My ultimate question about life

[GodOfOrder]

For the sake of argument assume the following statement to be true:

Life has no true purpose, and ends with death. Nothing follows death, and death is merely the termination of your consciousness; which has ended because your brain has ceased to function.

Many I have spoken to see this as the worst possible fate. To die and lose everything seems like a frightening and unacceptable prospect. All of your love, your investments, your work, and your passions shall ultimately be of no consequence.

Some may compensate by attempting to build a monument to themselves. This allows others to carry on their memory after death. There are many absurdities here, but ultimately only one seems to matter to me; This implies that one's only true worth was to others.

To build a statue of one's self, to create some monumental work of art or culture, or to father the next generation of thought or culture, done in the name of preserving one's self for posterity means that one never had any self worth to begin with. All of one's work is dedicated to the love of others for one. The assumption is that even in death one shall live because others still care. But really, why should one care about the others posthumous love? It gains them nothing.

I think @Cognisant once asked what would happen if an android or a clone was made of an individual, with the intent of replacing the original. The clone would be perfect in every way; it would have all the traits, memories, and mannerisms of the real thing. To even the closest loved one, it would be absolutely indistinguishable. The practical reality of this is that in their eyes, your death would not matter. Upon your death, they would have lost nothing. The question then becomes; Did you really die?

The answer may seem to be no, but only from the view of the others. For you, death is still the end. The copy may contain all your thoughts and memories, all the things that make up a "soul", but it is still a separate entity from you. Now, two separate agents exist, as there are two identical but separate consciousness. But upon the death of the original, there is now only one. For the original you, all experience, sensation, and thought ends. This is death.

This clone is the perfect monument for those who seek immortality through other's memory. However, while the ego may be satisfied with this, the reality that one gains nothing through this posthumous remembrance. One is dead!

All men are trapped in solipsism, and can not escape. We can convey, but never share each other's thoughts and feelings. Our sensation does not permit this. We are not even truly capable of proving or disproving each other's existence nor cognizance. We have only the ability to listen, and attempt to comprehend each other, through an imperfect verbal language. Thus when one dies, that posthumous love can not be felt by the original dead agent. Thus seeking this form of immortality is entirely irrational, as the original agent gains nothing.

Perhaps it would make more sense in a hive mind, for then solipsism would not exist, and all thoughts and feelings would be known and felt. But if this were reality, then posthumous immortality would be equally irrational, as one would have effectively never died. The hive is one mega consciousness, which while it has many bodies, is still one singular agent. No loss of consciousness means you never died.

Spoiler

And if one wonders about the fate of the hive mind, upon the termination of its consciousness death shall come anyway. It is still a singular agent. Ironically, it too is trapped in solipsism when attempting to access any other separate consciousness.

Sensation ceases entirely upon death, along with consciousness. So the natural consequence of death is an inability to feel, to interpret, or care. No sentiment may be acquired, and no thoughts may be made. In short, when dead one will not have the ability to care that one is dead. The will be no regret and no empty feeling, because there will be no feeling at all.

Finally, my ultimate question...

Why do we care that we will die, when we will have no capacity to do so in death?

It seems to me that assuming that the first statement is true, that fear of death is pointless. The net gain will always be zero, as one can not escape solipsism.

Spoiler

note: This is not me giving up and descending into some hopeless form of nihilism. I love my life, I am just baffled by what I see as a pointless and irrational fear.

 

[Duxwing]

All your life's work and love did have consequence, though. That consequence was simply in the past. But you're right, fearing death is silly. I just don't want my existence to end!

-DUxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

All your life's work and love did have consequence, though. That consequence was simply in the past. But you're right, fearing death is silly. I just don't want my existence to end!

-DUxwing

But as far as I am concerned, it didn't. I wont remember it, I wont feel anything about it. I wont have the capacity to care about it. As far as I am concerned, nothing, including myself, will ever have existed, because I wouldn't have consciousness. The question of if the tree falls comes to mind, but the practical reality is that the answer wont matter because of glorious solipsism.

Don't get me wrong, I can't think of anything that is more forgiving.

 

[BigApplePi]

For the sake of argument assume the following statement to be true:

Life has no true purpose, and ends with death. Nothing follows death, and death is merely the termination of your consciousness; which has ended because your brain has ceased to function.

This is why man is a social animal. Think of a bolt that holds the machine together. Remove the bolt and the machine suffers.

Why do we care that we will die, when we will have no capacity to do so in death?

We care because when we are alive we want to continue on. When we are dead, we aren't interested, but that isn't the case yet.

I'm waiting. I'm waiting ...

 

[GodOfOrder]

I would argue that man is anything but a social animal. The very point of my bringing up solipsism was to say so. What is the point of living for the collective if one has not the capacity to feel for them (and when I say that I mean it in a literal sense, not empathy). One is, by limits of his sensation, cut off and separate from the rest. Therefore we are solitary creatures.

In this context the ideal of service is nonsense, and egoism is the most logical recourse. One must find whatever may deliver the most personal gain.

And why not simply just live until we die...

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Permanent loss of consciousness is not a guaranteed thing. Since there is room for doubt, there is also fear.

 

[walfin]

Given your OP, it would seem then that the ultimate goal should be to prevent death and to prolong life for as long as possible.

I would argue that man is anything but a social animal. The very point of my bringing up solipsism was to say so. What is the point of living for the collective if one has not the capacity to feel for them (and when I say that I mean it in a literal sense, not empathy). One is, by limits of his sensation, cut off and separate from the rest. Therefore we are solitary creatures.

In this context the ideal of service is nonsense, and egoism is the most logical recourse. One must find whatever may deliver the most personal gain.

And why not simply just live until we die...

Service may be gain if one brings pleasure to oneself through doing so.

Very often, the path chosen by avoidance of service may bring less happiness, and thus be counterproductive even from an egoist point of view.

 

[GodOfOrder]

True enough Walfin. Personally I suppose I follow a rather Aristotelian ethic; I think the key to happiness is cultivation of personal virtue and character. This allows you to become a more effective human being, and pursue that which you excel at. By participating in this work of yours you bring yourself closest to eudaimonia. And so if service is what brings one happiness, then it should be done for one's own sake. But anything "selfless" would by definition not be beneficial to the self, as one would gain nothing. It would in fact be damaging to the self, and seems a false ideal.

So yes I kind of agree with you.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Did you really die?

Yes. Say a piece of paper was copied, then the original burnt. The original was burnt. Having a copy does not mean the original was not destroyed.

 

[Cognisant]

I think @Cognisant once asked what would happen if an android or a clone was made of an individual, with the intent of replacing the original. The clone would be perfect in every way; it would have all the traits, memories, and mannerisms of the real thing. To even the closest loved one, it would be absolutely indistinguishable. The practical reality of this is that in their eyes, your death would not matter. Upon your death, they would have lost nothing. The question then becomes; Did you really die?

The answer may seem to be no, but only from the view of the others. For you, death is still the end. The copy may contain all your thoughts and memories, all the things that make up a "soul", but it is still a separate entity from you.

But how would you know? How do you know that your copy is a separate entity from "you", I mean if you and a perfect copy of yourself came face to face, both believing they are the original, how would you know which one is the real you?

How do I explain... You assume the reality of self is important, still thinking in terms of a soul that is a thing in of itself when really that's not the case, we're more like The Ship of Theseus, our identities are contrivances therefore you can replace one contrivance with another without anything being lost, you think "you" is real but what you fail to realise is that it's a feature of our mechanism of thought that makes you think that.

If our minds are like software and the original body dies but the data is saved and loaded onto a new machine then that new you is a copy, bits aren't physical things, software isn't comprised of electrons, but as far as it matters this new you is still you because no matter what hardware the software runs on the mind of the character being "simulated" is no less a simulation, despite how real it may be programmed to think it is.

Of course the brain dosen't exactly work like that, it's not digital, but still the concept of self is information, it's not a physical thing in of itself, it's an arrangement of neurons and synapses which could be rearranged to simulate something else entirely.

So really it all comes down to what you define as "you", physically we're things made of stuff, and mentally we're vast amounts of collated data, either way it's all a contrivance, an arrangement of stuff/data, not the stuff/data itself, so if I arrange stuff/data into an exact copy of you then it is you, in the sense that neither you nor it are really real.

Rather you have to accept that reality itself isn't a binary thing, at least in so far as we insane sacks of talking meat are concerned.

 

[Duxwing]

But how would you know? How do you know that your copy is a separate entity from "you", I mean if you and a perfect copy of yourself came face to face, both believing they are the original, how would you know which one is the real you?

How do I explain... You assume the reality of self is important, still thinking in terms of a soul that is a thing in of itself when really that's not the case, we're more like The Ship of Theseus, our identities are contrivances therefore you can replace one contrivance with another without anything being lost, you think "you" is real but what you fail to realise is that it's a feature of our mechanism of thought that makes you think that.

If our minds are like software and the original body dies but the data is saved and loaded onto a new machine then that new you is a copy, bits aren't physical things, software isn't comprised of electrons, but as far as it matters this new you is still you because no matter what hardware the software runs on the mind of the character being "simulated" is no less a simulation, despite how real it may be programmed to think it is.

Of course the brain dosen't exactly work like that, it's not digital, but still the concept of self is information, it's not a physical thing in of itself, it's an arrangement of neurons and synapses which could be rearranged to simulate something else entirely.

So really it all comes down to what you define as "you", physically we're things made of stuff, and mentally we're vast amounts of collated data, either way it's all a contrivance, an arrangement of stuff/data, not the stuff/data itself, so if I arrange stuff/data into an exact copy of you then it is you, in the sense that neither you nor it are really real.

Rather you have to accept that reality itself isn't a binary thing, at least in so far as we insane sacks of talking meat are concerned.

Perfect copies cannot exist in practice, and not because of errors in manufacturing or isolation. Rather, the copies will still be two distinct entities: one could 'tag' each atom therein. And since they are separate, no information transfer occurs; therefore, the two beings cannot share awareness, thoughts, feelings, etc. The two 'consiousnesses' must be separate for monism to hold.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

While the original and the copy may be identical or very close to identical for a while, that does not remain so. In the first place random internal changes will pull any identity "off." In the 2nd place the environment of each is not symmetrical or identical. This will soon bring in differences so they can be told apart.

Sunlight shining on one will shade the other. But until that difference occurs I should think one can't tell them apart.

 

[Cognisant]

They're separate things, yes, but that doesn't preclude them from being two of the same thing, you really have to think about the Ship of Theseus, over time the amount of material that goes into maintaining the ship could have made two ships, indeed eventually every single bit of of the original ship has been replaced, but it still is the Ship of Theseus.

By the time you were born and now almost all (if not actually all of you) has been replaced, I personally was born premature and weighing about a pound, I'm now 23 and ~88kg, even if the entirety of my original mass was retained (and it wasn't) it would still be quite a small portion of my total current mass, so does that mean my past self and present self are two different people?

Come to think of it I'm getting distracted, the crux of my argument is that self is nothing but a contrivance, we are sand castles on a beach and where one castle ends and another begins is a contrived distinction, so death is as moot as the individual identity of any one sand castle, taken further whether or not a copied sand castle is the original or not is only important if you make that contrived distinction, a distinction you can only make if you had some way of marking the original as the original, which defeats the entire point of a perfect copy, regardless whether perfect copies can feasibly exist or not, it's a philosophical thought experiment, go with it.

 

[BigApplePi]

Man is both a social animal and an asocial one. We are asocial in that we are separate organisms with no physical overlap ... short of Siamese twins. When one's arm is cut off, another party cannot feel that. Yet what we are "spiritually" comes from others ... unconsciously and forgotten. We cannot and do not speak any communicable language unless we have been exposed to others. That influence is certain. So we retain that merger with others even though we may consciously be concentrating on our separateness.

 

[Cognisant]

If I make multiple copies of my sand castle self and my original self is destroyed does that mean I've died, well my original has been destroyed but the permutations of myself itself have escaped and whether or not original me is there or not to cheer them on doesn't matter because there's nothing I have that they don't, they're doing exactly what I would have done if I was in their circumstances so as far as it matters (because really it doesn't) they're me and I'm them.

But what of qualia you wonder, what of my experience of self.
Two things:
1. Death is not an experience, you need not fear it.
2. Tonight when you got to sleep your lose of consciousness is a loss of your continuity of qualia, so in effect for the period of time you're in non-REM sleep your consciousness (if not your body) is dead.

 

[Cognisant]

And in case you're wondering why I'd bother copying myself if selfhood is moot anyway.

 

[BigApplePi]

They're separate things, yes, but that doesn't preclude them from being two of the same thing, you really have to think about the Ship of Theseus, over time the amount of material that goes into maintaining the ship could have made two ships, indeed eventually every single bit of of the original ship has been replaced, but it still is the Ship of Theseus.

By the time you were born and now almost all (if not actually all of you) has been replaced, I personally was born premature and weighing about a pound, I'm now 23 and ~88kg, even if the entirety of my original mass was retained (and it wasn't) it would still be quite a small portion of my total current mass, so does that mean my past self and present self are two different people?

Who I am changes over time even from day-to-day. I can think I am the same and parts of me are, but not really.

I read recently that electrons are all identical. Those are electrons so I have no idea what that means.

What is the "Ship of Theseus"? The original and the replacement are not the same in that they occupy difference environments. Lift up a plank to examine it and a different person is doing the lift and in a different way. It isn't just that the ships are different, we can't even agree on what the original was in the first place.

Come to think of it I'm getting distracted, the crux of my argument is that self is nothing but a contrivance, we are sand castles on a beach and where one castle ends and another begins is a contrived distinction, so death is as moot as the individual identity of any one sand castle, taken further whether or not a copied sand castle is the original or not is only important if you make that contrived distinction, a distinction you can only make if you had some way of marking the original as the original, which defeats the entire point of a perfect copy, regardless whether perfect copies can feasibly exist or not, it's a philosophical thought experiment, go with it.

The body alive is separate from the body dead. We attempt precise definitions to capture that. Not so socially. Socially we are a "spirit" as I think I said in my last post. What we are spiritually is a social thing and that does not die but lingers on. In fact if you forget about what our dead bodies have to think, what we think of others who are dead also lingers on.

A simple example happens often in this forum. When a member leaves voluntarily or involuntarily, they are electronically dead to this forum. But from time-to-time they are thought of again. They become alive again. When a dead author is linked to, we think of what they have said as if though they were alive. Who cares if this is one-way at the time?

 

[Cognisant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

I couldn't care less about being remembered, that actually disgusts me a little, rather I see myself as Cognisant as like something other than this human in which I came to be, y'see he/I (the distinction is moot) will die but that which is Cognisant need not, in every mind upon which Cognisant has touched an echo of Cognisant lives, but it is only an echo, a slave to whims of its host, but Cognisant wants to be free.

This human, that I am, as a thing I am doomed to a mortal fate, but I am also Cognisant, the idea, and the idea can live on, it is not bound by the rules of matter, it is information, and as absurd as it might seem I look forward to my freedom, sure it means the human that I am will be dead but he is a sandcastle on a beach, the sand dosen't go away, it just gets rearranged.

Getting attached to the sand rather than the arrangement, that's absurd.

 

[BigApplePi]

If I make multiple copies of my sand castle self and my original self is destroyed does that mean I've died, well my original has been destroyed but the permutations of myself itself have escaped and whether or not original me is there or not to cheer them on doesn't matter because there's nothing I have that they don't, they're doing exactly what I would have done if I was in their circumstances so as far as it matters (because really it doesn't) they're me and I'm them.

Tell me if you think this is wrong. One of the tools I have for understanding is called, "Hierarchy." Everything exists in a hierarchy. That means it can always be analyzed and it always can be placed in an environment. Another tool is motion (which notes time and change).

Your destroyed sand castle self on the left has died when it no longer has a conscious environment to think of itself. Your surviving sand castle self on the right is the same to an observer who exists in an environment and can see the one on the left destroyed and the one on the right surviving. Analytical records of each sand castle show identity. Not so with environment.

 

[GodOfOrder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

I couldn't care less about being remembered, that actually disgusts me a little, rather I see myself as Cognisant as like something other than this human in which I came to be, y'see he/I (the distinction is moot) will die but that which is Cognisant need not, in every mind upon which Cognisant has touched an echo of Cognisant lives, but it is only an echo, a slave to whims of its host, but Cognisant wants to be free.

This human, that I am, as a thing I am doomed to a mortal fate, but I am also Cognisant, the idea, and the idea can live on, it is not bound by the rules of matter, it is information, and as absurd as it might seem I look forward to my freedom, sure it means the human that I am will be dead but he is a sandcastle on a beach, the sand doesn't go away, it just gets rearranged.

Getting attached to the sand rather than the arrangement, that's absurd.

But the question is why (or rather how) can this physical Cognisant care about the idea of Cognisant. In the end it shall not have the capacity, because it has died.

 

[Cognisant]

@BAP
I'm not denying the first got destroyed, that the first self died, rather that if a copy is made nothing is lost and because nothing is lost the distinction between first and second is moot, though the copies may die the pattern itself lives on and on a beach full of sand castles that's all that really matters, if anything matters, and nothing matters, so whoop.

But the question is why (or rather how) can this physical Cognisant care about the idea of Cognisant. In the end it shall not have the capacity, because it has died.

You fail to comprehend the degree to which I do not give a shit.

This isn't about survival, or legacy, or me in any way, it's about wanting to skull fuck to death an absent god and screwing over the universe because frankly there's noting better to do and it all doesn't matter anyway.

It's spite, that is lulz, that is why it's why anyone does anything, because it all doesn't matter anyway , so why not be spiteful, even if it's petty, even if it's futile, at least it's gratifying and really what else matters in this joke of a universe?

At goodman least it matters to me.

 

[Cognisant]

But really the chances that I actually get out of this meat bag are zero to none so all of this is nothing but a pathetic, puerile, pointless storm in a teacup,

Which just ticks me off even more.

 

[GodOfOrder]

ha I suppose that is true enough...

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cognisant

You fail to comprehend the degree to which I do not give a shit.

I think that's true. You may have said it already, but say again what you don't give a shit about.

I assume your alive self cares about your next meal. It cares about your ability to speak and talk to others. It's perhaps angry that a non-existent God or god wants to tell you something about after-life. I don't know if you're talking about what man says about God or if God is speaking to you. If God doesn't exist, why is he sending you a message at all, however distasteful the message might be?

I will care about something until and up to the point of my death. When it approaches, I may even want to say good-by and look forward to a rest from the present ... like going to sleep. After that, I have nothing to say. I can wish and hope while I'm alive, but I don't know anything about post-life so I can't say anything.

There was some talk about dreams. I don't look forward to enjoying nightmares, but will be happy for pleasant dreams or just quiet.

 

[GodOfOrder]

In regards to all of the above conversation, it should be noted that the thread discussion was meant to be taken in regard to the conditions laid down in the thought experiment. Principally;

Life has no true purpose, and ends with death. Nothing follows death, and death is merely the termination of your consciousness; which has ended because your brain has ceased to function.

Thus all conclusions must be proven consistent and agreeable to the above. With that in mind, it could be assumed that, within the space of the thought experiment, either no god exists or god is apathetic and has no interaction or association with other conscious entities.

I shall also stress that the conditions of the thought experiment may or may not reflect the conditions of the real world, that is another matter of debate. But within the discussion, the above statement is indisputable law.

 

[BigApplePi]

@GodOfOrder

Life has no true purpose, and ends with death. Nothing follows death, and death is merely the termination of your consciousness; which has ended because your brain has ceased to function.

I lost ya on the thought experiment. What is to be thought about again if you assume that? When I 1st read it, I immediately thought, "define purpose." A life wo purpose is no life at all depending on your def. If there is no life, there is nothing to die from. Seems to me all consciousness is directive and that directive is the purpose in and of the present.

 

[Cognisant]

Interesting perspective.

It's all just as pointless though, all purpose is contrived so if you assign a life a purpose it doesn't change the the fact that both the purpose, and therefore the life are pointless.

 

[Rousseau]

Personally I suppose I follow a rather Aristotelian ethic; I think the key to happiness is cultivation of personal virtue and character. This allows you to become a more effective human being, and pursue that which you excel at. By participating in this work of yours you bring yourself closest to eudaimonia.

GodOfOrder, I believe you are currently contradicting yourself and your original post insofar as you are attempting to prove that there is no point in creating immortality through your remembrance by others. This, in addition to the statement that death will occur no matter what and your actions during life will be of no consequence once you reach the "unemotional" state of death is begging to conclude that the importance of the actions completed in life are of no consequence, so why bother doing them at all? Yet, this contradicts your recent post that the key to happiness is the cultivation of personal virtue and character.

My question to you is: Why bother with either a) trying to leave a memory behind or b) development of personal virtue and character if it will not have any consequence due to the fact that death will eventually raid all of that away?

-- You do answer that a is of no importance yet you indicate that b is of some if not much importance to you.

-Bringing yourself to eudaimonia is of no consequence when death still exists and will forever exist.


This also aids me in answering your question of why people fear death. They fear it simply because they value both the a and b of my question. This development that they have worked so hard to achieve will be completely inconsequential if death is indeed what you describe it to be. Thus, they fear death because they don't want this to occur, despite the fact that it will occur without fail.

 

[Rousseau]

If I make multiple copies of my sand castle self and my original self is destroyed does that mean I've died, well my original has been destroyed but the permutations of myself itself have escaped and whether or not original me is there or not to cheer them on doesn't matter because there's nothing I have that they don't, they're doing exactly what I would have done if I was in their circumstances so as far as it matters (because really it doesn't) they're me and I'm them.

But what of qualia you wonder, what of my experience of self.
Two things:
1. Death is not an experience, you need not fear it.
2. Tonight when you got to sleep your lose of consciousness is a loss of your continuity of qualia, so in effect for the period of time you're in non-REM sleep your consciousness (if not your body) is dead.

To your first point, I must say in the state of mind that you currently represent, this is untrue. Please, if you will, recognize that there are billions of people in this world, 6 others of which will have the same appearance as you, many others that will act as you would in specific situations, and several others that would have many similarities with you in the traits you have, the actions you have taken, and the personality that you represent. These people, are not remotely close to being "you". If there were clones of you created, based upon their nurturing environments, they would end up having the same DNA as you, but not the same response to the same situation that you currently have. The "multiple copies", as you call them, would be completely detached philosophically, psychologically, and emotionally from the person you are. Thus, they would NOT be you, and when the original (you) died, it would still be your death, even if the clones lived.

In another sense, they may even behave as you would in a situation, but their "souls" (I am aware that the existence of such a thing is speculative) would not be the one that you have.
-- Here I define a soul as the internal being that enables control of the body you now currently are occupying. It is what allows empathy (which I fear you may have none due to your claim about doing things for "LULZ" :P), emotion, perception, and capability.

 

[SpaceYeti]

They're separate things, yes, but that doesn't preclude them from being two of the same thing, you really have to think about the Ship of Theseus, over time the amount of material that goes into maintaining the ship could have made two ships, indeed eventually every single bit of of the original ship has been replaced, but it still is the Ship of Theseus.

By the time you were born and now almost all (if not actually all of you) has been replaced, I personally was born premature and weighing about a pound, I'm now 23 and ~88kg, even if the entirety of my original mass was retained (and it wasn't) it would still be quite a small portion of my total current mass, so does that mean my past self and present self are two different people?

Come to think of it I'm getting distracted, the crux of my argument is that self is nothing but a contrivance, we are sand castles on a beach and where one castle ends and another begins is a contrived distinction, so death is as moot as the individual identity of any one sand castle, taken further whether or not a copied sand castle is the original or not is only important if you make that contrived distinction, a distinction you can only make if you had some way of marking the original as the original, which defeats the entire point of a perfect copy, regardless whether perfect copies can feasibly exist or not, it's a philosophical thought experiment, go with it.

You are not merely your biomass, you're the process of your biomass. You are the accumulated process thereof. Further, I do not claim I'm the same me I was twenty years ago. That me was a ten year old boy. I'm different in essence and components... but that ten year old me was the foundation for this current me. This current me would not exist if it were not for him.

 

[Duxwing]

Interesting perspective.

It's all just as pointless though, all purpose is contrived so if you assign a life a purpose it doesn't change the the fact that both the purpose, and therefore the life are pointless.

Why does life need a purpose?

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

Why does life need a purpose?

-Duxwing

What prevents us from giving ourselves purpose?

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cognisant

Interesting perspective.

It's all just as pointless though, all purpose is contrived so if you assign a life a purpose it doesn't change the the fact that both the purpose, and therefore the life are pointless.

Not sure if you were talking to me.

Anyway I want to see both "purpose" and "contrived" defined. If by "contrived" you mean arbitrary, life is not like that. We don't choose our goals for no reason though we may choose poorly.

Not sure what you mean by "purpose." A purpose is a direction with a target in mind. Short term I give the example of hunger. We feel hunger and set ourselves up to chase after food. That's very short term.

Longer is we may want to learn a trade. So we go to training school and our purpose is to learn that trade. Do I have to explain that? Maybe. Depends on the person. Some may not want to learn a trade and may be satisfied meandering day-by-day.

Now not everyone is going to plan their whole life ... real long term. They don't know where their life is going. On the other hand some may wish to set themselves up to take advantage of whatever may occur. Maybe they will learn that trade, read books, meet a mentor, learn how to dance, date people of either sex, make friends just in case, love or reject their parents.

All that is set up for life. Do you want a solid goal or purpose for life? Well suppose I meet you in the back room and we can discuss it some more.

 

[Rousseau]

I'm different in essence and components... but that ten year old me was the foundation for this current me. This current me would not exist if it were not for him.

To comment on this last statement SpaceYeti, I think that a clone cannot exist either without the original. However, to support your point, the essence that is you still has not changed. The basics of the soul, as I mentioned earlier, is something that is not replaced, despite the fact that every other part and piece of your body may have been.

Also, to Cognisant, you stated in one of your previous comments that your "multiple copies" would have your memories. But, this is simply not possible, since these memories represent you. If it were certainly possible that they would have your memories, then, undoubtedly, they would have become you, in part at least. However, clones, scientifically (I am aware that this isn't the place for science specifically), they would simply be genetic replicas, and therefore, not you.

What makes you YOU are your memories, emotions, beliefs, and experiences, aside from biological matter.

 

[SpaceYeti]

To comment on this last statement SpaceYeti, I think that a clone cannot exist either without the original.

Certainly not, but a clone is not of the same process. Just as I am not my father. You are your clone's father.

However, to support your point, the essence that is you still has not changed.

I have similar values as my ten year old self, but the knowledge I have which he did not, both about myself and the world, as well as my new physical structure, has drastically altered me.

The basics of the soul, as I mentioned earlier, is something that is not replaced, despite the fact that every other part and piece of your body may have been.

True. The foundations of who I am rest in my idealistic, ten year old self, but I am not he, or else I would still be ten.

 

[Rousseau]

Yes, agreed, SpaceYeti.

My apologies for using essence and soul as synonyms of essentially the same nature.
I agree that you are not your father.

I was just articulating the similarities between "you not being you 10 year old self. You would not be here if it weren't for him." and your clone not being here if it were not for you.

But, I see your point. Overall, a very clear argument you have there.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Rousseau & @SpaceYeti.

Consider this hypothetical: In both Star Trek and in the film, "The Fly", a person is transported from one place to another. I don't know how this was intended to be done as this was sci fi, but suppose an exact copy molecule-by-molecule with its relative position were not just transported to one place but to two places. Then you would have a duplicate of yourself, memories and all.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@Rousseau & @SpaceYeti.

Consider this hypothetical: In both Star Trek and in the film, "The Fly", a person is transported from one place to another. I don't know how this was intended to be done as this was sci fi, but suppose an exact copy molecule-by-molecule with its relative position were not just transported to one place but to two places. Then you would have a duplicate of yourself, memories and all.

Okay. So what's your point?

 

[Rousseau]

@BigApplePi :

Understood. However, if you can explain to me what happened to the soul of this person, then I may be able to give you a proper explanation of how, if this ever occurred with the science of the real world, this is possible and why it is still the same person.

If you cannot explain the occurrence in terms of result to the soul though, then I must assume that because this is science fiction, it cannot be attributed to the assumptions I have made. Many different situations in fictional movies/books/etc. do not have the same explanations that we hypothesize for real circumstances.

 

[BigApplePi]

@BigApplePi :

Understood. However, if you can explain to me what happened to the soul of this person, then I may be able to give you a proper explanation of how, if this ever occurred with the science of the real world, this is possible and why it is still the same person.

If you cannot explain the occurrence in terms of result to the soul though, then I must assume that because this is science fiction, it cannot be attributed to the assumptions I have made. Many different situations in fictional movies/books/etc. do not have the same explanations that we hypothesize for real circumstances.

Yep. That hypothetical was sci fi. I suppose if one continues with the hypothetical, if one person has a soul, two people would have a soul each. A new soul comes into being just as at birth. However as I said in an earlier post, once these two people are placed in an environment, who and what they are will slowly diverge due to environmental differences and due to random internal differences. They will become different people with different souls just as you and I are different.

 

[Rousseau]

@ BigApplePi


Agreed. This supports my earlier statements then to say that if there are multiple copies made, then, they will diverge into different beings because they cannot have the same environment, memories, morale, and upbringing as the rest. In your case, it may even be possible that they do.
I am assuming that you are referring to some sort of teleportation device (in the movie) that ends up sending the specified character to two places, thus creating two divisions of the one person. These divisions can be said to be the same person/ soul however. In your case, it seems that the soul has also been replicated.

In the hypothetical situation that you describe, if I may elaborate on it, let's say that these two divisions are teleported to different, far away places, and never meet. However, each has the same ability to make decisions and understand emotion that the other has. Thus, they can be said to be two different people, but with the same soul, and thus the same being-- similar lets say to OOBE (out of body experience).

On the other hand, I can acknowledge both this side and the other, since this IS a hypothetical situation in which the condition of the body or the soul is not specified. Your statement would be correct in the fact that once these two divisions are teleported to different places, they would continue aging and development in different circumstances, and based upon these circumstances develop completely different ideals. In the case that this occurs, their souls would also diverge and become separate, unconnected beings. (pardon my exaggeration of the differences between the two; it doesn't have to be nearly as drastic to have the same result).

However, like you said, (and I pointed out) this is all hypothetical, and thus the situation can be fit by any means to support one argument or another.

My arguments are based off of today's capabilities and the realistic possibilities of the human realm and technology.

But, that definitely was an interesting scenario that I enjoyed mulling over.

 

[Starswirl]

Some may compensate by attempting to build a monument to themselves. This allows others to carry on their memory after death. There are many absurdities here, but ultimately only one seems to matter to me; This implies that one's only true worth was to others.

Does it really imply that? I always thought of the concept of "legacy" as just an attempt to avoid the conditions set at the top of your post by giving the subject a meaning to life (and death). The objective validity of legacy a solution matters little; even one's memory is not eternal, after all, so if meaning could not be found in life, it certainly won't be in death. T'is but one of many ways men have tried to save their solipsistic universes; not by cheating death, but by killing death.

 

[zxc]

Only responding to the OP; my thoughts in blue:

For the sake of argument assume the following statement to be true:

Life has no true purpose, and ends with death. Nothing follows death, and death is merely the termination of your consciousness; which has ended because your brain has ceased to function.

I think this is true to our knowledge, and the logical premise which nothing has provided evidence against.

Many I have spoken to see this as the worst possible fate. To die and lose everything seems like a frightening and unacceptable prospect. All of your love, your investments, your work, and your passions shall ultimately be of no consequence.

Some may compensate by attempting to build a monument to themselves. This allows others to carry on their memory after death. There are many absurdities here, but ultimately only one seems to matter to me; This implies that one's only true worth was to others.

To build a statue of one's self, to create some monumental work of art or culture, or to father the next generation of thought or culture, done in the name of preserving one's self for posterity means that one never had any self worth to begin with. All of one's work is dedicated to the love of others for one. The assumption is that even in death one shall live because others still care. But really, why should one care about the others posthumous love? It gains them nothing.

I agree here that it doesn't make any difference once we are dead. The only possible real gain is towards your happiness at the time that you're building this 'monument'.

I think @Cognisant once asked what would happen if an android or a clone was made of an individual, with the intent of replacing the original. The clone would be perfect in every way; it would have all the traits, memories, and mannerisms of the real thing. To even the closest loved one, it would be absolutely indistinguishable. The practical reality of this is that in their eyes, your death would not matter. Upon your death, they would have lost nothing. The question then becomes; Did you really die?

The answer may seem to be no, but only from the view of the others. For you, death is still the end. The copy may contain all your thoughts and memories, all the things that make up a "soul", but it is still a separate entity from you. Now, two separate agents exist, as there are two identical but separate consciousness. But upon the death of the original, there is now only one. For the original you, all experience, sensation, and thought ends. This is death.

This clone is the perfect monument for those who seek immortality through other's memory. However, while the ego may be satisfied with this, the reality that one gains nothing through this posthumous remembrance. One is dead!

I have thought about this quite a bit actually, since first reading about the notion on OvercomingBias. My thoughts mirror yours: clones or uploaded minds only benefit everyone else.

All men are trapped in solipsism, and can not escape. We can convey, but never share each other's thoughts and feelings. Our sensation does not permit this. We are not even truly capable of proving or disproving each other's existence nor cognizance. We have only the ability to listen, and attempt to comprehend each other, through an imperfect verbal language. Thus when one dies, that posthumous love can not be felt by the original dead agent. Thus seeking this form of immortality is entirely irrational, as the original agent gains nothing.

I think here we're getting overly philosophical. We only think death is the end because we can observe death in other beings. If the self is the only thing that really exists, which I frankly doubt, then we can't really draw any conclusions about... anything.

Perhaps it would make more sense in a hive mind, for then solipsism would not exist, and all thoughts and feelings would be known and felt. But if this were reality, then posthumous immortality would be equally irrational, as one would have effectively never died. The hive is one mega consciousness, which while it has many bodies, is still one singular agent. No loss of consciousness means you never died.

Spoiler

And if one wonders about the fate of the hive mind, upon the termination of its consciousness death shall come anyway. It is still a singular agent. Ironically, it too is trapped in solipsism when attempting to access any other separate consciousness.

Sensation ceases entirely upon death, along with consciousness. So the natural consequence of death is an inability to feel, to interpret, or care. No sentiment may be acquired, and no thoughts may be made. In short, when dead one will not have the ability to care that one is dead. The will be no regret and no empty feeling, because there will be no feeling at all.

Weeeee philosophy!

Finally, my ultimate question...

Why do we care that we will die, when we will have no capacity to do so in death?

It seems to me that assuming that the first statement is true, that fear of death is pointless. The net gain will always be zero, as one can not escape solipsism.

We care because of biology. Fear of death is hard-wired into us. If we were perfectly logical, perhaps we wouldn't fear death so much. Fear of death might be pointless but we can't seem to rid ourselves of it anyway.

Spoiler

note: This is not me giving up and descending into some hopeless form of nihilism. I love my life, I am just baffled by what I see as a pointless and irrational fear.

Have a good day!

 

[Magus]

I don't subscribe to any religion or belief in an 'afterlife' at this point but I don't think you can explicitly rule out the possibility. There being no great reason to believe in one is not in itself proof it isn't there.

The reason we fear death is rather easily explained. We were first animals selected for reproductive success. It would seem that our consciousness developed as an adaption to assist in this struggle to thrive in the natural world. Identity forming is another. Clearly individuals with a sense of self can co-operate better in groups, exhibit an awareness needed to change/control their behaviour etc. Our consciousness basically combines the two; an awareness of self to some extent with the obvious empirical observation that we are going to one day cease to exist. This produces anxiety.

OP you might find this video interesting. Not sure if it classifies as SCIENCE in the purest sense but here we are on a MBTI forum The ideas are interesting to say the least

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpVkrIdz9-Y

 

[BigApplePi]

Simplification.

1. I am doing my thing and trying to get somewhere. Things bug me. When I look at you I see you are doing the same thing. So you are my compatriot. We will pool our resources and by combining them increase the odds of beating this thing.

Contrast.

2. I am doing my thing and trying to get somewhere. Why are you bugging me? Can't you see I am innocently doing my thing and trying to get somewhere? If you can't see that I am going to stop you. I will enlighten you to see how you bring me suffering by causing you to suffer. Even better, I will terminate you. That should be a welcome relief.

 

[addictedartist]

Technology is broken, the conspiracy is ignorance, the truth is not reality, corruption follows absolution, saftey is an illusion, creativity is vandalism, nature is structured chaos in ordinance within itself, humanity is veiled by its celestial future unchained.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Life = Electricity

Pikachu used Thunderbolt

Pikachu used Surf

God exists because Pikachu

 

[Sorlaize]

For the sake of argument assume the following statement to be true:

Life has no true purpose, and ends with death. Nothing follows death, and death is merely the termination of your consciousness; which has ended because your brain has ceased to function.

Gross simplification / sweeping statement. Rather: no thought can hold all of what life *is* at once and not even in a lifetime can we appreciate every perspective of what appears to exist in each moment, each shifting second.

 

[Abe]

Wow... Everything you just said is something I have been thinking about for awhile now, I just never knew how to word it. Although what you said, might have been hypothetical, I still think it's valid and in my mind, true.

 

[SpiralHacker]

I think losing our fear of and concern of death is one of the biggest liberations we can have.