• 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
At least the mice studies are science.

I suppose so. But how many of them have Phd's like humans do? And their labs are much cheaper what with the price of real estate and all. You can fit 10 or 100 mouse labs in one human lab. Which is why mice and dogs were in space before we were. They ganged up on us. But let the US, China, and Russia gang up on mice, dogs, and great apes, and lets see who gets to Mars, or even Uranus, first.



John
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
. . . 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
Humans are members of the great ape family.
And those people who wrote those texts? I wouldn't say they are necessarily great and lots of them are clearly about smoke and mirrors and stretches of truth. Healing the blind with spit and mud? That's not even believable.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
. . . And I don't think it makes sense to call a great ape an uncle, aunt, sibling, or other family member.



John
Humans are great apes. It's a large category that includes gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and homo habilis through homo sapiens.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Humans are great apes. It's a large category that includes gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and homo habilis through homo sapiens.

. . . I have a few family members that lend weight to this science so-called. So just think of me as stubborn. Even to make sense of one of my sisters, and two of my aunts, and one uncle, I still don't go there.


John
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
. . . I have a few family members that lend weight to this science so-called. So just think of me as stubborn. Even to make sense of one of my sisters, and two of my aunts, and one uncle, I still don't go there.


John
It's not "so called." It is just science.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
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

Oh dear. This confirms my impression of you, John, that you like to focus on scientific findings that superficially support your existing beliefs, and then completely misunderstand what the data actually says while remaining misinformed about what the scientific method is, what the scope of scientific results entail, and what a scientific theory is. This comment of yours is complete nonsense. Human immortality is not even remotely scientific, nor does your post hoc rationalization of Christian myths to make them sound superficially scientific actually have any basis in science. Jesus arose from a non-bi-gendered ovum, seriously?

Stem cell lines are immortal, but the cells themselves are not. Likewise, very simple organisms can regrow body parts, but this is entirely irrelevant for more complex life where, for example, neuronal axons can be a meter long and once severed cannot retrace their axon to the destination because all of the developmental signals are absent once the organism has developed. Likewise for brain architecture, muscle fibers, kidneys, etc. The immortality of cell lines and simple multicellular organisms is categorically unrelated to the ability of complex organisms to live longer.

A good analogy for this difference is tying your shoe laces when they come untied, versus perfectly reassembling a Persian rug that had completely unraveled, when it contains billions of threads and patterns made up of thousands of different colors.

While human immortality may one day be possible, we are likely hundreds of years away from that at the earliest. There are so many tools we'd have to invent first, and so much more knowledge we'd have to have, as well as a cure for every kind of cancer and disease. It sits solidly in the realms of science fiction, and there is no scientific basis (and no evidence) for Biblical magic and mythology.
 

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.

Numerous science commentators of late, and not so late, have come to terms with the fact that so-called "cultural evolution," say space-travel, heart-transplants, A.I, logical examinations of space-time reality, and such, create a rather serious problem for the materialist's preferred worldview (i.e., that human thought is a secondary phenomenon of material causation). In a recent thread I quoted Karl Popper explaining why cultural evolution doesn't lend itself to the scientific materialist's chosen worldview.

Popper explains that there are pretty undeniably at least three distinct, independent (to some degree) worlds. The first is the world of material things, rocks, trees, suns, moons, and such. The second is the world of human psychological phenomenon, self-consciousness, sensory perceptions, emotions, and empirical experience in general. And the third is the world of mathematics, logic, philosophy, science, art, etc.,.

As Popper points out, the scientifically minded materialist might like to imply that the second world, human psychology, empirical perception, and such, is merely caused by certain material functions of the brain so that this second world, this psychological phenomenon, can be thought of as being anchored to material causation. And yet, as Popper points out, the third world requires the first two be self-contained and genuinely independent of one another to some degree.

One of my main points about the body-mind problem, is this. Even though World 2 may have emerged from World 1, it must have become, to a considerable extent independent of World 1, for in a critical discussion it must orientate itself on World 3 standards ---say, on logic ---rather than on World 1. If it were only an epiphenomenon of World 1, then our beliefs would all be illusions and on equal terms with other illusions; and this would hold for all "isms", including epiphenomenalism, and the theory of natural selection.​

As Popper notes, if our subjective experience, i.e., our self-conscious self, is merely a trick played by material causation, then anything a self-conscious agent chooses to believe, say in the power of logic, or mathematics, etc., is mostly an illusion, so that if that belief in the power of logic, math, etc., allows the self-conscious second world to feed-back on the physical world, transforming it in undeniably profound ways, then the materialist's chosen belief that self-conscious experience is mostly unreal, implies that so too are sky-scrappers, I-phones, and images sent back from Mars by Curiosity or Perseverance.

Part and parcel of Popper's sound logic, and this relates directly to this thread, is the fact that in the same way that world two has to have a real existence free from merely material causation (or else belief in the power of logic and law would be impotent), so too, the third world has to have a real existence free from the first world, and the second world, or else it couldn't prove that the second world is free from mere contingency come from the first world. All three worlds must be real, and able to interact, for Curiosity or Perseverance to be built, sent to Mars, and send back images to be observed by a conscious observer.

Popper's three worlds are very much like a body (world 1, the physical world), a soul (world 2, conscious experience), and spirit (world 3, abstract concepts like logic, and beauty/symmetry). Do you kinda see why for a long time even Popper's own disciples sorta ignored his logic? The body needs the soul, and the soul needs the spirit, if Curiosity or Perseverance are to be anything more than a solipsistic illusion in the mind of a soliloquizing spiritualist with scientific materialists nipping at his heel.




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Oh dear. This confirms my impression of you, John, that you like to focus on scientific findings that superficially support your existing beliefs, and then completely misunderstand what the data actually says while remaining misinformed about what the scientific method is, what the scope of scientific results entail, and what a scientific theory is. This comment of yours is complete nonsense. Human immortality is not even remotely scientific . . ..

We know that in your version of scientific orthodox (and most materialistic science types in general) a statement that human immortality can be proven scientifically is false by reason of the boundaries of your scientific beliefs.

But since it's patently clear that I'm arguing a theory outside the boundaries of your personal orthodoxy (or the orthodoxy of like-minded materialist types), or what you consider true science, therefore, using your personal orthodoxy as the ruler for reality, or factuality, is merely tautological. What I say isn't proven illogical. You merely imply it's not even worthy of logical examination according to what your chosen orthodoxy might consider worthy of being subjected to logic.

You make a grave error to the degree you assume not only that my argument is outside your orthodoxy (which it obviously is), but that that means it's also illogical, or false. The former can be true without the latter being true.

What you believe to be true, or what your orthodoxy believes is true, isn't the ultimate boundary of scientific truth or reality. Your statement merely proves Schopenhauer's adage that: "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision as the limits of the world." I'm using logic, reason, argumentation, to posit an unorthodox theory that I believe very strongly will be orthodoxy sooner than you could ever imagine. And I don't use my belief to season my logic. I use logic to prove an unorthodox ---and for some an unpalatable ---proposition.



John
 

PruePhillip

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

Death is an integral part of biology - the whole point of which is to constantly replace
the organism with newer copies which can be sorted and tested. There's no point for
biology to create creatures who live forever - if we lived forever you would soon be
outsmarted and out-competed by newer, mortal variants of your own species who
would be gobbling up your resources.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Human immortality is not even remotely scientific, nor does your post hoc rationalization of Christian myths to make them sound superficially scientific actually have any basis in science. Jesus arose from a non-bi-gendered ovum, seriously?

Again, you're using your initial dogmatic statement of personal orthodoxy, to errantly judge the science of the latter statement.

Jesus was born of a virgin. Isaac Newton believed that. And he's scientific orthodoxy. Well, an ovum has an X chromosome, but not the secondary chromosome, another X, or a Y, required in a bi-gendered conception process. I've quoted a Phd biologist saying that prior to sexual reproduction, cells were immortal. Something about the mixing of genders in sex, actually leads to the loss of immortality, just as the Bible tells us in mythology garbed-science.

Ergo, setting personal predilections and orthodoxy aside, Jesus could be said to have been conceived without the bi-gendered (dual chromosome) conception process that led to the loss of immortality. Ergo Jesus could have been immortal if born of a virgin, i.e., a non-gendered conception process.

Stem cell lines are immortal, but the cells themselves are not. Likewise, very simple organisms can regrow body parts, but this is entirely irrelevant for more complex life where, for example, neuronal axons can be a meter long and once severed cannot retrace their axon to the destination because all of the developmental signals are absent once the organism has developed. Likewise for brain architecture, muscle fibers, kidneys, etc. The immortality of cell lines and simple multicellular organisms is categorically unrelated to the ability of complex organisms to live longer.

Again, all you appear to be doing is arguing orthodox principles that are true within the orthodox principle.

If an ovum is immortal (not subject to senescence) up until a particular stage of cell-division, then if the ovum could be made to divide in a process not subject to what is now the case (at some point in the cell-division senescence enters into the cells), then we don't know that senescence will necessarily enter the cells somewhere in the development if we're speaking of a new, non-binary (no additional X or Y chromosome, come, so to say, from the male) conception process.

While human immortality may one day be possible, we are likely hundreds of years away from that at the earliest.

I realize that that's a pretty orthodox view. And I acknowledge the science why that's the orthodox view. And for what it's worth I'm not even arguing against that science. I'm arguing that you and I are already immortal and just don't necessarily know it. I'm using Karl Popper's exquisite logic, concerning the need for three independently existing worlds, to show , with like-minded logic, that we are already immortal and that we're merely waiting for world 3 to design us bodies that are indestructible, non-biological, so that when our world 3 mind, linked to our world 2, consciousness, is placed in the new, non-biological body (but still a world 1 product), we will, every one of us, be truly immortal.

Only world 1, the physical body, is known to senescence and decompose. But we also know that that wasn't originally the case, and eventually won't be the case again. And since Popper's arguments make world 2 as real as world 1, and world 3 as real as 1 and 2, and since we don't know if world 2 decomposes, and we know world 3 doesn't, then only the materialists belief, refuted by Popper, that world 2 and 3 aren't real, makes anyone believe when the physical, world 1, decomposes, the psychological self, and world 3, disappear. In Popper's argumentation they don't. So the impossibility of de-linking (disengaging) body, soul, and spirit (worlds 1, 2, and 3) presents a problem even beyond what Popper was willing to examine. Which is what we're doing for him.

I'm arguing that if Popper's logic concerning the necessity of three independent though real worlds (physical, consciousness, logical) is correct, it implies that world 3, which is naturally immortal (since it's something like Plato's world of immortal forms), if it's united to, with, world 2, sentience, consciousness, and world 1, physical, material, implies that the immortal world 3, is in the process of evolving world 2, and 1, so that all three of them, body (1), soul (2), and immortal spirit (3), eventually share (because of their undeniable unity), by means of a process we see occurring before our eyes (scientific knowledge ----world3 ---- jumps-starting exponetially rapid evolution of the so-called bio-sphere), a tri-part immortality similar to what Bible-believers have known to be true from the get go.



John
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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?
Verry True

What is it?
Must be because the "road is narrow"
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
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

Honestly, not a fan of artificial anything. I've worked with AI (of sorts doing programming for games), though I'm actually somewhat horrible at getting critters to do stuff.

Artificial biology runs afoul of the Uncanny Valley, and typically anything made this way is likely an exercise in regret. "Oh cool, we created these immortal humans! Now everyone won't have to die." (Later) "How do we kill these immortal humans?"

Why stop there? We could make artificial reality. Basically, take VR to the maximum and trap all people inside it. Artificial nature. We could have animals and trees all made of metal and wireframe, everything animatronic, and nice forests and rivers actually covering underground metal structures. Artificial clouds or artificial sun or artificial planet. Or artificial feelings...

Or how about you ****ing stop already. See that all this is a huge mistake, and don't open that box.

Let's have real things. Okay?

The purpose of religion is not to be anti-technology. It's to bring people together peacefully, and put the hard brakes on blowing ourselves up or trying unethical things that devalue humanity. Cloning, harvesting parts, turning ourselves into zombies or robots, none of these things improve human life. I also think we're supposed to naturally evolve into energy beings. Trapping us inside physical things is a no.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
To an irradiated heavy metal man theist thinker the UFO mass radiation is an artificial formed machine.

As his conscious concept I want the two machine bodies melded into one the man mind Destroyer of all life on earth.

Now if he used thinking correctly his man science self quotes as just a bio human I built designed machines. To talk discuss infer the state machine.

Man human the designer.

His cause artificial as above ufo came about as from so below earth mass. From thesis his particle string design from God the mineral life body particle to a metal machine his AI status.

As a living human says my metal came from a human life use mineral. I took mineral particle Ai manifested metal. Why the law human by God status the CHurCH forbade Alchemy.

As documents prove he was already known to them factually as self advice human.

I artificially caused it. My man science confession. As the designer of science machines.

Why many movies depict machines destroy life.

The UFO existing in space his sick mind says lives exists and is created forever in its lowest form.

One reason only. It abducted our life spirit body to manifest. Holy water of life with bio living micro organisms carbonised. The alienation of life burnt to death scenario in satanism.

UFO man god thesis anti attack by God manifested machine process from God earth designer. Human men.

Two displaced human owned using living status. From and by living human appraisals.

So his brother human and spiritual. Sick and tired of his sick mind says today he has had enough of you and wants you dealt with.

Actually.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
We are creatures, I believe, of mind, body and spirit. Over identifying with, or holding too tightly to, either mind or body, or both, is surely to the detriment of the spirit.

Most religious and spiritual traditions teach the transience of material things, and the importance of letting go; not clinging more tightly to them.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
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.

Complex organisms seem to need to reproduce like they do; one's intuition seems to say that asexual reproduction would be 'too costly.' And as you can understand from the middle of Robert Sapolsky's freely available stanford lecture on sexuality, male organisms even retain nipples, which is described as a spandrel. So biology is showing a sense of economy there

Perhaps genes in an organism want the immortality, and just use organisms for a game of 'pop goes the weasel.' The environment is pretty dangerous after all, you'll want a new car now and then. And If it was truly that easy to replace every biological bit in an organism, they might put their bet more into an immortal organism.

Likely, a flying space crab, judging by the rate of carcinisation
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
We are creatures, I believe, of mind, body and spirit. Over identifying with, or holding too tightly to, either mind or body, or both, is surely to the detriment of the spirit.

Most religious and spiritual traditions teach the transience of material things, and the importance of letting go; not clinging more tightly to them.

Especially if the planet is going be eaten by a massive intergalactic baleen whale
 
Top