Death is natural and so I have no problem with it. I do take exception when a person tries to deprive another person of their life without sufficient cause.
Not dying isn't feasible with the resources available to us right now. I suspect that within a century or two there will be a way to save a person's memory totality in a computer and in that way we will no longer die. At that point we could probably walk among the breathers in robot body's controlled mentally. A while after that we could have new bodies made for us after the old one is used up(or just becomes suboptimal). Maybe five or six centuries from today...we could make organic bodies that don't degrade at all. They wouldn't be anything like our bodies are today and perhaps we'll have outgrown any notion that sentience is tied to humanity or that our original form is sancrosect and shouldn't be changed.
Death is natural and so I have no problem with it. I do take exception when a person tries to deprive another person of their life without sufficient cause.
Not dying isn't feasible with the resources available to us right now. I suspect that within a century or two there will be a way to save a person's memory totality in a computer and in that way we will no longer die. At that point we could probably walk among the breathers in robot body's controlled mentally. A while after that we could have new bodies made for us after the old one is used up(or just becomes suboptimal). Maybe five or six centuries from today...we could make organic bodies that don't degrade at all. They wouldn't be anything like our bodies are today and perhaps we'll have outgrown any notion that sentience is tied to humanity or that our original form is sancrosect and shouldn't be changed.
Except from my limited understanding is that you still die, the "copy" lives on. So, death will still be there. Unless if you can make someone's body immortal, though. Which comes down towards whether we can accept a "digital copy" as a "person" and whether that "immortal copy" is "good enough for immortality."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I suspect that within a century or two there will be a way to save a person's memory totality in a computer and in that way we will no longer die.
Why would we ever want to do that?
Seriously, to spend an eternity locked in a computer unable to die? That sounds like Twilight Zone-level horror.
I don't know. But someone will do it. Despite all the scaremongering around the technological singularity and just technological advancement in general there are no signs that the thirst for more and better technology will ever be quenched. In my cultural anthropology class my teacher put forth the notion that homo sapiens sapiens is a finished product and the only real evolution left to us is cultural and technological. Death is a cultural taboo and technology is probably our only way to get around it or at least delay it a while longer. I can get behind the whole notion of transcending death using spiritual means but we don't have the requisite time needed to accomplish that.
I don't know. But someone will do it. Despite all the scaremongering around the technological singularity and just technological advancement in general there are no signs that the thirst for more and better technology will ever be quenched.
I don't consider the technological singularity a scary idea so much as I consider it an absolutely ******* absurd one. Especially now, in the 21st century, where we're discovering all of these substitutes to natural things are inferior and often times much more harmful than the real deal, and with all of this technology we have that goes wrong in absurd ways, the idea that technology equals magic or technology equals divinity is outright ridiculous.
To me, the most accurate depiction of what a cyborg will be is probably Darth Vader. Awkward, clunky, inferior to a human being, constantly requiring maintenance, and increasingly frustrated at the fact that he is a cyborg.
In my cultural anthropology class my teacher put forth the notion that homo sapiens sapiens is a finished product and the only real evolution left to us is cultural and technological.
"Finished product"? I feel like your teacher is making the same error most people make with regards to evolution, which is assuming it has an end product or goal in mind.
I'll agree that the human race, like the shark, cockroach, and horseshoe crab, probably isn't going to change that much because we're pretty clearly the apex of our race. That doesn't mean a rapid change of environment won't force changes in us. Evolution doesn't stop.
Death is a cultural taboo and technology is probably our only way to get around it or at least delay it a while longer. I can get behind the whole notion of transcending death using spiritual means but we don't have the requisite time needed to accomplish that.
To me, the most accurate depiction of what a cyborg will be is probably Darth Vader. Awkward, clunky, inferior to a human being, constantly requiring maintenance, and increasingly frustrated at the fact that he is a cyborg.
Maybe at first. Star Wars was very limited by the era in which it was made. Anakin was a DIYer, being extremely paranoid and fearful, and so its possible that more advanced robotic body parts were available and he simply didn't trust anything made by others.
"Finished product"? I feel like your teacher is making the same error most people make with regards to evolution, which is assuming it has an end product or goal in mind.
I'll agree that the human race, like the shark, cockroach, and horseshoe crab, probably isn't going to change that much because we're pretty clearly the apex of our race. That doesn't mean a rapid change of environment won't force changes in us. Evolution doesn't stop.
Evolution takes a very, very long time and is not observable in real time. The adaptations we make to survive may cause us to change on the genetic level but we won't know for a long time.
I don't know what that last sentence means.
Transcending death through spiritual means is exactly what it sounds like. You know, like nirvana or some similar concept. By spiritual means I mean a profound experience that is both physical and mental. Our minds are one of the few things we haven't fully explored in our bodies and I suspect it has the potential to do many "impossible" things. A sci fi example of this is the concept of ascension in the Stargate universe.
1.) death is good. Dying may not be, but death is.
2.) I can't think of anything more hellish than living forever.
I'd be fine with living forever as long as permanent stasis was invented so that I could cheat the system and go into permanent sleep forever when I got tired of everyone I know dying.
I personally am afraid of death. I have been every since I was in 2nd grade. The idea that my existence will end and that no one even knows if there even is anything else is just terrifying for me. However, I have come to terms with the fact that I can't do anything to stop death from claiming me eventually. Even if scientists develop a way to stop aging, I will eventually get into an accident, be murdered, or something like that. What I am still afraid of though is that everything that I do will be forgotten. That is why death is viewed as bad. The idea that your legacy will be forgotten and that everything you did will pass into dust is simply abhorrent to most people. It is as if you never existed. That you lived and died, but it never mattered. Billions of people have lived on this world, but how many of them are remembered by anyone today? We can't even prove that they existed. We don't know their jobs, their personalities, or even their names. That what is bad about death. That in a couple hundred years, none of us will have ever existed.
This is why I have a problem with Death. Death is something that is unpreventable, inescapable, inevitable. To be afraid of it is folly; there is literally nothing about it you can do.
What makes me afraid of it is that when my time comes, I most likely would have done nothing to be known by future generations; who will ever say "Slarg was a great man"? My friends? My Family? What about when they die? It's a paralyzing thought; what can I do with my life to make myself known and an important figure in history?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
This is why I have a problem with Death. Death is something that is unpreventable, inescapable, inevitable. To be afraid of it is folly; there is literally nothing about it you can do.
The fact that you are mortal is something you can literally do nothing about, but to stave off death is certainly something one can do something about. For instance, say I were to encounter a grizzly bear outside my door tomorrow morning. Death by grizzly bear is neither inescapable, unpreventable, or inevitable, and I would be foolish to consider it as such. Instead, the sensible thing would be me feeling afraid, and letting that fear to motivate me towards escaping and preventing my evitable demise.
What makes me afraid of it is that when my time comes, I most likely would have done nothing to be known by future generations; who will ever say "Slarg was a great man"? My friends? My Family? What about when they die? It's a paralyzing thought; what can I do with my life to make myself known and an important figure in history?
You stated fear of death being folly before. What is your opinion regarding your fear of not being known by future generations, or being an important figure in history?
This is why I have a problem with Death. Death is something that is unpreventable, inescapable, inevitable. To be afraid of it is folly; there is literally nothing about it you can do.
The fact that you are mortal is something you can literally do nothing about, but to stave off death is certainly something one can do something about. For instance, say I were to encounter a grizzly bear outside my door tomorrow morning. Death by grizzly bear is neither inescapable, unpreventable, or inevitable, and I would be foolish to consider it as such. Instead, the sensible thing would be me feeling afraid, and letting that fear to motivate me towards escaping and preventing my evitable demise.
What makes me afraid of it is that when my time comes, I most likely would have done nothing to be known by future generations; who will ever say "Slarg was a great man"? My friends? My Family? What about when they die? It's a paralyzing thought; what can I do with my life to make myself known and an important figure in history?
You stated fear of death being folly before. What is your opinion regarding your fear of not being known by future generations, or being an important figure in history?
In the situation of me be mauled by a bear, I would be more afraid of being left crippled than dead honestly. Being paralyzed from the neck down would be a living hell, and not what I want my life to be.
I would say that is more of my fear than death; My fear of being unimportant. In my mind, while Immortality is impossible, leaving a legacy would be the closest and honestly the most preferable thing; No worries about being alive for forever (And watching everyone else age and die), but being remembered for what I stood for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
I fear losing my state of consciousness or any hope of advancing my consciousness to a higher state of perspective and understanding. Thus I hope in my lifetime to find a way to become immortal or otherwise vastly increase my lifespan while maintaining quality of life past normal boundaries. There is so much I understand, so much I want to still learn and experience. I am 21 years old, and 50-70 more years is not enough. I am not in fear of the unknown, I am in fear of losing the cohesiveness and complexity of my state of being. Perhaps it is true, if I'm dead I can't possibly conceive the thought of regretting being dead - but the more simple thing for me is that I just want to continue to live. To cease to be is so.... aggravating. Death is an annoying reality, especially knowing that our ideas of afterlives in religions are all a load of hogwash. I imagine if I am on my deathbed one day or about to die from any other cause, I will not find peace, I will go mentally kicking and screaming.
To know so much, understand so much, with the potential to know more and become more... I refuse to lose that if I can help it by any means. A large part of me believes there is value in my existence that can be increased by extending it to increase the rarity or what my mind is. I mean, I'm the product of billions of years of evolution, the sum of 21 years of absorbing experiences and selecting to learn mostly by my own whims the discoveries and leaps in methods of perception and understanding that my fore-bearers have built up in passed down knowledge for thousands of years. Is that not worth desiring to preserve and continue to enhance? I find it incredibly strange, if not outright stupid, that some people in our species' history have suggested that immortality would be a curse. I have thoroughly thought it over and I conclude such people they are wrong because their emotional attachments and concerns of boredom mislead them from more notable and valuable imperatives such as knowing more and experiencing more, even minus a basic survival instinct.
So, when my end starts draws near, I'm not sure what I'll do. Hope there's some kind of transhumanist solution, or if not perhaps cryostasis or something like it will have been perfected so that later humans can revive me when my life can be extended while I am in an actionable state. I don't know. Does this make any sense? Am I reaching beyond simple fear in my desire to live?
I fear losing my state of consciousness or any hope of advancing my consciousness to a higher state of perspective and understanding. Thus I hope in my lifetime to find a way to become immortal or otherwise vastly increase my lifespan while maintaining quality of life past normal boundaries.
But if you fear dying, wouldn't that prove to be vanity? By which I mean, it's binary: either you will live forever, or you will die. So, if your fear is of dying, then does it really make any difference? Either way you're going to die.
Death is an annoying reality, especially knowing that our ideas of afterlives in religions are all a load of hogwash.
But if you fear dying, wouldn't that prove to be vanity? By which I mean, it's binary: either you will live forever, or you will die. So, if your fear is of dying, then does it really make any difference? Either way you're going to die.
At this point admittedly yes to a degree. As a means it supports part of my desire to remain alive. However, what seems more logically imperative to be is to attain, if only for a moment, understanding of everything. Being more objective and acting in accordance to what is real seems a logical consequence of objectively understanding more, at least to me. (I hope that makes sense.) Let me correct if that sounds circular. I mean to say that my estimated current lifespan seems not enough time to attain perfect objectivity/understanding, so hopefully extending it indefinitely would provide enough time acquire enough (or all of the) information to do so. If it is conclusive that there is nothing more to existence past that, then perhaps death is logical. Maybe a form of not-quite-death in which my existence and thoughts are paused, but preserved, until something else eventful may or may not happen in the timespan of the universe or whatever lies beyond or after, so as to continue seeking to know more when/if things begin to happen again.
Demonstrate this?
Well, I can't. I can only assume to know based on what seems likely, or almost for certain. The small, rather annotation-like knowledge of human history, culture, and philosophy I possess forms for me a current conclusion that such ideas are our own creation and have no basis in objective reality, and as such I should not 'put all my eggs in that basket' with things like pascals wager, as without empirical evidence to clearly support it, it seems a waste of time for me to commit to any religion or belief of an afterlife. Until such time as that by some miracle it is proven we 'magically' had afterlives or some-such all along I will for convenience assume that I know mostly for certain that there is no such thing for us. I am not capable of holding a better position with what information and tools of understanding I have been given yet, though admittance of nihilism is at a base level logical or rather necessary to me due to the limits of my modes of perception. Knowing and not knowing is tricky, the best thing I know of to determine truth so far seems to be with application of science following logical empiricism.
At this point admittedly yes to a degree. As a means it supports part of my desire to remain alive. However, what seems more logically imperative to be is to attain, if only for a moment, understanding of everything.
How is that logically imperative?
Moreover, how is that logically possible?
Being more objective and acting in accordance to what is real seems a logical consequence of objectively understanding more, at least to me. (I hope that makes sense.)
It doesn't.
I mean to say that my estimated current lifespan seems not enough time to attain perfect objectivity/understanding,
I don't understand this thing you have with "perfect objectivity," or your conflating it with "perfect understanding." You exist in the world, don't you? So isn't your experience of existing inherently subjective? If so, how can you possibly be completely objective? And even if you could, why would this be a desirable state?
Indeed, is not desire itself inherently subjective? A completely objective entity would not care one way or the other about anything by virtue of being objective — and this includes not caring about whether or not it cares one way or the other.
so hopefully extending it indefinitely would provide enough time acquire enough (or all of the) information to do so.
You keep talking about things that are real. Do you believe it is a realistic possibility that you will achieve an infinite lifespan?
Because I'm not seeing what's realistic about putting your expectations on becoming immortal that you may gain infinite knowledge.
Well, I can't. I can only assume to know based on what seems likely, or almost for certain.
Demonstrate this?
The small, rather annotation-like knowledge of human history, culture, and philosophy I possess forms for me a current conclusion that such ideas are our own creation and have no basis in objective reality,
Demonstrate this?
though admittance of nihilism is at a base level logical or rather necessary to me due to the limits of my modes of perception.
This is why I like debate forums like this. There is a certain delight to be found in a line of questioning that demands re-questioning of my assertions even when I thought to hold my position strongly. I suppose it is not logically imperative nor possible when I really think it over again and read what I just said for the 5th time and I see that I choose my words there poorly. That leaves us with me simply wanting to experience these things we discuss here due to curiosity. Perhaps that isn't logical, but what better can I do than try to satisfy that curiosity? Perhaps I am bound to my nature, logical or not, if I am to maintain in some sense what I am.
Quote from Highroller » »
Indeed, is not desire itself inherently subjective? A completely objective entity would not care one way or the other about anything by virtue of being objective — and this includes not caring about whether or not it cares one way or the other.
Interesting, and more logical than what I've been saying. I had not considered that in that way. Perhaps perfect objectivity is not what I should be seeking.
Quote from Highroller » »
You keep talking about things that are real. Do you believe it is a realistic possibility that you will achieve an infinite lifespan?
As a very remote possibility since medical research seems more concrete to place my hopes in than that of any religion. I can't predict the future, I just hope a sequence of events will occur that would allow me to try out that whole immortality thing to see what its actually like. Maybe medical science will boost age expectancy a couple of decades when I get into my later years and slightly more time might be afforded to live long enough for the bigger leaps against mortality. If I am doomed to die eventually perhaps I will have done something to help future humans pursue what I wished to pursue (if any of them desire such) but had not lived long enough to by doing something useful with my limited time.
As a whole I'm not sure what you're fully getting at here, though. That's the best I've been able to do so far in terms of this subject about death. I'm fine with finding out of if I'm wrong about something. I figure you're going somewhere with this line of questioning dissecting what I provided as my position. I could go through the whole process of trying to provide answers for your inquiries of 'demonstate this' and such further, but I think we're going to end up at the same place as before. I actually don't know what your stance on the veracity of such matters as religion is, I should hope agnostic or something similiar depending on how you define that, otherwise that would be a debate that will go on forever and won't even pertain to this thread. Suffice to say I would probably be able to back up my position on that quite a bit better than any other topic I post about, it would just take a long time and I'd be better off recommending The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Anyhow, I'll cut to the chase and inquire, what's your point? Maybe the point is elaborating on something I'm doing wrong in my process of thought I displayed in the last two posts I made here? If so, how so? If otherwise, what do you suggest?
In the situation of me be mauled by a bear, I would be more afraid of being left crippled than dead honestly.
I would fear both.
Never found a reason to be afraid of something that's going to happen eventually anyway. Being left paralyzed from the neck down however means I'm unable to do anything; Couldn't walk, feed, or even poop by myself. I would suffer a thousand agonies before being left as a vegetable.
I would say that is more of my fear than death; My fear of being unimportant.
Why?
Because if you are able to make people thousands of years talk about you, you have achieved a form of immortality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
As a very remote possibility since medical research seems more concrete to place my hopes in than that of any religion.
In what regard? Medical science certainly cannot possibly grant immortality, and has yet to grant any assurances as to human lifespan.
I can't predict the future, I just hope a sequence of events will occur that would allow me to try out that whole immortality thing to see what its actually like.
I'm not seeing how you can say that it is illogical to place one's trust in religion, and then place your trust that medical science will grant you immortality and affirm that this is logically sound. That makes no sense to me.
Maybe medical science will boost age expectancy a couple of decades when I get into my later years and slightly more time might be afforded to live long enough for the bigger leaps against mortality.
Except calculus tells us that as X approaches infinity, any constant c will equal 0. In other words, when up against infinity, any finite number becomes irrelevant.
If I am doomed to die eventually
It would be irrational to think otherwise.
perhaps I will have done something to help future humans pursue what I wished to pursue (if any of them desire such) but had not lived long enough to by doing something useful with my limited time.
So your definition of useful is "become immortal"? That's the only way a person can be useful?
As a whole I'm not sure what you're fully getting at here, though.
I mean, you keep going on about realism and logic or whatever. Is it at all realistic or logical to expect immortality?
I could go through the whole process of trying to provide answers for your inquiries of 'demonstate this' and such further,
Never found a reason to be afraid of something that's going to happen eventually anyway.
You're not getting it. If there's a bear coming at you, it is entirely rational to be afraid of the bear killing you. In fact, that fear is a beneficial thing, because it motivates you to make sure the bear doesn't kill you. Saying "eh, it's inevitable" is incorrect because there's nothing inevitable about a bear killing you.
Similarly, if you walk out on a road and see a car coming toward you, unless you're hopped up on some pretty powerful drugs, your instinctive response should be, "HOLY *****, CAR!" This is because you recognize the oncoming car as a threat to your safety. Now, is this fear of dying from a car impact rational? Of course it is! It's a ******* car!
Fearing death is an entirely rational thing because it helps you to avoid dying. Saying, "Eh, I'm just going to die anyway, so why bother?" is both disingenuous (pretty sure if you saw an oncoming car coming at you you'd react in a manner that isn't, "Oh, ho hum, I guess this is inevitable") and absurd.
Death in some form is inevitable, certainly. But it makes perfect sense to be afraid of death. That's the instinct that's designed to keep you from dying.
Being left paralyzed from the neck down however means I'm unable to do anything; Couldn't walk, feed, or even poop by myself. I would suffer a thousand agonies before being left as a vegetable.
Let me ask you something: by your logic, was it inevitable that you were left paralyzed by the bear?
If not, then why wouldn't you also fear being mauled to death by a bear? Does that make any sense at all?
Because if you are able to make people thousands of years talk about you, you have achieved a form of immortality.
That seems like the opposite of immortality. Immortality means you don't die. People talking about you after you're dead means you died.
So I ask again, why do you care if people talk about you after you die?
In what regard? Medical science certainly cannot possibly grant immortality, and has yet to grant any assurances as to human lifespan.
There are leads that suggest perhaps it can. We've learned about things like the Hayflick Limit as described by the telomeres in our cells, and quite simply a lot of things that contribute to the degradation of the body can be fixed with applied medical science. Vaccines, reconstructive surgery, transplants, artificial implants/limbs, drugs, etc. It most definitely provides assurances for at least attempting to increasing our respective lifespans. Yes, medical science at this current moment cannot grant immortality - yet. Its track record of application suggests its worth placing hope in, however, because we have learned and are still learning a lot about the natural causes by which we die, and there are some very smart people in the field who are working on things like anti-aging drugs as we speak in their laboratories, probably testing them on mice. I hope they find promising results in their endeavors.
I'm not seeing how you can say that it is illogical to place one's trust in religion, and then place your trust that medical science will grant you immortality and affirm that this is logically sound. That makes no sense to me.
I don't know that it will grant me immortality, medical science just has demonstrable, frequent results of fixing problems that develop in the human body. Not all of them yet, but quite enough that nations across the world have sophisticated hospital and clinic networks to provide medical assistance as a service to others. Meanwhile, putting hope in a religion would be require nothing short of faith in something (IE: god) that has never been empirically proven to even exist.
Except calculus tells us that as X approaches infinity, any constant c will equal 0. In other words, when up against infinity, any finite number becomes irrelevant.
I am to surmise that this means true immortality isn't possible because of a mathematical truth? I'm not sure I follow, could you confirm if I understood that correctly?
It would be irrational to think otherwise.
It's not quite 'otherwise'. As I stated above, the leads that exist in medical science suggest it is at least remotely possible to try to approach as our technology and discoveries further progress. I can't absolutely rationalize one way or the other what isn't yet a certainty.
So your definition of useful is "become immortal"? That's the only way a person can be useful?
Ah, well this one was just misinterpreting what I meant. (or you're reading too far into it) Of course not.
I mean, you keep going on about realism and logic or whatever. Is it at all realistic or logical to expect immortality?
'Expect' is too strong a word and I won't latch on to that. Even from the onset of this exchange I've made it clear that I'm hoping for something that increases the likelihood of extending my lifespan. Even cryostasis (if it can be done without doing too much damage to my cells one day) when I'm about to die would at least be something better than a totally baseless hope put in a religious doctrine. If I were to be preserved in such a manner perhaps future humans would revive me at such time that my lifespan could be at least extended with their technology. Or, they might have all died out by then. I should hope humanity prevails.
That would be helpful.
I said that would be extremely lengthy to explain. You also haven't stated one way or the other what your position on such matters, so I don't know where to start if you happen to be theist or deist or otherwise. If so I would suggest to take whichever religion or inclination of anything supernatural and apply Occam's Razor to just go look for historical context, or maybe go all out with Alder's Razor? I can't falsify the claims of religion on god's existence, immortality, and etc because they have yet to be testable. So it seems logical to conclude those claims aren't even worthy of debate until such time that they are experimentally testable. The same is true to us finding immortality (or even a significant extension of lifespan that is not immortality) with technology, so the most I can do is try to judge if it seems even remotely likely.
As far as explaining the reference of nihilism earlier without going headfirst into debating religion - that's where I've learned that I have to start at as a base level before attempting to determine what is true. It starts at 'I don't know', and I have to apply logic and the process of science to try to find results that consistently come back the same to determine if something seems likely or certain. Since I can't feasibly do ALL of the science, I try to make use of the various 'logic tools' like fallacy and bias identification that others have come up with throughout history to try to shortcut my way to the correct position. To a great degree there is a lot of trust to be placed in teachers and scientists and in looking at the current positions modern philosophers hold to try to learn what is true and why they hold something as true. It is unfortunate that I will most likely die within a matter of several decades and be unable to test myself every single claim made by those we would call experts on topics of science and philosophy. What is nice however is that using science has frequently helped us learn things that seemed to be otherwise with just a glance of our pattern recognition faculties. An example - evolution. Pattern recognition lead most to suggest that the many forms of life we see were created by a god, but then scientific study revealed that it seems to have evolved from far more explainable, non-supernatural processes. Same thing happened with geocentricism when applying science helped us discover that we are not the center of the universe as we thought. In so doing, I have learned to doubt myself in the potential to see patterns that aren't really there and to question quality of my mental judgements necessarily to try to be more honest. Possessing the correct information should help contribute towards my survival, whereas if I believed I was 'saved' and had eternal life and jumped off a cliff to get to the afterlife where I'm supposed to be immortal, I would just be dead and most likely not experiencing any such afterlife. I could very well be wrong, so I hope at least most of my perception of reality has been acquired with a correct application of those 'logic tool' shortcuts.
Meanwhile, putting hope in a religion would be require nothing short of faith in something (IE: god) that has never been empirically proven to even exist.
Neither is immortality.
Indeed it's not even logical. Even if you could stop yourself from aging, what would keep you sustained for an infinite length of time?
I am to surmise that this means true immortality isn't possible because of a mathematical truth? I'm not sure I follow, could you confirm if I understood that correctly?
It means that any finite length of time, be it 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, etc, is all infinitesimal when as x approaches infinity. This means that if we're comparing these to eternity — an infinite span of time — a year and 1 x 10^100000000 years are both reduced to no time at all.
It's not quite 'otherwise'. As I stated above, the leads that exist in medical science suggest it is at least remotely possible to try to approach as our technology and discoveries further progress. I can't absolutely rationalize one way or the other what isn't yet a certainty.
Do you actually think that you will become immortal in your lifetime when we can't even guarantee a person will see eighty years?
If yes, you are being irrational.
Ah, well this one was just misinterpreting what I meant. (or you're reading too far into it) Of course not.
Then why place value on immortality or your utility in assisting someone else's immortality?
'Expect' is too strong a word and I won't latch on to that. Even from the onset of this exchange I've made it clear that I'm hoping for something that increases the likelihood of extending my lifespan.
Again, why? You keep harping about immortality, that is, infinite life. Then you're going on about extending your life.
Except isn't that fundamentally a vain exercise? You're going to die anyway, right? So why does extending your life matter if you're eventually going to run out anyway?
Even cryostasis (if it can be some without doing too much damage to my cells one day) when I'm about to die would at least be something better than a totally baseless hope put in a religious doctrine.
Expecting medical science to make you immortal is not a baseless hope?
I don't follow your logic.
Head to keyboard, I said that would be extremely lengthy to explain. You also haven't stated one way or the other what your position on such matters, so I don't know where to start.
Erm, you made three assertions:
1. "Well, I can't. I can only assume to know based on what seems likely, or almost for certain."
2. "The small, rather annotation-like knowledge of human history, culture, and philosophy I possess forms for me a current conclusion that such ideas are our own creation and have no basis in objective reality,"
3. "though admittance of nihilism is at a base level logical or rather necessary to me due to the limits of my modes of perception."
You also didn't back any of those three assertions up. So maybe justify those assertions?
In other words:
1. How do you know almost for certain that no religion is correct?
2. On what basis do you say these ideas have no basis in objective reality?
3. Why is nihilism logical or necessary?
I can't falsify the claims of religion on god's existence, immortality, and etc because they have yet to be testable. So it seems logical to conclude those claims aren't even worthy of debate until such time that they are experimentally testable.
Not having any evidence for something is not the same thing as being almost certain that something is incorrect. Likewise, something not being testable is not the same thing as something almost certainly not being correct. So assertion #1 has yet to have basis.
The same is true to us finding immortality (or even a significant extension of lifespan that is not immortality) with technology, the most I can do is try to judge if it seems even remotely likely.
Well, right now science is struggling to get us to 100 years with any degree of certainty, and if you got a person to live as many hundreds of years as there are stars in the universe, and multiplied that by as many grains of sand that could fill up the earth, you will still be just as far away from eternal life as the mayfly who lives one day.
Seriously. That's how limits work.
So the answer is no, it does not seem remotely likely.
As far as explaining the reference of nihilism earlier - that's where I've learned that I have to start at as a base level before attempting to determine what is true. It starts at 'I don't know',
aIt is unfortunate that I will most likely die within a matter of several decades and be unable to test myself every single claim made by those we would call experts on topics of science and philosophy.
Now, since you acknowledge that, what use does the immortality-based system of value that you seemed to be espousing earlier have for you?
Possessing the correct information should help contribute towards my survival, whereas if I believed I was 'saved' and had eternal life and jumped off a cliff to get to the afterlife where I'm supposed to be immortal, I would just be dead and most likely not experiencing any such afterlife.
Demonstrate the "most likely not" portion of it? How did you determine the probability of afterlife?
Indeed it's not even logical. Even if you could stop yourself from aging, what would keep you sustained for an infinite length of time?
I couldn't say as the technology to do so does not exist yet, if it ever will.
It means that any finite length of time, be it 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, etc, is all infinitesimal when as x approaches infinity. This means that if we're comparing these to eternity — an infinite span of time — a year and 1 x 10^100000000 years are both reduced to no time at all./quote]
That is a very interesting dilemma to deal with. So perhaps immortality is inherently illogical, maybe we should just seek extended lifespans until due time that we for whatever reason don't want to be alive anymore?
[quote]Do you actually think that you will become immortal in your lifetime when we can't even guarantee a person will see eighty years?
If yes, you are being irrational.
I don't know, to be honest. I would at least like to live healthily to 140 or something like that. Given people have lived past 120 perhaps that is actually closer to reasonable.
]Then why place value on immortality or your utility in assisting someone else's immortality?
Perhaps I should not. Good point.
Except isn't that fundamentally a vain exercise? You're going to die anyway, right? So why does extending your life matter if you're eventually going to run out anyway?
Well, switching gears to avoid compartmentalizing a matter I would have to agree it doesn't. It's all subjective and I suppose I'm a being who is trying to live in subjective and objective worlds at the same time rather paradoxically. Any 'meaning' to be derived while living longer would probably be subjective.
Expecting medical science to make you immortal is not a baseless hope?
I don't follow your logic.
It doesn't hurt to let the involved doctors try and wish them luck. We seem to be finding immortality is too much to expect, minor life extension however isn't baseless.
Erm, you made three assertions:
1. "Well, I can't. I can only assume to know based on what seems likely, or almost for certain."
2. "The small, rather annotation-like knowledge of human history, culture, and philosophy I possess forms for me a current conclusion that such ideas are our own creation and have no basis in objective reality,"
3. "though admittance of nihilism is at a base level logical or rather necessary to me due to the limits of my modes of perception."
You also didn't back any of those three assertions up. So maybe justify those assertions?
In other words:
1. How do you know almost for certain that no religion is correct?
2. On what basis do you say these ideas have no basis in objective reality?
3. Why is nihilism logical or necessary?
I edited that 'head to keyboard' out as I reread it and thought what I said was a little rude, so I apologize there since you saw it before I revised it. My editing also sought to further justify those assertions, so I recommend going for there with your inquiry.
Not having any evidence for something is not the same thing as being almost certain that something is incorrect. Likewise, something not being testable is not the same thing as something almost certainly not being correct. So assertion #1 has yet to have basis.
Well, assertion #1 is based on personal judgement. I attempt to make sure that judgement is correct by looking at the different sides of an issue and using logic tools, as well as trying to question my judgement enough until the position concluded makes the most sense in accordance to those logic tools. It's still not absolute certainty but at least a process of checking and rechecking deductively was done and hopeful yielded the right results. Questioning my own judgement is a little bit circular though but I don't functionally know what better to do than to try to get a position right in a reasonable amount of time with what tools I have available. Perhaps that should be dropped from the assertions.
"I don't know" is not nihilism.
So I used the wrong word somehow. What is it then if not nihilism? I'm of course familiar with that article having read it before, I've found the ideas suggested in it useful for evaluating what is true so I thought of the amalgamation of those ideas as 'applying nihilism'. Is that wrong?
Now, since you acknowledge that, what use does the immortality-based system of value that you seemed to be espousing earlier have for you?
The use of having extended life for me would be time to expand my perspective and learn more, experience more.
Demonstrate the "most likely not" portion of it? How did you determine the probability of afterlife?
I determined that is it not testable and therefore a waste of time if Alder's Razor has any value of usage. Perhaps probability/likelihood is the wrong way to describe the afterlife's unusefulness as an idea. It's like... Okay, I can't test this to determine its veracity. What am I supposed to do with it? Guess I'm just going to leave it next to the garbage bin until it can be tested, if ever. The closest thing, near death experiences, seem to be interpreted quite subjectively by most that have them. It's not good enough evidence one way or the other.
I couldn't say as the technology to do so does not exist yet, if it ever will.
I'm talking about thermodynamics. Where are you going to find a source of infinite energy that is infinitely renewable?
And by you, I mean you specifically. Not just in general.
That is a very interesting dilemma to deal with. So perhaps immortality is inherently illogical,
It's not illogical. If you say "immortality," I know what you mean. The word has a coherent meaning and definition.
It's probably impossible, however. And to make immortality your aim may be illogical given that impossibility.
maybe we should just seek extended lifespans until due time that we for whatever reason don't want to be alive anymore?
Why?
I don't know, to be honest. I would at least like to live healthily to 140 or something like that.
Why?
Given people have lived past 120 perhaps that is actually closer to reasonable.
As I understand it, one person is on record for having lived past 120. So no, I don't consider that reasonable. Moreover, what difference does it make whether you live to 140 or "only" to 120? Or 120 instead of 100 for that matter?
Well, switching gears to avoid compartmentalizing a matter I would have to agree it doesn't. It's all subjective and I suppose I'm a being who is trying to live in subjective and objective worlds at the same time rather paradoxically. Any 'meaning' to be derived while living longer would probably be subjective.
Try calling it "personal." The meaning you derive from your life would be personal to you.
It doesn't hurt to let the involved doctors try and wish them luck.
No, it doesn't hurt to wish doctors luck in the process of extending your life. It is, however, baseless to expect doctors to make you immortal. That's like expecting a strongman to lift an island.
We seem to be finding immortality is too much to expect, minor life extension however isn't baseless.
Of course it's not baseless. The question is what is the reason for you wanting more life?
If it's only to have more life, then that's inherently fruitless, isn't it? A person who lives to 10,000 years on his deathbed with an hour to live has exactly as much life left as the person who lived to be 30 years on his deathbed with one hour to live: one hour. So if we're just going on the basis of how much life you have to go, then how long a person lives doesn't matter. It's only how far from death a person is that matters.
And if that's your evaluation of life, prepare to be disappointed because that means a person is only losing value. From the moment we are born, we only move closer toward death, which means it all goes downhill from there.
Not to mention, your metric is arbitrary. If all that matters is that we're alive and not dead, but we'll all die in the end anyway, then what do we really have of any matter in the first place? In the blink of an eye we'll be dead again.
Needless to say, I think you need a new metric for determining the value of life.
I edited that 'head to keyboard' out as I reread it and thought what I said was a little rude, so I apologize there since you saw it before I revised it.
It's cool.
Well, assertion #1 is based on personal judgement.
Based on what?
So I used the wrong word somehow. What is it then if not nihilism?
"I don't know" is just that. "I don't know."
The use of having extended life for me would be time to expand my perspective and learn more, experience more.
For what purpose?
I determined that is it not testable and therefore a waste of time if Alder's Razor has any value of usage. Perhaps probability/likelihood is the wrong way to describe the afterlife's unusefulness as an idea. It's like... Okay, I can't test this to determine its veracity. What am I supposed to do with it? Guess I'm just going to leave it next to the garbage bin until it can be tested, if ever. The closest thing, near death experiences, seem to be interpreted quite subjectively by most that have them. It's not good enough evidence one way or the other.
I don't know what Alder's Razor is. You're sure you're not thinking of Occam's Razor?
Death in some form is inevitable, certainly. But it makes perfect sense to be afraid of death. That's the instinct that's designed to keep you from dying.
How well has that worked for the people who are now dead?
Being left paralyzed from the neck down however means I'm unable to do anything; Couldn't walk, feed, or even poop by myself. I would suffer a thousand agonies before being left as a vegetable.
Let me ask you something: by your logic, was it inevitable that you were left paralyzed by the bear?
If not, then why wouldn't you also fear being mauled to death by a bear? Does that make any sense at all?
Because if you are able to make people thousands of years talk about you, you have achieved a form of immortality.
That seems like the opposite of immortality. Immortality means you don't die. People talking about you after you're dead means you died.
So I ask again, why do you care if people talk about you after you die?
No, it was not inevitable to have been left paralyzed by the bear, as there is nothing in human nature to signify that I would, under normal circumstances be paralyzed. Death is not that way; every person dies (Except the Illuminati if you subscribe to the insane notion that the Illuminati found the Elixir of Life).
People talking about you means you did great things with your life. Everyone remembers the names Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Cleopatra, Hector, Ajax, and other historical (If romanticized) figures. No one remembers Bob the Grecian accountant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
How well has that worked for the people who are now dead?
Considering that most, if not all of them, presumably would have died earlier without that whole "self-preservation instinct" thing doing its thing? I would imagine really well.
People talking about you means you did great things with your life. Everyone remembers the names Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Cleopatra, Hector, Ajax, and other historical (If romanticized) figures. No one remembers Bob the Grecian accountant.
So Kim Kardashian truly must have done great things with her life.
Or does greatness not necessarily equate to how famous you are?
How well has that worked for the people who are now dead?
Considering that most, if not all of them, presumably would have died earlier without that whole "self-preservation instinct" thing doing its thing? I would imagine really well.
People talking about you means you did great things with your life. Everyone remembers the names Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Cleopatra, Hector, Ajax, and other historical (If romanticized) figures. No one remembers Bob the Grecian accountant.
So Kim Kardashian truly must have done great things with her life.
Or does greatness not necessarily equate to how famous you are?
Kimmy K isn't dead yet, is she?
I'm fairly certain Vanilla Ice (Ice Baby) isn't going to be remembered after his death as he is barely remembered now. Madonna is already thought of as a has been.
Freddy Mercury is the closest thing we have to those guys/gals of old, and most people barely remember him these days.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Not dying isn't feasible with the resources available to us right now. I suspect that within a century or two there will be a way to save a person's memory totality in a computer and in that way we will no longer die. At that point we could probably walk among the breathers in robot body's controlled mentally. A while after that we could have new bodies made for us after the old one is used up(or just becomes suboptimal). Maybe five or six centuries from today...we could make organic bodies that don't degrade at all. They wouldn't be anything like our bodies are today and perhaps we'll have outgrown any notion that sentience is tied to humanity or that our original form is sancrosect and shouldn't be changed.
Except from my limited understanding is that you still die, the "copy" lives on. So, death will still be there. Unless if you can make someone's body immortal, though. Which comes down towards whether we can accept a "digital copy" as a "person" and whether that "immortal copy" is "good enough for immortality."
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Why would we ever want to do that?
Seriously, to spend an eternity locked in a computer unable to die? That sounds like Twilight Zone-level horror.
I don't know. But someone will do it. Despite all the scaremongering around the technological singularity and just technological advancement in general there are no signs that the thirst for more and better technology will ever be quenched. In my cultural anthropology class my teacher put forth the notion that homo sapiens sapiens is a finished product and the only real evolution left to us is cultural and technological. Death is a cultural taboo and technology is probably our only way to get around it or at least delay it a while longer. I can get behind the whole notion of transcending death using spiritual means but we don't have the requisite time needed to accomplish that.
I don't consider the technological singularity a scary idea so much as I consider it an absolutely ******* absurd one. Especially now, in the 21st century, where we're discovering all of these substitutes to natural things are inferior and often times much more harmful than the real deal, and with all of this technology we have that goes wrong in absurd ways, the idea that technology equals magic or technology equals divinity is outright ridiculous.
To me, the most accurate depiction of what a cyborg will be is probably Darth Vader. Awkward, clunky, inferior to a human being, constantly requiring maintenance, and increasingly frustrated at the fact that he is a cyborg.
"Finished product"? I feel like your teacher is making the same error most people make with regards to evolution, which is assuming it has an end product or goal in mind.
I'll agree that the human race, like the shark, cockroach, and horseshoe crab, probably isn't going to change that much because we're pretty clearly the apex of our race. That doesn't mean a rapid change of environment won't force changes in us. Evolution doesn't stop.
I don't know what that last sentence means.
Maybe at first. Star Wars was very limited by the era in which it was made. Anakin was a DIYer, being extremely paranoid and fearful, and so its possible that more advanced robotic body parts were available and he simply didn't trust anything made by others.
Evolution takes a very, very long time and is not observable in real time. The adaptations we make to survive may cause us to change on the genetic level but we won't know for a long time.
Transcending death through spiritual means is exactly what it sounds like. You know, like nirvana or some similar concept. By spiritual means I mean a profound experience that is both physical and mental. Our minds are one of the few things we haven't fully explored in our bodies and I suspect it has the potential to do many "impossible" things. A sci fi example of this is the concept of ascension in the Stargate universe.
This is why I have a problem with Death. Death is something that is unpreventable, inescapable, inevitable. To be afraid of it is folly; there is literally nothing about it you can do.
What makes me afraid of it is that when my time comes, I most likely would have done nothing to be known by future generations; who will ever say "Slarg was a great man"? My friends? My Family? What about when they die? It's a paralyzing thought; what can I do with my life to make myself known and an important figure in history?
You stated fear of death being folly before. What is your opinion regarding your fear of not being known by future generations, or being an important figure in history?
In the situation of me be mauled by a bear, I would be more afraid of being left crippled than dead honestly. Being paralyzed from the neck down would be a living hell, and not what I want my life to be.
I would say that is more of my fear than death; My fear of being unimportant. In my mind, while Immortality is impossible, leaving a legacy would be the closest and honestly the most preferable thing; No worries about being alive for forever (And watching everyone else age and die), but being remembered for what I stood for.
Why?
To know so much, understand so much, with the potential to know more and become more... I refuse to lose that if I can help it by any means. A large part of me believes there is value in my existence that can be increased by extending it to increase the rarity or what my mind is. I mean, I'm the product of billions of years of evolution, the sum of 21 years of absorbing experiences and selecting to learn mostly by my own whims the discoveries and leaps in methods of perception and understanding that my fore-bearers have built up in passed down knowledge for thousands of years. Is that not worth desiring to preserve and continue to enhance? I find it incredibly strange, if not outright stupid, that some people in our species' history have suggested that immortality would be a curse. I have thoroughly thought it over and I conclude such people they are wrong because their emotional attachments and concerns of boredom mislead them from more notable and valuable imperatives such as knowing more and experiencing more, even minus a basic survival instinct.
So, when my end starts draws near, I'm not sure what I'll do. Hope there's some kind of transhumanist solution, or if not perhaps cryostasis or something like it will have been perfected so that later humans can revive me when my life can be extended while I am in an actionable state. I don't know. Does this make any sense? Am I reaching beyond simple fear in my desire to live?
Demonstrate this?
At this point admittedly yes to a degree. As a means it supports part of my desire to remain alive. However, what seems more logically imperative to be is to attain, if only for a moment, understanding of everything. Being more objective and acting in accordance to what is real seems a logical consequence of objectively understanding more, at least to me. (I hope that makes sense.) Let me correct if that sounds circular. I mean to say that my estimated current lifespan seems not enough time to attain perfect objectivity/understanding, so hopefully extending it indefinitely would provide enough time acquire enough (or all of the) information to do so. If it is conclusive that there is nothing more to existence past that, then perhaps death is logical. Maybe a form of not-quite-death in which my existence and thoughts are paused, but preserved, until something else eventful may or may not happen in the timespan of the universe or whatever lies beyond or after, so as to continue seeking to know more when/if things begin to happen again.
Well, I can't. I can only assume to know based on what seems likely, or almost for certain. The small, rather annotation-like knowledge of human history, culture, and philosophy I possess forms for me a current conclusion that such ideas are our own creation and have no basis in objective reality, and as such I should not 'put all my eggs in that basket' with things like pascals wager, as without empirical evidence to clearly support it, it seems a waste of time for me to commit to any religion or belief of an afterlife. Until such time as that by some miracle it is proven we 'magically' had afterlives or some-such all along I will for convenience assume that I know mostly for certain that there is no such thing for us. I am not capable of holding a better position with what information and tools of understanding I have been given yet, though admittance of nihilism is at a base level logical or rather necessary to me due to the limits of my modes of perception. Knowing and not knowing is tricky, the best thing I know of to determine truth so far seems to be with application of science following logical empiricism.
Moreover, how is that logically possible?
It doesn't.
I don't understand this thing you have with "perfect objectivity," or your conflating it with "perfect understanding." You exist in the world, don't you? So isn't your experience of existing inherently subjective? If so, how can you possibly be completely objective? And even if you could, why would this be a desirable state?
Indeed, is not desire itself inherently subjective? A completely objective entity would not care one way or the other about anything by virtue of being objective — and this includes not caring about whether or not it cares one way or the other.
You keep talking about things that are real. Do you believe it is a realistic possibility that you will achieve an infinite lifespan?
Because I'm not seeing what's realistic about putting your expectations on becoming immortal that you may gain infinite knowledge.
Demonstrate this?
Demonstrate this?
Demonstrate this?
This is why I like debate forums like this. There is a certain delight to be found in a line of questioning that demands re-questioning of my assertions even when I thought to hold my position strongly. I suppose it is not logically imperative nor possible when I really think it over again and read what I just said for the 5th time and I see that I choose my words there poorly. That leaves us with me simply wanting to experience these things we discuss here due to curiosity. Perhaps that isn't logical, but what better can I do than try to satisfy that curiosity? Perhaps I am bound to my nature, logical or not, if I am to maintain in some sense what I am.
Interesting, and more logical than what I've been saying. I had not considered that in that way. Perhaps perfect objectivity is not what I should be seeking.
As a very remote possibility since medical research seems more concrete to place my hopes in than that of any religion. I can't predict the future, I just hope a sequence of events will occur that would allow me to try out that whole immortality thing to see what its actually like. Maybe medical science will boost age expectancy a couple of decades when I get into my later years and slightly more time might be afforded to live long enough for the bigger leaps against mortality. If I am doomed to die eventually perhaps I will have done something to help future humans pursue what I wished to pursue (if any of them desire such) but had not lived long enough to by doing something useful with my limited time.
As a whole I'm not sure what you're fully getting at here, though. That's the best I've been able to do so far in terms of this subject about death. I'm fine with finding out of if I'm wrong about something. I figure you're going somewhere with this line of questioning dissecting what I provided as my position. I could go through the whole process of trying to provide answers for your inquiries of 'demonstate this' and such further, but I think we're going to end up at the same place as before. I actually don't know what your stance on the veracity of such matters as religion is, I should hope agnostic or something similiar depending on how you define that, otherwise that would be a debate that will go on forever and won't even pertain to this thread. Suffice to say I would probably be able to back up my position on that quite a bit better than any other topic I post about, it would just take a long time and I'd be better off recommending The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Anyhow, I'll cut to the chase and inquire, what's your point? Maybe the point is elaborating on something I'm doing wrong in my process of thought I displayed in the last two posts I made here? If so, how so? If otherwise, what do you suggest?
Never found a reason to be afraid of something that's going to happen eventually anyway. Being left paralyzed from the neck down however means I'm unable to do anything; Couldn't walk, feed, or even poop by myself. I would suffer a thousand agonies before being left as a vegetable.
Because if you are able to make people thousands of years talk about you, you have achieved a form of immortality.
I'm not seeing how you can say that it is illogical to place one's trust in religion, and then place your trust that medical science will grant you immortality and affirm that this is logically sound. That makes no sense to me.
Except calculus tells us that as X approaches infinity, any constant c will equal 0. In other words, when up against infinity, any finite number becomes irrelevant.
It would be irrational to think otherwise.
So your definition of useful is "become immortal"? That's the only way a person can be useful?
I mean, you keep going on about realism and logic or whatever. Is it at all realistic or logical to expect immortality?
That would be helpful.
Similarly, if you walk out on a road and see a car coming toward you, unless you're hopped up on some pretty powerful drugs, your instinctive response should be, "HOLY *****, CAR!" This is because you recognize the oncoming car as a threat to your safety. Now, is this fear of dying from a car impact rational? Of course it is! It's a ******* car!
Fearing death is an entirely rational thing because it helps you to avoid dying. Saying, "Eh, I'm just going to die anyway, so why bother?" is both disingenuous (pretty sure if you saw an oncoming car coming at you you'd react in a manner that isn't, "Oh, ho hum, I guess this is inevitable") and absurd.
Death in some form is inevitable, certainly. But it makes perfect sense to be afraid of death. That's the instinct that's designed to keep you from dying.
Let me ask you something: by your logic, was it inevitable that you were left paralyzed by the bear?
If not, then why wouldn't you also fear being mauled to death by a bear? Does that make any sense at all?
That seems like the opposite of immortality. Immortality means you don't die. People talking about you after you're dead means you died.
So I ask again, why do you care if people talk about you after you die?
There are leads that suggest perhaps it can. We've learned about things like the Hayflick Limit as described by the telomeres in our cells, and quite simply a lot of things that contribute to the degradation of the body can be fixed with applied medical science. Vaccines, reconstructive surgery, transplants, artificial implants/limbs, drugs, etc. It most definitely provides assurances for at least attempting to increasing our respective lifespans. Yes, medical science at this current moment cannot grant immortality - yet. Its track record of application suggests its worth placing hope in, however, because we have learned and are still learning a lot about the natural causes by which we die, and there are some very smart people in the field who are working on things like anti-aging drugs as we speak in their laboratories, probably testing them on mice. I hope they find promising results in their endeavors.
I don't know that it will grant me immortality, medical science just has demonstrable, frequent results of fixing problems that develop in the human body. Not all of them yet, but quite enough that nations across the world have sophisticated hospital and clinic networks to provide medical assistance as a service to others. Meanwhile, putting hope in a religion would be require nothing short of faith in something (IE: god) that has never been empirically proven to even exist.
I am to surmise that this means true immortality isn't possible because of a mathematical truth? I'm not sure I follow, could you confirm if I understood that correctly?
It's not quite 'otherwise'. As I stated above, the leads that exist in medical science suggest it is at least remotely possible to try to approach as our technology and discoveries further progress. I can't absolutely rationalize one way or the other what isn't yet a certainty.
Ah, well this one was just misinterpreting what I meant. (or you're reading too far into it) Of course not.
'Expect' is too strong a word and I won't latch on to that. Even from the onset of this exchange I've made it clear that I'm hoping for something that increases the likelihood of extending my lifespan. Even cryostasis (if it can be done without doing too much damage to my cells one day) when I'm about to die would at least be something better than a totally baseless hope put in a religious doctrine. If I were to be preserved in such a manner perhaps future humans would revive me at such time that my lifespan could be at least extended with their technology. Or, they might have all died out by then. I should hope humanity prevails.
I said that would be extremely lengthy to explain. You also haven't stated one way or the other what your position on such matters, so I don't know where to start if you happen to be theist or deist or otherwise. If so I would suggest to take whichever religion or inclination of anything supernatural and apply Occam's Razor to just go look for historical context, or maybe go all out with Alder's Razor? I can't falsify the claims of religion on god's existence, immortality, and etc because they have yet to be testable. So it seems logical to conclude those claims aren't even worthy of debate until such time that they are experimentally testable. The same is true to us finding immortality (or even a significant extension of lifespan that is not immortality) with technology, so the most I can do is try to judge if it seems even remotely likely.
As far as explaining the reference of nihilism earlier without going headfirst into debating religion - that's where I've learned that I have to start at as a base level before attempting to determine what is true. It starts at 'I don't know', and I have to apply logic and the process of science to try to find results that consistently come back the same to determine if something seems likely or certain. Since I can't feasibly do ALL of the science, I try to make use of the various 'logic tools' like fallacy and bias identification that others have come up with throughout history to try to shortcut my way to the correct position. To a great degree there is a lot of trust to be placed in teachers and scientists and in looking at the current positions modern philosophers hold to try to learn what is true and why they hold something as true. It is unfortunate that I will most likely die within a matter of several decades and be unable to test myself every single claim made by those we would call experts on topics of science and philosophy. What is nice however is that using science has frequently helped us learn things that seemed to be otherwise with just a glance of our pattern recognition faculties. An example - evolution. Pattern recognition lead most to suggest that the many forms of life we see were created by a god, but then scientific study revealed that it seems to have evolved from far more explainable, non-supernatural processes. Same thing happened with geocentricism when applying science helped us discover that we are not the center of the universe as we thought. In so doing, I have learned to doubt myself in the potential to see patterns that aren't really there and to question quality of my mental judgements necessarily to try to be more honest. Possessing the correct information should help contribute towards my survival, whereas if I believed I was 'saved' and had eternal life and jumped off a cliff to get to the afterlife where I'm supposed to be immortal, I would just be dead and most likely not experiencing any such afterlife. I could very well be wrong, so I hope at least most of my perception of reality has been acquired with a correct application of those 'logic tool' shortcuts.
Indeed it's not even logical. Even if you could stop yourself from aging, what would keep you sustained for an infinite length of time?
It means that any finite length of time, be it 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, etc, is all infinitesimal when as x approaches infinity. This means that if we're comparing these to eternity — an infinite span of time — a year and 1 x 10^100000000 years are both reduced to no time at all.
Do you actually think that you will become immortal in your lifetime when we can't even guarantee a person will see eighty years?
If yes, you are being irrational.
Then why place value on immortality or your utility in assisting someone else's immortality?
Again, why? You keep harping about immortality, that is, infinite life. Then you're going on about extending your life.
Except isn't that fundamentally a vain exercise? You're going to die anyway, right? So why does extending your life matter if you're eventually going to run out anyway?
Expecting medical science to make you immortal is not a baseless hope?
I don't follow your logic.
Erm, you made three assertions:
1. "Well, I can't. I can only assume to know based on what seems likely, or almost for certain."
2. "The small, rather annotation-like knowledge of human history, culture, and philosophy I possess forms for me a current conclusion that such ideas are our own creation and have no basis in objective reality,"
3. "though admittance of nihilism is at a base level logical or rather necessary to me due to the limits of my modes of perception."
You also didn't back any of those three assertions up. So maybe justify those assertions?
In other words:
1. How do you know almost for certain that no religion is correct?
2. On what basis do you say these ideas have no basis in objective reality?
3. Why is nihilism logical or necessary?
Not having any evidence for something is not the same thing as being almost certain that something is incorrect. Likewise, something not being testable is not the same thing as something almost certainly not being correct. So assertion #1 has yet to have basis.
Well, right now science is struggling to get us to 100 years with any degree of certainty, and if you got a person to live as many hundreds of years as there are stars in the universe, and multiplied that by as many grains of sand that could fill up the earth, you will still be just as far away from eternal life as the mayfly who lives one day.
Seriously. That's how limits work.
So the answer is no, it does not seem remotely likely.
"I don't know" is not nihilism.
Now, since you acknowledge that, what use does the immortality-based system of value that you seemed to be espousing earlier have for you?
Demonstrate the "most likely not" portion of it? How did you determine the probability of afterlife?
I couldn't say as the technology to do so does not exist yet, if it ever will.
I don't know, to be honest. I would at least like to live healthily to 140 or something like that. Given people have lived past 120 perhaps that is actually closer to reasonable.
Perhaps I should not. Good point.
Well, switching gears to avoid compartmentalizing a matter I would have to agree it doesn't. It's all subjective and I suppose I'm a being who is trying to live in subjective and objective worlds at the same time rather paradoxically. Any 'meaning' to be derived while living longer would probably be subjective.
It doesn't hurt to let the involved doctors try and wish them luck. We seem to be finding immortality is too much to expect, minor life extension however isn't baseless.
I edited that 'head to keyboard' out as I reread it and thought what I said was a little rude, so I apologize there since you saw it before I revised it. My editing also sought to further justify those assertions, so I recommend going for there with your inquiry.
Well, assertion #1 is based on personal judgement. I attempt to make sure that judgement is correct by looking at the different sides of an issue and using logic tools, as well as trying to question my judgement enough until the position concluded makes the most sense in accordance to those logic tools. It's still not absolute certainty but at least a process of checking and rechecking deductively was done and hopeful yielded the right results. Questioning my own judgement is a little bit circular though but I don't functionally know what better to do than to try to get a position right in a reasonable amount of time with what tools I have available. Perhaps that should be dropped from the assertions.
So I used the wrong word somehow. What is it then if not nihilism? I'm of course familiar with that article having read it before, I've found the ideas suggested in it useful for evaluating what is true so I thought of the amalgamation of those ideas as 'applying nihilism'. Is that wrong?
The use of having extended life for me would be time to expand my perspective and learn more, experience more.
I determined that is it not testable and therefore a waste of time if Alder's Razor has any value of usage. Perhaps probability/likelihood is the wrong way to describe the afterlife's unusefulness as an idea. It's like... Okay, I can't test this to determine its veracity. What am I supposed to do with it? Guess I'm just going to leave it next to the garbage bin until it can be tested, if ever. The closest thing, near death experiences, seem to be interpreted quite subjectively by most that have them. It's not good enough evidence one way or the other.
And by you, I mean you specifically. Not just in general.
It's not illogical. If you say "immortality," I know what you mean. The word has a coherent meaning and definition.
It's probably impossible, however. And to make immortality your aim may be illogical given that impossibility.
Why?
Why?
As I understand it, one person is on record for having lived past 120. So no, I don't consider that reasonable. Moreover, what difference does it make whether you live to 140 or "only" to 120? Or 120 instead of 100 for that matter?
Try calling it "personal." The meaning you derive from your life would be personal to you.
No, it doesn't hurt to wish doctors luck in the process of extending your life. It is, however, baseless to expect doctors to make you immortal. That's like expecting a strongman to lift an island.
Of course it's not baseless. The question is what is the reason for you wanting more life?
If it's only to have more life, then that's inherently fruitless, isn't it? A person who lives to 10,000 years on his deathbed with an hour to live has exactly as much life left as the person who lived to be 30 years on his deathbed with one hour to live: one hour. So if we're just going on the basis of how much life you have to go, then how long a person lives doesn't matter. It's only how far from death a person is that matters.
And if that's your evaluation of life, prepare to be disappointed because that means a person is only losing value. From the moment we are born, we only move closer toward death, which means it all goes downhill from there.
Not to mention, your metric is arbitrary. If all that matters is that we're alive and not dead, but we'll all die in the end anyway, then what do we really have of any matter in the first place? In the blink of an eye we'll be dead again.
Needless to say, I think you need a new metric for determining the value of life.
It's cool.
Based on what?
"I don't know" is just that. "I don't know."
For what purpose?
I don't know what Alder's Razor is. You're sure you're not thinking of Occam's Razor?
How well has that worked for the people who are now dead?
No, it was not inevitable to have been left paralyzed by the bear, as there is nothing in human nature to signify that I would, under normal circumstances be paralyzed. Death is not that way; every person dies (Except the Illuminati if you subscribe to the insane notion that the Illuminati found the Elixir of Life).
People talking about you means you did great things with your life. Everyone remembers the names Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Cleopatra, Hector, Ajax, and other historical (If romanticized) figures. No one remembers Bob the Grecian accountant.
So Kim Kardashian truly must have done great things with her life.
Or does greatness not necessarily equate to how famous you are?
Kimmy K isn't dead yet, is she?
I'm fairly certain Vanilla Ice (Ice Baby) isn't going to be remembered after his death as he is barely remembered now. Madonna is already thought of as a has been.
Freddy Mercury is the closest thing we have to those guys/gals of old, and most people barely remember him these days.