/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5478771
without death there is no point to sex
without sex and death there is no selection
without selection there is no evolution

Without a real answer, my intuition would say that a shorter life allows for changes in populations to occur more dramatically, thus allowing good changes (or bad) to perpetuate themselves more easily.

>>5478773
>>5478774
These. Shorter generation times means faster evolution means faster adaption to changes.

>>5478779
Wouldn't just 'more children' have the same effect?

>>5478785
The children will be very genetically like their parents. Even if a couple had 100 kids over 100 years there would be no noticeable evolution.

Whereas bacteria and viruses have rapid generation times and are rapidly adapting to the things we use to kill them.

>>5478785
> what are resources

doesn't the brain run out of space in 200 years or something?

>>5478790
someone dying doesn't give his/her children any more genetic variety. The children mating with other people does that trick.

Faster reproduction leads to faster evolution, but ageing badly doesn't.

Your daily reminder that your Y chromosome is an ancient unevolved treasure

In nature most things don't die of old age. Other factors are more important to the survival of an animal for example.

One of these factors is the development of cancer because of certain chemicals and radiation in the habitat.

Cancer cells usually duplicate much much faster than regular cells which is why a method of killing off cancer cells has positive evolutionairy pressure.

This method are Telomere which get shorter every time a cell divides. The problem with telemores are that they also limit the lifespan of regular cells. This is not a problem in nature since most things die before this comes into effect anyway but we humans live such a long time that it actually has effects like organ failure and wrinky skin.


This is ONE of the factors but I think it's a mayor one. If we find a way to extend the Telomeres and a way to correct flaws in the DNA we would live veryyyy long lives.


I'm not scientist but is this somewhat correct and plausable?

as an ID guy, I don't think entropy was ever intended to exist in the universe.

"what is the evolutionary advantage to ageing?"

What if the advantage wasn't for the person who is ageing, but rather for the community or family of the one who is aged?

1) The ageing exist for those around them. to communicate lessons of success or failure as to allow the younger generation either to improve their survivability, or increase their survivability.

But even in this scenario, there is a choice given to the younger generation to learn within the experience of the older, or not.

2) To ensure the transmission of culture and appreciation of art and the humanities.

History is told by those who survive it, and it becomes a part of the next generation.

As for art and the humanities, I would not have an appreciation for different kinds of music and film and story if it were not for the generation ahead of me taking the time to share it. From Danny Kaye and Frank Sinatra to Creedance Clearwater Revival, I would have dismissed these artists as old an irrelevant if it were not for older generation.

3) To allow us to show humanity and compassion to those whose strength is growing weak.

As a younger generation, we have an obligation to help the older generation live long, well, and collectively prosper.

Encouragement, time, and caring physically and emotionally, are part of the design of the human culture.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine who is twice my age, stopped by my office for a visit with a graduation book from a WW2 flight school. We visited for almost three hours as he showed me pictures of the training aircraft he flew, up to the P-51 mustang he flew over Italy for 53 mission. More than that, as he turned the pages of the graduation book, with pictures of the men he flew with, he recounted their stories.
Engine failure, missing, shot down and killed, sickness, cancer and the list went on.

Age well my friends...

>>5478835
I seriously hope you're a troll. Get off of /sci/.

>>5478846
Schizophrenia, Fucktard. You're nothing special, get off this board, you are cancer.

Group advantage. A large number of animals can evolve faster if the cycle out old genes.

>>5478852
Did you read his post? Did you actually read it? Read it before blaming me of being cancer, fucking "oldfag".

>>5478856
Schizophrenia, Fucktard. You're nothing special, get off this board, you are cancer.

>>5478859

Forced Meme is forced?

>>5478817
> what are resources

>Thinks aging is an evolutionary biproduct.
>Thinks there is an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage to aging.

lel

>>5478958
look
>>5478834

>>5478771

the advantage is in clearing away the dead weight.

old people are slow to learn, and resist change. the thing that makes humanity so good at surviving is its ability to adapt to change.

aging and death are what kept the leadership pool from becoming too senile.

i mean, imagine if people from the 1500's were alive today, and were in charge. the current bunch is pretty pathetic, but add another 400 years to their age and they'd be hundreds of times worse.

its a real shame that a 20 year old cant run for president in the US...

>>5478973

Like this man says,Advantages and disadvantages can be drawn from the fact that we age, but that doesn't mean that aging has anything to do with evolution. Everything ages, entropy ftl, and the rate and way in which anything ages depends on its biology. But OP words his question badly. Evolution is not responsible for aging.

>>5478989
I think evolution at least contributes to aging.

This poster kinda explained it.

>>5478834

Considering basically all life we know of does in fact die irregardless of it's evolutionary progress, ie, an amoeba will die eventually as surely as a blue whale will, you can't really say we've evolved to die on purpose to avoid cancer.

That's not how evolution works anyway, if ageless humans existed there's no reason they wouldn't breed before getting cancer.

>>5479031
>you can't really say we've evolved to die on purpose to avoid cancer.

You got the idea wrong. In "nature" things die before they get old enough to get killed by the aging properties of having a limited length of telomeres.
Aging is a side effect of something that is VERY beneficial to survival that usually doesn't come into play because something killed the organism beforehand.

This and the fact that we accumalated heavy metals and other stuff during our lives make us age.

>>5479036
>Aging is a side effect of something that is VERY beneficial to survival
I don't get what you're saying, dying from old age to avoid cancer isn't really beneficial to survival, is it? I mean, it's probably a nicer way to go but you die either way.

>>5479047
Are you literally retarded? At the time the concept of telomeres developed you virtually NEVER died of old age. The benefit of not diyng of cancer as often GREATLY outweighs the fact that you might die of old age since no one ever died of old age. People died of breaking their leg or having bad teeth or getting eaten.

What is there not to understand? Living as long as we do now and dying of old age are very recent developments. Things like this don't change in just a few generations.

>>5479052
How exactly do shrinking telomeres protect against cancer? If anything this makes cancer more likely.

>>5479052
This.

Aging was not directly selected for; telomere shortening evolved as a mechanism to prevent cancer cell replicative immortality.

Our genes don't die. Their vessel the body dying is as meaningful evolutionarily as a snake shedding skin.

>>5479060
No, once the telomeres are gone the cell will become so sick that no more tumorous growth is possible.

Cancer develops no matter whether the telomeres are still there or not. But once they're gone you'll get so many mutations in the cell that it won't be able to reproduce anymore.

>>5479066

Ya but i dont give a fuck about my genes. If my body has to go i would atleast want my consiousness to live on, not my genes

>>5479060
>replicative senescence

If nobody ever died, overpopulation would set in very, very quickly.

>>5479075
OP asked about why evolution does this, not what you prefer.

If endless pain and extreme suffering helped us reproduce, that's what would happen.

>>5479081
>implying it doesn't already

People need to die.

It's a miracle our cells can support something as complex as life for even a day, let alone a lifespan, be grateful.

>>5479100
What kind of answer is this supposed to be? This is /sci/ not /facebook wisdoms/

>>5479075
Please, don't say consciousness on /sci/ or you will bring the consciousness is souls guy. Besides, you actually think consciousness is the same as soul, don't you? Consciousness is part of the mental activity; without the brain there is no consciousness.

We're supposed to die so we pass on our genes before they get fucked by so many divisions. Also cancer control.

>>5479143
>implying mental activity produces unobservable and untestable metaphysical magic

/x/ is that way ---->

>>5479157
Here he is!

>>5479143
>without the brain there is no consciousness.

And with the brain there is no consciousness either, because a magical soul / consciousness has not testable effects and can therefore be dismissed. Every action can be explained by neuronal reactions and without resorting to dualism.

>>5479165
>serious response

>>5479165
Logical positivism was, is, and will continue to be the, the troglodyte of intellectual discussion.

>>5479176
Claims without evidence can be dismissed. Hitchens' razor. Why do you deny rationality?

>>5479179
How are you so sure that what you believe to be true has verifiable meaning?

>>5479179
Hitchens wasn't a scientist or philosopher of science or authority in scientific methodology. Gtfo with ur popsci scientific authorities.

>>5479165
Unconsciousness is a proof of consciousness. How could you lose something you never had.

>>5479165
>implying everyone on /sci doesn't already understand that consciousness is synonymous with neuronal activity

>>5479191
>philosophy trolling
Go back to >>>/lit/

>>5479196
>attacking the source and not the argument
Nice fallacy.

>>5479200
"Unconscious" is a physiologically defined state that has nothing to do with a metaphysical soul / consciousness. Nice equivocation troll.

>>5479201
Neuronal activity does not prove the existence of a soul. On the contrary it makes a soul / consciousness obsolete for lack of explanatory value.

>>5479209
Consciousness is a physiological phenomena explained by neural activity.
Thus, consciousness exists.

That wasn't hard. Have anything else you have problem understanding?

>>5479213
What observable effects does it have? Name one.

>>5479213
How about you show evidence of existence before trying to come up with a causal explanation?

>>5479179
What evidence is there that hitchen's razor is true?

>>5478834
telomeres arose to protect DNA from data loss at the ends of chromosomes

what is bad for us (cancer) would make a microbe incredibly successful

there is no way to correct flaws in DNA. you always need a template. if a mistake is made and not caught by mismatch repair it becomes "correct" to the cell - this is how changes accumulate and evolution is allowed.

>>5478962
shit is bogus

>>5479213
Let me paraphrase your post: "The invisible non-interacting ghost in my closet is a physical phenomenon and caused by the interaction of molecules. Therefore I don't have to show evidence that he exists at all."

Am I on /x/? I don't think so. The board title says "/sci/ - science and math". Please keep baseless and infantile nonsense claims out of here. We want to discuss science and math.

>>5479219
It's a cognitive exercise. It becomes "true" by the simple act of exercizing it.

>>5479218
>What observable effects does it have?
The observable effect of consciousness is that you're conscious.

>>5479221
>How about you show evidence of existence before trying to come up with a causal explanation?
Well, I couldn't bloody well type this if I were unconscious now could I? you witless twat.

>>5479209
>Neuronal activity does not prove the existence of a soul. On the contrary it makes a soul / consciousness obsolete for lack of explanatory value.
Holy fuckballs, way to miss the point by a mile. The point of my post was NOT to argue for the existence of a soul.

>>5479219
Hitchens' razor is not a claim of existence but a principle of rationality.

>>5479232
>The observable effect of consciousness is that you're conscious.
Circular bullshit and not observable. What you're saying is: "The observable effect of the invisible non-interacting ghost in my closet is that he's ghosty." Your sentece contains absolutely no information.

>Well, I couldn't bloody well type this if I were unconscious now could I?
Stop with the equivocation troll. "Unconsious" is a physiologically defined state and has nothing to do with a metaphysical soul / consciousness. Such a magical entity is not required for typing a comment. Your response is the result of deterministic perception and algorithmic processing in your brain, entirely physical and biologically explicable.

>>5479228
>The invisible non-interacting ghost in my closet is a physical phenomenon and caused by the interaction of molecules.

We call that a draft, but whatever floats your boat.

>>5479245
Then explain why the fuck can i type sentences with meaning. Explain it all now we know consciousness is bullshit.

>>5479248

Explain why you think your typing sentences with meaning.

>>5479233
>hurr durr if I rename my dualism bullshit it becomes totally scientific
Keep telling that to yourself, /x/tard.

>>5479244
>We call that a draft
No, that's not a draft, that's complete and utter nonsense.

>>5479248
>Then explain why the fuck can i type sentences with meaning.
Your eyes perceive input. Your brain processes input and produces output. Basically like any other machine. Human bodies aren't more than biological machines. No magic required. Or do you deny evolution?

>>5479251
> Basically like any other machine

Then why is this not happening with other animals like dogs or birds? What's the reason they do not have a language?

>>5479248
Your brain commants your fingers to.

>>5479257
>muh free will

>>5479256
>hurr durr why is a fridge not a car

>>5479261
Answer the question. Stop being unscientific.

>>5479256
>Then why is this not happening with other animals like dogs or birds?
Yes, it is. They process input and produce output. Do animals randomly move around bumping into shit?

>What's the reason they do not have a language?
Yes, they do. Perhaps not many idioms because we're freakishly smarter (because selective diet and being bipeds).

>>5479245
>Hitchens' razor is not a claim of existence but a principle of rationality.

It's a claim that it's a functional or praiseworthy principle. You think there is a reason to accept it, you think it is a component of rational thought. What evidence do you have to believe such?

>>5479262
Did you not understand why your question was retarded? Okay, I'll answer it explicitly. For evolutionary reasons they are equipped differently. Do you not understand evolution?

>>5479268
>Yes, they do.

Post evidence.

>>5478771
evolutionary fitness ends the second you reproduce successful offspring.

natural selection selects for reproduction, not longevity of life.

>>5479270
Burden of proof is on you. Please justify why you consider it rational to believe in nonsensical untestable claims without evidence.

>>5479271
You don't know the fuck you're talking about.

Explain me the input output process inside the brain. How does it happen?

>>5479273
>Kundrey, S. M. A., B Strandell, H. Mathis & J. D. Rowan (2010) Learning of monotonic and nonmonotonic sequences in domesticated horses (‘’Equus callabus’’) and chickens (‘’Gallus domesticus’’). ‘’Learning and Motivation,’’

>>5479278
What do you want to know? Do you want me to list every biochemical reaction that is involved? Take a class on biology or read a book.

>>5479278
>Shettleworth, S. J. (2010) Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior New York: Oxford

>>5479287
>I don't know, therefore it magically happens.
Troll harder.

>>5479293
It's not my job to teach you biochemistry. Take a class or read a book.

>>5479293
>Someone else doesn't know
>Therefore I get to posit my consciousness bullshit as true
Fuck you.

>>5479291
>consciousness

>>5479296
U mad bro?

>>5479245
>"Unconsious" is a physiologically defined state and has nothing to do with a metaphysical soul / consciousness.
Yes, and "conscious" is a physiologically defined state and has nothing to with a metaphysical soul / consciousness.

If you wish to have a serious conversation about this, the burden of proof is on you to show us why you're right.

Seriously, as a polymath teacher of philosophy and scientific procedure I'd fail you if your arguments were this shallow in my oral debate class.

>>5479297
>cognition

>>5479256

>He doesn't know dogs and birds can communicate with each other.
>He believes they need a language to do so.

All my lulz

>>5479307
Yeah, they fly in flocks from one side of the country to the other in relative harmony because... magic, I guess.

>>5479299
>uncalled for catchphrase
You know those are not allowed outside of /b/.

>>5479302
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim of existence. "Lol prove to me that my fictional bullshit isn't real" is not a valid argument. You believe in that nonsense, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.

>>5479307
That's not the point. The point is i want to know why they don't have a complex language like humans.

>>5479313

Because they don't need one? They don't have the vocal ability to produce a phonetic language such as humans. Humans have developed grand schemes of communication, but so have other mammals such as dolphins and whales.

>>5479313

And they do have a complex language and communication system. Your just assuming they don't.

>>5479313
Because they simply didn't evolve to have such a complex language. Are you seriously asking why not every animal evolved into becoming a human? How hard did you fail your high school biology class?

>>5479321
>Why stuff doesn't happen?
>Because it doesn't happen.

>>5479314
>You believe in that nonsense, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.
It's an axiom. And to refute it you need a very good argument, you don't have it and try to discard it by appeal to emotion. we might as well say that
>"mang numbers are nonsense, prove them!"
>"mang 1+1 doesn't exist, because it's liek man, magic man! dude!"
and refute the entire field of mathematics based on your insistency that the axionomic fundamental reality is somehow wrong.

>>5479319
Please explain this communication system.

So far i know that humans have consciousness and animals are developing one too (if they don't have one already) by developing complex communication systems.

>>5479325
It's actually more like:
>Why stuff doesn't happen?
>It just hasn't happened. I can tell you why it's happened though.
I mean, imagine the world if every animal had evolved to be similar to humans. It'd be humans eating humans left and right.

>>5479325
Yes, that's the answer. The question is inane and pointless. Why did birds not evolve to have three pairs of arms? Because it simply didn't happen. The evolutionary processes lead to other results, which we CAN explain.

>>5479327
>It's an axiom.
Only in your /x/ belief system. Here on /sci/ we have no reason to accept your axiom. On the contrary we have reason to dismiss it because it contradicts basic principles of science.

>>5479328
>So far i know that humans have consciousness
Already wrong. A soul / consciousness has no evidence.

>>5479328
consciousness=/=language
Many animals have a sense of self (reflection tests) and ton of animals have at least rudimentary emotions.

Alright. I give up. Consciousness doesn't exist.

I just want you to define consciousness.

>>5479328
Language only requires input and output devices / organs and the equipment for algorithmic processing, e.g. a brain or a computer.

>>5479342
Ask /x/. Why should I define something that doesn't even exist? I prefer to deal with scientific definitions. I mean we're on /sci/ - science and math.

>>5478771
>what's the evolutionary advantage
Why do you assume everything has to be evolutionarily advantageous in order to exist?

>>5479346
You still haven't tell us what are these input output devices or how do they work, you are just telling us the brain is one of them.

>>5479073
>As a cell begins to become cancerous, it divides more often, and its telomeres become very short. If its telomeres get too short, the cell may die. It can escape this fate by becoming a cancer cell and activating an enzyme called telomerase, which prevents the telomeres from getting even shorter.
>While telomere shortening has been linked to the aging process, it is not yet known whether shorter telomeres are just a sign of aging - like gray hair - or actually contribute to aging.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/telomeres/
Hope this helps

>>5479250
you're*

>>5479353
Eyes are input devices. You can read about them in nearly every introductory biology book.

>>5479340
>we
>Talking about oneself in third person plural.
Oh /sci/. our sides are scintillating.

>>5479350
0
>Why should I define something that doesn't even exist

Because to disprove it's existence you had to know what did it mean in the first place.

Otherwise, i believe when people tells you a word you don't know yet you shout in the streets the thing that word was used to define doesn't exists.

>>5479328

First off, I'm going to assume you mean "self aware" when you say consciousness.

Your assumption that complex forms of communication is what gives rise to an animals ability to be self aware is wrong. We already know that various species of parrots, porpoises are self aware.

Why do you assume that a wolfs howl or a birds chirp is not a complex language? Because it isn't as complex as humans? Because they don't have an alphabet? Or because you simply don't understand the communication system they are using?

How does a pack of wolves know how to surround and effeciently kill prey? How do birds instantenously take off and stay together as a flock?

You think because animals communicate differently, because there "language" is not as "complex" as humans, that they are not self aware.

>>5479273
Reading this, now I know you are full retard

>>5479277
>scientific evidence is the only type of evidence

>>5479369
/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5479364
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural#The_author.27s_.22we.22

>>5479365
>Because to disprove it's existence
I don't disprove anything. I am merely asking your for evidence. If you don't have evidence, it can be dismissed by Hitchens' razor. That's not a proof, that's just application of rationality.

>>5479370
Doesn't know about axioms. With no initial point of reference you can prove nothing, and do nothing. Lets all spiral down into a hurpa-durpa-retard orgy that even /b/ would be ashamed of joining

>>5479366
> I'm going to assume you mean "self aware" when you say consciousness.

So are you defining consciousness as self awareness?

>>5479370
Intuition falls under mathematics.

>>5479376
>>5479366
"Self-aware" is just as meaningless because it cannot be tested. Inb4 mirror test or similar hogwash

>>5479379

O RLY?

are you IN FACT claiming that you have no self-awareness?

>>5479380
I do not experience any metaphysical magic. Like all humans I am a biological machine that evolved naturally.

>>5479379

Lol self awareness is easily testible you terrible. Its easy to see the transition point when a baby is not self aware to when he is.

>>5479380
He doesn't even know he exists because we haven't provided evidence that he exists either.

>>5479379
How is the mirror test hogwash?
If you use a reflective surface to wipe a dot off your own body, you understand that the reflection is you.
It's very basic but it only claims to prove a very basic sense of self.

>>5479381

Provide us with evidence that you're a biological machine and not a computer program.

Until you don't bring that evidence, i will believe you are not a biological machine.

>>5479381
...Yet you experience.

>>5479382
How is it testable? What observation would justify metaphysical claims?

>>5479385
The mirror test consists of observing an animal's behaviour infront of a mirror. That observation does not justify metaphysical conclusions. The whole is circular and starts with a preconceived notion of what the pseudoscientists want to interpret instead of objectively analyzing data.

>>5479390

>He thinks having a basic sense of self is metaphysical.

lel

>>5478835
10/10 would get mad again

>>5479391
Show me how it isn't metaphysical. For example by providing evidence.

>>5479394
There is no need to get mad. I don't see why a correct statement would make you mad.

>>5479379
I found a .gif of something equally intelligent to you.

>>5479390
>That observation does not justify the metaphysical conslusions.
Who said self was metaphysical?
The human brain is a series of logic gates that operates on charges produced by ion pumps and neurotransmitters.

>>5478771
We don't necessarily age badly, and we all would have died before that was an issue

>>5479400

You really are ignorant lol. So your claiming you are not self aware and have no basic concept of self?

>>5479400
Hi
>>5479404

>>5479401
>equally intelligent
How high did that spider score on an IQ test?

>>5479404
>The human brain
The human brain is a physical organ and its processes stay physical without producing metaphysical magic.

>>5479418
That's what I said about the brain jackass

>>5479408
>Posting a response with an image from a cartoon
>Expecting anything said in response to be taken seriously

>>5479425

Because I should respond to someone who thinks the concept of self is a metaphysical conclusion with an appropriate image.

>>5479425
>You like x so you can't know about unrelated y

>>5479408
How does not having irrational beliefs make me "ignorant"?

>>5479431
This is the science and math board. If the fact that your beliefs have no evidence hurts your feelings, then you better go back to wherever you came from.

>>5479437

Nice sidestep.

>Self
>Irrational belief

>>5479442
Believing in something that has no evidence is irrational. Please take spiritualism to >>>/x/

>>5479437
>How does not having irrational beliefs make me "ignorant"?

The autism is strong in this one.

>>5479445
Rationality has no evidence. Therefore it can be dismissed.

>>5479447
Being rational and having scientific education doesn't mean autism. Please look up what that word actually means and don't abuse it as a buzzword.

>>5479445

Lol you believe there is no evidence for human beings ability to percieve a sense of self?

>>5479437
Why do you so readily assume that rationality is important/desirable?

>>5479418
>How high did that spider score on an IQ test?
Very carefully, thats how.

>>5479458
On what basis can it be dismissed? On the basis of rationaly? That means you just accepted rationality.

I order for a species to survive, it only has to reproduce. In other words, reach reproductive age. Increased survival after that is not selected for.

There are 2 evolutionary strategies: Short living organisms with many offspring during one reproductive period (semelparous). Or longer living organisms with multiple periods of reproduction (iteroparous). Both strategies have their advantages.

>>5479464
No, I dismissed it.

>>5479461
I do not believe in nonsense without evidence. If you do, then you're probably wrong on a science board.

>>5479459

Bring evidence about rational and scientific education not meaning autism, otherwise your argument can be dismissed by Hitchen's razor

>>5479469

Confirmed for troll.

Or simply retarded.

>>5479480
I'm neither trolling nor retarded. Please address my arguments and refrain from immature shitposting.

>>5479464
This is fucking dumb.
Please spend your time rationally viewing other things than testing your own existence; it's petty.
> It's like the fucking Judge Judy of /sci/ and the /x/ fags are fucking Jerry Springer.

>>5479497
Do you have any argument are you just shitposting in an infantile manner?

>>5479500
My argument is that the realm of science has moar productive things to argue about than determining our existence.

My argument was posted in the previous statement as well, so go fuck yourself for making me re-elaborate.

> troll so hard 0/10

>>5479508
Nobody is talking about our existence. Obviously we exist because we are physically observable.

>>5479512
Provide evidence of existence or your argument can be easily dismissed.

>>5479522
>Provide evidence of existence or your argument can be easily dismissed.
Provide evidence that absence of evidence can lead to easy dismissal of existence

>>5479527
The burden of proof is on you. That argument can be dismissed by the Hitchen's razor for not providing evidence of existence. If you think otherwise you're not thinking rationally.

>>5479534
>The burden of proof is on you.
Prove it.
> Hitchen's razor for not providing evidence of existence.
Hitchen's razor is a sprititualist belief(of atheists) and belongs on >>>/x/
>If you think otherwise you're not thinking rationally.
Now that's just nonsense

Because oxygen is corrosive and shit fails and deteriorates from harsh conditions/sunlight/temperature/humidity/etc.

ITT: People who believe that evolution is a force and not just a description of what happens when the most fit genes survive

>>5478846
I liked his post.

>>5479483

The fact that you use the word "I" means you have a basic sense of self.

I'm positive, however, that you don't understand what "self" is.

You probably think I mean conciouseness.

lel

>>5479552
What is consciousness?

>>5479556
It's unprovable spiritualism that doesn't exist and belongs to /x/
But because spiritualism is unprovable and doesn't exist, it also belongs to /x/ and can't be a trait applied to consciousness.
And because unprovable concepts are unprovable concepts which are unprovable concepts which also is unprovable concepts, we'll be stuck here slinging cheap argument tricks at each other and degrading /sci/ for another 200 posts.

Pic related. The only infograph you need to be sucessful at /sci/

>>5479556

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Simply a pretty word for "self aware".

>>5479576
Oh boy, here we go again.

>>5479556
A synonym for qualia or soul.

First we have to separate aging and death. Aging is something that doesn't exist for some animals for reasons I'll get into soon. Death is something that's unavoidable; no matter how good you are at surviving, something is eventually going to kill you. The stronger, smarter, and tougher you are, the longer you can postpone it, but statistics say that eventually something is going to get you.

To understand why aging exists, you have to give up the concept of 'Survival of the Fittest.' Nature doesn't care that you're the best on the block, it rewards only the ability to feed yourself and produce babies. If you can do those two things, it doesn't matter what horrible traits you have there will be more of you.

Basically, ask yourself if there's any environment where being ageless is a mandatory trait. There are none. Two animals that live 70 years and 700 both have ample time to have children. Both animals are going to succeed, and since the animal that lives 70 years is going to be subjected to more genetic change due to a greater number of generations, it's descendants are going to be more diverse, and so make up a greater number of the species in a given environment.

Basically, nature is blind and doesn't care how much of a 'winner' you are. It doesn't care that you take issue with the fact that you were given only 50-120 years to live. As long as you produce children, your genes that cause your short lifespan will be passed on.

>>5478773

>implying you need to have sex to evolve

sex is a relatively new invention in the history of life

>>5479469

>No such thing as dreams
>No such thing as consciousness
>No such thing exists outside of the objective world

*Sigh*

>>5479066

best post in thread.

>>5479610

>>>/x/

>>5479618
Prove that the link to /x/ works

What is the point of this question? Are you afraid of getting old or are you afraid of dying? You must know that everybody dies and that your life is completely your own. You decide whether you want a purpose in your life or a meaningless once. Whether you want to make a positive difference of cause great menace to the world. Also try Believeing in God, Not your Parent's God Or Somebody else's God but your Own God (Jesus Christ) and have a life of PURPOSE. I've never heard somebody say that they're afraid of getting old this is most certainly something new.

>>5479618

>>>/z/

>>5479626
>Also try Believeing in God
Might as well blow my brains out and get it done with. Thanks for the advice fuckface.

>>5479626

wow, whats wrong with just being curious about ourselves and the universe? whats wrong with just asking a question?

typical religious protocol to banish the search for truth an replace it with a fantasy that comforts you. Seems to me that one day you had the same thought as OP, and it scared you. So much so that you made up an imaginary friend to get give you "purpose" and get your ego through it. OP showed no sign of being afraid, you are the one who projected that.

>Seriously, what's the evolutionary advantage to ageing so badly as we do?

Evolution is about breeding, not surviving. We have kids and then we stick around long enough to protect them and help them into their adulthood, so that they can continue to spread our genes. This is opposed to some animals who engage in shotgun breeding, pumping out as many offspring as possible and not caring for them nearly as long.

>>5478771
Somehow related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_theory_of_aging_and_longevity

>>5479653
>>5479626

atheist: 1
religion: 0

>>5479668
>Evolution is about breeding, not surviving.

"survival of the fittest"

>>5479624
Prove that proof can prove itself.

Prove I exist? -Cogito ergo sum. Prove you exist? Prove objective reality exists? That's another matter.

Hyperbolic doubt/Descartes/Meditations

>>5479699
>Cogito ergo sum
Non-sequitur.

>>5479702
0/10

>>5479699
>Prove you exist? Prove objective reality exists? That's another matter.
It would be easy if I knew latin

>>5479702
Yes, those are two Latin phrases, if that's your meaning.

We die because we have "bad" genes that activates when we reach a certain age and starts to corrupt important functions in our bodies. But as long as we have the time to procreate before this happens it will not be that big of a disadvantage having these genes.

It would of course be infinitely better to live forever, but for the moment we have to live with the fact that they are there and we have to make babies to compensate for the fact that we will not live forever.

>>5479686

So then why do decidedly inferior traits exist? Humans that didn't use the same hole to breath and swallow wouldn't suffocate on their food, and thus more of them would survive and live to produce more of themselves.

The answer is simple; humans that use the same hole to breath and eat have no selective pressure to evolve away from using the same hole for both. They manage to produce children anyway.

It's more 'survival of everyone that meets the bare minimum.' Darwin simply wished to see what his culture thought admirable in nature, and what he saw admirable was self-improvement and competition. He once predicted that 'the savage races' would be out competed and exterminated by the civilized ones, and we all know how that prediction is faring.

The truth is, nature is mediocrity. We see the same forms, over and over again, that never truly get better then previous ones. We don't see a race to the top, but rather creatures doing the absolute minimum to get by.

>>5478795
The brain has 1 terabite of information. How long you live doesn't determine the data use, but rather, what you do.
---------

There is a chemical on the end of our DNA (sorry, I can't remember the name off the top of my head.) but everytime our DNA copies itself a bit of it is torn off, as we run out, we begin to deteriorate, research has been done to predict how long the chemical will last, in order to tell approxamitely how long a person has to live. Another cause in accumulated defects that, while most problems are cleaned up, fail to be removed and are stored away only doing harm.

>>5479047
once you are past reproducing age you are essentially worthless. at this point you are in competition with the next generation for food, so you die.

>>5478771
there is no evolutionary advantage to a species to living forever; after you've reproduced, it's necessary to maximize the resources your offspring have access to to some degree.
Otherwise you'll eventually be competing for resources with your own children.

Unfortunately, evolution has not selected for what would be most fulfilling to humans on a personal level. It's better for our offspring that the older generation dies off eventually.

>>5479686

In an evolutionary sense, that saying refers to populations and taxonomic groups, not to individuals.

Burn.

because of the biological equivalent to rotational velocidensity

>>5478771
the reason we age so shittily is because of modern medicine. were really not supposed to live past about 40-50 years old, but with the advances in modern medicine in tha past few centuries, we have extended our life span well beyond what it should be.

>>5478771
Show me a machine that can constantly and with no maintenance run for several decades!

>>5479920

Livermore lightbulb.

>>5479945
WELL THATS JUST BECAUSE ITS A LIVER
LIKE JEEZ

>>5479401
higher that you.

>>5479418
higher than you..

>>5478771

There is no evolutionary advantage

The perfect species would be one that is biologically immortal

>>5480387
nope

only immortality of our genes is required. our bodies are mere shells to carry genes

>>5479143
>or you will bring the consciousness is souls guy
>>5479165

MOTHER FUCKER

>>5480391

An immortal species that cannot die by any means would have no need to change it's genes as it could survive in any environment

>>5480397
Even saying "I" or "Me" is dualism/magical soul nonsense

>>5480397
so conciousness you would say is persoective?

What if you had additional perspective on anything fathomed? What if you allowed yourself to be as such?
What would those implications be?

>>5480400
who said anything about changing genes?

evolution is about genes, having them in an immortal or in a fast dying fast reproducing species is the same as far as genes are concerned. the death of the body is like getting a haircut to genes, just losing unnecessary tissue

>>5480420
>genes are concerned

Genes are not sentient

>>5479592
>arguing semantics
You know he meant reproduction

>>5480448

If a species is immortal, the world will eventually over-populate. Then when the world over-populates we will have to use birth control and abortion more often.

>>5480463

Oops. Didn't mean to respond to you.

Not being a troll, but just asking a question from another point of view.

Questions the OP asks:
1) why...? There are two responses possible. Impirical and philosophical.

2) why do we grow old and die?
Impiricaly - entropy
Philosophically - it should warrant an answer from a point of view. Im not asking anyone to agree with my point of view, but rather politely offering it.

3) What's the evolutionary advantage? The question implies that aging is a disadvantage. That is philosophically a point of view question, one that seems to be stating that aging is bad.

A response could be, let's examine if aging is bad. At minimum because we travel through a space time continuum of 3 directly observable dimensions, a 1/2 dimension of forwardly progressing time, and the inferences of 2 or more different dimensions on top of those, aging is normal.

I simply asked a question that should be considered with an answer, what if aging is not about us, but rather what if my aging is more about those around me ( or you)?

Sometimes our point of view will deny us the proper framework for which to formulate an answer.

Scientific observation and discovery is about questions, some of which carry a philosophical component because of our point of view.

4) Why do we die?
Impiricaly - lack of O2 to the brain.
Philosophically- entropy Be thankful that I didn't go theological on this answer

Our bodies are just mediums to pass genes on; they die, our genes (memes) do not once we procreate.

A theory of dualism/consciousness.

Cellular senescence (which ultimately brings the problems of old age) is a way to prevent cancer.
Telomere shortening is a way this occurs, but it can also be induced through p53 in response to excessive damage to DNA or when certain oncogenes (Myc and Ras) are too active.

>>5479776
Telomerase?

I would make the argument that cellular death exists because there isn't really a biological advantage towards living forever. Evolution doesn't really always move from worst to better, from "primitive" to "complex," it often takes the path of least resistance. For the majority of life, a long or infinite lifespan is nowhere near advantageous as producing quality offspring (or a large quantity of offspring). The longer you are alive, the more your DNA is damaged by your environment (everything from free-radicals, to cosmic radiation, to the wear and tear of staying alive). The more your DNA is damaged, the less likely you are able to produce quality offspring. The only way your body would be able to stay alive indefinitely is if it underwent a complete DNA revamp every few decades. All your DNA would have to be checked for errors, broken pieces would need to be fixed, and your DNA would need telomeres added to the ends. These are all resource intensive from a biological and evolutionary perspective, and the resource would be better spent on producing more offspring and/or better quality offspring.

Tl;dr: people die because having kids is bad for your health

>>5478827
>your Y chromosome is an ancient unevolved treasure

but hasnt the y chromosome been shrinking

You are now aware that you are aware of yourselves

>>5482012
I am always aware of myself when I am aware of myself.

>>5478771
because FUCK YOU!
that why

entropy isn't an answer, because life is reduction of the entropy of a system by more entropy in the environment.
The cause of death is the decrease of this capacity with time.
There is no evolutionary advantage to ageing, it's just useless to genes to stay in the same vehicle. Because most of the organisms doesn't die from ageing.
>we could increase lifespan by mating only older and older humans

>>5481985

soon

V chromosome

>>5482196

>we could increase lifespan by mating only older and older humans

If you mated only the oldest people in a population perhaps but woman can't reproduce past 45-odd years and you can't predict if they'll live to be really old so. Plus older people's sperm is more likely to have genetic defects, so this idea is highly impractical.

>>5478773
I would beg to differ. People who can live longer has a larger chance of reproduction than people with shorter life span; therefore, we can say that as generations of human-beings come-by, the life-span of people should be longer. However, the trend is that people's life-span is decreasing. Although the life-span recently increased slightly due to less wars and advanced medicine. But, the increase was due to more people having access to better life rather than a genetics change.

>>5482241

Life span decreased because of the spread of agriculture. Genetically we're virtually the same.

>>5482196
But that's wrong. Grandparents are there to assist younger generations with childcare. At least back when humans consisted mostly of tribes

>>5482218
I didn't express myself well.
You start mating 45yo humans, and only keep the good shaped human produced, and you mate them when they are 45 during such a long time that they will become capable of reproducting at 46 (of course, kinda arbitrary numbers), then you go on and on, and you will end with populations where everyone need to be 100yo, 200 and more.
This process might take millions of years.
Slowly approching immortality.

>>5482256
>back when humans consisted mostly of tribes
>grandparents

>>5482260

>you mate them when they are 45 during such a long time that they will become capable of reproducting at 46

Ok, if you selected the women who go through menopause at later than average. However the genes for going through menopause and the genes for living longer aren't necessarily the same, I highly doubt it would work the way you are talking about it.

>>5482270
then people will die in age to reproduce, keep only the older and continue.
the question is : is there a limit?

>>5482270
>you mate them when they are 45 during such a long time that they will become capable of reproducting at 46
in fact this is a litle wrong, but if you only mate the oldest people who can reproduce, you will pull up the reproduction-limit age.

>>5482260
>millions of years
Let's forget mechanical immortality that can be developped in a fraction of a fraction of that time.

How do you intend to maintain this eugenic program in light of FUCKING HISTORY ?

You're the culmination of ~15 billions years of matter; the universe is saying, "You have a century to live in my realm."

>>5482291
Of course, this is theoretical.
And the first problem won't be the maintain of such a program, but establishing it, in regard of the numerous not-good looking child that this process implies.

>>5482297
>children my bad