Aging is inevitable

Interesting. I’ve only read the first part, but I will come back to it later. I noticed that there are variables not imputed into the equation or not specified such as, are they reproducing, are they capable of technology or are they intelligent for that matter, are they in a group, are they capable of fighting back, etc. I understand what your saying though.

Edit: I just think that as we advance as a race, most of these problems won’t occur or will appear relatively small in comparison to today. Disease that spawns inside of us is what most concerns me. Next on the list would have to be natural disasters and then astronomical events that could take place.

Not if the tiger is angry one day and not the other, or hungry, or stronger than usual. And what’s wrong with cursing? I mean, for fucks sake, it appears to be a word, therefor why should it not be used? :smiley:

Edit: Also, if you flip a coin, it is still determined by other variables, such as wind, weight, and various other things. Just because it appears to be 50/50 doesn’t make it so.

Uhhh…no. The reason the gamblers fallacy applies to coins is theres an exact 50% of it being heads or tails, even if you flip it a billion times and heads comes up.

Do I really need to explain why this doesn’t apply to a fucking tiger? I feel like a fucking moron to try and explain the difference between a coin and a tiger.

a coin is an inanimate object, a tiger is a predator, opening the cage 10 times doesn’t mean 10 equal chances of being eaten. If the tiger is hungry, agitated or irritated its not an equivilent risk. If you act scared or move the wrong way, the risk increases. The risk probably increases as the tiger gets more and more enraged being locked in a cage.

The gamblers fallacy doesn’t apply to predators, it applies to coins and other nonagents, it definately doesn’t apply to bacteria or predators.

I beg to differ, about the coin anyways. But that’s another thread. But other than that, I find this rather funny.

Hey Gib, what is the fallacy where you try to relate two objects that are completely different called? I can’t think of the name. :smiley:

Theres no need for cursing? I disagree, your comparing the gamblers fallacy to the risk of dying from predators due to increased exposure to predators. The gamblers fallacy doesn’t apply AT ALL, it couldn’t because it deals with a very limited set of possibilities: heads or tails, the statistical occurance of tails doesn’t effect the future statistical occurance of heads, because each flip is fucking 50% chance of either.

A tiger doesn’t operate based on two possibilities like heads or tails, do you understand that? opening a cage doesn’t equal equivilent chances between only 2 possibilities, like heads or tails.

Thats some basic shit I feel pollutes my thread to clear up because its a dishonest attempt to DERAIL my thread. I don’t honestly believe you think the gamblers fallacy applies to tigers or lions or bears, I assume you know BETTER THAN THAT. I don’t like explaining the obvious.

  1. Its not fallacy per se but heuristics and biases, the gamblers fallacy is one of them. I’m not engaging in gamblers fallacy Gib, you’d be engaging in Semmelweis reflex, Neglect of probability, and Mere exposure effect because you haven’t studied heuristics and biases past the gamblers fallacy which you think applies to tigers.

Go look up gamblers fallacy though, you’ll see its not meant to apply to tigers or creatures with minds, goals and memory.

Cyrene,

All I need from you is an explanation for why the chances of being eaten by that tiger would go up solely in virtue of the prey’s being older. You yourself said that the reason for the higher likelihood was:

THAT’S what I’m calling the gambler’s fallacy.

Well, fuck me backwards and kick the shit out of grandma! I think you’re God damned right, Xilivai! Still, swearing should only be employed in the name of fun, not anger. I only hope the mods agree. :smiley:

Equivocation? No - that’s for different meanings.

No sequitur? No - that means it doesn’t follow.

Red herring? No - that means being lead astray or distracted by an irrelevant point.

Fuck, Xil, I can’t goddam think of it! :smiley:

Simply being exposed to a predator increases the chance of you being eaten. One day it could be happy, the next it could be angry. If the animal is happy and is not hungry, you have a better chance of coming out of the encounter alive. If he is hungry, then there is a better chance of him eating you and better still if he is angry. It is safe to assume that the longer you are exposed to a predator, which are known for eating people, the chances of you surviving decrease simply because you are exposed to it for a long duration.

Think of it this way. If you walk into a lion’s cage for a second then step out and do not get attacked, then you walk into it again but this time you stay for, say, five minutes. In that extra time, he is more able to kill you then you just walking in there for a second.

But how is he “more able”? There has to be some kind of change in the system due to time passing in order for the chances to increase.

It seems an obvious fact that the lion will eat you eventually, so yes, the more times you go in there, the more likely you will be eaten, but that’s only because you’ve given the lion so many chances.

Let’s say the chances of being eaten by the lion are 1 in 10. That means that if you go into his den 10 times, you’re chances of being eaten are pretty good - but on each individual turn of entering the den, your chances will always be 1 out of 10. The gambler’s fallacy assumes that on your tenth entrance into the den, your chances are 10/10 (because you’ve “used up” all your 10 chances), which any statistician will tell you is plain false.

Let me put it this way. Although your chances of being eaten by the lion are fairly high if you are given 10 chances to go into the den, when the lion eats you is equally probable over all those chances. It could happen on the first entrance, it could happen on the last, it could happen at any time in between. Just because so many chances have gone by without you being eaten doesn’t increase the chances above 1/10 on the next turn.

And of course, if you factor in extraneous variables (like the lion might be more hungry the longer you wait, or the color of your shirt may look more appitizing), then of course that affects the chances, but it could affect it either way (increasing it or decreasing), and it certainly doesn’t invariably go up the more you age, and it certainly isn’t because you’ve aged.

Send two victoms into that lions den - one’s a young 20 something year old and the other a 40 something - assuming senescence is not in play, do you really think the lion is going to have a preference for the 40 something just because he’s older? Will he be able to tell? What about a disease like N1H1? Does it prefer older people (in the absence of senescence)? What about falling off a cliff? Does gravity work harder on older people than younger ones? There has to be some kind of causal connection in order to say that just being older (in the absence of senescence) causes one to be at higher risk for death.

Except a tiger’s probability to attack you isn’t a constant like 1/10 EACH TIME, its a dice toss depending on a massive variety of things like how hungry or irritated he is. Or if you smell the tiniest bit different.

Which is obviously false. OBVIOUSLY FALSE.

Anyway the point is someone at 40 gets exposed to more lions, and yes without senescene the lion would go for the 40 year old unless the 40year old had less parasites/disabilities from accident or attack than the 20 year old. Which is not true in populations.

Not just lions, but accident, pneumonia, or attack by other humans. Even if you are incapable of understanding my point about predation, you understand older people WITHOUT senescene die more from bacteria, JUST BECAUSE have more time to evolve, or the risk of COINFECTION

-http://www.senescence.info/evolution.html

In the real world this is true Gib, outside whatever armchair statistics you’re getting at. In the real world your risk of being eaten by X is never constant, never 1/10 or 1/2 its variant, and the longer you live the more exposure to those threats winnows away older populations. In the real world its what happens.

Cyrene,

What is the causal connection between having lived longer and being more susceptible to death? It can’t just be that one has lived longer.

If you can’t answer that in a clear and concise manner, I’m just going to have to consider you wrong and ignorant, and there will be no point in furthering this discussion.

This may just be the causal connection I was asking for (finally!) - but it’s noticeably different from saying that sticking around for a long time is the sole causal factor. If you want to argue that certain biological changes brought on by genes occur as one gets older, fine, but this is not what you argued earlier.

And, yes, I realize that “in the real world” the chances are never constantly 1/10 or 1/2 - so get off it - but I did point out that whatever causes the chances to fluctuate (or increase) can’t just be that the individual has been around for longer, and without a causal explanation for how the chances would increase the older one gets, you might as well consider the chances to be constant.

Greater exposure to toxins universal in food and to parasites/infections, will decrease the older person’s fitness because the infection has a longer time to evolve inside of them. Older people are more likely to have co-infections with pneumonia/worms (or anything) because they have greater exposure to the ubiquitous parasites. Co-infections turn minimal infections into deadly ones.

So, pathogens and parasites have a better chance vs older people even without senescene. Just because they’re alive longer, which gives organisms living in them more time to siphon your resources.

I’m not saying that, I did, but not right now. What I claimed was that things like predation, accident and disease reduces or winnows an older population down, and you claimed it was a gamblers fallacy.

Its not.

The term False Analogy comes to mind. I could be wrong though.

OK, Cyrene, with all the causal elements you’ve put into the picture, I think I can agree with you =D> .

And you didn’t even have to swear :smiley:

Having read the posts in this thread one thing that strikes me regarding the discussion re aging and death, is that it has centred around biological factors. No one has considered PSYCHOLOGICAL factors.

There is a well known saying – the skin is the mirror of the mind. What this is saying is that what is going on in the mind shows up in the skin. For example, the effects of prolonged stress often have physical symptoms which show up on the skin. I suggest that ‘the skin is the mirror of the mind’ is a simplification and that it is the BODY that is the mirror of the mind. In other words, physical ill-health has psychological roots and, frankly, relating diseases to genetic disorders is, despite what scientists claim, actually a load of bunkum.

This brings me now to aging and disease and reproduction.

Aging, disease and reproduction are actually SYMPTOMS of diseased minds. Humans, at the moment, are not immortal beings (but they may have been in the past, before the rot set in, so to speak). They age and get diseases. They die. Therefore to keep the species alive, they must reproduce. REPRODUCTION IS NOT NORMAL. It happens BECAUSE humans are dysfunctional (and therefore mortal).

There is also the misconception that aging is natural and normal. I don’t think it is. Nor do I think disease is accidental. Aging happens, as I said, because our minds are dysfunctional. The dysfunction shows up physically in, for example, the aging process and death. A person with a mind that is dysfunctional cannot even hope to entertain the possibility of immortality! Dementia and related diseases of the elderly are also seen as normal but again, they are far from normal and are products of dysfunctional minds.

In what way are our minds dysfunctional? The answer is simple. The mind is a learning organism. An organism that learns through ‘doing’ i.e. through experience. Humans, however, treat the mind as a memory bank like the hard disc of a computer or a library of books. (I’ll not go into the reasons why they misuse the mind here.). That is fatal. It leads to dysfunction and disease – physical and mental diseases and , ultimately, death. Dysfunctional animals have to die, they cannot survive. Another way in which we abuse our minds and make them dysfunctional is that the entire population of the planet is hooked on drugs of one sort or another. I don’t mean alcohol or herion, although those have an effect on imbibers. No, we are drugged up on power and emotions. If our minds were not dysfunctional we would reject these drugs but we are far too far down the road to perdition, I think, to sort ourselves out now!

If, as I say, we had healthy minds, we would reject this addiction to emotions and power. We would recognise good ‘food’ for the mind and bad ‘food’ for the mind and ‘eat’ accordingly. But we don’t, as a species. Death is inevitable.

As to immortality, how do our physical bodies survive? A healthy body, like a healthy mind, is self-healing and self-sustaining. It doesn’t need doctors. It can sort itself out. Also, a healthy mind will not fear immortality because a healthy mind doesn’t get bored. A healthy mind is self-sufficient. (A world in which people are not drug addicts would be much more stimulating than this sorry little planet we exist on currently, by the way.)

The consequences of the above are very important. The main being that we are not victims of disease. We can actually take control over our health and well-being.

If you want a longer, healthier life, and to make yourself less susceptible to mental diseases and physical, wean yourself off your drugs – principally emotional attachment (I have had a lot to say on emotional attachment in a different thread).

Finally, I’m not sure whether we can revert, as a species, to immortality in the near future. I think we may be too far down the dysfunctional road for that to happen. I, for one, am working on it, though!

What do you think about the search for a cure for cancer? Is that in some ways the same thing as searching for a fountain of youth?

That is the same but isn’t. For example many researchers don’t think of cancer as a disease, but the “natural end point to any multicellular organism”

cancer is unavailable, there will never be a “cure” for the buildup of mutations that lead to cancer, but more effective treatments for more and more cancers, that will happen, is happening.

Today some people survive breast cancer, but 10 or 20, 30, 40 etc years they will get another cancer.