Who Wants to Live Forever? And Why?

[muichimotsu]

muichimotsu, is your stance that no kind of immortality is desirable?

No, but many kinds are, especially those that are forced or innate upon humanity.

 

[muichimotsu]

In the following two cases you express your opinion as fact:

"But an inevitability we shouldn't try to avoid is death."

"When we start controlling life and death we begin to get an inflated sense of ego beyond what is beneficial."

In the following two cases you project how you view the matter into everyone else:

"In more relevant terms, the fact that we don't live forever means we are motivated that much more to make our lives worth something."

"The transient nature of life is what makes death meaningful"

Do you require me to qualify everything I say as my opinion for you not to interpret such statements as these to mean I'm claiming facts? If you want to criticize these statements, which are beliefs at most, not statements of fact, then offer a counterargument. That's only fair, right?

I don't doubt that i am talking to you.

That's reassuring, at the very least, but you're being fairly noncommittal to any beliefs on your part, or you're withholding them for some unknown reason.

An "immaterial" existence. That is the only relevant part of it when it was brought up in the discussion. If you need to ask for further details, you should ask Penumbra, not me.

It wasn't further qualified when i said there is no reason to assume it would get boring eventually.

If we don't qualify the nature of the immaterial existence, there is far more room for speculation, which is the issue that we're trying to avoid in excess.

 

[Falvlun]

No, but many kinds are, especially those that are forced or innate upon humanity.

Hmm. I would think innate immortality would be better than the alternative.

 

[muichimotsu]

Absolutely. I think every experience would be joyful. It's very much a state of consciousness.

But at the same time, it seems like the important part is internal. Not everyone is a buddha except in the potential sense, if we're going by general beliefs concerning that.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hmm. I would think innate immortality would be better than the alternative.

One might be more used to innate immortality, but problems still exist in that if there are non immortals involved then you have the potential for a sense of superiority in the immortals, not to mention a society of immortals seems to have less to unite them in one way, since there is no death to make you appreciate people for the short time they have on this earth relatively speaking

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Living forever would be cool until you are the last person left alive.

 

[Koldo]

You brought up immortality as desirable because it could serve as a motivator. Or did you already forget that?

It is a discussion as far i am concerned.

Where did i say that? ...

I said: "Many people are motivated by the belief that they will live forever.
Both stances can be used to motivate people."

How you understood that from what i have said is completely beyond me.

The best we can hope for is staving off death, not avoiding it entirely. Technology has limits and there's also concerns of profitability from patents, etc.

Currently that's correct.
I see no reason to assume this in the far future.

The nature of existence is change, there are, far as we know, no exceptions to this, therefore the existence of a state of permanence is unlikely.

You are correct to a point. The nature of time is change. However, not everything must change in every way.

By the way, you went from 'immortality can not exist' to 'immortality is unlikely to exist' in the split of a second.

 

[Koldo]

]Do you require me to qualify everything I say as my opinion for you not to interpret such statements as these to mean I'm claiming facts?[/B]

Not to express firm conviction on them would suffice.
Otherwise, if not possible, then it would certainly be desirable to qualify them as such.

If you want to criticize these statements, which are beliefs at most, not statements of fact, then offer a counterargument. That's only fair, right?

Counter arguments can only be offered against arguments.
Statements which are beliefs at most are not arguments.

That's reassuring, at the very least, but you're being fairly noncommittal to any beliefs on your part, or you're withholding them for some unknown reason.

I do rather not commit myself to any position in this case.
Given an undefined high ammount of time, everything regarding our human subjective experiences becomes speculative at best.

If we don't qualify the nature of the immaterial existence, there is far more room for speculation, which is the issue that we're trying to avoid in excess.

On what grounds would you speculate that this existence would be boring?

 

[muichimotsu]

Where did i say that? ...

I said: "Many people are motivated by the belief that they will live forever.
Both stances can be used to motivate people."

How you understood that from what i have said is completely beyond me

.

Being motivated by the belief that you will live forever is problematic, though. You admittedly didn't say that we should use this as a motivator, but you seemed to imply it. Not all sources of motivation are equally valid is my point

Currently that's correct.
I see no reason to assume this in the far future.

I see no reason to assume that humans will survive for the incredibly long period you're suggesting, but even if they did, there is always the likelihood that delays based in profit, etc, will prevent immortality from being widespread or significant beyond simply delaying death, not preventing it outright.

You are correct to a point. The nature of time is change. However, not everything must change in every way.

By the way, you went from 'immortality can not exist' to 'immortality is unlikely to exist' in the split of a second.

Metaphysically things will change, even if they are on a less visible level: our bodies, for instance. Even a mountain degrades over time, though it's much slower, like plate tectonics as well.

I can recant positions that are too unreasonable if I recognize that I was too hasty.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not to express firm conviction on them would suffice.
Otherwise, if not possible, then it would certainly be desirable to qualify them as such.

I'd rather have firm convictions than no convictions at all. That's not to say I couldn't admit I was wrong, but I have standards for that.

Counter arguments can only be offered against arguments.
Statements which are beliefs at most are not arguments.

They can be supplanted with arguments, which is the point we're getting to.

I do rather not commit myself to any position in this case.
Given an undefined high ammount of time, everything regarding our human subjective experiences becomes speculative at best.

If we're talking about biological life, there is a remote cut off point, especially if space travel doesn't take us terribly far in the long run. Assuming the universe has an expiration date of some sort, that is something that will end biological existence, most likely, even if it was otherwise immortal.

On what grounds would you speculate that this existence would be boring?

Something enjoyed, I argue, should be genuine and not forced. If I lived for long enough, I'd probably lose interest in some sense towards things that were enjoyable and pleasant before because of their predictability after so many millennia. I wouldn't want to force an interest in something new just to fill the time when something else has become tiresome.

Or more specifically, on the grounds that with no sense of imminence or a cut off point, my interest and subsequent passion for it would cease to be significant because I could enjoy it forever and there'd be no end to it

 

[Falvlun]

One might be more used to innate immortality, but problems still exist in that if there are non immortals involved then you have the potential for a sense of superiority in the immortals, not to mention a society of immortals seems to have less to unite them in one way, since there is no death to make you appreciate people for the short time they have on this earth relatively speaking

It doesn't really sound any different than how humans act now anyway.

The ME elves did have a superiority complex, but they still appreciated life and acknowledged the gift of mortality.

 

[muichimotsu]

But it'd be worse if immortality was realized instead of merely a possibility, like in many religions with a heaven or such. If you could live forever, and you had the crudeness of human culture, compared to what I imagine elven culture is like, there's probably some differences. Elves were racist to an extent in LOTR, of course, but they felt more reserved in many ways.

 

[Penumbra]

We believe they/we are perceiving the spiritual reality in those moments. Whether a person in trance sits for 5 minutes or a whole week, he/she would not be aware of the difference.

Even if this experience through the physical body is not the same as is apparently the case in the spiritual form, at least this experience provides an idea of what it may be like. I can imagine timelessness because of my personal experience.

Would you describe your experience as hedonism or would you say it is different than hedonism?

I'm not sure. The difference between this and the option of God-Realisation as presented by my religion is still quite vast. For instance, the cause of the Bliss in God-Realisation is the sense of unity with all things and the awareness of all things. The Bliss is not just extreme happiness, it is a sense of complete Love.

Furthermore, the state of spiritual existence in the Vedic understanding is not about taking away ability such as thought and action and awareness. The only thing eliminated is the sense of separation of self from 'other' and instead to realise oneness with the divine (and all things). Otherwise awareness and capacity for action are limitless, since God is apparently the cause of all causes and the mind behind every mind.

In comparison your hypothetical seems very limited. It might be like a pleasurable sleepy state. While that would still be preferable to non-existence, it wouldn't be hugely different. What I want is to feel real and alive, to be aware. To be blissfully aware.

There's a thread where I've asked people if they're enlightened and to describe their experiences.

The interesting thing is that nobody claims to be capable of providing non-local information. In other words, someone who says they are one with me nonetheless has no information about me. They've only got the same information about themselves as I have about myself. So they're separate from me, because they demonstrate zero knowledge about me.

Lots of people have mystic experiences where they feel they are one with everything but ascertain no non-local knowledge.

So for the sake of the example, the machine can make a person feel one with everything just like someone who has a mystical experience feels it.

 

[Penumbra]

If video games are still created to that day, sure. Why not?

If you're idea of spending time interestingly involves quadrillions of years of increasingly advanced video games, I guess we're just on different wavelengths here.

I can not show what i haven't done.
Can you show what you claim that i have done?

In terms of description, you've done little. That's the point. It's undefined.

[/quote]Hint: We have been talking about an undefined body with undefined properties. This much i do not disagree with. You just called it 'spiritual'. Nothing else. It is up to you though to show that i have said that such an existence will make a trillion years of life ( or any extensive ammount of time ) worthwhile.[/quote]What is up to me? You responded to my conversation; I didn't respond to yours.

You've proposed that if we change undefined parameters we can make immortal life interesting?

 

[Koldo]

If you're idea of spending time interestingly involves quadrillions of years of increasingly advanced video games, I guess we're just on different wavelengths here.

Where have i said as much?

In terms of description, you've done little. That's the point. It's undefined.

What is up to me? You responded to my conversation; I didn't respond to yours.

It is up to you to to show that i am "assuming that undefined properties of an undefined body will make a trillion years of life worthwhile without explanation.".

You made this claim.

You've proposed that if we change undefined parameters we can make immortal life interesting?

No. I am just saying that your claim that a spiritual immortality is going to be boring is a mere baseless assumption. That's all.

 

[NIX]

(re living 'forever' on earth- or as long as the earth exists)

Do I get to produce offspring?

Is my 'immortality' in my DNA?

We could evolve the ENTIRE world.

 

[Straw Dog]

(re living 'forever' on earth- or as long as the earth exists)

Do I get to produce offspring?

Is my 'immortality' in my DNA?

We could evolve the ENTIRE world.

I wrote a short story before about inter-dimensional beings offering a percentage of humanity immortality at the expense of reproduction in order to safeguard against overpopulation. They were also warned of an unavoidable plague that would come within a few centuries. They all accepted immortality of course. After several hundred years, they also survived the apocalypse. They rebuilt a community and went on living.

Over time, the absence of any children began to bear down on some of them. Others started to notice a lapse in their creativity as if their potential and motivation was being sapped from them. The instinct to live had been satisfied at the expense of the instinct to create. They were doomed to becoming static. They were living, but had lost the context of what it genuinely means to be alive.

Heading towards a static state of indifference, they exerted their last desires towards understanding their own immortality and creating the technology for time travel. Unfortunately, the process resulted in severe mutation, but they anticipated this. They were the "inter-dimensionals" that gave themselves immortality in a strange loop in space-time.

Most of them concealed this fact from their alternate past selves, except the one female protagonist. She revealed the truth of their predicament and her regret. Her past self chooses to reject the gift/curse of immortality. This was in contrast to what the future alt had previously chosen when it was revealed to her, indicating that alternates were not pre-determined to make the same decisions and could become catalysts for alternate future timelines.

The mortal protagonist goes on living a normal life. She uses her time wisely on creative endeavors, getting married, and having children. She lives a long life and dies painlessly in a hospital without any regrets. Her children also live full lives and pass on their genes to their descendants. The protagonist's great-great-great granddaughter becomes a genius scientist that finds a cure for the plague that was destined to wipe everybody out. In the end, the relatively short lives became more meaningful and the immortal lives became more meaningless and self-serving over time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I need to move the lights on my forklift to a better location.
(They need to avoid lighting up the mast so much.)
I calculated that the preceding projects won't let me do this until June 2079.
Living forever would be useful

 

[Sir Doom]

For those of you who would reject immortality, if you happen to get this horrible curse offered to you by some extra-planar being or another, feel free to direct them to me instead.

I will happily shoulder the 'burden' of eternal boredom. Bring it on. I think I can stomach it. Forever.

 

[muichimotsu]

I wrote a short story before about inter-dimensional beings offering a percentage of humanity immortality at the expense of reproduction in order to safeguard against overpopulation. They were also warned of an unavoidable plague that would come within a few centuries. They all accepted immortality of course. After several hundred years, they also survived the apocalypse. They rebuilt a community and went on living.

Over time, the absence of any children began to bear down on some of them. Others started to notice a lapse in their creativity as if their potential and motivation was being sapped from them. The instinct to live had been satisfied at the expense of the instinct to create. They were doomed to becoming static. They were living, but had lost the context of what it genuinely means to be alive.

Heading towards a static state of indifference, they exerted their last desires towards understanding their own immortality and creating the technology for time travel. Unfortunately, the process resulted in severe mutation, but they anticipated this. They were the "inter-dimensionals" that gave themselves immortality in a strange loop in space-time.

Most of them concealed this fact from their alternate past selves, except the one female protagonist. She revealed the truth of their predicament and her regret. Her past self chooses to reject the gift/curse of immortality. This was in contrast to what the future alt had previously chosen when it was revealed to her, indicating that alternates were not pre-determined to make the same decisions and could become catalysts for alternate future timelines.

The mortal protagonist goes on living a normal life. She uses her time wisely on creative endeavors, getting married, and having children. She lives a long life and dies painlessly in a hospital without any regrets. Her children also live full lives and pass on their genes to their descendants. The protagonist's great-great-great granddaughter becomes a genius scientist that finds a cure for the plague that was destined to wipe everybody out. In the end, the relatively short lives became more meaningful and the immortal lives became more meaningless and self-serving over time.

Admittedly, this is just a story, but this seems in contrast to your original position, at least to an extent. I like the position and how it's elaborated upon with a concrete sort of example as well.