Death Is For Living

 

I see the value of embracing death but I think it would be counter-productive to extending life. Death has certainly been overshadowed by the endless pats on backs we give ourselves for being such a great animal...but I really do believe (at this time in my life) that science will provide us with answers and solutions for life and living.

I see medicine as an enabler of human experience, I see computers as being only a few vital steps away from sentience, I hope that within my life we will continue the great rate of technological advancement because that is where immortality lies. I have had my life extended twice through science, if not for it I would not be here, I am forever grateful for the continuation of my life.

At the same time I appreciate that there is no life or death, we are a constantly interchangeable combination of cells, the memories I hold from 7 years ago aren’t mine any more then the body I have now is the same one I had seven years ago, within a 7 year timeframe the whole human body (apart from a few very small parts) has replaced itself…that is a small death in itself, as is each time I look back at the person I was and consider that person dead in a philosophical sense. And in the final tally of things, it is much better to have lived even if only for a few years, we have a chance to be observers in this awesome universe, we could just as easily be dust, we have been dust and will be again…and then one day the atoms in me now will be in the stars. Stars, dust, rock, dust and somewhere amongst all those transitions I am here with my confusing sentience.

End-note: I wouldn’t say no to living forever as a simulated intelligence within a computer, I pretty much accept that could be the current case anyway, it wouldn’t be the real me…more like a twisted electronic clone, but it’s still living.

smebro smebro
22-25, M
4 Responses Jun 17, 2007

Intelligence is subjective, we might end up making economical calculators that work at figuring out the most efficient way to run the world economy...and then what if these intelligences figure out that the most efficient economy was one without us :) hypothetical, but just an example of how evolution might transcend meat (already has in said programs above).

Where I'm from we tend to say," A computer is only as smart as the person feeding it the info." But some days I fear we're feeding it too much info! When the Machine becomes smarter that the average Man, we could be looking at trouble.

Nice saying, although I’ve raised many questions(for myself) from seeing the kinds of results you can get from a simple 1 or 0.<br />
For example, to see evolution in action, download the free Darwin pond or Gene pool from www.ventrella.com , play it through a few times and see just how alike living evolving beings those tube-swimmers are as they compete within your Ram. Or, see Conway’s game of life for an example of dynamic structures that can arise from a simple premise, resulting in dynamic unpredictable outcomes which occasionally seem pre-determined but have arisen from a kind of chaos. If those don’t impress, then play Sims 2 for awhile and consider where a game with that concept can lead, one day, possibly in many many editions and versions of Sim type games have passed by, we will have made a game in which the people are alike biological humanity in every sense of the word, people living in machines with no proof that they are real or not real…these simulated lives will outnumber the biological ones by as much as thousands of Sims for every real person, all with equal experiences in a world they perceive as real…so what makes us so special right now?<br />
Of course there are also people who believe that humans will never be able to experience life such as ours. I think that the brain is essentially a biological computer to begin with, given the right physics engine or some ingenious programming we should be able to have ‘life’ in the electronic world, if you try Darwin pond or gene pool then you will probably agree that we already have something like it.<br />
I like Picasso, was he a big futurist? Was it him or Marcel Duchamp who did the man down the stairs? Cubism was nice anyway; all those guys shook up society’s idea of perception, which is nice I think.

Well, I couldn't live forever. That would be rough. As for computer and sentient... "Computers are useless, they can only give you answers."<br />
Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) I always think of that saying.