• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Dealing with death anxiety


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#31 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 04:18 PM

I often blame history for wars, the middle ages = repression or complete elimination of all science

[OT] but you blame the wrong things, without wars development would be much slower slaves and/or peasants were cheap workforce and there wasn't much need for machines, war (especially siege) was one of the biggest exceptions. Without some economical and political changes that started in the middle ages there might be no industrial revolution, not to mention today scientists are more cautious in their opinions about this very long and diverse period. To suggest that there was no scientific progress in this times means you know absolutely nothing about it. It's not my favorite period and some Catholic historians go too far in glorifying it but it certainly wasn't that dark as some Renaissance thinkers made us to believe.[/OT]

But on the other hand large part of the medieval science was based on totally wrong axioms, for example the aristotelian physics, that concentrated on searching for "essences" of physical elements and from there starting rather vague, non empirical speculations, like there is this anecdote about a bishop refusing to look through the telescope devised by Galileo, who told him that there are dark spots on the Sun, and he just could not comprehend it ( the bishop ) because he still lived mentally in a universe where there couldn't be anything dark on the source of light that the Sun is, because that would be in conflict with the supposed essence of this celestial body. We would be nowhere now if we still stuck to this sort of paradigms. The progress then was very much despite them, not thanks to.

Real western science, in the form that we know it today, based on experiment and calculation, did not start untill the XVII century, with people like Newton, Kepler and Cartesius. Sure that there are some ideological biases when it comes to judging "dark ages" but still I guess it would have been better scientifically if the antiquity just gave way to modernity, without this middle age interval. Enlightment rocked !

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 04:30 PM.


#32 Kolos

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Warszawa

Posted 04 May 2010 - 05:58 PM

I guess it would have been better ( scietifically ) if the antiquity just gave way to modernity, without this middle age interval.

Perhaps it would be better but that doesn't mean it would be possible. We have little evidence to think that Roman Empire would have it's own industrial revolution if Western Empire remained strong, it didn't happen in China or Byzantine Empire that continued to the end of middle ages or anywhere else in the world. Political situation and culture would be complitelly different and propably we wouldn't exist in such alternative universe.

But on the other hand large part of the medieval science was based on totally wrong axioms, for example the aristotelian physics

Inherited from the antiquity, perhaps in more "dogmatic" way but still. On the other hand there were philosophers and universities also many practical inventions were made from glasses to sophisticated mechanical clocks, in architecture few antique buildings could match with church towers when it comes to height in military there were plate armours but later also gunpowder etc. there were also innovations in agriculture and shipbuilding.

#33 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 08:37 PM

it didn't happen in China

At moments they were pretty close, but somehow failed to see the inventions in a wider perspective ( gunpowder did not catch up widely in their warfare, but they did a hell of a New Year's fireworks for example).

Anyway, I just think that in antiquity there was a lot more of the scientific spirit, that they did not consider to be in conflict with religion. Greeks could even accept somebody claiming that there are no gods ( Socrates was executed because he supposedly propagated "foreign deities", but thay was just pretextual ) if that person still took part in ceremonies as everybody else. I guess in medieval times there was no scholar comparable to Archimedes or Tales or the inventor of Antikithera mechanism, so it looks to me like wasted time in the end. Off topic end on my part.

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 08:55 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Sebastian

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 May 2010 - 09:35 PM

Why do you need medication?
Why don't you grow a pair?

Stop worrying about dying, and go out and live a bit.

#35 chrwe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 May 2010 - 08:50 AM

growing a pair would mean some serious hormone treatment + surgery ;)

be happy that you don`t have anxiety

#36 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 05 May 2010 - 09:04 AM

I guess it would have been better ( scietifically ) if the antiquity just gave way to modernity, without this middle age interval.

Perhaps it would be better but that doesn't mean it would be possible. We have little evidence to think that Roman Empire would have it's own industrial revolution if Western Empire remained strong, it didn't happen in China or Byzantine Empire that continued to the end of middle ages or anywhere else in the world. Political situation and culture would be complitelly different and propably we wouldn't exist in such alternative universe.

But on the other hand large part of the medieval science was based on totally wrong axioms, for example the aristotelian physics

Inherited from the antiquity, perhaps in more "dogmatic" way but still. On the other hand there were philosophers and universities also many practical inventions were made from glasses to sophisticated mechanical clocks, in architecture few antique buildings could match with church towers when it comes to height in military there were plate armours but later also gunpowder etc. there were also innovations in agriculture and shipbuilding.

But there you have it, no I haven't extensively studied the middle ages, but know that science was not thought of in nearly the same light as it is today. Just claiming that without terrible epochs in history better methods would have never developed is putting the cart before the horse.

It boiled down to a religious, and warring mindset and like you just said the focus was on building military weapons, and I'm including that there were other more useful uses of emerging technologies like making glasses, and clocks, but I doubt they were really concerned nearly as much with diseases, as they didn't have to tools, obviously, to work on these things, and that wasn't the "collective thinking" at the time either.

There is no debate that religious oppression did stymie science, and in a big way. Some writings continued to be passed down throughout this dark time, and wars do give way to newer empires with societies better interests in mind, but if an emphasis on scientific and technological thinking/discoveries had been more the norm I firmly believe we would be much further a head than we are now.

Obviously there is no way of knowing how it could have played out differently, but 800 years of little to no science can not be dismissed, and it's called the dark ages for a good reason.

Just think of the money wasted during a long war, and think of the repercussions of those wars and how it stops short useful, scientific medical progress of any kind, at least for quite a while. and yes I'm considering that first aid and wound therapies for wounded soldiers was probably the state of most medicine, if you could even compare that with the types of medical wonders available today. Yes we'd have gotten to where we are now just faster, had it not been for blind ignorance and obstinate thinking, warring mindset, religious oppression of science, and emphasis on simply other things that we don't often even value today. I firmly believe this, you can call me ignorant or whatever, but this is the conclusion I've arrived at.

Im a firm believer, and this may be obvious, that people think in terms of health, and have a respect for science because the paradigm changed so radically when medicine, industrialization, came into the picture putting a now real focus on quality of life and the collective mindset simply changed, and I don't know how abruptly, but in the cases of some eras in history like the renaissance I would imagine quite abruptly and radically.

In short we think way differently today, and it's unfathomable that we ever thought the way we did in light of what we know today and the information at our disposal. Of course a change in mind set takes lots of time, but it could have happened far earlier. I can't positively make the claim that computers would have been invented 100 or so years ago if circumstances played out better, but I do think history was tumultuous at best, and obviously much of this has to do with the "imperfections of the human mind," to quote Obama, which obviously from an evolutionarily standpoint hasn't change one bit from a Darwinian perspective.

But education can do wonders, even if we can't undo presently "The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise..." and other maladaptive traits like hate, apathy, warring mindset, brute egotism, blind competition, that we've kept with our humanity since the dawn of humankind. That quote was from The Hedonist Imperative written by David Pearce, who believes that biotech advances in medicine will inevitably lead to nanotech and thus create better, wiser, and happier/well adjusted humans incapable of becoming the crazed dictators that history has given us. If you haven't already you may want to google hedweb, where Pearce talks of all of these things. Hedonic engineering may be the most useful way of ensuring society stays progressive, although it has its obvious drawbacks many would argue, such as the potential dangers of all transhumanist technologies. Sorry to segue!

As for present purposes, we are learning to change our values now, and have been since things like the enlightened epochs in history, I just see it as much more exponential now than it's ever been.

As for the slaves and human labor only leading to industrialization due to war, I again, respectfully disagree. Humans have shown throughout history, at least the progressive ones, that if there is an easier way to accomplish an important goal, we should get off our asses and do something to create that better way. Ok, yes uprisings in some cases do lead to favorable change, but it doesn't have to go that route is part of my main argument.

Edit: lots of progress was made throughout history like the emancipation of black slaves that the Civil War helped to end, the cessation from England to form America, and obviously so much more positives. Also I want to stress that healthy goal oriented competition in terms of things like manufacturing better products like we have with Macintosh pcs' vs IBM, competition wise, is obviously a good thing, so I'm not saying it's all bad. I think one of the cruxes of my arguments is the mindset, call it collective, or not, of people through history was mostly based on inflexible thinking based on lack of social networking, and the lack of the kind of educational resources we have now, and other inflexible thinking during those parts in history, and for other reasons that I have not began to include. But we are not warring in America right now like we did in the past, as in we've learned to agree to work together in so many ways, and yes the economy is terrible and things could still be vastly better, but that's a whole other subject. The point is we don't NEED war, at least not anymore, to accomplish higher quality of life, and achievement of goals. If we had the same frame of mind we did in yesteryears we would be going to war over everything.

Edited by dfowler, 05 May 2010 - 10:27 AM.


#37 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 05 May 2010 - 09:49 AM

Thank you all.

It seems we can all only hang on kicking and screaming and hope like hell science catches up in time for us because to me, at least, it seems there is no solution to the problem philosophically (at least not for me). I thought maybe some of you had "the wonder drug or diet" to relieve this :|o.

I`ve read a LOT of philosophy, including Epicurus, Socrates and many religious teachings from what the old egyptians believed across the ages to people like Ken Wilber and Eckard Tolle. This is why I am agnostic rather than all-out atheist, because I see how much science has changed across the ages - and what science knew "100%" lol - and that I want to allow room for the unknown. But see above about what I know about the brain and it`s connection to what we are.

Probably most atheists and agnostics would like to be wrong about there being no afterlife - at least I know I would be bloody happy if I were dead but weren`t, somehow - but since I cannot believe it that particular hope is no consolation.

The "death is the great equalizer" line does not help me either, in fact it makes it worse like for chris w - have I had my beautiful children only so they can vanish into dust again? Do I have to leave everyone and everything I love, forever? Is there simply NO meaning to life? I fear it is so and it`s terrible, how people can see that as a consolation is an absolute mystery to me.

The buddhist, taoist and zen way (simply to see oneself as a vanishing part of the universe and cutting off every feeling about life, thus not caring or saying that everything is one and the same anyway) makes no sense to me even in this life, lol, why live at all if you see life in this way?

And yes, sometimes I think not being born at all is better than losing this great thing called life. As long as there is life, there is hope.

Oh, and the argument "you didnt mind before birth" doesnt help either, no I didnt mind because I did not have awareness, but from my point of view now it was a terrible time because I wasnt there - I mean for me, personally, i don`t think I`m any more important for the world than the next woman.

If I had my way, no one would have to die unless they want it and I grieve for each and every one that had to die against their will and will have to in the future.

I agree wholeheartedly with your reasoning and thinking and enthusiasm for life, and don't let the stupid asses who think they are so logical and immune to the horrors of death make you feel like you're a weaker being for fearing death, when isn't the real reason since it's 1) rational to fear oblivion, and 2) life in favorable mood states can be wonderful! And to those people who think I'm putting it to simplistically, I would say to them that a basic love of life, "lust for life," is what keeps many of us going, and is what makes this whole experience so wonderful. The atheist who believes he is merely human and therefore is of no importance to the universe, although true in many ways, is diminishing his own importance, is doing just that! We ARE important because we have the volition and interest to become that way. Don't let anyone tell you different. That's what separates the real transhumanists from the rest, and I'm not only including Transhumanists/le.

Edited by dfowler, 05 May 2010 - 09:51 AM.


#38 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 05 May 2010 - 01:18 PM

Why do you need medication?
Why don't you grow a pair?

Stop worrying about dying, and go out and live a bit.


Way to be a douchebag.

#39 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 05 May 2010 - 01:31 PM

The problem with death anxiety is that it is fueled by rational and logical thinking which tends to be the exact opposite of most anxieties. In the current state of affairs, aside from perhaps cryo suspension, death is inevitable. Fearing the 'ceasing of existance' and fearing death is completely rational and in line with the will to survive, human nature, and the act of living itself. In other words, it is intregal to our make up as a species. I firmly believe that those who do not experience death anxiety at some point in thier lives are the ones that are in fact 'sick' as they are disillusioned.

From someone who has dealt with it personally, here are your options:

1. Find religion and allow yourself to be brainwashed into believing in heaven. This option works for millions of people and the belief in this prevents death anxiety or cures it completely.

2. Accept the inevitable and live the rest of your live depressed and full of anxiety.

3. Put your hopes in cryo suspension. Not only do you have to trust that you get suspended properly, but you have to trust that the technology will someday exist to bring you out of it AND that nothing happens to your body while in suspension over the passage of time. Personally, I believe the latter is the biggest risk.

4. Refuse to accept death as an option. Cling to life with everything you have and fight it until the bitter end. Do whatever you can with whatever you have at your disposal to prolong life and to continue existing.


Personally.... my current method of dealing with this is #4. As soon as things get a bit more stable for me, I will be investing in #3 as well as a backup plan to #4. As far as I am concerned #2 isn't an option because what is the point of life if it isn't worth living. Regarding #1, I am not really into being brainwashed. This is not to say I am athiest, but I believe in a more spiritual approach to things rather than allowing myself to be brainwashed by 'religion'.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 05 May 2010 - 01:32 PM.


#40 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2010 - 06:47 PM

The problem with death anxiety is that it is fueled by rational and logical thinking which tends to be the exact opposite of most anxieties. In the current state of affairs, aside from perhaps cryo suspension, death is inevitable. Fearing the 'ceasing of existance' and fearing death is completely rational and in line with the will to survive, human nature, and the act of living itself. In other words, it is intregal to our make up as a species. I firmly believe that those who do not experience death anxiety at some point in thier lives are the ones that are in fact 'sick' as they are disillusioned.

From someone who has dealt with it personally, here are your options:

1. Find religion and allow yourself to be brainwashed into believing in heaven. This option works for millions of people and the belief in this prevents death anxiety or cures it completely.

2. Accept the inevitable and live the rest of your live depressed and full of anxiety.

3. Put your hopes in cryo suspension. Not only do you have to trust that you get suspended properly, but you have to trust that the technology will someday exist to bring you out of it AND that nothing happens to your body while in suspension over the passage of time. Personally, I believe the latter is the biggest risk.

4. Refuse to accept death as an option. Cling to life with everything you have and fight it until the bitter end. Do whatever you can with whatever you have at your disposal to prolong life and to continue existing.


Personally.... my current method of dealing with this is #4. As soon as things get a bit more stable for me, I will be investing in #3 as well as a backup plan to #4. As far as I am concerned #2 isn't an option because what is the point of life if it isn't worth living. Regarding #1, I am not really into being brainwashed. This is not to say I am athiest, but I believe in a more spiritual approach to things rather than allowing myself to be brainwashed by 'religion'.


I agree with much you have said. I do not agree that anyone who is religious is brainwashed and I wondered what proof you have for that? The Roman Catholic Church for example, is larger than the total population of North America. It is larger than any country in the world. (No I am not RC) How can you say they are any more brainwashed than any other group? That appears to be a bigoted statement such as saying “All Jews are ....” I don’t buy that.

Good luck with cryo. Society is not very stable for long periods of time and as you said there appears to be a good chance something will happen to your body. I think the greatest danger will come from no one having a sufficient motive to bring you back.

#41 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:10 PM

I agree with much you have said. I do not agree that anyone who is religious is brainwashed and I wondered what proof you have for that? The Roman Catholic Church for example, is larger than the total population of North America. It is larger than any country in the world. (No I am not RC) How can you say they are any more brainwashed than any other group? That appears to be a bigoted statement such as saying “All Jews are ....” I don’t buy that.


Being Jewish is not something you choose, so saying "all Jews think..." is like saying "all blondes think...". Religions on the other hand are chosen identities ( altough it's arguable if raising a child as for ex Catholic leaves him any choice ) so there will be common traits among the choosers, because there is something in the identity that they all find appealing.

The number of folks adhering to Catholicism ( as well as others ) to me is more of a sign that people don't like thinking on their own, and not supposed good of a certain faith. I think the greatest example of Catholics being brainwashed is that they don't see any fraud going on in a religion that "discovers" consecutive dogmas even as far as 2000 years after the original founder of the religion died, examples - papal infalibility in late XIX century and the rapture of Mother Mary, a dogma proclaimed in 1950. WTF ? So does this mean that somebody dying a Catho in 1949 did not have a chance to be perfect in his creed since he had no clue about this last one and cannot go to Heaven ? These guys are ridiculous.

As for cryo I think your reasons are pretty valid.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 07:19 PM.


#42 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:23 PM

Does anyone else here have this problem?

I completely relate to this: I was more obsessed with whether I would be the same person at the end of a bus ride or a day trip or something than I was at the beginning if I did not think the same things.
Can't really explicate it too well, but now I just float through life and have no anxiety at all about the afterlife, partly because I am just living in the moment, but, also, because I am pretty much convinced that consciousness, in some, form, survives.

My best suggestion:
Just immerse yourself in consciousness research and theory, beginning with the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and, maybe Susan Blackmore's Consciousness: An Introduction, and going from there.

Examine the best evidence and theory for why consciousness does not survive death and try to debunk it.
And, then examine the best evidence and theory for why it does survive, and try to debunk that as well.
Then try to enhance, grasp, improve, etc. theories from both sides.

Make it a life pursuit.

It could lead you to an Indiana Jones-like mindset for pursuing the ephemeral mental wanderings that bring one close to really getting it, getting a glimpse, or having a transcendent moment of awareness or understanding.

In fine: Take the bull by the horns!

And, let me know if you reach any conclusions or break any new ground! :|o

#43 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:24 PM

I agree with much you have said. I do not agree that anyone who is religious is brainwashed and I wondered what proof you have for that? The Roman Catholic Church for example, is larger than the total population of North America. It is larger than any country in the world. (No I am not RC) How can you say they are any more brainwashed than any other group? That appears to be a bigoted statement such as saying “All Jews are ....” I don’t buy that.


It isn't bigoted when applied to a whole. You comment was quite a large stretch given that my comment was directed at all forms of religion equally. If I say something like, humans are very short sighted because we cannot see past the durations of our own lives. This doesn't mean I am bigoted and hate hispanics. It simply means that I feel that people are short sighted and tend to not bother with long term consequences we will not have to live with.

I would also like to point out that I do not need proof to back an opinion. An opinion is simply that ....not a scientific theory.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 05 May 2010 - 07:27 PM.


#44 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:21 PM

I agree with much you have said. I do not agree that anyone who is religious is brainwashed and I wondered what proof you have for that? The Roman Catholic Church for example, is larger than the total population of North America. It is larger than any country in the world. (No I am not RC) How can you say they are any more brainwashed than any other group? That appears to be a bigoted statement such as saying "All Jews are ...." I don't buy that.


It isn't bigoted when applied to a whole. You comment was quite a large stretch given that my comment was directed at all forms of religion equally. If I say something like, humans are very short sighted because we cannot see past the durations of our own lives. This doesn't mean I am bigoted and hate hispanics. It simply means that I feel that people are short sighted and tend to not bother with long term consequences we will not have to live with.

I would also like to point out that I do not need proof to back an opinion. An opinion is simply that ....not a scientific theory.


I accept your clarifications and stretch to include all religious people on the earth as being “brainwashed.” You didn’t mention the Roman Catholic Church alone and I should have included all the religions who were what you were actually talking about. It’s most of the world! My points concerning the RC Church are even more pointed and serious when you include all religious people in your “brainwashed,” description. I didn’t think it was anything more than a bigoted opinion and certainly didn’t think it had any Science behind it. In that, I agree with you.

If you had of said something like, “humans are very short sighted because we cannot see past the durations of our own lives.” I wouldn’t have objected. That is not what you said. Straw man.

Nor does your protest, “This doesn't mean I am bigoted and hate Hispanics,” have anything to do with what you said. Since you have brought it up, do you hate Hispanics? Perhaps this is another straw man designed to make one not appear bigoted.

You don’t need proof, your baseless bigoted opinions are clear.

#45 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2010 - 11:24 PM

I agree with much you have said. I do not agree that anyone who is religious is brainwashed and I wondered what proof you have for that? The Roman Catholic Church for example, is larger than the total population of North America. It is larger than any country in the world. (No I am not RC) How can you say they are any more brainwashed than any other group? That appears to be a bigoted statement such as saying “All Jews are ....” I don’t buy that.


Being Jewish is not something you choose, so saying "all Jews think..." is like saying "all blondes think...". Religions on the other hand are chosen identities ( altough it's arguable if raising a child as for ex Catholic leaves him any choice ) so there will be common traits among the choosers, because there is something in the identity that they all find appealing.

The number of folks adhering to Catholicism ( as well as others ) to me is more of a sign that people don't like thinking on their own, and not supposed good of a certain faith. I think the greatest example of Catholics being brainwashed is that they don't see any fraud going on in a religion that "discovers" consecutive dogmas even as far as 2000 years after the original founder of the religion died, examples - papal infalibility in late XIX century and the rapture of Mother Mary, a dogma proclaimed in 1950. WTF ? So does this mean that somebody dying a Catho in 1949 did not have a chance to be perfect in his creed since he had no clue about this last one and cannot go to Heaven ? These guys are ridiculous.

As for cryo I think your reasons are pretty valid.


Being Jewish is something you can chose. My wife is a Jew who has chyosen her faith. I know many others and have heard their testimonies when ever I go to temple.

There are no common traits to religolus people. I am not a Roman Catholic but your statement they cant think for themselves and are brainwashed is nonsense. Have you ever read Roman Catholic Apologetics? All you have shown is you disagre with them but you haven’t dealt with there apologetics. Check out

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
http://www.catholicleague.org/
http://www.catholic.org/
http://www.newman-csuf.com/
http://www.catholic...._vinci_code.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/

Dinesh D'Souza RC Apologist
Is it reasonable to have faith in God? Can intelligent, educated people really believe what the Bible says? Or do the atheists have it right—has Christianity been disproven by science and discredited as a guide to morality? Best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza (The Enemy at Home; What's So Great about America) responds head-on to the anti-God arguments of prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and defeats them on their own terms. What's So Great about Christianity provides believers with a straightforward tool kit for meeting the challenge of modern atheism and secularism; for nonbelievers, it offers a compelling apologetic that will challenge their assumptions and affirm that there really is something great about Christianity.
http://www.amazon.co...t...0397&sr=1-3

Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics, evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D Souza shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death. He concludes by showing how life after death can give depth and significance to this life, a path to happiness, and reason for hope.
http://www.amazon.co...n...0397&sr=1-1

Some Christian Web pages
http://www.ldolphin.org/URLres.shtml

University..all kinds of topics
http://www.leaderu.com/

#46 chrwe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 May 2010 - 05:59 AM

It`s great how deeply many of you have thought this through.

Thing is, I have already immersed myself in literature about consciousness as well as religions (plural) and I believe (given I am not a physicist nor a doctor) you can pretty much ask me anything about philosophy, religions, near-death-experiences, research about the "self" and the "will", effects of brain damage on the former etc.etc. now.

But all this research has basically reinforced my doubt that anything survives death. Sorry. I myself wish very much it were different. If brain damage had less impact on the self or the consciousness, I would have hope, but knowing what I do now, I don`t really (neverless a desperate wish remains, but that is not a consolation).

However, I would never ever refute anyone`s religion or spiritual conviction. I`m happy for you that you have these convictions and i wish I could share them. I`ve been born and raised a catholic, but my life has taught me many ugly things, among them how arbitrary pain and suffering is and how little prayer helps (read: not at all except that it gives you yourself a mental boost). And in the thread "we are a consciousness in possession of the body" I`ve already stated the saddest case of Clive Wearing and the perpetual "now" he lives in (a nightmare for any healthy person to even think about). That case really buried my last shred of hope - even with Alzheimer, there are the weird cases of "coming back" especially shortly before death, so you could hope for a survival, but the Wearing case wore me down.

In any case, it is correct that death anxiety poisons life. Doing something about death - yes, I am doing what I can at the moment. Cryopreservation? Of course it is a wild gamble. But at least the chances are NOT zero whatever anyone says. I`d even say they become better as the years pass and science improves.

If all else fails, well. At least I am 100% convinced it won`t hurt. I wish it did....if I hurt, I "am" still and could improve in time.

Oh, and about the "in an inifinite time and given the multiverses, our consciousness will come back, but without the memories" well that is a plausible thing statistically given "infinity", but without my memories, I am not "me".

I`m glad I`m not alone in this - I DO hope we will all laugh about this one day when life extension comes about in our lifetime...

#47 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 06 May 2010 - 06:40 AM

Thing is, I have already immersed myself in literature about consciousness as well as religions (plural) and I believe (given I am not a physicist nor a doctor) you can pretty much ask me anything about philosophy, religions, near-death-experiences, research about the "self" and the "will", effects of brain damage on the former etc.etc. now.

But all this research has basically reinforced my doubt that anything survives death. Sorry. I myself wish very much it were different. If brain damage had less impact on the self or the consciousness, I would have hope, but knowing what I do now, I don`t really (neverless a desperate wish remains, but that is not a consolation).

However, I would never ever refute anyone`s religion or spiritual conviction. I`m happy for you that you have these convictions and i wish I could share them. I`ve been born and raised a catholic, but my life has taught me many ugly things, among them how arbitrary pain and suffering is and how little prayer helps (read: not at all except that it gives you yourself a mental boost). And in the thread "we are a consciousness in possession of the body" I`ve already stated the saddest case of Clive Wearing and the perpetual "now" he lives in (a nightmare for any healthy person to even think about). That case really buried my last shred of hope - even with Alzheimer, there are the weird cases of "coming back" especially shortly before death, so you could hope for a survival, but the Wearing case wore me down.

If all else fails, well. At least I am 100% convinced it won`t hurt. I wish it did....if I hurt, I "am" still and could improve in time.

Oh, and about the "in an inifinite time and given the multiverses, our consciousness will come back, but without the memories" well that is a plausible thing statistically given "infinity", but without my memories, I am not "me".

This is the most interesting, powerful, fascinating pursuit of the 21 century, imho.
OK, here is my take on why consciousness survives the brain. I have never been able to explain it. I just can't word it, but I'll try one last time for this thread, though I'll probably fall short as usual:

It has something to do with the fact that when we fall into a deep sleep, we go away, but when we awaken, we are back again.
But, it's more than that. I will do my best.
Like, when the brain doesn't generate you as an epiphenomenon or emergent property of itself, then the brain is just soppy organic matter that is not generating consciousness.
So, in certain deep sleep, when flatlined, and in a bunch of states where consciousness is not being generated, the brain may be doing other things that do not produce consciousness, like regulating body functions, but, as far as the epiphenomenon goes, the brain is just a soppy organ.

As far as our current understanding of the universe goes, consciousness, at that point, is just gone. It doesn't exist. It is discontinued. Gone forever. Out of the universe.
But, then we awaken, or are revived, and the brain starts revving and through endless layers and feedbacks, the brain again acts in such a way that generates consciousness.
The big problem with this is that "I" return.
A new consciousness is not created with all the memories of the old consciousness, but rather, it is the same consciousness.
That continuity is wholly inexplicable based on what we know of the brain and also on the physical universe.

One sentence answers seem clever, but never ever answer or resolve that problem of the unexplained continuity.

It's like the phenom that most powerfully ties consciousness to the brain is also the most compelling evidence that it exists, or at least endures, outside the brain.
Maybe the brain is needed to create our experience of consciousness, but something persists outside the brain to allow the subjective "I" to return, with continuity when the brain ceases to create consciousness and then generates it again.
Something "stores" it.

In short, everytime consciousness ends due to deep sleep or being knocked unconscious or flatlining, "I" should end forever.
Something else should emerge when the brain wakes up again, but it should not be the same "I" from before.
The soppy organ could not possibly have contained the "I"
An epiphenomenon simply goes away.

I do not fully grasp it yet, but I am headstrong on this and see it as a definite huge mystery. I would love some clarification or development.

Edited by paulthekind, 06 May 2010 - 06:42 AM.


#48 chrwe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 May 2010 - 08:10 AM

I will only say one thing:

While we are in deep sleep and/or unconscious (as the name implies) or flatlined (truly), we are "gone". When the brain starts to function again in a normal awake pattern, we are "back".

When our brain is hurt, we will be altered (frontal lobe damage etc.) or will not be able to store memories becoming zombies of the present (hippocampus damage) or we will lose ourselves completely, even a sense of "self" (horror of late stage dementia and alzheimer)

Brain connection of "being" should be pretty obvious.

Sorry.

All that remains for me is a desperate wish of the "it can`t be true what must not be true" kind, but that really doesnt help with anxiety.

I`ll work all my life for life extension and then choose cryopreservation (kicking and screaming) and hope others remember that they can only live due to my efforts and genes and find that sufficient reason to pay me back by reviving me.

If there is, against ALL rationale and probability and reason, a personal God or a conscious afterlife, I will very very gladly apologize to and fro and work my not-present-anymore ass off to help other souls in need, lol. But at the moment, I havent seen anything convincing at all.

#49 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 06 May 2010 - 08:35 AM

Oh, and about the "in an inifinite time and given the multiverses, our consciousness will come back, but without the memories" well that is a plausible thing statistically given "infinity", but without my memories, I am not "me".

Hmm, would it help if you thought that all instances of space-time are equally real? In other words, just because your limited consciousness can only perceive *now* it does not mean that the past is forever gone - it's still there!

#50 chrwe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 May 2010 - 08:48 AM

Unfortunately I experience time in a linear fashion and therefor cannot go "back", meaning that alas, it helps me not (but lets me hope Tipler is correct, heh, unlikely as that is).

#51 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:24 AM

I will only say one thing:

While we are in deep sleep and/or unconscious (as the name implies) or flatlined (truly), we are "gone". When the brain starts to function again in a normal awake pattern, we are "back".

When our brain is hurt, we will be altered (frontal lobe damage etc.) or will not be able to store memories becoming zombies of the present (hippocampus damage) or we will lose ourselves completely, even a sense of "self" (horror of late stage dementia and alzheimer)

Brain connection of "being" should be pretty obvious.

Sorry.

All that remains for me is a desperate wish of the "it can`t be true what must not be true" kind, but that really doesnt help with anxiety.

I`ll work all my life for life extension and then choose cryopreservation (kicking and screaming) and hope others remember that they can only live due to my efforts and genes and find that sufficient reason to pay me back by reviving me.

If there is, against ALL rationale and probability and reason, a personal God or a conscious afterlife, I will very very gladly apologize to and fro and work my not-present-anymore ass off to help other souls in need, lol. But at the moment, I havent seen anything convincing at all.

It may engender some hope to know that many extremely bright and powerful minds have truly compelling points of view on why physical matter cannot give rise to non-physical consciousness:
Ranging from outdated Cartesian dualism to much more recently developed ideas of fundamental and emergent property dualism, as well as my current fav, neutral monist property dualism.
The most convincing ideas of these models are not easily or summarily dismissed.

[Correlation does not equal causation; a fundamental reality may encompass both the physical and non-physical and, thus, neither gives rise to the other; philosopher zombies; stuff like that]

From a philosophical standpoint, the dualists have the edge, but, from a scientific standpoint, it is much more difficult to tell.

It is funny how intuition and common sense presents conflicting results:
Common sense tells us that consciousness cannot possibly result from a soppy organ.
But, common sense also tells us that the brain and mind are so interwoven, that it is likely that they are deeply, though not necessarily inextricably, connected.

I will gather steam for another angle I think has merit, but, it is more difficult to capture and verbalize, so it may take a while for it to congeal.

#52 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 06 May 2010 - 12:16 PM

I accept your clarifications and stretch to include all religious people on the earth as being “brainwashed.” You didn’t mention the Roman Catholic Church alone and I should have included all the religions who were what you were actually talking about. It’s most of the world! My points concerning the RC Church are even more pointed and serious when you include all religious people in your “brainwashed,” description. I didn’t think it was anything more than a bigoted opinion and certainly didn’t think it had any Science behind it. In that, I agree with you.

If you had of said something like, “humans are very short sighted because we cannot see past the durations of our own lives.” I wouldn’t have objected. That is not what you said. Straw man.

Its not bigoted because you agree with it. If you didn't agree with it, it could be perceived as bigoted. Thus, the reason I used it as an example. Besides, you really can't pull the straw man card when we are discussing opinions.

Nor does your protest, “This doesn't mean I am bigoted and hate Hispanics,” have anything to do with what you said. Since you have brought it up, do you hate Hispanics? Perhaps this is another straw man designed to make one not appear bigoted.

How could you possible get that I hate hispanics from that post? I used hispanics as my example because it is personal to me and in no way could be perceived as bigoted. My wife is hispanic as is my son. You are really stretching man (trolling?).

You don’t need proof, your baseless bigoted opinions are clear.


Is it really neccessary to derail the topic debating semantics and participating in logic 101... especially given that we are discussing opinions here?

I was raised christian and my wife is jewish, but neither one of us practices organized religion. We both believe from personal experience and historical experience that religion is a method of controling the masses. You can call my opinion bigoted all you want, that simply doesn't make it so ..just because you 'said' so. Like my opinion on religion brainwashing people, you have an opinion that my statement is bigoted. Neither are right or wrong because they are simply opinions ...and like assholes, everyone has one. I apologize that my statement was threatening to you and your beliefs. I hope some day you will come to recognize that others see life differently.

#53 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2010 - 07:51 PM

I accept your clarifications and stretch to include all religious people on the earth as being "brainwashed." You didn't mention the Roman Catholic Church alone and I should have included all the religions who were what you were actually talking about. It's most of the world! My points concerning the RC Church are even more pointed and serious when you include all religious people in your "brainwashed," description. I didn't think it was anything more than a bigoted opinion and certainly didn't think it had any Science behind it. In that, I agree with you.

If you had of said something like, "humans are very short sighted because we cannot see past the durations of our own lives." I wouldn't have objected. That is not what you said. Straw man.

Its not bigoted because you agree with it. If you didn't agree with it, it could be perceived as bigoted. Thus, the reason I used it as an example. Besides, you really can't pull the straw man card when we are discussing opinions.

Nor does your protest, "This doesn't mean I am bigoted and hate Hispanics," have anything to do with what you said. Since you have brought it up, do you hate Hispanics? Perhaps this is another straw man designed to make one not appear bigoted.

How could you possible get that I hate hispanics from that post? I used hispanics as my example because it is personal to me and in no way could be perceived as bigoted. My wife is hispanic as is my son. You are really stretching man (trolling?).

You don't need proof, your baseless bigoted opinions are clear.


Is it really neccessary to derail the topic debating semantics and participating in logic 101... especially given that we are discussing opinions here?

I was raised christian and my wife is jewish, but neither one of us practices organized religion. We both believe from personal experience and historical experience that religion is a method of controling the masses. You can call my opinion bigoted all you want, that simply doesn't make it so ..just because you 'said' so. Like my opinion on religion brainwashing people, you have an opinion that my statement is bigoted. Neither are right or wrong because they are simply opinions ...and like assholes, everyone has one. I apologize that my statement was threatening to you and your beliefs. I hope some day you will come to recognize that others see life differently.


OK. We are off topic anyway.

#54 AdamSummerfield

  • Guest
  • 351 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Derbyshire, England

Posted 28 May 2010 - 06:41 AM

I've had existential despair since I was 12 or 13. If you do something constructive, immediately and persist at it, it will go away. However I recognise that the feeling is most common when in bed and the lights are out and there is silence.

#55 chrwe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 May 2010 - 08:29 AM

anything you recommend except trying to get active (which is a bit hard at 1am)?

#56 AdamSummerfield

  • Guest
  • 351 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Derbyshire, England

Posted 28 May 2010 - 09:36 AM

anything you recommend except trying to get active (which is a bit hard at 1am)?

Well, I read, which I can do in bed. Reading allows me to feel that I'm working to solve the problem.

#57 chrwe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:45 AM

cant be too bad if you can read :)

maybe I should explain to you all (because I don`t want you to think I am just a crazed, middle-aged woman) that I had a rather close brush with death due to breast cancer (early stages, no danger anymore I hope) and an adverse reaction to the meds I got (tachycardia etc.) so I had the "pleasure" of very really thinking and feeling the lights would go out at any second

it`s proving extremely hard for me to overcome this trauma

before I was a semi-spiritual person (agnostic, as stated, with a very vague belief there just might be something to the soul without really thinking about it) and otherwise thought "well, I wont notice I`m dead, will I" - but once the grim reaper really looked at me, things were suddenly VERY different indeed

I really hope SENS will come into fruitition in my lifetime :S, at least for the first panel so we can reach the infamous "bridges"

Edited by chrwe, 28 May 2010 - 11:45 AM.


#58 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 29 May 2010 - 12:39 AM

I see the thread has digressed somewhat, so I don't know if I am going against the grain by dragging it back to the original focus, but here goes anyway: It is well established that a single H2O molecule is not 'water', but, rather, that water is an emergent property of countless H2O molecules.
Some consider the nervous system and consciousness in the same way: a single neuron is not 'conscious', but billions interconnected in the brain are conscious. This analogy leads many to conclude that brain can creates mind via similar means, but there is a problem: You can touch a single molecule and you can also touch water. You can move your hand through water and directly affect the molecules, though on a large scale. Though water is an emergent property of countless individual molecules and has vastly different characteristics from same, it is still similar enough so that both can be 'touched'. But, although you can touch a neuron, you cannot touch consciousness. It is far more different from a neuron than water is from a single H2O molecule.
In fact, it is radically and completely different. So different that many early modern philosophers simply could not conceive how a physical brain/neuron can give rise to a non-physical mind.
It's somehow like you would have to turn 90 degrees to go from observing the brain to observing consciousness. It is like a scientist observes the brain from the side, whereas, in order to feel and experience consciousness, he has to rotate 90 degrees and observe it from behind, then delve into the passages.
I don't know. Wow. This explanation is clunky. I was trying to channel and it fell apart.

OK, I thought of a good analogy, a way to explain it:
Imagine that nonphysical consciousness is a membrane and the brain is a bed sheet and both are roughly rectangularly shaped. Drape them side by side and start folding them together, really twisting them up into a compex knotty form and that is how consciousness and the brain are together:
Totally knotted up together and what affects one completely affects the other, but the membrane and the bedsheet, though all tangled up together, are totally separate.

OK, even better: the same analogy as above, but the brain is a blanket and consciousness is a bed sheet and you put them together as if about to lay them atop a bed, but, instead of doing so, you start folding them up together, all twisted and complex, but with the blanket and sheet still in the same relative position to each other, that is, the spot on the blanket across from the small tear on the sheet remains across from it during the folding up.

LOCKE: That's why you and I don't see eye-to-eye sometimes, Jack -- because you're a man of science.
JACK: Yeah, and what does that make you?
LOCKE: Me, well, I'm a man of faith.

Edited by paulthekind, 29 May 2010 - 12:53 AM.


#59 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:29 PM

OK, I thought of a good analogy, a way to explain it:
Imagine that nonphysical consciousness is a membrane and the brain is a bed sheet and both are roughly rectangularly shaped. Drape them side by side and start folding them together, really twisting them up into a compex knotty form and that is how consciousness and the brain are together:
Totally knotted up together and what affects one completely affects the other, but the membrane and the bedsheet, though all tangled up together, are totally separate.

OK, even better: the same analogy as above, but the brain is a blanket and consciousness is a bed sheet and you put them together as if about to lay them atop a bed, but, instead of doing so, you start folding them up together, all twisted and complex, but with the blanket and sheet still in the same relative position to each other, that is, the spot on the blanket across from the small tear on the sheet remains across from it during the folding up.

LOCKE: That's why you and I don't see eye-to-eye sometimes, Jack -- because you're a man of science.
JACK: Yeah, and what does that make you?
LOCKE: Me, well, I'm a man of faith.

I enjoyed this. Thanks. Profound!

#60 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 May 2010 - 04:55 AM

At least someone enjoyed :|< I had hard time even understanding what's even written and what I did understand made me go like O_o!

Besides, the topic starter said religion/faith isn't an option for her so that whole post was wasted anyways.

chrwe is coming from same "place" I am coming, and many others here too. We can't believe in something that might makes us comfortable because it has no evidence (And I don't think arguing about it on this thread will be appropriate, I am just saying what's the position, not trying to prove please! it won't work anyways..), our only hope and is to succeed what for us might feel the impossible or at least the near impossible.

Having this feeling, that this is what we need to accomplish to defeat our greatest fear, our greatest enemy and the feeling which haunts us.. Wellm it doesn't put us in neither an easy or a comfortable position at all.

My boyfriend believes in after life, he says "There can't NOT be". He says "The universe has to be perfect, otherwise why would we be here?" or maybe he says "I can't imagine living in a non-perfect universe".. Well, he knows I disagree, i tell him a naturally perfect universe for us, while I wish that could be true, is just not making any sense. I see the universe is semi chaotic semi ordered. Chaotic, cause there is no true order, ordered, cause it follows the laws of physics but but who said they are good for us?

He tells me if he didn't believe in it, he wasn't sure how he could go on living, by that he means he will be afraid. The belief there is afterlife makes him comfortable, he WANTS to believe in it. As much as I'd love that there would be an afterlife (Even HELL over not existing anymore), I just can't believe there is. And that is a big difference between us in how we view life. What I do know is that he thinks life for people without any belief in afterlife must be unimaginably terrible. He says he can easily guess that if he came from my position he'd also have (I have sometimes) panic attacks and anxieties and thinking about the future in fear.) He can't imagine how I can keep going.

On the other hand, perfect universe or not, he agrees that just in case cryonics, life extension and all that is a really good thing, he is very optimistic they will also succeed a be be available for us two, he also gets his family interested.

So this is something I felt like sharing, seeing how some ideas of belief came up. And knowing chrwe said she can't believe in those stuff, like me. I felt this might be a bit interesting non-argument story.

The conclusion is, honestly, we don't have much to do, We can hope, we can get ourselves distracted and thinking of the sentence makes me feel like "What if we hope now, try to forget about it, and die later? that sucks" and worse thing is, we can't really do much about it (well, we have cryonics just in case). The worse is, there is no second chance. All we can do is walk the brutal cruel path and hope, hope, hope for it, hopefully even get it,,also do whatever you can to ensure you chances. Cryonics, healthy lifestyle (beyond the "normal healthy" which is marketed to us), maybe some supplements.. and maybe even work for it and go to research or at least donate and get people to donate, some sort of publication if you can't work in this specifically.

How to feel better? Have a boyfriend/husband, engage some activity you really get drawn in to,. Keep yourself updated in what's going on that will help us in the future and predictions of people such as Ray Kurzweil, Aubrey de Grey. Follow the advancement of science, also follow specifics technologies and look for their development. Talk to your boyfriend/husband about this, be perfectly honest, plan together for cryonics and healthy lifestyle and donate together every now and then if you can't work in this kind of a job that directly helps this.

That's about it I think. I know that forgetting isn't an option, death isn't an option either, let's just hope we can have our control on it too.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users