Everlasting life: does it matter?

[SigurdReginson]

People are drawn to the idea that they have no end; that they persist forever. Whether by spiritual or mundane means, they try.

Many religions promise immortality through their teachings; that their essence continues long after their physical shell shrivels away. Some people build monuments so their memory can persist long after they die. Others seek immortality through acts of fame. Authors write books hoping their works will stand the test of time. Sometimes parents build a foundation through business or estate so their children can continue the family line as well.

Is it fear of losing the ability to experience life? Is it fear of being forgotten? Is it fear that the things you work for in life will just be undone?

Religious promises of eternity are all just guesses with no tangile evidence at all outside of their teachings; they rely entirely on hope. Monuments fall, or real knowledge of the person who errected them fade over time. The person who seeks fame loses who he is as a person to the myth he wove around himself, until the myth is all that stands. Written works by people only show a glimpse of an echo of what someone thought when they wrote it. Children eventually give up family businesses, or they move away to start their own stories abroad.

One hundred years from now, I won't even be a memory. Should I be, though? What is so special about people that they should continue to persist? The desire to cling to existence comes across as unseemly to me, and smacks of self obsorbed vanity.

People want so much to be remembered, but we can never know them as a person on a personal level through the things they leave behind. They become just another picture on a bookshelf of a great great great grandfather who left behind a some letters and maybe a pocket watch.

Why is that such a terrifying thought, though? Why is it so bad to be forgotten? It happens to everyone in some shape or form. What's wrong with living in the here and now, and to make the utmost of your life while you have it?

Sorry for going off on a tangent, heh. I guess the point of all this are these questions: How do you deal with the inevetability of your end? Is it something you fear? Is it something you embrace? What is your philosophy, and how do your views on this topic shape your life?

 

[Twilight Hue]

People are drawn to the idea that they have no end; that they persist forever. Whether by spiritual or mundane means, they try.

Many religions promise immortality through their teachings; that their essence continues long after their physical shell shrivels away. Some people build monuments so their memory can persist long after they die. Others seek immortality through acts of fame. Authors write books hoping their works will stand the test of time. Sometimes parents build a foundation through business or estate so their children can continue the family line as well.

Is it fear of losing the ability to experience life? Is it fear of being forgotten? Is it fear that the things you work for in life will just be undone?

Religious promises of eternity are all just guesses with no tangile evidence at all outside of their teachings; they rely entirely on hope. Monuments fall, or real knowledge of the person who errected them fade over time. The person who seeks fame loses who he is as a person to the myth he wove around himself, until the myth is all that stands. Written works by people only show a glimpse of an echo of what someone thought when they wrote it. Children eventually give up family businesses, or they move away to start their own stories abroad.

One hundred years from now, I won't even be a memory. Should I be, though? What is so special about people that they should continue to persist? The desire to cling to existence comes across as unseemly to me, and smacks of self obsorbed vanity.

People want so much to be remembered, but we can never know them as a person on a personal level through the things they leave behind. They become just another picture on a bookshelf of a great great great grandfather who left behind a some letters and maybe a pocket watch.

Why is that such a terrifying thought, though? Why is it so bad to be forgotten? It happens to everyone in some shape or form. What's wrong with living in the here and now, and to make the utmost of your life while you have it?

Sorry for going off on a tangent, heh. I guess the point of all this are these questions: How do you deal with the inevetability of your end? Is it something you fear? Is it something you embrace? What is your philosophy, and how do your views on this topic shape your life?

You came out of the same thing, you will return back again to.

Lights go out, lights come back on, lights go out again, lights come back on again.

 

[SigurdReginson]

You came out of the same thing, you will return back again to.

Lights go out, lights come back on, lights go out again, lights come back on again.

Hmmm... But what's the end game? What's the promise? The idea of reincarnation isn't out of the character of the cyclical nature of our world, but the idea of reincarnation still usually has some goal.

If I lose consciousness and become a different person through reincarnation, I still cease being me. I still end. There seems to be no eternity there, even if my soul (whatever that is) continues to exist. Where does the eternity part fit in if I'm something unrecognizable? What about me would still be fundamentally me?

How is it any different, than say, the way our bodies are reincorporated back into the world after we die? My body breaks down, the basic components of my body are all that's left, and I become plant food. Animals feed on the plants, and the materials that made me spread throughout nature. I become part of the world around me, though I as a human am no longer recognizable. Where do souls fit into this scenerio?

 

[sun rise]

If I lose consciousness and become a different person through reincarnation, I still cease being me. I still end. There seems to be no eternity there, even if my soul (whatever that is) continues to exist. Where does the eternity part fit in if I'm something unrecognizable? What about me would still be fundamentally me?

A typical analogy is dreaming. We dream, wake up and the memory of the dream typically fades and is no more. So too is apparent birth and death. We 'wake up' after apparent death to who we are at a deeper level than the temporary self while we had a body.

But your larger point is valid - everything that is alive wants to continue. That applies to plants, animals, people, organizations, nations. Even worlds eventually die.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hmmm... But what's the end game? What's the promise? The idea of reincarnation isn't out of the character of the cyclical nature of our world, but the idea of reincarnation still usually has some goal.

If I lose consciousness and become a different person through reincarnation, I still cease being me. I still end. There seems to be no eternity there, even if my soul (whatever that is) continues to exist. Where does the eternity part fit in if I'm something unrecognizable? What about me would still be fundamentally me?

How is it any different, than say, the way our bodies are reincorporated back into the world after we die? My body breaks down, the basic components of my body are all that's left, and I become plant food. Animals feed on the plants, and the materials that made me spread throughout nature. I become part of the world around me, though I as a human am no longer recognizable. Where do souls fit into this scenerio?

I'm not personally into the spiritual fluff.

I directly look at the hardware and how the universe works. At least as best as I can.

We, as far as it can be determined up to this point, are nothing but atoms and since atoms are working fine enough where it caused my birth, its not to far fetched I think that once those atoms break apart in death that new arrangements can't eventually be made so the lights once again are back online.

I think as an individual there is permadeath and once your gone your gone. I dont think its the case for life itself however. I figure it would happen the same manner as this life occurred once conditions and circumstances permit. The question is who, where, and when but I suppose those concerns will be for the next form to address.

I suspect there is a base form of rebirth that occurs rather than reincarnation involving a soul or similar as atoms break apart and recombine.

 

[SigurdReginson]

A typical analogy is dreaming. We dream, wake up and the memory of the dream typically fades and is no more. So too is apparent birth and death. We 'wake up' after apparent death to who we are at a deeper level than the temporary self while we had a body.

But your larger point is valid - everything that is alive wants to continue. That applies to plants, animals, people, organizations, nations. Even worlds eventually die.

Hmmm... That's an interesting idea. I wonder how it would influence the way someone spends their life? Would it be any different than someone who doesn't even believe in an afterlife at all?

 

[SigurdReginson]

I'm not personally into the spiritual fluff.

I directly look at the hardware and how the universe works. At least as best as I can.

We, as far as it can be determined up to this point, are nothing but atoms and since atoms are working fine enough where it caused my birth, its not to far fetched I think that once those atoms break apart in death that new arrangements can't eventually be made so the lights once again are back online.

I think as an individual there is permadeath and once your gone your gone. I dont think its the case for life itself however. I figure it would happen the same manner as this life occurred once conditions and circumstances permit. The question is who, where, and when but I suppose those concerns will be for the next form to address.

I suspect there is a base form of rebirth that occurs rather than reincarnation involving a soul or similar as atoms break apart and recombine.

Very interesting insights here. Thanks for explaining your thoughts.

I've heard the idea that genetic memory could be a thing. That our experiences are passed through our descendents somehow. I don't see enough evidence yet to believe that, though it is an interesting thought. It would make sense considering some of the recurring dreams I've had in the past.

 

[rational experiences]

As a spiritual researcher, all massed bodies existed created before I owned my known aware life body, adult human capable of thinking thesis. Female.

Hence I know I do not own cosmology historically by any string, mass does. And I was never personally involved in reactive science thesis history in actuality.

If males did not agree with this status, they would never have believed that science was separate from self, hence self was safe. So when science tries to preach some form of thesis about life, I just ignore them, for science does not speak on behalf of my human life or his human life existing.

Science, the conditions of only practiced by his male group identity today and historically. And it is not about life, so does your life matter should be what science should ask self. For how they treated our life, they cared less.

If you said to a greedy scientist/male group and control history, do you think everlasting conditions for one state only? Control/greed, with the thought of the power of it all?

And his answer would be, yes sure did. Non stop energy and non stop science resourcing of it, as a human. Why he imposed everlasting statements in religious science themes. Who historically made false quotes in ideals of conditions as male/female in reactive science power energy history. And it was already proven falsified information, non correct use of words.

Words he once quoted only spoke about one and only one each named body. So any body only owned one word rationally. How he once said words.

If I were a theist who quotes, do I want my life, a human life to last forever. It would involve a human detailed thesis to quote......I would therefore want Planet Earth as a natural body to last forever in its natural evolution. As an equals answer to my thesis. Which would not include science.

Which might be why a discussion of everlasting life was included in a science question/answer thesis to self.

As when you own such thesis as claiming God O a planet of stone, one mass. Then own a formula that infers the disappearance/de materialization of that body, then everlasting life on Earth no longer would be rationalised. Information and its use to preach/teach is therefore I believe inferred in stories so that the theist does not ignore future life mattering right here and right now in an instant reaction that would change everything.

Why I believed it was preached to force the thinker to think not on behalf of their human greed, but about future existence itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sigurd, perhaps the Zero-energy universe is right, energy balanced by gravity (Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia). It is all an illusion, so play along.

 

[osgart]

My consciousness and my inner life are more real to me than the body substrate I exist in.

There is nothing special or conscious about fields, waves and particles. There is no magic configuration of complexity that turns on consciousness.

The self starts with the I things I sense. Thus soul.

Life is what you make of it. It can be special or far less than so.

I have an intuition and sense of life that amazes me. I'd hate to see that end. True love doesn't die.

It would be terrible to see people exist that tire of life and live on. I never tire of life.

I find naturalism dull and blind. The idea of living it up before I cease is alien to me.
I am unable to relate to it.

All that jargon to explain away the soul makes no sense to me.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Sigurd, perhaps the Zero-energy universe is right, energy balanced by gravity (Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia). It is all an illusion, so play along.

Whoa, just the first paragraph of the link made my head explode. That's some cool stuff! Thanks for sharing that.

 

[SigurdReginson]

My consciousness and my inner life are more real to me than the body substrate I exist in.

You might need to unpack this a little bit for me. What is inner life to you? When you say that these things are more real than the flesh you live in, what separates them? Why are they two different things, and not one in the same?

There is nothing special or conscious about fields, waves and particles.

True. Consciousness requires a brain. When I die, and my body disintegrates into atoms, my consciousness will also cease to be.

There is no magic configuration of complexity that turns on consciousness.

No, but brains are wired to produce the conditions needed for consciousness to exist.

The self starts with the I things I sense. Thus soul.

This is confusing for me. Isn't that just consciousness? Maybe you can break down exactly what you mean here for me.

Life is what you make of it. It can be special or far less than so.

I have an intuition and sense of life that amazes me. I'd hate to see that end.

Me too, but all things must end sooner or later.

True love doesn't die.

Says who?

It would be terrible to see people exist that tire of life and live on. I never tire of life.

I never tire of it, either. That's why it's so important to live life to it's fullest, IMO. We are borrowing our lives, but we don't own them. They can be taken away from us at any time.

I find naturalism dull and blind.

Dull I can see (for example, me ), but blind of what?

The idea of living it up before I cease is alien to me.

I am unable to relate to it.

If you came to the sudden realization that there was nothing after this, do you think your opinion might change?

All that jargon to explain away the soul makes no sense to me.

Hmm, explaining away the soul wasn't really my intention, more than explaining what my thoughts were. Being that this is religious forums, I expect and welcome insight from folks that have different perspectives than I do- especially folks that are religious and spiritual.

That said, what makes what I said just jargon to be dismissed? Where is the nonsense in what I've written? Maybe I can explain my thoughts better.

 

[osgart]

You might need to unpack this a little bit for me. What is inner life to you? When you say that these things are more real than the flesh you live in, what separates them? Why are they two different things, and not one in the same?



True. Consciousness requires a brain. When I die, and my body disintegrates into atoms, my consciousness will also cease to be.



No, but brains are wired to produce the conditions needed for consciousness to exist.



This is confusing for me. Isn't that just consciousness? Maybe you can break down exactly what you mean here for me.



Me too, but all things must end sooner or later.



Says who?



I never tire of it, either. That's why it's so important to live life to it's fullest, IMO. We are borrowing our lives, but we don't own them. They can be taken away from us at any time.



Dull I can see (for example, me ), but blind of what?



If you came to the sudden realization that there was nothing after this, do you think your opinion might change?



Hmm, explaining away the soul wasn't really my intention, more than explaining what my thoughts were. Being that this is religious forums, I expect and welcome insight from folks that have different perspectives than I do- especially folks that are religious and spiritual.

That said, what makes what I said just jargon to be dismissed? Where is the nonsense in what I've written? Maybe I can explain my thoughts better.

I was not referring to your post as jargon. I was referring to naturalist jargon in general. Sorry!

Words fail at describing inner qualities of being. Human existence surpasses mere feeling. There is the constancy of my identity. The heart of life is more than feelings. There is the understandings and relationships understood that provide a lot of special meaning.

The brain enables consciousness in the environment. The brain enables experiences, processes feelings. Soul does not translate into firing neurons, nor electrochemical responses. They are correlates not proven to be causes.

Blindness comes from denying the self soul. The constancy of the am is.

Some say consciousness is the experiences one has and nothing more. In that sense the brain provides experiences.

If I realized that we are nothing more than a molecular structure and cease to exist that would be very depressing, as well as heartbreaking.

The inner life is constant presence, it is the qualities of being that are not always felt. There is three components to my inner life: the heart, mind, and will. The heart is how I am affected by what I relate to. The heart is my qualities of character. The mind my thought life. The will is my heart's volition.

It is interesting that feelings and emotions arise due to heartfelt passions. But feelings and emotions come and go. The heart remains regardless.

I really don't know nor describe anyone in particular as dull. Naturalism itself is dull. Anyone trying to militantly convert people to Naturalism I would find dull. Mainly because it's there life long crusade. Again, Sorry!

 

[rational experiences]

Science, says as a theist hot dense state, self consuming, first actual mass that I want to gain/reach in a conversion. A hot dense change of mass evolved in a spatial ability to transform, move the reaction through.

My owned thought upon scientific want to gain that state.

As I do not live owning that state, evolution does, the first law historic natural humans quote is Mother of God, the spatial vacuum. Without it, mass would have continued to be self consuming and no longer exist.

Relative law said highest law spatial vacuum first. Without its presence even the hot dense state would not exist.

Then science in relativity quotes, and then space became numbered expanded as the mass, a larger quantum began to self remove itself. Self consuming he said is against everlasting life.

Everlasting life he says as a law in the cosmos is evolved/spatially cooled mass that should exist forever until all of the heat in it is removed. As the spatial vacuum sucked out heat.

What he knew....mass cooled/evolved owned everlasting life that quotes.....more space opening, so space increases its numbering of 0 zeros as it empties mass out of existing. Relative to why he quoted it.

If you put information in information to be referenced, and some thinkers totally irrational self destructive life psyche, by how they behave, what they believe, what sort of thrills they gain in destroying. And some males truly dwell and delve into human life suffering, is why spirituality became a subject topic of life survival and human rights on planet Earth.

For a humanity who strives to reason for it, and want it to exist for a life style that we natural selves claim we deserve. Without some theist who gets titillated in destructive reasoning gets his "chemical high" from destructive irradiation life history.

As natural light radiating is cooled in gases upon the face of water, life survival. If you find that condition, natural to represent a status not for self gain, then no wonder science is the destroyer of human life. Because to claim irrational thinking involved reasoning to make quoted statements to STOP you theist, is why these documents were written.

So that you would stop and think and argue and try to rationalise the information "everlasting', whilst titillated at the thought of immense burning hot dense state gain for God.

Why God was stated to be cooled gases either as an immaculate not burning gas or the coldest gas closest to water that you would get.

And Satanism the belief in allowing and agreeing to expanding space, into more and more zeros by mass removal, the heating/destruction of it.

How you gained the male human title in science of being a Satanist against God and life survival rationally.

Mass presence is stated to be the present, the past is the hot dense state radiating space, which owns no life at all. So when you speak science law relativity that the past in space is the hot dense state obviously you are not even listening to what science says itself.....it is the past not the present. Present is now and instant now is not cold. Now was evolved.

Hence you stated another law about space as Mother Abomination so that you could not claim a hot dense state was the Mother of God, cold vacuum womb of space.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I was not referring to your post as jargon. I was referring to naturalist jargon in general. Sorry!

Oh! I gotcha. I'm actually pretty ignorant when it comes to philosophy and it's terminology. Naturalism seems interesting to me, from the brief description I've read, though. I should look into it more.

Words fail at describing inner qualities of being. Human existence surpasses mere feeling. There is the constancy of my identity. The heart of life is more than feelings. There is the understandings and relationships understood that provide a lot of special meaning.

Hmmm... I see. Our experiences are subjective for sure, and those things shape us into who we are. Some of them are good, and some of them are terrible. Personality disorders would be an example of how some are shaped by negative experiences.

I wonder, does this damage scar the soul as well? If not, why do only the positive experiences transfer to the soul?

The brain enables consciousness in the environment. The brain enables experiences, processes feelings. Soul does not translate into firing neurons, nor electrochemical responses. They are correlates not proven to be causes.

How does the soul fit into this, then, and what is it's purpose?

Blindness comes from denying the self soul.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I outright deny the existence of a soul. I'm curious to know about it. If anything, seeing evidence of it's existence would be exciting.

Forming one's life around it's existence when there isn't that evidence, though, is something I can't quite understand.

The constancy of the am is.

This sentence is a little confusing for me. Can't quite understand what you are trying to say, here. What is "the am?"

Some say consciousness is the experiences one has and nothing more. In that sense the brain provides experiences.

If I realized that we are nothing more than a molecular structure and cease to exist that would be very depressing, as well as heartbreaking.

Ok. Tell me then what your thoughts would be after being heartbroken about it? What would your perspective then be?

The inner life is constant presence, it is the qualities of being that are not always felt. There is three components to my inner life: the heart, mind, and will. The heart is how I am affected by what I relate to. The heart is my qualities of character. The mind my thought life. The will is my heart's volition.

It is interesting that feelings and emotions arise due to heartfelt passions. But feelings and emotions come and go. The heart remains regardless.

So the inner life are your personality traits, it seems to me. Are these not subject to the bio chemical processes of the brain?

I knew a man who had a stroke. He became a new man after that happened. It was the most surreal thing ever. The stroke changed the way his mind was wired. He had to relearn how to do basic things, like speak and write. After he could do these things, we saw then just how different he had become.

He used to be kind and loving, and had the patience of a saint. He became angry, bitter, and impatient. He used to be emotionally stable. After the attack, he would cry out of frustration when things didn't happen the way he wanted, and he would laugh at people whenever they failed in some way. He kind of became a real nasty person; who he was changed fundamentally on every level. Now, the doctors said it was due to the way the biochemistry of his brain had changed. It had done perminant, irrevocable damage, and this was his new personality.

What happened to his soul in that moment, I wonder?

I really don't know nor describe anyone in particular as dull. Naturalism itself is dull. Anyone trying to militantly convert people to Naturalism I would find dull. Mainly because it's there life long crusade. Again, Sorry!

No worries!

Yah... No one likes being preached at.

I enjoy a world where people have differing opinions, personally. The more varying ideas that exist, the most avenues of thought there are to explore. To me, that's what I look forward to.

 

[Altfish]

Imagine you have been given a bowl of your favourite food or you favourite music is playing ...

Just as you come to the end of the bowl it refills and you keep eating, again it refills and for ever refills - how long before you become bored and start to hate the food and want no more?
Or the music is coming to an end and it returns to the beginning and starts again, over and over - how long before you become bored and start to want it to end or change?

That's what I imagine everlasting life to be ... great for the first century or so but after that BORING then ANNOYING

 

[stvdv]

I guess the point of all this are these questions: How do you deal with the inevetability of your end?

I welcome it

I have no desires left

And death seems a mysterious last trip​

 

[Twilight Hue]

Very interesting insights here. Thanks for explaining your thoughts.

I've heard the idea that genetic memory could be a thing. That our experiences are passed through our descendents somehow. I don't see enough evidence yet to believe that, though it is an interesting thought. It would make sense considering some of the recurring dreams I've had in the past.

I think memory is relegated to the organism. If you look at cases like amnesia or dementia its not hard to see that memory is associated with the body, temporary at best, and subject to loss.

 

[Kenny]

People are drawn to the idea that they have no end; that they persist forever. Whether by spiritual or mundane means, they try.

Many religions promise immortality through their teachings; that their essence continues long after their physical shell shrivels away. Some people build monuments so their memory can persist long after they die. Others seek immortality through acts of fame. Authors write books hoping their works will stand the test of time. Sometimes parents build a foundation through business or estate so their children can continue the family line as well.

Is it fear of losing the ability to experience life? Is it fear of being forgotten? Is it fear that the things you work for in life will just be undone?

Religious promises of eternity are all just guesses with no tangile evidence at all outside of their teachings; they rely entirely on hope. Monuments fall, or real knowledge of the person who errected them fade over time. The person who seeks fame loses who he is as a person to the myth he wove around himself, until the myth is all that stands. Written works by people only show a glimpse of an echo of what someone thought when they wrote it. Children eventually give up family businesses, or they move away to start their own stories abroad.

One hundred years from now, I won't even be a memory. Should I be, though? What is so special about people that they should continue to persist? The desire to cling to existence comes across as unseemly to me, and smacks of self obsorbed vanity.

People want so much to be remembered, but we can never know them as a person on a personal level through the things they leave behind. They become just another picture on a bookshelf of a great great great grandfather who left behind a some letters and maybe a pocket watch.

Why is that such a terrifying thought, though? Why is it so bad to be forgotten? It happens to everyone in some shape or form. What's wrong with living in the here and now, and to make the utmost of your life while you have it?

Sorry for going off on a tangent, heh. I guess the point of all this are these questions: How do you deal with the inevetability of your end? Is it something you fear? Is it something you embrace? What is your philosophy, and how do your views on this topic shape your life?

I wouldn't say it is fear but more of a reality. As I hit the golden years, i realize that though the outward body perishes, there is a sense of youth inside of me that doesn't--a realization that eternity is real.

It doesn't stop me from enjoying life to its fullest but realizing it is never as full as when we stop dealing with a fallen world.

We just celebrated our 46th year anniversary and yet it seems like we just got married... a taste of eternity.

In that state of departure, we really aren't forgotten, just a "see ya later" is more like it.

 

[Polymath257]

While the 'four score and ten' allotted to us seems too short, I don't think people yearning for everlasting life have really thought it through.

We tend to think in terms of years, or tens of years. We might think of everlasting life in those same terms, but it would not be. Sure, 10,000 years might be tolerable. But 1,000,000? How about a billion? A googol?

At some point, the length of time itself becomes torture. And, even a googolplex years is an instant in 'everlasting',