Leave it. It is too far like a basic form of a vehicle may be its metal.
Basis of Immortality?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- immortality
Leave it. It is too far like a basic form of a vehicle may be its metal.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Try driving a pile of ore and let us know how well it goes...
ETA: hang on...
Kumar, have you been watching Transformers?
Last edited:
Leave it, I am not going too far inspite of fact, we link a photo of someone to him i.e it is his photo. Basis of photo is energy.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Basis of soup is chemicals. But don't drink bleach.
You can't just reduce everything to its constituent parts, extrapolate something completely different from there, and expect it to mean the same as the original.
The law of conservation of energy does not mean that we are immortal.
At least our basic form is immortal.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
It's not alive, so it can't be immortal. And it's not us before we're born or after we die, it's just stuff.
It's like you're saying: I'm not homeless, that pile of ashes over there used to be a house.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nope. Platonic forms are human concepts, and will cease to exist when humans cease to exist, at the very latest.
It is not basic concept.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Whatever the "basic concept" is, it isn't real, and it will not survive the extinction of our species.
It is rational to leave it.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Based on Mojo's comment, that is not a rational response.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
Your original post included the qualifier “current” implying it immortality might be attainable. Now you contradict yourself and say it isn’t.
How?
No, I felt it is irrational to consider our prime energy form relevent to immortality. So I asked to leave it.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
It is not rational to consider "prime energy" as being relevant to anything at all.
Donn
Philosopher
Oh joy, another unrestrained Kumar thread. Gotta be nice having his kind of invulnerability.
Let me guess: this is going to proceed into "please make sense" posts and spiral out for ten years.
Bah!
Let me guess: this is going to proceed into "please make sense" posts and spiral out for ten years.
Bah!
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Mmm, people would understand better if you used language.
And since you CAN make the above statement, why don't you do that in the first place? This is one thing that provokes people: You make some statement that is practically incomprehensible, then when people ask what you mean, you are perfectly able to make yourself understood. So what was the purpose of the gibberish statement?
Hans
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
So when your body eventually decomposes, yes the atoms are still there, but are they you?
What energy is you?
There can be many truths which may not be rationals due to change of need of time/environment/evolution. But we can still see both truth & rationals to arrive at complete picture. Why physics look, which we can not see/sense directly?
Last edited: