Mrs Zeta

To answer the question of this topic, one has to define what 'science' is. Medicine is both a science and an art. It is neither one or the other. Those who practice medicine relying solely on science (such as evidence-based medicine), are missing the point of true medicine which inludes the benefits of a pat on the back, a listening ear, a caring-looking face and a reassuring word.

All is in vain. or, to elaborate: The destiny of Man is to become sh*t in the bowels of worms

Homo sapiens is already becoming extinct. His place is being taken by primo posthuman. Serious!

Don't forget that my definition is about making the correct selection from a list of suitable choices. This means that anybody (or any thing) that can do this, is defined as 'intelligent'. However, you could have low intelligence, high intelligence, medium, mild, extreme, very low etc...i.e different degrees of intelligence. An ant that has chosen correctly to turn right instead of left, has just made an intelligent decision. A schizophrenic who has correctly chosen to do this instead of that, has made an intelligent decision. The total sum of appropriate decisions/selections corresponds to the degree of intelligence. Conventionally, those who consistently make most (if not all) the correct choices, are considered as - very- intelligent. Mental illness does not have to play a part.

The Paleolithic Diet involves much more than eggs. It should include nuts, raw fruit etc. In mediaeval times, some communities survived on wholemeal bread and water, with rare intake of some beans or vegetables. Christianity suggest that some ascetics lived for years on bran, salt and water.

I am not referring to making any rational choices. It would simply be the correct choice for a specific situation, when faced with a problem that needs resolving. And this does not only refer to humans but to any agent (living organisms, swarming bacteria, or even non-living agents, such as the Global Brain or search engines)

You are now talking about 'knowledge'. Intelligence is the 'ability' to select, not the 'knowledge' that the answer is correct. I can make a correct choice about what bus to take, even if I have never used it before (and so I have no knowledge about its route). My choice would be based upon many variables. People can still be intelligent and know nothing whatsoever about quantum physics or about how to change a light bulb.

Intelligence is the ability to consistently and correctly select the appropriate solution from a list of available choices. This includes both mental and physical choices or challenges.

The desert reference is coincidental. I am not a Muslim but I am sure most (if not all) Muslims will agree that their religion has brough huge goodness to their world

I believe that science and religion are not entirely unrelated. Many scientists are also deeply religious. Einstein referred to religion many times, and those who delve deeply into matters such as evolution, the human mind, mathematics etc can find many areas that have religious connotations or analogies. For example: Religion-A good deed in a distant desert has repercussion upon the entire humanity Science- A batterfly flapping its wings in a distant forest can cause global climate changes

Really? When I suggested something similar some months ago, you were... skeptical. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53490-the-end-of-darwinian-evolution/page__st__40

This is a good brain exercise. Read it and try to find a secretly embedded meaning. The fact that there isn't one is irrelevant, your brain has worked.

I think you are talking about the Daf-2 gene/receptor and its related signalling pathway, which is also found in humans. But there is a great distance (both biological and functional) between a gene in worms and the genetic make-up of humans, even if some genes are shared. Ageing in humans does not entirely depend on the function of a few genes.

If life expectancy has already increased (for every decade of life) by the following years: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13 (with some exceptions for the 50 year old age group) up to the age of 110, THEN I am speculating that it should continue to increase by the rest of the Fibonacci sequence i.e. 21,34, 55 etc per decade, starting from where it currently stops, i.e approx the age of 110/120 (which is currently the maximum human lifespan). This maximum lifespan will (must) become obsolete once new developments in Synthetic Biology etc become established. In addition, the realisation of what is called 'the Global Brain' would (certainly IMO) change the way humans continue to evolve. Death by ageing would cease to be a major problem, as humans will continue to live well beyond the 120 year limit, by being valuable components of the Global Brain. Since you brought up the matter of calorie restriction, see this peer-reviewed paper I wrote a couple of years ago, for more information http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tolsj/articles/V003/SI0016TOLSJ/17TOLSJ.pdf

After studying tables of current life expectancy (life expectancy increase per decade, in years, based upon United States National Vital Statistics) I found embedded a virtually perfect Fibonacci sequence. To my knowledge, this has not been described before. This is important because, based on my ideas regarding Global Brain acting as a catalyst for promoting extreme human lifespans it may help us predict with some accuracy any dramatic increases in life expectancy. For example, the model predicts that the current maximum lifespan of 110-120 years will be increased to 175 in the next 20-30 years. In simple terms, the fact that life expectancy increases in a certain manner, and this manner obeys deep-routed and universal natural laws, indicates that it may be possible to: 1. Predict life expectancy in the near future. Based on the Fibonacci sequence, a 90 year old today, can expect to live another 5 years a 95 year old can expect to live another 8 years a 103 year old can expect to live another 13 years, then… a 116 year old can expect to live another 21 years a 137 year old would expect to live another 34 years a 171 year old would expect to live another 55 years a 236 year old would expect to live another 89 years a 325 year old can expect to live another 144 years, and so on. 2. Question the presence of ageing and death in an ever-evolving intellectually sophisticated human (who is a valuable component of the Global Brain). Based on current facts, the Fibonacci sequence with regards to life expectancy ends abruptly when lifespan reaches the limit of approximately 120 years. Why is this so? Why should a naturally extending lifespan deviate from universal natural laws? Life expectancy should continue to increase as an individual manages to survive to a certain age. The presence of ageing and death could therefore be considered unnatural. 3. Support the notion that ‘you need to live long enough to live forever’ (see Kurzweil here, and also De Grey’s ‘Longevity Escape Velocity’ suggestions here). Those who manage to survive to extreme age are more likely to see their life expectancy increase even further, and so on, recursively. Kurzweil believes that this scenario will be achieved through use of technology. De Grey believes that this will be achieved via biological developments. I think that this ‘live long enough to live forever’ scenario will happen naturally (with minor input both from technology and from biological research). Those individuals who fully integrate their activities within the Global Brain will experience a natural-driven ever-increasing life expectancy. For more details see this. .

One could also consider the possibility that if a machine will ever be able to reach human intelligence and any other qualities that make us human, then it would have to mimic a human both in structure and organisation to such a depth and to such a degree that it will become one and the same to its biological counterpart (matching our biological capabilities, frailties and shorcomings). So why bother in the first place?

No, it would be too painful without anything stronger

I found a good definition of Life (James Grier Miller's 1978 - Living Systems). Patterns or agents that are alive meet the majority of the following: MATTER+ENERGY+INFORMATION 1. Reproducer, the subsystem which is capable of giving rise to other systems similar to the one it is in. 2. Boundary, the subsystem at the perimeter of a system that holds together the components which make up the system, protects them from environmental stresses, and excludes or permits entry to various sorts of matter-energy and information. MATTER+ENERGY 3. Ingestor, the subsystem which brings matter-energy across the system boundary from the environment. 4. Distributor, the subsystem which carries inputs from outside the system or outputs from its subsystems around the system to each component. 5. Converter, the subsystem which changes certain inputs to the system into forms more useful for the special processes of that particular system. 6. Producer, the subsystem which forms stable associations that endure for significant periods among matter-energy inputs to the system or outputs from its converter, the materials synthesized being for growth, damage repair, or replacement of components of the system, or for providing energy for moving or constituting the system's outputs of products or information markers to its suprasystem. 7. Matter-energy storage, the subsystem which retains in the system, for different periods of time, deposits of various sorts of matter-energy. 8. Extruder, the subsystem which transmits matter-energy out of the system in the forms of products or wastes. 9. Motor, the subsystem which moves the system or parts of it in relation to part or all of its environment or moves components of its environment in relation to each other. 10. Supporter, the subsystem which maintains the proper spatial relationships among components of the system, so that they can interact without weighting each other down or crowding each other. INFORMATION 11. Input transducer, the sensory subsystem which brings markers bearing information into the system, changing them to other matter-energy forms suitable for transmission within it. 12. Internal transducer, the sensory subsystem which receives, from subsystems or components within the system, markers bearing information about significant alterations in those subsystems or components, changing them to other matter-energy forms of a sort which can be transmitted within it. 13. Channel and net, the subsystem composed of a single route in physical space, or multiple interconnected routes, by which markers bearing information are transmitted to all parts of the system 14. Decoder, the subsystem which alters the code of information input to it through the input transducer or internal transducer into a "private" code that can be used internally by the system. 15. Associator, the subsystem which carries out the first stage of the learning process, forming enduring associations among items of information in the system. 16. Memory, the subsystem which carries out the second stage of the learning process, storing various sorts of information in the system for different periods of time. 17. Decider, the executive subsystem which receives information inputs from all other subsystems and transmits to them information outputs that control the entire system. 18. Encoder, the subsystem which alters the code of information input to it from other information processing subsystems, from a "private" code used internally by the system into a "public" code which can be interpreted by other systems in its environment. 19. Output transducer, the subsystem which puts out markers bearing information from the system, changing markers within the system into other matter-energy forms which can be transmitted over channels in the system's environment. .....

I think you are talking about the Many-worlds interpretation of parallel universe/multiverse.

I believe that our existence IS without purpose, but at the same time, I also believe in 'God' (I call Him 'Nature')

Apart from the fact that the actual trauma may cause structural brain damage which (somehow) leads to mental problems, the stress of the trauma alone may have significant effects on the mind. Infact, any trauma (in any part of the body), including operations may trigger depression, anxiety, mania etc.

I find it difficult to say where science ends and philosophy begins, particularly when one is interested in cutting edge, new or speculative subjects. The two are, IMO, inextricably linked. Neither can develop or advance without the other. I think those Athenians knew that...

Gold has been used to treat many conditions, but none was gender-specific. See here Unless it somehow affects oestrogen metabolism, which is unclear at present

I know where the roar of the Lamborghini comes from, and how it is created (friction of mechanical parts, air flow through certain tubes etc). But I don't know where it goes in the sence that once created, a roar (soul in the analogy) remains 'somewhere'. A simple traditional example is the violin (body) and music (soul). When the violin is broken, where does the music 'reside'? But in both examples the roar and the music are created by something physical in the first place.

It may be possible to conciliate the spiritual concept of the soul with biology/evolution. The definition of the soul in this topic was given as: 1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. 2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity This would include qualities such as envy, doubt, irony, truth, fame, reason, laugther, devotion, awe etc. All of these are based upon biological/anatomical qualities of the brain.It has to be, as there is no other explanation for these It may be that there is not enough proof to explan the mechanism of each one of these qualities, yet. But I can see no reason why a scientific explanation wouldn't be offered soon. I wonder: Why is soul immortal? What makes it to be immortal, when everything in nature is not immortal? Would forthcoming technologica developments play a role in defining and explaining a concept that we can only currently describe using foggy terms?