• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transhumanism

"You didn't show me to be dead wrong, because I had already mentioned vaccines and antibiotics having been discovered in the mid 20th century. And that's about it as far as medical breakthroughs. And it was a LONG time ago.

And medical science rests on those accomplishments. They can dull symptoms with drugs, and they can prolong the life of some chronically ill patients. They very seldom can restore a person to health."

Some of you atheist/materialists find that hard to believe. Ok, for example:

I already mentioned cancer, where a real cure is still nowhere in sight.

And there are no cures for chronic diseases, at best drugs to dull symptoms or slow progression.

Autoimmune disorders, which are so common, are treated with immune-suppressing drugs. Since the cause is unknown, the disorder cannot be corrected.

Allergies are treated with drugs to dull symptoms. Allergies are not understood well enough to find cures.

Alzheimer's disease, and other dementias, have no cures. They don't even have effective drugs for these.

Heart disease can be "cured" with bypass surgery, and can often be prevented with a healthy lifestyle.

No form of mental illness can be cured. Psychiatric drugs dull symptoms.

All drugs have side effects, especially if used long term and combined with other drugs.

Medical doctors believe the drug companies, so are unaware how common drug side effects really are.
 
Good4Nothin said:
As I said, medical technology improves. Diagnostic imaging is better and surgical technology is better.

In other areas besides medicine, we can see technology improving.

However, scientific understanding of life, of matter, etc., has not really improved much, not for a long time.

It makes sense to admire the advances in technology, while acknowledging that scientific understanding may have reached its limits.

Transhumanists, and materialist/atheists in general, seem to think that scientific understanding and technology are the same thing. They are not.
Click to expand...

And your proof of that is....?
 
Good4Nothin said:
"You didn't show me to be dead wrong, because I had already mentioned vaccines and antibiotics having been discovered in the mid 20th century. And that's about it as far as medical breakthroughs. And it was a LONG time ago.

And medical science rests on those accomplishments. They can dull symptoms with drugs, and they can prolong the life of some chronically ill patients. They very seldom can restore a person to health."

Some of you atheist/materialists find that hard to believe. Ok, for example:

I already mentioned cancer, where a real cure is still nowhere in sight.

And there are no cures for chronic diseases, at best drugs to dull symptoms or slow progression.

Autoimmune disorders, which are so common, are treated with immune-suppressing drugs. Since the cause is unknown, the disorder cannot be corrected.

Allergies are treated with drugs to dull symptoms. Allergies are not understood well enough to find cures.

Alzheimer's disease, and other dementias, have no cures. They don't even have effective drugs for these.

Heart disease can be "cured" with bypass surgery, and can often be prevented with a healthy lifestyle.

No form of mental illness can be cured. Psychiatric drugs dull symptoms.

All drugs have side effects, especially if used long term and combined with other drugs.

Medical doctors believe the drug companies, so are unaware how common drug side effects really are.
Click to expand...

So we should give up trying to cure diseases? That is a Luddite approach. Why are you so against science curing diseases? Are we to assume that if you get a serious disease you will not consult a doctor?
 
A possible cure for death.
Olson CB.
Abstract
Chemical preservation of the brain may prevent death. Life for an individual human being is inextricably linked to the existence of his or her mind. It is widely accepted that the mind is a product of the functioning of the brain, which, according to this view, is nothing more and nothing less than a fantastically complicated machine. Chemical preservation of the brain (promptly after the cessation of vital functions) preserves not only the neuronal configuration but also a great deal of molecular structure. Thus, it is plausible that a chemopreserved brain contains within it the information of the design of the "brain machine". If so, then technology of the distant future may be able to extract that information and construct a new functionally identical brain machine (as well as a body), thereby allowing the corresponding individual to wake up and live again. It is argued that one's identity is defined by what the brain does rather than how it does it or what it does it with, and therefore that replacement of one's brain with a functionally identical machine does not affect one's identity. Some advantages of chemopreservation relative to cryopreservation as a possible means of preventing death are discussed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3398793
 
zyzygy said:
A possible cure for death.
Olson CB.
Abstract
Chemical preservation of the brain may prevent death. Life for an individual human being is inextricably linked to the existence of his or her mind. It is widely accepted that the mind is a product of the functioning of the brain, which, according to this view, is nothing more and nothing less than a fantastically complicated machine. Chemical preservation of the brain (promptly after the cessation of vital functions) preserves not only the neuronal configuration but also a great deal of molecular structure. Thus, it is plausible that a chemopreserved brain contains within it the information of the design of the "brain machine". If so, then technology of the distant future may be able to extract that information and construct a new functionally identical brain machine (as well as a body), thereby allowing the corresponding individual to wake up and live again. It is argued that one's identity is defined by what the brain does rather than how it does it or what it does it with, and therefore that replacement of one's brain with a functionally identical machine does not affect one's identity. Some advantages of chemopreservation relative to cryopreservation as a possible means of preventing death are discussed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3398793
Click to expand...

Stupid science fiction nonsense. You believe it without evidence because it agrees with your ideology.
 
If there are transformers in the 22nd-23rd century then I preemptively support their right to exist.

Transformers rights!
 
Good4Nothin said:
Stupid overused cliche meters explode.
Click to expand...

Appropriate metaphor fits the bill perfectly. If you can fantasize about a conscious universe, conscious matter and minds existing without a brain then I can fantasize about curing death. What is the difference?
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
Appropriate metaphor fits the bill perfectly. If you can fantasize about a conscious universe, conscious matter and minds existing without a brain then I can fantasize about curing death. What is the difference?
Click to expand...
The difference is there is prima facie evidence of consciousness; zero evidence of physical immortality. You're supposed to be about evidence, aren't you? Or only when convenient?
 
Angel said:
The difference is there is prima facie evidence of consciousness; zero evidence of physical immortality. You're supposed to be about evidence, aren't you? Or only when convenient?
Click to expand...

Anyone can claim to be about evidence. wizywig doesn't know the meaning of the word "evidence." Or most other words.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Anyone can claim to be about evidence. wizywig doesn't know the meaning of the word "evidence." Or most other words.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for a conscious universe is......? Who is wizywig? Do you always get this annoyed when somebody disagrees with your opinion? Drop the insults and try and discuss in an adult manner.
 
Angel said:
The difference is there is prima facie evidence of consciousness; zero evidence of physical immortality. You're supposed to be about evidence, aren't you? Or only when convenient?
Click to expand...

There is no prima facie evidence of a conscious universe.

Actually there is no such thing as prima facie evidence outside of a courtroom.

You are right about no evidence of immortality. Not in any way, shape or form.
 
devildavid said:
There is no prima facie evidence of a conscious universe.

Actually there is no such thing as prima facie evidence outside of a courtroom.

You are right about no evidence of immortality. Not in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...
Prima facie evidence of consciousness, was what was said, reader. Of consciousness.
And Google is not really your friend; you've got to start thinking for yourself:
The phrase is also used in academic philosophy. Among its most notable uses is in the theory of ethics first proposed by W. D. Ross, often called the Ethic of Prima Facie Duties, as well as in epistemology, as used, for example, by Robert Audi. It is generally used in reference to an obligation. "I have a prima facie obligation to keep my promise and meet my friend" means that I am under an obligation, but this may yield to a more pressing duty. A more modern usage prefers the title pro tanto obligation: an obligation that may be later overruled by another more pressing one; it exists only pro tempore.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
 
I did not claim that there was evidence of immortality. I was pointing out that there is zero evidence for immortality and zero evidence for a conscious universe.
 
zyzygy said:
I did not claim that there was evidence of immortality. I was pointing out that there is zero evidence for immortality and zero evidence for a conscious universe.
Click to expand...
Here's what you said:
zyzygy said:
Appropriate metaphor fits the bill perfectly. If you can fantasize about a conscious universe, conscious matter and minds existing without a brain then I can fantasize about curing death. What is the difference?
Click to expand...
And Angel told you the difference.
Now you wiggle.
 
Angel said:
Prima facie evidence of consciousness, was what was said, reader. Of consciousness.
And Google is not really your friend; you've got to start thinking for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Click to expand...

You changed the subject from conscious universe to consciousness. Human consciousness says nothing about a cosciouss universe. The two are unrelated. Prima facie evidence is only used in courtrooms. Your example was not referring to prima facie evidence.
 
so if science dosent get how life works because it hasn't learned about this immaterial universe mind would that mean zombies are possible?
 
devildavid said:
You changed the subject from conscious universe to consciousness. Human consciousness says nothing about a cosciouss universe. The two are unrelated. Prima facie evidence is only used in courtrooms. Your example was not referring to prima facie evidence.
Click to expand...
Look, man. I'm sick and tired of correcting your poor understanding of posts. Learn to read for Chrissakes. Meanwhile put me on Ignore again, please. You're wasting my ****ing time with your bull**** posts. I didn't "change the subject from conscious universe to consciousness" -- I replied to one of your cronies who also is unable to read or think who asked what the difference is between taking seriously the idea of a conscious universe and the idea of physical immortality, implying there is no difference. I pointed out to that joker that there is evidence of consciousness in the universe but no evidence of immortality. Now go read in the humanities and reset yourself.
 
Angel said:
Look, man. I'm sick and tired of correcting your poor understanding of posts. Learn to read for Chrissakes. Meanwhile put me on Ignore again, please. You're wasting my ****ing time with your bull**** posts. I didn't "change the subject from conscious universe to consciousness" -- I replied to one of your cronies who also is unable to read or think who asked what the difference is between taking seriously the idea of a conscious universe and the idea of physical immortality, implying there is no difference. I pointed out to that joker that there is evidence of consciousness in the universe but no evidence of immortality. Now go read in the humanities and reset yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, you changed the subject. You used human consciousness as evidence of a conscious universe, which it is not. But you called it prima facie evidence, which is a legal term.

And yes, there is no evidence of the immortality of anything, just as there is no evidence of a conscious universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom