• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A.B. : Artificial Biology.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Everyone's always talking about artificial intelligence (A.I.). How come no one speaks of artificial biology (A.B)? The Bible says we already have the mind of Christ (a post-biological, and thus quasi-artificial intelligence) ----while the artificial body (post-biology, and thus quasi-artificial biology) is still in the making, is still being formed. What is it?

In a thread here a couple years ago (Sex and the Origins of Death) I pointed out that the original living organisms were all immortal. I quoted a Phd. biologist (William R. Clark) saying that if given ample resources, and no external hazards, the original living organisms could live forever. Apparently that wasn't good enough. And why would it be? Imagine living thousands of years, building quite a crib, and then suddenly crashing your ride off a cliff and dying. We gotta do something about that. So life did. It traded its immortality for sex and death.

But don't think life stupid. Far from it. In the trade-off for embodied death (through sexually transmitted senescence), life literally conceived a way to live forever and ever ---even if the planet implodes ----by evolving artificial biology to go along with artificial intelligence. That seems pretty smart if you ask me.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Immortality is a myth. Everything that lives will die. Everything that begins has an end.

Scientifically speaking, "biological immortality" doesn't mean an organism will live forever. It just means it won't grow old such that if nothing external to its genes does it in it could be around a long long time.

Hydra (/ˈhaɪdrə/ HY-drə) is a genus of small, fresh-water organisms of the phylum Cnidaria and class Hydrozoa. They are native to the temperate and tropical regions.[2][3] Biologists are especially interested in Hydra because of their regenerative ability – they do not appear to die of old age, or to age at all.

Wikipedia.
Biological immortality was a neat trick. But it's really old now. Something new has come along. True immortality. The kind you seem to be thinking of: living forever and ever come senescence or high water like Noah's flood.

True immortality, i.e., everlasting life, is not only possible, and not only spoken of in the Bible (though that's good enough for me), it's now a scientific fact. Living forever is now scientific.

To do it you need an artificial body to go with your pre-existing artificial intelligence. And if you don't know you have the latter how you gonna go shopping for the former? How many ladies like yourself shop all the time for shoes without even thinking about what Macy's has in the way of artificial bodies?



John
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Immortality is a myth. Everything that lives will die. Everything that begins has an end.

Eh, the problem is we don't yet know how to hack biology. From what I barely understand from listening to some bret weinstein, it has something to do with mitosis, where cancer results if senescence doesn't result. That is, if nothing else stops the organism before that. So the system isn't really homeostatic, because the central biological nexus (wherever that is) doesn't want anything to live all that long
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
eh, the problem is we don't yet know how to hack biology. From what I barely understand from listening to some bret weinstein, it has something to do with mitosis, where cancer results if senescence doesn't result. That is, if nothing else stops the organism before that. So the system isn't really homeostatic, because the central biological nexus (wherever that is) doesn't want anything to live all that long
From the studies I've read, involving mice, they can't even extend the lifespan that much and the mice still die, albeit in healthier bodies.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Everyone's always talking about artificial intelligence (A.I.). How come no one speaks of artificial biology (A.B)? The Bible says we already have the mind of Christ (a post-biological, and thus quasi-artificial intelligence) ----while the artificial body (post-biology, and thus quasi-artificial biology) is still in the making, is still being formed. What is it?

In a thread here a couple years ago (Sex and the Origins of Death) I pointed out that the original living organisms were all immortal. I quoted a Phd. biologist (William R. Clark) saying that if given ample resources, and no external hazards, the original living organisms could live forever. Apparently that wasn't good enough. And why would it be? Imagine living thousands of years, building quite a crib, and then suddenly crashing your ride off a cliff and dying. We gotta do something about that. So life did. It traded its immortality for sex and death.

But don't think life stupid. Far from it. In the trade-off for embodied death (through sexually transmitted senescence), life literally conceived a way to live forever and ever ---even if the planet implodes ----by evolving artificial biology to go along with artificial intelligence. That seems pretty smart if you ask me.



John
Sierra Sciences is another company racing to cheat death. Its focus is on treatments that can lengthen telomeres – the “caps” at the end of each strand of DNA. Telomeres get shorter each time a cell copies itself. Because our cells copy themselves throughout our lives, the telomeres eventually get very short, and our cells cannot regenerate: we get old.

“If you can get the telomeres back to the normal state they were at when you were born, that could reduce your biological age back to 25,” Strole said.

“You wouldn’t be reversed back to a baby. You stop where maturity begins and ends.”
Is Silicon Valley's quest for immortality a fate worse than death?


Looks like here they are attempting to reverse the aging process.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Eh, the problem is we don't yet know how to hack biology. From what I barely understand from listening to some bret weinstein, it has something to do with mitosis, where cancer results if senescence doesn't result. That is, if nothing else stops the organism before that. So the system isn't really homeostatic, because the central biological nexus (wherever that is) doesn't want anything to live all that long

Right. But that's an evolutionary decision, so to say. The original organisms all lived a really really long time. So why did they evolve senescence? And why is it linked to death?

At first --- even second-glance, this kind of sex [meiotic] seems a superfluous and unnecessary bother. It has none of the virtues of the free bacterial genetic transfer associated with the world-wide microcosm. In the economic terms that biologists have used to describe it, the `cost' of this kind of sex-producing special sex cells with half the usual number of chromosomes, finding mates, and timing and performing the act of fertilization-seems all out of proportion to any possible advantage.

. . . Death, the literal dis-integration of the husk of the body, was the grim price exacted by meiotic sexuality. Complex development in protoctists and their animal and plant descendants led to the evolution of death as a kind of sexually transmitted disease. . . Programmed death is a nonnegotiable consequence of the sexual mode of life.

Lynn Margulis, Dorian Sagan.​

As I said, don't think life a fool. It knew what it was doing by trading mere biological immortality for sex and death: it was tricking the cosmos into providing true immortality, scientifically justifiable everlasting life.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Sierra Sciences is another company racing to cheat death. Its focus is on treatments that can lengthen telomeres – the “caps” at the end of each strand of DNA. Telomeres get shorter each time a cell copies itself. Because our cells copy themselves throughout our lives, the telomeres eventually get very short, and our cells cannot regenerate: we get old.

“If you can get the telomeres back to the normal state they were at when you were born, that could reduce your biological age back to 25,” Strole said.

“You wouldn’t be reversed back to a baby. You stop where maturity begins and ends.”
Is Silicon Valley's quest for immortality a fate worse than death?


Looks like here they are attempting to reverse the aging process.

In stem cells, the pluripotentent and totipotent cells are immortal. Worse, the totipotent cells can do a trick the pluripotent cells can't; they can become something other than the fetus itself. Whereas the pluripotent cells can become any cell in the body, the totipotent cells, from the ovum, can become the placent which isn't really even a part of the body of the embryo.

To stop aging you merely need to be able to get the ovum to start dividing without the bi-gendered mechanisms related to sex. . . Having been formed that way, Jesus was biologically immortal. But he, like the ancient immortal cells in times past, traded his biological immortality for death in hope for something greater than biological immortality ----everlasting life.

We now kinda know how the trick works since science is slowly catching up with the Bible by sneaking a look now and then.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It's not. Science still says we all die.

In the movie, A Few Good Men, the prosecution has corporal Jeffery Barns state that Lt. Jonathan Kendrick ordered the men not to give Santiago a code red while they were in formation. So Lt. Daniel Kaffee asks the corporal (who said Kendrick said not to give Santiago a code red) if he, the corporal, was in lance corporal Harold W. Dawson's room fifteen minutes after Kendrick said not to give Santiago a code red?

This is like that. Do you know any scientist who has passed through the hymen of the morgue to say what's on the other side?

I rest my case your honor.



John
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
In the movie, A Few Good Men, the prosecution has corporal Jeffery Barns state that Lt. Jonathan Kendrick ordered the men not to give Santiago a code red while they were in formation. So Lt. Daniel Kaffee asks the corporal (who said Kendrick said not to give Santiago a code red) if he, the corporal, was in lance corporal Harold W. Dawson's room fifteen minutes after Kendrick said not to give Santiago a code red?

This is like that. Do you know any scientist who has passed through the hymen of the morgue to say what's on the other side?

I rest my case your honor.



John
That's just silly because no one has.
But rest assured, the science consensus is we all die and nothing lives forever.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
That's just silly because no one has.
But rest assured, the science consensus is we all die and nothing lives forever.

One man has passed thorough the hymen of the morgue and lived to tell about it. There's a whole book about him and what he said about it.



John
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
One man has passed thorough the hymen of the morgue and lived to tell about it. There's a whole book about him and what he said about it.



John
There's actually many slain and resurrected deities throughout history, with lots of the rest believing they get reincarnated. Pointing to your religious text provides no more evidence for your claims than the books and stories of other religions.
Dead is dead amd nothing lives or lasts forever.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
There's actually many slain and resurrected deities throughout history, with lots of the rest believing they get reincarnated. Pointing to your religious text provides no more evidence for your claims than the books and stories of other religions.
Dead is dead amd nothing lives or lasts forever.

. . . It's none of my business, but you might want to research things a little deeper. None of the ancient mythologies present themselves as literal history. They consider themselves too sacred for mere profane history. They aren't literally true. They're true on a higher level in the minds of their writers: the sacred mythological level.

The Gospels are antithetical to the others in that they were written not by priests, sages, or holy men, but by people just like you and me; and as eye-witness accounts of things they saw with their own lyin eyes. They lionize events they saw with their own eyes.



John
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
. . . It's none of my business, but you might want to research things a little deeper. None of the ancient mythologies present themselves as literal history. They consider themselves too sacred for mere profane history. They aren't literally true. They're true on a higher level in the minds of their writers: the sacred mythological level.

The Gospels are antithetical to the others in that they were written not by priests, sages, or holy men, but by people just like you and me; and as eye-witness of accounts of things they saw with their own lyin eyes. They lionize events they saw with their own eyes.



John
That doesn't actually change anything. All the books of all religions were written by humans.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
That doesn't actually change anything. All the books of all religions were written by humans.

. . . Yes. And you'd do well to remember that. They weren't written by a hominid, or a neanderthal, after all. Nor even a great ape. They were written by some truly great humans. Why's an ape so great anyhow? He can't even write his name without smoke and mirrors and stretches of the truth.



John
 
Top