I often find the concept of not being here hard to understand i think i untied the knots in my own thinking and that of many people around me. There simply is nothing to understand about it, we won't be here, it's the end. It's only our own projections we put onto death that leads to hardship in understanding it. We don't try to understand us not "being" before we were born, so why after?
@TonnoZA Aversion to death does not imply awareness of death. Proximately, an animal eats to satiate hunger caused by whatever some physiological processes. Ultimately, an animal eats to survive to reproduce by order of natural selection. It is natural selection, not thought, that provides the behaviors (even plastic behaviors) necessary to evade death.
@TonnoZA "Whether trying to eat enough - whether they need to migrate for food, reproducing, or escaping preditors." - I don't think so at all. Take a child, they have no concept of dying. An animal would not of got this far without instincts of pain and suffering. You don't need to know that you are going to die in a fire to not want to go near fire.
@rbl777 you are the reason comments should be disallowed on these videos. They are criticising the scientific promise of immortality, not endorsing it. Go back to LOLcats and the Kardashians.
A process of setting up straw men (or straw dogs) and then knocking them down. A harmless occupation but nt very revealing. Except about the participants - they do like the word quotidian.
Some straw arguments could be categorized as focus on the far-fetched, clearly not the next step in the progression towards a solution for a problem (death). Case in this point: @27:16 Professor Gray focuses in on Kurzweil's make-believe that uploading of the brain, changing avatars, and so on is something worth spanking down, while along the goal of solving death, the dietary impact on life span is left alone. This latter is the cutting edge question in science at this moment, but is ignored :-(
@macks7241 - Capitalising letters that don't need capitalising just make you look stupid, mainly because that is what stupid people do. Though, there may be something in what you say, however what you argue could still be explained by other instincts requiring that they move on. They might have strong social instincts that support their herd like behaviour, yet no empathy. You don't really make a case for your argument at all.
Something else: torture is NOT inherently 'evil' or 'barbaric' (you just need to observe certain common sense protocols), but letting deceased loved ones rot or burn (when they could have been saved with cryonics) most certainly IS. These ivory tower humanist types think they're so smart, but they know nothing of reason and morality.
I often find the concept of not being here hard to understand i think i untied the knots in my own thinking and that of many people around me. There simply is nothing to understand about it, we won't be here, it's the end. It's only our own projections we put onto death that leads to hardship in understanding it. We don't try to understand us not "being" before we were born, so why after?
5:21 18:12
@TonnoZA Aversion to death does not imply awareness of death. Proximately, an animal eats to satiate hunger caused by whatever some physiological processes. Ultimately, an animal eats to survive to reproduce by order of natural selection. It is natural selection, not thought, that provides the behaviors (even plastic behaviors) necessary to evade death.
Will Self talks like he's behind a fan
@parapon3ra. I used to be a transhumanist. Then I grew up.
*You used to be a transhumanist. Then you grew old realized you were going to die, got scared and embraced deathism.
Who else cares ?
@TonnoZA "Whether trying to eat enough - whether they need to migrate for food, reproducing, or escaping preditors." - I don't think so at all. Take a child, they have no concept of dying. An animal would not of got this far without instincts of pain and suffering. You don't need to know that you are going to die in a fire to not want to go near fire.
@rbl777 you are the reason comments should be disallowed on these videos. They are criticising the scientific promise of immortality, not endorsing it. Go back to LOLcats and the Kardashians.
A process of setting up straw men (or straw dogs) and then knocking them down. A harmless occupation but nt very revealing. Except about the participants - they do like the word quotidian.
Some straw arguments could be categorized as focus on the far-fetched, clearly not the next step in the progression towards a solution for a problem (death).
Case in this point: @27:16 Professor Gray focuses in on Kurzweil's make-believe that uploading of the brain, changing avatars, and so on is something worth spanking down, while along the goal of solving death, the dietary impact on life span is left alone. This latter is the cutting edge question in science at this moment, but is ignored :-(
@macks7241 - Capitalising letters that don't need capitalising just make you look stupid, mainly because that is what stupid people do. Though, there may be something in what you say, however what you argue could still be explained by other instincts requiring that they move on. They might have strong social instincts that support their herd like behaviour, yet no empathy. You don't really make a case for your argument at all.
Something else: torture is NOT inherently 'evil' or 'barbaric' (you just need to observe certain common sense protocols), but letting deceased loved ones rot or burn (when they could have been saved with cryonics) most certainly IS. These ivory tower humanist types think they're so smart, but they know nothing of reason and morality.
this discussion is pathetic.
they want to cheat death? how about figuring out point of life first?
again, pathetic
I hope you've learned to be less moronic in the last 7 years.