This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
With all the recent celebratory deaths in the last few days, it got me thinking about death in general and mortality in particular. Being a 62 year old male I'm allowed this luxury! I've no religious leanings so my own view is there is no afterlife and when consciousness is lost, and cannot be regained, one is truly dead. How do you see death???????
2
In reply to moac:
I consider us all to be part of Life. We are all like cells in an organism which is Life. The death of an individual is an interlude which is inevitable and devastating to those who know the individual, but Life itself goes on.
In the natural order of things we expect the old to die, but when it is a younger person it jars our sense of what we consider to be "normal" and a premature death shocks us.
As you say, it also reminds us of our own mortality, and is particularly poignant at this time of year when we have been conditioned by the society we live in to believe we should be feeling peaceful and happy, when in reality the so called "Festive Sean" is a time of stress and loneliness for many.
Death to the individual is a non event, it is those who love and are close to the deceased who suffer.
I consider us all to be part of Life. We are all like cells in an organism which is Life. The death of an individual is an interlude which is inevitable and devastating to those who know the individual, but Life itself goes on.
In the natural order of things we expect the old to die, but when it is a younger person it jars our sense of what we consider to be "normal" and a premature death shocks us.
As you say, it also reminds us of our own mortality, and is particularly poignant at this time of year when we have been conditioned by the society we live in to believe we should be feeling peaceful and happy, when in reality the so called "Festive Sean" is a time of stress and loneliness for many.
Death to the individual is a non event, it is those who love and are close to the deceased who suffer.
9
In reply to moac:
Too busy living to be bothered by it. I decided a long time ago that it wasn't for me.
Too busy living to be bothered by it. I decided a long time ago that it wasn't for me.
14
In reply to Trangia:
"Death to the individual is a non event, it is those who love and are close to the deceased who suffer."
Totally agree with this Trianga and the other points who make.
"Death to the individual is a non event, it is those who love and are close to the deceased who suffer."
Totally agree with this Trianga and the other points who make.
2
10
In reply to moac:
Life is energy, but so is death.
Nothing is created or destroyed, it simply changes form.
Life is energy, but so is death.
Nothing is created or destroyed, it simply changes form.
4
4
In reply to Trangia:
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. My own death would be, along with birth, one of the two most important life defining events in my own life no matter how it might effect others.
> Death to the individual is a non event, it is those who love and are close to the deceased who suffer.
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. My own death would be, along with birth, one of the two most important life defining events in my own life no matter how it might effect others.
1
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Mumbo Jumbo.
> Life is energy, but so is death.
> Nothing is created or destroyed, it simply changes form.
Mumbo Jumbo.
9
3
In reply to moac:
Life is a chronic, terminal, sexually transmitted disease.
Which soon passes.
We are part of the great cosmic chemical reaction and continue to be so after our sentience has expired.
Life is a chronic, terminal, sexually transmitted disease.
Which soon passes.
We are part of the great cosmic chemical reaction and continue to be so after our sentience has expired.
4
1
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Yes Mike you're right.
I believe we go back to the place we came from and the after life will be the same as the before life. For the part of us we call the self it is over and painless or rather nothingness. We were created by the atoms our parents consumed (and a bit more freaky, also by the atoms our maternal grandmother consumed). We return to the earth to start in a new form whilst life carries on and absorbs our energy through the biosphere that has supported us in life.
Personally, I'd like to be buried in one of those green graveyards with a cherry tree planted on top of me, so the fora and fauna can use me as I used it.
Whatever, it is a privilege to have been given the opportunity to be amongst the most intelligent forms of life and to have been given the knowledge to experience it fully.
As others say, it is those who are left behind that cry, not the dead.
Yes Mike you're right.
I believe we go back to the place we came from and the after life will be the same as the before life. For the part of us we call the self it is over and painless or rather nothingness. We were created by the atoms our parents consumed (and a bit more freaky, also by the atoms our maternal grandmother consumed). We return to the earth to start in a new form whilst life carries on and absorbs our energy through the biosphere that has supported us in life.
Personally, I'd like to be buried in one of those green graveyards with a cherry tree planted on top of me, so the fora and fauna can use me as I used it.
Whatever, it is a privilege to have been given the opportunity to be amongst the most intelligent forms of life and to have been given the knowledge to experience it fully.
As others say, it is those who are left behind that cry, not the dead.
5
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
Also complete Mumbo Jumbo. Only true in a totally superficial way which completely avoids the issue.
> We are part of the great cosmic chemical reaction and continue to be so after our sentience has expired.
Also complete Mumbo Jumbo. Only true in a totally superficial way which completely avoids the issue.
2
8
In reply to moac:
No one ever completely dies. Not if they have 'contributed' in some broad sense to life. That is, they have created something, or contributed something useful to society, or simply been a memorable personality. 'Good works' live in a sense for ever. That is how I see life; I have no interest or belief in any kind of supernatural afterlife, whatever.
No one ever completely dies. Not if they have 'contributed' in some broad sense to life. That is, they have created something, or contributed something useful to society, or simply been a memorable personality. 'Good works' live in a sense for ever. That is how I see life; I have no interest or belief in any kind of supernatural afterlife, whatever.
10
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Isn't there a theory we have two deaths? The first our actual death, the second when our name is uttered for the last time.
Isn't there a theory we have two deaths? The first our actual death, the second when our name is uttered for the last time.
7
In reply to Hugh J:
and also on UKC.
> Whatever, it is a privilege to have been given the opportunity to be amongst the most intelligent forms of life
and also on UKC.
12
In reply to Hugh J:
I haven't heard that before. There are those, too, who are forgotten and then rediscovered. That is happening to some extent with the biography I'm writing at the moment. It's a very strange and interesting feeling.
> Isn't there a theory we have two deaths? The first our actual death, the second when our name is uttered for the last time.
I haven't heard that before. There are those, too, who are forgotten and then rediscovered. That is happening to some extent with the biography I'm writing at the moment. It's a very strange and interesting feeling.
1
1
4
In reply to moac:
It's going to happen. I don't know when or how. In the mean time I am going to go about my life getting as much enjoyment as I can without offending (too many) others. When it gets me, I'm gone.
With my last dying breaths I am going to eat 6 packs of pop-corn kernels. The cremation is going to be epic!
It's going to happen. I don't know when or how. In the mean time I am going to go about my life getting as much enjoyment as I can without offending (too many) others. When it gets me, I'm gone.
With my last dying breaths I am going to eat 6 packs of pop-corn kernels. The cremation is going to be epic!
19
In reply to moac:
"Death smiles at us all, but all a man can do is smile back."
I never knew this was actually a real Marcus Aurelius quote.
"Death smiles at us all, but all a man can do is smile back."
I never knew this was actually a real Marcus Aurelius quote.
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
How can your own death be a defining event in your life when you are unaware of it, because with death consciousness and the ability to experience or feel goes? The dead cease to be aware, so cannot "know" they are dead. Death is simply the natural end of life.
> Sorry, but I can't agree with this. My own death would be, along with birth, one of the two most important life defining events in my own life no matter how it might effect others.
How can your own death be a defining event in your life when you are unaware of it, because with death consciousness and the ability to experience or feel goes? The dead cease to be aware, so cannot "know" they are dead. Death is simply the natural end of life.
4
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Oooo . . . just spotted my typo . . . or is it?
Have a cherry my friends!
> Personally, I'd like to be buried in one of those green graveyards with a cherry tree planted on top of me, so the fora and fauna can use me as I used it.
Oooo . . . just spotted my typo . . . or is it?
Have a cherry my friends!
3
In reply to moac:
I have absolutely no intention of dying. It's outrageous
> ....How do you see death???????
I have absolutely no intention of dying. It's outrageous
6
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You haven't read Terry Pratchett?
https://hubwardho.com/2016/03/12/going-home-in-the-code-remembering-terry-p...
You haven't read Terry Pratchett?
https://hubwardho.com/2016/03/12/going-home-in-the-code-remembering-terry-p...
Post edited at 09:58
1
In reply to moac:
Having been told just a few months ago out of the blue with no warning or indication that I had metastatic cancer that had spread all over and so there was no cure but just treatment to control, my view on death and therefore life changed dramatically. I have some – several – who knows – many – lots – few – years ahead.
Two questions no one can or wants to answer, how long and how will I die, but of course it’s the two things you want to know. So in the end you just ignore it and break the future down into short stages. You go from save / plan / work for the future to what will you leave and what to do now. Consolation is being part of a family and having children, that you carry on in them.
Death is dead, end, nothing, and I hate all the polite euphemisms as in passed away or left or no longer with us. Well of course they are not with you, you took Uncle Harry to the Crem and so unless there was a power failure what are you expecting?
I also don’t believe in bucket lists, although I suspect they provide far greater comfort to the people organising, since what do you do when you have completed them, or if too many do you create disappointment. It is far better using the time to work towards leaving something behind for the family, even if it is just tidying up the paperwork and your affairs (legal – other type and you are going to be busy).
Anyhow you cant dwell on it whether healthy or terminal. As with life just get on and live it. The fact that you thought you had decades and now just a ………… doesn’t really change that much.
Life is a bitch and then you die. Except it wasn’t it has been really good and it isn’t because I hope that I leave more behind than I have taken from life.
Don’t worry about death, worry about life its worth a lot more.
Having been told just a few months ago out of the blue with no warning or indication that I had metastatic cancer that had spread all over and so there was no cure but just treatment to control, my view on death and therefore life changed dramatically. I have some – several – who knows – many – lots – few – years ahead.
Two questions no one can or wants to answer, how long and how will I die, but of course it’s the two things you want to know. So in the end you just ignore it and break the future down into short stages. You go from save / plan / work for the future to what will you leave and what to do now. Consolation is being part of a family and having children, that you carry on in them.
Death is dead, end, nothing, and I hate all the polite euphemisms as in passed away or left or no longer with us. Well of course they are not with you, you took Uncle Harry to the Crem and so unless there was a power failure what are you expecting?
I also don’t believe in bucket lists, although I suspect they provide far greater comfort to the people organising, since what do you do when you have completed them, or if too many do you create disappointment. It is far better using the time to work towards leaving something behind for the family, even if it is just tidying up the paperwork and your affairs (legal – other type and you are going to be busy).
Anyhow you cant dwell on it whether healthy or terminal. As with life just get on and live it. The fact that you thought you had decades and now just a ………… doesn’t really change that much.
Life is a bitch and then you die. Except it wasn’t it has been really good and it isn’t because I hope that I leave more behind than I have taken from life.
Don’t worry about death, worry about life its worth a lot more.
54
7
In reply to moac:
As a good(?) Catholic boy, I naturally believe I'll go to heaven, probably with a minor stint in Purgatory for good measure. However, my Jewish wife points out that unless I'm one of the 12 tribes, then i should rein in my ambitions. A lot.
;-(
As a good(?) Catholic boy, I naturally believe I'll go to heaven, probably with a minor stint in Purgatory for good measure. However, my Jewish wife points out that unless I'm one of the 12 tribes, then i should rein in my ambitions. A lot.
;-(
2
In reply to m0unt41n:
I'll second what elsewhere says "wise words" and although you probably don't think so, awesome courage and an example to us all.
I'll second what elsewhere says "wise words" and although you probably don't think so, awesome courage and an example to us all.
7
In reply to Trangia:
Spot on, Trangia. And characteristic wisdom from Gordon, too, and others. Hugs to m0unt41n.
I had a hospital appointment this morning to check up on a symptom that might have been a major nasty, and I enjoyed reading the beginnings of this thread beforehand. And now I'm home enjoying that wonderful sense of privilege that comes when Death (think Pratchett), winks and walks away again, cos it's not cancer.
Every day is a gift.
Spot on, Trangia. And characteristic wisdom from Gordon, too, and others. Hugs to m0unt41n.
I had a hospital appointment this morning to check up on a symptom that might have been a major nasty, and I enjoyed reading the beginnings of this thread beforehand. And now I'm home enjoying that wonderful sense of privilege that comes when Death (think Pratchett), winks and walks away again, cos it's not cancer.
Every day is a gift.
11
In reply to moac:
There seems to be a lot of posters on this thread who are very much at peace with their own mortality, which got me thinking, why is that? Is it:
a) because it is a quite normal human state of mind?
b) because people who are at peace with their own mortality are comfortable talking about it?
c) because as we are climbers, many of us would have faced the very real prospect of death?
d) something else?
My personal guess would be that it is mainly b) with a bit a c) thrown in for people of this forum.
There seems to be a lot of posters on this thread who are very much at peace with their own mortality, which got me thinking, why is that? Is it:
a) because it is a quite normal human state of mind?
b) because people who are at peace with their own mortality are comfortable talking about it?
c) because as we are climbers, many of us would have faced the very real prospect of death?
d) something else?
My personal guess would be that it is mainly b) with a bit a c) thrown in for people of this forum.
3
In reply to Hugh J:
I go with a combination of a) b) and c).
When I was younger I did worry about it, then when I had cancer 5 years ago and had to undergo several general anaesthetics it made me think, "this is what dying must be like".
I don't know how many of you have experienced a general anaesthetic? But it's a total blank, much deeper than normal sleep. One minute you are in the preparation room thinking "Gosh it's cold in here...." The next thing you know (in reality 4 1/2 hours later) you realise that someone is calling your name and telling you to wake up. You are in the recovery room, but there is a small chunk of your life missing which you have been totally unaware of. Apart from the waking up bit I should imagine that's what dying is like, so nothing to be scared of.
I am completely at peace with the concept and the fact that i don't believe in an after life is no big deal.
I go with a combination of a) b) and c).
When I was younger I did worry about it, then when I had cancer 5 years ago and had to undergo several general anaesthetics it made me think, "this is what dying must be like".
I don't know how many of you have experienced a general anaesthetic? But it's a total blank, much deeper than normal sleep. One minute you are in the preparation room thinking "Gosh it's cold in here...." The next thing you know (in reality 4 1/2 hours later) you realise that someone is calling your name and telling you to wake up. You are in the recovery room, but there is a small chunk of your life missing which you have been totally unaware of. Apart from the waking up bit I should imagine that's what dying is like, so nothing to be scared of.
I am completely at peace with the concept and the fact that i don't believe in an after life is no big deal.
6
In reply to Robert Durran:
A thought is a thought, it does not have to align with your thoughts
The law of conservation of energy is not mumbo jumbo as you suggest.
Perhaps if you can prove that the universe is an open system, you may have grounds to have identified a flaw, but I somehow, I don’t think you were thinking along those lines.
Until we understand better, my beliefs or thoughts are as valid as yours or anyone elses.
A thought is a thought, it does not have to align with your thoughts
The law of conservation of energy is not mumbo jumbo as you suggest.
Perhaps if you can prove that the universe is an open system, you may have grounds to have identified a flaw, but I somehow, I don’t think you were thinking along those lines.
Until we understand better, my beliefs or thoughts are as valid as yours or anyone elses.
2
In reply to Trangia:
I woke up from general anaesthetic and the 2 nurses were speaking to each other in their own language. The most confusing few minutes of my life.
They were different people than the nurses when I went under.
I woke up from general anaesthetic and the 2 nurses were speaking to each other in their own language. The most confusing few minutes of my life.
They were different people than the nurses when I went under.
Post edited at 12:52
2
In reply to Hugh J:
I'm at peace with my own mortality because it won't be me that's upset about it. Less so the idea of other people dying.
I'm at peace with my own mortality because it won't be me that's upset about it. Less so the idea of other people dying.
3
In reply to moac:
We never die, in truth we're just a collection of atoms in a temporary form. These atoms have been many different things before they were us, and will be many things after us too.
We never die, in truth we're just a collection of atoms in a temporary form. These atoms have been many different things before they were us, and will be many things after us too.
5
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
True about the atoms, but a human is much more than a collection of atoms, in the temporary form they take for life they can walk, talk, and order Happy Meals [the latter 3 attributes are lost after death].
> We never die, in truth we're just a collection of atoms in a temporary form. These atoms have been many different things before they were us, and will be many things after us too.
True about the atoms, but a human is much more than a collection of atoms, in the temporary form they take for life they can walk, talk, and order Happy Meals [the latter 3 attributes are lost after death].
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
Amazing to think that there is a signifcant part of us, the heavier elements, that were made in the billion degree heat of supernovae.
Amazing to think that there is a signifcant part of us, the heavier elements, that were made in the billion degree heat of supernovae.
4
In reply to moac:
I worry about the manner in which I die rather than the death itself. I have this vision of passing peacefully away on a late spring day while lying under a tree looking out over a beautiful mountain vista after having said goodbye to those I love and having just taken myself away.
My greatest fear is that I die in a hospice, with no idea who I am or who anyone else is, having been there for several years dribbling and pissing myself.
I'm also curious about a painful death and how I will cope with it.
I worry about the manner in which I die rather than the death itself. I have this vision of passing peacefully away on a late spring day while lying under a tree looking out over a beautiful mountain vista after having said goodbye to those I love and having just taken myself away.
My greatest fear is that I die in a hospice, with no idea who I am or who anyone else is, having been there for several years dribbling and pissing myself.
I'm also curious about a painful death and how I will cope with it.
7
In reply to moac:
It's a bit difficult after being introduced to the idea of 4 dimensional space-time accompanied by the idea that the difference between the segments of it that we call "the past" and "the future" are not visible to us now only because of our viewpoint but are there nevertheless. Surely that means that existence and survival become meaningless except from a restricted viewpoint called "the present"
It's a bit difficult after being introduced to the idea of 4 dimensional space-time accompanied by the idea that the difference between the segments of it that we call "the past" and "the future" are not visible to us now only because of our viewpoint but are there nevertheless. Surely that means that existence and survival become meaningless except from a restricted viewpoint called "the present"
1
1
In reply to moac:
Pretty weird innit. Odder in some ways than birth. Fully functional agency > lifeless body. WTF? I mean beyond the actual biochemistry of it which I completely accept. And actually a critical care nurse so I've experienced the process more times than I can remember.
My own father died at the beginning of the year so the celebrity death bonanza has kind of registered with me but not, I expected to be bowled over by the death of Bowie, Prince of Cohen as they all have featured heavily in my teenage artistic education. Couldn't listen to the last Bowie album until a couple of months ago due to the subject matter.
I'm just not sure to be honest. After a near lifetime of non belief in afterlife, spiritual beings etc I'll be frank and say I've actually got no idea at all.
I'm very happy to be experiencing this incredible mystery though, and s the queen said the other day,let's be a bit nicer to each other kids.
Wish everyone on UKC a fun and mysterious new year.
D
Pretty weird innit. Odder in some ways than birth. Fully functional agency > lifeless body. WTF? I mean beyond the actual biochemistry of it which I completely accept. And actually a critical care nurse so I've experienced the process more times than I can remember.
My own father died at the beginning of the year so the celebrity death bonanza has kind of registered with me but not, I expected to be bowled over by the death of Bowie, Prince of Cohen as they all have featured heavily in my teenage artistic education. Couldn't listen to the last Bowie album until a couple of months ago due to the subject matter.
I'm just not sure to be honest. After a near lifetime of non belief in afterlife, spiritual beings etc I'll be frank and say I've actually got no idea at all.
I'm very happy to be experiencing this incredible mystery though, and s the queen said the other day,let's be a bit nicer to each other kids.
Wish everyone on UKC a fun and mysterious new year.
D
6
In reply to Removed User:
The realisation that it is unlikely to end in fluffy clouds and a heavenly choir and also the loss of a future are the tough things to come to terms with. But ultimately you realise that you have to ignore it and the lack of future and live in the present.
But really that is true for everyone it's just that for some of us we can't completely ignore it.
I think I am more concerned about the process of dying and maybe the lack of dignity than being dead. Whereas my family's concern is my being dead as in not here anymore.
I certainly would not want to know my date of dying or the result of a DNA analysis that predicted life expectancy.
The realisation that it is unlikely to end in fluffy clouds and a heavenly choir and also the loss of a future are the tough things to come to terms with. But ultimately you realise that you have to ignore it and the lack of future and live in the present.
But really that is true for everyone it's just that for some of us we can't completely ignore it.
I think I am more concerned about the process of dying and maybe the lack of dignity than being dead. Whereas my family's concern is my being dead as in not here anymore.
I certainly would not want to know my date of dying or the result of a DNA analysis that predicted life expectancy.
1
In reply to moac:
Death is an enevitable process. All our lives lead up to it and when it happens it still continues through those we know and those who know us. Eventually all we have left are names and after time they too vanish.
What i find interesting is what if all your thoughts and memories were uploaded to the cloud and lived there as an avatar of you? Would it BE you in one sense? After all you are not the same child your were at school or the same person you were in your twenties. We change all the time. So if a computer AI was given your thoughts and memories and likes and dislikes. If it evolved to take on new likes and dislikes, formed new memories and changed the way it thought. Would this be any different to how we all grow up and change?
Just a random idea
Death is an enevitable process. All our lives lead up to it and when it happens it still continues through those we know and those who know us. Eventually all we have left are names and after time they too vanish.
What i find interesting is what if all your thoughts and memories were uploaded to the cloud and lived there as an avatar of you? Would it BE you in one sense? After all you are not the same child your were at school or the same person you were in your twenties. We change all the time. So if a computer AI was given your thoughts and memories and likes and dislikes. If it evolved to take on new likes and dislikes, formed new memories and changed the way it thought. Would this be any different to how we all grow up and change?
Just a random idea
1
In reply to moac:
i'm not sure even how i see life, which is a far more interesting question for me.
> How do you see death???????
i'm not sure even how i see life, which is a far more interesting question for me.
2
In reply to moac:
I think about death quite a bit, and here's a few random musings: wasn't it Marcus Aurelius who thought that we should all contemplate our death each day so that we can finally meet it with equanimity - a 'good death.' An idea that my father, who led an exemplary life in many other ways, might have benefitted from. (My mother, on the other hand, decided when it was time to go and then simply refused to eat to accomplish this; because she had regained control of her life she was as happy in her last few weeks as she had been for years. I was annoyed at the doctor who put cause of death as dementia, because it wasn't.)
I think Mark Twain, one of the great atheists, made an almost irrefutable point, something along the lines that he had not existed for billions of years before he was born, and it had caused him not the least discomfort whatsoever; and he fully expected his non-existence after his death to be exactly the same.
I think about death quite a bit, and here's a few random musings: wasn't it Marcus Aurelius who thought that we should all contemplate our death each day so that we can finally meet it with equanimity - a 'good death.' An idea that my father, who led an exemplary life in many other ways, might have benefitted from. (My mother, on the other hand, decided when it was time to go and then simply refused to eat to accomplish this; because she had regained control of her life she was as happy in her last few weeks as she had been for years. I was annoyed at the doctor who put cause of death as dementia, because it wasn't.)
I think Mark Twain, one of the great atheists, made an almost irrefutable point, something along the lines that he had not existed for billions of years before he was born, and it had caused him not the least discomfort whatsoever; and he fully expected his non-existence after his death to be exactly the same.
4
In reply to Wsdconst:
Absolute nonsense. This is to deny that there is anything different about living things and non living things. And if you deny that, both life and death are meaningless terms.
> We never die, in truth we're just a collection of atoms in a temporary form. These atoms have been many different things before they were us, and will be many things after us too.
Absolute nonsense. This is to deny that there is anything different about living things and non living things. And if you deny that, both life and death are meaningless terms.
5
3
1
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Not if it's trite bollocks.
Of course not, but few things annoy me more than people trying to make bollocks sound respectable by mindlessly spouting plausible sounding scientific stuff in a meaningless way.
Not on this matter, because you have ignored the difference between being alive and being dead, and if you do that you cannot have anything interesting to say about life and death.
> A thought is a thought, it does not have to align with your thoughts.
Not if it's trite bollocks.
> The law of conservation of energy is not mumbo jumbo as you suggest.
Of course not, but few things annoy me more than people trying to make bollocks sound respectable by mindlessly spouting plausible sounding scientific stuff in a meaningless way.
> Until we understand better, my beliefs or thoughts are as valid as yours or anyone elses.
Not on this matter, because you have ignored the difference between being alive and being dead, and if you do that you cannot have anything interesting to say about life and death.
3
1
In reply to Trangia:
I am aware of the fact or inevitability of my own death right now and shall be, possibly right up to the moment of my death. The way I live my life is probably considerably influenced by the fact of my death.
> How can your own death be a defining event in your life when you are unaware of it.
I am aware of the fact or inevitability of my own death right now and shall be, possibly right up to the moment of my death. The way I live my life is probably considerably influenced by the fact of my death.
Post edited at 18:49
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
In the grand scheme of things, they are. We are just an approximate average 80 years long coalescence of atoms given animation and thought through different forms of energy. 80 years out of 13.7 billion as a fraction is 1/170,000,000 of the existence of this universe. The scales are immense and thinking our life or death is of any great significance is like saying there is a creator of this universe which is, as far as we can tell, 93 billion light years across, who would pay special attention to a species of primates on a small planet, orbiting our insignificant star, which is one of 100,000,000,000 stars in our insignificant galaxy, which is one of 100,000,000,000 galaxies, that we know about.
That's not to say we shouldn't make the most of this incredible gift we've been given and find a meaning for ourselves.
> Absolute nonsense. This is to deny that there is anything different about living things and non living things. And if you deny that, both life and death are meaningless terms.
In the grand scheme of things, they are. We are just an approximate average 80 years long coalescence of atoms given animation and thought through different forms of energy. 80 years out of 13.7 billion as a fraction is 1/170,000,000 of the existence of this universe. The scales are immense and thinking our life or death is of any great significance is like saying there is a creator of this universe which is, as far as we can tell, 93 billion light years across, who would pay special attention to a species of primates on a small planet, orbiting our insignificant star, which is one of 100,000,000,000 stars in our insignificant galaxy, which is one of 100,000,000,000 galaxies, that we know about.
That's not to say we shouldn't make the most of this incredible gift we've been given and find a meaning for ourselves.
Post edited at 19:18
12
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Doesn't sound like you've got much to offer life. As for death, well perhaps that's a different matter?
> Not on this matter, because you have ignored the difference between being alive and being dead, and if you do that you cannot have anything interesting to say about life and death.
Doesn't sound like you've got much to offer life. As for death, well perhaps that's a different matter?
2
5
In reply to Hugh J:
Dead right. [Just realized that's vaguely funny, ha-ha what a comic I am]
On the topic of death, what did Socrates say about it? Wasn't it something like "if we just disappear with no trace that's fine with me, and if we live on and go somewhere else that's fine too dude"?
Signed, Abseil
Great Philosophy Expert
PS The weather this week will be the death of me.
PPS I've got a chest infection this week and feel like death.
> In the grand scheme of things.....
Dead right. [Just realized that's vaguely funny, ha-ha what a comic I am]
On the topic of death, what did Socrates say about it? Wasn't it something like "if we just disappear with no trace that's fine with me, and if we live on and go somewhere else that's fine too dude"?
Signed, Abseil
Great Philosophy Expert
PS The weather this week will be the death of me.
PPS I've got a chest infection this week and feel like death.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
It is not like saying that at all. The fact that life and in particular consciousness exists in the universe is extremely significant, even if my own partiular life is insignificant in the cosmic scheme of things. But my own life is obviously extremely significant to me personally.
> The scales are immense and thinking our life or death is of any great significance is like saying there is a creator of this universe.
It is not like saying that at all. The fact that life and in particular consciousness exists in the universe is extremely significant, even if my own partiular life is insignificant in the cosmic scheme of things. But my own life is obviously extremely significant to me personally.
Post edited at 19:22
4
2
In reply to Hugh J:
Why on earth do you think that is the case from anything I've said here? All I have done is point out that those who seem to be saying that life is just an arrangement of atoms of no more significance or interest than, say their arrangement in a lump of rock, are missing a pretty important distinction; if anyone has little to offer life, I would have thought it would be those who don't see anything special about it.
> Doesn't sound like you've got much to offer life.
Why on earth do you think that is the case from anything I've said here? All I have done is point out that those who seem to be saying that life is just an arrangement of atoms of no more significance or interest than, say their arrangement in a lump of rock, are missing a pretty important distinction; if anyone has little to offer life, I would have thought it would be those who don't see anything special about it.
5
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Because all you've done here is criticise others perceptions and offered nothing. Perhaps it would be better to be a bit more humane about the human condition?
> Why on earth do you think that is the case from anything I've said here?
Because all you've done here is criticise others perceptions and offered nothing. Perhaps it would be better to be a bit more humane about the human condition?
6
8
In reply to Hugh J:
I think you're a bit careless with the use of the word 'significance'. Of course, all life (and intelligent life) in the universe is hugely significant in a way that inert lifeless matter is not. I think life is about the most 'significant' thing in the universe, isn't it? I think you are very aware of this because you then contradict yourself by calling it an 'incredible gift'. i.e. it's what you say, both a surprising, unnecessary 'gift', and truly 'incredible'. It's then very easy for us to give meaning to it by living fulfilling lives, creating things and unravelling the mysteries of science etc. etc.
> In the grand scheme of things, they are. We are just an approximate average 80 years long coalescence of atoms given animation and thought through different forms of energy. 80 years out of 13.7 billion as a fraction is 1/170,000,000 of the existence of this universe. The scales are immense and thinking our life or death is of any great significance is like saying there is a creator of this universe which is, as far as we can tell, 93 billion light years across, who would pay special attention to a species of primates on a small planet, orbiting our insignificant star, which is one of 100,000,000,000 stars in our insignificant galaxy, which is one of 100,000,000,000 galaxies, that we know about.
> That's not to say we shouldn't make the most of this incredible gift we've been given and find a meaning for ourselves.
I think you're a bit careless with the use of the word 'significance'. Of course, all life (and intelligent life) in the universe is hugely significant in a way that inert lifeless matter is not. I think life is about the most 'significant' thing in the universe, isn't it? I think you are very aware of this because you then contradict yourself by calling it an 'incredible gift'. i.e. it's what you say, both a surprising, unnecessary 'gift', and truly 'incredible'. It's then very easy for us to give meaning to it by living fulfilling lives, creating things and unravelling the mysteries of science etc. etc.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I have offered something by pointing out that that they are talking trite nonsense and I have made it quite clear why this is the case. It's called debate.
I would have thought that I am being rather more positive about life than those who see nothing of significance in it (the just another temporary arrangement of atoms brigade).
> Because all you've done here is criticise others perceptions and offered nothing.
I have offered something by pointing out that that they are talking trite nonsense and I have made it quite clear why this is the case. It's called debate.
> Perhaps it would be better to be a bit more humane about the human condition.
I would have thought that I am being rather more positive about life than those who see nothing of significance in it (the just another temporary arrangement of atoms brigade).
6
2
In reply to moac:
I imagine death to be very similar to how I remember life before I came into existence.
I imagine death to be very similar to how I remember life before I came into existence.
5
In reply to moac:
Unable as I am to explain how a bunch of matter can be conscious and self aware, I know that I don't have a hope of understanding what happens at death.
So it's better to think about something I can understand and change. It's good to know that lots of people are working on the big picture stuff from many different angles though.
Unable as I am to explain how a bunch of matter can be conscious and self aware, I know that I don't have a hope of understanding what happens at death.
So it's better to think about something I can understand and change. It's good to know that lots of people are working on the big picture stuff from many different angles though.
1
In reply to wintertree:
Surely it's really pretty easy to understand how something as fantastically and wondrously complex as a human being stops working - it's just almost beyond belief that it can come about and keep working for a while at all!
> Unable as I am to explain how a bunch of matter can be conscious and self aware, I know that I don't have a hope of understanding what happens at death.
Surely it's really pretty easy to understand how something as fantastically and wondrously complex as a human being stops working - it's just almost beyond belief that it can come about and keep working for a while at all!
2
In reply to Hugh J:
Well I have certainly offered more than the anonymous "dislikers" who can't even be arsed to say what or why they "dislike" (that's not you, obviously!)
> Because all you've done here is criticise others perceptions and offered nothing.
Well I have certainly offered more than the anonymous "dislikers" who can't even be arsed to say what or why they "dislike" (that's not you, obviously!)
2
In reply to Hugh J:
I think it's because most here have shrugged off the silliness of religious belief, and are not looking forward to jam tomorrow, but are looking forward to that deep and dreamless sleep.
> There seems to be a lot of posters on this thread who are very much at peace with their own mortality, which got me thinking, why is that? Is it:
> d) something else?
I think it's because most here have shrugged off the silliness of religious belief, and are not looking forward to jam tomorrow, but are looking forward to that deep and dreamless sleep.
In reply to moac:
I think it was Mel Brooks, in one of his films, said the line, "today would be a good day to die"
I often repeated it in jest, when doing something amazing, from a hard won summit, to many other sublime experiences.
Over the years, as I get very old, I now say it in all seriousness. I want to be supremely happy when I die.
I think it was Mel Brooks, in one of his films, said the line, "today would be a good day to die"
I often repeated it in jest, when doing something amazing, from a hard won summit, to many other sublime experiences.
Over the years, as I get very old, I now say it in all seriousness. I want to be supremely happy when I die.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
How can it be nonsense ? It is fact. You can take comfort in death any way you choose, this is my way of dealing with it.
> Absolute nonsense. This is to deny that there is anything different about living things and non living things. And if you deny that, both life and death are meaningless terms.
How can it be nonsense ? It is fact. You can take comfort in death any way you choose, this is my way of dealing with it.
In reply to abseil:
But what were they before ? Parts of other living things, maybe dinosaurs, in fact most probably dinosaurs. How cool is it knowing your part dinosaur ? I know there's more to humans than just what we're made from but I like the fact we're never truly gone, just recycled.
> True about the atoms, but a human is much more than a collection of atoms, in the temporary form they take for life they can walk, talk, and order Happy Meals [the latter 3 attributes are lost after death].
But what were they before ? Parts of other living things, maybe dinosaurs, in fact most probably dinosaurs. How cool is it knowing your part dinosaur ? I know there's more to humans than just what we're made from but I like the fact we're never truly gone, just recycled.
In reply to Hugh J:
I've always thought the truth about how we came to be is absolutely amazing. The first spark of life being nothing more than a small chemical reaction under the sea.
> Amazing to think that there is a signifcant part of us, the heavier elements, that were made in the billion degree heat of supernovae.
I've always thought the truth about how we came to be is absolutely amazing. The first spark of life being nothing more than a small chemical reaction under the sea.
In reply to moac:
So far at 36, it's sad when it happens to the people I love, and to the young (children and teenagers), and I hope I get to do much of what I'd like to before it happens to me.
My Mum's only real regrets seemed to be not being able to stay around for her family, and not seeing the sites of Australia, which isn't too bad for somebody aged 66.
I think I see death as a permanent end of consciousness and leaving people behind.
Seize the day.
So far at 36, it's sad when it happens to the people I love, and to the young (children and teenagers), and I hope I get to do much of what I'd like to before it happens to me.
My Mum's only real regrets seemed to be not being able to stay around for her family, and not seeing the sites of Australia, which isn't too bad for somebody aged 66.
I think I see death as a permanent end of consciousness and leaving people behind.
Seize the day.
Post edited at 23:34
4
In reply to moac:
My father died when I was 16 and since then I've had a very different relationship with death than most people my age. I know how suddenly it can come, he died within 5 days of getting the word that it was going to happen.
I'm much more about not being held back by ifs and buts than most people I know because of it. No use planning what I will do for retirement when I might never make it there (sure save money etc, but don't postpone plans because you don't have time). I pretty much just assume I won't make it there.
I also appreciate my loved ones much more because of it. Even my cats I make sure to really enjoy every second I spend with them.
I guess a movie quote sums it up best for me: "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back"
My father died when I was 16 and since then I've had a very different relationship with death than most people my age. I know how suddenly it can come, he died within 5 days of getting the word that it was going to happen.
I'm much more about not being held back by ifs and buts than most people I know because of it. No use planning what I will do for retirement when I might never make it there (sure save money etc, but don't postpone plans because you don't have time). I pretty much just assume I won't make it there.
I also appreciate my loved ones much more because of it. Even my cats I make sure to really enjoy every second I spend with them.
I guess a movie quote sums it up best for me: "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back"
3
2
In reply to moac:
haven't read other comments, might be depressing, but at knocking on the door of 50 I think shit, best get on it, lots of peaks in my wish list, think at the current rate i need to live to 150, and by the time i reach that age I'll have to extent it to 250 as there's always another mountain. here's to waking up in the morning!
haven't read other comments, might be depressing, but at knocking on the door of 50 I think shit, best get on it, lots of peaks in my wish list, think at the current rate i need to live to 150, and by the time i reach that age I'll have to extent it to 250 as there's always another mountain. here's to waking up in the morning!
1
In reply to moac:
We walk silken threads caught in the light above the darkness. All too soon we will slip back into the darkness and no longer be. In the meantime we should dance in the improbable light of being.
We walk silken threads caught in the light above the darkness. All too soon we will slip back into the darkness and no longer be. In the meantime we should dance in the improbable light of being.
Post edited at 00:39
2
In reply to Hugh J:
F*ck Hugh thats heavy! True I guess but very dark too.
> Isn't there a theory we have two deaths? The first our actual death, the second when our name is uttered for the last time.
F*ck Hugh thats heavy! True I guess but very dark too.
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Maybe it depends on how one looks at it - if we're not around it doesn't matter?
> F*ck Hugh thats heavy! True I guess but very dark too.
Maybe it depends on how one looks at it - if we're not around it doesn't matter?
Post edited at 03:02
1
In reply to moac:
On Death
Kahlil Gibran
You would know the secret of death.
But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life?
The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light.
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.
In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond;
And like seeds dreaming beneath the snow your heart dreams of spring.
Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity.
Your fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour.
Is the shepherd not joyful beneath his trembling, that he shall wear the mark of the king?
Yet is he not more mindful of his trembling?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?
And what is it to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing.
And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb.
And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance.
On Death
Kahlil Gibran
You would know the secret of death.
But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life?
The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light.
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.
In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond;
And like seeds dreaming beneath the snow your heart dreams of spring.
Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity.
Your fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour.
Is the shepherd not joyful beneath his trembling, that he shall wear the mark of the king?
Yet is he not more mindful of his trembling?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?
And what is it to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing.
And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb.
And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance.
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
Yes, you are just a temporary arrangement of atoms, but not just any old arrangement. Life requires a very special arrangement; there is a clear distinction between life and non-life.
Well yes you can, but taking the simplistic view that there is no distinction between life and death seems to me as self deluding as a religious view of eternal life which others get comfort from. It is denying that there is anything special, worthwhile or wondrous about being alive and conscious for a short while - and this seems to me a sadly negative view of one's existence.
> How can it be nonsense ? It is fact.
Yes, you are just a temporary arrangement of atoms, but not just any old arrangement. Life requires a very special arrangement; there is a clear distinction between life and non-life.
> You can take comfort in death any way you choose, this is my way of dealing with it.
Well yes you can, but taking the simplistic view that there is no distinction between life and death seems to me as self deluding as a religious view of eternal life which others get comfort from. It is denying that there is anything special, worthwhile or wondrous about being alive and conscious for a short while - and this seems to me a sadly negative view of one's existence.
3
In reply to moac:
Isn't climbing, at its heart, about cheating death? No other animal, as far as I know, engages itself in activities which are simply for the thrill of sometimes facing its own death. To me, a fascinating notion.
As for our human role. Isn't the universe or nature trying to perfect itself by evolving into higher life forms?
In the last few thousand years it has coughed up our species, which can look at the cosmic immensity of the universe and poke into the atomic structure of nature. We are now on the verge of being able to alter ourselves through DNA manipulation. Perhaps we evolved so that it can begin to answer its own questions and suddenly, very recently, we might be able to provide answers and some solutions. But so far, no answers to the big questions.
Thanks universe/nature for making me, to be here for a while. I'm sorry, in a way, I have to leave so soon.
I think of death most days, but I'm not at all sad or fearful about my own. I shall take care not to fall off though - that's important.
Thank you climbers for fantastic posts, and cheating death.
Isn't climbing, at its heart, about cheating death? No other animal, as far as I know, engages itself in activities which are simply for the thrill of sometimes facing its own death. To me, a fascinating notion.
As for our human role. Isn't the universe or nature trying to perfect itself by evolving into higher life forms?
In the last few thousand years it has coughed up our species, which can look at the cosmic immensity of the universe and poke into the atomic structure of nature. We are now on the verge of being able to alter ourselves through DNA manipulation. Perhaps we evolved so that it can begin to answer its own questions and suddenly, very recently, we might be able to provide answers and some solutions. But so far, no answers to the big questions.
Thanks universe/nature for making me, to be here for a while. I'm sorry, in a way, I have to leave so soon.
I think of death most days, but I'm not at all sad or fearful about my own. I shall take care not to fall off though - that's important.
Thank you climbers for fantastic posts, and cheating death.
Post edited at 08:17
2
In reply to loose overhang:
Absolutely not. For more people I think it's about rising to a challenge and overcoming difficulties in the process, some of which may involve mitigating danger.
I don't believe the universe or nature has any intention whatsoever for humans or for anything else, despite it probably being a comforting concept for some.
> Isn't climbing, at its heart, about cheating death?
Absolutely not. For more people I think it's about rising to a challenge and overcoming difficulties in the process, some of which may involve mitigating danger.
> As for our human role. Isn't the universe or nature trying to perfect itself by evolving into higher life forms?
I don't believe the universe or nature has any intention whatsoever for humans or for anything else, despite it probably being a comforting concept for some.
2
In reply to Wsdconst:
Thanks for your reply, and absolutely yes, it's amazing. (My point was that we're a very special arrangement of atoms, as someone says further down the thread).
Right folks, time to LIVE, I'm going to put the kettle on and watch TV.
> But what were they before ? Parts of other living things, maybe dinosaurs, in fact most probably dinosaurs. How cool is it knowing your part dinosaur ? I know there's more to humans than just what we're made from but I like the fact we're never truly gone, just recycled.
Thanks for your reply, and absolutely yes, it's amazing. (My point was that we're a very special arrangement of atoms, as someone says further down the thread).
Right folks, time to LIVE, I'm going to put the kettle on and watch TV.
1
3
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think it would be quite interesting to hear what you understand defines 'life'. It seems quite a tricky concept.
I think it would be quite interesting to hear what you understand defines 'life'. It seems quite a tricky concept.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Unfortunately I'm meant to be writing a 'life' at the moment (i.e. a biography) and am being v lazy. So no, I don't want to get into such a huge topic now. Two books I thought were outstanding on the subject where Schrodinger's What is Life? and Robert Rosen's Life Itself. Particularly the latter.
> I think it would be quite interesting to hear what you understand defines 'life'. It seems quite a tricky concept.
Unfortunately I'm meant to be writing a 'life' at the moment (i.e. a biography) and am being v lazy. So no, I don't want to get into such a huge topic now. Two books I thought were outstanding on the subject where Schrodinger's What is Life? and Robert Rosen's Life Itself. Particularly the latter.
Post edited at 15:54
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It is tricky to define the exact boundary between life and death, but it is certain that I am very much alive at this moment and equally certain that, when I am a small heap of ashes, I shall be very much dead.
> I think it would be quite interesting to hear what you understand defines 'life'. It seems quite a tricky concept.
It is tricky to define the exact boundary between life and death, but it is certain that I am very much alive at this moment and equally certain that, when I am a small heap of ashes, I shall be very much dead.
In reply to moac:
We are having to redefine life due to the places we are finding it. It's now thought life exists on one of the moons of Saturn and the next mission has that in its objectives.
We are having to redefine life due to the places we are finding it. It's now thought life exists on one of the moons of Saturn and the next mission has that in its objectives.
Post edited at 19:19
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Literally, I would say life is defined as being an organism of one cell or more. Being alive is the capability of the organism to perform the necessary functions to sustain itself and being dead is when these functions stop.
As for the more esoteric definition as to what defines life, well . . . . .? I guess there have been many people who have had a guess at that, some will have made a better job than others, but I don't think anyone has known for sure and perhaps no one ever will? Perhaps it is actually better or even necessary for it to be that way?
Or maybe it's a purely personal thing?
> I think it would be quite interesting to hear what you understand defines 'life'. It seems quite a tricky concept.
Literally, I would say life is defined as being an organism of one cell or more. Being alive is the capability of the organism to perform the necessary functions to sustain itself and being dead is when these functions stop.
As for the more esoteric definition as to what defines life, well . . . . .? I guess there have been many people who have had a guess at that, some will have made a better job than others, but I don't think anyone has known for sure and perhaps no one ever will? Perhaps it is actually better or even necessary for it to be that way?
Or maybe it's a purely personal thing?
Post edited at 19:42
In reply to Lion Bakes:
A truly interesting aspect of finding extra-terrestial life is will it have the same DNA structure as life on Earth?
> We are having to redefine life due to the places we are finding it. It's now thought life exists on one of the moons of Saturn and the next mission has that in its objectives.
A truly interesting aspect of finding extra-terrestial life is will it have the same DNA structure as life on Earth?
In reply to Robert Durran:
But my thoughts are there isn't really such a thing as death, life just changes its form from time to time.
> Yes, you are just a temporary arrangement of atoms, but not just any old arrangement. Life requires a very special arrangement; there is a clear distinction between life and non-life.
> Well yes you can, but taking the simplistic view that there is no distinction between life and death seems to me as self deluding as a religious view of eternal life which others get comfort from. It is denying that there is anything special, worthwhile or wondrous about being alive and conscious for a short while - and this seems to me a sadly negative view of one's existence.
But my thoughts are there isn't really such a thing as death, life just changes its form from time to time.
In reply to Wsdconst:
But my effing laptop died and it had a life of its own so I just don't know
> But my thoughts are there isn't really such a thing as death, life just changes its form from time to time.
But my effing laptop died and it had a life of its own so I just don't know
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
But, as I have already explained, that is bollocks (from any rational, evidenced based point of view). But I suppose you are free to believe it if you prefer to remain blinkered to the wondrousness of reality as it actually is.
> But my thoughts are there isn't really such a thing as death, life just changes its form from time to time.
But, as I have already explained, that is bollocks (from any rational, evidenced based point of view). But I suppose you are free to believe it if you prefer to remain blinkered to the wondrousness of reality as it actually is.
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Thought that it does exist or thought that it could possibly exist?
> It's now thought life exists on one of the moons of Saturn.
Thought that it does exist or thought that it could possibly exist?
In reply to abseil:
Put some legs on it and call it a coffee table.
> But my effing laptop died and it had a life of its own so I just don't know
Put some legs on it and call it a coffee table.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm not sure that they are Robert. It's a bit esoteric to define life as just atoms and energy, but then again what else is it? It think there maybe some cross-purposes here as to the definition of the word "life", which I kinda cover (badly) in my post at 19:37
> But I suppose you are free to believe it if you prefer to remain blinkered to the wondrousness of reality as it actually is.
I'm not sure that they are Robert. It's a bit esoteric to define life as just atoms and energy, but then again what else is it? It think there maybe some cross-purposes here as to the definition of the word "life", which I kinda cover (badly) in my post at 19:37
In reply to Robert Durran:
It'll be possibly. I think the moon in question (can't remember which one - Europa?) is covered in ice but there's water underneath that is kept warm by the gravitation effects of Saturn i.e. the moon's core is molten.
Didn't the Alien come from one of Saturn's moon?
> Thought that it does exist or thought that it could possibly exist?
It'll be possibly. I think the moon in question (can't remember which one - Europa?) is covered in ice but there's water underneath that is kept warm by the gravitation effects of Saturn i.e. the moon's core is molten.
Didn't the Alien come from one of Saturn's moon?
Post edited at 20:07
In reply to Hugh J:
Not esoteric, just plain wrong. Otherwise every inanimate thing we know of would be defined as living.
> It's a bit esoteric to define life as just atoms and energy.
Not esoteric, just plain wrong. Otherwise every inanimate thing we know of would be defined as living.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Ah, but maybe every atom in the universe or the universe itself is alive? Just throwing it out there.
It's life Jim, but not as we know it.
Ah, but maybe every atom in the universe or the universe itself is alive? Just throwing it out there.
It's life Jim, but not as we know it.
Post edited at 20:09
In reply to Wsdconst:
I'm a little more with Robert here, but perhaps not as assertive.
I think maybe what you could be saying is that as every atom was created in the Big Bang*** and some have eventually formed to become life on Earth, then perhaps every atom has the potential to become part of a living being at some time during the next however many billion years. So the question is; Does the potential for life mean that there is life present? Robert's argument is that it does not.
***Of course we firstly have to accept the Big Bang theory as been true.
I'm a little more with Robert here, but perhaps not as assertive.
I think maybe what you could be saying is that as every atom was created in the Big Bang*** and some have eventually formed to become life on Earth, then perhaps every atom has the potential to become part of a living being at some time during the next however many billion years. So the question is; Does the potential for life mean that there is life present? Robert's argument is that it does not.
***Of course we firstly have to accept the Big Bang theory as been true.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Thought that it does exist
> Thought that it does exist or thought that it could possibly exist?
Thought that it does exist
In reply to Robert Durran:
Odd, , I thought that living things were made from cells and cells comprise of atoms.
> It's a bit esoteric to define life as just atoms and energy.
> Not esoteric, just plain wrong. Otherwise every inanimate thing we know of would be defined as living.
Odd, , I thought that living things were made from cells and cells comprise of atoms.
In reply to Hugh J:
Were you stoned?
> Oooo . . . just spotted my typo . . . or is it?
> Have a cherry my friends!
Were you stoned?
In reply to Lion Bakes:
I thought it was Europa, but of course that's a moon of Jupiter. Is it Enceladus?
I thought it was Europa, but of course that's a moon of Jupiter. Is it Enceladus?
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Now that's giving me idea as to what I should be buried under!
> Were you stoned?
Now that's giving me idea as to what I should be buried under!
In reply to Hugh J:
I think that's the one, I'd have to refind the article that was talking about the history of Saturn , what they've found with each visit, what they now believe and what the next missions objectives are likely to be.
> I thought it was Europa, but of course that's a moon of Jupiter. Is it Enceladus?
I think that's the one, I'd have to refind the article that was talking about the history of Saturn , what they've found with each visit, what they now believe and what the next missions objectives are likely to be.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Yes, but it is utterly wrong to conclude that everything made of atoms is alive.
> Odd, , I thought that living things were made from cells and cells comprise of atoms.
Yes, but it is utterly wrong to conclude that everything made of atoms is alive.
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Yeah I thinks it's Enceladus. This looks good.
http://www.space.com/33835-saturn-moon-enceladus-alien-life-search.html
Yeah I thinks it's Enceladus. This looks good.
http://www.space.com/33835-saturn-moon-enceladus-alien-life-search.html
In reply to Hugh J:
Just googled it and it seems Enceladus is seen as the best possibility for life beyond earth in the Solar System.
> I thought it was Europa, but of course that's a moon of Jupiter. Is it Enceladus?
Just googled it and it seems Enceladus is seen as the best possibility for life beyond earth in the Solar System.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Maybe you have assumed that was people were thinking, but as far as I can tell no one has seriously suggested it, apart from a recent comment from Hugh J, which I think was a joke.
> Yes, but it is utterly wrong to conclude that everything made of atoms is alive.
Maybe you have assumed that was people were thinking, but as far as I can tell no one has seriously suggested it, apart from a recent comment from Hugh J, which I think was a joke.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I was thinking about that recently, for some strange reason.
It is hard, except for the fact we feel it to be true, to show that we are experiencing stuff now as opposed to events that happened, say, a million years ago due to some inbuilt but currently unknown delay inherent in the process of consciousness. Is there any experiment that can prove that our experience of living is, relatively speaking, in the present?
A bit off topic i suppose, as this is more a question about the nature of life.
I was thinking about that recently, for some strange reason.
It is hard, except for the fact we feel it to be true, to show that we are experiencing stuff now as opposed to events that happened, say, a million years ago due to some inbuilt but currently unknown delay inherent in the process of consciousness. Is there any experiment that can prove that our experience of living is, relatively speaking, in the present?
A bit off topic i suppose, as this is more a question about the nature of life.
Post edited at 22:07
In reply to moac:
As has been touched on in this thread - we are an arrangement of atoms, specifically an arrangement of neurons and nerves, a special self-reinforcing pattern. Every few years every single one of those individual atoms has been pissed or crapped down a drain - and yet you remain. This repeats many times, so clearly you are the pattern; not the atoms/neurons. What if we could copy this pattern - even just partially, to other atoms/neurons - would that be us? Well as we found before, as long as it's the pattern - which atoms/neurons its made out of doesn't matter, so it would be us. Well that's just what happens when you get to know someone - you slowly incorporate their pattern into yours. Your childhood friends, your parents, animals, your heroes - they are all knitted into your pattern. And if you're special to someone - then they will have your pattern too. If your pattern is particularly bright - it will be re-knitted, and re-knitted - many many times, and it will never truly 'die', as long as there exist people who know those with your pattern.
As has been touched on in this thread - we are an arrangement of atoms, specifically an arrangement of neurons and nerves, a special self-reinforcing pattern. Every few years every single one of those individual atoms has been pissed or crapped down a drain - and yet you remain. This repeats many times, so clearly you are the pattern; not the atoms/neurons. What if we could copy this pattern - even just partially, to other atoms/neurons - would that be us? Well as we found before, as long as it's the pattern - which atoms/neurons its made out of doesn't matter, so it would be us. Well that's just what happens when you get to know someone - you slowly incorporate their pattern into yours. Your childhood friends, your parents, animals, your heroes - they are all knitted into your pattern. And if you're special to someone - then they will have your pattern too. If your pattern is particularly bright - it will be re-knitted, and re-knitted - many many times, and it will never truly 'die', as long as there exist people who know those with your pattern.
3
In reply to wercat:
Putting the silliness of the idea to one side, what difference would it make? If there was some fantastical inbuilt delay of millions of years how would it make my life different?
Putting the silliness of the idea to one side, what difference would it make? If there was some fantastical inbuilt delay of millions of years how would it make my life different?
In reply to SenzuBean:
I like your thinking about what constitutes the self SenzuBean, which I suppose is the true essense of our personal lives. Maybe those atoms that are "crapped down the toilet", which could and in all likelihood will form a part of another sentient being at some stage, could be thought of as a part of life on some sort of cosmic level, but in this 'unattached' state I think it's a bit more than far fetched to think they're actually alive, which I don't think anyone is doing seriously. As with what I think you are saying, it is the patterns of ourselves that constitute personal life and also how they cross-over each other in the process of experiencing other lifeforms.
I like your thinking about what constitutes the self SenzuBean, which I suppose is the true essense of our personal lives. Maybe those atoms that are "crapped down the toilet", which could and in all likelihood will form a part of another sentient being at some stage, could be thought of as a part of life on some sort of cosmic level, but in this 'unattached' state I think it's a bit more than far fetched to think they're actually alive, which I don't think anyone is doing seriously. As with what I think you are saying, it is the patterns of ourselves that constitute personal life and also how they cross-over each other in the process of experiencing other lifeforms.
In reply to wercat:
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I don't think it is silly or that off topic. As others have said, thoughts of life are just as, if not more important than thoughts of death.
There is something that I don't remember being mentioned on this thread before and has some relevance to what Wercat and yourself (and indeed others) are saying. Whether it constitutes some aspect of consciousness is still extremely debatable, but as an aspect of life it is indeniable and a record of our past. There is a part of us that has been around since the first life sprang into existence all those millions of years ago and that is the gene. Perhaps life is just about the continuation of this small part of our DNA? If, as some speculate, life travelled to Earth on a comet for example, then life maybe older than the Earth and nearly as old as the universe. Perhaps it is as Wsdconst said earlier? ". . . . there isn't really such a thing as death, life just changes its form from time to time." Or to be more precise, it changes at every reproduction.
Then there's the theory of the multiverse, but I haven't really got my head around that yet and perhaps never will, so I'm not going there!
But none of this really answers questions about our personal experience of life.
> I was thinking about that recently, for some strange reason.
> It is hard, except for the fact we feel it to be true, to show that we are experiencing stuff now as opposed to events that happened, say, a million years ago due to some inbuilt but currently unknown delay inherent in the process of consciousness. Is there any experiment that can prove that our experience of living is, relatively speaking, in the present?
> A bit off topic i suppose, as this is more a question about the nature of life.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> Putting the silliness of the idea to one side, what difference would it make? If there was some fantastical inbuilt delay of millions of years how would it make my life different?
I don't think it is silly or that off topic. As others have said, thoughts of life are just as, if not more important than thoughts of death.
There is something that I don't remember being mentioned on this thread before and has some relevance to what Wercat and yourself (and indeed others) are saying. Whether it constitutes some aspect of consciousness is still extremely debatable, but as an aspect of life it is indeniable and a record of our past. There is a part of us that has been around since the first life sprang into existence all those millions of years ago and that is the gene. Perhaps life is just about the continuation of this small part of our DNA? If, as some speculate, life travelled to Earth on a comet for example, then life maybe older than the Earth and nearly as old as the universe. Perhaps it is as Wsdconst said earlier? ". . . . there isn't really such a thing as death, life just changes its form from time to time." Or to be more precise, it changes at every reproduction.
Then there's the theory of the multiverse, but I haven't really got my head around that yet and perhaps never will, so I'm not going there!
But none of this really answers questions about our personal experience of life.
Post edited at 01:33
In reply to SenzuBean:
Yes, I really like that! Very much my experience, of the living and the dead.
Yes, I really like that! Very much my experience, of the living and the dead.
In reply to SenzuBean:
It's been a while since I've come across such a charming way of thinking about something so fundamental, so thank you for that.
Strikes me that this is a mathematical perspective rather than that of a physical scientist.
Also reminds me of something else: If you were to replace the head of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on a different broom. And then replace the handle of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on the same other broom. Which one would then be Trigger's broom?
It's been a while since I've come across such a charming way of thinking about something so fundamental, so thank you for that.
Strikes me that this is a mathematical perspective rather than that of a physical scientist.
Also reminds me of something else: If you were to replace the head of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on a different broom. And then replace the handle of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on the same other broom. Which one would then be Trigger's broom?
In reply to john arran:
Charming, maybe, but it doesn't get round the fact that we're all gonna die!
> It's been a while since I've come across such a charming way of thinking about something so fundamental, so thank you for that.
Charming, maybe, but it doesn't get round the fact that we're all gonna die!
1
In reply to john arran:
Before there was Trigger's Broom, there was the Ship of Theseus. (See also George Washington's/Abe Lincoln's/my granddad's axe, Jeannot's Knife and John Locke's socks!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Here's another thought experiment for you:
Captain Kirk is transporting down to the planet. The transporter works by simultaneously annihilating the subject at one end, converting their matter into energy, and reassembling them at the other end.
Scotty pushes the button, lights flash and Kirk, still standing there, says "Scotty, nothing happened."
Scotty tells him: "Don't worry Captain. It's just a little delay at this end - you've already arrived safely down on the planet and if you just wait on the pad you'll be annihilated here in a few seconds. I'll fix the fault after you've gone, it'll be right as rain by the time you're ready to transport back up again."
Down on the planet, Captain Kirk has arrived. Clearly remembers stepping on the pad, lights flashed and then he was on the ground, just the same as the previous hundred times he's used the transporter. Is he the real Captain Kirk, or is it the guy still on the ship waiting patiently to cease to exist?
> Also reminds me of something else: If you were to replace the head of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on a different broom. And then replace the handle of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on the same other broom. Which one would then be Trigger's broom?
Before there was Trigger's Broom, there was the Ship of Theseus. (See also George Washington's/Abe Lincoln's/my granddad's axe, Jeannot's Knife and John Locke's socks!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Here's another thought experiment for you:
Captain Kirk is transporting down to the planet. The transporter works by simultaneously annihilating the subject at one end, converting their matter into energy, and reassembling them at the other end.
Scotty pushes the button, lights flash and Kirk, still standing there, says "Scotty, nothing happened."
Scotty tells him: "Don't worry Captain. It's just a little delay at this end - you've already arrived safely down on the planet and if you just wait on the pad you'll be annihilated here in a few seconds. I'll fix the fault after you've gone, it'll be right as rain by the time you're ready to transport back up again."
Down on the planet, Captain Kirk has arrived. Clearly remembers stepping on the pad, lights flashed and then he was on the ground, just the same as the previous hundred times he's used the transporter. Is he the real Captain Kirk, or is it the guy still on the ship waiting patiently to cease to exist?
In reply to john arran:
This is one of the oldest conundrums in the world, going back to Plutarch's 'Ship of Theseus'. More or less solved (a) by applying Aristotle's four 'causes' to the problem (i.e. the Formal cause, its design, and the Final cause, its function, remain the same, even though its Matter does not, so that it remains 'essentially' the 'same ship'); and (b) because the matter changes slowly and continuously through time, and one whole new ship is never swapped with another.
The logical answer to the 'Trigger's Broom' problem, I think, is that function of the broom is provided primarily by the 'broom' part and not by the handle, and because the broom part carries on being used without a significant break, the overall, modified broom continues as Trigger's broom. As another v famous modern philosopher (Wittgenstein) said, 'the meaning is in the use'.
Edit PS. I see that while I was writing my bit above about the Ship of Theseus so were you. Great minds etc.
> It's been a while since I've come across such a charming way of thinking about something so fundamental, so thank you for that.
> Strikes me that this is a mathematical perspective rather than that of a physical scientist.
> Also reminds me of something else: If you were to replace the head of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on a different broom. And then replace the handle of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on the same other broom. Which one would then be Trigger's broom?
This is one of the oldest conundrums in the world, going back to Plutarch's 'Ship of Theseus'. More or less solved (a) by applying Aristotle's four 'causes' to the problem (i.e. the Formal cause, its design, and the Final cause, its function, remain the same, even though its Matter does not, so that it remains 'essentially' the 'same ship'); and (b) because the matter changes slowly and continuously through time, and one whole new ship is never swapped with another.
The logical answer to the 'Trigger's Broom' problem, I think, is that function of the broom is provided primarily by the 'broom' part and not by the handle, and because the broom part carries on being used without a significant break, the overall, modified broom continues as Trigger's broom. As another v famous modern philosopher (Wittgenstein) said, 'the meaning is in the use'.
Edit PS. I see that while I was writing my bit above about the Ship of Theseus so were you. Great minds etc.
Post edited at 09:23
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
All good stuff. The novel part for me is the application to humans and therefore to a way of defining or viewing life itself, as eloquently expressed by SenzuBean. When applied to ships and brooms it's easy to dismiss quickly as being simply a definition problem rather than the very essence of life and identity as we know it!
All good stuff. The novel part for me is the application to humans and therefore to a way of defining or viewing life itself, as eloquently expressed by SenzuBean. When applied to ships and brooms it's easy to dismiss quickly as being simply a definition problem rather than the very essence of life and identity as we know it!
In reply to Sir Chasm:
well silly perhaps, but physics tells us that the present we see is a mixture of things that are at different points in time. We never see everything in true sumultaneity, from the "microscopic" delay of perceiving events close by to only knowing the Sun as it was some minutes ago and planets and stars at a greater historical distance.
(DAB has reduced simultaneity even more - we now have the BBC time signals displaced in time in excess of the normal transmission time by an amount depending on the particular design of the receiver we are using)
This whole thread isn't actually going to make a difference to much so why ask? We were asked to give thoughts aout Death and I simply stated that I had contemplated that my life might have taken place millennia ago for all I relly know.
I Think I am thinking therefore I think I am?
well silly perhaps, but physics tells us that the present we see is a mixture of things that are at different points in time. We never see everything in true sumultaneity, from the "microscopic" delay of perceiving events close by to only knowing the Sun as it was some minutes ago and planets and stars at a greater historical distance.
(DAB has reduced simultaneity even more - we now have the BBC time signals displaced in time in excess of the normal transmission time by an amount depending on the particular design of the receiver we are using)
This whole thread isn't actually going to make a difference to much so why ask? We were asked to give thoughts aout Death and I simply stated that I had contemplated that my life might have taken place millennia ago for all I relly know.
I Think I am thinking therefore I think I am?
Post edited at 10:19
In reply to deepsoup:
I think it's always been plain that if a destruction takes place then the transporter produces a copy. If, however, the process involves a simultaneous displacement of all that is Kirk then he is the same Kirk.
I think it's always been plain that if a destruction takes place then the transporter produces a copy. If, however, the process involves a simultaneous displacement of all that is Kirk then he is the same Kirk.
In reply to john arran:
Yes, SenzuBean's comments amount to a wonderful re-expression of Aristotle, who similarly was interested in 'the life' - he said somewhere that a life should be regarded as a whole, i.e. a whole life as it evolves through time, and not as a something that can be fully assessed at an instant.
Yes, SenzuBean's comments amount to a wonderful re-expression of Aristotle, who similarly was interested in 'the life' - he said somewhere that a life should be regarded as a whole, i.e. a whole life as it evolves through time, and not as a something that can be fully assessed at an instant.
In reply to Hugh J:
In particular I think it is the pattern that is "self-aware" through feeling the fact of existence rather than intellectual capabilities that make the unique self. I hope we never come close to making circuits that can feel emotion as a self
In particular I think it is the pattern that is "self-aware" through feeling the fact of existence rather than intellectual capabilities that make the unique self. I hope we never come close to making circuits that can feel emotion as a self
In reply to wercat:
One of the big snags with the AI model/s is that even if the machine could experience 'emotions' of sorts, they could not be the same as human emotions. How could they have sexual feelings, for example? They might have an equivalent, but they would be turned on by such things as the glint of metal, and the particular sound of a cooling fan etc. Ditto with fantasies. And if human sexual fantasies were replicated exactly they would be useless because the sexual act would be so different, so their fantasies could never be realised. An artificial human being would have to be replicated in every aspect, something which seems not only physically impossible, but I think it's logically impossible too (that's a much more difficult argument ) ... I must get to work now ...
> In particular I think it is the pattern that is "self-aware" through feeling the fact of existence rather than intellectual capabilities that make the unique self. I hope we never come close to making circuits that can feel emotion as a self
One of the big snags with the AI model/s is that even if the machine could experience 'emotions' of sorts, they could not be the same as human emotions. How could they have sexual feelings, for example? They might have an equivalent, but they would be turned on by such things as the glint of metal, and the particular sound of a cooling fan etc. Ditto with fantasies. And if human sexual fantasies were replicated exactly they would be useless because the sexual act would be so different, so their fantasies could never be realised. An artificial human being would have to be replicated in every aspect, something which seems not only physically impossible, but I think it's logically impossible too (that's a much more difficult argument ) ... I must get to work now ...
In reply to SenzuBean:
Whilst your overall response is inspirational and well articulated, life is broadly about cells not atoms and a neuron is a type of cell.
Not all cells replicate, some only die when damaged or you die, meaning the collection of atoms that make up the cell remain relatively intact throughout and miss out the toilet stage.
Viruses may be an anomaly and sperm which appear to act like life, are more like one of those than a cell because they have to find a cell to inhabit!
But I agree with your conclusion, we are part of the repeating pattern that we call life.
> Every few years every single one of those individual atoms has been pissed or crapped down a drain - and yet you remain. This repeats many times, so clearly you are the pattern; not the atoms/neurons
Whilst your overall response is inspirational and well articulated, life is broadly about cells not atoms and a neuron is a type of cell.
Not all cells replicate, some only die when damaged or you die, meaning the collection of atoms that make up the cell remain relatively intact throughout and miss out the toilet stage.
Viruses may be an anomaly and sperm which appear to act like life, are more like one of those than a cell because they have to find a cell to inhabit!
But I agree with your conclusion, we are part of the repeating pattern that we call life.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Neurons as I understand it do repair (not replace) themselves (I don't understand the extent or how at all though!), which would mean that over time many or most of the original atoms do disappear, maybe.
> Not all cells replicate, some only die when damaged or you die, meaning the collection of atoms that make up the cell remain relatively intact throughout and miss out the toilet stage.
Neurons as I understand it do repair (not replace) themselves (I don't understand the extent or how at all though!), which would mean that over time many or most of the original atoms do disappear, maybe.
In reply to john arran:
A lot of the key themes did come from maths books - Douglas Hofstadters probably being the main inspiration. But he never really spelled out that accepting these ideas leads to a conclusion that we don't really die so 'neatly'. (the last paragraph, when considered also works with this idea).
Imagine entering a "teletransporter," a machine that puts you to sleep, then destroys you, breaking you down into atoms, copying the information and relaying it to Mars at the speed of light. On Mars, another machine re-creates you (from local stores of carbon, hydrogen, and so on), each atom in exactly the same relative position. Is the person on Mars the same person as the person who entered the teletransporter on Earth? Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning.
Okay think about that for a moment (maybe read it a few times), get that clear in your head before reading the rest.
Then the teleporter is upgraded. The teletransporter on Earth is modified to not destroy the person who enters it, but instead it can simply make a replica at a time, all of whom would claim to remember entering the teletransporter on Earth in the first place. Is the you who wakes up on Mars - you? Is this somehow a different scenario to the first case or not?
Our language is ambiguous (which is great, because it allows puns, double meanings, impreciseness, paradoxes) - which I think means it's not suited to meaningfully answering such a binary question so easily. The intuitive notion of identity (what is what) breaks down at extremes.
> It's been a while since I've come across such a charming way of thinking about something so fundamental, so thank you for that.
> Strikes me that this is a mathematical perspective rather than that of a physical scientist.
A lot of the key themes did come from maths books - Douglas Hofstadters probably being the main inspiration. But he never really spelled out that accepting these ideas leads to a conclusion that we don't really die so 'neatly'. (the last paragraph, when considered also works with this idea).
> Also reminds me of something else: If you were to replace the head of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on a different broom. And then replace the handle of Trigger's broom and reuse the old one on the same other broom. Which one would then be Trigger's broom?
Imagine entering a "teletransporter," a machine that puts you to sleep, then destroys you, breaking you down into atoms, copying the information and relaying it to Mars at the speed of light. On Mars, another machine re-creates you (from local stores of carbon, hydrogen, and so on), each atom in exactly the same relative position. Is the person on Mars the same person as the person who entered the teletransporter on Earth? Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning.
Okay think about that for a moment (maybe read it a few times), get that clear in your head before reading the rest.
Then the teleporter is upgraded. The teletransporter on Earth is modified to not destroy the person who enters it, but instead it can simply make a replica at a time, all of whom would claim to remember entering the teletransporter on Earth in the first place. Is the you who wakes up on Mars - you? Is this somehow a different scenario to the first case or not?
Our language is ambiguous (which is great, because it allows puns, double meanings, impreciseness, paradoxes) - which I think means it's not suited to meaningfully answering such a binary question so easily. The intuitive notion of identity (what is what) breaks down at extremes.
In reply to SenzuBean:
Don't wrinkles have something to do with losing cells?
> which would mean that over time many or most of the original atoms do disappear, maybe.
Don't wrinkles have something to do with losing cells?
In reply to SenzuBean:
Of course, reducing everything to binary questions is another trap anyway Language is probably rather uniquely suited for describing the full ambiguity and richness of 'the world' (in present terms = the human world plus cosmos).
> Our language is ambiguous (which is great, because it allows puns, double meanings, impreciseness, paradoxes) - which I think means it's not suited to meaningfully answering such a binary question so easily. The intuitive notion of identity (what is what) breaks down at extremes.
Of course, reducing everything to binary questions is another trap anyway Language is probably rather uniquely suited for describing the full ambiguity and richness of 'the world' (in present terms = the human world plus cosmos).
In reply to SenzuBean:
In my simple mind, this would be purely copy of yourself and as we perceive life through the workings of our brains, the new brain would not be made from same atoms that made up our original brain when entering the transporter, therefore it can not be our original brain, which is elsewhere. Furthermore, our new brain would experience a totally different life to our original brain, as would our original brain be experiencing a different life. As both brain's would not be able to experience the lives of each other it suggest to me they are not the same person. Or are they? Oh my poor brain!
It's a pity Dr Dolittle and Dolly the Sheep aren't around anymore, perhaps they could have had a conversation?
> Then the teleporter is upgraded. The teletransporter on Earth is modified to not destroy the person who enters it, but instead it can simply make a replica at a time, all of whom would claim to remember entering the teletransporter on Earth in the first place. Is the you who wakes up on Mars - you? Is this somehow a different scenario to the first case or not?
In my simple mind, this would be purely copy of yourself and as we perceive life through the workings of our brains, the new brain would not be made from same atoms that made up our original brain when entering the transporter, therefore it can not be our original brain, which is elsewhere. Furthermore, our new brain would experience a totally different life to our original brain, as would our original brain be experiencing a different life. As both brain's would not be able to experience the lives of each other it suggest to me they are not the same person. Or are they? Oh my poor brain!
It's a pity Dr Dolittle and Dolly the Sheep aren't around anymore, perhaps they could have had a conversation?
Post edited at 12:12
In reply to SenzuBean:
I'm particularly curious about the idea that the combination of things you consist of is what constitutes you. Of course that means that you could theoretically be replicated, as in your example, and I think it would be precious to object to the idea of not being completely unique, but from the moment of replication onwards the two would begin to diverge and uniqueness would emerge again, so any loss of uniqueness would only ever be momentary.
More fundamentally, pursuing the 'pattern as identity' idea, could we get to a point where a person may be fully described (theoretically, of course) by a combinatorial code itself and without reference to physical building blocks such as atoms or cells?
I'm particularly curious about the idea that the combination of things you consist of is what constitutes you. Of course that means that you could theoretically be replicated, as in your example, and I think it would be precious to object to the idea of not being completely unique, but from the moment of replication onwards the two would begin to diverge and uniqueness would emerge again, so any loss of uniqueness would only ever be momentary.
More fundamentally, pursuing the 'pattern as identity' idea, could we get to a point where a person may be fully described (theoretically, of course) by a combinatorial code itself and without reference to physical building blocks such as atoms or cells?
In reply to moac:
Death doesn't bother me that much and that's having seen it close up, though I'd prefer not to be there when it happens (Woody Allen?), but the trajectory towards it does. In your 40s you've got ages left but mid-50s, how many more good summers of mountain biking anything reasonably challenging have I realistically got? How many more years of proper surfing (not counting longboards/stand up paddle)? Surely getting into single figures? And that's avoiding injury/significant illness.
We all have to live in a bit of denial or we'd not get out of bed in the morning. I can type the above para and know it must be true, but still can't easily imagine old age and feeling infirm (nor want to).
Hey ho, back to atoms, energy and quantum bollocks.
Death doesn't bother me that much and that's having seen it close up, though I'd prefer not to be there when it happens (Woody Allen?), but the trajectory towards it does. In your 40s you've got ages left but mid-50s, how many more good summers of mountain biking anything reasonably challenging have I realistically got? How many more years of proper surfing (not counting longboards/stand up paddle)? Surely getting into single figures? And that's avoiding injury/significant illness.
We all have to live in a bit of denial or we'd not get out of bed in the morning. I can type the above para and know it must be true, but still can't easily imagine old age and feeling infirm (nor want to).
Hey ho, back to atoms, energy and quantum bollocks.
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
The problem is when you imagine this "Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning.", that's all it is, imaginary. You can ask whether you're the same person after transportation, but because you're not discussing a real situation any meaningful answers also aren't real.
The problem is when you imagine this "Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning.", that's all it is, imaginary. You can ask whether you're the same person after transportation, but because you're not discussing a real situation any meaningful answers also aren't real.
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
"Hey ho, back to atoms, energy and quantum bollocks."
There is also the theory of the multiverse to consider. Apperently with an infinite number of universes, there will be many exact replicas of yourself living a different life. This is either complete bollocks or will prove we have no experience of another self.
"Hey ho, back to atoms, energy and quantum bollocks."
There is also the theory of the multiverse to consider. Apperently with an infinite number of universes, there will be many exact replicas of yourself living a different life. This is either complete bollocks or will prove we have no experience of another self.
In reply to SenzuBean:
The point I was making is that we do not recycle 100% every few years as you originally stated, I have no idea of the proportions, there are gazillions of atoms in a cell. I think some cells, in the retina or spine for example, that do not repair at all. Maybe one day we can repair them though.
> Neurons as I understand it do repair (not replace) themselves (I don't understand the extent or how at all though!), which would mean that over time many or most of the original atoms do disappear, maybe.
The point I was making is that we do not recycle 100% every few years as you originally stated, I have no idea of the proportions, there are gazillions of atoms in a cell. I think some cells, in the retina or spine for example, that do not repair at all. Maybe one day we can repair them though.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
""Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning."
This is the bit that isn't quite right, not the fact it's all just hypothetical as that is our context.
"Something on Mars" would feel like you, "Something on Mars" would remember entering the teletransporter. You wouldn't remember anything after annihilation. I'm not sure language need be ambiguous. That's why I used the term "displacement" as an alternative scenario where the "You" would be fine.
""Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning."
This is the bit that isn't quite right, not the fact it's all just hypothetical as that is our context.
"Something on Mars" would feel like you, "Something on Mars" would remember entering the teletransporter. You wouldn't remember anything after annihilation. I'm not sure language need be ambiguous. That's why I used the term "displacement" as an alternative scenario where the "You" would be fine.
In reply to wercat:
But by that logic - if you had a hypothetical operation, say sent into cryogenic hibernation - and your leg removed and re-attached (or any number of operations to detach and re-attach body parts), (essentially an analogue of the first part, where your body temporarily dies and some deconstruction and reconstruction occurs) - then you cannot ever awake - it would be someone else. We usually consider the idea of being cryogenically frozen to be a form of sleep, rather than a form of death and new life - so that should feel a bit strange, have you made a new person with what you've done? Have you kept the same one? What if they weren't frozen, but were merely heavily anaesthetized and on life-support (and various body parts are removed and re-attached)?
If you then say it's the same person because the atoms are preserved - then what happens if a person is awake, and an army of nanobots swaps out every single one of their atoms over a day, the whole time the person is awake smiling and laughing, oblivious to any changes? Is that the same person?
Depending on some of those choices, it would also mean that if your heart stops, and you are revived in hospital - then it's someone else who awakes - because the original one 'died' (the original stream of consciousness, ended). We usually don't consider that to be the case - we say the original person was revived.
You can usually define some convoluted rule that 'prevents' these from being issues (it will often step onto it's own toes though), but eventually the rule becomes so convoluted and twisted that you realize that there can't be a rule in the first place.
> ""Certainly, when waking up on Mars, you would feel like being you, you would remember entering the teletransporter in order to travel to Mars, you would even feel the cut on your upper lip from shaving this morning."
> This is the bit that isn't quite right, not the fact it's all just hypothetical as that is our context.
> "Something on Mars" would feel like you, "Something on Mars" would remember entering the teletransporter. You wouldn't remember anything after annihilation. I'm not sure language need be ambiguous. That's why I used the term "displacement" as an alternative scenario where the "You" would be fine.
But by that logic - if you had a hypothetical operation, say sent into cryogenic hibernation - and your leg removed and re-attached (or any number of operations to detach and re-attach body parts), (essentially an analogue of the first part, where your body temporarily dies and some deconstruction and reconstruction occurs) - then you cannot ever awake - it would be someone else. We usually consider the idea of being cryogenically frozen to be a form of sleep, rather than a form of death and new life - so that should feel a bit strange, have you made a new person with what you've done? Have you kept the same one? What if they weren't frozen, but were merely heavily anaesthetized and on life-support (and various body parts are removed and re-attached)?
If you then say it's the same person because the atoms are preserved - then what happens if a person is awake, and an army of nanobots swaps out every single one of their atoms over a day, the whole time the person is awake smiling and laughing, oblivious to any changes? Is that the same person?
Depending on some of those choices, it would also mean that if your heart stops, and you are revived in hospital - then it's someone else who awakes - because the original one 'died' (the original stream of consciousness, ended). We usually don't consider that to be the case - we say the original person was revived.
You can usually define some convoluted rule that 'prevents' these from being issues (it will often step onto it's own toes though), but eventually the rule becomes so convoluted and twisted that you realize that there can't be a rule in the first place.
In reply to SenzuBean:
If the concept of 'I' is independent of the physical building blocks currently or at any other time used in its composition, could it be that 'I' am more accurately described as a formula rather than a physical entity?
If the concept of 'I' is independent of the physical building blocks currently or at any other time used in its composition, could it be that 'I' am more accurately described as a formula rather than a physical entity?
In reply to john arran:
There would be no loss of uniqueness. The new version of a duplicated person can never be an instant process, however advanced. It would take time and energy, both versions would start to diverge immediately.
This happens continuously through life, we are never the same person twice even if the process appears very slow and seamless.
If elements of I begin to fail and you lost 100% of your memory but your emotions and senses still worked, would you still feel like I?
For example, if you know someone who has developed a brain disorder, they will look like the same person, but they will not act like the person you knew. They may not even recognise their own family. Has the sense of I changed for them?
To me, the difference is it that change has happened faster than otherwise would have been the case.
In other words, you could say that your past is a continuous stream of dead versions of I, the only version of I is the current one, which in turn is a version held together by memories, emotions, senses, intellect, physical body, etc.
> so any loss of uniqueness would only ever be momentary.
There would be no loss of uniqueness. The new version of a duplicated person can never be an instant process, however advanced. It would take time and energy, both versions would start to diverge immediately.
This happens continuously through life, we are never the same person twice even if the process appears very slow and seamless.
If elements of I begin to fail and you lost 100% of your memory but your emotions and senses still worked, would you still feel like I?
For example, if you know someone who has developed a brain disorder, they will look like the same person, but they will not act like the person you knew. They may not even recognise their own family. Has the sense of I changed for them?
To me, the difference is it that change has happened faster than otherwise would have been the case.
In other words, you could say that your past is a continuous stream of dead versions of I, the only version of I is the current one, which in turn is a version held together by memories, emotions, senses, intellect, physical body, etc.
In reply to SenzuBean:
I think I follow your point, having contemplated in the past whether synthetic components could be grafted in over a long time so the essential processes are never interrupted so as to preserve the whole.
It would probably have to be more than just the brain though, as we sense our existence through a whole range of sensual experiences most of which will evoke some sort of emotive response if they are strong enough to move our self-cursor from its balance point.
I think I follow your point, having contemplated in the past whether synthetic components could be grafted in over a long time so the essential processes are never interrupted so as to preserve the whole.
It would probably have to be more than just the brain though, as we sense our existence through a whole range of sensual experiences most of which will evoke some sort of emotive response if they are strong enough to move our self-cursor from its balance point.
In reply to john arran:
My personal opinion is yes. The concept of self-reference seems to be the central to the idea, and the concept of a 'strange loop' has arisen from that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
> If the concept of 'I' is independent of the physical building blocks currently or at any other time used in its composition, could it be that 'I' am more accurately described as a formula rather than a physical entity?
My personal opinion is yes. The concept of self-reference seems to be the central to the idea, and the concept of a 'strange loop' has arisen from that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
In reply to moac:
There's a relatively recent theory that consciousness arises out of the quantum states of the brain. If so this precludes transporters working due to the uncertainty principle and a few other elements of quantum theory. You would never recreate that consciousness and without that there would be no sense of I.
There's a relatively recent theory that consciousness arises out of the quantum states of the brain. If so this precludes transporters working due to the uncertainty principle and a few other elements of quantum theory. You would never recreate that consciousness and without that there would be no sense of I.
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Not this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
It's received a solid working over and appears to not be viable in anything like its original statement (it doesn't make it false, but just less possible).
> There's a relatively recent theory that consciousness arises out of the quantum states of the brain. If so this precludes transporters working due to the uncertainty principle and a few other elements of quantum theory. You would never recreate that consciousness and without that there would be no sense of I.
Not this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
It's received a solid working over and appears to not be viable in anything like its original statement (it doesn't make it false, but just less possible).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...