Hmm, well that is certainly an interesting view point.
For me, life very much is about the experiences. Kind of like the old saying goes "It's about the journey, not the destination"
Oh and on sleeping... I would disagree that we don't remember that period of our slumber. One could argue that recalling dreams (which I do more often than not)is one form of remembering ourselves while we sleep. But even more than that, many people (myself included) even considering the fact that I "sleep like a rock" (that is to say that I sleep very hard and deeply) I can still stir from time to time and I remember a great deal about every evening. It's a very peaceful time I think
On the other hand, however (and more back on the topic of this thread). If I lived forever I would hope that I could still sleep and rejuvenate. Not that I would need to or not, on that I wouldn't know. But as we are now, in our fragile and limited lives I consider sleep a huge waste of time and wish that I never had to do it at all. Oh my goodness, just immagine!? Our bedrooms could be turned into game rooms or much greater worthwhile endeavors, lol.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
If you could choose between not existing (there's no 'you' ever) and existing, with all that follows, why ever choose to not exist?
Nonsense, yet again. Choosing means, you exist already,
By the way, if you want, desire or crave something and you get it, you ARE happy. So there are only two ways, NOT to be happy:
1) you don't ever get what you want
2)You don't want, desire or crave anything. That would incclude life, so then, why live?
Some comments. The "it's about the journey not the destination" is something I can't see how fits in this context.
I see that more as a concept of goals, some goals you choose because of the destination, some because of the journey, some both.
Also, the idea of connecting death to sleep does not hold if one includes dreams as long as death is seen as absolute nothingness, because dreams clearly are not so.
And not all of us remembers it, and even those who remember it well, probably don't remember it like a whole 7-9 hour duration. There's after all a difference between memory in the sense that one can relate to time and memory in the sense that one, after waking up, remembers.
At the current moment of your existance, memory is what makes you able to have an understanding of time, however it does not mean that you'd it the times you remember. [Which would bring back the concept that one can create a 'perfect' illusion through proper alteration of memory in stead of trying to make the world fit, because any observation, before being met by the observer, must first be interpretated by the body and it's this two 'level' phenomena that also opens up for the concept of perception is reality].
@JJ
I was explaining why I think non existance is a terrible thing, of course any explanation is towards something existing, anything else makes no meaning, so I don't understand your point.
And if you don't differ between actions choosing from wants, and emotional defined happiness, then your first statement of me stating happiness being meaningless, unless choosing otherwise, as nonsense, makes no sense to me.
After all, for any emotion, if you don't decide you want to follow it, then it's not anything for you and that's your decision solely.
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted May 07, 2010 10:58 PM
Quote:If you could choose between not existing (there's no 'you' ever) and existing, with all that follows, why ever choose to not exist?
Because emotions don't range from none to positive, they range from negative to positive, i.e. from suffering to happiness. So when presented a choice between an eternity of no emotions and eternity of suffering, I'd choose the former without hesitation.
And if you're really happy just from being alive, even if you are subject to loneliness, hunger and pain, then you're the luckiest man alive and should probably be the next Buddha or something.
____________ DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
I don't see death as absolute nothingness. On the contrary, I see it as a step into our next level of exhistence. (spelling sorry, and no spell checker at work) and and and...oh yeah...I'm lazy, lol. But even seeing "death" that way, doesn't mean I'm in any hurry to get there. I love my life, I love being alive and I will keep it that way as long as I am able...or science is able...or anything else for that matter. Circumstances may change that on case to case basis of course.
I also agree with JJ's comments there.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
Quote:So when presented a choice between an eternity of no emotions and eternity of suffering, I'd choose the former without hesitation.
I think you make the same 'mistake'. The decision should be between eternity of no consciousness and eternity of suffering. That's also why I think such a comparision to be rather meaningless and why I stated all the stuff of life have value because one is alive and not because life is what one wants. [Unless you were talking in the sense of the original post of the topic, which I think I kinda accidently moved away from].
Oh and thanks for the Buddha comment, honestly though, I'd probable go from the happiest guy on Earth to unstable psychopat if anything tragic happened to those I love, so in that sense, I'm probably more of the opposite.
@Father
The point is, we don't know what death really is, however that's not what this talk is about, for what I know, it's about why absolute nothingness is worse than eternal pain, at least I try to explain why I think it is.
You're most welcome to believe that there's a form of reincarnation, if that's through souls in heaven or anything where your consciousness gets transfered to. I'd wish it was so, but I don't know, and the risk of it not being so, is enough for me to see death as the worst possible thing.
Edit: Also JJ, please stop writing the word nonsense in every one of your posts, there's a possibility you've misunderstood the context, at least the argumentation in your reply seem to indicate this.
Edit#2: Though just to make it claer, I do appreciate your participation, as always, I just criticize that you're jumping to conclusions. ____________
Living time backwards
Yeah, I don't like the idea of Death either. Exactly for the reason you listed (we just don't know 100% either way). So with that being said, it is a no-brainer to understand why I would be uber excited at the offer of immortality ____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
I'd choose not to live forever. And to be honest, I'd rather die young than old...I don't like the idea of being old. Just as long as I do everything that I want to achieve then why do I need to live a longer life? I'd be happy with that.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted May 07, 2010 11:16 PM
Of course everything in life has value only because we're alive, but that value can be negative i.e. suffering. And I would prefer no value over negative value. Since you mentioned your affection to your loved ones several times, let me ask you this: if you saw all your loved one die in front of you (God forbid, of course) what would you prefer - to live on with those painful memories and the hole that's left in your soul or to die and end it all?
____________ DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
I'd do what I'm doing anyway. Devote my time to find a way to bring back those I have already lost. That's at least the logical thing for me, though in such a situation I'd guess feelings would take over and I'd probably have very little free will for a long time, probably turning into depressions and apathy, though I can't say and I hope I never shall be able to.
Also about negative emotions, I think it's wise to remember that pain, suffering and all other negative emotions happening, not through choice, but as in build mechanics (such as those with pain have higher likelyness of making offsprings, thereby be an evolutionary advantage) are all a matter of the response of the body. It's not unreasonable to believe that in the future, emotions is not derived through actions, negatige as well as positive, but is simply choosen upon and activated with no negative feedback (which means, suffering is not necessary for happiness).
What I'm trying to say with this is that in principle, you didn't choose what hurts and how it hurts, so why deciding it to control you and end your life because of it?
There's also the matter of choosen suffering (the opposite of choosen happiness) and since that differs from person to person, I can't really comment on it or imagine much about it, since as said, it's probably very different between us. ____________
Living time backwards
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted May 07, 2010 11:32 PM
Well, if you want to go into the suffering topic then in my opinion it's very necessary and will never (or at least should never) be removed. It serves the same purpose pain does - it warns us that some things are bad for us and we should avoid them. So no - I don't see a future in which suffering is abolished completely by direct intervention into the human body.
____________ DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
We were talking about the hypothetical scenario of existing in pain or not existing. Now of course, if you're in a state of grief and pain, you don't immediately jump off the nearest cliff, because you can recover from physical or emotional pain. But without feasible hope of recovery or escape, I don't see any rational point in living simply to suffer. If you'll allow me to use a movie clip that comes to mind:
In the beginning of the clip, are you saying shooting the guy that was burning to death was a bad call?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
Quote:
@JJ
I was explaining why I think non existance is a terrible thing, of course
I'm, sorry to repeat it, but that is yet again nonsense. You are constantly throwing around things that make "no sense" - by definition "nonsense".
Non-existance can't be terrible. Non-existance is by the very definition of it nothing at all.
Sleeping is such a dangerous example - but deep unconsciousness like in an medical operation. Ever experienced it? Nothing terrible about it: you count from 10 backwards (or something like that) and - poof -, suddenly you are not existing anymore. Nothing terrible at all about it - you do not even realize when you cease to exist; until you suddenly exist yet again. Comes QUITE surprising, the wake-up.
@Geny
If immortal, what's the need for a warning system?
@Bliz
Well to put it shortly, the rationality, or logic, of mine goes like this:
Non-existance contra existance, existance is always to be prefered, because it's 'you' contra not-'you'. To me it's obvious, but well, I can see it might be worded poorly. I think it's most of all because it's hard to grasp what it means to be non-existing, maybe a proof of existance will help with that.
The thing is, the entire world could very well be one illusion, everything, yet even if everything you observe is not real, but an illusion, there's one thing you can be certain about and that is that you exist, because there most be an existance which is fooled by the illusion in the first place, there must be an observer to be able to observe. That's, I observe, thereby I am.
Now, one can only know for certain that oneself exists, but then all the world can ever be, is defined through ones eixstance, a non-existance would mean absolutely nothingness, it's not only no observation, but no observer.
Well that's kinda the best I think I can do right now to try to illustrate.
Now, since existance > non-existance, it follows that existance and all that follows > non-existance, in short no matter what type of existance. Of course one can be manipulated and fooled, religion is a clear evidence of that, and one can give in to ones emotions and call for death in stead of pain, which the movie you show can be seen as an example of, eventhough the person burning does not ask to be shot.
About the person burning, yes I think it's wrong to shoot him. It'd only be okay if it's something he wants, but how to know in such a situation? Only if agreed upon before hand and upon the act of burning and heck an after check would probably also be needed to know for certain what one should have done. In principle, what one would need to do, is to remove the pain factor, and then ask, would you prefer a slow or a fast death? [Also the video example you made, I don't think it's that valid, because, afaik, emotions have negative feedbacks, which means it'd hurt him extremely to begin with, but the pain would rather 'quickly' stop and he'd go into some kind of state between passing out and getting adrenaline shocks].
On the assumption of true eternal pain however, I think it's wrong to ever kill someone, sometimes one can be forced to do so, that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong, and I don't think said person in that video was forced, and in my opinion, no he shouldn't have shot him.
I hope my reply is satisfying, because I have the impression I'm repeating myself quite a lot and also to note, of course it's mental masturbation, everything we do on the internet is a type of mental satisfaction, so I don't understand why you write this?
@JJ
I don't use terrible as an emotion in this context, but if you want, then the worst thing possible.
About medical unconsciousness, assuming it actually is so (and not just a state of observation hinderness together with memory block (in general blockings in the brain) which would be must more likely in my opinion) yes it's terrible, terrible if said person never wakes up again. You might claim it's not terrible for the person, but in my opinion it is, I can change terrible with horrible or bad, or whatever you want it.
Just because we're not in a state of defining something as negative anymore, does not mean it's not negative, otherwise one would be able to defend stuff like wrong doings against drain bramaged persons, etc.
Edit: Maybe it makes more sense, by just writing that existance defines all that is?
That should make it quite obvious why eternal pain > non-existance.
Why non-existance is horrible.
____________
Living time backwards
Quote:And if you're really happy just from being alive, even if you are subject to loneliness, hunger and pain, then you're the luckiest man alive and should probably be the next Buddha or something.
not even close, because ohforf makes it quite clear that he has no interest in being a buddha.
buddhists believe in reincarnation.
they think life is pain and the goal is to overcome your bad emotions which comes primarily from anger, lust and the hardest to overcome, ignorance (believing in things that are false)
humans keep reincarnating until they finally manage to overcome them all (of course they have to start from the beginning each time, so it's kind of hard) it's the samsara, cycle of reincarnations and lifes, cycle of pain, because for buddhists life is pain, because you are often subjects to bad emotions.
once you reach buddheity, that cycle ends because you reached perfection, so there is no point in reincarnating yourself again because you can't do better.
so, obviously, ohforf doesn't want to be a buddha.
*Sigh*
Ohforf, you are terribly illogical here. Non-existance was terrible only if you could somehow "suffer" under it (suffer in a very wide sense). You can't, however. What you do now is, imagining non-existance from the viewpoint of existing, that is: "IF I would cease to exist, what a terrible thought, never to wake up again..."
But to terrible it needs to be REGISTERED, and if you are not existing anymore you can't register it:
Umm, Einstein: Is it terrible FOR HIM that he isn't existing anymore? Is he suffering under his non-existance? Nope, he's not - if he WOULD, he would - somehow - exist.
I disagree. The kind of logic you use in your latest post cannot be applied to such a situation JJ. For something to be horrible does in almost all cases have a need for someone to register it.
However the case of there not being someone at all to make the registration is completely different, because it's not a lack of event, at which you're argumentation would have been valid if it was. Whereby this kind of logic is not sufficient to such a case.
Edit: One problem is that one cannot make an kind of analogi to this kind of problem, because in all analogies possible, it's a question about, does the person observe it or not, not a question about if the person is there to observe in the first place, as in all other scenarios it's assumed.
@Fauch
I usually see the 'you're the next "big guy"' as a type of compliment independent of what that given person stands for. After reading doomforges post about buddhism in the religion thread and assuming it to be true, then sure, I'm nothing like Buddha, but I understand such a comment like an attempt to say something positive about someone else. ____________
Living time backwards
Quote:@Fauch
I usually see the 'you're the next "big guy"' as a type of compliment independent of what that given person stands for. After reading doomforges post about buddhism in the religion thread and assuming it to be true, then sure, I'm nothing like Buddha, but I understand such a comment like an attempt to say something positive about someone else.
I don't really understand what you mean here, but I didn't read Dagoth's post. Apart from wikipedia of course, my other main source about buddhism must be Tenzin Gyatso.
This thread is pages long: 
posted May 07, 2010 10:38 PM
