Who Wants to Live Forever? And Why?

[Falvlun]

Why would I want to be with perfection when imperfect entities are so much more interesting?

That's like saying "Why would I enjoy a well-cooked meal when I enjoy Kraft macaroni and cheese!"

Have you ever experienced perfection? How do you know that imperfection is more interesting than perfection? How do you know that you like imperfection more than perfection if you've never tried perfection?

 

[muichimotsu]

Perfection is an ideal, a concept of the ultimate. We can strive for it, but we necessarily fall short because of our limitations. I somehow doubt anyone has experienced true perfection, but merely their subjective apprehension and approximation.

I cannot try perfection because it doesn't exist by any basic approach to the world, and that by no means suggests I should despair, since that means there is far more potential than if there was some peak to be reached and nothing further comes of it.

 

[Penumbra]

Where have i said as much?


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.

I made the claim because you didn't define it anywhere as far as I can tell.

Simple as that.

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.

The more precise overall statement I made is that being immortal without the option to die would be a curse.

And the reason for that is because you'd basically be gambling that an infinite amount of life without the possibility to end it wouldn't turn into an eternal hell of boredom and repetition and madness. And when one doesn't even define the options for life that they expect to have in detail, the gamble is not even an informed one.

 

[LuisDantas]

So immortality could be something we want if our culture was different?

Many of us want immortality already. But we really shouldn't, not before we attain those significant changes.

As I brought up though, utopia was noted to be a nonplace in that it was idealistic and wishful thinking, not realistic

Well, taking that as a premise, then immortality will unavoidably become a grim disease.

The Immortals come to mind

The Alyson Noel book series, I assume? I'm afraid I haven't read it.

Moreso that you have a different worldview based on whether you become immortal or have always been since birth. Psychology and all

To a degree, but only a small one.

Far too much of our psychological capabilities does in fact depend on our own mortality, even if we rarely think of that.

We don't appreciate the shortness of life

Most often we attempt to deny its knowledge. But even so, it is something that we are aware of and that deeply affects our mindset - for instance, it leads us towards seeking some form of importance, relevance or even literal immortality. To some degree that is an attempt at denying the reality of mortality.

Are you well off or not, you mean? Or that you are content or not?

Some of both, mainly the second. Living a whole day isn't always tolerable. Until and unless such an art is mastered, there is little point in attempting to handle the same thing amplified by who knows how many thousands of times.

For the most part, quality of life is the ability to truly accept and be in harmony with circunstances that we find with some regularity. That of course can't be warranted, since our control over circunstances is limited at best.

 

[muichimotsu]

Many of us want immortality already. But we really shouldn't, not before we attain those significant changes.

A paradigm shift then?

Well, taking that as a premise, then immortality will unavoidably become a grim disease.

If utopia is achieved, that is?

The Alyson Noel book series, I assume? I'm afraid I haven't read it.

The Highlander series, actually. Though I could see overlap occurring without that clarification.

To a degree, but only a small one.

Far too much of our psychological capabilities does in fact depend on our own mortality, even if we rarely think of that.

So if we weren't immortal, psychological capabilities would be greater?

Most often we attempt to deny its knowledge. But even so, it is something that we are aware of and that deeply affects our mindset - for instance, it leads us towards seeking some form of importance, relevance or even literal immortality. To some degree that is an attempt at denying the reality of mortality.

Or denying its power, if nothing else

Some of both, mainly the second. Living a whole day isn't always tolerable. Until and unless such an art is mastered, there is little point in attempting to handle the same thing amplified by who knows how many thousands of times.

For the most part, quality of life is the ability to truly accept and be in harmony with circunstances that we find with some regularity. That of course can't be warranted, since our control over circunstances is limited at best.

So it boils down to psychology especially

 

[Falvlun]

Perfection is an ideal, a concept of the ultimate. We can strive for it, but we necessarily fall short because of our limitations. I somehow doubt anyone has experienced true perfection, but merely their subjective apprehension and approximation.

I cannot try perfection because it doesn't exist by any basic approach to the world, and that by no means suggests I should despair, since that means there is far more potential than if there was some peak to be reached and nothing further comes of it.

If no one has experienced perfection, then you can't very well make pronouncements about what it would be like and whether you like imperfection more or less than it.

 

[Koldo]

I made the claim because you didn't define it anywhere as far as I can tell.

Simple as that.

Simple as that you misrepresented what i said.

I never defined it, but i also never said that it would make a trillion years of life worthwhile ( without explanation ).

The more precise overall statement I made is that being immortal without the option to die would be a curse.

The more precise statement you made on regard to this quote was:

"Afterlives are generally depicted as either some spaceless and timeless (and therefore throughtless and actionless) void of existence, or as having some kind of spirit body that goes around and does things for an infinite period of time.

The first sounds like non-life and the second sounds like it would be infinitely boring after an unimaginable amount of time has passed."

And the reason for that is because you'd basically be gambling that an infinite amount of life without the possibility to end it wouldn't turn into an eternal hell of boredom and repetition and madness. And when one doesn't even define the options for life that they expect to have in detail, the gamble is not even an informed one.

What does this have to do with what i was talking about?

 

[muichimotsu]

If no one has experienced perfection, then you can't very well make pronouncements about what it would be like and whether you like imperfection more or less than it.

.
The issue is not epistemological so much as metaphysical. Perfection is not something we can know in the same way we cannot know square circles or other such things: it doesn't sync with a basic understanding of the universe as in flux and not something that tends towards improvement in itself, but entropy.

 

[Falvlun]

.
The issue is not epistemological so much as metaphysical. Perfection is not something we can know in the same way we cannot know square circles or other such things: it doesn't sync with a basic understanding of the universe as in flux and not something that tends towards improvement in itself, but entropy.

Then why are you so sure that imperfection is more interesting than perfection?

I don't care weather perfection is possible or not. That's not what we are talking about. (And besides, whether it exists or not in our universe is besides the point. Immortal humans don't exist in our universe either and yet we are hypothesizing about that.) I was talking about your curious claim that a state of imperfection is more interesting than a state of perfection.

If you've never experienced a state of perfection, then your statement is unfounded.

If you don't believe that perfection is a logical possibility, then your statement is unsound.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'd rather things be variable and unpredictable than completely predictable and stale. It's not that I don't like some good food every now and then, but it becomes stagnant and uninteresting if you have something good all the time. You can't truly appreciate everything good in life without its alternative or even stuff less than good, but not on the bad level either. The mundane can be awe inspiring in its own way, the immanent existence we take for granted.

I cannot believe perfection is a logical possibility in a world that is not static, but quite dynamic, which would be the opposite of what perfection amounts to: frozen in time.

Perfection has no potential for growth, no real motivation to accomplish anything, since you're already at the top. So it'd be uninteresting for the same reason that being a CEO of an always successful billion dollar company for 50 years would be boring, since you'd never have any risk or challenges.

 

[Penumbra]

Simple as that you misrepresented what i said.

I never defined it, but i also never said that it would make a trillion years of life worthwhile ( without explanation ).

If you're going to continue to reply to me then please clarify your position then. If your posts consist of non-definitions then I'm not really seeing a point of this discussion so far.

The more precise statement you made on regard to this quote was:

"Afterlives are generally depicted as either some spaceless and timeless (and therefore throughtless and actionless) void of existence, or as having some kind of spirit body that goes around and does things for an infinite period of time.

The first sounds like non-life and the second sounds like it would be infinitely boring after an unimaginable amount of time has passed."

That quote is only relevant with regards to my earlier post in this thread which is my primary position. All posts after that are clarifications, replies, follow-ups, counterpoints, etc. I post as though people are having a discussion rather than treating posts as unique independent posts in a vacuum.

What does this have to do with what i was talking about?

It has to do with the fact that all of my posts are related to the first one I made in this thread, so if you're going to reply to my posts which were originally not directed towards yourself it makes sense to keep track of what my main statements are. And I'm not being snippy, I just have little appetite for repetition at the moment.

First post:

Immortality would likely be a curse, especially if the person could not choose to die even if she wanted to.

So I'll pass on immortality.

If there was a way to extend the health of a person in the prime of her life for a few extra decades that might be cool though. Like living as a 30 year old for a lot longer and having some extra resistance against disease or damage.

 

[Koldo]

If you're going to continue to reply to me then please clarify your position then. If your posts consist of non-definitions then I'm not really seeing a point of this discussion so far.

My first reply to you is more than enough to clarify my position.
You made some statements, and i am stating they are mere assumptions.

That quote is only relevant with regards to my earlier post in this thread which is my primary position. All posts after that are clarifications, replies, follow-ups, counterpoints, etc. I post as though people are having a discussion rather than treating posts as unique independent posts in a vacuum.

It has to do with the fact that all of my posts are related to the first one I made in this thread, so if you're going to reply to my posts which were originally not directed towards yourself it makes sense to keep track of what my main statements are. And I'm not being snippy, I just have little appetite for repetition at the moment.

First post:

Did i reply to your first post?
I always quote what i reply to.
I don't reply to what i don't quote.

Many posts contain multiple arguments and statements in them. I may want to talk about all of them, or i may want to talk about a single one. I will always quote what i want to talk about when i first reply to someone in a topic.

 

[Penumbra]

My first reply to you is more than enough to clarify my position.
You made some statements, and i am stating they are mere assumptions.

Your post was an assumption as well. You stated that you wouldn't mind being immortal under certain conditions. How do you know how you'd feel about that after a few centuries?

Did i reply to your first post?
I always quote what i reply to.
I don't reply to what i don't quote.

Which is unwise considering that my posts were to the same person before you replied to them, and therefore were part of an actual conversation.

Many posts contain multiple arguments and statements in them. I may want to talk about all of them, or i may want to talk about a single one. I will always quote what i want to talk about when i first reply to someone in a topic.

Identifying comment B and disagreeing with it doesn't work if comment B was intended to go along with comment A.

 

[Koldo]

Your post was an assumption as well. You stated that you wouldn't mind being immortal under certain conditions. How do you know how you'd feel about that after a few centuries?

Once i had a problem with it, i could just kill myself if i wanted to.
I wouldn't mind because i could end my life at will.

Which is unwise considering that my posts were to the same person before you replied to them, and therefore were part of an actual conversation.

Identifying comment B and disagreeing with it doesn't work if comment B was intended to go along with comment A.

Unless comment B can stand on its own, and be properly evaluated by itself.

 

[Penumbra]

Once i had a problem with it, i could just kill myself if i wanted to.

I wouldn't mind because i could end my life at will.

And when I called immortality a 'curse', it had specifically to do with absolute immortality where suicide is not possible.

Unless comment B can stand on its own, and be properly evaluated by itself.

Considering that all of my comments have been related to the earlier post about not having the option to end it, the bulk or your comments to my posts have been irrelevant to my point.

If we're both under the impression that after several billion years or so there's a good chance that life would not be enjoyable anymore and it would be good to have an option to end it, then there's really not much more to discuss.

Humans have an attraction to permanence for some reason. There's nothing known to exist in this universe that is permanent; even the stars. No animal lives more than an order of magnitude of approximately a century. Afterlife descriptions are vague because people cannot describe what they'd like to do for an indefinite period of time without it sounding ridiculous, so they propose that immortality is a good thing without detailed definitions of what it entails.

 

[Koldo]

And when I called immortality a 'curse', it had specifically to do with absolute immortality where suicide is not possible.

Yes, i know. So?

Considering that all of my comments have been related to the earlier post about not having the option to end it, the bulk or your comments to my posts have been irrelevant to my point.

How so? I have been keeping this in mind ever since the very first reply.

If we're both under the impression that after several billion years or so there's a good chance that life would not be enjoyable anymore and it would be good to have an option to end it, then there's really not much more to discuss.

I am not under that impression.
I am under the impression that i can't determine what are the odds that after several billion years life would not be enjoyable anymore. And as far as a spiritual existence is concerned, i am under the impression that it is impossible to determine how it would be like and it would feel like.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, i know. So?

How so? I have been keeping this in mind ever since the very first reply.

You specifically even stated that you only replied to the posts you quoted. Judging from your posts I don't think you kept that post in mind at all.

I am not under that impression.
I am under the impression that i can't determine what are the odds that after several billion years life would not be enjoyable anymore. And as far as a spiritual existence is concerned, i am under the impression that it is impossible to determine how it would be like and it would feel like.

Which is why it would be an unwise gamble to select immorality without the option of ending it.

Are we finished here? If not let me know. Because I don't know about you but I'm not getting anything out of this discussion with you because as far as I can tell you haven't properly taken into account my original stream of posts anyway.

 

[Koldo]

You specifically even stated that you only replied to the posts you quoted. Judging from your posts I don't think you kept that post in mind at all.

By 'that post', do you mean your first post?
Yes, i have been keeping that post in mind.

Which is why it would be an unwise gamble to select immorality without the option of ending it.

Where have i said it would be?

Are we finished here? If not let me know. Because I don't know about you but I'm not getting anything out of this discussion with you because as far as I can tell you haven't properly taken into account my original stream of posts anyway.

As far as i can tell you have been unable to comprehend the distinction between rejecting an argument and proposing the opposite. We are finished once you realize the difference.

 

[Penumbra]

By 'that post', do you mean your first post?
Yes, i have been keeping that post in mind.

None of your responses to me indicate that you have.

Where have i said it would be?

Your posts to me have defended the idea that living forever would be an enjoyable situation, even going so far as to suggest that 10 quadrillion years of video games might not be so bad.

Without having fairly robust evidence that an indefinite lifespan without being able to end it would be worthwhile, then selecting immortality without the option of ending it would be unwise. As per my original post.

As far as i can tell you have been unable to comprehend the distinction between rejecting an argument and proposing the opposite. We are finished once you realize the difference.

This would only be the case if you responded to my argument. Instead, you seem to have jumped in the middle of my posts and responded to isolated points without taking into account the stream of the conversation. We have been finished before you began replying to me.

 

[Koldo]

None of your responses to me indicate that you have.

Your posts to me have defended the idea that living forever would be an enjoyable situation, even going so far as to suggest that 10 quadrillion years of video games might not be so bad.

Without having fairly robust evidence that an indefinite lifespan without being able to end it would be worthwhile, then selecting immortality without the option of ending it would be unwise. As per my original post.

I have been asking you for quite some time to point out where i have said that living forever would be an enjoyable situation. This is all your misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of what i have said.

This would only be the case if you responded to my argument. Instead, you seem to have jumped in the middle of my posts and responded to isolated points without taking into account the stream of the conversation.

Considering how you have misrepresented me so far, i don't think that your opinion on how 'i seem' to have done something holds any value.

We have been finished before you began replying to me.

So why do you keep replying to me?