What's REALLY wrong with this Forum .

[OmCheeto]

What's REALLY wrong with this Forum...

Logged on this morning, and noticed that Evo, had once again, mercilessly, locked an apparently well meaning thread.

Was it posted in the wrong section?(Looked like a philosophy topic to me) Were there no "reliable" sources for the information?

What was wrong with the question;

Hello everyone. Lately I have been pondering about the concept of immorality. From a few resources, I have heard that it may be possible around 2047. Also, to clear up any misunderstandings, I mean immorality as in by disease and aging. Not in terms of trauma. I have also seen some ways that people think it may be possible such as by brain "emulation". They are usually preposterous although I was wondering about what the people here think.
Regards, Artemis.

I think immorality is an important topic to discuss!

:grumpy:

You can see it here: Opinion on Immortality


Oh. Ok. Never mind.

 

[Astronuc]

Brain emulsion?

 

[Pengwuino]

They don't call her Evo The Destroyer for nothing.

 

[Jorriss]

I thought it was strange that was locked.

 

[OmCheeto]

Brain emulsion?

No. I think there was just a smudge on my glasses. It's all better now.

 

[OldEngr63]

Could it have to do with the spelling of the words: "immorality" in your post, versus "immortality" in the link given both by OP? They are fairly different matters, to say the least!

My own observation is, however, that the moderators of this blog exercise a pretty heavy hand, guided by a light that is not visible to any except themselves. They seem to want to preserve a form of political correctness similar to that found in most academic environments which I find somewhat painful. But they run the show, so we can only seek not to cross them.

 

[OmCheeto]

...similar to that found in most academic environments...

Probably the only reason I stick around this "oh so wrong" forum.

:tongue2:

 

[Danger]

Brain emulsion?

Is that the same as "head cheese"?

 

[ThomasT]

Logged on this morning, and noticed that Evo, had once again, mercilessly, locked an apparently well meaning thread.

Imho, both immorality and immortality are nonsensical subjects. So, I guess I have to go with Evo on this one ... having read the OP in question, and also not really caring what anybody has to say about either immortality or immorality.

 

[arildno]

When Evo's smile cracks from side to side, the lock has come upon us all...

Or, was that..luck??

 

[tiny-tim]

Scottish comedian Arnold Brown …

my ambition is to be … immortal!

(pause)

so far … so good! ​

 

[Hobin]

Personally, I don't think it was locked for no good reason. I must admit to being somewhat surprised when finding out it was locked, but when rereading the subject once more I realized it would've degraded into nonsensical blabbering soon enough. 'Immortality', even though it's probably an interesting subject, and even though it's quite likely that we might achieve 'biological immortality' some day, simply is a subject we can't say anything too sensical about right now.

My own observation is, however, that the moderators of this blog exercise a pretty heavy hand, guided by a light that is not visible to any except themselves. They seem to want to preserve a form of political correctness similar to that found in most academic environments which I find somewhat painful. But they run the show, so we can only seek not to cross them.

So I don't think it's political correctness. I suspect the moderators simply don't want more than X% of threads to degenerate into senseless (read: without any evidence to support one's point of view) ramblings.

 

[genericusrnme]

Oh boy, I saw that one yesterday too, thought it was a bit harsh too since the only explanation I could see was 'Sorry, it's nonsense.' :(

 

[checkitagain]

Imho, both immorality and immortality are nonsensical subjects.
So, I guess I have to go with Evo on this one ...
having read the OP in question, and also not really caring what
anybody has to say about either immortality or immorality.

But your opinion shouldn't be given any credence in it being locked or not.

And your not caring about it can't be used as any potential reason
to support its being locked. It means you "don't have a dog in
the hunt," should just have ignored that thread's topic, not
have contemplated it further, and just moved on to a different thread.-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, it looks as if this thread is suited for the section
"Forum Feedback and Announcements."And to the OP, OmCheeto, your headline is misleading. You made some
generalization about the whole forum with your headline, but then
in the body of your post you had a grievance with only one
moderator.

 

[ThomasT]

But your opinion shouldn't be given any credence in it being locked or not.

I don't think it was.

And your not caring about it can't be used as any potential reason to support its being locked.

We could argue about immortality/immorality. But, apparently, that wouldn't be allowed.

It means you "don't have a dog in
the hunt," ...

It means just what I said. I think the topics are not constructively arguable. Ie., they're silly topics. Argue them if you want, wherever you want. But, apparently, you won't be arguing them here.

And of course, that's a bit disingenuous. Because moral issues are argued here ... a lot.

Point. There are rules pertaining to morality. Subjective and objective.

But the immortality thing is ... a silly topic. Don't you think?

 

[checkitagain]

And of course, that's a bit disingenuous. Because moral issues are argued here ... a lot.

Point. There are rules pertaining to morality. Subjective and objective.

But the immortality thing is ... a silly topic. Don't you think?

My thinking of whether immortality is a "silly topic" (regardless that
"silly" is subjective), is immaterial to the support/non-support
of locking the thread.

I'm now resorting to repeating my main point:

If you aren't interested in that topic (as in you don't care about it),
then you can't support a moderator to lock it for that
reason.

Logically, you can support the moderator locking it, in part,
for your opinion on that topic being "silly," and hence not
suitable for discussion.

If you were intending to persuade users that the moderator was
justified in locking that thread because you found that topic
"silly," then that is a different point. That would be logical.

 

[xxChrisxx]

They seem to want to preserve a form of political correctness similar to that found in most academic environments which I find somewhat painful.

Ironic as most academic circles are rife with; egotism, back stabbing, jealousy, slyness, sniping and stitch ups. Worse, it's all done underhandedly and covertly.

 

[cepheid]

My own observation is, however, that the moderators of this blog exercise a pretty heavy hand, guided by a light that is not visible to any except themselves. They seem to want to preserve a form of political correctness similar to that found in most academic environments which I find somewhat painful.

Um, no. They want to preserve actual correctness, so that this site retains its utility as a reliable resource for scientific information, something which cannot be said of the majority of other sites on the Internet, which fail to distinguish between legitimate, productive scientific discussion that builds on well-established principles, and crackpottery.

 

[ThomasT]

My thinking of whether immortality is a "silly topic" (regardless that "silly" is subjective), is immaterial to the support/non-support
of locking the thread.

Ok, I can't disagree with this.

I'm now resorting to repeating my main point:

If you aren't interested in that topic (as in you don't care about it),
then you can't support a moderator to lock it for that
reason.

Ok, that's a valid point, imo.

Logically, you can support the moderator locking it, in part,
for your opinion on that topic being "silly," and hence not suitable for discussion.

Ok, then I'll go with that. It's not suitable for discussion, imho.

If you were intending to persuade users that the moderator was justified in locking that thread because you found that topic "silly," then that is a different point. That would be logical.

Interesting. I've seldom been accused of being logical. Thanks. From now on I think I'll agree with anything you have to say. Insofar as it makes sense to me, that is.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
And to the OP, OmCheeto, your headline is misleading. You made some
generalization about the whole forum with your headline, but then
in the body of your post you had a grievance with only one
moderator.

Phht!

What's wrong with this forum? I'll tell you...

This forum has only 345,995 members. How difficult would it been for some mentor to come and ask me my opinion on whether or not they should lock one of my favorite topics? Not very difficult, that's how difficult.

And grievance with Evo? Bwah! Haha! To grieve Evo for that would be like grieving someone for making me not want to poke ice picks in my eyes.

 

[turbo]

I adore Evo, but have a hard time equating that with an urge to stick ice-picks in my eyes. I don't see the equivalence. Sorry.

 

[OmCheeto]

I adore Evo, but have a hard time equating that with an urge to stick ice-picks in my eyes. I don't see the equivalence. Sorry.

I see 4 negatives in the sentence, which in my mind, makes the whole thing positive. It's minimal translation is: "Evo's act made me happy."

 

[Jack21222]

Imho, both immorality and immortality are nonsensical subjects. So, I guess I have to go with Evo on this one ... having read the OP in question, and also not really caring what anybody has to say about either immortality or immorality.

In what way is immortality a nonsensical subject? It's an area of active medical research, particularly into telomeres and telemorase.

Perhaps the moderators of this forum would like to contact the authors of this paper to tell them to stop wasting money on nonsense: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9175740

Or how about this letter in Nature? http://health.usf.edu/nocms/publicaffairs/now/keefe_et_al_telomere_early_development.pdf

 

[AlephZero]

In what way is immortality a nonsensical subject?

The nonsense level of the thread and the subject are two different things. The only mechanism mentioned in the thread's OP was "brain emulation".

 

[Integral]

In what way is immortality a nonsensical subject? It's an area of active medical research, particularly into telomeres and telemorase.

Perhaps the moderators of this forum would like to contact the authors of this paper to tell them to stop wasting money on nonsense: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9175740

Or how about this letter in Nature? http://health.usf.edu/nocms/publicaffairs/now/keefe_et_al_telomere_early_development.pdf

I do not see "immortality" mentioned in either of those articles. Perhaps if the topic would have been about telomeres growth and aging it would not have been locked. It is a HUGE speculative jump from those articles to immortality. Recall that our rules forbid speculative discussions.

 

[Jack21222]

I do not see "immortality" mentioned in either of those articles. Perhaps if the topic would have been about telomeres growth and aging it would not have been locked. It is a HUGE speculative jump from those articles to immortality. Recall that our rules forbid speculative discussions.

Those articles are about stopping aging (senescence means aging). Stopping aging and immortality are very closely linked, not a huge speculative jump.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The thread was locked because it is nonsensicle, biological longevity is one thing and if you want to discuss specific papers relevant to that then that is fine but we've had more than enough discussions regarding the Rapture of the Nerds on this forum and we don't need any more.

BTW Jack cellular senescence and aging of an organism are related but different phenomenon. Do you know what happens when cellular senescence is stopped (as it routinely is)? You get cancer. Not immortality. The problems with threads like this is they are rarely founded in any real sort of science. Instead you get crackpots like Ray Kurzweil alternating between advocating mega-vitamin therapy and nano-magic to somehow prevent aging with no discussion of how that would actually happen beyond vague semantics i.e. "this paper deals with cellular aging therefore in 20 years we could keep people as teenagers!11!1"

As we don't discuss moderator decisions publically and the decision has already been given not to entertain this nonsense (if you can create a legitimate thread within the rules using peer-reviewed references and use those references properly then go ahead) I don't see any reason for this thread to continue either.

 

[Evo]

I locked the thread because it had to do with crackpot Ray Kurzweil's prediction that humans will become immortal in 2045 (the op's memory of the shows he watched was off by 2 years). I didn't want to bring up Kurzweil, I wrongly assumed enough people would know to what the OP was referring, it's famous (infamous) enough, and it's been discussed enough, it's overly speculative and the threads go nowhere.

Sometimes mentors know what they're doing.

It's been interesting to see member's reactions. Some people got the fact that even without linking it to Kurzweil, that we don't have enough knowledge of the brain to say that we'll be able to transfer it into a computer in 33 years and have it be that "person".

And Om is my friend, whether he likes it or not. :tongue2:

 

[Evo]

Oh yeah, from the list of locked threads on previous discussions at the bottom of the one I locked.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854466&postcount=18

The only difference is that the one I locked is even more preposterous in this time frame, combining a human brain with a machine.