长生不老让时间之箭穿越的距离让人类困惑不已。这是必然的，因为作为有知觉的人，能够想象不可能的事情，我们想知道为什么永生一定是不可能的。欧洲探险家德莱昂(de Leon)曾来到现在的佛罗里达州，寻找青春之泉。据我们所知，他一直没找到。蒂姆·利瑞认为低温是解决问题的方法。这似乎也是一个白日梦(这是一个比喻，而不是双关语……)我读过休谟，还有伏尔泰、卢梭和那个时代的其他人。我有一个明显的印象，他们是现实主义者，当涉及到诸如上帝，永生之类的东西。如果有什么东西是不朽的，它很可能只是不朽的人所梦想的那种状态的苍白的模仿。我知道:永不言败。 But I, like Hume and his contemporaries, am also a realist. One can dream impossible dreams, or one can make the best of the life we are given and call it good. Seems to me...

Most of what we call life never really dies. It reproduces and mutates, but thousands of years hence what remains is the same single-celled organism. Only multi-celled organisms that reproduce sexually die. The complexity of the organism means that only the reproductive cells transmit life. The remainder of the organism is too ?differentiated? to be a direct carrier of the life of the species. The individual, however psychologically or instinctively committed to survival, is biologically bound to death. Radical cell differentiation requires this. And this means that the more sophisticated the form the more bound it is to die, for the more extensive that cell differentiation that commits the bulk of the organism to take only a passing role in reproduction. But if that biological sophistication is accomplished in the commitment to die, it may be that something even more sublime is achieved. Life is more real committed to departure than reproduction by cell-division or fission. What becomes interesting is how that differentiation not only commits the organism to die, but achieves an articulation of roles in the organism as a whole that remains almost entirely mysterious. The bio-physics applied to understanding it is so crude, if not by the lights of our tremendous sophistication in science, but in light of the vastly more sophisticated capabilities of these tiny cells in any advanced organism. Old fashioned reasoning might be a more powerful tool than bio-physics can supply. When a cell divides in its developmental phase, and perhaps at any other stage in life, the resultant cells are each a little further along in the differentiation process. But which is which? Which is more differentiated, and how is this decided? Can it be that each cell is in some sense trying to be the most differentiated? The most committed the whole organism to that death articulated the meaning of its being alive? If so, this puts a new gloss on how systems come into being. For it is incongruous to conventional thinking that a system can be most perfected by an effort of every part to be the most different! And it certainly puts a new light on the question of immortality, for who then would want to live forever, even if psychologically predisposed to cling to life? Imaging an afterlife is merely a variation on the misapprehension that death is purely loss. It is not. It is the most intensive meaning the universe is capable of containing.

LIFE AFTER DEATH
Gary, your description of biological immutability while scientifically interesting (and probably accurate), illustrates clearly the irrelevance of science to philosophy. Science is about matter; philosophy is about consciousness, and the two do not intersect nor does either help understanding the other. Your interest is in ?how stuff keeps living after some host dies? which is a wonderful subject to investigate, especially around the ?host? question.
But I think you were misled by what I thought was an error in the topic of the show itself. The show was titled ?immortality,? when it should have been about ?consciousness after death.? You describe biological immortality issues, but you don?t describe any philosophical questions.
IMMORTALITY
What is the condition of one?s consciousness past the age of 90, say? The health directive is a scam to get hospitals off the hook for liability; I want my plug hard wired into the hospital wall. Keep me alive; that is how dearly I treasure my consciousness. But I have witnessed deaths of people very close to me, who were fortunate to live to the point that they said ?I?m tired, I?m finished, I want to die now.? And, one way or another, they died then. Believe me, that is what everyone really wants. When someone says ?I don?t want to live to be 90,? I always say ?I will ask you when you are 90.?
另一个关于永生的问题是，我在天堂能活多久?当人们想到天堂的时候，他们会把自己想象成一个快乐，健康的，30岁的人?但是如果你在88岁时死亡，或者被冷冻，当你被重新构造时你就88岁了，对吧?泰德·威廉姆斯吗?即使移植到一个20岁的人身上，老脑袋也打不出全垒打吗?干细胞生成体。一个人活得比自己想活的时间长是没有意义的;我们都想要的是能够决定什么时候结束，在最后。没有理性的(哲学上的)理由期待任何人希望自己的生命早点结束。没人会说，我想死? at such and such an age. Everyone simply wants to live until they don?t want to live anymore; there is no sense in getting upset about not being ?immortal??that is not the issue at all.
LIFE AFTER DEATH
我的意思是，肉体死亡后意识的生存问题(不是加里吗?S在宿主死亡后一些生物的存活)。
This is what the show should have been concerned with, because this is the real philosophical issue that underlies all that ?immortality-talk.? What the hosts and the guest should have been exploring is philosophical ideas about our relationship to the way we view our own future consciousness, and our rational thoughts about if, and what, consciousness transcends death. Alluded to briefly was the notion that probably 99.9% of humans believe in some form of ?life? (i.e., consciousness) after death: whether life in heaven or a nirvana state, or reincarnation, or some other form (best, I like the Jewish idea that a dead person?s consciousness ?lives? so long as the living remember him/her; they ?live on in our memory of them?). This belief is so universal that it could be called a human instinct. It is not a powerful argument for the actual transcendence of consciousness, but for the human instinct. Born of what? Ego, survival, confirmation, social membership?lots to think about here.
如果一个人吗?意识在死亡后依然存在，赢了吗?那很有趣吗?那会是什么样子?在天堂会是什么样子，或成为一只蟑螂，或处于任何一种意识完整的状态?那该有多酷?
或者，如果意识不能从死亡中幸存(我们真的不能?不管怎样我都不知道，尽管99.9%的人相信)，然后让?乐观一点吧:与这种状态最接近的类比是睡眠，而永远的睡眠?是很好。
Because of all this, we don?t (or shouldn?t) fear death; but we should do everything we can not to die before we want to die.

哦,…as for me, I'll leave it just like that..

~~Mirugai,
Thank you for addressing me by name. I do believe 'avatars' are inappropriate in a philosophy discussion.
I am not suggesting reproduction, having kids, as a mode of immortality. I am suggesting that immortality is an inadequate mode of being. It is worthless. What nominally lives forever does not live at all, any more than rocks or 'dark matter', whatever that is. (Actually, dark matter is nothing more nor less than an aporia in the calculation of the momentum of an expanding universe)
Another thread asks for a Kant joke, here's a good one, aside from his ridiculously regular habits. It is his square of opposition. Am I the only one to notice that ?A' and ?not A? are not contradictories, but merely contraries? That it requires quantifiers to be contradictory a priori? In other words, a contradiction is not a sentence pair both of which cannot be true, but a sentence pair of which, one, proved false, proves the other true. The only possible real term of such a proof is departure. Death sets up or enables what I call the community in contrariety. It is a system constituted as the opportunity of belonging whole that comes of each part being the differing of it.
自古以来，直到今天，哲学家们都拒绝面对的是，“一”与“一”不是同一“一”，而且与数字“一”无限地不相容，无论设想的是基数的还是序数的。因此，不可能在一个统一的概念方案内进行逻辑和算术。正是在矛盾中形成的共同体，通过离开和失去而留下的优点，来解决这一困境。顺便说一句，我相信，它提供了对什么是意识，什么是人的最好解释。
The notion of immortality in creating offspring is nonsensical, since, because of the way genetic material gets mixed up between mating pairs, the fellow in the street you never met might have more genetic similarities to you than your children do.
有一点偏离了主题，但仍然是休谟的观点。有人想知道休谟邀请卢梭到英国的意图吗?卢梭似乎认为恶作剧正在进行中，于是离开去研究英国植物学。难道还有人嗅到了将他引入英国政坛的阴谋吗?

After Leaf
A leaf goes out in a blaze of color, in a soft breeze that drifts it slowly away. How perfect! As for after leaf, so be it a rake, a leaf blower, a plastic bag, or a garbage heap, heaven God bid or even hell God forbid, surely it matters not to a leaf, for a leaf has no uncertain beleaf. =

Logically One is One when is or = unite them. The power of equality unites everything even when One measures not = is

Gary and MJA, now we really have joined the philosophical issues. For instance, the question: is death an end, or a continuity? Gary, you probably would say "both," and MJA, you would probably say "one." And in each of your posts, you have posited what "both" and "one" mean. This is good stuff! And I might propose if it is "both" and/or "one" then thinking and talking about consciousness/death is just "endless speculation." But that is just what doing philosophy is, at its best. (A scientist criticized philosophy-without-science as "endless speculation.") Gary, your characterization of proof of consciousness issues as flowing from the contrary nature of all conceptual systems, as measured by what you (and I) call a community, is brilliant and so instructive.
TS Eliot:
"It would be the same at the end of the journey,
If you came at night like a broken king,
If you came by day not knowing what you came for,
It would be the same, when you leave the rough road
And turn behind the pig-sty to the dull facade
And the tombstone. And what you thought you came for
Is only a shell, a husk of meaning
From which the purpose breaks only when it is fulfilled
如果有的话...."

~~逻辑上的A=A和算术上的1=1是同一个意思吗?如果是这样，那么1+1=1!问问你自己，你还知道吗，一个?意味着什么?
如果你从物理学家而不是数学家那里学习微积分，那么你应该向你解释牛顿是如何证明导数的还原逻辑的。这是一个将数值上无法定义的差异减小到无穷小的问题。George Berkeley (cf, The Analyst)认为，这相当于在大多数计算中使用相同的值作为正数，但在方便的地方作为零。另一个缺陷是，无穷小不仅从来没有真正被定义，它是一个在计算中或没有计算的值。这是一个逻辑上的矛盾，不是一件事或另一件事(也不是两件事都有!)它是什么，被忽略的证据，不完整的计算。这是当今哲学中普遍存在的一种思维把戏。它被严格地删减了，只是没有教给我们一些令人不安的东西。事实上，它是用大量假定已知的知识取代了未知的知识。就像我在别的地方说过的那样，把婴儿扔出去是为了留住洗澡水。

我喜欢你对微积分“问题”的讨论，加里。但是，首先，当我说“一”的时候，我想念说话;我真正想说的是，作为一个从MJA中学到很多关于这个主题的人，“全部”或“全部”。“一”在没有量词的情况下，让一个量词发挥作用。就像我说的，我更倾向于二元论者，就“物质”和“意识”而言。至于微积分，我理解你在物理和数学上的区别即遥不可及，又可接近。在任何一种情况下，我认为哲学是一种对话(即使只有一个人在对话)，在这个对话中问题永远没有答案，但这个过程让哲学家不断地接近答案。这就是科学谴责的“无休止的猜测”，你称之为“缺陷”。对我来说，这是哲学的成功。你似乎需要有一个“定义”，许多哲学家把它作为他们的方法; but I think "definition" is self-serving sophistry and advocacy. Philosophy should not engage in "defining," it should be looking for "meaning" instead. May I say that, lastly, I love the poetics of your post.

逻辑要求我们解释?is的不同含义，但从来没有对此提供一个充分的理由，因此，很难在阅读大量被认为是哲学的东西时，不困惑地努力跟上人们应该忘记的东西。文本的开头和结尾都是对句子形式的比较，具体体现在一列例子中，以表示忽略了一个非常重要的真理，这与我们在学校里学到的(对我来说，很久以前，今天的情况可能大不相同)，一个句子是一个完整的思想。在美国，一个句子实际上并不是这样的。没有一种东西是完整的思想。我们不以“思想”来思考，我们当然也不会这样说。假设我们有权被解释为我们相信自己构建了自己的句子，这是一种深刻的自负，这是我50多年来一直在用头去撞的一堵砖墙。我们还远远没有被理解的权利，以至于语言的整个项目就是对符号做出反应的戏剧，通常不是口头的，以至于我们无法准确地理解彼此。正是我们对不完全理解的信号做出的反应，让语言成为了语言。这绝不是单方面的。
I am ?Western? enough (in fact through and through) to relate my perceptions to that tradition, but this hardly means an uncritical embedding in it. It is revealing, or at least responding to the inadequacies of one's received terms that makes the more hidden come to life. Life is differentiation, not replication. But difference per se is anomaly unless it is opportune of a response through which another is freer to itself be differentiating what the system as a whole wold be if replication were the criterion or unifying principle. But if difference is life, the capacity of systems (such as an organism, consciousness, or a political or cultural tradition) to constitute themselves as that anomalous act and anomalous response that, like the infinitesimal in calculus, is neither defined within nor outside the law or logic of the replicating calculation or judgment, and, though neither that act nor response is itself in synchrony to each other as that evidence of the incompleteness of the replicating logic, the completeness of the system in difference, of the community in contrariety, is the completion of that evidencing. But the more completed system is not united or in units, since each part in it is, in a poetic sense, if you will, recommending, not itself the differing, but the differing made welcome therein. Differentiation could be stated as the lost replicate. The system, body mind society, finds its belonging whole as a responsibility of being recognized that loss, and of its worth. Logic doesn't do so well when it comes to recognizing worth. This, obviously, because it is a conviction in the hermetic continuity of the replicate. That is, to number.
这已经够拗口了，但为了继续这个主题，我们需要把它放在过去2500年时间争论的背景下。它有一些令人惊讶的卷积和奇怪的联盟，但会占用太多的空间在这里介绍。但我想强调的主要主题是，量词自始至终被用作一种使变化服从于复制逻辑的手段。但是，如果时间是丢失的复制品，不管这么说有多奇怪，时间是不存在的，无论是作为一个单一的时代，还是作为一个可数单位的单位。分化，作为真实系统中最清晰的术语，是失落的枚举者发现，失落作为极端的严谨证明了其逻辑或理性或法律的不完整。在真正意义上，人不是任何人。

亲爱的加里，“是”是一个完整的思想=是一个完整的等式。
逻辑告诉我:A = B，然后B = C，然后A = C，但是B呢，它能B什么呢?等于或不等于，B应该是什么?到B还是不到B?这是亚里士多德、莎士比亚和我的问题和哲学。
In the above poem, do you see A ,B, and C different or united by an equal sign, One or the same?
你难道不明白平等和平等的力量吗?它们是equal的同义词。
And when it comes to equality, equal like truth has the power to unite even the most different, A, B and C. black and white, everything, even contrary you and me.
当然，你必须知道平等是自由的同义词，真理会让你自由。
Just beyond that wall you bang your head against is freedom!
Truth is, much more simple than thought,
=

你这么想是因为在基督教时代的头一千年里，亚里士多德是唯一有译本的哲学家。当其他思想家出现时，他的偏见在文化上已经根深蒂固。(cf Oakley or Ullmann)
Predication, identity, existence, equivalence. No potential for confusion here? If you had a better grip on what a category is (read Plato and nix Ari!) you wouldn't be so sanguine.
我当然不知道这种事!封闭的“平等”是义务的术语，而不是解放者!这种封闭主义的严格，在普遍的限定性词"是"和"不是"之间，就它的一切意义而言，就必须把它作为它的最极端的严格的规定加以丧失。也就是说，它的那个极端是它的需要，它的另一个不受平等约束的。唯一的相同之处是作为可比较的差异而显示出来的短暂性。相同的差异不可能是基本的平等。这并不意味着不平等或从属。这意味着自由不是等价的，而是对自由的一种严格的要求。

I think this way because I found measure to be the flaw in us all. =

衡量=“我们所有人的缺陷”?????
How do you measure that?
My point is that person, 'psychologism' and all, is an agent of such greater rigor that only its idiosyncrasies can bring '=' to the point of being recognized its inadequacy in rigor, its uncompleted reason.

Hamm. Did you ever think one thing?
Clov. Never.

I just thought of a wired philosophy its were when you die you just get reborn instantly saying your born in 2014 you are born again in 2134 and you dont know it because your conscience dies but you still do the same things in a loop or it . you can die in 2014 and be born instantly in 2890 or in 1893 or it an only go foreword and you can be born into something els like a cell or a virus

David Kuhn, of Closer to Truth, had a conversation in the episode aired this week in my area in which it was noted that the Hebrews did not believe in and afterlife, that death was just the end, but they evolved a kind of hope in some form of resurrection. The resurrected would not be continuity with the previous life, but a life new and other. Christ makes certain allusion to such a notion in which, if we believe, we are said to await such resurrection 'at the end of days?. That is, that the intervening time we are indeed dead, there is no immediate ascendance to transcendence, as it were. But in Mark, he promises the ingratiating thief a ticket to paradise ?this very day?!

Aristotle was not much respected by his contemporaries. It is evident he was kicked out of the Academy as soon as he was no longer under the protection of Plato. Contrary to conventional belief, the ancient texts were not lost to the early Christian era, they were suppressed, and largely rediscovered long before the usual date assigned to the Renaissance. It was Augustine who resurrected Aristotle to reinforce his contention that humanity is a corrupt invention needing transcendent forms to elevate it to anything worthy of being at all, immortal of otherwise. For a thousand years thereafter institutions vied for the ascendancy once embodied by Rome, and divided between clerical civil and scholarly forces, all of which claimed to be the conduit of that transcendent authority, and all of them speaking in the language of the ancients in a very concerted effort to suppress the naturally democratic instincts of the vast majority of the people. Aristotle's logic or ?dialectics? was, as I seem to recall (from my reading about, not from my presence at the time!) the only text preserved until the abbeys emerged with their insatiable appetite for copying. During the interim the only Plato text available was an abridged version of Timeus, read, of course, as a flat ?idealism?. By the time other texts began to be rediscovered, many of them never really lost, the habit of mind had been set (see Oakley), and learning became the war against democracy it remains to this day. The question of immortality is but a motif in this war discerning, as Jeremiah Burroughs put it, between saints and 'worldlings'. The measures of the worth of a person, and of being deserving of paradise, was the signs of transcendence apparent in one's estate in the world. The poor were but fodder to that mystical authority of the formalism that reigns supreme today. And whether it is the divine authority of sacred tradition, the evident power of civil authority, or the sublime implacableness of impeccably reproduced texts, the right to differ is suppressed and lost. Socrates would not approve. But who minds him?

I don't expect that I can help you understand because understanding is all about Oneself.
But I should try anyway, because try is all we can do.
问题在于测度，而解决之道是无限的。一旦你把不确定性从方程中去除，解就变得非常清楚了。真理是绝对的。=

Sounds like the ancient thematics between "limit and unlimit". The problem is, the most limited is the most unlimited. The least measure is the measureless. The least term of time is all the differing it is. Humanity is more worthwhile than any transcendence, or its supposed maker.The god with the compass is an idiot scribing only its own demise. And nothing is unilateral or alone. Isolation is the derangement of measure, not its perfection.

The limits of the unlimited: We are all surely bound by One infinite immeasurable Universe that unites our finite mortality and infinite immortality into the just and beautiful One. God as is the Universe, as is you and me, is just another name for One, The immortal One with no limits at All. Free at last! =

Obey and be free! Where have I heard that before? Spinoza? The Koran?

Actually, the universe is measurable. Where have you been? It is mortality that is unlimited and immortality limited, and rather uninteresting.

希伯来人不相信来生。生命是物质的，在死亡中完全消失。基督教时代以这种死亡意识开始，只增加了对神命定的尸体复活的遥远期望，而不是对已经居住在身体里的“灵魂实体”的新生命的期望。起初并没有这样的信念。它是奥古斯丁通过亚里士多德提出的，目的是对抗伯拉丘斯。随着罗马帝国接受基督教，并在不久后屈服于入侵，新皈依基督教的诺曼和哥特政权采用了这一理论所提供的自上而下的法律规定。教会、贵族和学术协会，各以其独特的方式，采用粗糙和稀疏的拉丁文学作为一种手段，以抑制人民自发的民主本能(见弗朗西斯·奥克利的作品)。即使到了休谟的时代，公开表示缺乏信仰仍然是危险的。即使在今天，在欧洲以外，但在美国，一个公共事业也可能因为“不信神”的指责而被毁掉。因此，值得注意的是，休谟会如此轻松地对待它，尽管许多人对诚实对待这件事的困难感到恼火或暗示愤怒。

Just thought I'd remind anyone interested in this discussion of its initial issue.

有一个问题要问版主:这个系统中安装的“拼写检查器”使用的是剑桥标准吗?我记得“莫尔斯”打开一本书，指出作者是剑桥人，而不是更受人尊敬的牛津人，他说:“没有一个zed !”

An interesting thing to consider when it comes to mortality, is the sociopolitical effect it will have. This pending predicament can be seen in science fiction movies such as Elysium, yet it seems to still evade most philosophical conversation. Today, modern medicine that merely prolongs life has yet to reach the sickly bodies of many humans in the developing world. Thus, if we in fact introduce the "cure to death," I think it safe to assume that only the rich would be able to afford such a cure, and it would take decades if not centuries for immortality to be a given for all citizens of the world. How would such a world be organized? Would it even be moral to introduce it, once put in these terms? There are a whole slew of problems that seem to be still untouched, but in great need of being seriously discussed and thought through before it may be too late.

Longevity is rather a different issue from immortality. Malthusian alarmism is usually missing countervailing factors. The rich already get better healthcare, and not just in rich countries. But, oddly, or not so oddly, some of the most long-lived are in the poorest communities.
比较永恒的内在和永恒的超越。哪个最好?在开始时，人们必须做出相当乏味的假设，因此永远不会得出....的结论,

Have not taken time to revisit this. Some of our living philosophers are well past the threequarter century mark now, and only a few say much about immortality. Thinkers (I think) try to take a pragmatic approach: better to do the things that are more useful, not less. I still study and write philosophy. I would not presume to offer some new or different reasoning that promised eternal life of any sort. The metaphysics are too tenuous and faith, after Davidson, is propositional. Questions without answers are moot. Pascal's Wager offers nothing comforting.