Immortality, why we can't have it yet kinda do

[EvanG]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But if people remained in their physical and mental shape of their 30s,

I started falling apart after 25.

[action]

28 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I really, really enjoy what the Switch is about. The colours and creativity and sense of fun and wonder. I am sure I'll love Splatoon 2 but they need to improve the lobby system from what I've heard and hopefully online features like voice chat are integrated later, at least for paying subscribers.

no worries. i play with my brother all the time without hickups. have to use skype though, for communication

[soon]

Is the fear of death (which I feel and what is perhaps a sizeable part of the conversation) related to FOMO: the fear of missing out?

(ps: I'm getting genealogy pop up adds on here now)

Edited August 24, 2017 by soon

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, Graeme said:

Art's not really pointless though... we're on a music forum for fuck's sake .

We are? Shit, I tend to forget.

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, action said:

when i look at the picture of my grand-grand-grand father, who lived sometime in the 18th century, and i see how much he looks like me, i can't help to think how he was me, in a way. 100 years from now, my grand-grand-grand child will look just like me too.

genes pass on, but the vehicle (the body) goes away. but when you think of it, the body is just the vehicle.

if you ask the question "the genes of your body, how old are they?" then the answer would be pretty fucking mindblowing.

yes, we are immortal as long as we reproduce (or if not immortal, then really long lived)

I like this kind of thinking. The problem, though, is that your grand-grand-grand children's genome will only be comprised by about 6 % of your genes. Our genes get diluted through the wonderful process of baby-making. If only we could clone ourselves asexually, too. Shit, I get I have to go back to the lab.

[SoulMonster]

51 minutes ago, soon said:

Is the fear of death (which I feel and what is perhaps a sizeable part of the conversation) related to FOMO: the fear of missing out?

(ps: I'm getting genealogy pop up adds on here now)

I don't fear death, as such. It just bugs me that I can't live longer. If you get my meaning. There so many things I still want to do. It's such a bummer that glorious life is limited.

[soon]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't fear death, as such. It just bugs me that I can't live longer. If you get my meaning. There so many things I still want to do. It's such a bummer that glorious life is limited.

Yeah, Im not attached to the term "fear" for my own use either.  But it does sound that for you it is maybe a bit of FOMO - "There so many things I still want to do"?  Which I think its similar for me.  Whereas in other eras and even now in undeveloped countries one might list the fact that the elderly and children in our family would die with out us.  Also, people live in terrible situations wth no hope of a better future and they desire life too.  I guess Im curious about what the base line constants for humans will to survive is and what can be based on the time, place and conditions one lives in.  

I wanna experience life and, for me, I can see what a gift it is to simply desire to consume beautiful experiences.  Many don't have that gift.  Imo FOMO is a product of later stage capitalism, with neo liberal self interest at its core.  And self interest sometimes has the pit fall of alienation.  Certainly industrialized society suffers alienation from ones work.  And this technological era is examining its self for new forms of social isolation.  So if possibly FOMO even drives our will to live, that would be extremely different from peoples who might name social/familial/tribal responsibility as there primary desire to avoid death.

Dunno, just thinking out loud about what is in our DNA that drives survival and what is subjective. Or maybe instinct can lure us to call the same old will by new names?

[Dazey]

6 hours ago, Graeme said:

Art's not really pointless though... we're on a music forum for fuck's sake .

We can at least agree on Humanities being a complete waste of time though yes?

[Dazey]

3 hours ago, EvanG said:

I started falling apart after 25.

I've not been able to trust a fart in 15 years. 

[xBrownstonex]

8 hours ago, action said:

nah, i'd rather give you some of mine. 

damn, that's some great blissfull stuff i'm using. hooo mama.

it's called..

  Reveal hidden contents

splatoon 2

 

Was talking about the op

[Graeme]

5 hours ago, Dazey said:

We can at least agree on Humanities being a complete waste of time though yes?

Depends which ones, History's important and Social Geography is important...

[Len Cnut]

Art is everything.  Theatre, music, literature, these things make life fuckin' worth living.  

[action]

8 hours ago, xBrownstonex said:

Was talking about the op

my bad, i was getting a bit confused back there. i've got people tell me to get off drugs all the time

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Art is everything.  Theatre, music, literature, these things make life fuckin' worth living.  

I love artists, I love music. Going to a concert with a great band is fantastic, or a standup show, or a classical concert, or a play, and if I can be served a cold beer with a smile from a bearded hipster with a masters degree in beatnik poetry when doing it, that's perfect, too.

My point is: We need artists, lots of them, but we don't need as many people with university degrees in art. And that's the problem with the humanities, too many kids study them compared to what society needs. We don't need thousands of kids with bachelors in literature, we don't need throves of girls with masters in psychology, and we don't need any philosophers.

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, soon said:

Yeah, Im not attached to the term "fear" for my own use either.  But it does sound that for you it is maybe a bit of FOMO - "There so many things I still want to do"?  Which I think its similar for me.  Whereas in other eras and even now in undeveloped countries one might list the fact that the elderly and children in our family would die with out us.  Also, people live in terrible situations wth no hope of a better future and they desire life too.  I guess Im curious about what the base line constants for humans will to survive is and what can be based on the time, place and conditions one lives in.  

I wanna experience life and, for me, I can see what a gift it is to simply desire to consume beautiful experiences.  Many don't have that gift.  Imo FOMO is a product of later stage capitalism, with neo liberal self interest at its core.  And self interest sometimes has the pit fall of alienation.  Certainly industrialized society suffers alienation from ones work.  And this technological era is examining its self for new forms of social isolation.  So if possibly FOMO even drives our will to live, that would be extremely different from peoples who might name social/familial/tribal responsibility as there primary desire to avoid death.

Dunno, just thinking out loud about what is in our DNA that drives survival and what is subjective. Or maybe instinct can lure us to call the same old will by new names?

Oh yes, it is definitely a fear of missing out. But it is also partly a fear of missing out on my family's continuation, a fear of not seeing my grand children grow up, a fear of not beign there to take care of them all. So in that sense it is not an entirely selfish thing, it's a social thing.

[Dazey]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I love artists, I love music. Going to a concert with a great band is fantastic, or a stand-up show, or a classical concert, or a play, and if I can be served a cold beer with a smile from a bearded hipster with a masters degree in beatnik poetry when doing it, that's perfect, too.

My point is: We need artists, lots of them, but we don't need as many people with university degrees in art. And that's the problem with the humanities, too many kids study them compared to what society needs. We don't need thousands of kids with bachelors in literature, we don't need droves of girls with masters in psychology, and we don't need any philosophers.

Here!!! Here!!! ESPECIALLY that last bit!!!!!!  

Edited August 25, 2017 by Dazey

[Len Cnut]

Quote

My point is: We need artists, lots of them, but we don't need as many people with university degrees in art.

Thing with art is it ain't like science and maths and number crunching type stuff where it's like...cold and pragmatic and it just is what it is and you can learn maths and go be an accountant or whatever, to become an artist requires talent.  But how do you find that talent if you don't nurture an interest in it and have these kids going in and actually exploring the fuckin' thing. 

Quote

And that's the problem with the humanities, too many kids study them compared to what society needs. We don't need thousands of kids with bachelors in literature, we don't need throves of girls with masters in psychology, and we don't need any philosophers.

See you say this but you wanna have a look at social demographics where students are expressly into stuff like Maths and Science and fuckin' Business studies and all that, it don't churn out the best kind of people, my social demographic is like that and what you basically end up with is a snobby elite and then a bunch of fuckin' crooks because the insinuation in all of this is that you need to do the sorts of jobs that are practically orientated to making money.  Now I understand that for a great many it ain't like that and a lot of people look at science as like...y'know, a thing of wonderment or whatever but there is also clearly a thing here where it's like 'OK, these qualifications are gonna get you a few quid', i think it makes for a very dull society.

And as far as philosophy, well fuck me, we don't need any thinkers?  No wonder we're in the place we are today, we need philosophy more than ever.  Where do you think philosophers stand on the totem pole of importance in regards to the advancement of society of the centuries?  The advancement that you were bemoaning that religion hinders.  It can't just all be science man.

[DieselDaisy]

When I studied my favourite subjects at school and higher, i.e. history, classics, languages and to a lesser extent literature, music and art (I liked to draw but was never very good at painting), it was just studying the things I already like in the first place. It was not like school, a chore or something negative one normally associates with schooling. When you do something you enjoy the academia tends to take care of itself. You do not look at it in that foreboding monotonous way one normally looks at schooling. So I am very much a supporter of the humanities I have to say. When I studied mathematics and the sciences I wanted to take a gun to my head. It was excruciatingly painful. I believe I hated chemistry the most. At least Physics you thought there might be a possibility of aliens landing one day, which would make the subject interesting. Business studies. Jesus. I scrapped that after two weeks and switched it for art! What a load of bollocks. FTSE One Hundred and the Down Jones. What is that rubbish about? I hated all of those overtly working class lessons also, wood work and electronics, sweating like a fat lass sawing stuff. Hated PE also.

Geography is a weird one in British schools, isn't it? The subject is a complete misnomer as you never actually learn any Geography, e.g. where Bolivia is on a map or what is the capital of Finland, instead learning about rock formations and tectonic plates - geology in fact! I rather like proper Geography but I think I had to learn the majority of it myself as all I ever saw in that class were igneous rocks.

Sexual Education was hilarious. It consisted of an embarrassed looking teacher sticking a condom on a broom stick!

[SoulMonster]

35 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Thing with art is it ain't like science and maths and number crunching type stuff where it's like...cold and pragmatic and it just is what it is and you can learn maths and go be an accountant or whatever, to become an artist requires talent.  But how do you find that talent if you don't nurture an interest in it and have these kids going in and actually exploring the fuckin' thing. 

See you say this but you wanna have a look at social demographics where students are expressly into stuff like Maths and Science and fuckin' Business studies and all that, it don't churn out the best kind of people, my social demographic is like that and what you basically end up with is a snobby elite and then a bunch of fuckin' crooks because the insinuation in all of this is that you need to do the sorts of jobs that are practically orientated to making money.  Now I understand that for a great many it ain't like that and a lot of people look at science as like...y'know, a thing of wonderment or whatever but there is also clearly a thing here where it's like 'OK, these qualifications are gonna get you a few quid', i think it makes for a very dull society.

And as far as philosophy, well fuck me, we don't need any thinkers?  No wonder we're in the place we are today, we need philosophy more than ever.  Where do you think philosophers stand on the totem pole of importance in regards to the advancement of society of the centuries?  The advancement that you were bemoaning that religion hinders.  It can't just all be science man.

Show me some data that implies you become a greater artist by having a degree in art, and I will concede my point. As it is, I believe we could reduce the number of art graduates manyfold. Sure, we will need some, as gallery curators, art critics, reviewers, but most of the students studying art are wasting their and our time (keep in mind that I write this from the perspective of Norway where studying at universities are free and paid for by the tax payers).

"[Studying] Maths and Science and Business [...] don't churn out the best kind of people" and "it makes for a dull society". Hmm. Reducing the number of students on studies that will not give them a job doesn't mean they can't be into these things, it just means that society shouldn't pay for their pointless education. They could still take (and pay for) evening classes in buddhistic cryptology and the spirituatlity of snowboarding (yep, actual PhD title) and thus still become "the best kind of people" and make society "lively". We all have to find some job, I know that is dull, but at least we can do whatever we want in our spare time. Don't make me have to subsidize the bad choices of morons.

And no, we don't need philosophers. At all. Maybe back in the classical period, where we knew next to nothing, could the art of trying-to-figure-things-out-by-just-thinking-about-it-really-fucking-hard, actually lead to some interesting hypotheses, like the basic structure of the universe, atomic theory, etc. But make no mistake, most of what they come up with has turned out to be absolute nonsense --  we just don't hear so much about those. But today, you simply can't have that approach to figuring things out. The main things have already been figured out and it is much harder to figure out new things. The unknown area now lies behind a large field what is known, and to even get to the border where the unknown begins so you can start contemplating and using your awesome brain to come up with relevant ideas that build upon what we know, you have to cross the field of the knowns. In other words, philosophy has been replaced by scientists who are experts on what is known and who then do what philosophers did, use their brains to come up with hypotheses, and which they then actually test by doing relevant experiments!. You can't be an armchair philosopher and come up with anything remotely interesting about, say, the details of the earliest time after big bang, because you have to understand everything we know about the big bang first to even be able to make any sort of reasonable thoughts that could make sense and be innovative. So everything what philosophers did back when they still had some purpose have now been engulfed by scientists, who do the exact same thing, but are also armed with the methodology to rather quickly figure out if their theories were correct or not.

Edited August 25, 2017 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

Art and Literature are the only things that speak to me.  I can't study something no matter how much money it'll make me if I'm not interested in it but literature, cinema, art, these things grab my attention, they're the most amazing thing in the world to me and I can't imagine a life without them.  It's the creating something out of nothing, creating life, emotion, it makes life worth living for me, I can't concieve of a life where they weren't a central preoccupation.  This probably means I'm gonna be skint for the rest of my life but at least I'll be happy and occupied. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Show me some data that implies you become a greater artist by having a degree in art, and I will concede my point.

I don't know what that means, show you some data...what, like a graph or something?

Quote

As it is, I believe we could reduce the number of art graduates manyfold. Sure, we will need some, as gallery curators, art critics, reviewers, but most of the students studying art are wasting their and our time (keep in mind that I write this from the perspective of Norway where studying at universities are free and paid for by the tax payers not by the moron who gets to have a masters in ).

But thats the thing, it's something you have to explore before you discover whether you really have a sort of talent in it.  Speaking from personal experience, were it not for schooling and an academic avenue to explore, where the fuck was someone like me ever gonna be exposed to Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams or Harold Pinter?  You're applying a strange pragmatism that I'm not sure how you could bring to fruitition, greatly reduce by what means exactly?

Quote

"[Studying] Maths and Science and Business [...] don't churn out the best kind of people" and "it makes for a dull society". Hmm. Reducing the number of students on studies that will not give them a job doesn't mean they can't be into these things, it just means that society shouldn't pay for their pointless education. They could still take (and pay for) evening classes in buddhistic cryptology and the spirituatlity of snowboarding (yep, actual PhD title) and thus still become "the best kind of people" and make society "lively". We all have to find some job, I know that is dull, but at least we can do whatever we want in our spare time. Don't make me have to subsidize the bad choices of morons.

But then how else do people get exposed to anything?  I dunno if you noticed but general popular culture that we're exposed to isn't really geared towards presenting people with anything but...well, bullshit.  You talk about their hippie dippie Phds like some kind of massive cross-section of the populus is doing them.

Quote

And no, we don't need philosophers. At all. Maybe back in the classical period, where we knew next to nothing, could the art of trying-to-figure-things-out-by-just-thinking-about-it-really-fucking-hard, actually lead to some interesting hypotheses, like the basic structure of the universe, atomic theory, etc. But make no mistake, most of what they come up with has turned out to be absolute nonsense --  we just don't hear so much about those. But today, you simply can't have that approach to figuring things out. The main things have already been figured out and it is much harder to figure out new things. The unknown area now lies behind a large field what is known, and to even get to the border where the unknown begins so you can start contemplating and using your awesome brain to come up with relevant ideas that build upon what we know, you have to cross the field of the knowns. In other words, philosophy has been replaced by scientists who are experts on what is known and who then do what philosophers did, use their brains to come up with hypotheses, and which they then actually test by doing relevant experiments!. You can't be an armchair philosopher and come up with anything remotely interesting about, say, the details of the earliest time after big bang, because you have to understand everything we know about the big bang first to even be able to make any sort of reasonable thoughts that could make sense and be innovative. So everything what philosophers did back when they still had some purpose have now been engulfed by scientists, who do the exact same thing, but are also armed with the methodology to rather quickly figure out if their theories were correct or not.

I completely disagree.  I mean there's a lot in what you say about a lot of shit being figured out but its kind of silly to suggest that now the only advancement of humanity exists within science.  Look at the world around you, do you think we're really that far ahead?  You're also kind of insinuating, or flat out stating actually, that science and philsophy seek to do precisely the same thing, which isn't strictly true.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't know what that means, show you some data...what, like a graph or something?

But thats the thing, it's something you have to explore before you discover whether you really have a sort of talent in it.  Speaking from personal experience, were it not for schooling and an academic avenue to explore, where the fuck was someone like me ever gonna be exposed to Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams or Harold Pinter?  You're applying a strange pragmatism that I'm not sure how you could bring to fruitition, greatly reduce by what means exactly?

But then how else do people get exposed to anything?  I dunno if you noticed but general popular culture that we're exposed to isn't really geared towards presenting people with anything but...well, bullshit.  You talk about their hippie dippie Phds like some kind of massive cross-section of the populus is doing them.

I completely disagree.  I mean there's a lot in what you say about a lot of shit being figured out but its kind of silly to suggest that now the only advancement of humanity exists within science.  Look at the world around you, do you think we're really that far ahead?  You're also kind of insinuating, or flat out stating actually, that science and philsophy seek to do precisely the same thing, which isn't strictly true.

Yes, how many great artists became great because they got a degree in art? I would argue that most artists realize they have a talent without having to study art first. Slash knew it early on. Axl knew he could bloody wail without having to have a bachelor in arts first. His neighbours, too. Can you think of any great artist that becamse great because they took a degree in arts? I can't. So, I land on the conclusion that it is a waste of money to pay for all the art students currently studying at universities. We need some people with degrees in art, sure, but not THIS many. Just enough to fill the available job positions for people with arts degrees.

I am not saying that people shouldn't explore and find out what they like, just don't do it as part of a university degree. You want to emerge in literature? Great! Plenty of RL and online courses on this where you pay out of your own pocket and satisfy your need to explore that subject. But just don't expect society to subsidize your hobbies. Because that's what they are when they don't provide you with your bread.

I have always thought philosphers and scientists had the same purpose: to figure things out. And while both of them engage their brains in that endavour, the latter would be trained in methodology to test their hypotheses and would also have a solid understanding on what we already know so they could expand upon that rather than just keep on thinking about the most basic, trivial things. What is the intended purpose of philosophers if it isn't only to ponder things? What other intended function do they have?

[DieselDaisy]

Britain does not exactly subsidise its students these days haha. Trust me - the reverse happens. I suppose one upshot of crippling student debt is you have to be really into your subject to do it.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Yes, how many great artists became great because they got a degree in art? I would argue that most artists realize they have a talent without having to study art first. Slash knew it early on. Axl knew he could bloody wail without having to have a bachelor in arts first. His neighbours, too. Can you think of any great artist that becamse great because they took a degree in arts? I can't. So, I land on the conclusion that it is a waste of money to pay for all the art students currently studying at universities. We need some people with degrees in art, sure, but not THIS many. Just enough to fill the available job positions for people with arts degrees.

I'd hardly call Slash and Axl Rose artists.  I guess arguing degrees of how many we do or don't need would require me to have information about how many we do have and where the 'need' threshold is and I'm not sure how you would go about working something like that out.

Quote

I am not saying that people shouldn't explore and find out what they like, just don't do it as part of a university degree. You want to emerge in literature? Great! Plenty of RL and online courses on this where you pay out of your own pocket and satisfy your need to explore that subject. But just don't expect society to subsidize your hobbies. Because that's what they are when they don't provide you with your bread.

Where does this thing of society paying for it come from anyway, I've had to take out a loan

Quote

I have always thought philosphers and scientists had the same purpose: to figure things out. And while both of them engage their brains in that endavour, the latter would be trained in methodology to test their hypotheses and would also have a solid understanding on what we already know so they could expand upon that rather than just keep on thinking about the most basic, trivial things. What is the intended purpose of philosophers if it isn't only to ponder things? What other intended function do they have?

They're not necessarily trying to figure the same thing out though are they, I mean philosophy is occupied with things like the nature of morality or the nature of knowledge or ethics etc.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I'd hardly call Slash and Axl Rose artists.  I guess arguing degrees of how many we do or don't need would require me to have information about how many we do have and where the 'need' threshold is and I'm not sure how you would go about working something like that out.

Where does this thing of society paying for it come from anyway, I've had to take out a loan

They're not necessarily trying to figure the same thing out though are they, I mean philosophy is occupied with things like the nature of morality or the nature of knowledge or ethics etc.

And again, I am talking about the situation here in Norway where the humanities attract all the guys who just don't want to take a proper job so they go to paid-for universities instead, choosing on purpose the easiest courses. In a set-up where people pay out of their own pocket then I couldn't give two shits about what they study.

Originally, philosphers tried to figure out everything. But then it turned out that were really poor at many of these things, because you have to know the fundamentals to be innovative in your thinking and you have to be able to test your hypotheses to actually advance our knowledge, so that job was out-sourced to specialists with actual skills beyond just having a massive brain -- aka scientists. Now philosphers are left to ponder those things that fall outside of science, which is any subject that can't be explored using the scientific method of testing hypotheses. And there are not really many such subjects left. You mention the nature of morality. Nope, that subject is being grabbed by biologists now. The nature of knowledge. Sure. But you don't need a university degree to ponder epistemology, or rather, you can't fill up a whole university degree on that very narrow interest. Ethics? That's just applied morality. There are some others, too, though, but not enough to justify taking university degrees in it. So we don't need philosphers, at least not anyone with university degrees in it. And we especially don't need to pay someone to study to become philosophers. That's throwing money down a hole. What we need is common everyday thinkers who share their thoughts and create discussions. Those who refer to themselves as philosophers are no better than them, although they want to appear that way with their "fancy" title and university degrees.