Ben Banana

The point is cybernetics. I must stop now. My speculations beyond that statement are not related to medical science, and at the moment, very undisciplined.

Um. Exercise. Edit: Whatever its effects (on the urinary system, sweat glands, digestive system, respiratory system, or circulatory system), exercise will beat any substance. Shame. Edit: If you're looking for more energy, you eat wholesome food. Nevertheless, exercise is essential. Edit: And yes, I do believe that such substances like caffeine are for suckers. Sorry to poop your topic. Edit: How many times have I clicked "edit" ? Edit: I count four five. You may click [-].

My problem is you haven't said much. Your original post only has a title, one sentence, and a cheesy (and faulted) video. There is no problem with the information in your second post, but again, this topic is worthless; it belongs in the lounge. I agree with you, calm down, but I won't click the [+] sign. Sorry.

I might give you 50% on this informative essay. Unfortunately, I never suspected a science-community would have forums for religion and philosophy, neither did I know that the discussion would most often be dry.

Ah, I was right then. The means of discussion is ranting. I'll admit these topics are fun. But I think in this case, it would be rare to find a unique answer (not "Yes"), so this rant will probably be pretty boring. Tweak: I mean, it's accurate about what Mormons are, but the cartoon's depiction is not very solid on their ideology. I'm not in favor of Mormonism, but I don't want to see more hypocrisy. There really isn't anything interesting to discuss yet. It would be fun to talk about how sociopaths construct effective cults, what religious ideologies are crafted like this (besides Mormonism) and which aspects of religion may have originated by sincere misunderstanding (such as believing in mythological/metaphorical stories which were never intended to be believed).

Ahm, wait... We could either be discussing misunderstandings regarding Mormonism, or Mormon myths (both are valid)? This video isn't accurate at all, however, Mormonism is still as reckless and shameful as ever, nevertheless. Edit: Why did you make this topic? Is there really anything to discuss? "Is the Mormon religion racist and misogynous?" Yes. Implicitly, it is. But of course, Mormons don't believe so. The current "official" generation of LDS (it changes to fit society's judgement, really) have a contradictory take on why their beliefs are socially acceptable. Although they still believe that your natural circumstances -- such as being of a certain race, gender, species; born into a certain family, era or having whatever "given challenges and strengths" -- are designated by Elohim (correct spelling?) with respect to your spiritual qualities for the ultimate collective cause of Elohim's "plan of salvation," they oddly don't view that as offensive to anyone, and happily allow themselves to value anti-racism and anti-misogynism, and their ideology simultaneously, for they "always value God's great and wise plan, and all of his wonderful creations." You know? Yeah, its ludicrous.

If space were digital, it might be as cool as if "taco-stand" was asynchronous. That would be pretty cool, right?

I don't mean anything. It was a prompt, not an argument. Read the prompt. I have reoriented my prompting towards you, to resolve this: You explicitly stated: "I don't know what you mean when you ask what is the purpose of life evolving" and actually, I was doing the same, but openly comparing other instances: life (the topic itself) and Heaven/Hell. I was prompting another aspect from where to re-approach the original question. I am still thinking about this, and I tried to demonstrate some of my thoughts in my previous reply. I was wondering if you had any thoughts.

Nice to see you again -- It's been a little while, We haven't seriously considered this for very long anyway... and there have been some successful (primitive) experiments, but I'm sure you already know of them. Alright. Then what could have a purpose? Does purpose really need to be designated? I think purpose solely requires context. Its sort of like saying "Gravity has no purpose." -- but then when discussing cosmological function, one might suggest "The purpose of gravity is to hold mass together." Edit: What does purpose mean? Re-iteration: You can question the purpose of life evolving, and ask the same about living life, and then about being in an eternity of Heaven or Hell. Your ambiguous/sloppy grammar always makes it hard for me to respond without becoming horribly confused/mistaken later. Actually, you just dodged my original prompt (see the exact re-iteration above)... or wait, did you understand what I meant?

As well, one simply equals one. Why is this question asked so often; "The point of life?" No, you just made me feel guilty about writing 42 and letting a joke pass. You also demonstrated the contrary. Edit: And this isn't a joke. I'm not ready to elaborate it, but if there should be an answer to this question besides "Not a good question." then that's all I've got.

I would like to contribute to this triumph: 42. You can question the purpose of life evolving, and ask the same about living life (the original topic of this thread itself), and then about being in an eternity of Heaven or Hell. I'm thinking on this... meanwhile, do you have any thoughts? Better reflex, man.

What original question? This is a rant! This is where everyday people rant about their problems with the mental health industry and mental health practitioners try to lower our pitchforks. That's the discussion.

I wonder how many responders have actually had to deal with the mental health industry. Fortunately, we'll all be going there soon.

At least I got some free jelly beans today. Edit: Congrats.

You're still talking of terms beyond the idea of computation. Stop missing the point. Hint: The current subject is actually about the practice of computation, rather than the science. Fundamentally understanding the science is extremely important when regarding practice. Its a shame so many people consider the real science as mere theory, and since its "all been done" by you know, people like Alan Turing and John von Neumann, you have no more business to seriously think about it for yourself.

Neither is software engineering. Then why be this discussion we have here, with heavy emphasis on learning a programming language? "You must choose one now!" No. What is computing? Address that first. Apparently most certificated 'computer scientists' have never seriously thought about computation. Ironic. Where to start with computer science? The answer: Think about computation.

Duh, just like the fuel of a car engine! The kind that combust. How else are we supposed to stay alive? Everyone knows that 'heart' is just a figure of poetry in the Bible! It's really the Bible that keeps us at Gods mercy! Especially the combustible copies. We can ask a lot of simple questions regarding life. Because topics like this can melt into a terrible mangle of ambiguity, avoid large questions. Start small, throw in a concise response, and then expand to more. Rather than deferring from your original question (often vague), ask a new question. Considering this, you might completely replace your first question, relate it to a more generic question, or form a subordinate question. Here's an example: As this is a topic shared by others of the forum, please consider expanding and improving what I started above. Although, its not mandatory to use the same quote-response format I used (or any format), but by a method like this, we can sensibly discuss the matters of life. Remarkably, this single Wikipedia page is greatly relevant for both the philosophy of ambiguity and aspect, as well as the actual topic we have here (life): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Diesel powered Bibles and a hint of righteous spark.

I would rather we develop and streamline: Better and more efficient methods of propulsion drive and power (engines etc.) This includes less dependency on petroleum, economical utilization of clean fuels (can you consider hydrogen?) and power storage. The versatility of extremely high-capacity/durable batteries is important for electric vehicles. Vehicle designs optimized for simplified manufacturing and robustness. This decreases price too. Regarding safety and automated navigation: sensor comprehension, local-environment awareness, and highly calculated decisive performance. So in other words, I mean cars that can safely and reliably drive themselves. Its obviously not possible to use satellite information for realizing a ditch dug the recent morning, make any common traffic maneuvers, or whatever requires more than a map (almost everything in real-time and local), so GPS would remain as a mechanism only for macro-route suggestion. But that doesn't shadow any doubts on the technology. I believe it has the potential of becoming incredibly more skillful and safe at driving than most humans. As far as I know, its just a short matter of time and money. There's a lot of promising research already. Even some rudimentary features are already beginning to be commercialized (automatic-parking etc.) Note: As a lover of computer science, I've written about this subject the most. Better (or worse) yet, I just got in an accident yesterday. Thankfully, I'm just bruised with very cut hands (glass!) but the wrangled car told a different story. I'm a new driver, and now all the more paranoid! I just want to see one of these self-driving cars compete in NASCAR, just like the classic AI vs human chess games (where the AI wins, yes!) All more practical and useful than the dream of flying cars. I've heard of a private vertical-ascension vehicle but the price tag is somewhere between one and four million. I don't remember what it was exactly. Sorry.

I wasn't aware that anyone had replied yet. Sorry.

Oh wait, no I didn't. Culprit: http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html That compelled for such zeal? I briefly believed you were actually talking about something else. I'm not disputing the subject here, but I'm surprised this 'Yahoo news' has you so compelled. Dumbfounding. This is the news section, its meant for ridicule & review, but you shared only one very brittle conclusion. How could this have any affect on the problems which the vague Yahoo news article tells about? Pathetic analysis. And yet, you still fail to demonstrate how this has any correlation to the condition of Earth's biosphere.

Edit: oops. I completely misread the topic. ---- In suspicion that these discussions inevitably curb somewhere much more interesting than such an immediate and dry conclusion of 'birth control' I recommended writing a science fiction book. No one thought that would be a good idea? I think a lot of good ideas and principles could be introduced by such an imaginative fiction. That would enable you to seriously think: what would people do, and what would they be like, if humans could 'live forever' ? Mandatory birth control is not a careful prediction of how we would respond, its just too obvious. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64739-would-the-world-governments-tell-us-if-the-biggest-killer-disease-could-be-cured/page__view__findpost__p__662309 Regarding society's reaction, there are so many possibilities. Oh... it would be so interesting! I'm talking about vastly changing psychology, insanely different (but interesting) societal models and perhaps the pursuit of building artificial worlds and other uncannily great technology (immortality, by its very definition, is uncanny anyway, ha!) Would it necessarily impose sacrifices on future humanity? Don't claim that it would. We would be fundamentally different. Extending thoughts: If our bodies were enabled virtual immortality, I think its more likely that the event of death would be self-invoked. Ultimately, a mental conclusion rather than physical. Where will our brains go? To a technical order, virtual immortality is unpredictable unless it is understood. I know nothing regarding its plausibility. Remember, it should be treated as science fiction. Without definitive prepositions, we can do little but merely speculate.

I understand that. The compelling reasons to persist with theistic ideology are often, at their best, still quite faulted... and interpreted by some Bob (self-proclaimed man of God) to reflect modern minds with a genuine appearance. Would you like to talk about Bob's appealing words of religion with regards to philosophy, metaphysics, science, psychology etc? Lets see how much of its nonsense and how much can stand. Note: That would mean highjacking the topic, so send a Personal Message to me instead. Like what Bob says about oral traditions. Don't expect anyone to consider it.