h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Immortality Project - A87774565
Author: RedGemAlchemist - U14997111

This is an entry i wrote oon the University of California's study into the possible existence of an afterlife. I do not go into the actual implications of the study, which in all respects slightly frighten me, but I at least hope I have given the brief of the study itself a good running-over.

Well done. However this as it stands is an opinion piece and therefore should be submitted to another forum, The Post perhaps, rather than Peer Review where the content is expected to be factual and the writer's own research.

A short review of publications so far, or a fuller discussion of the philosophical implications, would be fine here, if you word it in the third person.

One endlessly fascinating question that you raise is the relation of instinct to choice of behaviour. One is driven by a survival instinct; but knowing that it is an instinct reduces its credibility somewhat.

Steven Pinker mentions another drive -- the reproduction instinct -- in The Blank Slate, and his reaction is: if my genes want me to have children, they can go and jump in a lake.

You bring up an excellent point concerning how opinionated I've been about this. Maybe the Post would be a much better place for this.

This could be that basis of an excellent entry in Peer Review. The opening paragraph can almost stand as written, except for the first person reference. After that you should tell us about the project itself; how is it funded (Federal, State or private funds) how are the 5 million being spent?
What experiments are being done or planed? How do they expect to get a result?

If you remove the opinion, or publish it elsewhere on H2G2, what remains could be an excellent chance to see how our money is being wasted invested.



FS

This is where the problem lies. I have bo idea what all their funding is going towards, experiment-wise. As for where, it comes from the US Government, and I apologise for neglecting to mention that.

This is where the problem lies. I have bo idea what all their funding is going towards, experiment-wise, and they have totally neglected to mention what result they are actually expecting from this. As for where, it comes from the US Government, and I apologise for neglecting to mention that.

Sorry for repeating myself. I was actually trying to edit what I had written and found out the hard way that I couldn't.

That is part of the charm of hootoo, once you hit it post it is here forever. Preview is our friend.

If it is a government grant the application should be a public record detailing how they intend to use the funds. It might be worth trying to find it.


FS

Thanks, I'll have a look for it.

I believe that, sadly, RedGemAlchemist has ed.

I'd like to propose Back to Entry.

<BB<

Seconded. Back to Entry


lil x

Removed from PR

Soz about that. I've had a lot going on recently, so I haven't had the time.

Welcome back RedGemAlchemist


Your article has been put back into your Personal Space. You could continue to work on it in there until you feel it's ready and you have sufficient time to follow its course through Peer Review.


Real life can be a nuisance sometimes!


lil x
ACE/Scout