The main advantage conferred upon adherents is Virus provides a conceptual framework for leading a truly meaningful life and attaining immortality without resorting to mystical delusions.
....and
Quote:
The core ideas are based on evolution and memetics because one of the primary design goals was survivability through adaptation (religions die, not because they grow old, but because they become obsolete). If a new religion is designed around the premise of continuously integrating better (more accurate, more useful) concepts while ensuring the survival of its believers, it could conceivably achieve true immortality
Would you be able to give me an example of what the CoV considers to be a " truly meaningful life", an example of immortality that is not a mystical delusion and would it be possible to explain the Cov's tenet of immortality in a supposed ever changing system?
charles darwin was a very famous and influential thinker. Is meaning then fame? or fame among scientists at any rate?
Is meaning educating others? or allowing others to be educated by your ideas(darwin was not a teacher)
Is meaning becoming a figurehead for a new scientific area? Darwin was hardly the only creator of evolutionary theory.
I can't think of any other public faces to darwin that you might be referring to.
I think the 'meaningful life' statement refers to the fact that if you are a virian you're closer to the truth and thus more effective in your goals. Allowing you to achieve more meaningful action however you define it yourself, but this charles darwin thing has me confused. He didn't seem all that happy a fellow, in his later years, based on his correspondence, anyway.
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees." --Jeremy Hardy, /The Guardian/ (UK)
I can't think of any other public faces to darwin that you might be referring to.
I meant that Darwin fundamentally changed the way that we (humanity) think about ourselves. By knocking us off the imaginary pedestal of special creation he has opened up whole new vistas of thought. He has given us a way of seeing that is so powerful, we were relatively blind before Darwin. He awakened us from the dream that separated us from every other known lifeform.
The concept of a "truly meaningful life" is formed of opinion. For some, Darwin wasted his life. The CoV chooses to promote their opinion and the Church of Christianity chooses to promote their opinion (but they're too afraid to admit it is their opinion so they blame it on "God").
The concept of a "truly meaningful life" is formed of opinion. For some, Darwin wasted his life. The CoV chooses to promote their opinion and the Church of Christianity chooses to promote their opinion (but they're too afraid to admit it is their opinion so they blame it on "God").
True, all concepts are formed of opinion. If you are saying that all opinions are equally valid, I disagree. Some opinions are more coherent than others.
Would you be able to give me an example of what the CoV considers to be a " truly meaningful life",
The CoV considers a meaningful life to be one based upon reason, empathy and vision. Perhaps the most meaningful are those that inspire others to exhibit those virtues.
Darwin's life was meaningful to the CoV, and to many others. To some others, his life was meaningless. In my biased opinion, those who think of Darwin as meaningless lack either the reason to see that what he discovered was (and is) true, or the vision to see the far-reaching consequences of what is, in hindsight, shockingly obvious.
I think it is dangerous to imagine that absolute meaning can be ascribed to a person's life. A person can have meaning only to something. To talk about a truly meaningful life in absolute terms seems to imply that the meaning is prescribed by some greater authority. That's something I, personally, would like to avoid implying.
Quote:
an example of immortality that is not a mystical delusion
Aside from memetic immortality, in the future I expect to see clinical near immortality thanks to advances in medicine, and later mental immortality via uploading into artificial machines.
You are welcome to consider the possibility of uploading to be a mystical delusion, of course, but I do not.
Quote:
and would it be possible to explain the Cov's tenet of immortality in a supposed ever changing system?
The human genome has survived for hundreds of thousands of years. We know of individual genes that have, to the best of our knowledge, remained virtually unchanged for a billion. The universe is not implacably hostile to information. When we refer to immortality we refer to the persistent of information, whether our memetic legacy or, eventually, our minds.
The human genome has survived for hundreds of thousands of years. We know of individual genes that have, to the best of our knowledge, remained virtually unchanged for a billion. The universe is not implacably hostile to information. When we refer to immortality we refer to the persistent of information, whether our memetic legacy or, eventually, our minds.
I wonder if you wouldn't consider that aspect of the universe described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics hostile to information?
The human genome has survived for hundreds of thousands of years. We know of individual genes that have, to the best of our knowledge, remained virtually unchanged for a billion. The universe is not implacably hostile to information. When we refer to immortality we refer to the persistent of information, whether our memetic legacy or, eventually, our minds.
I wonder if you wouldn't consider that aspect of the universe described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics hostile to information?
As I recall the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with a thermodymically closed system. As far as I know, no such thermodynamically closed system has been discovered. Many systems come close to this ideal and to the extent that they do the second law can be demonstrated. But with no known system being absolutely closed and with our lack of knowledge about the closedness/openess of the universe, I don't think we can conclude that the universe is either thermodynamically hostile or friendly to information.
As I recall the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with a thermodymically closed system. As far as I know, no such thermodynamically closed system has been discovered. Many systems come close to this ideal and to the extent that they do the second law can be demonstrated. But with no known system being absolutely closed and with our lack of knowledge about the closedness/openess of the universe, I don't think we can conclude that the universe is either thermodynamically hostile or friendly to information.
If a source of energy was discovered "outside" our universe wouldn't the borders of the unvierse be redrawn to include the source? If so, then the universe is thermodynamically closed by definition.
On a related note, do you think the amount of information in the universe is growing, decreasing or remaining steady?
As I recall the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with a thermodymically closed system. As far as I know, no such thermodynamically closed system has been discovered. Many systems come close to this ideal and to the extent that they do the second law can be demonstrated. But with no known system being absolutely closed and with our lack of knowledge about the closedness/openess of the universe, I don't think we can conclude that the universe is either thermodynamically hostile or friendly to information.
If a source of energy was discovered "outside" our universe wouldn't the borders of the unvierse be redrawn to include the source? If so, then the universe is thermodynamically closed by definition.
hmm. Well, by the time we have reached a context of such a magnitude, we may be dealing with an entirely different set of rules. I guess this is part of the problem with dealing with concepts like "universe". Maybe it would be better to simply say "the universe as we know it" to avoid definitional conundrums like this.
Quote:
On a related note, do you think the amount of information in the universe is growing, decreasing or remaining steady?
I'm guessing that the answer to this depends on how much life, and how much intelligence there is in the universe, since lifelike and/or intelligent phenomenon seem to use and generate information more so than other things.
hmm. Well, by the time we have reached a context of such a magnitude, we may be dealing with an entirely different set of rules. I guess this is part of the problem with dealing with concepts like "universe". Maybe it would be better to simply say "the universe as we know it" to avoid definitional conundrums like this.
I don't see a conundrum, I was just pointing out that the universe is usually defined as everything that exists, so it doesn't make sense to speculate about external energy sources or anything else that could possibly make the universe anything other than a thermodynamically closed system.
Quote:
I'm guessing that the answer to this depends on how much life, and how much intelligence there is in the universe, since lifelike and/or intelligent phenomenon seem to use and generate information more so than other things.
Life is certainly generating information, but I'm wondering whether it is doing so at the expense of information elsewhere.
Author
Logged
