The oldest living things

[Joro]

HuH? I'm not the one who said, "Existence is relative to whatever is existing" ......hahaha

What, are you tryna be Einstein or some shit? You saw a documentary on his theory of relativity last week? Is... "Everything in existence is relative" what you meant to say? I'm just guessing. Maybe that inanity you expressed was exactly what you wanted to say.

[.:Pain:.]

I didn't say existence is relative to existence, I said existence is relative to whatever is existing.

There is a huge difference.

And no, I really am quite ignorant of Einstein outside of his involvement in the Manhatten Project...

[Joro]

Originally Posted by .:Pain:.

I didn't say existence is relative to existence, I said existence is relative to whatever is existing.

There is a huge difference.

And no, I really am quite ignorant of Einstein outside of his involvement in the Manhatten Project...

Why don't you help me to understand how "Existence is relative to whatever is existing?"

I can't get it no matter how I try to break it down to myself:"....Existence ....is relative ....to "whatever" ....in existence" .... so "whatever" exists, is relative to existence .......

To me that's like saying, "Mothers are relative to children who are born of mothers" ......

Am I getting closer to understanding what you're saying?

[.:Pain:.]

Ok.

There are different levels of existence, and we as humans, tend to tier these levels.

We, as humans, like to believe that our level of existence is the most concrete and the most substantial. However, the energy of a dead person still exists, and whether that energy is even aware of its existence is neither here nor there, yet we still almost "demean" its very existence by, for example, claiming that death is equivalent to non-existence (as was done in this thread). However, if one really ponders this, he/she will realize that level of existence (the existence in death, that is) may be just as important/concrete/substantial as this level of existence, but we will never know until we actually reach that dimension of life.

I was speaking more on states of existence, and pretty much saying that existence should be thought of as degrees, a continuum, rather than the life and death model that Radium seemed to be implying.

Therefore, one's level of existence is based solely on his/her/its perception of what existence actually is, and even if that existence is perception-less, it is indeed still existence, it is only a different level of existence which we as concious beings cannot yet begin to comprehend.

Existence is relative to whatever is existing...

[.:Pain:.]

Did you understand what I was saying now?

[Radium]

nope

[.:Pain:.]

Well fuck it that's the best I can do...

[Joro]

Originally Posted by .:Pain:.

Ok.

There are different levels of existence, and we as humans, tend to tier these levels.

We, as humans, like to believe that our level of existence is the most concrete and the most substantial. However, the energy of a dead person still exists, and whether that energy is even aware of its existence is neither here nor there, yet we still almost "demean" its very existence by, for example, claiming that death is equivalent to non-existence (as was done in this thread). However, if one really ponders this, he/she will realize that level of existence (the existence in death, that is) may be just as important/concrete/substantial as this level of existence, but we will never know until we actually reach that dimension of life.

I was speaking more on states of existence, and pretty much saying that existence should be thought of as degrees, a continuum, rather than the life and death model that Radium seemed to be implying.

Therefore, one's level of existence is based solely on his/her/its perception of what existence actually is, and even if that existence is perception-less, it is indeed still existence, it is only a different level of existence which we as concious beings cannot yet begin to comprehend.

Existence is relative to whatever is existing...

Ok....so there's no such thing as "non-existence" ....there is no such thing as "is not" ....there's only "is" .....more particularly, there's only varying degrees of "is" .....

[Tequila Jong-il]

I keep meaning to pick up "ending aging" by aubrey de grey. He's a scientist who specialies in the science of mortality and has a dope ass beard

cool documentary about him and his work:
Do You Want To Live Forever?

[Radium]

De Grey's suggestions seem more geared toward making the human body a more efficient machine

which is not the same as ending aging or death. they seem more like quick fix

the things he suggests would obviously be good for the human body though and would ease the aging process. i think though you would probably have to go ahead and fully develop some really advanced nanotechnology to actually go in the body and maintain the cells piece by piece by hand so to speak

or to fully develop a way to manipulate genes so that people can in a sense be built/designed to have very certain sets of functions before they are actually born (so really advanced eugenics, basically)

so either technology that can manipulate genes/cells at the direct level after a person is born or technology that can manipulate the genes/cells before a person is born

designing something to live forever from the ground up is probably more feasible than trying to continually fix something by injecting foreign technology into the body. genes are quite malleable as is evidenced all around us in all the living things in nature. they can do just about anything supposing they get arranged the right way

[.:Pain:.]

Ok....so there's no such thing as "non-existence" ....there is no such thing as "is not" ....there's only "is" .....more particularly, there's only varying degrees of "is" .....

You got it...

[Joro]

Originally Posted by .:Pain:.

You got it...

Ay, so since there's no such thing as non-existence ....then that means that even the notion of "non-existence" must exist.

So if "non-existence" exists, then that means there's such a thing as "non-existence" ...i.e. a lot of stuff just doesn't exist.

*joins elbows with Pain and skips around in a circle*

Shit that does not exist can't be compared to shit that does.

For example, your vagina can not be compared to your girlfriend's. Pain, your vagina IS NOT relative to ANYTHING. Why? Because your vagina does not exist. (Am I assuming too much?)

[.:Pain:.]

Ay, so since there's no such thing as non-existence ....then that means that even the notion of "non-existence" must exist.

So if "non-existence" exists, then that means there's such a thing as "non-existence" ...i.e. a lot of stuff just doesn't exist.

*joins elbows with Pain and skips around in a circle*

Shit that does not exist can't be compared to shit that does.

Oh but it can. Non-existence is perceptible, that is how we know about it. Areas of the universe which are empty with nothingness act as vacuums, so non-existence, at least in terms of space/time, doesn't mean nothing's there, it just means nothing is there yet. And perhaps there is a force within the nothingness creating the vacuum, so there is indeed a kind of energy within the nothingness. That would mean that nothingness is not the concept of absolutely nothing, something would have to exist within nothingness.

For example, your vagina can not be compared to your girlfriend's. Pain, your vagina IS NOT relative to ANYTHING. Why? Because your vagina does not exist. (Am I assuming too much?)

lol I know you used this analogy to be an asshole, but seriously, let's look at this. Females are the prototype of the human being. In other words, we all started out as females in the womb (which is why we have nipples). Therefore, while my vagina does not exist, a mutated form of it does, a form that is nothing like a vagina, but everything like it at the same time...