Posted 11 November 2003 - 07:01 PM
kevin: How about an 'excuse for not living' as a choice. (it doesn't give us a sense of where you think you're going, or what you think will happen, when (or after) you die). I find that people (myself included) can at times focus on death to their distraction from the pursuit of life. (it happens to the best of us, I think) I personally find the question as to 'what death is' to be irrelevant as it can't be answered by any means I know of. (but I think it can be answered without idle speculation) Pondering death is part of life, but as the question can't be answered (we can answer it with existing knowledge, and modified pending further evidence), once that fact has been determined (a fact or an assumption?), it warrants little attention except perhaps as the awareness of an approaching waterfall can be used to paddle to get the heck off the river. (then perhaps it does warrant attention if we see the waterfall analogously as certain death in the absence of methods to extend life and health indefinitely)
---
Bruce: Nice Poll, oblivion, to me is the only logical choice for any atheist and rational thinker.... Sophianic, you hit the nail on the head squarely.. as this realization that death = oblivion can add strength to one's life ... this is quite true in my case.. it has cleared my mind into one clear mission... where I shall put my energies... help as many fellow life entities as possible reach a world free from involuntary death. (Bruce, I'm glad to know that you share my view that oblivion is the base assumption from which to question and challenge the other assumptions about where others think they're going, or what they think will happen, when (or after) they die).
---
Mind: How about the "suspension of subjective consciousness." (this would imply existence beyond death; what type of existence did you have in mind? Remember: death is not equivalent to 'de-animation' in the context of cryonics). Since this choice is not in the list (see option #12; not on the list because it can only take 10 options at a time; although you probably know that by now) I will choose 10. Oblivion can only be described while alive (I assume that as well) and cannot be experienced (but it can be understood and appreciated). Therefore I would say a person has no subjective experience after death. (but this says less than your initial supposition)
---
dfowler: I think Obvlivion because I don't see any other way I wish I could fancy this view up but I can't. (I agree that it's difficult to "fancy it up," but if you can quietly accept it as your base assumption, then I would say you're a lot further ahead than most.)
---
Jace: [kevin: Pondering death is part of life, but as the question can't be answered, once that fact has been determined, it warrants little attention except perhaps as the awareness of an approaching waterfall can be used to paddle to get the heck off the river..] Yeah, I think this is probably the most sensible approach however difficult it is to ponder death and subsequently deem it irrelevant. (see above)
[Sophianic: And yet, a belief or conviction in the value of life shaped by this assumption is much stronger for having been shaped by [oblivion].] Not assuming that you’re assuming this, but I think simply wanting to have a conviction in the value of life is not an appropriate foundation for believing in oblivion. (agreed; belief "in" oblivion is an act of faith) In the same way that some people believe in the afterlife to enhance particular values, some people may want to believe in oblivion also to enhance particular values. (I don't merely believe that oblivion is the fate of those who die; I assume it to be true pending further evidence that points to this conclusion: "there is life after death").
I kind of like “I don’t know and don’t care.” (it does have a certain appeal; that's why I included it) Although I very much do care to have some answers, this would be the one I’d choose if I could objectify my thinking to 100 percent. (for me, that objectification lies with a null assumption, viz., oblivion) I personally feel that finding ways to encourage our minds into thinking that “death is not an option” may almost put us in jeopardy of the very thing we’re fighting against. (yes, I can see that, too, i.e., if you were to assume that death is something that must be "fought against") If we are commissioned in creating an ultimate purpose for our own life, we are thus warranted to ascribe this quality in other minds. If there is conflict among those even with the same type of purpose to themselves, someone must win. (to get around this, we need to think "win-win," and not get trapped by ideology)
The other side to this is obviously the implication of not being able to die at all. If we have this power over life and are completely invincible, I can easily imagine subjective intelligence eventually becoming dispassionate with its own accomplishment. (i.e. I can’t live forever; therefore, I want to conquer death. I can’t die; therefore, I want to conquer invincibility.) (until I know otherwise, the universe will forever contain an element of "the unknown"; life will forever be conditional; invincibility will forever be an illusion, no matter what form we take or think we can take)
Of course, there may not be such a thing as subjective intelligence in the future, but that’s assuming an absolute-realist perspective. This caliber of realism assumes that everything is independent of minds. As further illustration, anti-realism is the notion that everything is dependent upon minds. We’re probably somewhere in the middle-maybe closer to realism, but not entirely. (not entirely, yes, but always striving to close the gap) Feeling pain or pleasure, for example, is not independent of minds. Will superintelligence be independent of minds? Will it be independent of itself? Either way, it’s a curious ordeal to speculate on the causation of its motivations, rejuvenations, and inspirations (but don't these features require subjective intelligence to initiate and appreciate?). The concept of life and death must factor in there somewhere. And when it does, options for action are nonetheless limited unless “we don’t know and don’t care” in the sense that staying alive should not be the only primary goal, but one of many, in my opinion, even if the other primary goals may be dangerous. (For myself, I have no trouble in letting the alternative between life and death serve as my ultimate standard of thought, action and behavior).
---
nefastor: Almost voted "Oblivion"... but "I honestly don't know" is the only truth. As my mom always says : "no one ever came back to tell us about it". (this, of course, implies that any of the options could be true ~ an implication that I'm not willing to accept)
My general assumption that death is oblivion is solely based on the fact that I don't believe in an immortal soul of ours, only that our consciousness is an effect of the complexity of our physical structure. (these are the standard naturalist and materialist assumptions, respectively) Once you destroy the structure, you destroy consciousness... and you reach oblivion. (strictly speaking, oblivion obtains when no one no longer remembers you ~ or what you accomplished)
Some have different ideas on that, while still not believing in the immortality of our "spirit". You might want to read the excellent novel "Permutation City" by Greg Egan for a brilliant exemple of that... and many thoughts on transhumanism. (Although I haven't read this novel, I have read two collections of stories by Egan and found them fascinating in spite of the dark undertones in his writing; I especially recommend his collection "Axiomatic")
Egan basically suggests that, although we are "biological machines", everything we did since we exist only has meaning if there is continuation. He even applies that to the creation of a parallel universe, basically stating that once something has started, it cannot be stopped. I fail to fully (?) his point (and I don't share it) but the way he exploits this in the story is very interesting. (life can be stopped cold; in spite of our imaginations, we need only look at a loved one who has died to realize this fully).