Fear of death

**Original Poster** · 05-27-2012 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

I would generally agree with that, however there is a difference between being humble and lacking all confidence in yourself. I would say I am a humble person in most regards, though I feel fairly confident that being alive is better than being dead. Since you are unable to do anything, or think anything, or feel anything while dead, logic would seem to suggest that being alive is a superior state for a conscious being.

At least in most cases. There may be some states where being alive isn't as good such as if you are always in extreme pain. So I don't claim that it is always true, but it seems true most of the time and in enough cases that it is well worth trying to live forever.

I think that you cannot compare death to life from such a standpoint. Just as you cannot compare that something is better than nothing. That would require nothing to have some sort of quality with which to compare to something. Keep in mind even the concepts of non-things are qualities, in fact it is impossible to imagine what nothing is because the moment you attempt to conceptualize it, you are no longer regarding it. It is therefore also impossible to compare it and regard one particular state to be superior. Two different states can be compared, such as a state of company and a state of loneliness, or light and darkness. But nothing supposes no loneliness, it does not even suppose darkness, it doesn't suppose anything of quality.

If you read the Myth of Sisyphus, it has some supremely interesting things to say on the subject. The story considers that every man is Sisyphus, we are all rolling a boulder up a hill for eternity. But it supposes that Sisyphus does not have to do this, he can always commit suicide. He chooses this futile task because he's happy, even if life is pointless at least he knows its pointless and he has the choice. This allows him to be happy. This is the root of Camus' famous quote that the only philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide. It can also be considered the precipice of existential philosophy. Existentialism means that existence comes before essence. We are here, and because we are here, it doesn't really matter why we're here. We're just here. It is not superior to be here than to not be here. It just is.

Liberation comes from surrendering to these notions. I am not trying to make an argument of superiority here, but I am trying to argue that I have personally found myself having an easier way about it by not struggling over concepts that have nothing to do with my existence right now. I feel liberated from a burden, not as though I am coping with something I believe is inevitable.

As always, Alan Watts can explain this far better than I can

No matter how far we can extend the human life span, we cannot extend it to infinity. Nothing with form is infinite. Form is always transitory, by its very nature. Even if we extend a human life a million years, even if we extend it well beyond the death of this incarnation of the universe, on an infinite timespan something will kill it. Just as given infinite time a monkey will eventually write shakespeare, infinity encompasses every drop from a sea of infinite potential. And one of those drops will kill you. And when it happens, your reaction would be the same as if you had only lived 100 years, which is to say resistance. No matter how we advance technologically, we must still surrender to the nature of life, and the nature of infinity. And that means we must surrender to change and uncertainty.

**Alric** · 05-27-2012 01:44 AM

That isn't necessarily true, that we have to die at some point. I mean, yea it is extremely likely but that doesn't mean it is true. It is possible that a person could live forever. If you have an infinite life span that just means you will never reach the end. You could never claim to have ever lived forever because you would never actually reach that point, but you can just keep going on and on.

As for comparing them. Life is living, and has thoughts, emotion and consciousness. Death lacks living, has no thoughts, emotions or consciousness.

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

IndieAnthias, of course people are not getting stupider because of evolution. Evolution takes a very long time. I been the one all along saying it would take hundred of thousands of years and what we currently have hasn't been around any where near that long. Intelligence have been going up because education is improving. Did you miss repeatedly when I said over and over again that humans are not currently evolving because we removed all pressures that promote evolution?

once again we are still evolving, there are all sorts of things that are hereditary,wether its the shape of the body, face, or eye colour, we are evolving all the time, according to the definition of evolution: the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form:

Originally Posted by Alric

I said if we are evolving then it would be towards weaknesses we have and not strength, since the more problems you have the more likely you are to be poor and thus have more children.

There could be a divide like Zeracook is saying, but currently everyone who is pushing technology forward is advancing technology and education of everyone, and we are giving medicine to everyone. And really all you need is one break, and some good education and you can easily move up the IQ ladder.

False on a lot of the last sentence, People pushing technology forward are not doing it for everyone, we do not educate every one, example College costs a lot of money, We are not giving medicine to everyone, you have to pay for it. stating it like this kind of makes me feel like there is already a divide between the people smart enough to Push Tech and Education and the ones not smart enough to

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

That isn't necessarily true, that we have to die at some point. I mean, yea it is extremely likely but that doesn't mean it is true. It is possible that a person could live forever. If you have an infinite life span that just means you will never reach the end. You could never claim to have ever lived forever because you would never actually reach that point, but you can just keep going on and on.

As for comparing them. Life is living, and has thoughts, emotion and consciousness. Death lacks living, has no thoughts, emotions or consciousness.

Yet we have never found something that had a beginning and no end.

It depends on how you feel about Death, just because we leave this world and our physical bodies, Doesn't mean that we have no thoughts, Emotions or Consciousness, the only way to really Know if or if not you had any of them is to have actually died.

**Abra** · 05-27-2012 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

Yet we have never found something that had a beginning and no end.

How 'bout Time?

It depends on how you feel about Death, just because we leave this world and our physical bodies, Doesn't mean that we have no thoughts, Emotions or Consciousness, the only way to really Know if or if not you had any of them is to have actually died.

Sure, it doesn't guarantee that we have no thoughts, emotions, or consciousness (just like gravity doesn't guarantee things will fall when you drop them). But without a brain, exactly how do you have these things? Or are you going to invoke the unfalsifiable (read: unscientific, does not belong in Philosophy) concept of 'spirit'?

**littlezoe** · 05-27-2012 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Abra

How 'bout Time?

Where is the beginning of it?

**Abra** · 05-27-2012 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Where is the beginning of it?

It defines the beginning. Before the Big Bang (which has yet to be 'proven,' but it's the best science currently has to offer so I'm using it), there was none of this universe's physics, no separable dimensions yet, no time.

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Abra

How 'bout Time?

I said something that has a beginning, I don't think we know of the beginning to time, not really, but I also think that Time is just a man made thing, like Money so my view is different then some peoples, the only way we judge time is by the cycles of the planets and stars, and just another show of human self-centredness we choose a year as one rotation around the planet, and say that other planets have so many years, but its all really just a measure meant system.

A true Immortal would have no word or thought of what we call time I would think.

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Abra

Sure, it doesn't guarantee that we have no thoughts, emotions, or consciousness (just like gravity doesn't guarantee things will fall when you drop them). But without a brain, exactly how do you have these things? Or are you going to invoke the unfalsifiable (read: unscientific, does not belong in Philosophy) concept of 'spirit'?

Also depends on how you feel about the brain, It has been proven, I think originally by Nicola Tesla but not sure, that everything has a frequency, I say Nicola because I remember the stories of him making the ground shake with by emitting a certain frequency from a machine, but I don't trust the twisted and falsified thing called history.

Due to this I think that brains are more like reception towers picking up certain frequencies. oh and Spirit is not what I would call it if I were in 'Invoke" it, because I have come to think that the Spirit is the part of you that others remember and sticks with them and inspires or drives them, while the Soul is what is yours to keep forever, I also believe that the Soul cannot be sold, because it isn't really yours to sell.

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Abra

It defines the beginning. Before the Big Bang (which has yet to be 'proven,' but it's the best science currently has to offer so I'm using it), there was none of this universe's physics, no separable dimensions yet, no time.

SO the supposed beginning has never been seen or proven, so with my statement 'Yet we have never found something that had a beginning and no end.' it is irrelevant because we never found the beginning.

**Abra** · 05-27-2012 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

Due to this I think that brains are more like reception towers picking up certain frequencies. oh and Spirit is not what I would call it if I were in 'Invoke" it, because I have come to think that the Spirit is the part of you that others remember and sticks with them and inspires or drives them, while the Soul is what is yours to keep forever, I also believe that the Soul cannot be sold, because it isn't really yours to sell.

Alright, this sounds interesting. The first brains evolved by accident to pick up 'frequencies,' and it proved useful.

But postulate for me, what these frequencies could be, how they split into entities, how they actually exist in the real world, in a detectable way. What happens to the frequency at death? Why wouldn't it get stuck on one brain, and cease to exist when that brain does?

Also, spirit=soul to me, so provide something more that distinguishes. As a guess, the spirit is consciousness, and the soul is what means you're the one experiencing it?

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 08:54 PM

the frequencies would be split into different Identities the same way radio Frequencies are split, but touching so when you have them on one channel right next to another you kind of pick up the other station in the background. I've heard telepathy explained this way. I've also heard that were not a certain frequency but rather a radio ourselves able to pick up other frequencies, and change the frequency. Our brain detects them. The source would be the centre of all consciousness. I don't know I really am unsure about which to believe but the second example seems more likely. I don't really commit to much I just have theories and there not all originally mine so please don't get mad if I can't explain to well right now.

Ok so You have a Soul, which refers to your conscious and the moral and thinking part of you., and so does everyone else, and our souls are interacting with each other through our physical body, and through this interaction they are exchanging "pieces" of souls that come into your own, basically how someone can change your views and beliefs, and all the influence put on you by other souls are spirits, because they are not the actual souls of others but they are how that soul has sent something else to your soul. I can't really explain it to well, this looks like a really butchered paragraph, but I hope you get what I define by Spirit.

I'd also like to expand my experience and theories so what do you think of the soul or about these theories of frequencies.

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 08:55 PM

Oh yeah and if the frequencies theories were all true, then it means that our consciousness would go back to the source of consciousness,which holds all knowledge and Identities, when we died, and that is how we could continue to have consciousness in a way.

**Abra** · 05-27-2012 09:37 PM

Sorry, you didn't really clarify much at all. You didn't directly answer my questions, and now I have more questions which you're already preempting with you probably don't know.

:/

**ZeraCook** · 05-27-2012 10:27 PM

Go look it up then, the reason why I didn't answer most of the questions were it would have to be an established well researched science that would basically answer the question to life. I really don;t know what you were looking for on most the questions, because if they could be answered more people would already know about them, right now its ,supposedly, a fairly newer Idea, and not many people know about it.

**Original Poster** · 05-27-2012 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

That isn't necessarily true, that we have to die at some point. I mean, yea it is extremely likely but that doesn't mean it is true. It is possible that a person could live forever. If you have an infinite life span that just means you will never reach the end. You could never claim to have ever lived forever because you would never actually reach that point, but you can just keep going on and on.

As for comparing them. Life is living, and has thoughts, emotion and consciousness. Death lacks living, has no thoughts, emotions or consciousness.

But that's not true, death does not lack thoughts, emotions or consciousness. Death can't lack anything because it needs something to compare that lack to. It can't be compared because it has no quality what so ever. It does not even have the absence of quality, it's even beyond that. You cannot imagine what death is from the standpoint of being living. You cannot explain what a non-breeze is without a breeze to compare it to.

And also, you do have to die. I'm afraid it's not even extremely likely, it's absolutely necessary. There is no such thing as an everlasting form. The only thing capability of being eternal on an infinite time-span is infinity itself.

**Abra** · 05-28-2012 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

Go look it up then, the reason why I didn't answer most of the questions were it would have to be an established well researched science that would basically answer the question to life. I really don;t know what you were looking for on most the questions, because if they could be answered more people would already know about them, right now its ,supposedly, a fairly newer Idea, and not many people know about it.

Well, you see, if you're telling me about this special new thing that doesn't have any evidence to support it...

And you want me to read about it on my own...

Then you should probably give me a few links, or a name of a person, or a specific name for this theory.

Because googling "soul frequency theory" gives nothing related to what you just said.

**Alric** · 05-28-2012 03:26 AM

We do have something to compare it to, life. Life has consciousness, death doesn't. There are even states between where you are liked drugged and have altered or reduced consciousness, but in death its totally removed.

As for not living forever, that is just an assumption you made. There is no reason a person couldn't live forever, if they were able to survive the death of the universe. I think you are mistaking how infinity works. You can approach infinitely but you would never touch it. In this case a person can forever approach an infinite life. They would never reach it but they could keep going on forever. You have not given any reason why they couldn't keep prolonging it.

**Original Poster** · 05-28-2012 03:50 AM

You can only qualify death from the standpoint of being alive. If you were dead, you couldn't qualify it as anything. You cannot say the absence of something is inferior to the existence of something. You cannot compare non-existence to existence.

And furthermore, I'm not just making an assumption. It's basic truth, nothing with form lasts forever. Infinity is the only thing capable of being infinite.

**saltyseedog** · 05-28-2012 04:47 AM

Fear is never good. You can be cautious of something without being afraid.

Fear leads to panic and not well thought out or rational decisions.

**Phion** · 05-28-2012 05:05 AM

Some people thrive on fear.

**Original Poster** · 05-28-2012 05:54 AM

Yay for words with dubious definitions

**ZeraCook** · 05-28-2012 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Abra

Well, you see, if you're telling me about this special new thing that doesn't have any evidence to support it...

And you want me to read about it on my own...

Then you should probably give me a few links, or a name of a person, or a specific name for this theory.

Because googling "soul frequency theory" gives nothing related to what you just said.

Haha sorry I haven't had much time for DV and no time for anything else on the internet, thats also why my past few posts have been all over the place, because I'm not taking the time to say everything I should, just being rushed but I'll PM you some links explaining what they are for when I get more time. Once again my Apologies, just running a hectic life at the moment.

**ZeraCook** · 05-28-2012 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

We do have something to compare it to, life. Life has consciousness, death doesn't. There are even states between where you are liked drugged and have altered or reduced consciousness, but in death its totally removed.

As for not living forever, that is just an assumption you made. There is no reason a person couldn't live forever, if they were able to survive the death of the universe. I think you are mistaking how infinity works. You can approach infinitely but you would never touch it. In this case a person can forever approach an infinite life. They would never reach it but they could keep going on forever. You have not given any reason why they couldn't keep prolonging it.

I don't know who or what this was addressed to, but You can't really say death has no consciousness, because you haven't had your true death yet, so you haven't experienced it so.....

**Alric** · 05-28-2012 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And furthermore, I'm not just making an assumption. It's basic truth, nothing with form lasts forever. Infinity is the only thing capable of being infinite.

No, that isn't a truth. You are just assuming it, and are using circular logic to explain why it is true. You have not shown why something can't last forever.

Like I said, you can't reach infinity but you can approach infinitely forever.