University Receives $5 Million Grant To Study Immortality 532
Hugh Pickens writes "Humans have pondered their mortality for millennia. Now the University of California at Riverside reports that it has received a $5 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation that will fund research on aspects of immortality, including near-death experiences and the impact of belief in an afterlife on human behavior. 'People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,' says John Martin Fischer, the principal investigator of The Immortality Project. 'No one has taken a comprehensive and sustained look at immortality that brings together the science, theology and philosophy.' Fischer says he going to investigate two different kinds of immortality. One is the possibility of living forever without dying. The main questions there are whether it's technologically plausible or feasible for us, either by biological enhancement such as those described by Ray Kurzweil, or by some combination of biological enhancement and uploading our minds onto computers in the future. Second would be to investigate the full range of questions about Judeo, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and other Asian religions' conceptions of the afterlife to see if they're theologically and philosophically consistent. 'We'll look at near death experiences both in western cultures and throughout the world and really look at what they're all about and ask the question — do they indicate something about an afterlife or are they kind of just illusions that we're hardwired into?'"
The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
'People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,' says John Martin Fischer,
Nothing, You're dead.
Re: (Score:2)
'People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,' says John Martin Fischer,
Nothing, You're dead.
Most likely, but this sounds more or less like a grab for grant money.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what evidence? I'm going to boldly assume you've never been dead before.
answers from eyewitness accounts! (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ALInv_wzSQ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I've been in line at the DMV. Does that count?
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The body (brain) is quite enough to explain what is observable. That doesn't mean we fully understand it, or that we ever will, but consciousness very obviously arises solely out of the brain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not at all. The _only_ scientific connection between consciousness, intelligence and the brain is external observation. That is not even enough for a reasonable theory. You should read up on your science.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
Not any type of proof. If you damage part of a TV set, it stops to exhibit all of its features, for example may stop to display color. That still does not mean the picture is generated in there. So while the brain plays a part like any good interface does, it is not enough to explain the overall thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the other way round. I am just saying we do not know either way at this time. You are claiming we do. That places the burden of proof on you.
Re: (Score:3)
His TV analogy is not all that far off.
Perhaps things like a lobotomy don't always change personalities but rather the ability to express the personality. I've read of people who were supposedly cured of mental illness in the past by a lobotomy who carefully calculated their behavior long enough to get out from under doctor supervision and commit suicide. We understand how the brain transmits and interprets thoughts better then we do how it creates thoughts.
Re:Bad analogy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you really do not know the current scientific state of the art. The mind-body problem is currently unsolved by science. Your view is that of a "physicalist". It may or may not be correct, there is no convincing evidence either way. (No, there really is not, ask an expert. I am just an amateur in this game.) Most scientists active in neurology and related areas are not touching the topic, because there is really no evidence either way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The problem is that all that "evidence" the physicalists here put up can at his time not be falsified either and hence is non-scientific by nature. Hence my "we do not know" stance. Actually, the whole debate could be subject to incompleteness. But "the works is physical, hence all observable in it is too" is just circular reasoning and does not cut it.
Re: (Score:3)
Your theory is plausible sounding (hybrid between interface characteristics and signal source) but is untestable and thus worthless unless you provide a set of criteria on which to evaluate it.
For example: I theorize that a person's soul is the source of their personality. Thus, if the soul is damaged somehow, the person's personality should change.
I suggest an experiment in which people sign the bottoms of hidden documents. The control group will sign pieces of paper that are blank. The test subjects w
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Interesting)
The _only_ scientific connection between consciousness, intelligence and the brain is external observation. That is not even enough for a reasonable theory. You should read up on your science.
LOL. By definition of science, external evidence is both the only source of evidence and sufficient for a theory.
Oh. Tell that to brain scientist. (Score:3)
Brain Injury. (various, broca zone language impairment; visual blindness with intact eye ; memory problem; neuropathy ; alzheimer; personality changes with brain injury of special zones ; inability to recognize body as own)
The simple fact that once pulse go below 40 or blood to brain go too low
brain cancer
And I pass many others. Consciousness and brain are intimely linked. In fact there is ZEROevidence that we are anything else than a
Re: (Score:3)
Not even close.
Maybe at some point, consciousness will be so well understood that it can entirely be explained by the activity of the brain, but not yet.
We're only now getting the outlines of an understanding of dreaming and sleeping, for example. It hasn't been that long that we've been able to identify more than a dozen senses for another example, and there are more yet being discovered.
We can see what the amygdala is doing, but we don't see
Re: (Score:3)
We haven't seen consciousness with only a brain, for example.
Nor have we seen circulation with only a heart, breathing with only a pair of lungs, or insulin production with only a pancreas. So what? All organs operate within the body, and are mutually dependent on each other's correct function. This doesn't imply anything mystical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
Will his consciousness cease to exist or will his ability to show us it exist cease?
That's sort of a serious part of the question. Does someone's consciousness really cease to exist or just our ability to perceive it.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that is sort of the question now isn't it?
I mean forget about all this mumbo jumbo on spirit and soul or afterlife, if a person is clinically dead, can they still think or experience something on any level? If so, to what extent and should we reconsider how we treat these people?
On the other hand, we do not bother to much with restoring cognitive brain function in traumatic head trauma cases where the brain is damaged significantly. We do attempt to retrain them if possible to make use of other parts of the brain for the same type of skills and function. I know a guy who laid a bike down and impaled his head, through the helmet, on an Iron rod sticking out the side of a telephone pole. They said he is a 1 percent'er, as generally only one percent of people survive something like that and he made a decent recovery. Still has issues with balance sometimes and is a complete ass at times, but he was a prick before the accident too. His mother says he's changed, I think he's more of an ass more often, but most people can't tell the difference outside him constantly bringing the subject up and almost falling two or three times an hour If not sitting.
So if the consciousness is there even though the ability to express it isn't, then perhaps we could recreate this ability and perhaps end some suffering from situations like that where people damage or destroy the ability to express their consciousness.
This could have applications outside of mortality. But I guess is brain dead really dead could be the question.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you are missing the question. Even if you cut out part of the brain, are you removing part of the consciousness or the ability to express it. In other words, if someone steals your Cell Phone and you have no other way of getting a message out, does that mean the message disappears. And with that scenario, it could be that the message is just as important and will wait until you find another way of conveying it or it might not be longer relevant and not need conveyed at all.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Informative)
What hostility, what unasked question? I've been pondering this stuff since I'm a teenager, I'm just not easy to surprise.
As I said, everything is everything... the "problem" with that is, it doesn't make much sense to speak of individuality then, either.
My point was, even though everything that can be learned about neurology seems to utterly destroy most notions we have about ourselves and our decisions, we still have them. We go further and further away from just being, and coming up with objecties and properties to "possess", and "narratives" and all that nonsense. So yeah, let's ponder our mortality. I have great trust we won't fatfinger it. We already applied our rational brain to economics and politics, let's do this now.
From the summary:
"including near-death experiences and the impact of belief in an afterlife on human behavior."
Notice what they have in common? Both are about living people. The latter is actually a joke. Why not include "the history of folkore about immortality?" That's also "studying an aspect of immortality". I'm not opposed to questions, I'm opposed to shallowness :P
from the article:
"If you believe in reincarnation, how can the very same person exist if you start over with no memories?"
You see, even comedians are more insightful than that.
"I suppose it would be nice if reincarnation were a reality, but I have problems with the math. At some point, originally, there must have been a time when there were only two human beings. They both died, and presumably their souls were reincarnated into two other bodies. But that still leaves us with only two souls. We now have nearly six billion people on the planet. Where are all the extra souls coming from? Is someone printing up souls? Wouldn't that tend to lower their value?" - George Carlin
There. Done. Tomorrow we'll talk about Noah's Ark.
Everything is everything, and there is no hostility in that. The notions we have, what we call humans and how we consider ourselves - that won't disappear, because it never existed in the first place. A needle isn't hostile to a bubble, the tension in the bubble is hostile to reality.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad your imagination is working. I'm also glad you reached the mental wherewithal to post something about it instead of sitting in your mom's basement all day playing extreme candyland- the shoots and ladders edition.
Let me explain something, this is a lot like memory for the computer. You know, that thing that allows you to surf porn and post remarks to show the world your lack of intelligence. If the power fails, the reason your Asian babes with porcupines page disappears and needs reloaded when the
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is room for reincarnation without the religious connotations.
No, there isn't. Without a mechanism to transfer information outside of the dying brain, it is simply destroyed, and anything else is merely wishful thinking.
Obviously, the body (brain) plays a part (for many the dominant part, it seems), but it is not enough to explain what is observable.
We already know that brain is a biological computer with multiple chemical and electrochemical interfaces to the rest of the body. This is understood very well, and was understood even before people had computers and therefore could not yet compress this explanation into such a short statement. The only things unknown about it are the structure and mechanisms, and it's extremely foolish to claim that it breaks the laws of nature known through Physics and Chemistry.
Any alternative to the above is LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE than "we are all in The Matrix" or "We are in a dream of a sleeping God" hypotheses, what means that it can not be a part of any realistic philosophy and should be relegated to the realm of fiction. All support for this nonsense comes from superstition and nowhere else.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Interesting)
You assume consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. That is a bit like assuming what is shown on a TV screen is generated in there. A good first assumption, but not more than an assumption. The currents state of scientific research is that it is completely unknown what consciousness is and what intelligence is. Both can be described by their effects, but to speculate on where they reside and whether they are generated there is very much premature at this time.
So, no, we do not understand that "the brain is a biological computer". Actually we do understand that human minds can do things that computers cannot do, and that is currently fundamental, i.e. not a question of the power of the computer, but a lack of any implementable theory that could make a computer do these things. I have been following the state of AI research for quite some time (and know some people in it personally), and this is what comes out when you ask people on the side or actually read the papers. Nobody knows how strong/true AI could be built, yet every healthy human being has strong/true Intelligence. (Never mind the BS some researchers publicly say to get funding.) This is actually a rather strong indicator that either the brain is far more than a "computer" or that intelligence and consciousness are not generated solely/fully by the brain.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see a safe logical path to the implication that consciouness (as opposed to a particular "awareness") is composed of information. While retention of an identity, e.g. memories, would require information transmittal, transfer of consciousness itself (when defined simply as sensation and observance) may not, until we can definitively unify consciousness with an information bearing construct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You assume consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
"Emergent property" is in a non-hand-wavy language is known as "information processing". It's what computers do.
That is a bit like assuming what is shown on a TV screen is generated in there.
No, it's not. TV receives images using a well-known mechanism that is based on well-known properties of electromagnetic waves. TV is not special in being able to receive electromagnetic waves, and TV station produces known and observable electromagnetic radiation that is processed by TVs. Even a person who knows nothing about TVs, TV standards and protocols, can easily discover that there is a big
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. TV receives images using a well-known mechanism that is based on well-known properties of electromagnetic waves. TV is not special in being able to receive electromagnetic waves, and TV station produces known and observable electromagnetic radiation that is processed by TVs. Even a person who knows nothing about TVs, TV standards and protocols, can easily discover that there is a big tower on a hill that produces electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between tens of centimeters to meters, and all TVs with antennas display pictures carried by changes in parameters of those electromagnetic waves -- it can be studied by blocking those waves, passing them through a filter, adding noise, etc.
The reason it's a 'well known mechanism' is we know how to build the thing. In the process of building the thing, we know to do things like block the radio waves to work out how it works. Bring somebody from the 18th century to our time and have him work it out and... nope, he's not going to get it. Which... actually that was the point of that analogy.
However fundamental processes are known very well -- neurons, electric pulses carried by changes in relative concentration of ions, various chemicals involved in the process either directly or indirectly regulating the speed and intensity. On top of that, there is plenty of math, however the same can be said about any computer.
Has anybody built a working model of a brain that has become conscience?
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
"Emergent property" is in a non-hand-wavy language is known as "information processing". It's what computers do.
No, "emergent property" is a term co-opted from complex systems research that if you have enough agents with fairly simple rules (say, termites laying down pheromones) you can get some astonishingly complex macroscopic behaviours (say, termite nests). It gets co-opted and used in some hand-waving to try to explain away consciousness as an "emergent property" (and abstraction) of there being lots of neurons in the brain.
Unfortunately, it also entirely misses the point -- consciousness is not an abstraction, it is atomic (as you sit staring out of your eyes -- which by definition is the only way you have of knowing that you have a consciousness -- you experience only the consciousness and not the neurons).
Not only we do understand that as a result of rigorous scientific research, it's such an important piece of knowledge that a person who "disagrees" with it, should be considered to be unqualified for any kind of discussion related to science or brains, in the same way as a person who believes that Earth is flat is unqualified for any kind of discussion related to geography or astrophysics.
Your rhetorical bluster merely suggests you don't understand of how science works. There is no such thing as "unqualified for any kind of discussion" -- when you submit a paper for review you will never be asked your qualifications or whether you agree with a prescribed set of opinions. Certainly I am yet to contact the author of any paper I have ever reviewed to say "Before I read your paper, I just want to check you're fundamentally opposed to dualism..."
Moreover the way we choose to define science (necessarily third party observational) makes this question inaccessible as it is necessarily first party observational. The philosophical question has always been "I am" not "my neurons fire in a particular way", nor even "you are" or "he is".
Nobody knows how strong/true AI could be built
I do! There are over 7 billions of examples of it currently in use!
You are aware of what the "A" stands for in AI, aren't you?
On top of that, there is plenty of math, however the same can be said about any computer.
Nope, we've found out since the '60s that things work remarkably differently than a computer, and AI is no longer slavishly attempting to replicate theories of human cognition in algorithmic form.
Re: (Score:3)
You assume consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. That is a bit like assuming what is shown on a TV screen is generated in there. A good first assumption, but not more than an assumption. The currents state of scientific research is that it is completely unknown what consciousness is and what intelligence is. Both can be described by their effects, but to speculate on where they reside and whether they are generated there is very much premature at this time.
To have scientific research of consciousness, you first need to define what it actually means - a strict and clear definition. We don't have one. So everyone is really talking about their own thing.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Informative)
That's not an answer. And I think you know it as well as I do.
First, I'm quite familiar with computability and Godel's incompleteness theorems, and they have nothing at all to do with the question. There is absolutely nothing in them that implies AI is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. In fact, most AI researchers probably understand those subjects far better than you do - and they still consider AI to be a worthwhile problem to study.
Second, the current state of the art in AI is irrelevant. You didn't just say there were things computers can't currently do. You said there are things no computer can ever do, no matter how powerful. That claim needs to be justified.
Third, AI has actually been making dramatic progress in recent years. After decades of following paths that didn't lead anywhere, researchers have finally found some techniques that enabled major breakthroughs. If you want to see practical applications of that, just look at Watson or Siri or the like. A mere five years ago, both of those would have been science fiction. Today they're real.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Funny)
That's not an answer. And I think you know it as well as I do.
First, I'm quite familiar with computability and Godel's incompleteness theorems, and they have nothing at all to do with the question. There is absolutely nothing in them that implies AI is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. In fact, most AI researchers probably understand those subjects far better than you do - and they still consider AI to be a worthwhile problem to study.
Second, the current state of the art in AI is irrelevant. You didn't just say there were things computers can't currently do. You said there are things no computer can ever do, no matter how powerful. That claim needs to be justified.
Third, AI has actually been making dramatic progress in recent years. After decades of following paths that didn't lead anywhere, researchers have finally found some techniques that enabled major breakthroughs. If you want to see practical applications of that, just look at Watson or Siri or the like. A mere five years ago, both of those would have been science fiction. Today they're real.
Ironically, the recent advances in "AI" were largely through stopping thinking about AI as building an artificial version of human cognition, and instead doing something with far fewer philosophical claims: statistically mining the heck out of big data.
Re: (Score:3)
So your alternative is magic. See, that's where all the arguments for anything like that fail catastrophically. We don't understand it, so it must be magic. This is the strongest argument against a god: God say let there be light, and light was created. Ok. So, he just said it. As in, he spoke out loud: "Let there be light'. And something heard him, parsed his sentence, and executed the command in some way. What is that system that hard and executed this command? Wouldn't that be the real god? But then agai
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily.
Necessarily. Having been dead for quite a few minutes myself, but being lucky enough to have been reanimated, I can assure you absolutely nothing happens. No white lights. No angels. Nothing. But then again who are you going to believe - me, who is not trying to sell you anything, or the guys/gals who want you to a) buy their book or b) donate money to their church?
Re: (Score:3)
The number of people who DO report 'near-death' experiences each year is in the six digit range (In a typical year, over 200,000 people report some variation on these experiences in a western medicine style clinical setting - for support of this claim, interested persons mighrt start with: Mauro, James "Bright lights, big mystery".Psychology Today, July 1992, and see where that article's references lead them.). If you want to claim there are 8 million books and churches to match that many living Americans
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
The medical definition, which is quite easy for me since I'm also a physician. Death can be reversible or non reversible. The legal definition of death is the minute I put my signature to the death certificate. Either way clinical death is defined as lack of pulse, blood pressure, breathing deep tendon reflexes, etc. It is identical in both reversible and non reversible cases, which is why efforts are usually taken to reanimate a recently dead person, especially if the death happens in front of medical staff and is not obviously irreversible (example, decapitation, a body that is obviously cold/stiff to the touch, etc).
but we know the brain doesn't 'die' immediately.
The tissue does not "die", however it stops working almost immediately when blood flow stops. The brain consumes huge amounts of oxygen and will immediately deplete any oxygen present in the blood. That's the reason people will suffer "transient ischemic attacks" (sort of like a mini-stroke) even with partial blockages of their carotid arteries - because there is a momentary disruption of blood flow. Now you could argue that a cell that is still alive in that it can maintain the permeability of its cell membrane for the moment, is not technically dead and you are correct. However that cell, at that moment, is not "working". All remaining ATP is being used to try to keep the cell alive, and it has no energy spare to do things like depolarize and transmit signals.
Maybe the angels, lights and funny guy with the beard show up later.
Buddy you are free to believe whatever you want. For me I just remember not finishing a sentence in the ER, and then being ventilated with a crowd of colleagues and nurses around me a few minutes later. There was no passage of time. There was no pain. There was no suffocation. In fact when I "came to" it took me a while to realize what had happened, with the obvious disbelief that it was happening to me. I do remember a certain disconnect from my body and it took a few minutes to register all the poking and prodding that was going on as IV lines were inserted, etc. And after a few minutes the incredible pain from the burns I had from the defibrilator started to be felt. But it's an amazing feeling to not have to do your own breathing. But I wouldn't read more into it than that. At least now I know that death is completely painless, and I'm not afraid for next time. I was taken completely by surprise, so now I figure that no one realizes when they are going to die. Oh they might feel really ill, or they might realize they are in real danger. But there's no "I'm dying" sensation. It just happens, quite suddenly, and just like the exact moment when you fall asleep, you have no idea exactly when it happens. But all the religious stuff I chalk up to people making shit up because they want/need attention, or they have to justify their beliefs to others in order to convince themselves that it's "true".
Re: (Score:3)
<face-palm> Sorry, no. Just no. I don't care if you're an MD; words have meaning. If a person's heart stops and you revive him by cardio resuscitation, you are not reanimating a dead person. You are stopping a person from dying. I'll lay heavy odds that you would do the right thing if the patient's heart and breathing stop and the patient loses consciousness, because I have high regard and respect for anyone who has successfully passed through the grueling pr
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Insightful)
Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism." Cessation; not interruption.
This is an exceptionally silly definition, because how exactly do you determine permanency?
To give a simple example with GP. Suppose the people around him decided to not reanimate him. What, precisely, would be the moment of his death? Is it when he lost consciousness (since that's where "termination of biological functions" began, and it was "permanent" since he didn't get reanimated)? Or the moment when they decided to do nothing? Or the moment when they could have still done anything with non-zero chance of success, regardless of whether they did or not? What if that happened when defibrillators didn't exist, did death occur earlier back then?
Re: (Score:3)
"Consciousness and life itself are still not understood at all, so there is room for speculation. "
You are a naked ape and you'll die like an animal. Get used to it.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:4, Interesting)
'People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,' says John Martin Fischer,
Nothing, You're dead.
Not necessarily. Obviously the religious fairy-tales are just that, i.e. whatever people need to hear to strengthen the meme-infection. But there is room for reincarnation without the religious connotations. Consciousness and life itself are still not understood at all, so there is room for speculation. Obviously, the body (brain) plays a part (for many the dominant part, it seems), but it is not enough to explain what is observable. Still, no need to do "immortality" research, everybody finds out sooner or later what happens. I guess these 5M just show that quite a few rich people live pathetic lives and know it.
Here's an interesting concept... not quite sure if I accept it or not, but it's something which has had me thinking a bit recently.
Assuming the following things:
1) Existence (I hesitate to use the word "universe" given the various theories of multiple "universes") is infinite in either direction, time or both.
2) Randomness exists
3) Consciousness is caused by a specific arrangement of the make-up of our brains and could also be caused by similar specific arrangements of other things
Assumption 1 is very debatable; however certainly not outside the realms of reason. Assumption 2 is, in my understanding, pretty strongly confirmed - although there's still those who'd argue against it. Assumption 3 seems quite logical and reasonable in general.
Assumptions 1 and 2 lead to the idea that anything that can happen eventually will. Adding assumption 3 leads to the idea that after our consciousness stops in our brains (death), it will eventually spring up again somewhere else including all of the memories from our lives before.
It's also worth keeping in mind the idea that your consciousness is only aware of the present - the past is accessed through memories. Therefore it seems quite acceptable to say that there's no fundamental difference to waking up in the morning as a "different consciousness" today than the one you were yesterday whilst still retaining all the same memories versus actually remaining the same consciousness. You can't prove it one way or the other and it makes no difference whatsoever. Therefore this new consciousness that awakes a trillion trillion years from now that has all your memories IS just as much your consciousness as you are now.
Like I said, I'm not sure I accept this general idea or not (I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe" it); but it definitely is food for thought for me, and I would like to hear others' (reasoned) opinions on it.
Re:The Answer for $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Virtually all the great geniuses of recorded history have believed in an afterlife. Some AC on slashdot confidently states otherwise. Who has more credibility - Isaac Newton or Anonymous Coward on the internet?
Neither. This should give you an idea of the state of the art in this area. $5 million isn't going to change things either.
Re: (Score:3)
Isaac Newton also believed in the Philosophers Stone and wasted most of his career on alchemy, not on physics. Excellence in one area does not normally translate into excellence in another. Something, by the way, more than a few engineers should keep in mind before they start opining outside their field.
Re: (Score:2)
I was raised in USSR, when/where Atheism was a part of a mainstream culture, and even though I disliked that mainstream culture, it did not inspire me to adopt some bizarre beliefs just to be easier distinguishable from Leonid Brezhnev. I now live in US, where Christianity is one of the foundations of the accepted worldview, that I also dislike. This still does not prevent me from having a burning hatred toward all forms of superstition, including religion in general and all forms of Christianity in particu
I vote "illusion!" (Score:2)
Sorry about that.
Ideas of Heaven (Score:2)
People yearning for immortality often tell themselves fictions about how they will survive death. I have started a project to record such fictions in the form of a documentary.
I'm still working on it, but here's the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nbJcDiLLxU&feature=plcp
Re:Ideas of Heaven (Score:5, Funny)
So, I died and went to Heaven. When I arrived, St. Peter looked me up in his great book. "I see you haven't been entirely good when you were alive. It seems you killed a kitten when you were young. But don't worry. That's not enough to keep you out. However, as punishment, you will have to pleasure this woman for the rest of eternity." At this point, he introduces me to a fat, ugly, smelly old hag. I almost got sick. But hey, I made it to Heaven!
A few months later, with this hideous broad in tow, I ran into CowboyNeal. And he was walking arm in arm with Megan Fox. "Not fair!" I thought. I knew CowboyNeal when he was alive. And I don't see how he rates such treatment. So I want to see St. Peter. St. Peter dusted off his great book and looked at several entries. "It seems", he said, "Megan killed a kitten when she was on Earth as well."
Why would they want to study immorality? (Score:3)
What? Oh, never mind.
Re:Why would they want to study immorality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already happening. Her name is Henrietta Lacks [wikipedia.org]. She's recently turned 98 and will live forever in various labs around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, I mean 92 of course.
obligious musical reference (Score:2)
Life? What do you mean life? I ain't gotta life!
Re: (Score:2)
Life? What do you mean life? I ain't gotta life!
Megadeth, "Captive Honor", from the album Countdown to Extinction.
Nice reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you! Then you cannot die either!
No Dying! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.
Woody Allen
Re:No Dying! (Score:4, Funny)
Good haul for a scam! (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict the only thing that will really happen here is that some "scientists" with questionable ethics burn through 5M! Despite their grand claims, there is zero research need here.
Re: (Score:2)
everything, absolutely everything needs research.
Otherwise you wouldn't be making that kind of comments, instead you'd probably be hunting for wild animals to have dinner today.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, then lets research how to waste more money!
Sorry, I am a still somewhat active scientist. These scams just piss me off. You are right, but not this type of research. Should have been more specific.
There is quite a bit respectable research into these questions. Neurologists and quantum physicists are conducting a major part of it. It may yet still take a long time to bring any tangible insights though. The first thing to find out is what makes consciousness appear. Currently we have no clue. Same for int
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing to find out is what makes consciousness appear. Currently we have no clue.
I've never thought that was a particularly interesting question. Imagine you have a computer that is so powerful and has such a comprehensive decision tree that it can simulate what we perceive as conscious behavior to a level indistinguishable from a natural human being. Is it conscious? Does it matter? I can see philosophical value in telling the difference but practically speaking I just don't see where it's relevant. And if there is a quantum mechanical principal that consciousness relies on then t
Re:Good haul for a scam! (Score:4, Interesting)
. Imagine you have a computer that is so powerful and has such a comprehensive decision tree that it can simulate what we perceive as conscious behavior to a level indistinguishable from a natural human being. Is it conscious? Does it matter?
This is a common mixup between intelligence and consciousness (something-that-experiences). If we took away all your thoughts, decisions-making ability and intelligence yet left your perception alone, you would be experiencing sights and sounds just as before, you just wouldn't be intelligent, you wouldn't have any thoughts about it and you wouldn't be making any decisions. You would still be just as conscious as before you just wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it or even be able to want to tell anyone about it. You'd seem as conscious as a rock to the outside world and that's why we don't even really know if a rock is conscious. The point of AI isn't to create conscious computers, it's to create smart computers so your point is completely valid - AI has nothing to do with consciousness. The reason consciousness is interesting is that it seems to be mediated by the brain so that it is somehow related to the physical world. Yet physics has no concept of consciousness (an "observer" in Quantum Mechanics need not be conscious so there is no relation there) so there is new physics to discover there and we have not even the slightest clue as to how that physics works. So consciousness is very much important just not in relation to AI.
Re:Good haul for a scam! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that everyone without even a basic understanding of the subject immediately jump to solipsism?
Jesus, can't anyone take the 10 minutes to find out how little they actually know? I get that most people don't have years to get up to date with the current, but could you at least not assume that you know everything about the subject because you think it's all a bunch of nonsense?
The mix of gross ignorance and confidence in this discussion, it makes me feel like I'm reading the conservapedia entry for
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then lets research how to waste more money!
I quite agree here. The infrastructure in this area of research is woefully inadequate. There's not a big enough pool of green jello to dock my solid gold, waste detection yacht in, for example. And we need to research site locations for the pyramids.
Re: (Score:2)
everything, absolutely everything needs research.
Uh huh. Pardon me if I don't sound in the least convinced.
Otherwise you wouldn't be making that kind of comments, instead you'd probably be hunting for wild animals to have dinner today.
Because paying people to derp about immortality for a few years will help us get out of the stone age.
Frankly, I think the research load for immortality is easily handled by blogs and media pundits.
Re:Good haul for a scam! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict the only thing that will really happen here is that some "scientists" with questionable ethics burn through 5M! Despite their grand claims, there is zero research need here.
Well, it is the Templeton Foundation: their basic goal is to give money to scientists in exchange for publicly supporting woo.
I was not familiar with them. But their "big questions" are mightily suspicious. Thanks for the hint.
could have saved them a small fortune (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, that type of business is already going well for many. They might not welcome you getting into it as well.
So theology and philosophy are not sciences? (Score:3)
Good. I have suspected that a long time. Some areas of philosophy may qualify though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So theology and philosophy are not sciences? (Score:5, Informative)
Philosophy is like math but without rigor, or even an equal sign.
Jesus Christ! It's like you're purposefully ignorant! Philosophy is ridiculously rigorous. Maybe you should try reading the literature. Hell, read wikipedia. Anything is better than ignorance.
This is why I don't bother trying to offer corrections -- idiotic posts like this can only come from someone so unfamiliar with the subject that I'd need to write a fucking textbook one post at a time before I could even begin to explain how moronic the post was!
If you don't know anything about the subject, just shut the fuck up. Spreading bullshit like this isn't helping anyone. You know what it's like? It's like listening to a creationist talk about evolution -- pure, unadulterated, willful ignorance.
Now go find an undergrad textbook and start learning. You've got a long way to go.
Term limits (Score:2, Funny)
Are a good thing.
Waste of Grant Money - Results Already Published (Score:5, Funny)
Principal Investigator [wikipedia.org]
Results and Discussion [wikipedia.org]
Sex Also! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I really hope the two people who modded this interesting did so as part of the joke, but I suspect that this is yet another case of mods not even bothering to mouse-over links to sources, let alone read them.
Incompatibility (Score:2, Insightful)
A near-death experience is selective oxygen deprivation. It's the opposite of studying what it would take to lengthen a healthy life.
Re: (Score:3)
A near-death experience is selective oxygen deprivation.
So is the study methodology to put Fundamentalists in a sealed room and slowly remove the oxygen until they have a vision of some sort? If so, I'd like to volunteer Fred Phelps, and I'd like to know where I can contribute to the grant funding.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to get a grant like that (Score:3)
Misleading Headline (Score:3, Funny)
"...and I enjoyed every minute of it." (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know who said it--when I heard it it was attributed to Mark Twain but that doesn't seem to be right. At any rate, someone asked a nonbeliever whether he wasn't terrified by the thought of nonexistence after death. He replied, "Not at all. I experienced nonexistence for eons before I was born, and I enjoyed every minute of it."
I wish them luck with their $5 million, but I don't think they'll be any wiser than Omar Khayyam:
With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap’d-
“I came like Water, and like Wind I go.”
Into this Universe, and Why not knowing,
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.
No children (Score:2)
Perhaps the biggest impact on society would be if immortality could be achieved (in physical body), the only death would be from severe accident (or incurable disease, which we assume is mostly done away with also at that point). Thus, as long as we are stuck on this planet, having children would have to be severely regulated... to the point that almost nobody should be allowed to have any.
I don't think that is going to be easy for people. Plus, if you live for many hundreds of years, the chances of "acci
For the Clinical Cynics (Score:4, Informative)
If ESP ever does prove itself an authentic protocol, then its tendency to allow the mind to accurately observe remote locations could suggest a breach in the presumed dependency of consciousness on the form. I also recommend visiting the CIA's CREST [cia.gov] database and searching amongst the many thousands of Remote Viewing documents that have been released. Despite rational assumption, there's more than redaction lines to look at.
This is a fascinating subject and I am not telling anyone to make any assumptions either way, but please look at quality research that's available before making conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
If ESP ever does prove itself an authentic protocol, then its tendency to allow the mind to accurately observe remote locations could suggest a breach in the presumed dependency of consciousness on the form. I also recommend visiting the CIA's CREST [cia.gov] database and searching amongst the many thousands of Remote Viewing documents that have been released. Despite rational assumption, there's more than redaction lines to look at.
Here's my take on Remote Viewing: if any people (or animals) had this ability, it would be such an advantage that they would rapidly displace those who don't have it. But the vast majority of people don't have this facility, and animals don't have it, so probably nobody does.
"...illusions that we're hardwired into?" (Score:2)
Reality is an illusion we are hardwired into.
Relatively harmless circle jerk (Score:2)
$5 million probably isn't enough to set up much serious biology. Maybe better than giving it to the Vatican.
Immortality Episode Introduction Algorithm (Score:2)
1) State alleged facts. GOTO 2
2) Play Evil Laugh GOTO 3
3) Run Flying Police Box Video GOTO 4
4) Queue Dr. Who theme....
Waste of money (Score:3)
near-death experiences and the impact of belief in an afterlife on human behavior.
Near-death experiences have nothing to do with immortality (but it's interesting for another reason). "Belief in an afterlife" is just some story made up for people to cope with death of loved ones (ohhh "they're with God now" and suddenly it's alllllllright), and their own ever-nearing death.
Why not give the money to Aubrey de Grey [wikipedia.org] and/or the SENS Foundation [wikipedia.org] - have some actual research done on the causes of aging and what to do about them. You can say what you like about de Grey, but he's right about one thing: aging should be treated as a disease.
Re: (Score:3)
Belief in an afterlife being just some made up story is simply your opinion.
Finally someone who "gets" it. They keep telling me that Spiderman is a fictional character, but I have read his texts and heard his message of justice and good deeds. I know that there are different versions of his tale, but that certainly doesn't mean that my understanding of his powers isn't de facto truth.
Re: (Score:3)
"including near-death experiences and the impact of belief in an afterlife on human behavior."
Those aren't "aspects of immortality". Those are aspects of religion, mythology, and in some cases -- insanity. What a waste of money.
Indeed. But they are aspects of getting grant money. If you do not mind being unethical.
I find the "near death" nonsense especially fascinating. These people have never heard of one-way situations. As long as you live to tell about it, you have not been dead and know nothing of "the other side", obviously. Kind of like you know nothing about being hit by a bullet when one nearly misses you.
Re: (Score:2)
...if Heaven is perfect...
Then it should also not have any arrogant jerks who think they are right and anyone who believes something they don't is wrong, even though they have absolute 0 evidence to back up their guesses.
So I guess that means you and me both are out. Although considering I don't think the place exists, that's probably more upsetting for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This topic cannot really be studied scientifically, because science is limited to the physical human senses. For those who only believe that what is physical, touchable, viewable etc., this is a great waste of time and money. Whether there is life after death can only be grasped by faith.
Jesus Christ came and made the claim that he is God. The people of his day, especially the religious ones were unbelievably upset by this claim. They were torqued out of shape enough to conspire with the Roman governmental
Re: (Score:3)
Mr. Templeton was a Presbyterian and a Christian who was also interested in other religions. He became extremely wealthy by stock market investment. He set up the foundation to explore religious topics. His foundation - His choice as to what its goals are for funding research.
Re:Practical immortality (Score:4, Informative)
Mentally and physically the person in my baby picture is already dead. But somehow most people would insist that that baby is me!
Philosophically, you exhibit "perdurance" [wikipedia.org]. If you were unchanging for a while, you would be exhibiting "endurance". Even if you can't understand it, you sure can label it.
Re:Please consider Mitt Romney (Score:4, Funny)
Only an Anonymous Coward would endorse Mitt Romney.
On a side note - We aren't all living forever, but this election season is making it feel like forever.
Re: (Score:3)
The closest I've ever come to a near death experience however was that time when a really big burly biker unfolded himself from a small pink smartcar carrying a small dog in a pink coat.
I remember vividly seeing a burly individual having the looks of a stereotypical biker scolding his dog in public. The dog in question was a chihuahua or some similar breed and it was constantly barking. "Apo! Be quiet, Apo!" It turned out that the biker's chihuahua answered to the name of Apocalypse.