Ben Banana

I don't think it is ridiculous, there are compelling reasons and arguments in philosophy, metaphysics, science, psychology etc which forces the theists to investigate such an ideology.

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.

I'm not trying to fix anything, I just gave an interpretation which already exists in majority of the oral traditions of the world.

Like what Bob says about oral traditions. Don't expect anyone to consider it.

The oral traditions are there to guide one to have revelations and in such a way a metaphysical truth is established, anyone can have those revelations and the truth will be self-evident, even I don't know which interpretations are correct and which aren't, I just presented a different point of view.

That itself is an interpretation of "oral traditions." Use a solid basis, and stop trying to merely interpret stupid things other people said to fix (mask) a ridiculous ideology.

Don't be silly, the word 'men of god' refers to the whole of humanity, there were mystics who were women, St. Theresa of Avila is one.

Other religions are indeed silly. Well, in fact, might they all be?

@immortal

If the whole goal of the 30 odd books of the Bible is to show humanity the kingdom of God and his son Jesus Christ then we should care to understand his secret oral teachings. Valentinus, a christian mystic in the 2nd century got that knowledge from Theodus and he inturn got that knowledge from the apostle Paul and in this way that knowledge can be traced back to God himself. Therefore the interpretations of the men of God are the highest authority since their interpretations are based on revelations and not by making up stuff on their own.

Who the hell are men of God? Was Jesus even God?

--edit--

You quoted something I just scrapped. I'll put it back for readers' sake.

If? The Bible. Goal of the Bible. Which Bible? Interpretations. What interpretations? Bob is a man of God more than Jim. Bob is the authority. Bob's interpretations are correct. Bob is a man of God because his interpretations seem to make sense to me more than Jim, and I've just never really appealed to what Jim has ever said, because it all "sounds" like baloney and obviously Bob's got the stuff it takes. Note: Bob's a good guy, I've known him my whole life and he's intrigued me by his apparently legitimate information. Jim is a liar! But Bob... Bob is a man of God! (note: Jill has no chance either, she's a woman.)

----

If we keep aside the mythology of those Gnosis schools of thought all of there teachings harmonize well with each other and they speak in one tone and in line with each other and they weren't monotheistic but were pagans and believed in many gods and in many different other worlds.

They keep dropping pickles in my apple juice. This is not good.

Yes, true, it is God's duty but humanity was inherently made imperfect and that is an illusion due to ignorance and hence from Gnosis point of view SDD can be eradicated only through the perfect or the self-knowledge of God.

wtf

By what I believe to understand: the primary influences would be metabolism and blood flow, which I think are mostly affected by diet and accumulative health. I also believe that eating-behavior (favorite foods, digestion quantity etc.) is greatly influenced by the ones who feed you during childhood.

I hope someone can answer your question better than I can.

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_fibre

"Type I red fibers" looks relevant to your question.

Also, on metabolism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism

Neither does Euclid require that awareness.

Non Ultimum Fundamentum

Edit:

I'm bothered. Please say: "Can you prove proof?" next time.

----

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics

This common definition made is etymologically skewed.

"I have a hard time getting along with God"

Oh, this is probably because its hard to persistently envision imaginary friends, especially because that requires the justification of so many things that don't make sense. I recommend people stop picturing a white-robed, bearded man in an empty lawn chair (I know no one does that, just joking). But by plain realization, you notice he (or it) is a creep! Others may prefer to envision God differently -- a God, by some extended ideology, which isn't evidently a bastard!

Don't complicate a useless picture. If you must satisfy your curiosity, start "painting a new picture" by your previous experience and reasoning, but stop smearing things around. Now, wonderfully, when you develop your delicious ideas, and practice reasoning from a solid basis, you can actually reflect reality without any hiccups. Then, you're out of the dark, where logic can proceed more profoundly!

God is cheap; the ideology is a foolish solution to so many entertaining questions which are rather better to actually answer than to bet. Uh, If I took my time to write a few more sentences, maybe I could make this point come across elegantly -- its extremely hard to convince a deist -- however, just ask God. Let the omniscient tell you if he's real, because they are omniscient, and they know all. Unusually, the all-powerful doesn't care... Or perhaps this all-powerful is the mere concept itself: destructively hindering your thought!

See, you added all that extra stuff that doesn't have much to do with this philosophy topic, like google.

Well, then

I'm writing an essay about Khan Academy for ENG101 (yes I'm only 16, just started going to a Community College). If anyone's interested, I might attach it later. Oh... but I'm busy writing it so I can't respond directly to this topic yet.

But I have much to say about this subject. For now I'll just predict that this topic will make a very worthwhile discussion, so I suggest everyone participating should eventually extend their thoughts beyond ScienceForums.net, because you (as a topic participant) will already have been sufficiently compelled by the matter.

Everything is solved when computers are faster. Think no more about what you actually perform with the hardware. Think little about representation! We need hardware which can raytrace billions of polygons and insanely large textures in realtime, every bounce of light, every sort of material, and handle a brute physics engine simulating every vapor droplet of water, the crystalization of every snowflake, the flow of the wind, and the flames of fire!

No.

I only came up with this general idea Monday, so it needs a bit of work, but I wanted to put it out there.

Thats neat.

Why are you writing about your ideas in 3rd person?

Oh. What about software which can analyze multiple forms of astronomical data for a variety of purposes? The first thing which comes to mind is the detection of distant planets in other solar systems... but I know there's more rudimentary function before that, including gravitational system evalations (that's a hash for now, I'm not sure what to call it).

You could create algorithms which

1) mine astronomical data (I don't know how they store it)

2) collect it into a hierarchical model and

3) perform analysis/predictions etc.

I just wasted a lot of my time making this stupid picture, enjoy:

Most simply:

I = O-I

I+I = O

O = 2I

Make 'I' a constant.

r = 2 cm

I = pi*r² = 4pi cm²

Find O:

O = 2I = 8pi cm²

Testing it is easy too.

I = O - I

4 = 8 - 4

4 = 4 indeed.

BTW I should learn LaTeX.

Edit:

Oh sorry, the radius of O? sqrt(8)

@imaatfal

I can see why people like Brian Cox might sometime lose their way when trying to get that across to a lay audience.

No, that never happens.

Edit:

Maybe to broaden this.

Richard Feynman, quite contrarily to Brian Cox, appears to have a concern over the rampant distractions of self image and importance, hence manifested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Do_You_Care_What_Other_People_Think%3F

But both seem to share disappointment by a distracted humanity.

I've never heard of such a term. It sounds silly. Sorry.

Edit:

Regarding an implementation of this idea, the first area of interest could be connectomics.

@JohnStu

Don't try stealing this topic only because you're compelled by your latest & greatest theory which belongs in the speculation section. Even worse of you, with respect to the previous two posts before you.

Computer science and programming are not the same, of course. Unfortunately, most people seem to think they overlap nearly entirely, which is why I'll probably go for a math degree rather than dipping my nose into the horrible PLs they might make me learn for software-engineering's sake.

Now in regards to you, your university might require some math classes that may look scary.

My opinion is different.

Don't some call this the information age?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_age

@JohnStu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing#Theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension

For most, its extremely difficult to use words appropriately when discussing this subject. The original post had lead you to misconception. However, you can read the Wikipedia articles I provided a link to above. Hopefully that helps clearify.

@CaptainPanic

You can be weak, but if nothing comes along that is lethal to you, you will live.

Hmm. If you never run a car and keep it stored in "perfect" conditions, it should remain a perfect car. Yet, it never will run, be used or serve its purpose. Without excellent service, repair and eventual whole-replacement, it must be impossible for a well-functioning car to persist with well function.

Eventually your organs should kill out, right? I'm far from being a credible biologist, and that may be slightly (or completely) incorrect, but it seems like a geniune assumption. Think about how you mean "weak." Holding a transition of lowered function to ceased function disconnected is unreasonably coward.

@Original Post

To fully solve the problem you suspect, begin with the essential realization that (near-)immortality fundamentally changes humanity. Then you shall write a science-fiction novel, with all seriousness. I expect a good one

If no one wants to write such a novel, I would gladly write it.

(No one sue. This is a shared concept.)

I think this should stop.

// I have pancakes.

\\ You have no waffles.

// NO. I said pancakes.

\\ Exactly, you have no waffles.

// What do waffles have to do with this?

\\ Why do you think I brought them up?

// Tell yourself why.

\\ Why do you think?

--

That's how its done. Either that or move on please. If we're going to be stubborn now, wait a year.

Hmm... there was this one idea, but I'm not sure if I remember it properly. Some kind of flying spaghetti monstor told me in a dream: "Do research for yourself, scum bag." he smiled and then flew away. I might have got a few details off, but that's my best recall.

Why not a green box? WHY!?

The sense of being 'you' and existing wouldn't be transferred to the new brain...it would just be a copy of you with it's own sense of self and existence. The potential to carry on your work in the way the original you did it still remains though. Does that make sense?

Arguable.

Hey, did you know there's some "rich" people out there who have their (dead) bodies frozen and preserved in a laboratory until Sir. Richard Jesus Dawkins The Second discovers the secret to immortality and makes us all live forever? Yay.

Me So Great

You may be intending to become a moderator by impressing the forum staff your superb skills, impressive vocabulary, witty sense of humor and ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good, but do it quietly and don't annoy the rest of the forum members.

Not true.

But to be serious, I hope my humor here and there isn't destructive. Please PM me if you're bothered.

Now to be more receptive of the OP.

I'm surprised no one has invented this yet.

Please don't be surprised. What does "invent" mean? It tends to mean a resourceful creation, right? Well . . . I'm surprised no one has a better phrase to use when they vastly misjudge the requirements to obtain a certain level of technology.

1. Communication and showcase. Less Lady Gaga and more math nerds yields more chances of "invention."

2. The right direction of research.

3. Actual research and thought.

4. Economical implementation.

Although it can be used for almost any group ("computer scientists"), that doesn't mean it can go anywhere.

- and mainly because understanding nuances of designing (and maybe creating) such general tool for serious discussions of huge number of extremely interested persons is rather a task for computer scientists ...

Okay, that. We can talk about that.

In regards to the poll and the topic itself:

Ahh.. there's no "Definitely not perfect!" option, and I agree that carefully designing a user-information comprehensive network is needed to tighten the ropes of robust communication.

By the way, this is probably the wrong forum (Computer Science, move to "Other Sciences", "Philosophy" or "Politics" perhaps?) to have posted at.

I was going to suggest exercise . . . and apparently you can read economics textbooks too. My Dad does both of those, being a doctor in economics and working out every day. He seems to fall asleep very fast!