Would we want to live forever?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Khethil
 
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 01:18 pm
@glasstrees,
Sure, I'd like the option of living as long as I'd like - being able to terminate it if I so choose. I don't believe there's any 'after life', 'fresh start' or anything of the kind. Sure, it sounds nice, but I personally see no reason to buy in. I'd much prefer to live life on its face value; and all I see and think I know says, very loudly: Yes, we end, "... that soon you will be no one and no where". Also, that this is OK - the nature of all life here on our happy home.

But it is a nice thought; though I'd definitely want to live in that perpetual state as... probably... at least 40 (likely 50-ish or so). Eyes are so much wider opened now, so much more at peace. I don't think many under the age of 35 have any kind of real perspective on even their own existence (maybe some perhaps, always there is precociousness here and there). But then again, such a choice - what age/stage would you want this perpetual state to live in - would depend on what you believe has the most value; perspective, wisdom, the vibrancy of youth, bliss of naivety).

Good topic
 
William
 
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 02:46 pm
@glasstrees,
Thanks everyone for your comments, and Kthelmir; spoken like a true 19 year old. Ha. All good posts as they each depicted the diverse thought on such a subject. Personally, I have never felt as though I have never existed before. I can't imagine such a thought. Even though I have no memory of it, I somehow know I have existed before? Hmmm? Furthermore I don't care to know all that might represent for I do feel what I did carry forward is there somewhere in how I process information? If this unique to me? I have no idea, but it is observable in others in that that have extraordinary gifts that we toss about as genetic? That could be a part of it, I will admit; but frankly I think that is just the tip of the iceberg. It could define IQ as being a gauge somehow that indicates just how long one has existed and their ease of which they absorb that history we have recorded we call "knowledge, lore and myth and imagination". All of it plays a part in that continuum somehow. IMO.

Misrepresentation is often espouse as one tries to "twist" the truth to fit their selfish desires. Now don't take that to represent major malevolence, for we are all guilty of such behavior to some degree, but this paradigm of "rebirth" is evident in all our history and misrepresented at every turn simply because we just can relate to it from an "existence" point of view, but it does make sense. An amazing amount of sense. The problem is we have absolutely no control over it and we just can't abide in that! It's not in our nature. We have to understand eveyhing, being perfect and all. Hmmm? Maybe there is something missing in our equations?

Once it begins to settle in your consciousness it will begin to change how you "look" at the world; it will slow you down and you begin to see and hear things you have never noticed before. You are no longer in a "hurry" to survive life, and truly begin to live it from one moment to the next. Hard to fathom. Sure it is! It was for me, too. If I could wave that "magic wand" over all of you that would allow you to think, see and hear more clearly, I would do it in a heartbeat and I think you would thank me for it, but that is presumption, and if I am wrong or offend anyone by that statement, I do apologize.

Yes we are diverse as it relates to our own perceptions. it was meant to be that way, but not to divide us as we have come to understand means "war" in varying degrees. So what is the alternative? How could we possibly find peace? I can tell you as long as we deem our exsitence as terminal and act as such, it will never happen, never, as in our greed for life we render this Earth uninhabitable as we suck it dry. I am not necessarily talking about resource wise, for I don't know the true conditions of that, but from a humanitarian point of view as we feast on weak, naive, innocent and defenseless.

Now let's say we are terminal and we must conserve so those that follow will have it better than we, you know our "posterity"? What have we done to insure that. I'm a bit stumped? You? Hmmm? I guess we could leave them money. Yeah, that's the ticket! That ought to do it! After all we are humane, huh? Einstein seem to have something to say in that regard. How does it go now, let's see, "...it seems appallingly clear our technology has surpassed our humanity". Let's hope he was wrong. I doubt it though? He was a pretty sharp cookie. I think there is hope. I really do. But it will have to be a group effort.

William

PS: I have often mention mankind as "God's Symphony" and we just need to tune up. I don't know how many of you have ever seen the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical "The Sound of Music" but in it's ensemble of beautiful songs is one call "Do Re Mi" which I think parallels those sentimnets of "God's Symphony" as the different notes are those contributions of different races communicating allowing us to make beautiful music. Hereis that song. I hope you enjoy it. It may take a little more than one lifetime to tune up? Who knows?:perplexed:
 
Arif phil
 
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 03:03 pm
@glasstrees,
dwixi;72159 wrote:
Would we as humans want to live forever? Even if we made the world perfect? Even if we got to the state of life being one giant orgasm of joy and love.

Personally I dont think so.

This would get boreing. And we would create games like this. Like life. With not quite perfectness. But a playing feild for beauty. And we would need death to kill our ego and start again. This way we will never get bored. This way there would be a reason for something to exist rather than nothing existing atall.

Are there any philosophers that have a similar view to this? basicly Buddhism but the goal not being to transition the ego but it having a purpose. Limiting us so we don't get bored. And always see beauty.


I think "living for ever" is not that much of a dominant preoccupation in our lives than the fear of death. Perhaps the desire to live forever has a very close relation with our existence. We are mostly uncertain about our existence in a Godless world (so to speak). Even our belief in God is a shaky one and we are not sure whether he exists at all.

If we take Heidegger's views that our existence is a shared one and our problem is becoming individual while finding an authentic mode of our personal existence then we come to the conclusion that we want to live forever or for some more time (always) to be sure enough to find a meaning for our existence.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 11:05 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;79374 wrote:

Sure, I'd like the option of living as long as I'd like - being able to terminate it if I so choose. I don't believe there's any 'after life', 'fresh start' or anything of the kind. Sure, it sounds nice, but I personally see no reason to buy in. I'd much prefer to live life on its face value; and all I see and think I know says, very loudly: Yes, we end, "... that soon you will be no one and no where". Also, that this is OK - the nature of all life here on our happy home.

But it is a nice thought; though I'd definitely want to live in that perpetual state as... probably... at least 40 (likely 50-ish or so). Eyes are so much wider opened now, so much more at peace. I don't think many under the age of 35 have any kind of real perspective on even their own existence (maybe some perhaps, always there is precociousness here and there). But then again, such a choice - what age/stage would you want this perpetual state to live in - would depend on what you believe has the most value; perspective, wisdom, the vibrancy of youth, bliss of naivety).

Good topic


I come across all kinds of questions on this forum that have no answer, and really all you can do is speculate. Which brings me to another question with no answer, and its possible implications on an afterlife.

Sometimes i try to establish a "purpose" for creation, or a purpose for life. I feel if i can do this, then i have indicated the existence of something greater(the implementor/designer of the purpose)that existed before creation. I think this design aspect creates a context in which an afterlife seems reasonable. In opposition to creation being nothing more than a fluke, in which case an afterlife seems less reasonable, to me anyways. But even in a creation by chaos theory, i have no reason to not believe that the events that led to creation, and every conscious being will not happen at some point again in the distant future. I would look at this as a sort of death and rebirth, and the reason i believe it, is becasue it has already happened once, and i have proof of that.

As for immortality, there should be a distinction made between the mental state and the physical state. If i turn back the clock to my 30s and continue indefinitely from there, my knowledge/perspective will continue to grow/expand, and it is only my physical body that remains static. Also, a younger brain/mind it seems would be more well equipped for absorbing knowledge, and learning new things.

Neil
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:46 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;79367 wrote:
I disagree, If i were to be involved in any accident that causes trauma to the head, I may develop amnesia and forget who i am(what my name is), and all other memories could be wiped out as well. But, i would still be "me", or "I". I think memories are just a facet of "I", and "I" of course, would be my conscious awareness.

You know, the thing that exists if you close your eyes, and clear your mind. That is "you", but of course, its not absolutely clear what that is either, but it does seem certain that it is independent of memory.

Neil
Hum, I think thats a possibility alright, but, like you said, its very hard to point where memory ends and I begin =)

But maybe, then such events happen it is our perception of the world that is altered, not our mind. I think this is the only way to explain insanity, for any other way seems to step into the paradox of the destruction of the "I". Not sure if would apply to memory lost though... the only way to know seems unpleasant =)

William;79391 wrote:
Personally, I have never felt as though I have never existed before. I can't imagine such a thought. Even though I have no memory of it, I somehow know I have existed before? Hmmm?
Perhaps you have existed in a being very simple compared to a human, so simple that its memories confuse and lose thenselves among the more volumous human memories, or perhaps there were just none relevant. When I think about it we probally do forget things after all, or at least stop remembering then, although I think the "self" remains unaltered. After all, even something of vital importance both existential and emotionally to us in this life, such as our parents, will probally become insignificant over the course of several lives.

William;79391 wrote:

Yes we are diverse as it relates to our own perceptions. it was meant to be that way, but not to divide us as we have come to understand means "war" in varying degrees. So what is the alternative? How could we possibly find peace? I can tell you as long as we deem our exsitence as terminal and act as such, it will never happen, never, as in our greed for life we render this Earth uninhabitable as we suck it dry. I am not necessarily talking about resource wise, for I don't know the true conditions of that, but from a humanitarian point of view as we feast on weak, naive, innocent and defenseless.
I agree, things would be a lot easier if people didnt fear death so much. And religion doesnt seens to help (To be honest people with religions that pregate life after dead seen to mourn just as much and fear death the same as people who dont) so we will have to inject some philosopy into everone's brain =)

William;79391 wrote:

Now let's say we are terminal and we must conserve so those that follow will have it better than we, you know our "posterity"? What have we done to insure that. I'm a bit stumped? You? Hmmm? I guess we could leave them money. Yeah, that's the ticket! That ought to do it! After all we are humane, huh? Einstein seem to have something to say in that regard. How does it go now, let's see, "...it seems appallingly clear our technology has surpassed our humanity". Let's hope he was wrong. I doubt it though? He was a pretty sharp cookie. I think there is hope. I really do. But it will have to be a group effort.
I know its kinda ridiculous, but my plan is to rise in unlife (to make some drama) as a ghost and then use my wiseness and immortality (because surely people will want to kill me) of undying being to knock some sense into humanity. I will probally fail to return, but never hurts to try =)

But I do hope that in afterlife I get the chance to remain watching upon humanity, even if I cannot interact with it. I played the game, now I demand to watch the ending before leaving =)
 
Kat333
 
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 10:06 pm
@glasstrees,
I completely agree. I would add on by saying, if we did live forever, as a single consciousness, we would get not only bored, but frustrated. Especially if we didn't know quite what our meaning was. Perhaps one of the reasons that, if we assume this theory is correct, we made ourselves ignorant of what the beginning was, is because this is a vacation. We need a break from the knowledge that we are the only thing that is, and yet we have no purpose.
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 02:04 pm
@Kat333,
Kat333;80110 wrote:
I completely agree. I would add on by saying, if we did live forever, as a single consciousness, we would get not only bored, but frustrated. Especially if we didn't know quite what our meaning was. Perhaps one of the reasons that, if we assume this theory is correct, we made ourselves ignorant of what the beginning was, is because this is a vacation. We need a break from the knowledge that we are the only thing that is, and yet we have no purpose.
Im not sure if we could be "the only thing that exists". After all, if we can create ilusions that fool ourselves, that means other things exist, right? =)
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 02:20 pm
@glasstrees,
I don't think I would want to even experience my own consciousness if life carried on after this one on earth. Remember, that we all experience good highs, but generally in life, there are more extreme lows that we struggle through. Being plagued with the memories of this life guarantees that you would carry on those experiences that you wouldn't want to. Now, if the afterlife was a reset button, then it would be a total different story.

But on living for ever in this life would be torture. The body and mind starts to break down with age, and to descend into that process forever would be much like torture. I enjoy my life for what it is, and now that I have possibly found my "soulmate," I will just continue to enjoy this life as much as I can, and hope that I check out before body and mental health begin to totally disintegrate. It feels like I have been around forever, and I have only been here for 30 years. Another 30 seems like forever to do everything I want to do to enjoy the rest of my life. Why keep carrying on longer than your body and mind allows you to with a sense of normalcy.
 
Kat333
 
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 04:43 pm
@manored,
manored;80221 wrote:
Im not sure if we could be "the only thing that exists". After all, if we can create ilusions that fool ourselves, that means other things exist, right? =)


Maybe. I kind of think of it like a pyramid. Ultimately, we all are the same thing, but you're right; I doubt we're near the top.
 
Nate Nate
 
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 09:01 pm
@Imnotrussian,
I would mind taking a nap after death, as long as I could wake up again.

You know take a nice 200 yr nap and then play for eternity...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:32 am
@Nate Nate,
Nate Nate;80290 wrote:

I would mind taking a nap after death, as long as I could wake up again.

You know take a nice 200 yr nap and then play for eternity...


If you were dead, there would be no difference between a 200 year nap, or a 2 billion year nap.

Time only exists for the living.
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:18 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;80358 wrote:
If you were dead, there would be no difference between a 200 year nap, or a 2 billion year nap.

Time only exists for the living.
There would be a difference then you waked up. after 200 years you would see the future human civilization, after 2 billions humans (and everthing else living) would have either gonne extinct or evolved into something wildly different =)
 
alcaz0r
 
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 06:16 pm
@Neil D,
I would like to live indefinitely. Forever is a tall order, I don't think its even very likely that the universe, or time itself will last forever. I wouldn't worry about it getting boring either. Given that we'll never have an infinite capacity for memory, we would eventually fill up untill we were constantly forgetting things and discovering them anew.

Neil, that time only exists for the living is something I've been pondering lately.

Personally I believe that there is sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between the continued operation of our brains and our continued experience of perceptions. As nothing is ever present to the mind but a succession of perceptions... well you can guess where this is going.

Lately I've been thinking about death, and about how we are insensible of time while asleep or otherwise unconscious. When I carry my view to death, and imagine having my last thoughts as darkness and stillness overcome me, I consider that from my perspective there will be no time after that which leads me to a strange conclusion.

This makes me consider all the events that will happen after my death as being compressed into concurrency, resulting in the idea that my death will be concurrent with the end of the universe and time itself.

I find this comforting.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 06:18 pm
@glasstrees,
alcaz0r wrote:
I would like to live indefinitely.


You do live indefinitely. We all do. Or are you simply noting that you like that it's unclear when you're going to die?

Note: I'm using "indefinitely" here as a synonym for "uncertain", "unclear". That is, it's "uncertain" or "unclear" when any of us are going to die.
 
alcaz0r
 
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 06:23 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;83340 wrote:
You do live indefinitely. We all do. Or are you simply noting that you like that it's unclear when you're going to die?

Note: I'm using "indefinitely" here as a synonym for "uncertain", "unclear". That is, it's "uncertain" or "unclear" when any of us are going to die.


If we understood genetics, the interaction between our bodies and their environments, and the aging process sufficiently then we would know a definite limit to our lifespans. Just because we don't currently posess this knowledge, we can still safely assume such a definite limit exists, so when I say indefinitely, I mean without such a limit.

I don't think this is a contradiction, or misuse of the word indefinite, but I could be wrong. I'm not sure I want to think about it in that great of detail though. Smile
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 06:57 pm
@glasstrees,
alcaz0r wrote:
If we understood genetics, the interaction between our bodies and their environments, and the aging process sufficiently then we would know a definite limit to our lifespans.


I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. Despite further understanding of genetics and our bodies, we would not know the definite limit of our lifespans. Clearly there is a "chance" element involved, don't you think?

Quote:
Just because we don't currently posess this knowledge, we can still safely assume such a definite limit exists, so when I say indefinitely, I mean without such a limit.


You're correct, we can logically assume a definite limit exists. When I used "indefinitely", I wasn't trying to imply a definite limit does not exist, but that the definite limit is vague, unclear. It's very possible I wasn't using the word correctly, and I completely understand what you meant.
 
alcaz0r
 
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 07:39 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;83347 wrote:
I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. Despite further understanding of genetics and our bodies, we would not know the definite limit of our lifespans. Clearly there is a "chance" element involved, don't you think?


If we were possessed of such knowledge and decided to calculate a limit to our lifespan we would naturally assume ideal conditions so as to return the longest lifespan possible. We would, of course, actually die at some point before reaching this limit, but there would be no chance of us living longer.

Quote:
You're correct, we can logically assume a definite limit exists. When I used "indefinitely", I wasn't trying to imply a definite limit does not exist, but that the definite limit is vague, unclear. It's very possible I wasn't using the word correctly, and I completely understand what you meant.


Cool.
 
Serena phil
 
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 10:30 pm
@glasstrees,
Although it would be interesting to see how civilization grows, there are a number of reasons why death was meant to happen. The world would become excessively populated and the basic necessities would be depleted. The amelioration of medical science and technology seems to endorse the idea of immortality which is sort of getting ridiculous. The short amount of time we embrace should motivate us to be more contributing for the preparation of future generations. The life of the planet itself would perish before its children due to the greed of longevity.
 
The Jester phil
 
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 05:14 am
@glasstrees,
If we live forever: with passing ages our body gets older and older, I am not willing to behold what a walking/rotting man I would be for a thousand years; even with endless joy. That said, if I could, I'd for sure be drunk 24/7 because of boredom; now, because I'm going to die someday I'm getting drunk anyway - no just joking - (but the feeling is good.). But then if there's endless joy there is no boredom... hmmm, no anyway, I want to see how's death, dying: and no, I still am in no hurry for it.
 
Shinhyung
 
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:53 am
@glasstrees,
No, I'll be too bored. Like when I play on a game and after some time of being so passionate about hunting more monsters and getting up to higher levels and being rich, I suddenly get tired of that aim and feel it's all pointless. I can't be bothered to do it any more so I quit. But the thing with life is that I can't choose when I want to die, and I wish I could. I don't want to die feeling unsatisfied, feeling I need could do more. When I've done everything I feel I need to do and am happy with the life I'd lived, then I'll go and die.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 07:33:15