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


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 3 votes

Death is ...


  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

Poll: Death is ... (368 member(s) have cast votes)

Death is ...

  1. Oblivion (168 votes [47.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.32%

  2. A Portal Mystery (4 votes [1.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.13%

  3. A Chance to Roam the Earth (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Another Chance at Reincarnation (13 votes [3.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.66%

  5. My Ticket to Nirvana (6 votes [1.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.69%

  6. A Gateway to Heaven or Hell (10 votes [2.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.82%

  7. A Transition to Another Simulation (7 votes [1.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.97%

  8. A Bridge to Another Realm (15 votes [4.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.23%

  9. I Honestly Don't Know (120 votes [33.80%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.80%

  10. I Don't Know and I Don't Care (12 votes [3.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.38%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Sophianic

  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 November 2003 - 11:59 PM


Option 11: I'd rather not think about it
Option 12: _________ (fill in the blank)

The height of your accomplishments will equal the depth of your convictions -- William F. Scolavino

The options above influence our expectations of everlasting life in this world; those options that presume to hold any promise of life beyond death weaken the motivation to seek effective solutions to (1) optimal health, (2) "successful" aging, and (3) dramatic life and health extension. The assumption of oblivion after we die is, for many, a tough one to swallow. And yet, a belief or conviction in the value of life shaped by this assumption is much stronger for having been shaped by it. If you feel there's another option worthy of mention, please indicate it, but give us a sense of where you think you're going, or what you think will happen, when (or after) you die.

#2 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 10 November 2003 - 01:15 AM

How about an 'excuse for not living' as a choice.

I find that people (myself included) can at times focus on death to their distraction from the pursuit of life. 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. 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..

#3 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 November 2003 - 09:32 AM

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.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 November 2003 - 03:15 PM

How about the "suspension of subjective consciousness." Since this choice is not in the list I will choose 10.

Oblivion can only be described while alive and cannot be experienced. Therefore I would say a person has no subjective experience after death.

#5 bacopa

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

Posted 10 November 2003 - 04:58 PM

I think Obvlivion because I don't see any other way I wish I could fancy this view up but I can't...

#6 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 November 2003 - 08:31 PM

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.

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. 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 kind of like “I don’t know and don’t care.” 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. 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. 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.

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.)

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. 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. 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.

Jace

#7 nefastor

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 0
  • Location:France

Posted 10 November 2003 - 09:01 PM

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".

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. Once you destroy the structure, you destroy consciousness... and you reach oblivion.

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.

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.

Jean

#8 Sophianic

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

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).

#9 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 November 2003 - 07:20 PM

Sophianic,

I love the format. It's smart. I might steal this idea from you, so I want to give you the credit now.

Jace

#10 Saille Willow

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Somerset West, Western Cape, South Africa

Posted 12 November 2003 - 10:38 PM

Death - I go to sleep, I wake up having had some interesting dreams. The kind that you don't remember upon awakening, but later in the day something sets off the remembering. A smell, a sound, a touch, an object, an event.

I suppose you can see death as a deadline. As with deadlines you wish you just had a little more time, then your creative effort would have been so much better. Life - extension, extends the deadline, giving you more time to get your act together. An Infinite Lifespan gives you the chance to perfect it.

#11 Sophianic

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 November 2003 - 10:43 PM

Jace Tropic: I love the format. It's smart. I might steal this idea from you, so I want to give you the credit now.

I wanted to give a considered response to everyone, but because of time restrictions, I didn't want to respond to each one individually. And then it struck me. Why not combine everyone's posts into one space and respond in the "thread" format? I've never seen the "thread" format in a forum before, but I did see this format recently used in an article at Tech Central Station by James Pinkerton in his rebuttal to an article by Yuval Levin. So, by all means, make the most of it!

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 November 2003 - 10:56 PM

I wanted to give a considered response to everyone, but because of time restrictions, I didn't want to respond to each one individually. And then it struck me. Why not combine everyone's posts into one space and respond in the "thread" format?


This is a very similar application to how Kevin and I are considering the use of dialog extracts for introductory purpose in the Imminst Book Project so expect some additional review of this effort Sophianic.

As for making the most of it, we intend to and thanks again.

#13 Sophianic

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 November 2003 - 11:05 PM

Saille Willow: Death - I go to sleep, I wake up having had some interesting dreams. The kind that you don't remember upon awakening, but later in the day something sets off the remembering. A smell, a sound, a touch, an object, an event.

"I lie on my back and watch the events of my life course through my mind. Tears well, and a tear trickles into my ear; I'm falling, falling, headlong into the abyss of eternity, never to remember, never to be remembered, ever again ... please, please, not now, not now ... I don't want to die."

I suppose you can see death as a deadline. As with deadlines you wish you just had a little more time, then your creative effort would have been so much better. Life - extension, extends the deadline, giving you more time to get your act together. An Infinite Lifespan gives you the chance to perfect it.

Death, indeed, is a "dead" line ~ in more ways than one. The prospect of an indefinite lifespan expands indefinitely your sense of creative possibility; the prospect of an infinite lifespan is the very epitome of creative possibility ...

#14 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 13 November 2003 - 03:04 AM

Death is not a neutral event in nature, and certainly not a liberation of the soul from the imprisonment of the body, but the violent ending of a living unity, the destruction of the real man.

What the nature of this continuance will be, and how the mode of existence of the "departed soul," may be conceived, concerning these matters there is no substantiated human knowledge. And one can almost recognize the great minds by their abstaining from the claim to any such knowledge. We recognize them by their silence.

#15 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 13 November 2003 - 03:05 AM

The arguments for spiritual immortality, weak when you take them one by one, are no more cogent when you take them together. For my part, I cannot see how consciousness can persist when its physical basis has been destroyed, and I am all too sure of the interconnection of my body and my mind to think that any survival of my consciousness apart from my body would be in any sense a survival of myself. If I die I won't go to heaven or hell, there will just be nothingness.

I believe that if I am dead, I am dead. I believe that with my death I am just as much obliterated as the last mosquito you and I squashed. Here's what happens when you die -- you sit in a box and get eaten by worms.

I promise you that when you die, nothing cool happens.




"Our hope of immortality does not come from any religion, but clearly all religions come from that hope"

Rev. William O'Rights

#16 Sophianic

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 November 2003 - 05:59 PM

Lazarus Long: As for making the most of it, we intend to and thanks again.

My pleasure.

thefirstimmortal: "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religion, but clearly all religions come from that hope"

Reverend O'Rights: I appreciate your input.

The reality of death raises a great deal of wishful thinking. As you may know, letting it drop away can have a deep, clarifying effect on your thinking and your motivation to succeed in the quest for immortality.

#17 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 13 November 2003 - 08:37 PM

It may very well be that the final proof of God's omnipotence is that he need not exist in order to save us

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 14 November 2003 - 04:58 AM.


#18 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 14 November 2003 - 06:49 AM

Like a true Immortalist I don't fear death, I hate it.

#19 bitster

  • Guest
  • 29 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 November 2003 - 08:42 PM

At first, I thought this poll was looking for a legal definition (or at least, a personal opinion) of death.

ala:
What is death?
- heart stoppage
- braindeath
- cessation of experience
- unconsciousness
..etc...

#20 Sophianic

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2003 - 11:44 PM

thefirstimmortal: Like a true Immortalist I don't fear death, I hate it.

A part of me is humble with respect to death ~ the same part of me that feels compassion for those who suffer in the face of it. Another part of me, a deeper part of me, is very afraid of it. And yet another part of me urges me to find out what I can learn with respect to it. I find it difficult to hate death. Or to see it as something I would want to conquer. I just want the option to live for as long as I wish. And here, I thought I was a 'true' immortalist. :))

#21 Sophianic

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 November 2003 - 12:00 AM

bitster: At first, I thought this poll was looking for a legal definition (or at least, a personal opinion) of death.

An important question in its own right. But no. This poll concerns a matter that is little discussed owing to the religious and cultural buffers in place to absorb the stark reality of death. I'm fascinated by the consequences for the individual (and society) of minimizing, rationalizing, ridiculing, ignoring, dismissing, transmuting, denying or making light of this reality.

#22 Saille Willow

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Somerset West, Western Cape, South Africa

Posted 15 November 2003 - 12:06 AM

"Our hope of immortality does not come from any religion, but clearly all religions come from that hope."
Rev. William O'Rights

Amen

So true.

#23 revdanizzo

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 November 2003 - 10:10 AM

The belief in Resurrection of the Dead Body is part of the Apostle's Creed from 150 AD. and was a belief that the dead would one day rise up from the graves, ( see early church letter, ' Resurrection of the Dead ' ( Body)by Athenagoras of Athens @170AD)
I am not sure what the ancient Eygptians believed about resurrection of the dead body, but there whole civilization was centered on burial tombs it seems, like the Great Seal of the United States, in fact Ben Franklin wrote a letter in 1773 stating that he wished he could be preserved in a liquid medium and resurrected in a 100 years time and John Paul Jones the famous US naval hero was preserved in a liquid medium in 1790 and buried near Paris, and in 1900 he was returned to the US in a remarkably preserved fashion.
Currently Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Resurrection of the Dead Body, but for some reason they think Jesus will wave like a magic wand or something and poof......they are resurrected, I pray they change and endorse cryonics....one day i hope to start a cryonic resurrection life insurance company or a simple form of cryonics for the poor would be burial like iceman.in Greenland near Thule Air Base or Antartica...it is very sad that in our civilization...even in America.....people truely do think there is a small chance to be resurrected from the suspended frozen dead...and have robotic machine type of parent helpers with energy and housing undergroud with lots of toys.....and live maybe for another 1,000 years.....most people would atleast give a 2% chance that this will happen one day.....but still people don't want to come back to life....most say something like " once is enough ".......I pray God opens people's eyes....to a future world.....as an " Empowered Child Culture " with Robotic Parents....( man and machine )...and not the cruel world.with death and taxes.wherein lead metal is transmutated into gold coins.and the government makes its own money....and treats its people like children, not slaves...civilization seems to care more about decaying buildings..than decaying dead persons....what went wrong ?
May God Bless You People
Yours for the Great Seal as a Resurrection Burial Tomb
Brother Dan Izzo
Syracuse, NY

#24 darktr00per

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • -1

Posted 15 November 2003 - 12:18 PM

immortality has a ket draw back to a theory of mine. First of all, we are shells for genetic material. This material is always trying to stay alive and passed on. Evolution keeps it improving survival and instinct to reproduce keeps it alive. I think that one day we will evolve enough to meet its true purpose. Some sort of "enlightenment". Some sort of "GOD" will be created. With people living even longer forever soon reproduction will be slowed to a halt because of over population. Without reproducing genetics cannot be passed down and evolution will not take place. But, this is just an idea. I realise their are many holes and possibilities other than this. Its just something to think about.

#25 Gewis

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Provo, UT

Posted 15 November 2003 - 02:05 PM

Being the black sheep of this community I am, I'm going to post my religious views on the subject ANYWAY.

(Yeah, that's right, you haven't scared me away yet.)

"A Gateway to heaven or hell," of all the options, is closest to what I believe, but at the same time, not really close at all. It's more like a transition, from mortality to a spiritual state without a body, and really none too pleasant. Sure, there's pleasure and happiness that come from righteous ('virtuous' is the best synonym for those who wonder) living, but the body has potencies and capabilities that the spirit alone can't even approach. That's why resurrection is necessary. "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." -Moses 1:39 (You won't find it in the Bible.) And Joseph Smith stated, "The sole object of human existence is happiness." Happiness is the point of our immortality. "And spirit and element, inseperably connected, receive a fulness of joy." -D&C 93. Our chemical structure, hormonal processes, things that allow us to feel things with such strength and potency, are impossible without a physical substrate such as the body. Natural law will not now, never has been, and never will be violated. Those principles that govern the function and relation of all matter are universal, so it follows that God, understanding such principles, and being governed by the point that he's in absolute harmony with truth, would also have such a body for his own happiness and joy, and would provide the same opportunity for such for his children. However, as a student currently working in nuclear physics on some pretty far out stuff, I think it's safe to say that our understanding of natural law is rather limited.

And to anybody who may say the dead have never come back to tell us what it's like. Well, you're right. They didn't come back to tell us what it was like to be dead; they had more important business to take care of. =P

#26 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 November 2003 - 02:20 PM

darktrooper: With people living even longer forever soon reproduction will be slowed to a halt because of over population. Without reproducing genetics cannot be passed down and evolution will not take place.


darktrooper, did you consider the possibility other than reproduction, that of modifying existing genetics?

Jace

#27 Ben Hijink

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Northwestern U., Evanston/Chicago, IL

Posted 15 November 2003 - 06:27 PM

In the strict, original form of Buddhism, Nirvana IS oblivion (non action, the extinquishment of all desire, not good nor bad, just non-being - one gets there by letting go of concerns before death), so I chose that option just to be difficult. " ;~)

Really though, there is so much label-identification that results from questions like these. I'm a "negative-atheist" in that I see no compelling reason to think that conscious experience continues with out a body to support it, which is exactly what many people who call themselves agnostics think.

At the same time, since we all lack omniscience, the most defensible position one can take is to honestly confront speculations and try to ascribe probabilities based on what can be observed. Nick Bostrom has been attempting to apply just such an inductive method through analytical philosophy when he deals with the possibility that we are living in a simulation. The simulation argument is actually much stronger than any of the numerous conflicting and self-contradictory religious notions of afterlife that emerged from prescientific cultures (in which revelation seemed to have a relatively high likelihood of being true).

Even happen to be in a kind of simulation (which I would argue does not make our existence less "real"), there is no compelling reason, based on what we might infer about the simulator culture, to expect that the simulators would have devised an elaborate method by which to make it *seem* to fellow simulations that a being had died only to bring the creature out into another realm of their simulation. A simulation based on the traditional notions of heaven and hell that can only be navegated by the luck of finding or being born into the *right* religious system is particularly "repugnant" to use that favoite phrase of the theologically-influenced (though he denies it) bioethicist Leon Kass.

#28 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 15 November 2003 - 06:52 PM

First of all, we are shells for genetic material. This material is always trying to stay alive and passed on. Evolution keeps it improving survival and instinct to reproduce keeps it alive.


If biological evolution can do it, technological evolution can do it too, just better and much faster.

Natural evolution is such a limited, inefficient system that it takes vast stretches of time to do just about anything, and when it does do something the systems produced are flawed and inherently weak. The belief, common among humans, that it is hard to match nature is absurd. Swift-working intelligence will run ever-faster rings around the natural slow poke. At this time, there is nothing DNA has produced that cannot be equaled or surpassed by technology.

#29 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 15 November 2003 - 06:55 PM

Death is an imposition on the human race,
and no longer acceptable.
Alan Harrington

#30 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 November 2003 - 06:59 PM

If biological evolution can do it, technological evolution can do it too, just better and much faster.


God, the hubris is sometimes just so funny. I can't wait until technology accounts for timeless electron jumps.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users