While reading the posts here I've realised I don't know quite nearly as much on these subjects as you, but...
Wouldn't one think that cells would continue to function correctly as long as there were a constant supply of material and energy to keep them working? Why do cells breakdown, generate energy more inefficiently, etc. over time? Are they simply not getting enough energy/materials or are they using them inefficiently? Are they just completely flawed, and "life" is a one in a trillion mishap?
These questions bother me every day... Discuss? =|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_aging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence
There are a wide variety of possible and likely causes, and no real scientific consensus on what does what, and to what degree.
Consider a car engine, however for a basic example. One would think that as long as it's maintained properly, it could run forever, but that isn't true. With time, parts begin to rust and degrade. Friction causes wear and tear, and overuse causes damage to the internal components. The simplest explanation of aging is an analogy to a car engine: Our cells simply wear out with time.
The main problem with that analogy is that car engines lack the ability to grow replacement parts, while most living organisms can, but bear in mind that the DNA which controls this regenerative ability is itself subject to wear and tear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence
There are a wide variety of possible and likely causes, and no real scientific consensus on what does what, and to what degree.
Consider a car engine, however for a basic example. One would think that as long as it's maintained properly, it could run forever, but that isn't true. With time, parts begin to rust and degrade. Friction causes wear and tear, and overuse causes damage to the internal components. The simplest explanation of aging is an analogy to a car engine: Our cells simply wear out with time.
The main problem with that analogy is that car engines lack the ability to grow replacement parts, while most living organisms can, but bear in mind that the DNA which controls this regenerative ability is itself subject to wear and tear.
Just for the case you didn't see I suggest to take a look at the thread: Cause of aging in this Forum.
There is presented that the cause of aging and "natural" death could be the presence of too energetic photons everywher even as a "background noise" only and that would be a "flaw" in the Physics of the Universe, not aq problem on the organic cells or their constituents.
May be you would like to discuss something about here.
There is presented that the cause of aging and "natural" death could be the presence of too energetic photons everywher even as a "background noise" only and that would be a "flaw" in the Physics of the Universe, not aq problem on the organic cells or their constituents.
May be you would like to discuss something about here.
QUOTE (martillo+Jul 21 2009, 02:18 PM)
Just for the case you didn't see I suggest to take a look at the thread: Cause of aging
May be you would like to discuss something about here.
brain damage.
May be you would like to discuss something about here.
brain damage.
Aging is, basically, your body biodegrading. And, since we are programmed to self-destruct, so to speak, this does not happen in a "magical" fashion such as a flip of a switch, but in the form of a gradual decline. The reason for this is right under your nose and to surface it, requires in depth thought. It is Found in a tail biting circle of reason upon how all this "could" have been made possible.
This requires alot of thought and some explanation. I find that it is better if I leave a cliffhanger of thought instead of spoonfeeding my own. In that case...
Atoms are real. These tiny mirrored universes, with their attractive charges, bouncing around at uncomprehendable speeds, compose you and I and compose everything around us. It is by this probability, 3 phase polar solvent (h2o), distance from the sun, and much more that You and I were created. All rooted upon probabilty.
There is no genetic crossing over in immortality. If our ancestors were immortal, we would not be here. If their ancestors were immortal they wouldn't be there and so on. Mortality is a mirror of probabilty and because of the on going of difference, a new, better, more suited, System of Cells may be created in which to survive.
Now.. i leave you with this. Why ask Why
This requires alot of thought and some explanation. I find that it is better if I leave a cliffhanger of thought instead of spoonfeeding my own. In that case...
Atoms are real. These tiny mirrored universes, with their attractive charges, bouncing around at uncomprehendable speeds, compose you and I and compose everything around us. It is by this probability, 3 phase polar solvent (h2o), distance from the sun, and much more that You and I were created. All rooted upon probabilty.
There is no genetic crossing over in immortality. If our ancestors were immortal, we would not be here. If their ancestors were immortal they wouldn't be there and so on. Mortality is a mirror of probabilty and because of the on going of difference, a new, better, more suited, System of Cells may be created in which to survive.
Now.. i leave you with this. Why ask Why
A dark topic
and not academic snobbery. They want to talk about this and what their work will accomplish, not other people's misconceptions of this. It's the same reason most biologists don't go ranting about intelligent design, they know it's true, they just want to get on with their work.
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for making up statistics.]
and not academic snobbery. They want to talk about this and what their work will accomplish, not other people's misconceptions of this. It's the same reason most biologists don't go ranting about intelligent design, they know it's true, they just want to get on with their work.
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for making up statistics.]
QUOTE (Mr Puffy+Sep 5 2009, 09:00 AM)
It's the same reason most biologists don't go ranting about intelligent design, they know it's true, they just want to get on with their work.
Wow, you're an idiot.
Wow, you're an idiot.
I hate to introduce facts to a pissing contest, but aging isn't the same thing as dying, even though it seems obvious to most that aging leads to death.
Statistical trendline analysis of life expectancies vs. year indicate that there's a cross-over point coming up in the next couple decades where if you're alive at that time, doctors/researchers will be extending life expectancies by greater than one year per year, and you'll have a chance at living indefinitely.
We'll need to redefine life and aging when that happens (as well as several other related concepts like courage), as the means to achieve indefinite lifespans will probably require incorporation of bioimplants (e.g., artificial hearts, kidneys, etc.) and/or harvesting body parts from clones kept healthy and unconscious all their "lives", which brings up the issue of where you'll go if you're struck by a meteor (is keeping a clone on-ice a sin that'll send you to hell or not?), but some will be willing to take their chances and others will be happy to live rich-but-damned...
Nothing new there...
Anyway, for those who've lived good lives and believe in Heaven, they may decide to opt for nature's way and make room for the young.
Anyway, it's always dangerous to extrapolate statistical trends, and it's also dangerous to apply statistical findings to specific instances, especially when humans are involved, so keep paying your life insurance premiums, just in case you aren't lucky.
Statistical trendline analysis of life expectancies vs. year indicate that there's a cross-over point coming up in the next couple decades where if you're alive at that time, doctors/researchers will be extending life expectancies by greater than one year per year, and you'll have a chance at living indefinitely.
We'll need to redefine life and aging when that happens (as well as several other related concepts like courage), as the means to achieve indefinite lifespans will probably require incorporation of bioimplants (e.g., artificial hearts, kidneys, etc.) and/or harvesting body parts from clones kept healthy and unconscious all their "lives", which brings up the issue of where you'll go if you're struck by a meteor (is keeping a clone on-ice a sin that'll send you to hell or not?), but some will be willing to take their chances and others will be happy to live rich-but-damned...
Nothing new there...
Anyway, for those who've lived good lives and believe in Heaven, they may decide to opt for nature's way and make room for the young.
Anyway, it's always dangerous to extrapolate statistical trends, and it's also dangerous to apply statistical findings to specific instances, especially when humans are involved, so keep paying your life insurance premiums, just in case you aren't lucky.
was I born too late then? Will i live 120+?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 8 2009, 03:36 AM)
Statistical trendline analysis of life expectancies vs. year indicate that there's a cross-over point coming up in the next couple decades where if you're alive at that time, doctors/researchers will be extending life expectancies by greater than one year per year, and you'll have a chance at living indefinitely.
Computer scientist Raymond Kurzweil is among those who subscribes to this vision of the future.
Kurzweil and other transhumanists believe that the same technological advances that make these life enhancement procedures possible, in a similar time frame will also lead to the development of superhuman organisms that will eventually replace humans as the dominant species on the planet. So those that are able to reap the benefits of life extension, will for better or worse, end up as wards of these higher organisms.
QUOTE
Kurzweil believes that the radical technological advances made throughout the 21st century will ultimately culminate with the discovery of means to reverse the aging process, cure any disease, and repair presently unrepairable injuries. Kurzweil has thus focused himself towards following a lifestyle intended to heighten his odds of living to see the day when science can make him immortal. Kurzweil calls this the "Bridge to a Bridge to a Bridge" strategy: The first bridge to longer life is Kurzweil's regimen, whereas the second- and third bridges are based on advanced biotechnologies and nanotechnologies, respectively, that have not yet been invented. Kurzweil believes they will allow for progressively longer human lifespans to the point of immortality and that successfully implementing the first "bridge" now allows one to reach the second in the future, which then allows one to reach the third.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil
Kurzweil and other transhumanists believe that the same technological advances that make these life enhancement procedures possible, in a similar time frame will also lead to the development of superhuman organisms that will eventually replace humans as the dominant species on the planet. So those that are able to reap the benefits of life extension, will for better or worse, end up as wards of these higher organisms.
Thanks, I was trying to remember Kurzweil's name when writing the prior post.
My guess is that Kurzweil will end up dying from his current "life-extension regimen" (which includes over 250 pills per day).
My guess is that Kurzweil will end up dying from his current "life-extension regimen" (which includes over 250 pills per day).
lol what sort of pills?
He was on some Science Channel thing, talking about it. Never said what pills, only that he takes ~250/day. My guess would be a lot of antioxidants, a lot of vitamins, and a lot of resveratrol, plus a bunch of junk that isn't good for him in the least.
I do recommend 1000 - 2000 IU of vitamin D to help prevent cancers of various sorts, and I do take resveratrol, but not monster-sizes doses of either. Google "longevity Pauling" and find the site for Linus Pauling's Institute, they have the only longevity info I trust.
I do recommend 1000 - 2000 IU of vitamin D to help prevent cancers of various sorts, and I do take resveratrol, but not monster-sizes doses of either. Google "longevity Pauling" and find the site for Linus Pauling's Institute, they have the only longevity info I trust.
What does it mean to you when Paul tells us not to conform to this world?
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Rms :12
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Rms :12
It means I suspect you would act immorally and break social conventions and laws willy-nilly because you accept Paul's authority over tested facts and the well-being of your fellow man.
And for some reason you quote the copyrighted New King James Version over the public domain King James Version despite the two sharing almost all the same problems with translation.
Whereas the message I take away is merely to be Good to one another, and if someone claiming to be God or speaking on His behalf endorses slavery, genocide, or conforming to the pattern of an unjust authority, then ***'em. Think for yourself, find the Good, and pursue it.
And since that passage invokes the testing of what is Good to know the will of God, then we need no rely on the purported authority of Paul to speak for God.
And for some reason you quote the copyrighted New King James Version over the public domain King James Version despite the two sharing almost all the same problems with translation.
Whereas the message I take away is merely to be Good to one another, and if someone claiming to be God or speaking on His behalf endorses slavery, genocide, or conforming to the pattern of an unjust authority, then ***'em. Think for yourself, find the Good, and pursue it.
And since that passage invokes the testing of what is Good to know the will of God, then we need no rely on the purported authority of Paul to speak for God.
Interesting how a discussion of longevity turns religious, but then again I suppose that since life is God's greatest gift, we should do everything within reason to preserve it, anything less would seem ungrateful. Then the catch is defining what's within reason, and at what point does self-sacrifice stop being heroic and start being suicidal.
The flipside of that is finding the line between taking drastic ("heroic") measures to treat a disease versus fearing death to the point of cowardice.
Which is interesting to me, as I'm more interested in metaphysics than physics, but a bit off-topic for a scientific forum. I don't mind if you don't.
The flipside of that is finding the line between taking drastic ("heroic") measures to treat a disease versus fearing death to the point of cowardice.
Which is interesting to me, as I'm more interested in metaphysics than physics, but a bit off-topic for a scientific forum. I don't mind if you don't.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 12 2009, 08:59 PM)
Which is interesting to me, as I'm more interested in metaphysics than physics, but a bit off-topic for a scientific forum. I don't mind if you don't.
This is like saying that you prefer the taste of dog feces instead of actual food.
This is like saying that you prefer the taste of dog feces instead of actual food.
wcelliott,
- David Hume
Metaphysics are made-up and useless. If my language has hurt your feelings (as evident from your neg), too bad.
QUOTE
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
- David Hume
Metaphysics are made-up and useless. If my language has hurt your feelings (as evident from your neg), too bad.
The topic is "death", right?
Are you only interested in the physics-aspect of death? That's easy, it's what happens when the biological processes needed for life stop working.
You want it to be quantifiable? One thing lives, it eventually dies. Integer numbers allow you to fully understand it, living can be defined as "1", dead = "0".
If you are interested in any other aspect of death, we'll have to discuss metaphysics, Hume be damned.
Are you only interested in the physics-aspect of death? That's easy, it's what happens when the biological processes needed for life stop working.
You want it to be quantifiable? One thing lives, it eventually dies. Integer numbers allow you to fully understand it, living can be defined as "1", dead = "0".
If you are interested in any other aspect of death, we'll have to discuss metaphysics, Hume be damned.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 12 2009, 11:56 PM)
If you are interested in any other aspect of death, we'll have to discuss metaphysics, Hume be damned.
I used to try to figure metaphysics into the concept of death, but instead of clarifying the subject, it clouds judgement.
To begin with, life and death are hopelessly vague terms. When something "dies" the transition from life to death is unclear. Medically, death occurs when blood can no longer be oxygenated and sent to the brain. In reality, the brain is alive for some time longer, leading to a progression of decreasing electrical and chemical activity. The rest of the body's cells won't actually cease functioning for some time.
Death is not a moment in time, but rather a process.
There is no physical or biological mechanism for reincarnation, resurrection or any other type of pseudo-spiritual life after death. If there was, I would consider metaphysics.
I prefer to ask questions that have answers. Asking "do we have free will?" or "what is death?" is pointless as there is no real answer.
I used to try to figure metaphysics into the concept of death, but instead of clarifying the subject, it clouds judgement.
To begin with, life and death are hopelessly vague terms. When something "dies" the transition from life to death is unclear. Medically, death occurs when blood can no longer be oxygenated and sent to the brain. In reality, the brain is alive for some time longer, leading to a progression of decreasing electrical and chemical activity. The rest of the body's cells won't actually cease functioning for some time.
Death is not a moment in time, but rather a process.
There is no physical or biological mechanism for reincarnation, resurrection or any other type of pseudo-spiritual life after death. If there was, I would consider metaphysics.
I prefer to ask questions that have answers. Asking "do we have free will?" or "what is death?" is pointless as there is no real answer.
I find it especially pointless to bring Hume into a scientific forum, given that his position is that science is a fictional construct:
"Hume arrives at the denial of all the basic concepts of scientific and philosophical knowledge. So-called material and spiritual substances are only aggregations of impressions and ideas. The most basic principles, such as the principle of cause and effect, are reduced to psychological fictions, which are explained through the mechanism of association and habit."
http://www.radicalacademy.com/phildavidhume2.htm
I wouldn't be the first to mine physical laws for their metaphysical implications, Hawking has made a career of it, arguing that the universe needs no creation, that its creation and our existence are essentially inevitable happenstance requiring no Creator. He went on to calculate the a priori likelihood of finding a universe capable of supporting life, and the probability was astronomically small. I take his concept a step further and recognize that there are a lot more universes capable of sustaining life than there are universes capable of supporting responsibility. (See below, signature.)
"Hume arrives at the denial of all the basic concepts of scientific and philosophical knowledge. So-called material and spiritual substances are only aggregations of impressions and ideas. The most basic principles, such as the principle of cause and effect, are reduced to psychological fictions, which are explained through the mechanism of association and habit."
http://www.radicalacademy.com/phildavidhume2.htm
I wouldn't be the first to mine physical laws for their metaphysical implications, Hawking has made a career of it, arguing that the universe needs no creation, that its creation and our existence are essentially inevitable happenstance requiring no Creator. He went on to calculate the a priori likelihood of finding a universe capable of supporting life, and the probability was astronomically small. I take his concept a step further and recognize that there are a lot more universes capable of sustaining life than there are universes capable of supporting responsibility. (See below, signature.)
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 13 2009, 01:11 AM)
I find it especially pointless to bring Hume into a scientific forum, given that his position is that science is a fictional construct:
Serves me right for quote-mining.
I think I over-assumed what you meant by meta-physics.
I get cranky sometimes :/
My apologies.
Serves me right for quote-mining.
I think I over-assumed what you meant by meta-physics.
I get cranky sometimes :/
My apologies.
I once read (I am not sure where sadly, though it matters little in this case) that the only real operational definition of death is that it is irreversible.
If you can reverse the process, then it's not final and it's not death.
Here is a good example... cryogenics. When a living being is frozen, it's essentially dead. All biological processes stop entirely. Assuming you can bring it back to life though, and some organisms can do this, it's not really dead .. or is it? It certainly isn't irreversible.
If you can reverse the process, then it's not final and it's not death.
Here is a good example... cryogenics. When a living being is frozen, it's essentially dead. All biological processes stop entirely. Assuming you can bring it back to life though, and some organisms can do this, it's not really dead .. or is it? It certainly isn't irreversible.
The one thing I can think of that is common to all religions is the belief that death of our individual bodies isn't the end of our individual consciousnesses. (Here's where someone corrects me about a religion I know nothing about.) So I'll go along with the "irreversible" bit.
There will be those who've "died" on the operating table and were brought back to life who'll argue, and I won't contradict them, but if they made it back, then they weren't dead, IMO. Someone here said something about death being a process, I'd say in their case the process was interrupted prior to its completion.
There will be those who've "died" on the operating table and were brought back to life who'll argue, and I won't contradict them, but if they made it back, then they weren't dead, IMO. Someone here said something about death being a process, I'd say in their case the process was interrupted prior to its completion.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.