User Controls
Being a health freak so by 2060 life extending medicine will be public
-
2017-12-16 at 9:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume Here I'll put it in a way that even someone like you will be able to understand
Existence is being rendered by something outside of what we perceive as physical reality.
It's not within the universe or any of the multiverses.
It is non-physical, purely elemental and mathematical this core is what renders reality, I will now refer to this entity as yume.
Each branch of reality is rendered by yume simultaneously, quantum mechanics refers to this phenomena.
Reality is a computational process rendered by yume, a constant feedback loop based on error-correction.
Yume starts shooting out random noise, over time they collect into coherence and take on shapes and forms, physics, matter, consciousness and so on.
The realities that exist outside of our own are intangible to us, and within those realms there are some possible instances that are similar to our own with similar timelines and figures, someone who would resemble you only they possess a completely different consciousness.
With all that said, assuming that once a particular stream ends and *our* existence comes to a close it's possible that yume resets the stream and what we would call "time reversal" happens, our existence is set back to the "beginning" and everything plays out once more only since existence relies on variables and not absolutes it would be possible for different outcomes to happen thus in the next life you might actually end up intelligent and with a decent personality.
Yeah, that's a lot easier to understand. Thanks for clearing that up bud.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-12-16 at 9:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume Are you so sure of that?
You should know about these things by now.
lol.
thats just like saying everybody is going to get ass sexed by the time thier at X years old.
knowledges are like aids. some got it early, some got it late, some never at all.
and faggots have it by default. -
2017-12-16 at 10:11 PM UTC
-
2017-12-17 at 1:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Koolaid. Most common reason people believe in this shit is because the coincidence of antibiotics and industrialization in our history have created an anomalous situation where life expectancy has been on the up slightly for a while now. The grand claims are mostly a statistical trick though, our medieval counterparts who survived childhood, and for women who survived childbirth, could expect to live into their 70s. I mean bringing down our civilization's child mortality rate is a tremendous thing but it means our average life expectancy goes up without you getting to live any longer. There's also the question as to how long the "golden age" of antibiotics and industrialism is going to last. I think it's pretty well agreed upon that the former is ending and we're gonna be fucked. As for industrialism, seems like there's a dozen different ways that's got an expiration date on it.
The hope for elimination of senescence does have one interesting quality: it demonstrates that even clearly false hope of the possibility for eternal life is existentially uncomfortable. It's easier to cope with your demise when it's truly inevitable. I remember one of those Rick Roderick TV lecture things where he said "death is one of the last democratic institutions in this country" and he was right, rich and poor alike have the same upper bound one their lifespans, even if the averages are different. So you're definitely going to die, but look on the bright side: at least you'll die the same as everyone else, not as happenstance because you failed to buy the correct infomercial projects or because you couldn't afford to extend your existence.
Came here to say this in a less eloquent way. -
2017-12-17 at 2:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Something potentially having good effects doesn't mean it is true. Like it would be pretty swell to believe I was the most attractive guy alive and maybe it would have some positive effects but it says absolutely nothing about the actual truth of the matter.
You raise some valid points for skepticism. Ultimately they don't matter, as reincarnation being true should be obvious. Even if the soul was somehow disproven tomorrow (which is unlikely given the amount of evidence in favour of some sort of concept of a soul - ie. http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm ), then you need to fall back to a traditionally materialistic understanding of the world. In that your genes occasionally combine and you occasionally are born thinking in a similar manner to your ancestors. Boom, another independent proof of reincarnation.
And without external ethical support something like potential ecological effects are a circular defense. You say "reincarnation belief is good because it encourages environmentalism", I ask "why is environmentalism good", and if you say "because we're going to be reincarnated and need the planet to be in good shape in the future" then you've used reincarnation as a premise in defense of reincarnation itself. If you answer with anything else then we don't need reincarnation beliefs to justify environmentalism so the whole line of reasoning was pointless.
Reincarnation is really the only type of belief that even comes close to making sense.Sure, if we had no experimental evidence of atomic theory then the only reasonable attitude towards atomic theory would be skepticism. The fact that we did eventually find experimental evidence of atomic theory doesn't vindicate every theory lacking evidence.
Yeah but atomic theory was a shit for a very long time, and even today you could question some of the atomic theory phenomena, for instance theoretical molecular chemists have basically never been able to model their theories worth a shit. That there is something going on besides sheer materiality is obvious, for instance no one seriously believes that a human bone, arm or ear grows to the size it does by some sort of molecular bean counting. 1 molecule, 2 molecule, etc. There is so obviously some sort of structural field at play that we don't yet understand. -
2017-12-17 at 3:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume Life extension is supposed to be available by the 20s
It would be here right now if we weren't wasting all our money on zionist wars.
I have been reading about this stuff since 2013, all the blogs and articles point to the 2020s as when "they'll" allow the general public access to these technologies/medicines.
The tech is already there if you do enough research
if anarch-net would gather together and work as one we could pool together our resources and brain-power and create a working opposition to the oligarch-controlled zio-human civilization
HACK THE PLANET!
You won't be able to afford it with your autismbux. -
2017-12-17 at 3:45 AM UTC
-
2017-12-17 at 3:57 AM UTC
then you need to fall back to a traditionally materialistic understanding of the world. In that your genes occasionally combine and you occasionally are born thinking in a similar manner to your ancestors. Boom, another independent proof of reincarnation.
This seems like it's stretching the meaning of the term "reincarnation" to its limit. Like in some respects I think similarly to, say, Cicero, we hold some of the same ideas, but no one could reasonably say I am Cicero reincarnated. Before we go further maybe you could lay out what exactly you take to qualify as reincarnation, because if it's simply the transmission of modes of thoughts between people then this quickly becomes a semantic argument of what the term "reincarnation" means.Yeah but atomic theory was a shit for a very long time, and even today you could question some of the atomic theory phenomena, for instance theoretical molecular chemists have basically never been able to model their theories worth a shit. That there is something going on besides sheer materiality is obvious, for instance no one seriously believes that a human bone, arm or ear grows to the size it does by some sort of molecular bean counting. 1 molecule, 2 molecule, etc. There is so obviously some sort of structural field at play that we don't yet understand.
So I'm not sure I'm convinced that we really don't have a compelling genetic/molecular account of organ growth regulation, but I think we're losing sight of why this started on this subject. You cited atomic theory as a theory we presumably both agree is more or less correct that is easily dismissed in absence of evidence, ergo the lack of experimental evidence for reincarnation does not make it false. I pointed out that while we could imagine evidence of reincarnation emerging at some future point that this doesn't mean we should remain skeptical of it until such evidence arrives.
Casting doubt on atomic theory is not helping your argument here as you were the one that drew an analogy between atomic theory and reincarnation.
Post last edited by Lanny at 2017-12-17T04:00:05.077698+00:00 -
2017-12-17 at 4:09 AM UTCI'm going to grow and sell marijuana
-
2017-12-17 at 4:09 AM UTC
-
2017-12-17 at 5:04 AM UTC
-
2017-12-17 at 5:19 AM UTC
-
2017-12-17 at 7:34 AM UTC
