myself hope there is, that's it), but saying that near death experiences are any proof of it is a hammer in the head of a nail in the coffin of his credibility.

NDE is brain getting messed up while dying. Period. It's all physiology and while its proven explanation is not so old, it was thought it happens like that for more than 50 years.[Edited on 20-12-2011 by Endimion17]


Okay, you say NDE is caused by "brain getting messed up". But there were cases of NDE in pacients with as low sugar levels in brain as 1 mg/dl. Their brain was almost DEAD. Almost dead brain can not produce so clear and fantastic experiences.

So I am not talking shit. I have done some research before.

Bot0nist - 20-12-2011 at 09:23

Can you post some of the sources and research youve you've?

Adas - 20-12-2011 at 09:30

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2793638/posts

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/near-death-experiences-30-years-of-research-part-1-61547.html

Endimion17 - 20-12-2011 at 15:16

Quote: Originally posted by Adas  
Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  


While there's nothing in the world that could be a reason to say there isn't a god (it is impossible to prove its nonexistence or existence), "near death experiences" are just woo woo.

A pertaining scientist can believe there's something beyond this existence (I myself hope there is, that's it), but saying that near death experiences are any proof of it is a hammer in the head of a nail in the coffin of his credibility.

NDE is brain getting messed up while dying. Period. It's all physiology and while its proven explanation is not so old, it was thought it happens like that for more than 50 years.[Edited on 20-12-2011 by Endimion17]


Okay, you say NDE is caused by "brain getting messed up". But there were cases of NDE in pacients with as low sugar levels in brain as 1 mg/dl. Their brain was almost DEAD. Almost dead brain can not produce so clear and fantastic experiences.

So I am not talking shit. I have done some research before.


And who says all of those experiences occur right at that very moment? Why couldn't they occur during the waking up?
Dreams can seem to last for few years, you can grow old in your dream, but in reality, they usually not longer than half an hour.
You're missing the fact that there's no reference point. A dying brain is shuts down its consciousness and sensory inputs get inside and become garbled, mix with older data. Rebooting can last for few minutes during which new unique "experiences" are made which are then processed when consciousness kicks back in, tricking the person to think they were on a fantastic journey through whatever their mind made up.

NDE is messed brain, glowing tunnel is nervus olfactorius shutting down. That's what we know. Those things aren't mystical, but hardcore clinical shit studied for decades. Some think it's morbid, but I find it quite interesting.
If anyone wants to believe something else, that's their opinion. Some people believe in tooth fairies, too. But saying it's science... that's just wrong. Those things belong with "soul weight measuring" bullshit.

[Edited on 20-12-2011 by Endimion17]

AndersHoveland - 20-12-2011 at 20:09

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999  
My bigest fear is the death


The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. The quality of life is more important than quantity.

If you are so concerned about your chemical knowledge vanishing with you, perhaps you should write a book, to leave behind for posterity.

Many ancient Chinese alchemists spent [wasted] their entire lives searching for the "secrets of immortality". No use struggling against the inevitible.

Even if, hypothetically, it some day becomes possible to extend human life without limit, I do not really see any point. Cells in the human body are constantly dying and being repalced by other cells. This is really no different from humans dying and being replaced by the next generation.

Sedit - 20-12-2011 at 20:18

Every cell does not contain ones conciseness so yes, there is a huge difference between the two. I would love to live "forever" or at lest something close to it.

After death nothing that ever happened will have happened... that's the fucked up part of it all. I look at my life and don't like the idea of this never happening which means death is a shitty option. At one point I would not mind to die perhaps but as it stands I would like a lot more time then the possible 100 years at best I am looking at right now if I'm lucky.

AndersHoveland - 20-12-2011 at 20:31

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
Every cell does not contain ones conciseness so yes, there is a huge difference between the two. I would love to live "forever" or at lest something close to it.

After death nothing that ever happened will have happened... that's the fucked up part of it all. I look at my life and don't like the idea of this never happening which means death is a shitty option.


What exactly is "consciousness"? Does it actually exist, or is it just a convenient human conception, a way of perceiving reality?

What about the theories that speculate that the universe will repeat over and over again, that time and space are circular?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=118239

[Edited on 21-12-2011 by AndersHoveland]

Sedit - 20-12-2011 at 20:42

I know about the continuous universe theories but they are that... theories. I don't wish to base my existence off of someones assumptions.

I also don't wish to base my existence off my own assumptions. This means I need more time to think and must live longer then possible right now. I think most of us on this forum will live to 120-150 and perhaps longer. The progress is being made so fast that we may live much longer. Who knows where Nano Technology will take us. Immortality seems viable when you can rebuild things from the atom up.

DerAlte - 20-12-2011 at 22:12

AH wrote:
Quote:
What exactly is "consciousness"?


Don't even ask! Or this thread will go on for ever.

Sedit wrote:
Quote:
I think most of us on this forum will live to 120-150 and perhaps longer.


Really? Who is going to work to pay the Social Services you will no doubt need to service your aging decrepit frame at that age? Your great great grandchild? No, he/she will be working for his/her aging parents. As for the world's population, you think China's is large now? When you are 150 it will be in the trillions. Or maybe there will be state order sterilization at birth except for party members of the global world order. Do not wish for disaster.

Der Alte

Sedit - 20-12-2011 at 22:24

I didn't suggest I think it is right, I just suggested what I see as a general trend in modern medicine and understanding of the biological system. In under 100 years we have greatly increased the lifespan of the body.

I understand your age DerAlte and I understand my own. At only 30 I do not really include myself in the portion I think will live to be these ages however never underestimate the rate of progress. It is happening very fast. Possibly faster then we can handle like you mentioned about china but that is a topic for the responsibility of humanity thread not this one.

Many deaths are from heart failer.... we are quickly reaching the time where growing you a new heart from your own genes is not even a little bit out of the question. If you extend there lives imagine the lives of those from liver, lung, and brain issues.... You are looking at a much larger global average in life span if we could fix even the basics. This is not even touching on the technologies of Nanotech or Telomeres. With there help it will make small issues like heart failer look like a thing of the past.

Endimion17 - 21-12-2011 at 03:32

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
What exactly is "consciousness"? Does it actually exist, or is it just a convenient human conception, a way of perceiving reality?

What about the theories that speculate that the universe will repeat over and over again, that time and space are circular?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=118239

[Edited on 21-12-2011 by AndersHoveland]


Consciousness is an emergent property of our brain, like one tree is one tree, but 5000 trees is 5000 trees, but also a forest. That's the elegant explanation. A way of perceiving reality, that's also a good one. Always keep it simple and elegant.

If universe really repeats itself, that doesn't matter to anyone. I am now and I will not be again, because if I am every now and then, it would be a part od me, part of my memories.
The same thing goes for reincarnation, which is by fat the most idiotic idea I've ever came across that's somehow so popular with hipsters in the West. "Yay, I'm going to be born again!".... FAIL, you're not. :D

bquirky - 21-12-2011 at 08:04

I like the old startrek puzzle.

If you go into a fictional teleporter and every atom in you dis integrated and there state transmitted and reconstructed. are you the same person ? is the reel you dead and a copy with your memory in its place? how would you tell ? the copy of you will claim to be you and in good health and pass any test a observer might conceive.

but then is that really any different than waking up each morning with nothing but a memory of your previous life ? could it be that you 'die' and get resurrected everyday ? if so then would the method of resurrection make any difference at all ?



Endimion17 - 21-12-2011 at 08:17

Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
I like the old startrek puzzle.

If you go into a fictional teleporter and every atom in you dis integrated and there state transmitted and reconstructed. are you the same person ? is the reel you dead and a copy with your memory in its place? how would you tell ? the copy of you will claim to be you and in good health and pass any test a observer might conceive.

but then is that really any different than waking up each morning with nothing but a memory of your previous life ? could it be that you 'die' and get resurrected everyday ? if so then would the method of resurrection make any difference at all ?





That's fictious teleportation and irrelevant, but also only mildly scary.

Real, scary teleportation would be scanning the quantum information of every particle in your body, thus destroying the integrity of the particles (basically killing you, turning you into a mush of atoms and molecules), and then transmitting and applying collected info to a distant machine that has all the necessary particles in storage.

Teleportation doesn't destroy the matter. It is not a cut-paste operation, but copy-paste, and if you want it to look like a cut-paste, you have to delete the original. That's the fucked up part.

From the quantum mechanics viewpoint, the copied particle is basically the same one, as there are no means of distinguishing one from another.
But humans (matter and information contained in it) aren't just particles. They're a set of particles, sorted in a specific way in a point of time. That really means a killing would be neccessary, which is of course, unethical.

White Yeti - 28-12-2011 at 08:07

A human being in his highest state of entropy is a dead man. So why try to be immortal? When we try to extend our life expectancies, we start to fall ill to diseases, heretofore unseen. Difficult to cure diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and countless others arise when the body lives longer than it was naturally designed to live. It only gets worse as we try to live longer. So why bother?

symboom - 28-12-2011 at 14:54

there was this show on curiosity in the us
Can we live forever
http://www.videoweed.es/file/4e9c28b5cc0e3
after deleting adds

if any one has a better full video to watch this show online please post link.

[Edited on 29-12-2011 by symboom]

DubaiAmateurRocketry - 1-4-2014 at 14:12

http://www.viewzone.com/aging.html

This is some good read for basics of aging. Since oxidation damage is the main reason our normal cell need to repair to divide(beyond repair) and that vitamin C could decrease the oxidation damage, does that mean taking in vitamin C can increase your life span?

ElizabethGreene - 1-4-2014 at 18:07

The last time I looked at the Big-S Science for life extension, the things you could do to extend your lifespan were:

1. Don't smoke, drink excessively, or use illegal drugs.
2. Live in a first world country with enough money to pay for your care.
3. Be in a long term relationship.
4. Maintain regular social connections, particularly in your later years.
5. Retain some degree of physical activity.
6. Wear a seatbelt and drive the speed limit.
7. Maintain a caloric restriction diet.
8. If male, seek castration.


Anecdotally I'll add a one more based on personal experience.
9. During your later years aggressively pursue medical care.
- My mother (78) (Active, mobile, no-dementia, private health insurance) was diagnosed in November with kidney stones. While diagnosing this they also found a tiny (< 2 mm) tumor. She spent two painful months going to different doctors attempting to find someone to treat her and remove the tumor. Multiple doctors refused and offerred to send her home with a painkiller dispensing pump to make her comfortable until her death. Treated, stage 1 Renal Cell Carcinoma has a 96% survival rate.

There are a prodigious number of other claims regarding the longevity effects of reservatrol, anti-oxidants, statins, vitamin supplements, CoQ10, etc. I haven't researched these in any depth and leave that to you. Beware the confused and charlatans. Seek published sources and keep a healthy dose of skepticism. Please write back if you find anything promising.

Full disclosure: I am a member of the Cryonics institute, cryonics.org, and the Life Extension Foundation. I materially support both organizations for my greedy self-interest of not dying. (that's plan A.)

Chemosynthesis - 1-4-2014 at 19:14

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  
Yes, it is possible, in vitro, on cell cultures. But we are not in vitro, and we're certainly not cell cultures.

This. I work with cell cultures every day, for the express purpose of prolonging life or alleviating suffering... and cell cultures can be radically different from a whole organism, or other organisms. Even looking at clinical metadatasets, stats can be skewed for funding pretty easily.
Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  
An interesting book review from a blog dedicated to exposing poor science in alternative medicine...

Life Extension: Science or Pipe Dream?

Pretty accurate from my experiences. Not just that, but arguably the biggest progenitor of resveratrol hype has been questioned as to the veracity of studies, and so a critical eye must be turned towards to some of the claims.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/756905
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-wine-researcher-dr-dipak-k-d...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2012/01/16/resveratr...

It's also important to keep in mind correlative studies are not at all causal, and are easy for people to show up on Dr. Oz with unsubstantiated claims regarding them, and make a merchandising fortune overnight.
That said, there is still a lot of hope for improved quality of life, though it is important to remember how many promising drugs fail at stage 3 clinical trials, and that organisms are different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/science/senescent-cells-ha...
Edit- and death is not the end of catalyst cycles in cells, at least not initially. Proteases and various enzymes are allowed to essentially run rampant in cells at death, and is one reason the body begins to decay. Sequestration of components via membranes breaks down rapidly, which leads to unrestrained catalytic activity, such as calcium mediated excitotoxicity and caspase activation, for example.



[Edited on 2-4-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

elementcollector1 - 1-4-2014 at 20:13

Here's an easy way to be immortal:
Step 1) Be a jellyfish.
Step 2) Sting some tourists, but gently - some of them might have pointy things.
Step 4) Continue to be a jellyfish.

crazyboy - 1-4-2014 at 20:55

I think that the truly significant increases in human lifespan yet to be implemented are in the form of gene therapy technologies. Senescence and related diseases are genetic in origin but there is no necessity for their existence. There is very little selection pressure on genes which are deleterious to an individual after reproductive age, these genes have also been increasingly perpetuated in populations with access to modern medicine which allows these traits to be passed on. Eventually germ line gene therapy will allow us to gradually eliminate undesirable alleles or genes as they become documented.

Sedit - 1-4-2014 at 21:15

Quote: Originally posted by ElizabethGreene  


8. If male, seek castration.



Wait....
What...
Hell noooo...
Stop saying that...it hurts...

Anyway. Pardon my skepticism when one of the few woman on our forum suggest we all get Castrated :P

Seriously though why does this extend lifespan. Can't there be some form of chemical castration to mimic the life extending properties of Castration such as hormone alteration instead of cutting off my nuts?

The_Davster - 1-4-2014 at 21:35

I believe it has to do with statistics. Higher testosterone is correlated with higher mortality from accidents.

Quote: Originally posted by ElizabethGreene  

7. Maintain a caloric restriction diet.


there was also a recent study saying more muscle mass can be correlated with a longer life. Seems at odds with this.

[Edited on 2-4-14 by The_Davster]

Chemosynthesis - 1-4-2014 at 21:37

Quote: Originally posted by crazyboy  
I think that the truly significant increases in human lifespan yet to be implemented are in the form of gene therapy technologies. Senescence and related diseases are genetic in origin but there is no necessity for their existence. There is very little selection pressure on genes which are deleterious to an individual after reproductive age, these genes have also been increasingly perpetuated in populations with access to modern medicine which allows these traits to be passed on. Eventually germ line gene therapy will allow us to gradually eliminate undesirable alleles or genes as they become documented.

I wouldn't say that senescence serves no purpose; the Hayflick limit helps reduce proliferation of worn out cells and directly suppresses carcinogenesis. Additionally, I would not stroke with so broad a brush as to say there is very little selective pressure on all genes post-reproductive age, as housekeeping genes are always under selective pressure, and apoptosis mechanisms and pathways don't shut off, nor do proofreading mechanisms.

Additionally, gene therapies themselves don't necessarily target epigenetic expressional issues that currently require small molecule pharmacological treatments still in their infancy, such as methylating agents, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors, demethylators, histone deacetylase inhibitors, etc.
PMID: 12495905
PMID: 20025605
PMID: 18851683
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2076

Some pharmacotherapeutic agents with carcinoprotective properties in one tissue are actually carcinogenic in others (ex. estrogen in breast vs. ovarian cancer, among others). This makes proper drug targeting vital, which is awkward.
PMID: 23061769
PMID: 10933270

While pharmacological targeting of mitochondrial DNA has yet to offer any success stories I can point towards, I speculate that gene therapies on mtDNA might prove more fruitful in the short term than nuclear. We're still minimizing stochastic issues with gene therapy from decades ago that don't have easy solutions.

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=59c8d3ce3...

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/genetherapy/gtchallen...

PMID: 16369569
PMID: 17320506

Excuse the cancer-centric articles, but they are the flipside for aging, and are largely healing/developmental mechanisms gone awry, which I not only view as the opposite of apoptosis and senescence, but an area of experience for me.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/edsumm/e0508...

Sedit - 1-4-2014 at 21:47

I do believe that at the end of the day what should be the primary focus of immortality is figuring out how to store and mimic the brain. If we could keep conciseness alive via a computer or better yet have the ability to implant your memories into another living body then this is where we will truly find the road to immortality. Everything else is Pseudo-immortality because there is no way it could last for as long as the human race does. Memory transfer in theory could last as long as the human race.

Chemosynthesis - 1-4-2014 at 21:54

^Unfortunately, that brings back us back to the more philosophical and less scientific debate about copies vs. originals, which can rapidly devolve into a semantics debate about the definitions of life, mortality, immortality, and other unresolved issues. I mean, if NASA can argue about whether chemically active rocks can constitute alien life (sorry, no citation, but my friends at NASA have told me all kinds of drinking stories), I wouldn't want to go there.

crazyboy - 1-4-2014 at 21:55

I wasn't suggesting that senescence serves no purpose, rather that it is not a biological inevitability as evidenced by some organisms which do not appear to exhibit aging. I agree we're a long way off from curing cancer or aging, it seems that every attempt to tinker with our biological machinery has unintended side effects. It may be decades before gene therapy is a viable treatment in all but the most idealized cases.

Chemosynthesis - 1-4-2014 at 21:58

Quote: Originally posted by crazyboy  
I wasn't suggesting that senescence serves no purpose, rather that it is not a biological inevitability as evidenced by some organisms which do not appear to exhibit aging. I agree we're a long way off from curing cancer or aging, it seems that every attempt to tinker with our biological machinery has unintended side effects. It may be decades before gene therapy is a viable treatment in all but the most idealized cases.

Duly noted. I didn't infer what was implied from your post, and that's on me for not reading more carefully. I am still amazed daily at how little humanity does understand about what goes on inside cells under various conditions, much to my wonder and aggravation. It makes hypothesizing and grant writing that much more imaginative and tenuous, respectively.

DubaiAmateurRocketry - 2-4-2014 at 01:35

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
I do believe that at the end of the day what should be the primary focus of immortality is figuring out how to store and mimic the brain. If we could keep conciseness alive via a computer or better yet have the ability to implant your memories into another living body then this is where we will truly find the road to immortality. Everything else is Pseudo-immortality because there is no way it could last for as long as the human race does. Memory transfer in theory could last as long as the human race.


Is it possible to stay alive forever, say if we took some less important body parts out - eg everything except heart, lungs, and head.

http://cdn1.akamai.coub.com/coub/simple/cw_image/ea9b417681e...

Something like this ? ^

MrHomeScientist - 2-4-2014 at 08:27

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
I do believe that at the end of the day what should be the primary focus of immortality is figuring out how to store and mimic the brain. If we could keep conciseness alive via a computer or better yet have the ability to implant your memories into another living body then this is where we will truly find the road to immortality. Everything else is Pseudo-immortality because there is no way it could last for as long as the human race does. Memory transfer in theory could last as long as the human race.

Definitely agree. I'm very much looking forward to seeing Transcendence when it comes out in a few weeks!

Morgan - 2-4-2014 at 13:19

If you skip the the 7 minute 50 second mark, there's some food for thought, although he doesn't touch on every scenario or how the endgame might play out if we do succeed in living forever as an open book.
What will our understanding be then when/if we put it all together? What if the spinning stars only have so much to tell or vastly intelligent life forms are just a print job away, complete intelligence nothing more valuable than a grain of sand?

The 4 stories we tell ourselves about death
http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_cave_the_4_stories_we_tell_...

eidolonicaurum - 8-4-2014 at 08:24

Achieving immortality isnt too difficult. You simply clone yourself, allow the clone to live to, say, 20, then do a brain transplant of your brain into the clone's. You will have replaced your ageing body with a brand new version. This also has the added advantage that no new technology has to be invented for it to work.

Another idea, much more difficult though, is to download the content of the brain onto/into a computer, and achieve immortality as well as artificial intelligence.

I admit that neither of these are chemical methods, but the general topic is hardley chemistry itself. Besides, they answer the question.

Bert - 8-4-2014 at 09:17

Hey, are we talking about our hardware (the meat sack sitting in front of the computer), our software (the part of you reading this) or the whole system here?

The hardware doesn't last. Hell, all the cells are being constantly replaced. Not a lot of you physically WAS you 10 years ago.

The software is constantly changing. Are you really the same person you were at age 5?

The system is in permanent flux... You never step into the same river twice & all.

Maybe some of the better bits of information can be recorded, ideally internalized by others (your good ideas live on, not your meat sack or a memory of last week's laundry list). The system sure isn't going to run on forever and still be "you" anyhow.

Chemosynthesis - 8-4-2014 at 10:17

Quote: Originally posted by The_Davster  
I believe it has to do with statistics. Higher testosterone is correlated with higher mortality from accidents.

Testosterone also increases hemoglobin and hematocrit, which may increase the risk of heart failure in older males... additionally, early stage prostate cancer is androgen sensitive, and the current initial treatment includes castration to starve cells of testosterone. This usually only prolongs life until androgen insensitivity develops, which is much harder to treat, but it can theoretically prolong life.
Quote: Originally posted by eidolonicaurum  
Achieving immortality isnt too difficult. You simply clone yourself, allow the clone to live to, say, 20, then do a brain transplant of your brain into the clone's. You will have replaced your ageing body with a brand new version. This also has the added advantage that no new technology has to be invented for it to work.

Another idea, much more difficult though, is to download the content of the brain onto/into a computer, and achieve immortality as well as artificial intelligence.

I admit that neither of these are chemical methods, but the general topic is hardley chemistry itself. Besides, they answer the question.

While simple in concept, the practice of either of those is unforeseeable without new science and technology, unless you take "content of the brain" as a very rough approximate model.

[Edited on 8-4-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Tsjerk - 8-4-2014 at 10:17

One of the problems, if we would ever get to the point of transplanting a complete nervous system, is that the nervous system is not immune to aging. One of the problems for example I see is the fact that every nervous cell produces alpha and or beta-amyloids, which can not be degraded by biological means. Even chemically they are damn tough; boiling in trifluoroacetic acid is needed to break them apart and they will recombine when isolated.

These amyloids are one of the causes of Alzheimer for example, the only reason why not everybody gets Alzheimer is the rate by which these amyloids are produced, most people die before they accumulate Alzheimer.

[Edited on 8-4-2014 by Tsjerk]

DubaiAmateurRocketry - 8-4-2014 at 10:23

Not everyone will get alzheimer.

I wonder if anyone here have in depth study in bio cryogenics. If immortality is still not invented before my death, I think ill my my self frozen :p

Chemosynthesis - 8-4-2014 at 10:44

Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk  
One of the problems, if we would ever get to the point of transplanting a complete nervous system, is that the nervous system is not immune to aging. One of the problems for example I see is the fact that every nervous cell produces alpha and or beta-amyloids, which can not be degraded by biological means. Even chemically they are damn tough; boiling in trifluoroacetic acid is needed to break them apart and they will recombine when isolated.

These amyloids are one of the causes of Alzheimer for example, the only reason why not everybody gets Alzheimer is the rate by which these amyloids are produced, most people die before they accumulate Alzheimer.

I agree with your post, but there are new antibodies that have shown some efficacy in preventing and arresting these types of protein agglutinations in mouse models, so that particular example may not hold much longer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23217740

aga - 8-4-2014 at 13:26

Anti-agathics !

The Chemistry is super-complex, but the process is very very simple.

Pour 0.375 litres of conc. Nitric Acid on every burger you find.

Simples.

consciousness and telomeres

quantumchromodynamics - 9-4-2014 at 00:10

I personally have experienced near death. When I first started tinkering with high voltage things I electrocuted myself with a microwave oven transformer. After Thor's hammer smashed my ass over the workbench, I clearly remember seeing my body laying on the floor from above, and my point of view was slowly rising upwards. I struggled violently to move my body. A very strange thing was that with each effort it felt like my body was initially responding, but when I realized I was still paralyzed these efforts escalated into panic. After a huge fight, and I mean a HUGE fight, I managed to get back down into my body and was able to move again. I don't believe in God, and I can't explain that experience. From that experience it seems that consciousness can separate from the body. Consciousness being perception and thoughts and sense of self.

As I understand the aging process, cellular DNA runs a program that slowly unwinds the telomeres. Apparently, our cells have a built in planned software obsolescence. As the DNA copy program runs the telomers are unwound and the ends of the new DNA are subject to more damage, eventually causing the DNA to fail. Cancer. It seems that if we could alter cellular DNA programming, (download a DNA patch), so that it did not unwind the telomeres, it might be possible to extend the longevity of our physical bodies.

Chemosynthesis - 9-4-2014 at 00:27

Quote: Originally posted by quantumchromodynamics  
As I understand the aging process, cellular DNA runs a program that slowly unwinds the telomeres. Apparently, our cells have a built in planned software obsolescence. As the DNA copy program runs the telomers are unwound and the ends of the new DNA are subject to more damage, eventually causing the DNA to fail. Cancer. It seems that if we could alter cellular DNA programming, (download a DNA patch), so that it did not unwind the telomeres, it might be possible to extend the longevity of our physical bodies.


Kind of. It's more that whenever DNA replicates, the telomeres aren't entirely replicated because the segment that DNA primase attaches to and primes (with RNA) isn't kept in the copy strand. Telomeres are repetitious sequences, so this truncation doesn't matter at first, but once a limit is reached, you would begin to damage non-telomere DNA, and that tends to halt replication or trigger cell apoptosis.

The telomeres have to be accessed through DNA replication mechanisms (helicase, topoisomerase, histone firing, etc.) in order to replicate the cell faithfully.

There are enzymes that extend the telomeres, called telomerases. Unfortunately, activating these can cause cancer, and they are overactive in many cancers. This makes it far more likely that a cell lives long enough to sustain mutation damage, and the multiple hit hypothesis (aka Knudson hypothesis) reasons that the more mutations a cell has, the greater the chance of activating an oncogene or inactivating a tumor suppressor.

So, the Hayflick limit is arguably an evolutionary selection tool to build in an expiration date based on the proofreading error rate in DNA replication. Because of this, unregulated telomerase activation is actually a bad thing. Even ephemeral activation with a pharmacophore of tailored half-life would increase risk for oncogenesis, at least minusculely. There're all kinds of links in my previous post on this type of thing.

There's more, but I start to get fuzzy after that without more reading from one of my old advisors.

DubaiAmateurRocketry - 9-4-2014 at 01:27

How do you get brain cancer if your brain cells do not divide ?

Tsjerk - 9-4-2014 at 01:30

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry  
Not everyone will get alzheimer.

I wonder if anyone here have in depth study in bio cryogenics. If immortality is still not invented before my death, I think ill my my self frozen :p


Maybe I was not entirely clear, what I meant was; Everybody will get Alzheimer if they would live long enough. Just as everybody would get cancer if they would live long enough. Everybody is building up the plaque or the mutations causing these diseases, just not everyone builds them up at the same rate.

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry  
How do you get brain cancer if your brain cells do not divide ?


Not all cells in your brain are neural cells, but you can still get neural cancer if mutations appear in them during their growth, every cell is coming from stem cells originally, so in that process cancer can occur. I know a girl who has egg-cell cancer, very rare because egg-cells don't divide before fertilization, but it does exist. The fact cells don't divide doesn't mean they can't.

[Edited on 9-4-2014 by Tsjerk]

German - 26-6-2014 at 16:08

I would argue we are more then just memories. Being data storage devices I believe is a too simplified view of human beings.

Besides, perhaps this isn't being alive. Perhaps we are dead and those on the other side are the ones who are alive.

alexleyenda - 26-6-2014 at 16:17

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry  
How do you get brain cancer if your brain cells do not divide ?

Your brain does not only contain neurons as stated previously, they also contain gliocytes, cells that support your central nervous system by : making an electric isolating coating on the axons, filtering the blood to make sure the liquid feeding the neurons is absolutely perfect and infection free, defend against infections that passes through the barrier anyway etc... and these gliocytes well they do divide. So when you get a brain cancer it is these cells that are fucked up.

[Edited on 27-6-2014 by alexleyenda]

pneumatician - 1-11-2014 at 18:24

Quote: Originally posted by Bot0nist  
Quote: Originally posted by Wizzard  
How about a structure, like the Greeks and Romans built, made of stone?


"What we do in life echos in eternity."

Have kids and teach them.
Leave a legacy.


only onother organism act like humans, a virus a cancer...

agent smith, matrix.

pneumatician - 1-11-2014 at 19:05

The paradigm of science is that creation is all, and the creator is nothing. Religion says the creator is all, and the creation is nothing. These two extremes are the bars of a prison cell. They prevent observation of all phenomenon as an interactive whole.

eureka telomeres is the key!!!
No!!! telomeres produce cancer!!!

eureka antioxidants is the key!!!
No!!! antioxidants is qaukery!!!

AL-chemy is charlatan's quakery!!!

devilish chemicals are good!!! :DDDD...

not a medium point? you are lost FOREVER.

human body is too much complex for idiots searching A ONLY PILL of inmortality, must take the human body as a system with subsystems, all running at the same time for same-determined goal. the only "pill of inmortality" of which I and many of you have heard is the philosopher stone. any other "concept" like this in modern pharmachem???

nobody here talk about heavy water, body petrification...

-----
All form, all physical form is, in reality, vibration, and all vibration is in reality consciousness.

Random - 2-11-2014 at 12:47

Well the older I get the concept of dying becomes simpler and simpler. Like when I got so drunk, also drank absinthe mixed with all sorts of other drinks if that means something that I was basically under whole body anaesthesia basically and as crazy as it sounds I was feeling indifferent to dying. Euphoric state was also contributing to this but to me the concept of time stopped and my life was seeming pretty worthless. I don't feel like this now of course but under the influence for example of a very very high dose of alcohol it was pretty different. And if I remember it, I was feeling like I was dying and I wasn't scared of it. This experience changed my perspective on life. People are scared of death not because of dying but because of pain. The only thing I felt was this "why today?"

This makes me more scared of accidents that would damage my quality of life than death. Also while you are alive you might aswell make the best out of it as long as you are able. This doesn't mean I am against anti-aging research at all. Also it doesn't mean that you should behave like you are on top of the world, just make the best of the events that are happening and are given right now to you without much philosophy. Getting off topic here but my philosophy is wherever I am consciouss, I'll try to adapt (and yeah that currently meany protecting my health).

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by Random]

halogen - 2-11-2014 at 18:29

What most people don't understand is that pain and death are the same thing.

When something hurts, it's because part of you imagines the result is debilitation.

When one has information, the imagination is modulated. In doubt, the body fears change, instinctive images relied on.

Chemosynthesis - 2-11-2014 at 23:55

Quote: Originally posted by pneumatician  
The paradigm of science is that creation is all, and the creator is nothing. Religion says the creator is all, and the creation is nothing. These two extremes are the bars of a prison cell. They prevent observation of all phenomenon as an interactive whole.
[…]
All form, all physical form is, in reality, vibration, and all vibration is in reality consciousness.


1. Not at all. Please cite where either "says" what you claim. You portray the two as diammetrically opposed, yet this is not necessarily the case; See Jay Gould. Empiricism is limited to physically demonstrable "facts" through rejectable hypotheses, but says nothing on what has yet to be or cannot be tested in a falsifiable manner. See Karl Popper. Also feel free to read the chapter "The Dragon In My Garage" of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.

As for religion, that has nothing to do with the forum, and making broad, sweeping generalizations of all religions seems very controversial elsewhere. Take pantheism, for example. Michio Kaku claims to be a pantheist, believing that the universe is a deity, and he is not alone. That contradicts your statement.
http://hollowverse.com/michio-kaku/

I can't believe that your statements warranted bumping the thread.

2. New age quackery about vibrations and consciousness, along with bumping old threads to quote the Matrix should be cited per forum rules and avoided, respectively.
Quote: Originally posted by halogen  
What most people don't understand is that pain and death are the same thing. When something hurts, it's because part of you imagines the result is debilitation. When one has information, the imagination is modulated. In doubt, the body fears change, instinctive images relied on.
Pain and death are absolutely not the same thing, otherwise local anesthetics and analgesics wouldn't function, or would prevent death.

Neuroscience and neuropharmacology are biological in nature, and removed from cognition (cognitive scientists are unsure whether the same can be said for cognition). This separation of the two allows congenital inability to feel pain in very living organisms. Apoptosis in non-neural cells doesn't induce pain since pain is a neural phenomenon, and different types of pain utilize different signaling pathways and receptors. See capsacin receptors, pain fibers, thermalgesia, etc.

Likewise, conditions such as neuralgia may not indicate cellular damage to the extent of death, and dead tissue does not feel pain (referred pain such as phantom limb syndrome being different).

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

gardul - 4-11-2014 at 21:01

I maybe the odd one here, but I say embrace death. I as well have had near death experiences. I have had many fight or flight experience as well in my life. There is no need to fear death when it is your time to go. What should be feared is the pain and misery that can come with it. If i ever get terminal cancer or am on my death bed and have no way of recovery why on earth would I want to be a burden to others? Stick a needle in me or cut my head off, what ever it takes. Death shouldn't be feared. Anything that is living has to die at some point. This is just a fact. Nothing lives forever and, honestly I wouldn't want to. I couldn't deal with society for another 100 years or more.

As this may sound rather morbid and odd for most people. i have seen a lot of darkness in my short time here. While we should fight to stay a live if you choose to, but when it is your time.. it is your time and no matter how hard you fight it is time to go. Embrace the unkown. who knows what is on the other side.