Thread: Immortality or not?

Plus, we evolved through the years.
The purpose of immortality is to enjoy partying for the rest of eternity, to be happy. With time and wisdom we gain, we will conquer each challenge and live forever happy without problem. Get crazy? NO, we can fix that. We will be able to fix any mental and physical problem.
I agree with splodeymissile in what he says. He explained it the way I believe it.

Death? Eternal Happiness and Pleasure?
Which one would you like?
OP say they like enjoying life bcz they know it will end. Joy is not caused by the knowledge of death, or is not Increased.
Feel joy for eternity, that is completely possible. You can be happy even after a billion years, I assure you. You will still produce those hormones.
Yes, life has no meaning. There is no bigger cause. The confusion we are in is created by the self-awareness and intelegence we evolved to have. Examples of these confusions are: Why do we exist? How did we exist? What created us?
We are smart to see those things, but maybe they are false(we created such definitions for existance that bring up these questions), or we need more intelegence to answer them if they are true(do exist).

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ I don't know, Dutchraptor, that answer might just be a bit too clear-eyed for these environs!
No, he would not. Would that be a bad thing?

I couldn't tell you. It seems to me that it is both in our nature to strive for improvement and to retain what makes us who we are.

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I don't believe life has any purpose, beyond what we set ourselves. So, if an immortal beings considers his existence worthless, he's right. If he thinks its meaningful he's also right. And no, we probably wouldn't be human anymore, but, as Sageous said, would that be a bad thing? Especially considering the large amount of genetic variation we already have amongst the species.

What you say about life being meaningless is exactly what turns me from immortality. I live my life now because I happened to find myself here, ending my life would be just as meaningless as continuing it. I choose to continue my life because my body tells me to, unfortunately as highly as we think that we can rational think of the world, a large number of our decisions are still dominated by our instinct.

My reasoning is similar in the case of immortality. Whatever happens both cases are equally meaningless, but my natural state is to live a short life. As far as I'm concerned, why put extra work into something that is unnecessary.

Very good point, Dutchraptor.
It is in our instincts to live, but since when we die we lose our instincts, there is no reason to want immortality. Living is just an instinct. So, it is life that makes us want to live it, and when we leave it, we lose that desire(other than the fact that we lose conscious also). Hope I made sense

I suppose its just a difference in ideologies, then, Dutchraptor. I'm an anti-nihilist, you seem to be a nihilist. I doubt we'll find any way (or reason, for that matter) to change each others' perspectives, but as long as we at least understand the others' views.
Louai, I don't see how our wants coming from instincts makes them meaningless. It it the loss of life (and, as you say, consciousness), that makes me fear death. Perhaps, if I could find proof of an afterlife, I'd be fine with a finite lifespan.

Here's the thing, when you die, you lose fear, you lose feelings. It is like an eternal sleep. It is not scary, but like an eternal shutdown. Do you remember anything before being born? It is like that.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer eternal life over oblivion, but I just want to make the OP clear.
Death is the end, but we lose consciousness, so it is like we never existed. Death is experiencing nothing, so it is not scary.
When we are shut down, what does that mean? Not being conscious means what? Not existing means what? We will not have self awareness, no feelings, no self at all. This is why the OP says death isn't bad, cuz it is experiencing nothing, which also means losing our awareness that makes us want to live, so nothing would be even wanted then.

I do understand the point, I just disagree with it. Its like lucid dreaming. We enjoy it, so we try to have it as much as possible. I feel the same about life and existing; I enjoy life, I want more of it. I can't (by sheer definition) enjoy nothingness so it is to be ignored or (since it prohibits me from enjoying life) outright avoided. And just because you can't feel fear at the time, doesn't make the concept any less scary for me.
Once again its a simple difference of ideologies, I see nothingness as bad, some don't.

Stress is reduced by knowledge of death, but really stress is reduced by knowledge that all factors creating stress are temporary and meaningless. You don't necessarily need death to find that. I mean, change itself creates the same realization of how precious the present moment is. Nothing lasts forever so enjoy your experiences while you have them. Take nothing for granted. If you can do that and still cling to immortality, fine. I don't care for immortality because, and I'm just as selfish as the next guy.

Why is immortality selfishness?

You yourself called it selfish.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You yourself called it selfish.

Oh sry

I'm actually a nihilist, and I do kinda share the "I only live because my body wants to" mindset of dutchraptor, but that's really because I'm currently trapped in the depressing, monotonous, gruelling hell that is my junior year of high school.

Louai, O.P.:

Well, at least we can all agree that immortality is selfish! Uh-oh, I feel a "but" coming...

But is that a bad thing, really? Yes, extending your own life indefinitely is a uniquely selfish action, though it may only reflect the natural selfishness already wired into us -- that, and our survival instinct, which is mostly selfish, but at least has the "greater good" in mind because your survival, in normal life-span terms, does serve to help continue your DNA line. But, couldn't that selfish act be offset by the good a being able to accumulate centuries or millennia of wisdom sharing that wisdom with the ephemeral masses? Lots of selfish people do good deeds, albeit sometimes just to admire themselves doing so (but the deeds are still done); can't immortal people do the same, only on a much grander scale?

If immortals remain a decided minority and mange to find a (humble) place in society, I think they might be able to add good things the world, regardless of their selfishness. Of course, the odds of them remaining in our society, much less doing so humbly, are likely pretty slim, so this opinion is pretty much moot (but so, for now anyway, is this thread, I guess).

Oh, I adore this kind of threads and I absolutely love OP's responses.

Anyway, I'll give you my view by posting something I posted a little time ago on a different forum

Here we go:

"Life: (self) consciousness.
Death: Absence of (self) consciousness.

Now, we cannot know for sure what happens after we die, but on a logical level only two things can happen: either our consciousness survives (afterlife, multiverses etc.) or it does not.

In the first case there is nothing to worry about since only our body would die, but our consciousness would survive anyway and we are "alive" because we are "(self) conscious"

The alternative is that, once we are "dead", we are no more conscious. But can we be conscious of being unconscious? For example, were you conscious of being unconscious before you were born? Of course not! It would be like saying that I feel sad because my GF cheated on me and I don't know that she cheated on me. Absurd! In fact, if it wasn't for your parents and the people around you telling you were born, you could very easily say that you were never born, because everything you've experienced is life, non-life cannot be experienced.

Since it is impossible for us being conscious of being unconscious, we are subjectively immortal."

Originally Posted by Sageous

Louai, O.P.:

Well, at least we can all agree that immortality is selfish! Uh-oh, I feel a "but" coming...

But is that a bad thing, really? Yes, extending your own life indefinitely is a uniquely selfish action, though it may only reflect the natural selfishness already wired into us -- that, and our survival instinct, which is mostly selfish, but at least has the "greater good" in mind because your survival, in normal life-span terms, does serve to help continue your DNA line. But, couldn't that selfish act be offset by the good a being able to accumulate centuries or millennia of wisdom sharing that wisdom with the ephemeral masses? Lots of selfish people do good deeds, albeit sometimes just to admire themselves doing so (but the deeds are still done); can't immortal people do the same, only on a much grander scale?

If immortals remain a decided minority and mange to find a (humble) place in society, I think they might be able to add good things the world, regardless of their selfishness. Of course, the odds of them remaining in our society, much less doing so humbly, are likely pretty slim, so this opinion is pretty much moot (but so, for now anyway, is this thread, I guess).

Wisdom is not created alone through time. In fact, the inevitability of death and ignorance of what lies beyond it are powerful conditions for creating wisdom. One can live 500 years and not gain the same wisdom one would gain through 5 years dealing with cancer. Even if you live a million years, without the proper conditions present you'll still never gain the proper lessons. Not unless you simulated them, perhaps by creating virtual reality and wiping your mind of any prior knowledge to your experiences within it in order to simulate the experience of mortality. And how do you know that's not, essentially, what this is in the first place?

Risk and emotional turbulence are catalysts for wisdom. One must be tested, meaning one must take risks. There are hidden advantages in any disadvantage, but not everyone will succeed, otherwise you couldn't really call them risks.

I like the above posts, alot, all of them, and agreed! But I have a thing to state(you won't like it):
I don't think being immortal and not giving life to newborns is selfish. I don't think we are souls. No brain created means no harm done. After all, it is our instinct which makes us want to live, and no brain equals no instinct. Also, if you agree that death is not bad cuz everything we want and need will just be terminated(I think that, cuz I believe in no life after death), thus removing any bad factor, then you must agree that not giving a life is not bad because there is no aspiration(right word?) to start with in the first place. Immortality still sounds nice(it has too, it's in our instincts to want to survive), and it still is what I wish for, even though I no longer see a benefit from it.
Hmmmmm, I guess I kinda joined the OP now?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Wisdom is not created alone through time. In fact, the inevitability of death and ignorance of what lies beyond it are powerful conditions for creating wisdom.

Yes, wisdom is not created by time alone -- just as it is not created by "the inevitability of death and ignorance of what lies beyond" alone. Yes, those are powerful conditions for creating wisdom, but must they be the only ones?

One can live 500 years and not gain the same wisdom one would gain through 5 years dealing with cancer. Even if you live a million years, without the proper conditions present you'll still never gain the proper lessons.

Really? And you know this how? To me, the assumption that we cannot improve our minds over vast stretches of times seems short-sighted at best, and a sort of wishful thinking at worst... I just noticed the tone of that bit, O.P.; please ignore it -- I wasn't being sarcastic, just brief, and am writing before my coffee.

Not unless you simulated them, perhaps by creating virtual reality and wiping your mind of any prior knowledge to your experiences within it in order to simulate the experience of mortality.

This seems like a plan that sort of makes being immortal moot. Perhaps the experience of immortality -- the knowledge that you can slowly, carefully, and thoroughly learn and experience so much more than you're permitted to do in a human life-span -- might trump the experience of mortality?

And how do you know that's not, essentially, what this is in the first place?

I don't... and be assured that the stuff I say in this conversation is not the only thing I include when considering my own existence... indeed, it's pretty much at the back of the line of my metaphysical musings. I'm here because it's fun to discuss this stuff, not because it's of any particular importance.

Risk and emotional turbulence are catalysts for wisdom. One must be tested, meaning one must take risks. There are hidden advantages in any disadvantage, but not everyone will succeed, otherwise you couldn't really call them risks.

Agreed. But again, there are other catalysts for wisdom. And besides, who says an immortal can't take risks?

Hmmmm... I assure you wisdome is created by much more factors than fear and suffering. Love, happiness, joy, extacy, jeliousy, etc. All create experiences that bring wisdome with them. Philosophy is the most effective tool, especially for the deep wisdome, bcz it does revolve around knowledge and understanding about many deep elements of life. Really suffering is great for wisdom, but not the only great one(I personally love philosophy)

Originally Posted by Sageous

Yes, wisdom is not created by time alone -- just as it is not created by "the inevitability of death and ignorance of what lies beyond" alone. Yes, those are powerful conditions for creating wisdom, but must they be the only ones?



Really? And you know this how? To me, the assumption that we cannot improve our minds over vast stretches of times seems short-sighted at best, and a sort of wishful thinking at worst... I just noticed the tone of that bit, O.P.; please ignore it -- I wasn't being sarcastic, just brief, and am writing before my coffee.



This seems like a plan that sort of makes being immortal moot. Perhaps the experience of immortality -- the knowledge that you can slowly, carefully, and thoroughly learn and experience so much more than you're permitted to do in a human life-span -- might trump the experience of mortality?



I don't... and be assured that the stuff I say in this conversation is not the only thing I include when considering my own existence... indeed, it's pretty much at the back of the line of my metaphysical musings. I'm here because it's fun to discuss this stuff, not because it's of any particular importance.



Agreed. But again, there are other catalysts for wisdom. And besides, who says an immortal can't take risks?

Forgive me if I came off simplistic. By not living for eons, we also miss out on that experience and thus that type of wisdom. Wisdom is experiential learning, each unique experience brings its own wisdom. It's not a simple quantity, you cannot simply have more of it than another person, for they gained the wisdom of their unique experience and you gained the wisdom of yours.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Forgive me if I came off simplistic. By not living for eons, we also miss out on that experience and thus that type of wisdom. Wisdom is experiential learning, each unique experience brings its own wisdom. It's not a simple quantity, you cannot simply have more of it than another person, for they gained the wisdom of their unique experience and you gained the wisdom of yours.

So where does wisdom of death help? Of existence? Being immortal will help us be even more wise about death while we wittness whole planets die and we stay alive, learning.

Yeah, I've gotta go with Louai here. Surely the more you have lived the more wisdom you can accumulate. And I'm pretty sure you can have more wisdom than another person. A man who has lived for a century, assuming his mind is still sound, is wiser than an infant who died not long after childbirth.

You do not accumulate wisdom without experience. You do not accumulate certain, specific wisdom without certain, specific experience. You gain a certain type of a wisdom from being a boy and a certain type of wisdom from being a girl. You gain a certain type of wisdom from owning up to death and facing it and living with it, while you could gain a lot of different certain types of wisdom from never having to die. Humans in LOTR live with a different wisdom than an elf, but an elf gains a lot more different experiences and different wisdom. However, you cannot make the claim that more time creates better wisdom than less time for the same reason that you couldn't claim the wisdom of being a boy would be better than the wisdom of being a girl.

The meditation on Death is 27 steps according to the wikihow I just looked up. Previous ones I've practiced did not number the steps and the steps seemed to go a different fashion than this particular one but the main premise remains the same. We spend a lot of time running from and distracting ourselves from death, and taking time to be present with death can have a profound experience, especially if you live a life as short as ours. I could go on to list all the advantages of this wisdom (you have no reason to escape the present, you are driven to accumulate as much joy and experience as you can without procrastinating things, etc) but I challenge you to discover them for yourselves. Indeed, otherwise you could simply argue the potential for all those advantages exist in theory, in an immortal life as well. But only by actually being present with death can you really know the difference it can make in your own attitude.

To anticipate the final retort, I'm sure it'll be argued that on an infinite timeline, we can always simulate a change in gender or a life where we die without any knowledge of what happens after. Indeed, we can simulate every experience to gain every piece of wisdom. And in response I would challenge: how do you know that's not what we're doing now? What better a way to simulate the grand wisdom of death than by removing and even forbidding by the nature of the program all types of hard evidence of an after-life? So every day every single person has within them the knowledge that they simply do not know, no matter how badly they attempt to ignore it? I am not pressing that possibility any further than possibility, but I am willing accept the experiences this life has given me which are those of a mortal boy. Even if when I'm 45 aging is stopped and the possibility for natural death disappears I'd still assume unnatural death is inevitable on an infinite timeline and attempt to remember the wisdom I gained from my time spent with the knowledge of such a short life.

^^ Well said, but I'm not sure you're allowing for the scale of immortality (though you did sort of mention it). The range of potential experience available to an "immortal" would certainly outpace any range we can encounter in 80 yrs, even if you include some sort of hard-wiring of an understanding of as-yet unexperiencd experience. A person living for centuries or millennia will have enough time to explore places, lifestyles, and undiscovered countries that surpass anything that could be experienced in one lifetime. I would imagine that an immortal could become quite wise without ever even considering the wisdom gained from the mortal human condition; I could easily imagine that an immortal would never get around to simulating ephemeral human conditions, as there would be more than enough to learn without that input.

There is simply too much to be learned in this universe to say that it all can be learned in one lifetime... and fear of death may be a driver for wisdom, but it is not the only one (did I already say that?). The wisdom potential of immortality simply surpasses that of a normal lifetime, and this is because wisdom itself would surpass the dictates of a normal lifetime, regardless of the presence or absence of death... there is just too much to pay attention to in this world!

Keep in mind that I am not saying that immortality equals wisdom, as I'm sure that there would be plenty of immortal idiots who manage to live for millennia without gaining an iota of wisdom... I'm speaking of potentials here.

I feel like I'm either repeating myself or rambling, so I'll stop.

I speak of potentials, too, obviously. Most people live their entire lives without ever being aware that such a meditation exists that I linked to in my post above, let alone actually reading it, and far from practicing it.

The only point I can really make against your position is that we are discussing theory, and it takes experience to know. So I can theorize all I want to that being immortal will not produce death wisdom (or that perhaps it does through simulation and we're already immortals experiencing that simulation right now) but you're admitting you cannot even fathom the type of wisdom that can be gained through immortality, and continue to theorize that surely because you have more time to experience more stuff, that means the wisdom of immortality will not just be different but superior, because there's more of it.

And my response remains the same, if you only know immortality and cannot even take advantage of the potential of the meditation on death I linked to, then you cannot know that experience and therefore cannot compare its wisdom to your other experiences. Experience can't really be measured in value. For example, a wealthy white person in this society has more opportunity to see different places and do different things and explore a much wider range of experience than a destitute black person, but there's this whole scientific theory developing on the hidden advantages of disadvantage which you can learn more about here: Malcolm Gladwell: The unheard story of David and Goliath | Video on TED.com

What this conveys to me is that what one would theorize as an obvious advantage does not always prove true in experience. Since we're talking about timelines, one could look at Middle Earth which compares races that live massive differences of time. Now I know this is also just theory, but it coincides with my particular theory on what we'd see. If one were to compare the societies of ents and men, for example, the ents are not obviously superior even though they live so much friggin' longer. What they care about at that point in time differs greatly to what men still care about, men always acting so young and naive to them, and ents individually appearing much wiser. However, society itself contains a morphic resonance which is much wiser than any individual. This is known as an ethos and it outlives you, so to compare the value of long lives and short lives I would prefer to compare the ethos of each society rather than the wisdom of the individuals. The ethos of a society of short lived creatures is much more adaptable in LOTR, and the kingdom of men rules just as strongly as any particular kingdom of elves. They're also arguably much more driven to leave their mark on the world, which isn't necessarily a superior quality. They're also typically run by a bunch of fucking idiots but again this is all just theory and Tolkien didn't really try to show which races were superior, only to show how the length of your life affects your personality and society. And now I'm the one rambling.

^^ Well said again, and I see your point. I don't, of course, agree, but I see it. Any more said will just be reptitition, I fear, so, until next time!