Death, why?

[reverse]

I meant though its a choice isnt it; if you get bored' date=' kill yourself, if not then carry on living.

 

Things (even Heaven) that last for ever, scare me, as such i think a life time of 1000 years, would be nice.[/quote']

 

That made me laugh.

 

Read the Shakespeare Hamlet line that starts “to be or not to be”

That is really funny if you can imagine the characters position.

The skull is of his servant and he’s stumbled across it while the grave digger is burying it, and he’s musing about a possible escape from his life of trouble.

its is pretty funny if you get it.

 

ay, there's the rub;

For in that sleep...

[reverse]

Ok' date=' say the immortal is a mutant of the original mortal, so they occupy similar niches but keep them in different ecosystems to keep competition out of the equation.

 

Also, I just thought perhaps it would level out since selective pressure would be far higher earlier for the immortal, so adaption rates could be balanced.[/quote']

 

Here are some things that you may be able to throw together to get an idea.

 

Something like two thirds of the earths biomass at the moment is fairly primitive.

very primitive.

With its primitive nature it gains the benefit of being resilient.

Tuff as old boots in fact.

But it’s not that dynamic, a bit of a yawn as far as creativity and ability goes.

 

When investing in any game of chance (like the stock market ) you spread your risk of being wiped out finically by diversifying.

Some cash goes into secure places (bacteria) some goes into high risk and high potential places (highly evolved omnivores).

 

Of all the processes that life possesses, which would you say is it’s most valuable.

Limbs, flight , temperature control?

What one aspect would you protect with your greatest vigour?

 

Do you think mother nature has a wise investment portfolio at the moment?

Would she allow that portfolio to be dominated by investment type two (highly evolved omnivores)?

[aguy2]

Here is a graph comparing two populations' date=' where the only difference between the two species is that one is mortal, the other not.

No matter where you set the K boundary, the immortals hit it first.

Interpretations?[/quote']

 

Nice work with the graph.

 

What you seem to be graphing is the 'boom or bust' life cycle of 'relatively immortal' bacteria (procaryote cells). Although still 'relatively immortal' the slow and careful reproduction of nucleated eucaryote cells was an evolutionary advance that avoided this cycle of rapidly reaching 'K' and then dying off due to stravation, but this was still achieved without the need of 'absolute programed mortality'. It is rather curious that what can be seen as the third major advance in evolution would seem at first glance to be a step backwards. The rather sloppy reproduction in un-nucleated bacteria leads to a great deal of genetic 'mutation' in their offspring, while the opposite occurs in the more advanced eucaryote cells.

 

I did some research on modern sponges, and found some interesting data. Although there is a possibility that modern sponges differ from their early Cambrian ancestors, modern sponges display the following characteristics: (1) under certain conditions sponge cells will display 'apoptosis' (altruistic cell suicide), and (2) fresh water sponges produce asexual buds called 'gemmules' in anticipation of dying off in the winter.

 

aguy2

[Sorcerer]

Of all the processes that life possesses' date=' which would you say is it’s most valuable.

Limbs, flight , temperature control?

What one aspect would you protect with your greatest vigour?[/quote']

 

The ability to reproduce, and the ability to be flexable so that even when adapted perfectly to one niche you can live a mediocre existence in another niche.

 

These combined allow life to survive through even the most extrordinary of circumstances.

[reverse]

exactly!

 

You have found the crux of it.

 

and the structure that occurs in ....

 

the place where G A T (I) C A tears itself and twists like a pair of mating cobras.

 

from your (combined) graphs-

do yo think that the reason we are not immortal is because we are a species that is high risk - we are high in complexity and therefore less resilient to severe environmental change.

 

In other words , a bad bet.

We cant be allowed to dominate the biosphere because we are just too high a risk.

 

It’s a catch 22 situation!

[reverse]

Nice work with the graph.

 

It is rather curious that what can be seen as the third major advance in evolution would seem at first glance to be a step backwards. aguy2

 

 

 

oh the futility, the human race , another blind alley in the mouse maze of evolution.

 

unless, the nature of humanity is not contained within an individual person type unit, but rather in its social and knowledge base.

perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong.

perhaps at some point the physical structure is no indication of the abilities of a group of such co-ordinated beings.

[TimeTraveler]

To Timetraveler, natural selection. The genes themselves have no idea what will be selected and what won't they aren't conscious and they cannot think or plan.

 

Can you elaborate on this please, I am not questioning it because I think you are wrong I am questioning it because I do not understand it.

 

How can we know if a gene is conscious or not? Obviously it can't think or plan it doesn't have a brain or intelligence, however it does "do" it has "function" maybe even consider "purpose". To me those three things seem to indicate some sort of pre-programmed "instinct". That to me indicates some level of awareness, even if it's such an immeasurable level to what us humans can percieve. Can we really say that it is not conscious? To me it seems too perfect to be "natural selection". Please help me with this.

[Sorcerer]

Genes have as much instinct as acid has dissolving metal, it is a chemical reaction, it is modeled very well by chemistry/physics, we can make genes, assemble cut, change DNA with chemicals.

 

Chemicals are fragile, the natural way is disorder, death is enivitable.

 

Natural selection selects traits which allow an organism to survive/have higher reproductive fitness, it does this by trial and error.

 

Say you were drawing a random creature out of a bag and throwing them into a pot of boiling water, imagine you are nature, now if one of those creatures flys away, or can swim in boiling water then it will live to have offspring. Picture this analogy, then tell me is any real conscious decision making required by the genes?

[TimeTraveler]

Say you were drawing a random creature out of a bag and throwing them into a pot of boiling water, imagine you are nature, now if one of those creatures flys away, or can swim in boiling water then it will live to have offspring. Picture this analogy, then tell me is any real conscious decision making required by the genes?

 

Good analogy, it kinda makes a little more sense to me. However I am still a little confused on the way in which they improve over time.

 

Especially during the time of the Paleolithic age.

 

From a college history book, written by Philip Adler , retired-Professor at the East Carolina University (almost 30 years):

 

During the Paleolithic age (50,000 to 10,000 years ago).....at least 17 varieties of hominid evolved during this time....all these species came to an evolutionary deadend except for homo sapiens.

 

A good example of a failed species is the Neanderthal Man, who flourished in Western Germany about 30,000 years ago and then disappeared at about the same time homo sapiens appeared in Europe.... During the Paleolithic, humans became more upright, and their skull changed shape to encompass a gradually enlarging brain. Their bodies grew less hairy and their arms shorter.Hip structure changed to allow a more erect gait. Eyesight grew sharper... All these changes and many others were adaptations that refelected both humans' changed physical environment and their increasing mastery and manipulation of that environment.

 

Nature's interaction with these genes causes them to mutate, change and adapt over time to survive. That to me sounds like a survival instinct on some level, and I find it hard to ignore the possibility of this instinctiveness in the more complex molecular make-ups.

[Sorcerer]

Different adaptions suit different environments, not all mutations are going to be the same, so different populations will contain different mutated alleles, different strategies for the same niche.

 

When the two populations intersect one will eventually succumb to the other, unless it can change its niche.... the problem with the adaption of intelligence, is that its niche is very broad, so even if other homonids tried to change niche, using their adaption of intelligence, it is likely other homonids will do the same.

 

Intelligence is a broad niche, there is no room for competition, and no room for comprimise.

[Sayonara]

I disagree. I would say that intelligence is the only broad niche that can have room for competition.

 

In all likelihood, Homo sapiens wasn't exactly philosophically enlightened or culturally sophisticated at the time Neanderthal man disappeared. If Neanderthals had been discovered in the past half-century or so, their habitat would be strictly protected.

[aguy2]

How can we know if a gene is conscious or not? Obviously it can't think or plan it doesn't have a brain or intelligence' date=' however it does "do" it has "function" maybe even consider "purpose". To me those three things seem to indicate some sort of pre-programmed "instinct". That to me indicates some level of awareness, even if it's such an immeasurable level to what us humans can percieve. Can we really say that it is not conscious? To me it seems too perfect to be "natural selection". Please help me with this. [/quote']

 

I generally agree. I have sometimes said that every physics textbook should have 75 or so blank pages in its back to remind all potential physicists that there are too many indications that there are 'organizing effects' at work in the universe that we presently know little or nothing nothing about.

 

Physicists and other 'lovers of knowledge' are trying to make sense of and describe a world that seems to have only 4 to 6 major components. Time, space, matter, and energy are 'for sure' or 'four sure' components. We seem to be having a great deal of difficulty 'shoe horning' gravitational effects into the category of 'energy', and seeing as the other major components are grouped in the closely related pairs of time/space and matter/energy, 'gravitational effects' might be a prime candidate to be 'paired' with 'organizing effects'. This pairing may be highly problematical, but nonetheless it stands to reason that you are not going to make sense of a situation where you have completely left out 1/5 to 1/6 of its major components.

 

aguy2

[reverse]

Good analogy' date=' it kinda makes a little more sense to me. However I am still a little confused on the way in which they improve over time.

[/quote']

 

You would like the Japanese sense of spirituality.

many think that each rock and each tree has a soul.

 

I tend to go with the theory that you can do some incredibly complex things with a few simple rules, and complexity looks like sentience.

 

but at some point the complexity reaches critical mass and genuine sentience is present.

[TimeTraveler]

What possible evolutionary advantage could be gained for an organism by dying?

 

What about the death of a star? What kind of advantages are gained by the universe when a star dies?

[reverse]

that's stretching the concept of death,

 

I always thought how much an imploding star looked like a drop of water on a pond surface.

 

maybe they don’t "die", maybe they just don’t exist in a reality with four dimensions.

 

think about the drop of water analogy.

[Sayonara]

What about the death of a star? What kind of advantages are gained by the universe when a star dies?

Depends how it dies, but there's usually going to be a lot of element-spreading involved.

[aguy2]

that's stretching the concept of death' date='

[/quote']

 

Have you been keeping up with what they have learning about the processes involved in 'stellar birth'? The 'observational' evidence seems to indicating that the actual 'birthing processes' are much more complex than 'pre-observational' theoretical ideas concerning 'gravitational infalling' predicted.

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

Depends how it dies, but there's usually going to be a lot of element-spreading involved.

 

I would tend to see this process of creating and spreading more complex atomic structures, coupled with the 'observational' evidence that the 'shock waves' propagated by many 'stellar deaths' directly leads to initiating the 'birth' processes of new stars, as indication that my 'signature' hypothesis that the universe is involved in a "staged" process of development might be descriptive of the actual situation we find our selves in.

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

Here are some neat time lapse Hubble videos of stars involved in the birthing process. The HH30 video is very visually similar to how I have postulated the early universe appeared in the ast./cos. forum's thread "Is the Universe Collapsing?".

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2000/32/video/

 

aguy2

[reverse]

I would tend to see this process of creating and spreading more complex atomic structures' date=' coupled with the 'observational' evidence that the 'shock waves' propagated ....

aguy2[/quote']

 

cool.

 

I can go for the idea that we are an eco of the prime event.

[reverse]

Hey, where did that quote (below) come from?

I have always thought that.

or at least that the creative force was constructing a like being to have a bit of a chat with, or possibly that the creative force was cyclic in nature and it constantly disassembled then reassembled itself over the millennia.

 

 

 

 

"We and the universe around us could be involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-creation, wherein and whereby the Creator of us and the universe around us is attempting to create itself."

[aguy2]

cool.

 

I can go for the idea that we are an eco of the prime event.

 

If you are interested in the possible 'fractal' nature of the universe, here is a neat site: http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolder/menu.html I can't guaranty his mathematical extrapolations but the visuals are 'slick'.

 

I have no idea how my 'signitature' popped up on your post.

 

aguy2

[Mart]

'gravitational effects' might be a prime candidate to be 'paired' with 'organizing effects'. components.

 

I agree. Might it have something to do with gravity working in one direction only ?

[aguy2]

I agree. Might it have something to do with gravity working in one direction only ?

 

I usually refer to 'gravity' as 'gravitational effects'. (1) the issues between the 'relativistic' and the 'QM' veiws are unresolved, with the consequence being that we don't know yet what 'gravity' is, we only know what it seems to do. (2) I have an unsupported hunch that it may prove to be more than one phenomenon.

 

Using a strictly semantic definition, one might be able to say that, "Gravitational effects are those 'effects' that seem to attract or draw inanimate (dead) objects together." Seeing as the major components of reality (time/space and matter/energy) are grouped together in pairs that seem to be two different 'expressions' of the same thing, if gravitational effects also had a partner that was a major component of reality, might not this be 'organizing effects' like those 'effects' associated with 'living' things?

 

Semanticly 'gravity' is a 'serious' subject. It is that which is dragging me to my grave, you to yours, and quite possibly the universe to its, but seeing as that what distinguishes us from inanimate things may be its 'paired opposite' it would probably behove us 'not to let the gravity of the situation get us down' or to take this problematic conjecture to seriously.

 

aguy2

[Cadmus]

What about the death of a star? What kind of advantages are gained by the universe when a star dies?

The death of stars is a primary source of heavier elements, which are made available to subsequent generations of coalescense to such as planets. The elements on the earth that enable life, for example, were produced in the death throes of stars.