Is death a harm?

[Greta]

That reminds me of Buddhist thought. Buddhism originated in Asia, which has been crowded, competitive, dangerous and uncomfortable for a long time. In context, the notion of non-existence being preferable is logical.

However, the ancient Asiatics lacked modern means so they did what they could to be happy. Since they couldn't avoid significant problems in the physical world they worked on their mental world. If they could eliminate the ego/self they could at least create the feeling of non existence, free from life's trials.

The ego is deeply involved in two areas of life - safety and pain. Meditation was traditionally a risky pastime because one is obviously less alert to threats while meditating than if fearfully watching and waiting. Being absorbed, "in the zone" or Zen - the temporary disappearance of the self while absorbed in a task - is similarly risky. The sculptor absorbed in creation on a rural property will be less likely to notice a killer creeping up on her from behind than one who is fearfully sitting on her balcony, nervously making sure her loaded gun is nearby.

Who will live longer - the sculptor or the vigilant defender? Who is having the better time? Who is taking the greatest risk? I would say that the sculptor will probably live longer, is having a better time and taking less of a risk (the other risk being wasting your life with pointless hypervigilance).

People have long wondered why a deity would bother making an imperfect creation that had to struggle its way to perfection. Why not do a proper job from the start and save everyone a lot of time and trouble? Nearly every single organism on the planet that's every lived is dead. 93% of humans who have been born are dead. No doubt most suffered in ways we have never known before they died. For what did all these innocents suffer and die?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if none of it happened? It would seem easier. The problem for nihilists is that, irregardless of their druthers, all this does exist. Things don't come into existence for no reason. There is always an underlying pressure that leads to larger events. I expect that before the big bang was some kind of built up pressure in the existent reality beforehand. Likewise, irresistible chemical pressures seemingly preceded abiogenesis....

So, it would have not have been easier if nothing and no one existed. There would have been an unsustainable buildup of pressure of "something" and it had to be released. This is how reality arrives - either gradually or in sudden bursts when progress is stoppered for a while and then explosively released. This natural dynamic is echoed by capacitors in electronics, combustion engines, volcanoes, supernovas, many things.

So, since this life and existence appear to have always been necessary and inevitable....

"underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing? basically your argument hinges on the necessity of there existing things that were infinitely old (uncaused), to which underlying pressure can apply.

You assume that the big bang came from nothing. I think it more likely that inflation stemmed from conditions we don't yet understand.

... it makes sense to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative.

"to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative" might simply be a defense mechanism rather than something that truly makes sense.

It makes sense if you want to be happy. We cannot write ourselves out of the equation when considering reality, as though we are standing outside of it. We are part of reality, a local expression of our environment. Our nature a reflection of the big picture in small scale, a part of the universe's imperfect fractals.

Consider the difference between acknowledging the negative and focusing on it.

Besides, we don't know what happens when we die so we don't ultimately know how helpful or harmful death is.

so we should just go with the flow, and not question things?

Nope, that's actually what you are doing - assuming rather than leaving your options open. I am still questioning and you are not. You have already convinced yourself that there is nothing after we die and there was nothing before the big bang. People with that view tend to view others as naively avoiding facing the unpleasant truth that there was nothing, that we were nothing and will become nothing, and that it is all entirely meaningless.

However, it's hard to imagine a more negative view. When people embrace the negative it always seems to me that that they trying to prevent disappointment. Perhaps they have been disappointed too many times and have come to expect disappointment as standard. So they imagine the crappiest and most uninspiring possible scenario and claim it to be truth - a truth that is more based on Murphy's Law than on realistic observation of reality, which inevitably brings wonder and awe.

If your "depth" is making you miserable then it's not true depth, but illusory. I am old enough to have been there done that. I had plans when I was young and I fancied myself as smarter and deeper than most too. Then I gradually opened my eyes and started to notice the depths and intelligence present in others that I'd been too self absorbed to notice. That's where you appear to be up to, no offence meant. I wasn't a bad person when I thought that way either, but ego was an issue that I needed to resolve to better enjoy life.

... my problem isn't with "plans", nor is my goal "to better enjoy life". one might suggest that being delusional can increase a person's quality of life and overall satisfaction, but that doesn't really solve anything.

Generally speaking, being delusional is far more likely to decrease a person's quality of life and overall satisfaction. The exception comes when social cohesion renders irrational behaviour socially useful, as in religion and common memes deemed "acceptable" by broader society. However, I and others here are secularists.

Another thought: human creative capacities? We can can transform our views, capacities and performance with creative imagination, as any sports psychologist will tell you. So what was not reality becomes reality. So "delusions" can be incorporated into reality.

Bushwalking with a canine friend is an extremely pleasant and grounding activity. Try it.

thanks, but i think i'll pass.

I'm curious. What's your objection to it? What do you most like to do with your life? What are your favoured activities (that are not too personal personal to comfortably share, of course)?

[alpha]

i assign values and labels based on what i can argue, not as i feel.

You can't argue against statements like that..... but you can have a good laugh!

i'm pretty certain that lower life forms don't have a sense of humor, so they can't "have a good laugh".

cheers.

Well that's pretty clever for a lower life form to work that out for itself!

i think you might actually be evolving into something more low-average at this very moment! i wish darwin could witness this phenomenon.

[Arising_uk]

i disagree... but perhaps if you elaborate....

Explain to me how something that is non-existent can have a relation with existents or existence for that matter? Ignoring those things that have existed already of course.

by "lower life forms" i mean creatures with less intelligence/awareness/consciousness/knowledge. "higher life forms" are the opposite of that. i'm suggesting that ambition is proportional to intelligence/awareness/....

Yes but you were also suggesting that it is also proportional to not seeing any worth in existing and I pointed out that it is a limited form of intelligence/awareness/... that has ambitions that they cannot realistically achieve. If this is the case then they need to learn how to set goals, outcomes and ambitions as what they are doing so far is just wishful thinking. Not saying one shouldn't aim high, just that one should learn how and what it would take for them to get there and adjust accordingly.

[Lacewing]

are you saying that one day far into the future...

Why couldn't it happen in a flash? You're just sitting there doing what you normally do, and suddenly something new fires in your brain -- a lightning bolt, a moment of brilliance -- and it opens new doors/windows.

...it might be possible for people to realize that 1+1 may equal something other than 2?

No... rather... we may realize some completely new way of thinking that surpasses or eliminates the need for "going through such motions", whether it be math, or language, or whatever. Like the difference between Pony Express compared to email. I'm suggesting that there must surely be a more vast network STILL than what we think we're working with. And I'm guessing there are frequencies we haven't even consciously tapped into yet.

Our current math and language works for the physical reality we've defined the limits of. If we consider that such limits are mainly for our operating convenience in our current stage of development, and that further development may make some of our standards/tools obsolete/unnecessary for functioning in a broader and more connected state, then we can patiently utilize and honor where we are and what we've got to work with, but NOT FOR A MINUTE THINK that this is all there is or that this is the only way. That's my logic.

If we're likely not seeing even a fraction of what can be, why would we write it off?

[alpha]

"underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing? basically your argument hinges on the necessity of there existing things that were infinitely old (uncaused), to which underlying pressure can apply.

You assume that the big bang came from nothing. I think it more likely that inflation stemmed from conditions we don't yet understand.

what kind of accusation is that?! what i'm saying is that there existed things before the big bang, in order for the big bang to come out of them. you just agreed with me on that. my point is that to avoid an infinite regress, you must admit to the existence of something(s) that's infinitely old, which was/is the initial cause of all of this. my beef is with that initial cause, since all subsequent causes are inevitable (as you also agree), so it would be pointless debating about them.

[alpha]

Our current math and language works for the physical reality we've defined the limits of. If we consider that such limits are mainly for our operating convenience in our current stage of development, and that further development may make some of our standards/tools obsolete/unnecessary for functioning in a broader and more connected state, then we can patiently utilize and honor where we are and what we've got to work with, but NOT FOR A MINUTE THINK that this is all there is or that this is the only way. That's my logic.

If we're likely not seeing even a fraction of what can be, why would we write it off?

i'm sorry, but logic is not just for "the physical reality". it's infinite, and therein lies its appeal (to me).

[alpha]

i disagree... but perhaps if you elaborate....

Explain to me how something that is non-existent can have a relation with existents or existence for that matter? Ignoring those things that have existed already of course.

mostly for comparison, to contrast something existent with its antipode. beauty vs no beauty. knowledge vs no knowledge. emotions vs no emotions. thought vs no thought. needs vs no needs. and so on.

by "lower life forms" i mean creatures with less intelligence/awareness/consciousness/knowledge. "higher life forms" are the opposite of that. i'm suggesting that ambition is proportional to intelligence/awareness/....

Yes but you were also suggesting that it is also proportional to not seeing any worth in existing and

i wouldn't necessarily say that.

I pointed out that it is a limited form of intelligence/awareness/... that has ambitions that they cannot realistically achieve

i strongly disagree with this claim. you're essentially saying that a genius who's a quadriplegic (don't say "what about stephen hawking?") shouldn't be bummed about it, and should set achievable goals instead, because he'd be less intelligent otherwise.

[Obvious Leo]

i'm sorry, but logic is not just for "the physical reality". it's infinite, and therein lies its appeal (to me).

Infinity is an unrealisable mathematical abstraction which has no analogue in the real world. How does one apply logic to that which is not real?

[Lacewing]

i'm sorry, but logic is not just for "the physical reality". it's infinite, and therein lies its appeal (to me).

Our logic is human logic, is it not? How accurate and applicable do you think human logic can be beyond the human reality (physical or otherwise)?

[alpha]

i'm sorry, but logic is not just for "the physical reality". it's infinite, and therein lies its appeal (to me).

Infinity is an unrealisable mathematical abstraction which has no analogue in the real world. How does one apply logic to that which is not real?

if i'm not mistaken, logic only deals with concepts and abstracts. in order to apply it to actual things you must first reduce those actual things to abstracts.

[alpha]

i'm sorry, but logic is not just for "the physical reality". it's infinite, and therein lies its appeal (to me).

Our logic is human logic, is it not? How accurate and applicable do you think human logic can be beyond the human reality (physical or otherwise)?

that's disputable, to say the least. also, even if it's just human logic, it's still the best we've got (so we must use it). it's illogical to just sit there and wait for "the ultimate,infinite, non-human logic" to come along.

[Obvious Leo]

if i'm not mistaken, logic only deals with concepts and abstracts. in order to apply it to actual things you must first reduce those actual things to abstracts.

Logic deals with the use and study of reasoning to derive valid principles. It cannot be applied to concepts which are invalid by their very definition, such as infinity. I would suggest that a suitable course in mathematical philosophy might be of value to you because in mathematics infinity=mistake.

[alpha]

if i'm not mistaken, logic only deals with concepts and abstracts. in order to apply it to actual things you must first reduce those actual things to abstracts.

Logic deals with the use and study of reasoning to derive valid principles. It cannot be applied to concepts which are invalid by their very definition, such as infinity. I would suggest that a suitable course in mathematical philosophy might be of value to you because in mathematics infinity=mistake.

infinity might be considered a mistake among some fnitists, but certainly not among all or even most mathematicians.

honestly, i'm not too familiar with this concept of finitism, but anything that rejects a logical principle as fundamental as the "law of excluded middle" doesn't sound right.

[Obvious Leo]

infinity might be considered a mistake among some fnitists, but certainly not among all or even most mathematicians.

Most mathematicians are not schooled in mathematical philosophy but the most significant branch of applied mathematics is the science of physics, where mathematical philosophy is crucial. In physics infinity most certainly equals mistake and eradicating infinities from the equations of physics is the single most intractable mathematical task the physicists routinely face because their business is the mathematics of the universe. The universe is a closed and thus informationally finite entity and under the constraints of Cantorean set theory an infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one. Physicists are generally not well schooled in mathematical philosophy either, although there are some notable exceptions, but all physicists are adamant that an infinite quantity is not a physically real construct.

[Arising_uk]

Infinity is an unrealisable mathematical abstraction which has no analogue in the real world. ...

I tend to differ here as I think Logic arises exactly because there are things and states of affairs.

How does one apply logic to that which is not real?

We agree here, we can't.
p.s.
Ignore the first point as I think I misread your intent.