Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:26 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:21 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:17 pm

Every time the scientists are trying to extend human lifespans, it can be expected they trying to achieve human immortality as humans won't be satisfied with less.

Baloney. An extended lifespan is not the same thing as an infinite lifespan.

The scientists are always trying to extend human lifespans. Once immortality is achieved, then the scientists won't need to keep extending.

PhilX

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:27 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:26 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:21 pm


Baloney. An extended lifespan is not the same thing as an infinite lifespan.

The scientists are always trying to extend human lifespans. Once immortality is achieved, then the scientists won't need to keep extending.

PhilX

There are no scientists who are trying to extend human lifespans. There are no websites making that claim. It appears that your reasoning is that since scientists are discussing human immortality, they are creating human immortality. Admit that you pulled this idea out of your orifice!

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:55 pm Saying is not doing. Seeking is not making. I said as much in the sentences following my question.

You indicated that many tend to get angry on this forum. Your personal experience may be an uncommon one.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:55 pm Saying is not doing. Seeking is not making. I said as much in the sentences following my question.

You indicated that many tend to get angry on this forum. Your personal experience may be an uncommon one.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:55 pm Saying is not doing. Seeking is not making. I said as much in the sentences following my question.

You indicated that many tend to get angry on this forum. Your personal experience may be an uncommon one.

It's not just my personal experience.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:26 pm The scientists are always trying to extend human lifespans. Once immortality is achieved, then the scientists won't need to keep extending.

PhilX

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:14 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:55 pm Saying is not doing. Seeking is not making. I said as much in the sentences following my question.

You indicated that many tend to get angry on this forum. Your personal experience may be an uncommon one.

It's not just my personal experience.

It hasn't yet been my experience. Perhaps there are some who are stupid or are provocateurs or both.

I've had to ask you 4 times in this thread to provide articles that could support your claim that scientists are trying to extend life so that life is permanent. Explanations have been given to you about the difference between before death and after life. Explanations have been given about the difference between thinking and acting. You have responded with snide remarks.

You must be a bot.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:05 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:55 pm Saying is not doing. Seeking is not making. I said as much in the sentences following my question.

You indicated that many tend to get angry on this forum. Your personal experience may be an uncommon one.

You didn't express yourself clearly. The intermediate steps of extending lifespans can lead to immortality, the ultimate goal for scientists. You're focused on the trees, not the forests.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:23 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:05 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:55 pm Saying is not doing. Seeking is not making. I said as much in the sentences following my question.

You indicated that many tend to get angry on this forum. Your personal experience may be an uncommon one.

You didn't express yourself clearly. The intermediate steps of extending lifespans can lead to immortality, the ultimate goal for scientists. You're focused on the trees, not the forests.

Just not clear enough for you.

Again, everything you've said about goals and steps, looks and try's could be on the mark without any impact on making and creating. I have been focused on the meaning of your words, and I have challenged you to show the truth of one phrase.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:03 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 10:20 am Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:25 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:23 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:05 pm

You didn't express yourself clearly. The intermediate steps of extending lifespans can lead to immortality, the ultimate goal for scientists. You're focused on the trees, not the forests.

Just not clear enough for you.

Again, everything you've said about goals and steps, looks and try's could be on the mark without any impact on making and creating. I have been focused on the meaning of your words, and I have challenged you to show the truth of one phrase.

Still focused on those trees.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:26 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:03 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 10:20 am Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

The logic here is also impeccable.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:30 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:25 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:23 pm

Just not clear enough for you.

Again, everything you've said about goals and steps, looks and try's could be on the mark without any impact on making and creating. I have been focused on the meaning of your words, and I have challenged you to show the truth of one phrase.

Still focused on those trees.

If the trees are taken out, there will be no forest.