Agreed that murder is significantly net-negative, but not infinitely so. (This is very different from what I thought you were saying originally, when you suggested death was neutral.)
Is dying of natural causes bad, on your view? (I’m not asking infinitely bad. Just if it’s net-negative.)
If so, what level of response do you consider appropriate for the level of net-negative that dying of natural causes in fact is? For example, I gather you believe that cryonics advocates over-shoot that response… do you believe that a typically chosen person on the street is well-calibrated in this respect, or undershoots, or overshoots...?
I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. I don’t think death is good—It makes people sad, etc. But I don’t think it is bad enough to lead to the sort of support cryonics gets on here.
Also, “natural causes” would need some clarification in my view. I’m all for medical technology elimination gratuitous suffering cause by naturally occuring diseases. I just think at some point -- 100 years or 1000 years or whatever—perpetual life extension is moot.
Death is an end to your particular consciousness—to your own sense of your self. That is all it is. It’s just turning the switch off. Falling asleep and not waking.
The process of dying sucks. But being dead vs. being alive seems to me to be inconsequential in some sense. It isn’t as if you will miss being alive...
The average person on the street is very afraid (if only subconciously) of death and “overshoots” their response. Lots of people have religion for this.
You seem to believe that, if we take into consideration the experiences of others, death is bad. (“It makes people sad, etc.”)
I agree, and consider it a short step from there to “therefore death is bad,” since I do in fact take into consideration the experiences of others.
But you take a detour I don’t understand between those two points, and conclude instead that death is neutral. As near as I can figure it out, your detour involves deciding not to take into consideration the experiences of others, and to evaluate death entirely from the perspective of the dead person.
I understand perfectly well how you conclude that death is no big deal (EDIT: inconsequential) from that perspective. What I don’t understand is how you arrive at that perspective, having started out from a perspective that takes the experiences of others into account.
I arrive at the conclusion that death is not good, yet not bad through something like philosophical Buddhism. While I wouldn’t say death is “no big deal” (in fact, it is just about the biggest deal we face as humans), I would argue we are wired via evolution, including our self-aware consciousness, to make it into a much, much bigger deal than it need be.
I think we should consider the experience of others, but I don’t think it should drive our views in regard to death. People will (and of course should) grieve. But it is important to embrace some sense of solidarity and perspective. No one escapes pain in one form or another.
I actually think it would be helpful to our world to undergo a reformation in regard to how we think about death. We are hardwired to survive-at-all-costs. That is silly and outdated and selfish and irrational. It is a stamp of our lowly origins...
I’ve edited to replace “no big deal” with “inconsequential,” which is the word you used. They seem interchangeable to me, but I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
we are wired via evolution, including our self-aware consciousness, to make it into a much, much bigger deal than it need be.
Sure, that’s certainly true.
But it is important to embrace some sense of solidarity and perspective.
And that’s true, too.
No one escapes pain in one form or another.
Also true… which is not itself a reason to eschew reducing the pain of others, or our own pain.
It’s important and beneficial to embrace a sense of solidarity and perspective about all kinds of things… polio, child abuse, mortality, insanity, suffering, traffic jams, tooth decay, pebbles in my shoe, leprosy.
It’s also important and beneficial to improve our environment so that those things don’t continue to trouble us.
We are hardwired to survive-at-all-costs. That is silly and outdated and selfish and irrational.
(shrugs) Sure. But there’s a huge gulf between “don’t survive at all costs” and “death is neutral.” I understand how you get to the former. I’m trying to understand how you get to the latter.
But, OK, I think I’ve gotten as much of an answer as I’m going to understand. Thanks for your time.
I’ve edited to replace “no big deal” with “inconsequential,” which is the word you used. They seem interchangeable to me, but I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
To be clear, I said the difference to the person “experiencing” being dead vs. being alive in inconsequential. The process of dying, including the goodbyes, sucks.
Also true… which is not itself a reason to eschew reducing the pain of others, or our own pain.
Of course. Though I think it is helpful to temper our expectations. That is all I meant.
But there’s a huge gulf between “don’t survive at all costs” and “death is neutral.” I understand how you get to the former. I’m trying to understand how you get to the latter.
Death is only a thing because life is a thing. It just is. I’d say it’s peculiar (though natural) thing to apply value to it.
Maybe this tact: What if we solve death? What if we find a way to preserve everyone’s consciousness and memory (and however else you define death transendence)? Is that “better”? Why? How? Because you get more utilons and fuzzies? Does the utilon/fuzzy economy collapse sans death?
More than that, it seems very rational people should be able to recognize that someone “dying” is nothing more than the flame of consciousness being extinguished. A flame that existed because of purely natural mechanisms. There is no “self” to die. A localized meat-hardware program (that you were familiar with and brought you psychological support) shut down. “Your” meat-hardware program is responding in turn with thoughts and emotions.
I mentioned Buddhism… as it pertains here, I see it as this: Death will be “bad” to you to the extent you identify with your “self”. I am not my meat-hardware. I notice my meat-hardware via the consciousness it manifests. I notice my meat-hardware is hardwired to hate and fear death. I notice my meat-hardware will break someday—it may even malfunction significantly and alter the manifest consciousness through which I view it...
In this sort of meditation, death, to me, is neutral.
Agreed that murder is significantly net-negative, but not infinitely so. (This is very different from what I thought you were saying originally, when you suggested death was neutral.)
Is dying of natural causes bad, on your view? (I’m not asking infinitely bad. Just if it’s net-negative.)
If so, what level of response do you consider appropriate for the level of net-negative that dying of natural causes in fact is? For example, I gather you believe that cryonics advocates over-shoot that response… do you believe that a typically chosen person on the street is well-calibrated in this respect, or undershoots, or overshoots...?
I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. I don’t think death is good—It makes people sad, etc. But I don’t think it is bad enough to lead to the sort of support cryonics gets on here.
Also, “natural causes” would need some clarification in my view. I’m all for medical technology elimination gratuitous suffering cause by naturally occuring diseases. I just think at some point -- 100 years or 1000 years or whatever—perpetual life extension is moot.
Death is an end to your particular consciousness—to your own sense of your self. That is all it is. It’s just turning the switch off. Falling asleep and not waking.
The process of dying sucks. But being dead vs. being alive seems to me to be inconsequential in some sense. It isn’t as if you will miss being alive...
The average person on the street is very afraid (if only subconciously) of death and “overshoots” their response. Lots of people have religion for this.
I’m… confused.
You seem to believe that, if we take into consideration the experiences of others, death is bad. (“It makes people sad, etc.”)
I agree, and consider it a short step from there to “therefore death is bad,” since I do in fact take into consideration the experiences of others.
But you take a detour I don’t understand between those two points, and conclude instead that death is neutral. As near as I can figure it out, your detour involves deciding not to take into consideration the experiences of others, and to evaluate death entirely from the perspective of the dead person.
I understand perfectly well how you conclude that death is no big deal (EDIT: inconsequential) from that perspective. What I don’t understand is how you arrive at that perspective, having started out from a perspective that takes the experiences of others into account.
I arrive at the conclusion that death is not good, yet not bad through something like philosophical Buddhism. While I wouldn’t say death is “no big deal” (in fact, it is just about the biggest deal we face as humans), I would argue we are wired via evolution, including our self-aware consciousness, to make it into a much, much bigger deal than it need be.
I think we should consider the experience of others, but I don’t think it should drive our views in regard to death. People will (and of course should) grieve. But it is important to embrace some sense of solidarity and perspective. No one escapes pain in one form or another.
I actually think it would be helpful to our world to undergo a reformation in regard to how we think about death. We are hardwired to survive-at-all-costs. That is silly and outdated and selfish and irrational. It is a stamp of our lowly origins...
I’ve edited to replace “no big deal” with “inconsequential,” which is the word you used. They seem interchangeable to me, but I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
Sure, that’s certainly true.
And that’s true, too.
Also true… which is not itself a reason to eschew reducing the pain of others, or our own pain.
It’s important and beneficial to embrace a sense of solidarity and perspective about all kinds of things… polio, child abuse, mortality, insanity, suffering, traffic jams, tooth decay, pebbles in my shoe, leprosy.
It’s also important and beneficial to improve our environment so that those things don’t continue to trouble us.
(shrugs) Sure. But there’s a huge gulf between “don’t survive at all costs” and “death is neutral.” I understand how you get to the former. I’m trying to understand how you get to the latter.
But, OK, I think I’ve gotten as much of an answer as I’m going to understand. Thanks for your time.
To be clear, I said the difference to the person “experiencing” being dead vs. being alive in inconsequential. The process of dying, including the goodbyes, sucks.
Of course. Though I think it is helpful to temper our expectations. That is all I meant.
Death is only a thing because life is a thing. It just is. I’d say it’s peculiar (though natural) thing to apply value to it.
Maybe this tact: What if we solve death? What if we find a way to preserve everyone’s consciousness and memory (and however else you define death transendence)? Is that “better”? Why? How? Because you get more utilons and fuzzies? Does the utilon/fuzzy economy collapse sans death?
More than that, it seems very rational people should be able to recognize that someone “dying” is nothing more than the flame of consciousness being extinguished. A flame that existed because of purely natural mechanisms. There is no “self” to die. A localized meat-hardware program (that you were familiar with and brought you psychological support) shut down. “Your” meat-hardware program is responding in turn with thoughts and emotions.
I mentioned Buddhism… as it pertains here, I see it as this: Death will be “bad” to you to the extent you identify with your “self”. I am not my meat-hardware. I notice my meat-hardware via the consciousness it manifests. I notice my meat-hardware is hardwired to hate and fear death. I notice my meat-hardware will break someday—it may even malfunction significantly and alter the manifest consciousness through which I view it...
In this sort of meditation, death, to me, is neutral.
OK. Thanks for clarifying your position.