Before that, we need to know which immortality you are talking about and maybe how exactly science would do that to.
One way would be if we could extend our telomeres, which shorten as chromosomes continue to divide until they can no longer do so.
I am not any expert, i just read an article on google. So i dunno if this would also reverse aging.
But my guess is that it probably would otherwise, is it really immortality?
This should be enough for an idea as to how exactly we would achieve immortality.

BUT we can still be killed and would still age. We would just be able to reverse it.

What would be the philosophical implications of such an immortality?

before voting, i would appreciate if i knew what exactly you mean by "mythical"
we might not be on the same page

I think it would be better to say that instead of not thinking the people are wilfully ignorant

I VEHEMENTLY disagree. How else are we supposed to release our pent up sexual tension. You cant pretend that we dont have those.
I would actually give a similar rationale for why child pronography not involving real children might be ok.
Some people do feel an attraction to children maybe because of some disease or maybe they just...
(i dont know what the proper word would be, so i'll just say that the way someone has preferences like sadism or masochism, a person might have preferences). IN a way, this could also help them release these desires in front of a screen instead of going out and actually doing it.

There are people who have had different experiences, what if because of what someone experienced as a child, they grew to in some ways relate to what is shown on some showns that we "the normal people" deem as child pronography.
I would like to say that the above does not apply to all child pornography but that certain types of child pornography might relate to some people.
This learned about the second point from a youtube video which might be helpful in this discussion
Why Problematic Media is Good


PS: I now realize that i dont even know why you think that pron should be banned and have made MANY aassumptions. For that, i'm sorry
Please do share your reasoning for why porn should be banned

No, no. I am saying that you are saying that because we humans fear death and avoid it, then death must be bad.
But we humans believe death to be bad therefore we avoid it.

So, your conclusion that Death is bad is not ok because it is already assumed to be true beforehand

yes, I do

But that reason to not eat x is based on my assumption that- Death is bad
IF Death was good, THEN I similarly have a reason to eat it

I dont know about reason but I can say that we have an instinct to avoid it.

I guess I disagree that we have a reason.
" I dont know what come after Death then why should I avoid it?"
That is the rational part.
Instinctually, I want to avoid it

Than is why I said

If that is wrong then I am sorry for misunderstand you. — I love Chom-choms

Please tell me where I am wrong

I dont endorse Viking behavior. I think that what you call reasonable and the logical conclusion is based on the idea that we have complete information. Its also a bit circular. I can rephrase your argument as-

Because most people think that Death is bad, Death must be bad

You use the fact that most people fear Death to conclude that Death must be fearful.
BUT you are assuming that the opinion of the masses is correct. They are making well-informed decisions.

You misunderstood.
Your argument is that because we choose to live even if we experience suffering(except the extreme circumstances), then the other alternative-Death, must be worse that the current suffering that we experience.
If that is wrong then I am sorry for misunderstand you.
If that is right then my question is this- vikings also suffered great pain in their pursuit of Valhalla. they could have avoided that pain and lived a peaceful life. So I could say that because the vikings choose Death over a happy, peaceful life then this means that Death is a better option. So, we should all chase Death, For it is Paradise!

Those who ran away from the Vikings? Bah! They are unreasonable people who don't realize that Death is Paradise. Let them run! They will rot in Helheim.

So,

Indeed, we only seem to have reason to die if we are in absolute agony without any prospect of it ending. Mild misery, mild discomfort, even when there is no prospect of them ending, do not seem to give us reason to seek death. — Bartricks

I imagine that this claim should be viable for people of all regions, at all points of time.
If so, then the Vikings worshipped death. Death was the door to another world. They chose death over a life of a farmer or a pastoralist. Death over a life of comfort. How do you justify your claim with respect to the Vikings?

I'll just focus on one aspect for now, babies. Without the ability to percieve pain, the ability of a baby to grow and develop would severely diminish. I cant even imagine how they would grow and learn and if they cant grow then well..... goodbye humanity. That is why, this would become a crucial problem which would need to be addressed immediately
Such a baby would have to be taught the lessons in a very different method. The one I propose would be to teach that baby through psychological fear(nonphysical pain).
How would that work? I dont know.
First of all, is feeling the non-physical pain in our essence? Is it something that a new born would understand?
I think we can make him understand. If not pain, some emotions are intrinsically linked to a baby. A normal baby feels attachment to its mother, its caused by a hormone, Oxytocin. We could then define pain for the baby as the absence of that attachment. Actions which take mother away-BAD.
This would be a start in the direction to educate a physically insensitive baby.

EDIT
Another significant point would be the loss of the sense of touch which can have catastrophic effects.

All live forms
are by definition self-organizing, which means that they maintain. an ongoing self-consistency of functioning in the face of a changing world.

Can you elaborate? I dont understand the point you are trying to make. I think you speak of the something like individuality but I am not sure.

what would you consider 'constant change' ?
Is it changing or is it constant?

I think that we are all allways consistent, in our actions at least, because we all are subjects of causality.
The consistency you speak of is, i think, an inner consistency. To have an answer to why an individual takes a certain action, say, X and be able to know the circumstances in which that individual might take the same action X.
In short, we try to be consistent because otherwise we might feel as if we dont know ourselves

Edit: What I meant to say can be better. understood by the answer of @Joshs

Knowledge is power, energy. Intelligence is potential, wisdom is kinetic."

So,I guess you are saying that wisdom is the correct application of knowledge and intelligence is just having that knowledge.

Neither. It's instinct. — Caldwell

Please explain.

Intelligence and wisdom are two different ways of being smart. The way I've heard them being described is like this, if you feel wet drops on your arm intelligence tells you its raining and wisdom tells you to go inside — HardWorker

This suggests that every person that goes inside when it starts raining is wise.
An obviously false conjecture.
I will now assume that your definition.
So change the definition.
I honestly don't understand either so I will try to prove you wrong but I can't add anything thing else.

Hypothetically speaking supposing there was an omniscient being - doesn’t have to be (a) god necessarily maybe a hyper intelligent AI or a genie or whatever but you could ask it one question - anything at all, what would it be? — Benj96

" Explain to me, step-by-step, How can I become a God?"

That is what I would ask. I think the most probable answer is, "You cannot become God." but, I like to hope that I can.

To be eternal, To be so strong that to any normal person I am like a God and to influence people and have them pray to me. That is the God I want to become. I hope it is possible.

I take the view life is what happens when you're busy making other plans. — Tom Storm

I never really understood what this meant. Please explain.

If I had to guess then it would be that those other plans may be something a person desires, and that what happens as he is trying to get that is life. If that is the case then it similar to my argument that a person might not know what he desires.
If it was me that learned that what I desire, I won't get throughout my life then I would most definitely not want to be born and I am sure that you would disagree.
That is OK, but please explain your reasoning for, "why do bother to live?"
I would rather not be born because I know that what I want, or maybe what I think I want, I will never get but I don't kill myself because of that suspicion that what I think I desire may not be what I actually desire and that someday I will know what I desire. That is what I currently think, I feel like I haven't expressed my feelings clearly, this whole think fells like it is full of loopholes but I assure you this is what I feel and think.

So, please answer my question, "What do you live for?"

I'm talking about the idea that a life might be worth living even if it were, however improbably, devoid of pleasure for the one living it. — Janus

That seems non-intuitive. Care to explain?

No, it's just that we don't all see the world in simplistic 'worth living' or 'not worth living' arbitrary categories, nor do we all see a clear way in which to determine these ideas except by more extreme examples. — Tom Storm

But it should apply, I think.
At least for me, a life worth living is based on what I want to do in my life and I think that every person has to have something that they desire. If that desire is fulfilled then it is a life worth living and if it isn't then it is not a life worth living.

The only argument to this that I can think of is that some people may not know what they desire, you know, like in stories when a guy takes revenge to "fill the hole" inside him but after he takes revenge, he feels empty.
So, for that guy, before he has killed his target, a life in which he kill has target is worth it but after he killing the enemy if he is asked whether his life was worth it, then he would think that it is not.

I don't understand what is so hard to understand what @darthbarracuda meant.
1)I think what he is saying is that a parent would want his child to have a good life. You don't need to define a good or a bad life, all you need to accept is that there is a good life and there is a bad life, you only need to acknowledge their existence. As for what is a good life? The answer to that question is in a further point.
2) Now he argues that one should only procreate if they can guarantee that their child will life a good life with certainty.
3) Now, @darthbarracuda argues that it is impossible to know what a 'good' life is. The most a person can say is that some lives are better than others, like we can say that Trump live a better life than a slum-dweller in Africa does, but that doesn't mean that Trump lives a good life. We know that Trump lives a good life but not whether he lives a good life or not.
4) He now argues that such a proper definition of a good life won't ever come because people would not and probably never agree on a definition of "good" life.
5) Since there will never be a uniform standard of 'good' and 'bad', therefore it is impossible to determine your child will live a 'good' or a 'bad' life.
6) I am not exactly sure what he means by this line, so just be aware of that: What he probably is saying that if you cannot know whether your child will live a good live there is a possibility that he might live a bad life.
Now what I don't understand is what he means when he is saying," [...]in fact cannot have a good life."
Just that is the part that I don't understand but if we accept what he is saying to be true then,
7) One should not procreate because he argued, above, that the only time one should procreate is when the parent is sure that his/her child will live a good life. Now he has shown that it is impossible to know whether your child will have a good live and even further that, "ones' offspring will not and in fact cannot have a good life." So now, we lose all our incentive to procreate and thus it is wrong to have children.

It's self-refuting, it amounts to saying: I exist AND I don't exist, a classic contradiction! — TheMadFool

Can you please explain your reasoning.
The only definite statement I can say is that he cannot be telling the truth but from that I can infer that his statement is false or it is misunderstood. If it is a misunderstanding then there is no point into discussing it any further, at least from this perspective. So the only worthwhile conclusion is that the person's statement is false, which would mean that he does exist. and I don't see any problem with that conclusion. If I am wrong then how? Please explain.

Self-referential paradox: A person saying, "I don't exist." — TheMadFool

How is this a paradox? IF this it true then you must exist, Definitely that is true.
But if this is false then you do exist. This doesn't seem impossible to me, there is a definite conclusion that can be reached, "This statement is false."

But I don't think that Aristotle meant that too much of everything is bad. If he meant that that he is stupid but we know that he is not stupid.
He probably meant that as one gets farther from the right way , they approach the extremes. So the rights way or the truth is not bad even if it is too much because the that statement doesn't apply to truth.
Same as how in Buddhism, the law of impermanence doesn't apply to the Noble Truths. If they did then Buddha's philosophy would not hold.

However, Aristotle's Golden Mean, if applied reflexively to itself means there's such a thing as too Golden Meanish. Go figure! — TheMadFool

Please explain what you mean. I don't understand.

Well, it makes sense to me
Assuming that the middle ground between the extremes is virtue for pottery.
A virtuous person must also be virtuous in pottery, so he must stay at the middle ground to be virtuous.
If he needs to be at the middle to be virtuous at pottery then be extension he will need to be virtuous in any art like pottery. Therefore all arts like pottery require a person to follow the middle path to be virtuous.
Now to me it seems natural that if all arts like pottery require a virtuous person to tread the middle path then that virtuous person must tread the middle path to be virtuous.
A virtuous would not have needed to practice pottery for years to be called virtuous in the art, if he did then he wouldn't or rather he couldn't be a virtuous person. So whatever way that virtuous person decides to follow to be virtuous in pottery must be what he does for anything else and not specifically for it and since we know that to be virtuous in pottery we must tread the middle path therefore we also know that a virtuous person decides to follow the middle path to me virtuous in pottery like he does in anything else. Therefore virtue is the middle path.

I think this is why people are often more drawn to eastern philosophy, it is grounded, practical, readily comprehensible and offers a more balanced/less dogmatic world view — TheVeryIdea

Is western philosophy more abstract? Trying to catch life in scientific terms? — VincePee

To both of you, I will say that even Eastern Philosophy can be scientific, I will talk about Hinduism. The Hinduism that originated in the Indus Valley Civilization was a lot more spiritual and about worshipping idols but by the Early Vedic Period(1500-1000 BC) the myths had a more scientific basis.
The most well known are the 10 avatars of Vishnu(Dashavatara) mentioned in the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is among the trinity of Brabham(creator), Vishnu(Preserver) and Shive(Destroyer). Whenever Evil starts to Triumph Good Vishnu is born into this world and Good triumphs evil, Vishnu has been reborn 9 times and 1 avatar is yet to come. What is interesting are his 10 avatars.
1 Matsya (fish)
2 Kurma (turtle, tortoise)
3 Varaha (boar)
4 Narasimha (man-lion)
5 Vamana (dwarf-god)
6 Parashurama (Brahman warrior)
7 Rama
8 Krishna
9 Buddha
10 Kalki (prophesied 10th avatar who ends the Kali Yuga)

The interesting part is the forms of the avatar, fish-turtule-boar-manlion-dwarf-human...
This represents the evolution of life as it started from the oceans as unicellular and then to fish, reptiles amphibians, mammals. Yes it is not perfect but they did notice it and recorded it.

Vedic Maths is also not very spiritual and I can say with experience, it is just shortcut taht are so good that it seems like magic. One of the formulas of vedic maths is the square of numbers that end in 5.
If the number is a5 then its square is a(a+1)25.
You probably didn't understand that so here's an example: 55^2 = (5*6)25=3025.
I hope that clears it.
Now here's how it works-
Let no.= a5
then, expanded form= 10a+5
Square= (10a+5)^2=100a^2+100a+25=100a(a+1)+25
Since the last 2 digits of 100a(a+1) will always be 00 therefore we can just multiply a&a+1 and stick 25 at the end.

Lets not forget, it was India who invented 0 specifically Aryabhata.
India also made incredible astronomical calculations.
Rigveda divided its year into 360 day(12months of 30 days) and every 5 years, there were 2 intercalary months that sure that it aligned with the solar cycle.
In the 1st century CE, while Greeks were realizing that Earth might be a sphere. Indian Astronomers were trying to calculate the circumference of Earth.
It is written in the Upanishads, I think, that Mars is red.

The wife wishes that the house burns down. The father wants the house to stay. If both could make events as arbitrarily happen as the universal mind the wife would travel into a reality where the house is no more and the husband would travel into a reality where the house still stands. Both would be in different realities now and hence could not meet each other anymore. They would as well have no clue to where their partner would wish to be next so this separation might well be final. This is why we need this voting mechanism that not all realities we wish for come true at the same time. And this voting mechanism at the same time creates the logic of causality that connects us and holds us together from the past over the now to the future. — FalseIdentity

So basically, if you have a universal mind then you can just do whatever you want maybe try to go to a world where there are stones that no one can life. NO Problemo :smirk:
However, we cannot do anything like that because we are chained by the law of causality. We have a beginning and so will have to respect them and we cannot change them. Our comprehension of reality seems so shallow if what you are saying is actually true.

In a certain sense, you helped to author the video - with all the work that goes into the review - so you would be our VIP :) I guess the video will be as usually watched by 3 philosophy nerds only but the least I could do is give a honorable mention to you and Hermeticus (only if you like of course). — FalseIdentity

Please don't do that. I am a rather shy person.

The non-logic part of yourself is you but in a slightly different version. If your nonlogic alter ego came before your empirically verifiable embodiment, then it can not be held against your predecessor that he had no cause. Why not? Because at the time where this part of you already existed there did not yet exist causes. Causes and logic were something that you created — FalseIdentity

I understand what you are saying, there was something without a cause that existed eternally which is what lies at the start of the circular reasoning. Then if someone asks me," which came first the chicken or the egg?" then by our logic I should answer something like," whichever god made first". The eternal God is the origin of the circular reasoning.
What I don't agree with is the logic and causes are something that we created just to understand the reality that we can perceive. I think that causes and logic should originate from non-logic and the non-causal because if the source mind contains everything then the knowledgeto apply logic and causality should also be in there.

The Egyptians called it the nun. The nun is a kind of bottomless ocean of disorder and chaos which gave rise to everything that has form. If something came before causes it has no cause in itself and hence must have been there eternally. That Münchausens Trilema either ends you in infinite loops of circular reasoning or that it directly catapults you into the infinite past of the eternal regress is hence good evidence for this type of eternity. And an eternal mind is the same thing as an immortal mind. — FalseIdentity

Just wanted to confirm, you are talking about the duat right, which is what will be left of the world after Aphosis swallows Ra for good.

A second hint for the existence of the nun comes from the mathematical unsolvability of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Gödles thought experiment shows that any attempt to define a clear and complete mathematical logic will again lead to an unsolvable infinite regress. Math can not include the unlogic, but because the unlogic is true, math will always remain incomplete. — FalseIdentity

I don't know what level of audience, you target but if they are casual audience then they probably won't understand the Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I know about the Gödel's incompleteness theorem because I like maths and I watch veritaserum but most people don't. Just keep that in mind.
On that note, why don't you tell me your channel's name? I will be sure to like your video and comment on it. I might subscribe too but I am very strict about who I subscribe to, so I won't make any promises.

What will it feel like when you die? That can not be understood through words, because words are part of our destructive human logic. But picture it this way: Everything you experience is like a hole in the whole of the source mind. One can not destroy a hole, one can just fill it. Depending on how far this hole will fill you will either become one with the universe or you will become one with the even greater mind of god. If you become god then all feelings of want and sadness will have gone since you are complete again. If you become just the universe such negative feelings will at least greatly reduce as you gained a lot of richness and diversity in the process of blending with everything around you. There is however a third option, the Christian option. We will discuss this option in relation to heaven and the tree of knowledge. Because remember there is a holy book that always warned us that there could be something lethal about our desire for logic, understanding, and control. And this is the book of genesis. Is there a way back to the garden of Eden, if we give up the desire to understand and control god's mind? — FalseIdentity

I understand what you are trying to say, that maybe that apple should not have been eaten and eating it has put us on the wrong path through which we can never actually achieve our goal of becoming one with the source mind but this feels a bit disconnected from the whole thing. When I read this part I thought," Oh we are talking about this now huh." and I had to step back and then I realized how this connected to the whole thing. I don't know if that's what you intended but that's what I felt.

Again, Please tell me your channel's name. Please,Please,Please :pray:
I go by the name: Krishang Krishna, with a image of Vegito in the profile. Please read my comment if you tell me your channel name.

Exactly! So you don't think killing yourself is killing God's creation? Well, of course it is (and in a sense He jills Himself), but should that be a reason not to do it? (Please note that Im not promoting suicide!) — VincePee

I don't really believe in Gods, I am a Hindu. My parents believe in gods but I don't actually believe.
In Hinduism, it is OK to kill gods creations. There is a whole story about it.

Shiva and Parvati were travelling through Dharti(Earth) one day, when Parvati saw a procession of people carry a man who looked to be sleeping. Parvati asked the mob, " Where are you carrying the man and Why?" A man from the mob replied," The man is dead. We are on are way to cremate him."
" What? Why did he die? That is terrible!", Parvati replied true to herself, as she was the goddess of fertility, the idea of taking away a life was against her creed.
" What can we say? Lord Shiva willed it and so he died." The man replied.
Parvati went to her husband, Shiva, and angrily said," How terrible, Why would you take anyones life?"
Shiva regretted displeasing his wife but all life was destined to end. So he decided that instead of just dying instantaneously, all living beings would die because of a cause.
If a deer is eaten by a lion, a man kill another man or if he takes his own life, then too it is all according to the will of Shiva.

Basically, Shiva used to just names on a death note but now he specifies the reason.

I am for a painless suicide if I want to commit a suicide. If a suicide pill will give me a painless death then yes otherwise no.

thoughsometimes I think how the hell they could have shot two children in the present kind of world, without much future hope. But then again, there always is hope! — VincePee

I do too. My answer to that is they they didn't really think about it. You know, like they didn't question their existence because of their faith in God and thus their duty is to God. If tells to procreate then we do so.

But you surely heard that our body gives us signals that shall enhance our genetic survival and the numbers of our offspring. This signals, for example, happiness and lust have the same effect as rewarding us for creating new forms and new diversity. It's like we can already feel eternity for a short moment. So all our suffering is in reality connected to the fact that we are just a splinter of god, not whole anymore. When evil like in this case is not something but the lack of something it's called privatio bono. Privatio Bono is literally the privation of the good. The concept is used as a powerful defense against the problem of evil — FalseIdentity

What the h**l, I don't understand. Please help.

If something is too many things then it seems to be nothing to us. This happens because objects with multiple identities are information overflow to us. Imagine for example a painter that has mixed all colors there are. This gives no picture you can make sense of, it simply gives black. Only when you subtract at least one color you can see something. And this is the same what our mind does with the source mind: it subtracts and destroys large parts of it, to be able to perceive and feel whatever remains. This will, by the way, be a pure problem of human perspective. Of course just because we refuse to see the source mind this does not mean it's gone.
Not only does everything happen in God's mind eternally it happens at the same time as well. So the source mind does clearly not obey the laws of human logic. It doesn't have to think this way because the source mind is so smart that he can handle multiple realities at once. But we can't do that. How does destructive thinking create our understandable reality?
Take this picture as an example: In the source mind, it is an infinite number of pictures. We just through a collective vote agreed that this is the only one that is allowed to stay real FOR US. Yes, we might decide in a vote together what's real for us and what's not. We just do this voting subconsciously, invisibly. Or as another example think about the music you are listening to: if you can hear this sound then an infinitely large number of songs and noises that exist elsewhere had to be shut off to make the melody understandable. Music is like a hole in more music. — FalseIdentity

let me just get this straight, what you are saying is that our mind cannot process everything. So if we saw infinity,i.e. everything then we would see nothing. Either this or we would only see the parts of that infinity that we can comprehend.
I hope you don't mind me asking these questions without reading the whole thing. I mean, a story is better understood if the author is next to you telling you what everything means while keeping you engaged.



Also, just a tangent but then couldn't we say that death is to gain the knowledge of everything

What's your standard? That you owe your parents? Why? Because they gave life to you? — VincePee

Well, you owe a person who gave you a chocolate something of equal value. That, I think, we can agree on.
By my standards, my parents gave me so many things and I will assume that yours did too. Now I don't know how my parents feel about me. It could be that they feel like me just doing whatever I want or simply living is enough compensation for them. Maybe they do that? I don't know. As long as they don't say that, in my mind, it is better to think that you owe them something rather that not.

OK, but my point was much simpler. I'll just summarize it with a new, concrete question: "Is asking for (legally performed) euthanasia considered as suicide?"
(Euthanasia: The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. (Oxford LEXICO)) — Alkis Piskas

Honestly, I would call a painless death an ideal suicide. If you can die a painless death and be free from your suffering then it is the best. I don't know if it is right or not but it is definitely my ideal form of suicide.

Or we could just go to Mars with the same attitude.

The cyclical-development thinking has already taken into consideration the maximum advancement in science in their formulation of this phenomenon. Cyclical in this regard means that it has a beginning, progressing into the more advanced stages, culminating in the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge, then gradually descending into decay. — Caldwell

While there may be a limit to the knowledge in the world that someday we might learn everything in the cosmos, which I would say is the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge. I am sure that we are nowhere near close to that ceiling.
I am not sure who but there was some guy who said that we know less that 1% of everything. So if there was a decay then it is far away.

On the contrary, by "descending into decay" you could mean that all the knowledge that we have will be lost, like a return to stone age, then I do agree that science is cycilcal. Science is an inevitability born from the ability to reason, When you "how", "why" "what" , science will be born.
So yes, science will after some point gradually decay but how is that an anti-scientific statement. Its not like by saying that all civilizations die, you become anti-civilizationist.

Dude, My answer is a adamant YES.
I am a 14-year old 10th grader, English is my second language and I learned about philosophy only via a crash course philosophy by the CrashCourse channel.(that's where my name comes from, chom-choms are bananas)
I have absolutely NO qualifications in philosophy, though I am planning on choosing philosophy in 11th. When someone uses any technical terms that I don't know, I go to the Stanford dictionary and if that discussion required you to have formal knowledge then I don't enter but there are very few such discussions. If you just make reasonable arguments and are willing to accept that you are wrong then no one here (I think) can, even if they want to, order you to leave a discussion.