Who Wants to Live Forever? And Why?

[muichimotsu]

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

Doesn't mean that they are both equal in the ethical implications. Motivating people by something that they don't want to think about and just act on impulses is manipulative and cruel, since you're not taking people's ability to reason into account.

What is 'excess' to someone is 'just about right' to another.

More postmodern thought. One's perspective doesn't determine objective facts about things. Someone can think their excess is moderation, but a rational observer could say otherwise.

What is different about it?

Accidents can kill you instantly, natural death tends to kill you slowly

You are not even making sense here. Death makes life temporary, therefore if you appreciate life, you are appreciating a temporary moment.

That you are unable to find meaning in a permanent existence is your own fault.

Temporary moments are all we have. You seem to miss that key point. We cannot appreciate permanence, because it doesn't exist, metaphysically speaking.

I cannot find meaning in a permanent existence because I cannot philosophically acknowledge that such a thing could exist and even if I could, it would not follow that I can appreciate it anyway.

 

[Madhuri]

Then by all means explain why you think that because we can't understand something, that is must be as people seem to explain it. People's beliefs don't equate to facts here.

I'm not speaking about a fact, I'm speaking about a hypothetical.
I'm saying that you can't make judgement about a concept you don't understand.

Your reasons for being displeased with the idea of eternal existence is based on your experience of being alive in this world and in this body. But the (hypothetical) concept of Spiritual existence is presented as being something completely different. Therefore you cannot know if you would be ok with existing like that forever or not. Am I making sense now?

If you can't make judgments about it, then we shouldn't even acknowledge it exists at all, since it's ultimately fruitless to discuss.

There's no harm in playing with the idea and conversing about it. What is pointless is coming to conclusions about it.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not speaking about a fact, I'm speaking about a hypothetical.
I'm saying that you can't make judgement about a concept you don't understand.

Your reasons for being displeased with the idea of eternal existence is based on your experience of being alive in this world and in this body. But the (hypothetical) concept of Spiritual existence is presented as being something completely different. Therefore you cannot know if you would be ok with existing like that forever or not. Am I making sense now?

Even with more understanding about the concept as per people's beliefs, I'm skeptical I'd be any more disposed to enjoy it or find it something I'd want to experience. This truism of "don't knock something if you haven't tried it" doesn't strictly apply to everything, especially when its very nature is in question amongst people who believe in it and in many cases, it boils down to wishful thinking and not wanting to accept mortality. We want to think our loved ones still exist as they are and not merely in our memories for fear we may forget them, which is inevitable with the human condition. But that's not only unrealistic, it's a clinging attachment that binds you to your delusional thinking about life and death.

There's no harm in playing with the idea and conversing about it. What is pointless is coming to conclusions about it.

I can come to a hypothetical/tentative conclusion. I'm not in any way making absolute conclusions about the existence or metaphysics of the afterlife, since it's up in the air anyway.

 

[Madhuri]

Even with more understanding about the concept as per people's beliefs, I'm skeptical I'd be any more disposed to enjoy it or find it something I'd want to experience. This truism of "don't knock something if you haven't tried it" doesn't strictly apply to everything, especially when its very nature is in question amongst people who believe in it and in many cases, it boils down to wishful thinking and not wanting to accept mortality.

I find it difficult to accept mortality for a number of reasons, one which includes not being able to conceptualise non-existence. It is difficult to accept something I can't conceive of.

If the eternal state of existence that is spoken of in my religion is what it promises to be, then I'd have no doubt that it would be a wonderful state of existence and no doubt that there would be no getting sick of it.

But as I said earlier, I'd rather be alive (in a positive environment) forever than dead forever.

 

[Me Myself]

Getting bored of something happens because the way our brain is wired. If we existed beyond our brain, it could be that we traascend this boredom and can simply choose toot feel bored, or stressed or "sick of it"

 

[muichimotsu]

I find it difficult to accept mortality for a number of reasons, one which includes not being able to conceptualise non-existence. It is difficult to accept something I can't conceive of.

If the eternal state of existence that is spoken of in my religion is what it promises to be, then I'd have no doubt that it would be a wonderful state of existence and no doubt that there would be no getting sick of it.

But as I said earlier, I'd rather be alive (in a positive environment) forever than dead forever.

Non existence of matter and energy is omne thing, but non existence of your consciousness is something that's tied to an unwillingness to accept reality and want some dream world where everything's ideal, which is a waste of thought.

I recall the Devas having a great state of existence, so why would it being eternal be any better? Wouldn't you just be like the Devas, only in eternity? Wanting your cake and eating it too.

Positive environments are utopian. Our world is not perfect and I like it that way.

 

[muichimotsu]

Getting bored of something happens because the way our brain is wired. If we existed beyond our brain, it could be that we traascend this boredom and can simply choose toot feel bored, or stressed or "sick of it"

This presumes a disembodied existence is possible, though. At best, we'd be dehumanized in a way when we're severed from our bodies in some manner, like electrical signals digitized or the like.

 

[Falvlun]

If the choice is between a measly 100 years and immortality, I'll take immortality.

But if the choice was between 1 million years and immortality (without the option of ending it), then I'd go with the million years.

But if the immortality comes with the option to end it whenever you wish, then I cannot see why anyone wouldn't choose immortality at that point.

EDIT:
The point being the desirability of immortality depends upon the alternative.

 

[muichimotsu]

If the choice is between a measly 100 years and immortality, I'll take immortality.

But if the choice was between 1 million years and immortality (without the option of ending it), then I'd go with the million years.

But if the immortality comes with the option to end it whenever you wish, then I cannot see why anyone wouldn't choose immortality at that point.

EDIT:
The point being the desirability of immortality depends upon the alternative.

You'd take virtual immortality, not actual immortality. That, I can understand and somewhat sympathize with. But a big part of this, which we haven't yet delved into, are the 32 or so variations with the 5 pairs I've brought up. 16 are biological in nature and possible more feasible, while the other 16 are spiritual and thus a matter of faith and hypothetical in nature with this discussion, moreso than the former 16,

 

[Penumbra]

But they still change. You might get tired of video games and then later on get interested again.

For 10 quadrillion years?

Please do quote where i said this bold sentence.
If i have been repeating it, you will have no problem to find it.

Please show where you've defined this body.

 

[Penumbra]

I agree that descriptions are usually, if not always, vague. What the texts tell us is that we cannot understand or know what the Spirit reality is like while we have no experienced it. It is so different to material existence that we cannot even really imagine it. We apparently get a glimpse of the experience through spiritual practice. That's why Yogis are so eager to get to that state, because the experiences that come from Vedic meditation provide that glimpse. From my own very small experiences, I know that time has no meaning in that state of existence and I know what true peace feels like. But that's all I know personally. However this in itself allows me to believe that the idea is a possible reality and I can't imagine getting sick of that feeling.

Yogis experience 'timelessness' while nonetheless living in physical bodies that exist in time. In other words, their subjective experience of timelessness nonetheless occurred for a fairly short period of physical time.

Here's a related question:

-Suppose you could choose to enter a machine that was guaranteed to make you 100% happy and blissful for eternity. It works by stimulating your brain directly, and will keep it alive forever. So you don't need anything else- you don't need to do anything, meet anybody, think things at all, work towards any goal, etc. No need for any contact with anyone; you'll just be seemingly asleep but in a subjective state of hedonistic bliss without action or thought. Forever.

Would you take that option or no?

 

[Falvlun]

I'd say there are 5 variables that are important to the discussion, though there are likely more.

Ooh immortality buffet. Here's the combo I'd like:

Material Vs. Immaterial-Whether the immortality is corporeal in nature or whether you have gone beyond the physical and have some sort of at least semi spiritual body.

Physical.

But this is likely just from my personal bias. I have no recollection of being a spirit so I don't know how cool that would be. But I do have a fondness for my body.

*Would you consider reincarnation spiritual rather than corporeal? I think it might be a hybrid between the two. I rather like that option too.

Communal vs. Individual-Is the immortality a part of a large society or is it something an individual has, by one of many methods or traits associated with that state?

I think I would like everyone to have the choice, but it really depends upon the type of immortality we are talking about.

If it is the hardcore, live forever no chance of dying sort, I would only want a small group, such as the pantheon of gods type.

If it is reincarnation, communal.

If it is like Tolkien's elves, and we can die from various hardships and reproduction is slow and thoughtful, then communal.

But it would definitely suck if you were the only immortal around. A community of like-lived is a must for sustained happiness.

Innate vs. Innovation-Has the immortality always been a fact of life or has it come about by some outside source?

Fact of life would be preferable.

If it came later in life, or singled you out specially, you might appreciate it more. You might consider it a gift. But I think you'd also be less able to fully understand and appropriately deal with it. You wouldn't be mentally prepared for such a gift... or burden.

Permanent vs. Provisional-Can you never cease being immortal or is there a way to stop the state and render yourself dead?

Definitely provisional.

This is probably the most important factor. If you do not have the choice to end your life when you are ready, then immortality might turn into a never-ending hell.

Resistant vs. Nonresistant-This is probably one of the traits least thought about. Are you physically indestructible or even resistant to disease, or are you subject to all or most of the human weaknesses, but are simply unable to die naturally, such as the elves in Middle Earth?

I do think there should still be risks and dangers to be cognizant about. I actually really like the elves version. Aging, however, is certainly a weakness that would not be preferable. Or if it must occur, it needs to move exceedingly slowly.

 

[Sunstone]

Honk if you love Jesus!

Ooops! Wrong thread!

 

[Madhuri]

Yogis experience 'timelessness' while nonetheless living in physical bodies that exist in time. In other words, their subjective experience of timelessness nonetheless occurred for a fairly short period of physical time.

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.

Here's a related question:

-Suppose you could choose to enter a machine that was guaranteed to make you 100% happy and blissful for eternity. It works by stimulating your brain directly, and will keep it alive forever. So you don't need anything else- you don't need to do anything, meet anybody, think things at all, work towards any goal, etc. No need for any contact with anyone; you'll just be seemingly asleep but in a subjective state of hedonistic bliss without action or thought. Forever.

Would you take that option or no?

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.

 

[Madhuri]

Non existence of matter and energy is omne thing, but non existence of your consciousness is something that's tied to an unwillingness to accept reality and want some dream world where everything's ideal, which is a waste of thought.

Speak for yourself.

I recall the Devas having a great state of existence, so why would it being eternal be any better? Wouldn't you just be like the Devas, only in eternity? Wanting your cake and eating it too.

Not quite. The Devas don't have spiritual bodies and don't exist in the Spiritual realm. Even though being a Deva would be pretty awesome, even they work for progression into the spiritual reality.

Positive environments are utopian. Our world is not perfect and I like it that way.

Eww, I don't.

 

[Madhuri]

This presumes a disembodied existence is possible, though. At best, we'd be dehumanized in a way when we're severed from our bodies in some manner, like electrical signals digitized or the like.

Of course we wouldn't be human. Humans are an animal species.
But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have a different kind of body or brain.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Then you admit it's purely subjective and unfalsifiable?

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.

And I can imagine what it's like to fly without any machinery, doesn't mean I can. This seems to boil down to near solipsism in that anyone's criticism or otherwise poking holes in these beliefs is met with dismissal

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.

Because human love isn't good enough and we always want better and better. We're so grateful for what we have...

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.

So we become a hivemind, it appears. No sense of even remote individualization, we cease to be as a consciousness with uniqueness

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.

Is sleep really meant to be pleasurable, though? It's rest, it's not a mood changer. One can feel aware and also eventually recognize that you are an impermanent entity. One of the fundamental splits in Dharmic religions is that.

 

[muichimotsu]

Speak for yourself.

So because I want to use my thought on practical matters, I'm wasting my energy?

Not quite. The Devas don't have spiritual bodies and don't exist in the Spiritual realm. Even though being a Deva would be pretty awesome, even they work for progression into the spiritual reality.

So devas have physical bodies? That seems fairly new. I wasn't aware that they were just floating around somewhere in the universe as aliens or the like. I'm aware they're meant to be progression, this is the case in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

Eww, I don't.

Your disgust at imperfection seems to be a personal problem more than anything objective. That's like being averse to the existence of pain or disease. Those enable us to solve problems, develop immunities, etc. The same thing could be said for imperfection: it allows us to grow, which is admittedly your goal in some sense. You should welcome imperfection, even if you happen to want the unattainable and undesirable perfection. See my signature for more on that.

 

[muichimotsu]

Of course we wouldn't be human. Humans are an animal species.
But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have a different kind of body or brain.

We'd be dehumanized in the general sense of losing something that makes us what we are: our embodied existence. Having no body would be like having no limbs or the like: we'd be half a human at best with our consciousness, but no way to interact with the world in a way that's remotely familiar and significant: i.e. materially.

 

[Madhuri]

We'd be dehumanized in the general sense of losing something that makes us what we are: our embodied existence. Having no body would be like having no limbs or the like: we'd be half a human at best with our consciousness, but no way to interact with the world in a way that's remotely familiar and significant: i.e. materially.

According to which religion?
I am only ever speaking on behalf of my own religion, according to which we would be something much more than human, not less. Especially in terms of consciousness.