@Hookah604: Go
Think of consciousness as money. If we are immortal, does that mean we are doomed to be poor? No. More we live, more we learn and can get better jobs and earn more money. We do spend a lot of money (mistakes), but we can always pay our old debts. You're right, we can't renew ourselves. That means we can't change our beginning, but we can always make a new end (exept Blizzard, that one is doomed).
Its hard to think like that, specially with a mind which writes programs. Why than genetic code doesnt transfers conciseness? And we start with a empty brain, which we have to fill up.
I think its like windows. When it gets filled up with shit, it breaks down in its complexness and can no longer function (vista).
Its hard to think like that, specially with a mind which writes programs. Why than genetic code doesnt transfers conciseness? And we start with a empty brain, which we have to fill up.
I think its like windows. When it gets filled up with shit, it breaks down in its complexness and can no longer function (vista).
Maybe the conscience isn't inside the brain and our brain just translates stimuli from the immaterial to the material (if this is true, we could perhaps make a machine that does the same). One of the biggest human mistakes - acording to psychology - is how we attribute cause and effect for every correlation. We see part of our brain being fired when we remember something and we are already assuming that there's the place where memory is stored. Correlation does not imply causation. But, assuming the conscience is indeed outside the brain, that gives great hope for an eternal life. And, we know already that life is a way too much complex than the operational system in our computer. I bet there's a lot of garbage collectors out there. Perhaps when we are born, we are just formatting our harddrive! :P
Imagine if life is the time that takes for our system to format...
Imagine if when we sleep, we're just loading the day of tomorrow... Or maybe you're sleeping right now and we are all a creation of your mind (god, I can't believe I created the popularity system, I'm gonna kill myself).
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Dam spelling correction "consciousness"
Anyway, this would mean with end up with a consciousness, which is unresetable...
I will just stick to that we start with an empty brain designed by the genetic code which is combined from my ancestors and mutated by radiation. And this unpredictable hardware is than filled up with information from its environment, which could result in selfawareness/consciousness. This just way more beautifully for me, than having constants which eventually determines me or even completely valuates the data which is coming from my brain/hardware.
The brain is mostly a reception tool, as you get older the brain tries to become an emitter (or avoids it)....
"is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life without the idea of immortality?"
Some people have a meaningful life, in any case they felt it was or other people felt it enough that they were compelled to advertise said person.
Some people never think of death, other obsess with it, in any case by the time you are a teen you have the issue in your reflection process.
Some people cannot accept the fact that they will, one day, not "be "anymore and this forever...
Is there a meaningful link between one's stance during life and the capacity to do something that (one or other people around and after) feels impacts one's world (while alive or after you die) ????
I think some people clearly mark their environment (what they do, how they think, etc...), they have varied stance and beliefs,
for instance a guy feels he'll never die (ignores/refutes the whole death concept as applied to himself) and lives very happy with that notion inspiring positive and constructive ideals "doing" more than "reflecting and doing",
... another guy obsesses with the short time he has left and surpasses everyone's expectations thanks to that sense of urgency he imposes on himself.
People can have meaningful lives, the concept of death/immortality, while it enters in to it, does not impair or secure any specificity.
We become adults when we accept that we have less to get out of this life than we had at a previous point (gross schematic notion of course, just to be quick).. so in a sense "immortality" is a concept applicable to only a time fringe of humanity... some people will get a lot out of taking a specific decision, others out of choosing indecision...
For my part, i know i always want to "be" (kid bullying the facts), and i know i won't (adult respecting facts) ... in any case i try to be a meaningful person.
Being meaningful, in this tiny thread, would have been to try to answer Rodrigo's question.
(ps: tiny for how big the world is, normal sized for mapster)
@RodrigoAlves: Go Dam spelling correction "consciousness"
Anyway, this would mean with end up with a consciousness, which is unresetable...
I will just stick to that we start with an empty brain designed by the genetic code which is combined from my ancestors and mutated by radiation. And this unpredictable hardware is than filled up with information from its environment, which could result in selfawareness/consciousness. This just way more beautifully for me, than having constants which eventually determines me or even completely valuates the data which is coming from my brain/hardware.
Computers are significantly meaningless without internet connection.
Perhaps we don't die, but just get offline :P. I gotta open the Counter-Strike church. When we die, we become a free camera until it's time for us to respawn.
there is no such thing as immortality. I am sure someone has stated the obvious already (I only read the first and last page of threads) that we have only been conscious beings on this planet for maybe 60,000 years? If you are christian, about 5,000 years.
The point of the matter being that the universe; the ultimate scale, is massive. It sets the grounds for what everything is. The laws and physics of the universe are what allow everything that exists to exist.
On that scale, entire solar systems hold about as much importance as a single person on earth. Now, before you say "but it could be an important person" and sure, it could. An imploding star could begin a massive chain of events over billions of years that leads to the total destruction of the universe. Just like a single individual on a large enough time scale could cause a catastrophic event on earth.
The problem being, that in terms of time, as an actual unit of measurement, human beings are nothing, will be nothing, and will do nothing. We will not "kill mother earth" We will kill ourselves. The Earth doesn't care. Earth used to be a ball of noxious gas, flowing lava, and electrical storms that never ended. Trust me, we have absolutely no impact on anything.
If it makes you feel better though; it can be argued that humans can become immortalized through history... for other humans. I am sure Sun'Tsu will be a known name in another 1,000 years, if for some reason, we still exist. You could also argue that by passing down your DNA, you are allowing yourself to live forever.
*Edit
As this topic is strongly about life after death, I will just include that what "you are" your memories, thoughts, behaviors, ect. They all come from your brain. When blood stops pumping to your brain, you brain dies. The cells in your brain that store, send, and retrieve this information die. When they die, they are dead. They no longer send or receive information. What "you" are dies with them. There is no life after death because everything that would allow you to be what you envision of "you" would be dead and irretrievably.
Imploding stars create black holes. Some stars are much more dense than other; thus create much more powerful black holes. We have studied, arguably, 1% of space. We have already discovered black holes large enough to consume entire galaxies.
It is theororized that the universe is sort of donut shaped; being wider towards the outsides; but "nothing" in the center; not even universe; complete nothingness; our, "The outterverse". Assuming a mammoth black hole were to form from an exploding star near the interior ring of the universe; perhaps it would have enough pull to suck something through the outterverse. Who knows what kind of chaos that could create?
Odd that you could take an example not related to the topic and question that though; opposed to all of the other questionable statements I made.
That is thinking far too ahead Glorn, I think we all know that our true end is going to be a Planet of The Apes Nuclear Apocalypse! Or at least something, Hydrogen Splitting related.
Perhaps we don't die, but just get offline :P. I gotta open the Counter-Strike church. When we die, we become a free camera until it's time for us to respawn.
And as we have things like scientology, I totally believe you would draw crowds to follow your ideas. You can never go too crazy when talking about religion. I know I'd like to be a free camera waiting to respawn lol.
@Hookah604: Go
Imploding stars create black holes. Some stars are much more dense than other; thus create much more powerful black holes. We have studied, arguably, 1% of space. We have already discovered black holes large enough to consume entire galaxies.
It is theororized that the universe is sort of donut shaped; being wider towards the outsides; but "nothing" in the center; not even universe; complete nothingness; our, "The outterverse". Assuming a mammoth black hole were to form from an exploding star near the interior ring of the universe; perhaps it would have enough pull to suck something through the outterverse. Who knows what kind of chaos that could create?
Odd that you could take an example not related to the topic and question that though; opposed to all of the other questionable statements I made.
Sorry but you probably have some miss beliefs here.
Just only stars which are higher than x mass goes blackhole and these are rare occurrences.
We might have studied only 1% of the universe but from that we can easily imagine/caluclate how the other 99% evolved.
Most galaxies have super massive blackhole at the center (like our galaxy is having one too). None galaxy jet found which is consumed by its blackhole and if there is cases like that, than it would have been detected most likely in the last 5 year or so, as these days there many projects which uses gravitational lensing, which would easily detect lonely super massive blackhole.
Also it seems like energy is leaving super massive blackholes, long jet trails observed from the center galaxies to out the empty space. (however it might be coming from the event horizon)
Great, it seems like the Doughnut theory completely mislead you.
Lets first state I dont believe this theory and only very few physicist believe it.
Now let me explain that there is nothing in the center of Doughnut, if there is something, than that is in another dimension and its not from this dimension. Because its a bended Einstein space-time universe shape, if the theory is true than the gravity bended the universe that way or other mysterious forces bended...
(Also if we think there is more dimensions and that there is something other outside our universe, than in that higher dimensional geometry there might not be things like torus)
Also lots of people have the misunderstanding that matter not distrusted evenly in the universe. However the matter is pretty evenly distributed in the space as the expansion of the universe is happening as the space stretches and not by the big bang's kinetic force. Actually there is no sign of kinetic force from the big bang in the background radiation (CMB) or in any other observation.
(Inflationary universe theory even states that in the first milliseconds of time the stretching of space was so fast that if you would taken to distant matter than the distance between them probably expanded faster than speed of light and this isnt due to kinetic force so its allowed by Einstein.D and this also allows that physicists think that the width of the universe is around 100 billion light years, when the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.)
Also todays its pretty accepted that space expanding faster and faster.
Which leads to some wild estimates that if it continues at this exponential speed, than the distances between galaxies would expand faster than light speed in 300 million year.)
edit:
And I picked out this, because It suggested that you have very bad misbelief about our universe.
edit:
And I picked out this, because It suggested that you have very bad misbelief about our universe. so I could flex my E-peen.
FTFY.
Regardless of how and whether you want to argue about this, his point stands. Glorn was comparing the effect of indiviuals on society to the effect one single planet/shape of mass might have on the entire universe. The rest is detail. I'm sure someone well-versed in the subject could point out a number of ways in which one event in the universe could lead to the destruction/implosion/explosion of a large part of it.
Regardless of how and whether you want to argue about this, his point stands. Glorn was comparing the effect of indiviuals on society to the effect one single planet/shape of mass might have on the entire universe. The rest is detail. I'm sure someone well-versed in the subject could point out a number of ways in which one event in the universe could lead to the destruction/implosion/explosion of a large part of it.
All these theories about the universe still don't answer my question. Do I have to think I'm immortal in order to be the happiest man on Earth?
No. just take some really hardcore drugs and you will be the happiest man on the Earth.
(I always find people narrow minded, who say their aim is to be happy. For example I find programing some stuff quite usefull, but it doesnt makes me happy.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Nebuli2: Go
:D i wasnt really angry, it was one of those moments when one of your friends says something out of the way, and you wanna hit them... lol
@Taintedwisp: Go
I was talking about an imaginary scenario in which you get angry, hit someone with your baby, and your baby explodes, not what actually happened :P
Its hard to think like that, specially with a mind which writes programs. Why than genetic code doesnt transfers conciseness? And we start with a empty brain, which we have to fill up.
I think its like windows. When it gets filled up with shit, it breaks down in its complexness and can no longer function (vista).
@Nebuli2: Go
If I had a baby explode because I hit someone with it... I would laugh my ass off, and know that I am terrible at making kids.
Great construction on my part, they fall apart with just one hit.
Maybe the conscience isn't inside the brain and our brain just translates stimuli from the immaterial to the material (if this is true, we could perhaps make a machine that does the same). One of the biggest human mistakes - acording to psychology - is how we attribute cause and effect for every correlation. We see part of our brain being fired when we remember something and we are already assuming that there's the place where memory is stored. Correlation does not imply causation. But, assuming the conscience is indeed outside the brain, that gives great hope for an eternal life. And, we know already that life is a way too much complex than the operational system in our computer. I bet there's a lot of garbage collectors out there. Perhaps when we are born, we are just formatting our harddrive! :P
Imagine if life is the time that takes for our system to format... Imagine if when we sleep, we're just loading the day of tomorrow... Or maybe you're sleeping right now and we are all a creation of your mind (god, I can't believe I created the popularity system, I'm gonna kill myself).
@RodrigoAlves: Go Dam spelling correction "consciousness"
Anyway, this would mean with end up with a consciousness, which is unresetable...
I will just stick to that we start with an empty brain designed by the genetic code which is combined from my ancestors and mutated by radiation. And this unpredictable hardware is than filled up with information from its environment, which could result in selfawareness/consciousness. This just way more beautifully for me, than having constants which eventually determines me or even completely valuates the data which is coming from my brain/hardware.
The brain is mostly a reception tool, as you get older the brain tries to become an emitter (or avoids it)....
"is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life without the idea of immortality?"
Some people have a meaningful life, in any case they felt it was or other people felt it enough that they were compelled to advertise said person.
Some people never think of death, other obsess with it, in any case by the time you are a teen you have the issue in your reflection process.
Some people cannot accept the fact that they will, one day, not "be "anymore and this forever...
Is there a meaningful link between one's stance during life and the capacity to do something that (one or other people around and after) feels impacts one's world (while alive or after you die) ????
I think some people clearly mark their environment (what they do, how they think, etc...), they have varied stance and beliefs,
for instance a guy feels he'll never die (ignores/refutes the whole death concept as applied to himself) and lives very happy with that notion inspiring positive and constructive ideals "doing" more than "reflecting and doing",
... another guy obsesses with the short time he has left and surpasses everyone's expectations thanks to that sense of urgency he imposes on himself.
People can have meaningful lives, the concept of death/immortality, while it enters in to it, does not impair or secure any specificity.
We become adults when we accept that we have less to get out of this life than we had at a previous point (gross schematic notion of course, just to be quick).. so in a sense "immortality" is a concept applicable to only a time fringe of humanity... some people will get a lot out of taking a specific decision, others out of choosing indecision...
For my part, i know i always want to "be" (kid bullying the facts), and i know i won't (adult respecting facts) ... in any case i try to be a meaningful person.
Being meaningful, in this tiny thread, would have been to try to answer Rodrigo's question.
(ps: tiny for how big the world is, normal sized for mapster)
Computers are significantly meaningless without internet connection.
Perhaps we don't die, but just get offline :P. I gotta open the Counter-Strike church. When we die, we become a free camera until it's time for us to respawn.
there is no such thing as immortality. I am sure someone has stated the obvious already (I only read the first and last page of threads) that we have only been conscious beings on this planet for maybe 60,000 years? If you are christian, about 5,000 years.
The point of the matter being that the universe; the ultimate scale, is massive. It sets the grounds for what everything is. The laws and physics of the universe are what allow everything that exists to exist.
On that scale, entire solar systems hold about as much importance as a single person on earth. Now, before you say "but it could be an important person" and sure, it could. An imploding star could begin a massive chain of events over billions of years that leads to the total destruction of the universe. Just like a single individual on a large enough time scale could cause a catastrophic event on earth.
The problem being, that in terms of time, as an actual unit of measurement, human beings are nothing, will be nothing, and will do nothing. We will not "kill mother earth" We will kill ourselves. The Earth doesn't care. Earth used to be a ball of noxious gas, flowing lava, and electrical storms that never ended. Trust me, we have absolutely no impact on anything.
If it makes you feel better though; it can be argued that humans can become immortalized through history... for other humans. I am sure Sun'Tsu will be a known name in another 1,000 years, if for some reason, we still exist. You could also argue that by passing down your DNA, you are allowing yourself to live forever.
*Edit
As this topic is strongly about life after death, I will just include that what "you are" your memories, thoughts, behaviors, ect. They all come from your brain. When blood stops pumping to your brain, you brain dies. The cells in your brain that store, send, and retrieve this information die. When they die, they are dead. They no longer send or receive information. What "you" are dies with them. There is no life after death because everything that would allow you to be what you envision of "you" would be dead and irretrievably.
Skype: [email protected] Current Project: Custom Hero Arena! US: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/263274 EU: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/186418
How?
@Hookah604: Go
Imploding stars create black holes. Some stars are much more dense than other; thus create much more powerful black holes. We have studied, arguably, 1% of space. We have already discovered black holes large enough to consume entire galaxies.
It is theororized that the universe is sort of donut shaped; being wider towards the outsides; but "nothing" in the center; not even universe; complete nothingness; our, "The outterverse". Assuming a mammoth black hole were to form from an exploding star near the interior ring of the universe; perhaps it would have enough pull to suck something through the outterverse. Who knows what kind of chaos that could create?
Odd that you could take an example not related to the topic and question that though; opposed to all of the other questionable statements I made.
Skype: [email protected] Current Project: Custom Hero Arena! US: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/263274 EU: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/186418
@GlornII: Go
That is thinking far too ahead Glorn, I think we all know that our true end is going to be a Planet of The Apes Nuclear Apocalypse! Or at least something, Hydrogen Splitting related.
And as we have things like scientology, I totally believe you would draw crowds to follow your ideas. You can never go too crazy when talking about religion. I know I'd like to be a free camera waiting to respawn lol.
Sorry but you probably have some miss beliefs here.
Just only stars which are higher than x mass goes blackhole and these are rare occurrences.
We might have studied only 1% of the universe but from that we can easily imagine/caluclate how the other 99% evolved.
Most galaxies have super massive blackhole at the center (like our galaxy is having one too). None galaxy jet found which is consumed by its blackhole and if there is cases like that, than it would have been detected most likely in the last 5 year or so, as these days there many projects which uses gravitational lensing, which would easily detect lonely super massive blackhole.
Also it seems like energy is leaving super massive blackholes, long jet trails observed from the center galaxies to out the empty space. (however it might be coming from the event horizon)
Great, it seems like the Doughnut theory completely mislead you.
Lets first state I dont believe this theory and only very few physicist believe it.
Now let me explain that there is nothing in the center of Doughnut, if there is something, than that is in another dimension and its not from this dimension. Because its a bended Einstein space-time universe shape, if the theory is true than the gravity bended the universe that way or other mysterious forces bended...
(Also if we think there is more dimensions and that there is something other outside our universe, than in that higher dimensional geometry there might not be things like torus)
Also lots of people have the misunderstanding that matter not distrusted evenly in the universe. However the matter is pretty evenly distributed in the space as the expansion of the universe is happening as the space stretches and not by the big bang's kinetic force. Actually there is no sign of kinetic force from the big bang in the background radiation (CMB) or in any other observation.
(Inflationary universe theory even states that in the first milliseconds of time the stretching of space was so fast that if you would taken to distant matter than the distance between them probably expanded faster than speed of light and this isnt due to kinetic force so its allowed by Einstein.D and this also allows that physicists think that the width of the universe is around 100 billion light years, when the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.)
Also todays its pretty accepted that space expanding faster and faster.
Which leads to some wild estimates that if it continues at this exponential speed, than the distances between galaxies would expand faster than light speed in 300 million year.)
edit:
And I picked out this, because It suggested that you have very bad misbelief about our universe.
FTFY.
Regardless of how and whether you want to argue about this, his point stands. Glorn was comparing the effect of indiviuals on society to the effect one single planet/shape of mass might have on the entire universe. The rest is detail. I'm sure someone well-versed in the subject could point out a number of ways in which one event in the universe could lead to the destruction/implosion/explosion of a large part of it.
@SoulFilcher: Go
I like Christianities Idea better. We go to heaven get whatever we want, and we get all the knowledge of the universe.
Butterfly effect....
All these theories about the universe still don't answer my question. Do I have to think I'm immortal in order to be the happiest man on Earth?
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Is there a sufficient correlation between thoughts on the state of mortality and happiness?
No. just take some really hardcore drugs and you will be the happiest man on the Earth.
(I always find people narrow minded, who say their aim is to be happy. For example I find programing some stuff quite usefull, but it doesnt makes me happy.)