Who Wants to Live Forever? And Why?

[Koldo]

Like what would change?

What has been changing in the last 1000 years?

No. The OP provides a whole variety of immortality types to consider. I'm not using any one unique thing in my assessment and instead looking at it in multiple ways.

Did you actually read that quote?

Living a bit longer in some sort of good body would be kind of nice, but beyond that, I do think that extending life indefinitely can reduce the value of each moment proportionally. Life could become an endless tedium of events with the person knowing that there's no end, nothing to hurry for, nothing to get done, etc.

Actually I think quite a bit of human suffering is caused by human desire for permanence.

You were talking about a person in a spirit body. To say that it would be a tedium is to apply how you suppose you would feel in your current body and project it into the spirit body. An useless exercise, as you don't even know how it would feel like to live in a spirit body, and how it differs from your current life.

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe people will figure out a way to be nearly immortal eventually too.

Always with possibilities and neglecting the actual facts that would be the case with what we've at least suggested as the case: you as an individual being immortal. How would you NOT be alone at that point, as if you're trapped in time?

Where did i presuppose anything about how one might feel in the second body?

Perhaps you didn't, but the point remains that this boils down to your speculation about something you seem to not have anything pinned down about from the start

 

[muichimotsu]

You haven't answered my question.

There are limits to what you do exactly because your death is certain.

Merely because there are limits doesn't make life not worth living to the fullest we can? An acknowledgement of limits is how we recognize what we can do and even potential solutions that we may not have realized. But an inevitability we shouldn't try to avoid is death. Prolonging life, curing diseases, etc, these are all merely postponing entropy that envelops everything that time influences.

To answer your snippy little question, none, because I'm not completely out of my mind and I'm not Wolverine. Daredevils have problems of their own, but the best ones at least take some safety precautions.

 

[muichimotsu]

What has been changing in the last 1000 years?

Everything in one way or another, I'd argue. Physical, cultural, etc

You were talking about a person in a spirit body. To say that it would be a tedium is to apply how you suppose you would feel in your current body and project it into the spirit body. An useless exercise, as you don't even know how it would feel like to live in a spirit body, and how it differs from your current life.

If we don't qualify the nature of the spirit/immaterial body, then this becomes an exercise in tedium anyway, because you seem to be advocating an argument from ignorance; we don't know, therefore it behooves us to try it out anyway, as if we'll just be able to revert back

 

[Koldo]

Always with possibilities and neglecting the actual facts that would be the case with what we've at least suggested as the case: you as an individual being immortal.

It is not an actual fact that my emotional state would degrade.

How would you NOT be alone at that point, as if you're trapped in time?

It is impossible to know what will happen in an undefined ammount of time. It is very possible that people will manage to reach pretty close to immortality by then. Or do you want me to exclude this very real possibility? The world won't stay as it is forever, therefore we have to consider possibilities on what it is going to be like. There is no other choice.

Once we are able to regenerate and replace biological parts, and get rid of any deadly disease, we will be pretty close to immortality. We might even transfer our brains to androids.

Perhaps you didn't, but the point remains that this boils down to your speculation about something you seem to not have anything pinned down about from the start

So, i didn't...

 

[Koldo]

Everything in one way or another, I'd argue. Physical, cultural, etc

Exactly.

If we don't qualify the nature of the spirit/immaterial body, then this becomes an exercise in tedium anyway, because you seem to be advocating an argument from ignorance; we don't know, therefore it behooves us to try it out anyway, as if we'll just be able to revert back

Do you actually have the choice to try it out?
I am not saying you ought to try it. I am telling you that anything you say about how it would feel like is merely speculative.

 

[muichimotsu]

It is not an actual fact that my emotional state would degrade.

My argument is that it's highly probable, not an absolute fact

It is impossible to know what will happen in an undefined ammount of time. It is very possible that people will manage to reach pretty close to immortality by then. Or do you want me to exclude this very real possibility? The world won't stay as it is forever, therefore we have to consider possibilities on what it is going to be like. There is no other choice.

Once we are able to regenerate and replace biological parts, and get rid of any deadly disease, we will be pretty close to immortality. We might even transfer our brains to androids.

Even if everyone became immortal, that wouldn't solve the problems that result. In fact, I'd argue that would compound them because you'd have everyone competing and there'd be no way for them to die, barring something like nuclear war or the like.

Biological immortality has limitations, though. We aren't invulnerable and that's one of the things that is a goal. Even if we could achieve this immortality, who's to say life would continue to be fulfilling if you are one of the few people to do it? Or even if everyone else acquired it, we'd have the problem of everyone wanting to have everything, because they can live forever. It's a problem of our possessiveness as humans.

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you actually have the choice to try it out?
I am not saying you ought to try it. I am telling you that anything you say about how it would feel like is merely speculative.

If it was merely a choice and not something permanent, that's markedly different, but simply trying something because of possibilities is not science, it's childish curiosity

 

[Koldo]

My argument is that it's highly probable, not an absolute fact.

Highly probable? Back that up. Thank you.

Even if everyone became immortal, that wouldn't solve the problems that result. In fact, I'd argue that would compound them because you'd have everyone competing and there'd be no way for them to die, barring something like nuclear war or the like.

Biological immortality has limitations, though. We aren't invulnerable and that's one of the things that is a goal. Even if we could achieve this immortality, who's to say life would continue to be fulfilling if you are one of the few people to do it?

Who's to say it wouldn't?

Or even if everyone else acquired it, we'd have the problem of everyone wanting to have everything, because they can live forever. It's a problem of our possessiveness as humans.

Who's to say how humans are going to like in a billion years? Perhaps we won't be possessive, or perhaps being possessive won't lead us to any problem.

 

[Koldo]

If it was merely a choice and not something permanent,...

Those aren't exclusive.

...that's markedly different, but simply trying something because of possibilities is not science, it's childish curiosity

"Do you actually have the choice to try it out?"

I never even mentioned science. I have no idea on what you are talking about.

 

[muichimotsu]

Highly probable? Back that up. Thank you.

A simple observation of human emotional states can back this up reasonably, not to mention a consideration of human psychology. This isn't rocket science, you're oversimplifying this to presume humans are without flaws, which is ridiculous.

Who's to say it wouldn't?

Plenty of examples in fiction that consider the human condition as an immortal. Of course, they're not real, but this in no way negates the validity of the observations made about the potential conditions that would result: isolation, despair, loneliness.

Who's to say how humans are going to like in a billion years? Perhaps we won't be possessive, or perhaps being possessive won't lead us to any problem.

Again, you're being far too optimistic about a race that has shown itself to be one of the most horrid entities in existence, committing atrocities many times we don't necessarily even have recorded in history. We are not necessarily any further away from our base instincts and tendencies and even in a billion years, assuming we're still around, there is always a trace of our initial habits of greed, ignorance and aversion.

 

[muichimotsu]

Those aren't exclusive.

Then let's re qualify our terms. If it was a choice, but couldn't be reverted. Of course, it won't be forced on us, that's not my point. Your taking my statements at face value is just obfuscating the issue, which is whether it is really worth it to venture into this area, where humans start to think they're gods.

"Do you actually have the choice to try it out?"

I never even mentioned science. I have no idea on what you are talking about.

Then what kind of immortality are we speaking of? Be clear about this, or the discussion starts to degrade.

 

[Me Myself]

I kind of factored that possibility in and I would argue that's just as bad in its own way. No one has any experience of suffering or anything that makes living and existence something that has balance to it. With only good, your perspective is skewed, especially with a prolonged period of time, i.e. eternity.

I don't want to live forever, that is the bigger point. I do not welcome death, I accept it as part of nature. To live forever seems to go against a basic necessity of existence: some people die so others may live in their place, a population control of sorts, so that humans cannot forever seek out fruitless endeavors knowing they will never die.

It could be as bad or it could not be.

I you dont currently want to live for ever even when accounting for multiple lifes or a spiritual life, that's fine, but the hinduist point of view of this issue is that this is a temporary preference of yours. Ultimately, all that is always was, and that that is not can never be, as Krishan put it.

Your consciousness is, it will keep on being, and thats okay. Now I dont have evidence for this, but that is not for what is thread was about anyways. It was about whether it was desirabke or not to live for ever. Do notice that this form of "immortality". Proposed byy hinduism is not really immortality. All that dies dies, but consciousness is beyond death and life because it experiences both, ultimately it is just transformation.

Hypothetically. You can have an eternal life that is only pleasure. If you could have that, what practical purpose would there be for that to not be desirable? You say it muddles perspective, but why? Well, it would change your perspective from what it is now, sure, because it is a different form of experience. This too, is dead, to change.

What is a muddled perception ithe end? The perception that does not let you reach your oals, but if all your goals are reached, for what would you like perception if not for perceiving pleasure or perceiving things that give ou pleasure? Like your ideological aspiration of what you call balance.

 

[muichimotsu]

It could be as bad or it could not be.

I you dont currently want to live for ever even when accounting for multiple lifes or a spiritual life, that's fine, but the hinduist point of view of this issue is that this is a temporary preference of yours. Ultimately, all that is always was, and that that is not can never be, as Krishan put it.

Is there not such a thing as a correct perspective, though? Not everything can be purely a preference, though everything is temporary in some regard, of course.

I don't think I've ever wanted to live forever, so that seems to suggest I have no innate desire.

Your consciousness is, it will keep on being, and thats okay. Now I dont have evidence for this, but that is not for what is thread was about anyways. It was about whether it was desirabke or not to live for ever. Do notice that this form of "immortality". Proposed byy hinduism is not really immortality. All that dies dies, but consciousness is beyond death and life because it experiences both, ultimately it is just transformation.

Depends on the form of Hinduism, though many seem to entail a merging with the ultimate consciousness, which is a whole other issue of "immortality" in that you continue on as a singular consciousness merged into a larger one.

Hypothetically. You can have an eternal life that is only pleasure. If you could have that, what practical purpose would there be for that to not be desirable? You say it muddles perspective, but why? Well, it would change your perspective from what it is now, sure, because it is a different form of experience. This too, is dead, to change.

Because you wouldn't understand that pleasure is temporary, obviously. If you only experience pleasure, your perspective is myopic as to the diversity of existence. Merely because perspectives change does not negate that some are better than others.

What is a muddled perception ithe end? The perception that does not let you reach your oals, but if all your goals are reached, for what would you like perception if not for perceiving pleasure or perceiving things that give ou pleasure? Like your ideological aspiration of what you call balance

Pleasure is a varied perception anyway. Some gain pleasure in different ways and there is a difference between mere temporary satisfaction and more permanent or persistent satisfaction, though the ideal form of that is internalized, not externalized

 

[Penumbra]

What has been changing in the last 1000 years?

Technology, population, and pollution, for the most part.

Not so much human nature, though. The stories we tell today are often adaptations that make use of the same archetypes as ancient stories.

One can read the writings of people from 1,000+ or 2,000+ years ago and relate with them.

Did you actually read that quote?

Yes.

Have you followed my stream of posts from the beginning before you responded?

You were talking about a person in a spirit body. To say that it would be a tedium is to apply how you suppose you would feel in your current body and project it into the spirit body. An useless exercise, as you don't even know how it would feel like to live in a spirit body, and how it differs from your current life.

I was talking about a scenario where a person is immortal and doesn't even have the ability or option to die.

And actually I referenced two specific afterlife scenarios after that- a timeless/spaceless state that mystics tend to promote and a spirit body conception that continues to operate in linear time.

 

[Me Myself]

Is there not such a thing as a correct perspective, though? Not everything can be purely a preference, though everything is temporary in some regard, of course.

I don't think I've ever wanted to live forever, so that seems to suggest I have no innate desire.



Depends on the form of Hinduism, though many seem to entail a merging with the ultimate consciousness, which is a whole other issue of "immortality" in that you continue on as a singular consciousness merged into a larger one.



Because you wouldn't understand that pleasure is temporary, obviously. If you only experience pleasure, your perspective is myopic as to the diversity of existence. Merely because perspectives change does not negate that some are better than others.



Pleasure is a varied perception anyway. Some gain pleasure in different ways and there is a difference between mere temporary satisfaction and more permanent or persistent satisfaction, though the ideal form of that is internalized, not externalized

Varied perception from what? Do you think you can even know what an objective perception feels like?

 

[Koldo]

A simple observation of human emotional states can back this up reasonably, not to mention a consideration of human psychology. This isn't rocket science, you're oversimplifying this to presume humans are without flaws, which is ridiculous.

I never said humans are without flaws. From my simple observation of human emotional states i do not reach the same conclusion as you. So you need to do much better than 'It is evident'.

Plenty of examples in fiction that consider the human condition as an immortal. Of course, they're not real, but this in no way negates the validity of the observations made about the potential conditions that would result: isolation, despair, loneliness.

Those are possibilities to what could happen. Not fact. I don't even know why you brought it up if you acknowledge this.

Again, you're being far too optimistic about a race that has shown itself to be one of the most horrid entities in existence, committing atrocities many times we don't necessarily even have recorded in history. We are not necessarily any further away from our base instincts and tendencies and even in a billion years, assuming we're still around, there is always a trace of our initial habits of greed, ignorance and aversion.

You are either misunderstanding my position, or misrepresenting it purposefully. There is nothing optmistic about it.
To say there will be always a trace of our initial habits of greed, ignorance and aversion means nothing at all in this context.

 

[muichimotsu]

Varied perception from what? Do you think you can even know what an objective perception feels like?

Is there such a thing as objective perception if perception is by its nature subjective?

 

[Me Myself]

Is there such a thing as objective perception if perception is by its nature subjective?

Then how can you dwtermine which perception is muddled and which is not?

I simply cant see what could there be of undesirable of feeling perpetual pleasure

 

[muichimotsu]

I never said humans are without flaws. From my simple observation of human emotional states i do not reach the same conclusion as you. So you need to do much better than 'It is evident'.

You really seem to have a fairly optimistic view of immortality, which is a bigger problem than having optimism about human nature, though they go hand in hand a bit here.

Those are possibilities to what could happen. Not fact. I don't even know why you brought it up if you acknowledge this.

Reality mirrors fiction, as they say. We derive fiction in part from real experiences, so it isn't farfetched to say that fiction has some points to make in terms of the subject matter it confronts; in this case, immortality.

You are either misunderstanding my position, or misrepresenting it purposefully. There is nothing optmistic about it.
To say there will be always a trace of our initial habits of greed, ignorance and aversion means nothing at all in this context.

By all means qualify whether you are being optimistic or something else.

If we're discussing human nature in a billion years, discussing the survival of certain traits of quite relevant