The Future of the Human Race.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Mhysa Bond

I'd watch the labeling game, people find that really annoying. Coming from firsthand experience. Also it betrays too much emphasis on superficial judgment...(which you have convinced yourself is actually the truth)

Ditto I disagree with your labeling of what scientists/I think/do, pardon me for trying to correct what I believe to be mislabeling and claims without evidence. I gave examples for why I believe you to be a direct realist, where is your reasoning for your claims, and what do you think i've convinced myself of?
Without mind-melding how is it possible to talk about anything without labeling?

Originally Posted by Mhysa Bond

To do this you will have to extend yourself outside the strict physical realms of science and philosophical labeling you are used to...All of them dabbled in metaphysics and the occult and it seems to me that you somehow see yourself above even trying to understand these concepts.

What concepts?
"The primary/secondary quality distinction is a conceptual distinction in epistemology and metaphysics, concerning the nature of reality"

Originally Posted by The World In Your Head - Lehar

Rather than examining the brain and nervous system to see what they tell us about the mind, this book begins with an examination of conscious experience to see what it can tell us about the brain.

Through this analysis, the first and most obvious observation is that consciousness appears as a volumetric spatial void, containing colored objects and surfaces. This reveals that the representation in the brain takes the form of an explicit volumetric spatial model of external reality. The world we see around us therefore is not the real world itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal representation. In fact the phenomena of dreams and hallucinations clearly demonstrate the capacity of the brain to construct complete virtual worlds even in the absence of sensory input. Perception is therefore somewhat like a guided hallucination, based on sensory stimulation.

This insight allows us to examine the world of visual experience not as scientists exploring the external world, but as perceptual scientists examining a rich and complex internal representation. This unique approach to investigating mental function has implications in a wide variety of related fields, including the nature of language and abstract thought, motor control and behavior—as well as to the world of music, art, and dance, showing how the patterns of regularity and periodicity in space and time apparent in those aesthetic domains reflect the periodic basis set of the underlying harmonic resonance representation in the brain.

Is this too sciencey/labely for ya? I thought this was the sort of thing you're in to.

Q : When awake/dreaming/meditating/druggy loser do you think you ever have access to the "real world" or "reality"?

goal/end game

to find out interesting things? consciousness engineering? fabulously wealthy sexy guy on boat?

[Mr. Blonde]

you've officially triggered me motherfucker, congratulations

Originally Posted by Dent

Q : When awake/dreaming/meditating/druggy loser do you think you ever have access to the "real world" or "reality"?

I discern what I call my own personal reality through the facts of what I experience -- senses, touch, sight, sound, etc. These could be "real", they could be "not real" (something you are much less open to than me, for the record). It is an irrelevant question. It's all that is ever happening. Everything that will ever happen to you will happen to you through your senses.

The thoughts that the brain generates are not one of these senses. As long as a person identifies primarily (or, more hellishly, solely) on mental "stories" they are living in a kind of illusion, maya. Their own conditioning and past, often taken not only for granted but with the expectation that everyone else has experienced the same, acts a colored lense through which one interprets the datum of the senses.

The brain is merely a tool for using these senses in a constructive or creative way, but because of the nature in language, the average ape gets mesmerized in the complexity of ideas and belief systems (including your own strong belief systems) and denies the senses, denies the reality of their own living experience, instead choosing the cloudy haze of the symbols in language as the primary basis of reality. The fact that most people identify with their thoughts and mental constructions versus the physical reality of their senses is the reason many of us are indeed living in Hell, which is and always has been a psychological state and nothing more.

Of course we need symbols to speak and interact, but it only matters if you have something noble or worthwhile to talk about. It's one of the reasons I don't really like to talk much anymore, or see people, or "hang out". Unless they are interested in talking about the things that matter (practical, effective, "things we can do right now that don't involve armchair philosophizing" methods of improving the world, even one's own), then there is nothing to talk about.

The reason I ask about your mission is because you're not particularly fun to talk to. You're very closed-minded, truth be told, and at your current stage you are only able to filter the experiences of others (including the language they use to try to to connect with you) by filtering it through your highly exclusionary lexicon of complex scientific terms that, as I have already said, are merely contemporary renamings of ideas and concepts that predate modern science by millennia.

You're simply barking up the wrong tree conversationally here. Outside of me, who ONLY knows the terminology that you use because you make it impossible to communicate on a base level otherwise, there is no one here to talk to you about the things you want to.

I find it amusing you are doing it to "find out interesting things" because I find virtually (pun intended) nothing you really post interesting, probably because you drag it down with a weighty, square scientific language that is, as I have said, just ape gibberish. But maybe it sounds pretty to you. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean with how I don't find sports interesting. I get that other people really like it. And I've tried to be interested in it. But it's just not fun. What's the last "fun" thing you posted?

But, and this is the biggest part of this whole equation: without actually having a clearly expressed personal GOAL or reason to be doing all this mental gymnastics you are doing...its a HUGE waste of your time and life. Huge. And subsequently, I realize as I write this, a waste of mine too.

As if life isn't happening to you right now. As if you couldn't be pursuing much more hedonistic imperatives than you are now.


Our fundamental disagreement is this: I am much more interested in observing and taking in as much beauty as possible in life because beauty is all that there is to experience here; nothing else matters, you can't take it with you, beauty (which some people call love) is the quality that makes life worth living for me. If it is not beautiful somehow, I don't find it interesting.


I simply can't relate to you anymore on the scientific side of things. I'm kind of "over" that, for reasons I have expressed earlier. It explains nothing, the only beauty expressed in it is very empty-feeling and has an unspoken nihilism about it. Science, at least in terms of explaining true meaning, or things like love, or empathy, or relatedness (beyond relativity), just isn't beautiful. It falls short. I know you believe it to be the end-all-be-all, but I believe that reality precedes language, and thus has qualities that are unable to be described language.

I believe you think language can describe reality totally with the right scientific theory, and whether you realize it or not, this drive is what compels you forward.


P.S. - I hope you take note of the lack of block quotes, unreferenced quotes I expect you to know the authors of, long videos with barely a sentence of explanation that I expect you to watch on your own free time simply because I posted it, etcetera. Also note how personal this has been about trying to talk to you as a friend would talk to a friend; open, vulnerable, and genuine. I'm not trying to hide behind a veil of confusing half-formed sentences and philosophical elitism.

P.S.S. - Just to continue my good social example of actually answering your questions genuinely and specifically: "What Concepts?"

Any concept that may describe reality that is outside of your extremely limited scientific viewpoint. Psychological concepts that may explain and indeed expose a certain psychological bias you may hold that you may not even be aware of and indeed may be subconsciously avoiding the discovery of. Mythological motifs and archetypes that describe the human journey, long before your own personal ego (mask) popped out of your mum's lotus-flower. Any of these concepts. Literally anything to expand your worldview past the scientific cage of terminology it is currently trapped in.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Everything that will ever happen to you will happen to you through your senses.

A sense is a physiological capacity of organisms that provides data for perception.
Physiology...a sub discipline of biology

scientific language that is, as I have said, just ape gibberish.

Contradiction?


people without eyeballs can experience phenomenal redness, the presence of an eyeball is neither necessary nor sufficient. [If you think this is happening "through your senses" please explain why, otherwise there's my refutation]

I believe you think language can describe reality totally with the right scientific theory, and whether you realize it or not, this drive is what compels you forward.

I would love to know why you believe this, everything i've said disagrees with this statement, "I don't believe" would be accurate. (Fire in the equations, mathematics describing only the relational-structural properties, qualia, lost in hilbert SPICE) I am dissapointed that you believe this and i'm going to find all the quotes where I believe I've been saying the opposite.

Couple of ad hominems and a bunch of you telling me what's beautiful (which isn't science, because you understand it), that science falls short of something it never attempted, and again informing me of my belief that language gives a complete description of reality. Impressive word count though.

I know you believe it to be the end-all-be-all, but I believe that reality precedes language, and thus has qualities that are unable to be described language.

Phenomenology = Mathematics = Physics = 0
Bellissimo!

[Dent]

[Mr. Blonde]

You're famous!

[Mr. Blonde]

Just seeing your edited post now.

Not insulting you with ad-hominems, calling it exactly how I see it, whether or not you are conscious of your own behavior. Calling you "not fun to talk to" is not an insult, mate. It's my opinion of our interaction based on how much is produced from it --- squat. You are a very smart person but your complete lack of a motive other than seemingly pushing other people's buttons is, categorically, an unfriendly personality trait, one I myself have been trying to overcome for years. I suggest you do the same.

Originally Posted by Dent

A sense is a physiological capacity of organisms that provides data for perception.
Physiology...a sub discipline of biology

Correct. As far as a material scientist like yourself goes, the statement that "senses only exist in biology where biological beings capable of sensing things exist" would seem like a statement you would agree with.

people without eyeballs can experience phenomenal redness, the presence of an eyeball is neither necessary nor sufficient. [If you think this is happening "through your senses" please explain why, otherwise there's my refutation]

How are they describing the color red in the first place? I would be very interested in knowing this. I assume they previously had eyeballs and now no longer do? Would not this fact of previous eyeball ownership taint the whole experiment, given that they could simply be experiencing a memory of the color red through another stimuli?

The point is, the case is hardly closed in regards this one example, and it is weak supporting evidence for the point you're trying to argue which is, and correct me if I'm wrong:

"We do not perceive everything from our senses."

I can agree with this statement in terms of thought, or a priori knowledge. How do you believe they are perceiving this redness, if not through some form of sensory data? What implications does that have for your worldview?

I would love to know why you believe this

"From this point of view the universe in general and playing in particular are, in a special sense, "meaningless": that is, they do not ---like words and symbols --- signify or point to something beyond themselves, just as a Mozart sonata conveys no moral or social message and does not try to suggest the natural sounds of wind, thunder, or birdsong.

When I make the sound "water", you know what I mean. But what does this whole situation mean ---- I making the sound and your understanding it? What is the meaning of a pelican, a sunflower, a sea urchin, a mottled stone, or a galaxy? Or of a+ b = b + a? They are all patterns, dancing patterns of light and sound, water and fire, rhythm and vibration, electricity and spacetime, going like

Thrummular, thrummular thrilp,
Hum lipsible, lipsible lilp;
Dim thricken mithrummy,
Lumgumptulous hummy,
Stormgurgle umbumdular bilp.

Or, in the famous words of Sir Arthur Eddington about the nature of electrons:

We see the atoms with their girdles of circulating electrons darting hither and thither, colliding and rebounding. Free electrons torn from the girdles hurry away a hundred times faster, curving sharply round the atoms with side-slips and hairbreadth escapes...The spectacle is so fascinating that we have perhaps forgotten that there was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. . . . Something unknown is doing we don't know what---that is what our theory amounts to.

It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I have read something like it elsewhere:

The slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

There is the same suggestion of activity. There is the same indefiniteness as to the nature of the activity and what it is that is acting.

Words and language are just symbols. They themselves are not real, in the tangible sense. And the world of the living, breathing senses of your daily experience are much more real and tangible than the mental realms we are conditioned to accept as reality.

Nothing means anything, really, but in that void of meaninglessness there is still beauty. Yes there is beauty in science. And it often gets ruined with white coats, sterility, and otherwise extremely boring and dead environments.

[Dent]

Thanks for responding, I quoted Strawson on Eddington and used that exact quote here:
Consciousness, Death, Existentialism etc. (Link corrected.. my post starts with "I don't think this has anything to do with science" )
" Eight slithy toves gyre and gimble in the oxygen wabe; seven in
nitrogen..."

My comment was that I love the analogy, the post in general was trying to get at how a description of a thing is not the thing itself, the word "phenomenology" is, as you say, just a symbol.
Not the "ding an sich"
you accuse me (or at least that's how i've taken it) of thinking that this symbol somehow encapsulates what we're talking about, instead of it being some sort of placeholder. It's frustrating as obviously I haven't explained my position well enough, and at the same time hilarious.

Here's one more quote for the pile.
"what makes the universe fly?"

Originally Posted by John Wheeler

Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of these labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies".

I'm not sure if any scientist that thinks the equations of physics are anything but inert.

"dent ya limey bastard, whats necessary and sufficient for redness?"

Galen Strawson: What is Cognitive Phenomenology? - YouTube

Galen Strawson: What is Cognitive Phenomenology? - YouTube

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I can agree with this statement in terms of thought, or a priori knowledge. How do you believe they are perceiving this redness, if not through some form of sensory data? What implications does that have for your worldview?

I don't know if we perceive things at all, we don't have a common background here which is why i'd like to try to agree on definitions of things like realism,anti-realism, direct realism, inferential realism, world simulaiton as far as I can tell they're huge topics of the past few centuries. will answer your questions soon... but for now!

World simulation model, instead of perceiving things in the world what our brain/mind is doing is constructing a virtual reality that tracks patterns in the real (mind independant) world.
the ability for the virtual world in our heads to track what's going on outside has been improving for 500+ million years.
Doesn't matter if you're a human, eagle or and other sentient, you'll never have access to the "the real world" only your simulation.
If i'm dreaming and see a mr blonde that mr blonde is internal to me, if i'm awake and see a mr blonde that mr blonde is still internal to me, the only difference is that I infer there's a sentient being behind the zombie in my image.

It's not just colours tastes sounds (secondary qualities) etc that the mind/brain is simulating and mapping onto reality, we're simulating our whole world. Visual acuity sounds like we're somehow honing in on something that's really there.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Correct. As far as a material scientist like yourself goes, the statement that "senses only exist in biology where biological beings capable of sensing things exist" would seem like a statement you would agree with.

"If consciousness is the "fire" then it could be the only thing that has causal efficacy, I find this concept novel and exciting."
Everything that's ever happened is experiential (or is experience involving...), long before biology, the big bang or the multiverse is experience involving.
If this isn't the case you need experience to emerge from non-experiential stuff, I don't see how this can happen.
If it can happen biology has no explanation as to how.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

How are they describing the color red in the first place? I would be very interested in knowing this. I assume they previously had eyeballs and now no longer do? Would not this fact of previous eyeball ownership taint the whole experiment, given that they could simply be experiencing a memory of the color red through another stimuli?

How can you experience the memory of a colour? seeing red is seeing red? back later with some eyeball stuff
Back without eyeball stuff, experiencing a memory of the colour is experiencing the colour. where is this colour memory stored and how could the mind brain recall phenomenal red?

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell (1927, 1954) The Analysis of Matter. New York: Dover. p. 197: Chapter XX The Causal Theory of Perception

Common sense holds ... that perception reveals external objects to us directly: when we "see the sun", it is the sun that we see. Science has adopted a different view, though without always realizing its implications. Science holds that, when we "see the sun", there is a process, starting from the sun, traversing the space between the sun and the eye, changing its character when it reaches the eye, changing its character again in the optic nerve and the brain, and finally producing the event which we call "seeing the sun." Our knowledge of the sun thus becomes inferential; our direct knowledge is of an event which is, in some sense, "in us." This theory has two parts. First, there is the rejection of the view that perception gives us direct knowledge of external objects; secondly, there is the assertion that it has external causes as to which something can be inferred from it."

Originally Posted by David Pearce

Perception? All analogies break down somewhere - including the analogy of a dreaming brain-in-a-skull with a brain-in-a-vat. But the phenomenon of dreaming illustrates how the intuitive contrast between subtle, elusive and ineffable consciousness and the solid and refractory material world is actually internal to conscious mind. Of course, if one is a direct realist about perception, then the mind-dependent mountain of one's dreams is replaced on waking by direct access, somehow, to a mind-independent physical mountain. The wide-awake world-simulationist, on the other hand, believes that the phenomenally apprehended mountain beyond his egocentric body-image now tracks real but only inferred mind-independent geographical features of the world outside his transcendental skull. Or, to quote T.S. Eliot, "one is always alone".

Originally Posted by David Pearce

The mind-dependence of phenomenal colour can be interpreted in various ways. A recent poll of philosophers (cf. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...phers-believe/)
found that around half were direct realists about perception. On this story, we directly perceive our local surroundings, but somehow our minds "paint on" phenomenal colour (I'll pass over colour realism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_color)
By contrast, the world-simulation model holds that phenomenal sticks and stones, mountains and sunsets are features of the world-simulation run by one's mind-brain. When one is awake, these phenomenal objects track gross fitness-relevant patterns in the local environment. In other words, the mind-independent external world is a theoretical inference to best explanation, not a given.
Such inferential realism is much better supported by modern science.

David Chalmers on Strawsonian Physicalism - YouTube

David Chalmers on Strawsonian Physicalism - YouTube

Originally Posted by Chalmers

Option three is the view that says consciousness, although irreducible, isn’t exactly “outside” that physical causal network at all, consciousness instead is deeply tied to the intrinsic nature of the physical world. This goes back to Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell, we don’t really know the intrinsic nature of entities out there in the physical world, the physical world is always revealed to us via its appearances, its effects on us.
Take a bunch of physical particles, we understand their relationships to each other and the causal structure of this network out there, but do we really know what these particles are “in themselves”?
As Kant said, do we know the nature of the “thing in itself” the “ding an sich” or as Russell said “we understand the extrinsic properties of physical entities but not their intrinsic properties” that’s a big metaphysical mystery, what is the intrinsic nature of entities out there in the physical world? Combine this with another metaphysical mystery, we have these intrinsic properties of consciousness, how are we going to place them with respect to the physical world? Russell’s idea was maybe we can solve both of these problems at once. Say it turns out that the physical properties of the world are either precisely the properties of consciousness or certain other special intrinsic properties which are very closely related to the properties of consciousness.
So on this view which I sometimes think of as the panpsychist view for consciousness everywhere or the pan-protopsychist view for protoconsciousness everywhere, wherever you have fundamental physical entities in the world, like physical particles, they have an extrinsic nature and an intrinsic nature, that intrinsic nature might be closely tied to consciousness itself, so consciousness or protoconsciousness spread throughout the physical network.
Now if you take this view there’s no danger of consciousness being epiphenomenal, being outside the network. In some sense consciousness is going to be present at the ground of all physical causation, it’s going to be consciousness in some sense which is doing the work, when one particle hits another particle that particle is somehow intrinsically constituted by consciousness or protoconsciousness, it’s right in there in the causal network. Likewise when I perform an action certain intrinsic properties in my brain are going to be tied to consciousness and in some sense that’s really doing the work. So on this view consciousness is right there in the causal network.

Searle has a new book out defending direct realism.


http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/vision-science

When it comes to the long tradition of thinking and writing about perception, Searle takes the situation to be rather bleak. He believes that the entirety of philosophical work on perception since Descartes has been bewitched by what he calls “the Bad Argument” and, as a consequence, is unnecessary and incoherent. Yet Searle wants to not just bury philosophical theories of perception but also praise them. In particular, he believes that once the bad argument is identified and diagnosed, nothing will prevent us from endorsing a form of direct realism about perception, of the sort Searle himself developed in his 1983 classic Intentionality. According to this form of direct realism, we do not perceive external objects by way of first perceiving intermediate ideas, impressions, or sense-data; instead, perception serves to provide us with immediate presentations of external objects and attributes themselves.
There seems to be a lot to recommend this basic picture of perception. How could we plausibly deny that perception plays a central role in connecting us to, and helping us acquire knowledge about, the empirical world? According to Searle, however, the picture has not only been denied; it has been denied by “just about every famous philosopher who writes on this subject.” “Indeed […],” Searle observes, “I do not know of any Great Philosopher who even accepted […] Direct Realism.” If you’re wondering who the “Great Philosophers” might be, he is referring to Bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, and maybe Mill and Hegel, too.

an dent





P.S. you should get yourself over to Esalen

[Dent]

Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that applies evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world. Effective altruists aim to consider all causes and actions, and then act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

https://80000hours.org/
earning to give
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give

Play poker and give it away
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisin...fective_Giving

stop summon suffering AI demon
Foundational Research Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machin...arch_Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre...istential_Risk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Life_Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future...nity_Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can

[Mr. Blonde]

Fall out of a PLANE in VIRTUAL REALITY!! - YouTube

Fall out of a PLANE in VIRTUAL REALITY!! - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

I am on the Kill List. This is what it feels like to be hunted by drones | Voices | The Independent


WELL IT'S THE WORLD I KNOW
YEAH, IT'S THE WORLD I KNOOOOOWWWWW

Collective Soul - The World I Know (Video) - YouTube

Collective Soul - The World I Know (Video) - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

Sam Harris is writing a book about AI with Eliezer Yudkowsky of Welcome to Less Wrong

Originally Posted by Eliezer Yudkowski

"Value alignment theory" is the overarching research topic of how to develop a highly advanced Artificial Intelligence such that running this AI produces good real-world outcomes. Other terms that have been used to describe this research subject are "robust and beneficial superintelligence" and "Friendly AI theory".

https://arbital.com/p/value_alignment/

[Dent]

They're hostile towards quantum consciousness, that's sure.
SPERGLORDS
https://www.facebook.com/algekalipso...09026402522850
Got a link to Yudkowsky/Harris confirming the book? heard something on it a few months ago

[Mr. Blonde]

Can't remember where, but a mixture of Sam's blog and Twitter made it pretty much definite. I'm very interested to see how it pans out because Eliezer is probably one of the most intelligent people on the planet imho.

Shouldering the Burden of History With Dan Carlin from Waking Up with Sam Harris on podbay - YouTube

Shouldering the Burden of History With Dan Carlin from Waking Up with Sam Harris on podbay - YouTube

Excellent podcast from last year between Dan Carlin from "Hardcore History" and Harris. It's nice to listen to a podcast where the guest actually understands what Harris is actually saying without going on an emotional SJW tirade, about something that isn't even what Sam actually said.

At times it seems like Dan is needlessly arguing with Sam, but it's really just him doing his "other side of the story" thing he does in his podcasts. Plus it is nice to see Sam have a challenge to his mind, Dan Carlin is on point with his conversatorial skills.

[Mr. Blonde]

Unitary mind, computational benefits of binding, mind-ontology connections and, yes, quantum consciousness. I'm aware that saying "quantum consciousness" triggers some people... but no, I'm not a Deepak Chopra advocate. There are, it turns out, good philosophical reasons to justify a quantum consciousness view of the mind. People, and LessWrong specially, pattern-match anything in this space to, well, Oprah and the Secret.

Do you happen to know what "good philosophical reasons" he is referring to?

[Dent]

Not at my battle station for another day or so. Just saw Sam post a discussion with chalmers, hoping it's agood un.

[Mr. Blonde]

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/david-chalmers

[Dent]

TY. At toninis IIT, Andres' video has discussion on why integration isn't the same as unity.

[Dent]

Woohoo binding problem gets a mention

[Dent]

This Is What Humans Would Look Like If They Evolved to Survive Car Crashes

[Dent]

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comme...e_ways/d5mhfnx

Thoughts on this post? A friend from Animal Charity Evaluators is doing an ama

[Mr. Blonde]

We're all doomed. It's over. The human race has no future. Mods, pls lock thread, thx.

[Dent]

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully - YouTube

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

mind-blowing.

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever ? CRISPR - YouTube

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever ? CRISPR - YouTube

[Orgazmo]

Not sure if happy to be alive now or wish I were born in 100 years.

[Mr. Blonde]

Eat healthy, including minimizing meat consumption as much as possible, take supplements and exercise, we might live long enough to have age-reversal technology!