Children --- youth --- adult --- OLD .

Could you imagine if we could stop growing old!! as a matter of fact stop our age itself... stay as a youth... forever??? sounds like a fairytale... perhaps tuck everlasting... very amusing story... but this concept is not much of a fantasy... as a matter of fact it is quite possible that we could become… immortal.

God has given us the gift of brilliance... we use it to acquire knowledge, then i say... shouldn’t it be possible that god may have always wanted us to learn and know how we could be immortal.

Every human cell has a biological clock... every time our cells undergo multiplication (mitosis) a part of our DNA strand is cleaved (destroyed) during DNA multiplication. The mechanism of DNA coding or DNA multiplication is not quite perfect... therefore errors occur while duplicating the DNA strands for new cells… leading to cancerous cells.

The mechanism that enables useful DNA not to be destroyed is ... well simply cleavage of useless DNA attached at the very end of our long DNA strands... This bit of useless DNA is called Telomeres. Before we are born, a full set of telomeres are attached at the very end of our DNA strands in every cell… and as we grow older this set of useless DNA is cleaved and eventually wears out leading for the useful DNA to be cleaved and eventually causing cell death or cancerous cells.

Cells telomeres worning out causes cells to function immproperly, get weaker... get older and die... therefore leading to old age and deseases.

In some rare cells as soon as the telomere is cleaved it is replenished by an enzyme produced in the cell. This Very important enzyme is called telomerase. This does not happen in any normal cell except in male sex cells (sperm cells), many types of cancerous cells… and in some exceptional animal cells…. I am not sure but I believe there r some stem cells that also contain the ability to produce telomerase. These cells are considered to be immortal.

Imagine what if we could engineer human cells to be able to produce telomerase on its own or even introduce it into the normal cells by surgical procedures... Our worn out telomeres would replenish and we wud live longer lives.

I am not quite sure about any on going research on this topic but i bileave temerase is used in some very few age defying creams. Wouldn’t it be nice to live if not forever at least a bit longer life healthy and young.

Plz feel free to Criticize my ideas or support my ideas... or do both!!! plz share your opinion! thanx

I suppose one day Scientists WILL be able to lengthen our lives

Presumably by activating DNA to lengthen the Toleremase at the ends of our cells. I believe that this will be possible,
and give us a longer life?
True immortality is a whole different ball game, and very dependant upon the continuing flexibility of our muscle, skin and arterys.etc

Three items of Thought here.
Do longer lived peoples have longer telomerase attached to their Cells? (Any studies on that?)

Male Sperm is produced as long as a man lives, Those specialized cells dont die, they continually produce Sperm from blood (I believe?) and they have NO telomeres attached to them. (Figure that one out) Since normal cells that have USED up their telomerase, either dont reproduce correctly and die (or turn Cancerous.)


Cancer Cells are 100% immortal, They can be cultured in a petri dish and NEVER die. Continually reproduce themslves.
Some Hospitals hold cancer Cells that have been alive for over 50 years. Cancer cells probably hold the key to immortality?

Brilliance- I am going to pick up on something you stated- "God has gven us the gift of brilliance". He, She or It has, by this reasoning, given us also a finite life, possibly as a result of the interactions outlined in Mike's post. Would such extension of life to immortality be contrary to God's will? Also what would happen to the promise of heaven and the afterlife, or would we in fact continue to live on Earth in our bodily state getting older- but immortal? That's heaven?

Personally I feel this post belongs in NQS.

Ellis: "Personally I feel this post belongs in NQS"

This thread is one of those that are particularly susceptible to NQS content, so we may have to tolerate a little fantasy and metaphysics. Longevity, however, is now being widely researched, so it ought to be a worthy addition to the General Science Forum.

These two related articles are the most interesting I've read on the subject:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24279207-30417,00.html

"They discovered that most of the long-lived men - those who eventually reached an average age of 98 years - had the same version of the FOXO3A gene.

What's more, the men with the long-lived version of the gene also had a lower prevalence of cancer and cardiovascular disease, high physical and intellectual abilities and reported better over-all health than those without the variation."

http://ouroboros.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/foxo3a-allele-linked-to-longevity/

"The authors state that this finding is especially exciting because the FOXO family of proteins are closely related to the C. elegans protein, DAF-16, which has been shown to protect cells from oxidative stress, which could be a 'plausible mechanism of action for modification of human aging.'"

Longgevity yes- immortality no, that's NQS.

I have a very personal interest in longevity, my mother is approaching 96. Still has darkish hair and her own teeth!! Most of her family (especially the females) lived to at least the late 80s, and one of my aunts made it to 101, so I have no difficulty assuming that there is a genetic component to living longer than normal, and that should probably give some sort of protection against cancer and heart disease, as thay are the greatest killer diseases... however that is NOT immortality.

Ellis: "I have no difficulty assuming that there is a genetic component to living longer than normal, and that should probably give some sort of protection against cancer and heart disease, as thay are the greatest killer diseases"

- Of course, since recent research findings support that. We surely can't be seriously discussing immortality, despite a thread title that's proven to be provocative.

First of all thanx everyone for sharing ur ideas!

Mike -
You see increment of telomerase just doesn’t extend the life of the cell but also prevents the cell form getting old and damaging its DNA ( Coding/ functioning DNA)

Mike Regarding ur thoughts…
“Do longer lived peoples have longer telomerase attached to their Cells? (Any studies on that?)”
My answer to that is there r ongoing researches and yes it is possible …
As a matter of fact this is due to the aspect of genetic variability… different people have different lengths of telomerase. Of course it is also possible that different factors may effect the individuals life lengths… for example:
- Their healthy life style may give them a longer life contrary to the fact that they might have small telomerase.
- Their might also be the genetic effect of the cell health giving them yet again an advantage of having a longer life irrelevant to the size of their telomere caps.

Your second thought/ question….
” Male Sperm is produced as long as a man lives, Those specialized cells don’t die, they continually produce Sperm from blood (I believe?) and they have NO telomeres attached to them. (Figure that one out)”
- I don’t think sperm is produced from the blood… it might supply important nutrients to the production, but does not produce the sperms… The germ cells that are responsible to produce the sperms are spermatogonium which are the diploid cells that produce spermatocytes that go under meiosis I then change into spermatid that goes under meiosis II and finally become sperms…
- What I believe is that the sperms do not have the telomeres but either the spermatogonium is the germ cell that is able to produce telomerase and replenish its telomere cap or the stem cells that produce spermatogonium cells do… either way this is the immortality aspect of sperm cell production.

Your third question…
“Some Hospitals hold cancer Cells that have been alive for over 50 years. Cancer cells probably hold the key to immortality?’
This again refers to my point of discussion… you see cancer cells are immortal due to the fact that they also are able to produce telomerase and replenish telomeres therefore are immortal… the topic of immortality with telomeres was originally aroused from the fact of cancer cells being immortal due to replenishing telomere caps.

Mike, people do not believe in fantasy to be the truth… unless they r bajingo from the head… but curious minds tend to search the truth even if truth bears an incredible resemblance to fantasy.

Also the the URl u produced regarding Dr. Aubrey de Grey’s five bars to
immortality is simply an example of getting to a destination through different routes!!!

Ellis -
”Brilliance- I am going to pick up on something you stated- "God has gven us the gift of brilliance". He, She or It has, by this reasoning, given us also a finite life, possibly as a result of the interactions outlined in Mike's post. Would such extension of life to immortality be contrary to God's will? Also what would happen to the promise of heaven and the afterlife, or would we in fact continue to live on Earth in our bodily state getting older- but immortal? That's heaven?”

Well Ellis first of all if god does not want to be contradicted... then not in the whole universe it is possible to contradict his, her or its will. After all he is the all mighty and powerful. But the question is if some one or something or a mere human has been able to contradict his word then ellis… doesn’t that mean god itself wanted to be contradicted… or is he not strong enough to stop someone from contradicting his will? NO OFFENCE TO ANY ONE. I do not believe that immortality of human is contradictory of gods will. God may have given us a limited life but he has never FORBIDDEN us to increase the life he has given us… even to the point of being immortal. Your question regarding the afterlife… well the end of the universe is inevitable… proven by religion and science… The whole universe is going to be destroyed! This theory of immortality in our discussion gives us the fact that we can live longer and longer but we will not be invincible! We could get killed by a global or universal catastrophe.
- And according to this theory… not completely sure about it… but theoretically regarding this theory I would expect an immortal life in form of `eternal youth` not getting old and old and old and old and old. The term ‘eternal youth’ in this context represents the time frame till the end of the universe. The term ‘eternal youth’ in this context represents the time frame till the end of universe.

Ellis - “Personally I feel this post belongs in NQS”
Redewenur – “Of course, since recent research findings support that. We surely can't be seriously discussing immortality, despite a thread title that's proven to be provocative.”
- If we are to completely understand the universe and use the tool of science to its fullest function and enhance our knowledge… then we must not create boundaries around any one aspect… everything is connected in the universe… science to science fiction to reality to psychology to history to astrophysics to rocket sciences to NQS… (including the gremlins and gizmo!! ) lol

Redewenur - ”Of course, since recent research findings support that. We surely can't be seriously discussing immortality, despite a thread title that's proven to be provocative.”
- Isn’t the concept of immortality (in this particular discussion … theoretical results of the telomere theory) rooted from the very research of genetic components that effect longevity of life frames??

As redewenur suggested the ongoing research on specific gene codons that enable the longevity of human life suggest the theoretical possibility of increasing the life frame of an average human, with extra benefits from the research of immunity against terrible diseases. As I earlier mentioned it’s simply like having one destination but taking different routes.

- I AM AFRAID YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD MY IDEAS… THE TERM IMMORTALITY WAS SIMPLY A TERM USED TO THEORETICALLY EXPLAIN THE LIMITS OF THE LONGEVITY OF HUMAN LIFE THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED FROM THIS RESEARCH. THE TERM IMMORTALITY IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A CONCEPT OF FICTION IN THIS RESEARCH/TOPIC/DISCUSSION BUT A PURE CONCEPT OF THEORETICAL ANALYSIS. IT IS NOT FICTION… IT IS SCIENCE!!!

Brilliance- I personally do not believe in god so I do not believe that my IQ is divinely ordained, but you attributed intelligence to the work of an Almighty, so I took your statement to its logical conclusion. An absurd conclusion I admit, but your assumuption of divinity in the planned origin of human intelligence lends itself to such conclusions. That is why this subject, as it is presently framed is more suited to NQS, where everyone, including me, enjoys debating the truth of your first assumption, and discussions are thus really not-quite-science.

PS- Immortality means to live for ever, not just for a longish time in one research project.

Yes, Ellis. Point taken. The topic has become burdened with NQS, so NQS it is

Sorry rede! but I think that it is important to define terms with accuracy. It would not have been possible to argue as I did if the terms had been less loose. The science regarding telomorases could certainly make for further interesting scientific discussion.

First of all the introduction of gods will and other aspects of religion was I believe introduced by …you ellis (ironic!!)... in response to a statement in my very first post which clearly had nothing to relate with the actual topic of the discussion. The statement I made was simply a mere perspective of one that would believe in god. I am afraid that you do not understand the actual topic of this discussion. The actual topic… again I mention… is the research of a genetic component that may result in human longevity, NOT GODS WILL AND CONTROLL OVER US!! (For the sake of scientific argument I must eliminate the term ‘immortal’ since you clearly do not understand what I am referring to). I would again like to say immortality is indeed a term rooted from fiction but relative to a scientific research every component of fiction is potential reality. NOT FICTION… SCIENCE!!!

And finally if you all believe that this topic is more suitable for NQS, then I suppose i could only say that... unfortunately none of you share the same sight of the future as I do...

Even meteor showers were once considered NOT QUITE SCIENCE!!!

A quote from the first post introducing this topic by Brilliance:

God has given us the gift of brilliance... we use it to acquire knowledge, then i say... shouldn’t it be possible that god may have always wanted us to learn and know how we could be immortal.

A quote from Brilliance in his/her latest post:

First of all the introduction of gods will and other aspects of religion was I believe introduced by …you ellis (ironic!!)... in response to a statement in my very first post which clearly had nothing to relate with the actual topic of the discussion.

The latter quote is obviously incorrect. The god reference was introduced by Brilliance in his/her second paragraph.

I merely suggested that you seemed to suggest god that was involved in the search for immortality, when clearly under your line of reasoning as introduced by you, god has included the necessity for finality in all our lives. Seems reasonable to me. Also doesn't seem like science as who knows what god thinks. Certainly I don't. That's why this topic is in NQS.

Brilliance, you will often find that people do not share your vision. It does not mean either side is wrong--just different.

I will also reiterate (without shouting) that immortality has a definite meaning. It means to live forever not for a very long time.

Brilliance--Or should that be, like TT, genius? --I have been interested in questions regarding mortality, and immortality, since childhood. As a child, I experienced the deaths of several close family members, including my parents. During WW 2 I also saw, close up, many people die. You say that
Brilliance, because I am not an atheist, like Ellis is, I would like to ask: Would you help us meet this "God" you say "who gives us" ...

The following is a serious question: May we count on you to introduce us? I am truly curious, and open-minded.

Giving egoic immortality to the slanderous and sarcastic approach to a poster Rev.? Nice...

TT, slander applies only to what is spoken. And when is asking a question considered slander?
BTW, I am always glad to apologize when people who have tender egoic feelings let me know.

The slander was within what was spoken. Was the reference to Brilliance and genius really necessary?

If anyone finds my joking offensive, I apologize.

BTW, what do we mean when we speak of immortality? Is there really such a thing as mortality?

I find it difficult to conceive that there is such a thing. Evolution, yes. Change, yes. Even destruction and re-construction; but not zero.

Revlgking... look around u... carefully!! Dont u c god evrywere u turn around... in every single thing you lay ur eyes upon...I do... you should read my posts more carefully if you dont understand what i am talking about. Oh and now tat u have apologized... plz do not repeat the sme mistake again.

Might i suggest to everyone... instead of taking evrything seriously... instead of looking for a philosophical interpretation in everything... y dont u all c things for wat they simply appear to be.
Immortality means living forever. bieng mortal means to live... a limited life. in this context i am simply refering immortality to a scientific research that may result in prolonged human longevity.

Ellis, you cleverly post my words and proved your point but either you didnt read my previous post clearly... or you purposely failed to miss my point.....
"First of all the introduction of gods will and other aspects of religion was I believe introduced by …you ellis (ironic!!)... in response to a statement in my very first post..."God has given us the gift of brilliance... we use it to acquire knowledge, then i say... shouldn’t it be possible that god may have always wanted us to learn and know how we could be immortal."...which clearly had nothing to relate with the actual topic of the discussion. THE STATEMENT I MADE WAS SIMPLY A MERE PERSPECTIVE OF ONE THAT WOULD BELIEVE IN GOD."

Ellis - "Brilliance- I am going to pick up on something you stated- "God has gven us the gift of brilliance". He, She or It has, by this reasoning, given us also a finite life, possibly as a result of the interactions outlined in Mike's post. Would such extension of life to immortality be contrary to God's will? Also what would happen to the promise of heaven and the afterlife, or would we in fact continue to live on Earth in our bodily state getting older- but immortal? That's heaven? "

As i earlier mentioned it wasnt me who introduced the concept of gods will and other aspects of religion... eventhough they were questions...it was you, ellis, who established this concept.

ellis - 'Brilliance, you will often find that people do not share your vision. It does not mean either side is wrong--just different.'
I suppose you r rite and i absolutely agree... i never said if anyone was wrong or right!!!

Ellis - 'I will also reiterate (WITHOUT SHOUTING) that immortality has a definite meaning. It means to live forever not for a very long time'
Would you please define the theoretical period of 'a very long time' in this context because i dont really c a difference in tat and the term immortality... in this topic afcourse.

Oh and i never shout... I SIMPLY EMPHASIZE MY WORDS!!

Brill,
Enough SHOUTING OR EMPHASIZING. Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we?

Excellent advice, Amaranth. Dialogue is such a pleasant activity when done with humility and respect for others and for their sincerely held opinions.

My sincerely held beliefs and opinions are mine. Because I respect the opinions of others, at no time do I intend to impose them on others. I seek to live by the principle of the Golden Rule in search of the Golden mean. If at anytime you feel that I fail to follow this principle, please feel free to let me know.

BTW, I find the sharing of opinions often leads to us discovering the Golden Mean--the middle way to truth.

IF one is familiar with the Golden mean as stated by Buddha or the what is called the middle way it takes a different meaning than to simply be neutral within extremes of opposites. It actually means to rise above the duality of opposites and to be able to make judgment from Truth absolute, from Unity of mind body and Soul with Omniscient wisdom.
In Unity with God no opinion is owned as Mine, for that is a statement of ego. In the experience of mine, yours, theirs, the ego separates itself into pieces of a pie to make a whole. In Consciousness as a Whole, no thought is perceived as part of consciousness, any more than a glimpse of light is perceived as a part of light.
The ego takes pieces of nature and qualifies it before trying to place it within the personal box, all the while ignoring the ego it sees in others and their boxes as being the same glimpse of light only seen through the filters of each individual personality.
That being the case, each ego sees exactly the same thing and by determination of internal programming, (Subconscious idealization, fear and projection) separates the light of creation into personal beliefs.
The ego respects the other belief, only when ones egoic beliefs are not threatened so that it may remain intact, or free from any disturbance. Unfortunately with so many opinions created from belief one does not have to go far to feel personal beliefs are threatened. One only need hear something that is contradictory to ones own belief, to be threatened.
That usually results in a biography of personal achievements and a history of like minded accomplishments so that the measure of self worth is justified and upheld in and amongst the diverse nature of ego and its differing opinions of personality.
Do unto others as you would do unto yourself then becomes a statement to allow others to remain without fear and subject to opposing personal systems of measure, as you would wish to remain without fear in the duality of opposites and conflicting opinion.

To become neutral does not mean to become inactive either. To sit in and amongst activity without action is neither productive nor is it expanding into the living of life.

In order to rise above the duality of perverse systems of self measure and ego identity, to treat all as equal, one has to see themselves in everyone else and experience everyone else within ones self. But that is not ego one sees in themselves and others but Consciousness itself. This is the only way to see the light. Rather than catch glimpses of the light and second guess reality by assuming an opinion in the diversity of opinions could hold equal value with others that contradict and oppose, one has to have clear vision to rise above the illusions of diverse opinions that create conflict within ones self.
Obviously hot is not the same as cold and they do not have the same place in experience.
Opinion from the experience of God in unity with all things, where one recognizes all thought feeling and action in themselves and others as being from the same consciousness, is not the same opinion that comes from ego where God is a belief and or an opinion.

Ones opinions are not owned in Unity.
Only the ego owns an opinion.

The Golden rule from the enlightened awareness of Unity is far superior to the golden rule projected from the limitation and duality of ego.

From the ego the golden rule is used to protect personal belief.
From enlightenment the Golden rule is an absolute, it recognizes the equality of God in all things, and it matters not what is said or experienced for it is all the ONE Consciousness.

That is the only place immortality lives.

I am sorry but i dont believe giving your words impotance was not civil!!! I havent used any insulting or harsh words to anyone!!

Gotta agree with you there, nothing to be sorry about...

Hard to imagine how ones inner peace could be so easily disturbed, other than from a misperception of reality.
We so often jump to the conclusion that our own perceptions of reality are caused by others, and in doing so try to force the opposing thought/other into compliance with personal beliefs to remove the disturbance within ourselves.

May I gate crash the NQS party to insert a quick reference to mundane science?
____

Brilliance

Re part of the earlier discussion, there's some interesting info about synthetic biology here:

http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1230

"Synthetic biology is an emerging area of research that can broadly be described as the design and construction of novel artificial biological pathways, organisms or devices, or the redesign of existing natural biological systems..."

Ellis, speaking of atheism, I thought you might be interested in the following information from the site Aish.com:
"Since its launch in February 2000, Aish.com has become the world’s largest Jewish content website, logging over 3 million monthly user sessions with 200,000 unique email subscribers."

http://www.aish.com/purimthemes/purimthemesdefault/Remembering_Amalek.asp

Here is an interesting quote about Amalek--mentioned several times in the Bible and one of the descendants of Ishmael--an ancestor of the Muslims. The Hebrew Bible commentaries tells us that the Amalekites were marauders. The comment below adds that they were atheists.

BTW, keep in mind that I do not necessarily agree with the negative generalization that atheism is the root cause of much evil. IMO, All religions, including Jews, Christians and Muslims, have all done their share of evil: BTW, Ellis, how would you respond to Rabbi Tzaddok's comment that atheists believe that the world is the result of, "blind, accidental, happenstance ... they believe in nothing" ?

Hello, I'm back, been for a bit of a break (but had to fly to get there- worth it though!)

Some interesting stuff here.

Rev- you know my answer to people like the Rabbi. Instead I'll ask a question back. What is so good about believing in stuff? Should it not be optional? Belief in the supernatural is not necessary for a full- meaningful, and yes- happy- life! Life is what you make it, and mostly I find it's really nice! So now get cross and tell me that I have told you that before!

Brilliance-- dictionary def. re immortal-
1. living for ever
2. endurung for ever; imperishable
3. having enduring fame.

Living a very long time is variable. If you are a Mayfly, living for a week is a very long time indeed, but if you are a planet thousands of eons is probably not a very long time. But they are both finite- immortality is infinite and ever lasting, as the definition says 'for ever'.

I know I'm going on a bit and being pedantic but defining one's terms is very important in debating. Immortality is not the same as long life. (And I'll never say anything else about it I promise.)

"Only the ego owns an opinion".... TT that's a thought to ponder! Very chastening!

Having a belief is like having an good idea or a theory; it just gets things started. Having a belief is important in that sense of the word.

If the first thinkers about the shape of the earth, who came up with the idea that it could be a globe, said and did nothing about it no exploration would have happened at least at that time. Values come from a combination of belief and action.

This is why Jesus said, "By their works you shall know them...Don't call me Lord, Lord if you are not willing to do..." IMO, life is about having character and building on it.

Of course. Faith, hope and love cannot be commanded; they must come from within the human heart/spirit (pneuma).

Now let me ask you: If you were an atheist with no belief in life after death and with the character of a marauding predator, would you not be tempted to take it all now regardless who gets hurt in the process?

On the other hand, if you had even the slightest belief in karma--that you will eventually reap what you sowed and will have to make amends, would that not give you pause?

An interesting comment, Ellis, to which I respond: I have no impulse to get cross at you, or anyone, simply because you told me that you think of yourself as a happy atheist?

On the contrary, I rejoice in the fact. IMO, what we need is all the happy atheists, and theists, we can find. To me, what you say means that you are more concerned with being a person of good (GOD-like) character than you are with being a person with the right set of dogmatic beliefs.

IMO, good character is the goal well worth pursuing, and one that I pursue.

Been a little busy wit my exams!!

Thanx for the link rewenur.

Alright ellis... i suppose ur right. i guess i shud have used the term very very very very very very long time... But watever u guyz all get they point i am trying to express. (not bieng sarcastic)

I bileave life of a person cann never be peacefull... sure for a while or so but there r so many aspects of life tat we can only begin to understand. Bieng good is something i strongly bileave in. BUt what derives a person to do gud deeds... going against the natural impulse to do worng... is it nature or nurture/enviroment.

i think its nature!


ppl tend to mix many aspects togeather. sure it is gud to do tat sumtime, but when they mix other aspects into one ... doesent tis crude their jugement for a pefect result??? for example racism and discrimination... instead of juging peopl by the colour of their skins or their traditions... why couldnt they just treat everuyone like equal so a better world emerges... didnt everyone know how to make the world better even during the heavy period of racism and discrimination... then why didnt they stop??? Their are so many problems in the world, even now... cant we solve them if we dont implement any other aspects???

Something to think about..
If you don't understand life, and from what you know decide to make judgments based on incomplete knowledge, it would be wiser to gain knowledge that will point you in a direction toward your goal rather than just making blind statements.
Then at least, (instead of assuming something), you are open to learn rather than impose as reality those very things you have a difficult time with.

Doing wrong is not a natural impulse unless you do not believe right has value. If you felt right had no value then wrong also contains little value and morals would be left to the root ability to survive in a system of valueless architecture.

People always have a choice but not always do people realize choice, nor do people realize the truth of reality.

If all people believed as you do that the nature of people is to do wrong or that no one could live their entire life in peace, the world would have died long ago.
You have a serious problem to overcome and that is more the negativity in your belief system than the reality that you believe is real.

Just 'cause the people thought the world was flat 600 years ago didn't make it so. Just because you can't find a systematic approach to life that brings you peace and awakens the natural tendency to give to the world as you would give to yourself, don't mean it doesn't exist.
You'd have to take the time to find it rather than to just assume it doesn't.
It might help to take the time to spell check your posts so as not to give the impression that your illiterate as well as negative.

Appearances can often be illusion...

Brilliance- TT has a point when he suggests that

'If all people believed as you do that the nature of people is to do wrong or that no one could live their entire life in peace, the world would have died long ago.'

It is sad that you assume that negativity is natural and only the threat of (what?)-- punishment? will stop bad behaviour. I think that, given the choice, there are very few people who would prefer to make others unhappy and to disadvantage them. As we are part of society we should try to ensure that all the people in that society have the opportunity to live happy meaningful lives, (even those we do not like much). We are all on this planet together and we should all try to get along with one another, and we don't do that if we assume that everyone is out to 'get' us.

Brilliance- I am very serious when I say that you need to explore what is going on all around you. Try to help other people. Talk to them, and listen to their answers. Then you may understand why some people like to keep their own customs and so on. It does not mean they are wrong, just different. You say you are doing exams. Set some positive goals and take your good results and use them to help you reach those goals. And try to be positive, and remember that there are two sides to every story.

And-- I agree-- please put your work through spell check. In spite of what I have just said, first impressions are important.

IMO: We are who we are as the result of nature/nurture/pneumature.
In other words: as the result of nature/nurture/plus our spirit-based character.

This explains why people with good character can, despite serious setbacks, turn on the power of enthusiasm (which literally means god-filled) and optimism and thus turn their scars into stars; give them a lemon and they will make lemonade. Helen Keller, though blind and deaf, with the help a spiritually devoted companion/teacher, went on to become a great human being and writer. Beethoven wrote some of his greatest music after he became deaf. Name some names of people, that come to your mind, who went on to become great human and humane beings after they overcame great handicaps.

Christians tell us that Jesus turned the cross into a symbol salvation and resurrection. Come to think of it, not a bad goal regardless of what one believes about religion.

I think that this is a very good thing to talk about! But if humans were immortal than what would be the point? I mean i see how it would be cool to be like that but i don't think it is possible.

A comment, if I may, about the Buddha's "Middle Way." An awful lot is made of that, some of it rather extreme. We need to keep it simple: the context of the Buddha's teaching here is in the pursuit of Enlightenment. He found that neither indulgence nor asceticism worked--in fact, they both were hindrances. Basically that is all there is to the teaching.

That the principle can be applied in other contexts is obvious, but invoking the Buddha's authority outside the limited choice of indulgence vs. asceticism is sometimes to go too far. Sometimes, depending on how the choices are constructed, a "middle way" is wrong.

A remark about the topic of this theme--the idea of human immortality. It seems absurd to me. It is obvious that we age and die, and science has done nothing but reinforce this point. Nothing persists forever. Even the stars and galaxies age and die and the energy of the universe gradually dissipates.

Most Buddhists think that the human "life spirit" generally persists after death, being driven by its desire for personal existence, to be reborn shortly in a new human life. Still, this is not immortality. The reborn person is not the person who died. It has new genes and new life experiences, and very little if any memory of the past existence, even in the subconscious.

Further, we constantly die and are reborn from moment to moment. What we are now is not what we were even a minute ago, and is a very different person from what we were, say, a decade ago. Memories give us the illusion of continuity of person, but they are fragile and easily lost or distorted, by disease, accident, limited capacity, and even just the passage of time.

The word immortal is often projected into an idea of being superhuman, like Connor McCleod in the "Highlander" Movies and television Series, but the true immortal spirit resides within the clothing of personality and flesh. It is possible for the spirit to maintain the bodily appearance of one image but why would you want to?

The middle way is the way of the Enlightened rather than the way to enlightenment.
The middle way is clear judgment that lay in between extremes or is centered unmoving in duality.
Any attempt to create a medium or middle way within the boundaries of opinion, belief or ego creates tension and stress in the nervous system.
Useful boundaries given to a disciple by someone who has achieved enlightenment are geared to the root stresses of an individual. The Ego which is blinded by its own ideals cannot see its boundaries for the boundaries are the very foundation of its being. It (EGO) would not exist without its boundaries and would not know how to function without those boundaries.
Therefore the ego cannot conceptualize a middle way that is not born of personal ideals, beliefs and limitation.

I would suggest that you try to include some statement of reason or evidence when you make assertions that try to contradict what someone else has said. Otherwise your views are easily dismissed.

I think you are mistaken when you say that the "middle way" teaching only describes the way of the enlightened. Of course one does not imagine someone enlightened who does not follow a wise path, but according to the story the Buddha found the middle way some months or years before he became enlightened. The teaching is advice to us all. The Buddha presented it that way and good sense would tell us that to become enlightened one needs to practice it.

I have to wonder what you mean by "unmoving in its duality." Is that an assertion that sometimes what is perceived as the middle way is nevertheless wrong? I am sure you are ingenious enough to realize that there are things that should be avoided entirely. Should we adopt a middle way in our adherence to the Eightfold Noble Path?

The concept of the ego is a useful one, and conveys a semi-scientific description of self, but it has to be remembered that self is an illusion. We are not and do not have a "soul," or "ego," or "mind," (although for the sake of simple expression we often speak as though we do). All we have is the candle flame of the process called "mind," or "spirit, and this is process, not thing. It exists as activity of nerve cells, not as a thing, spiritual or otherwise.

But...

So you think I should prepare myself and my statements so that ego will not dismiss them?
If I make my statements based on enlightened experience why must I reason them? If one who is not enlightened cannot find a reason for something that is not their experience to believe in I should sell Truth?
Did the Buddha reason the Truth or did he speak from his own experience?

Oh and I never contradict anyone. I only complement the ongoing flame, as you call it.

That is a supposition. One assumes enlightenment is an end all and that realization leads to enlightenment rather than realization being enlightenment.


Good sense based on belief and reason? If you had the good sense to realize what it meant to be enlightened what would keep you from being enlightened? If you know exactly what the Buddha meant while not being enlightened, wouldn't that destroy the whole idea of gaining enlightenment?
The Teaching is a direction or a pointing toward the goal and a description of what consequences occur due to choices that are made from ego and immersion into duality, where the senses are continually directed outward.

Of course you must. If you knew what the middle way was you wouldn't be wondering.

Not knowing and pretending to know doesn't create knowing..

What you focus on grows. Avoiding something puts a lot of attention on what you don't want.

Adhering to the eightfold path is something only an enlightened person can do. Others only aspire to realize it.

Like I said what you focus on grows. If you postulate semi science you get semi truth and semi understanding.


If you put it that way, we do not have the capability to realize enlightenment or a middle way because that is an illusion.


Wakey wakey...., time to let go of that little idea...and become enlightened.

Well i do see what you're getting at, but as you did bring god into this you kinda gotta ask yourself is this truly ethical. I mean one of the charactaristics of being a biotic creature is to age and develope.

Sure it's unatural but if you can get this research moving it may turn out to be one of those kick ass discoveries like flight.

Unnatural? What could be so unnatural about life? To ignore the essence of who we are and to look at just surface appearances and assume that is all there is, isn't the most intelligent of the options.
The nature of nature is hardly restricted to the simple textbook mechanics of biology.

I was merely using unnatural in its most basic sense: not there/happening origianlly. Though you bring up some very good points which are unarguable.

Here's a question. If this research is continued and become successful, will this become inherited affecting posperity? I mean if your altering a hormone or whatever that directly affects DNA and DNA directly affects an offspring could this discovery promote long lives for generations after?

Influence based on genetics is still theoretical and evolutionary.
What I have learned about DNA and its abilities is that it's inherently without limitation to subjective analysis and responsive to levels of conscious awareness. Expanding consciousness activates DNA that is inactive in the waking state.

What science deals with mostly are 3 states of consciousness. Waking, Sleeping and Dreaming. The 4th state of consciousness typically described in the Sciences of spirituality such as Yoga describe the physical and psychological changes as well as changes in the DNA molecule which begins to produce what is called Soma and Ojas within the bloodstream.
Soma is a molecule which helps bind the subtle absolute to awareness and Ojas is like a superlubricant for the mechanism which helps reduce the effects of aging due to psychological and physical stress to the nervous system. The 4th state of consciousness is sometimes called Samadhi or Satori, or the Peace which passeth all understanding. The awareness of the Absolute. Spiritual sciences have long studied states of consciousness beyond the 4th, into the 5th, 6th and 7th state of consciousness natural to the physical body, experienced as being Human and Spirit at the same time.

What Science approaches in the idea of DNA and hereditary physical traits at the level of the physical or the mechanical is mostly geared to discovery at the physical or mechanical level without any connection to psychological or spiritual influences.
How spiritual sciences approach all physical and psychological manifestations is thru programing either current or past, and by past I mean latent stresses and beliefs that trail from one lifetime into another, described as Karma. That programming that I mention is that which effects the awareness of awareness itself. The density of thought as it is capable of experiencing human being as a dense meatbag or something much more with inherent intelligence either suppressed or unlocked.

What research often reveals are ideas or results based on directions of thought. If one is looking for something in particular one does not always notice the things that are not focused on. This is not a rule of course, so many things have been found along the way to certain ideals and goals that were not conceived of in the original intent. However when one focuses on one thing with no regard to anything else the concept generally is specialized in regard to intent and outcome.

What is the potential of Humanity? Is potential limited to evolution and mechanical fidgeting or is the inherent aspects of evolutionary growth laying dormant only to be discovered, turned on and revealed?

Spiritual sciences have always maintained there is nothing new. There is only the discovery of those things that are forgotten or ignored. So heredity becomes moot because we as potentially capable human beings only lack the awareness to turn on what is available and yet has been shut down or ignored by limiting our beliefs to single ideas and concepts of opinion.

It is our train of thought, opinion and belief which keeps us from turning the DNA molecule into a fully functional and operational mechanical device. The ego as it is reinforced by taking awareness outward limits the awareness of what is inside of us. What we insist on as truth is what keeps us and others locked into loops of superstitious cycles of generational influence and psychological limitation.

So what is un-natural, but that which is not known to exist as the original thought or in the original thought?
If we are still scientifically exploring our unknown beginnings as well as the extent of our evolution and potential who is to determine what is or isn't natural?

Anyone can draw a line in the sand. But that doesn't mean the activity of nature won't obliterate it with greater being than the thought that imagines the extent and finality of human limitation and the continually expanding Universal discoveries of design and potential.

So your saying that the key to potential evolution is not totally based on random changes but self inflicted changes. That's quite revolutionary.

The change in an individual's DNA most occur at a phase of conscienceness beyond even spiritual. If a person wanted a mechanical change you said mechanical with mechanical and spiritual with spiritual, but it'll have to be slightly beyond that which is of coarse the unknown.

Who knows people could have figured this out while sleep walking.

Or in between the dreams and the sleep walking....in ones true reflection of ones Self.

I see. that's got to be extremely difficult if an individual wanted to knowingly change something. The desire would probably have to be planted in the subconscience which truly reveals itself during the dream and sleep walking phases.

The desire is inherent to ones true Self and bubbles up thru the quagmire of thoughts dreams and ideals the egoic mind plays with.
Stanford University did a study and came up with the notion that we think some 50 to 60,000 thoughts per day. Many of them counter productive or conflicting with other thoughts, many of them repetitive. The mind lost in this pattern idealizes that happiness is associated to events linked to happy moments experienced in the past. By associating these thoughts into direction the mind uses the past to idealize the future thinking both the thoughts of good and bad from the past to try and hold a future thought of good for the future.

Ever try to hold a single idea in the mind for a length of time?

Try it sometime and see just how long it takes before it becomes convoluted or before other thoughts invade the thinking process.

Everyone wants to be permanently satisfied, not temporarily. Passing thoughts and experiences cannot do that. Only elevating the mind beyond the chatter to still the mind can do that.

IF one happens to listen to something different than the usual chatter they can get in touch with their greatest desire and that will (if they follow it) lead them to greater awareness in the stillness of mind. The mind then naturally dives deeper than the surface level of thoughts rising above the chatter of surface impressions by elevating the thinking process beyond the lesser ideals created from superstition to find its Self. That Self is much more in tune with reality than the programs created from past impressions which are full of apprehension, (fear) and ideals that create temporary happiness mixed with illusions of recreating past scenarios of unhappiness.

There are natural ways to allow the mind to take its natural course, and there are traditional superstitions to force the mind into compliance.
The natural way is the choice I would make and as nature takes its course our bodily mechanisms begin to function in accord with the greater part of our Self.

You think, therefore if you can follow the thought back to its source you can find yourself in the source of thoughts and you would be surprised to find you are more than just man. Being man is just one of many thoughts.

Wow.

You're right(of course) about holding thougts. I can never just get a clear head and stay on task with one thing. Now it'll be even harder because i'll think of this.

So by merely treasure mapping thoughts we could rip open our waking conscience. Well not really merely, but in words it was short.

It seems that meditators or even pot smokers may have a lead on this idea if they only know what they wanted to go after.

Time to experiment.

Pot smokers become dependent on their herb to still the mind rather than following a natural meditative practice.

I know because I used to take that route.

I see. I wasn't truly planning that path but thanks for the warning.

Here's a question more related to the original topic.

If research continues and these telomerase are figured out and truly do extend telemeres make DNA live longer, how might this medicine go about to people? Would it be a surgery, injection or a pill to spark the enzyme into action.

Has this happened to another medical discovery?