Death

[DavidW]

The reason that your OP premise fails is because some people will believe that they are aware of their death because their soul does not die.  No matter how you rephrase it,  keeping that out of the discussion makes for a short and rather one sided discussion.

[Florestan]

This discussion begins with an assumption: There's no afterlife. [...]

The first thing I should have stated much more clearly than I did is that discussing the validity of that assumption is totally out of the question. That's a different thread, if you like. [...] You simply either play along or keep out.

Why do you call it "discussion" then? It's just you imposing your views on everybody else and emphatically so: either your way or the highway. Rather unpolite and decidedly ineffective.

[Elgarian]

    Death isn't a thing, or a state. It means that a living thing has ceased to be alive. It's one of the strange features of language, and therefore of certain philosophies, that nonexistence can be treated as some alternative form of existence.

I agree it isn't a thing, but it is a state, at least, it is when regarded from outside the box. There's a difference between a dead cat and a living one - and that's a difference in state. What we don't and cannot know is how the situation appears to the cat (unless we are the cat). In the second sentence you're equating 'death' with 'non-existence', but I don't think we can do that, because the lid is closed and we can't open it from outside. Of course one can make a personal decision that 'death' and 'non-existence' are identical; but that's just a kind of Occam's Razor-like choice.

I think there are at least two reasons for regarding the question as unresolvable:

(1) We have no way of knowing what (if anything) is going on inside the box. That's your 'knowledge we don't have' issue.
(2) The question may be absurd - a category error, like your question about whether death is purple, or mine about whether a dog is an elephant or a cow.

However, in my previous post I was putting forward the idea of a subtly different origin for the mistake - one not merely linguistic. I was wondering if the question's absurdity might be due to a failure to grasp certain fundamental properties of reality, arising from the idea of quantum superposition; that is, an error based on a misunderstanding of the nature of existence.

I'm not arguing a point here. I'm just poking around.

[Iconito]

Why do you call it "discussion" then? It's just you imposing your views on everybody else and emphatically so: either your way or the highway. Rather unpolite and decidedly ineffective.

Hi, Florestan! 

I’m afraid there’s a misunderstanding here... the discussion is (assuming death is complete and final and you can’t even experience it blah blah blah, as stated in the -revised- OP) the part you didn’t quote, i.e. “There is no death for you. Have you ever thought it that way? What are the implications (if any) to your life? (like, how much sense does fear of dying make? or, how much power does someone pointing a gun to your head have? etc)”

In other words, the game is to accept the premise and discuss the implications (something that most GMGers happily do when confronted with threads like “name your five desert islands string quartets”... I don’t see anybody asking “why five? why string quartets? why would I go to a desert island?”) I certainly didn’t mean to be impolite or impose anything to anybody (except the framework for the discussion, of course)

As a side note: Please be careful with the way you quote people. As you quoted me, the phrase “You simply either play along or keep out.” sounds like an order. If that is the way you actually understood it, well, no wonder you found it impolite... The complete quote is:

The first thing I should have stated much more clearly than I did is that discussing the validity of that assumption is totally out of the question. That’s a different thread, if you like. This is like “Let’s discuss morals assuming there’s no God” or “Let’s discuss 9/11 assuming all those conspiracy theories are false”. You just don’t mention God or Loose Change in those threads. You simply either play along or keep out.

You surely see that, in that context, I’m not giving any orders. I’m just describing what you do... Like “in the «name your five desert islands string quartets» thread you name five string quartets. You don’t name three piano sonatas”.

I hope everything is clear now.

Cheers!

[Florestan]

Hi, Florestan! 

I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding here... the discussion is (assuming death is complete and final and you can't even experience it blah blah blah, as stated in the -revised- OP) the part you didn't quote, i.e. "There is no death for you. Have you ever thought it that way? What are the implications (if any) to your life? (like, how much sense does fear of dying make? or, how much power does someone pointing a gun to your head have? etc)"

In other words, the game is to accept the premise and discuss the implications

Then if I understand correctly, the game is not to discuss about death in general, but to discuss about your view of death which derives from that untouchable premise. Fine. All I can say on the subject is that I don't accept the premise, so I guess I have no bussiness being here anymore.

I certainly didn't mean to be impolite or impose anything to anybody (except the framework for the discussion, of course)

Ok, your explanations make it clear now.  0:)

[Iconito]

Then if I understand correctly, the game is not to discuss about death in general, but to discuss about your view of death which derives from that untouchable premise. Fine. All I can say on the subject is that I don't accept the premise, so I guess I have no bussiness being here anymore.

Well, not really... The game is not “to discuss about [my] view of death which derives from that untouchable premise”... “My view of death” IS the premise. The game is to discuss its implications (if any) to life... But don’t worry, for even if you do understand correctly now, chances are you’ll still not want to play (which is perfectly fine, of course)

And a little disclaimer: I really didn’t invent the idea that death is the very end of us. The rest of the premise (“you can’t realise that you just died because there’s no more «you» to realise anything, so there’s no death for you...”) is not that far fetched either (once you accept that death is the very end of you...) But again, it goes without saying that you don’t have to play if you don’t want to.

[DavidW]

But don't worry, for even if you do understand correctly now, chances are you'll still not want to play (which is perfectly fine, of course)

Oh I think Florestan understood you perfectly fine, I don't know why you have to be so condescending.  A few posters now have pointed that your premise is too narrowly focused and doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so the problem is obviously with you and not with him.  Just saying why don't you stop attacking him now and consider changing the topic of your thread (which has not been a success so far)?

[Elgarian]

Your death will be very real for those who outlive you but, as far as it concerns you, your own death will never happen.
The first thing I should have stated much more clearly than I did is that discussing the validity of that assumption is totally out of the question. That's a different thread, if you like. ... You simply either play along or keep out.
So, now that that's (I hope) clear: There is no death for you. Have you ever thought it that way? What are the implications (if any) to your life?

I've only just found this edited addition: it seems to me that you 're trying to rig the game in a way that leaves virtually no room for real discussion at all. (I say this not because I have some personal religious axe to grind - I don't - but because even within your terms of reference there are important issues still unresolved which have a bearing on how one might answer.) Worse than this, though, I see no reason to be so unpleasant about being so prescriptive: 'either play along or keep out'. Your point above about context doesn't seem to make any difference, to me. I'll keep out from here on, thanks.

Later edit: These comments of mine are based on a misunderstanding.  Please see #81 below.

[Dr. Dread]

Chop wood. Carry water.

[Szykneij]

What are the implications (if any) to your life? (like, how much sense does fear of dying make? or, how much power does someone pointing a gun to your head have? etc)

There is a huge difference between a fear of dying and a fear of being dead. I know that 100 years from now, I won't be alive and I accept that fact. Unfortunately, all too often the process of dying is one of prolonged pain and sadness, and that is a legitimate fear. Also, the fear of dying is not necessarily a selfish thing. When you have a family depending upon you, you want to make sure you're there for them when they need you -- which isn't easy to do when you're pushing up daisies.

[prémont]

My philosophy exactly.  We're all going back to where we were before we were born. 

To nothingness I suppose.

BTW does anybody remember anything from the time before he was conceived?

And can we talk about the same individual if the memory is lost?

Would it strictly be me if I entered a state where my memory was lost?

Isn´t an individual the sum of his memory.

[Iconito]

There is a huge difference between a fear of dying and a fear of being dead. I know that 100 years from now, I won't be alive and I accept that fact. Unfortunately, all too often the process of dying is one of prolonged pain and sadness, and that is a legitimate fear.

That’s a legitimate fear, indeed. But isn’t this a fear of the pain and sadness involved, instead of a fear of the process of dying? We can think of very sad and painful situations (the kind that make you wish you were dead, according to movie villains) that are certainly to be feared... but is the fear different if we add death to the mix? A torture session (to name one thing) where you die is more dreadful that a torture session where you survive? On the other hand: If you (I don’t know how, but let’s suppose so) knew that you will die tonight peacefully and painlessly while you sleep... would you be afraid? What do you think?

Also, the fear of dying is not necessarily a selfish thing. When you have a family depending upon you, you want to make sure you're there for them when they need you -- which isn't easy to do when you're pushing up daisies.

That’s an excellent point. But again, I wonder if this fear has to do with my family suffering, rather than me dying? Does the fear go away if I have a million dollar life insurance?

[knight66]

A torture session (to name one thing) where you die is more dreadful that a torture session where you survive?

I read back to the start after reading your above post; I was in doubt it could be the thread originator who wrote it. I think you argue completely against your own earlier remarks.

In answer to your question. Why would such a session by worse if it ends in death, if you want to argue that death is a nothingness and has at least to be a release from pain? Whereas to live, may be to endure extended pain and disablement without relief.

I see that as being possibly a worse alternative. But really, this is reading like Caligula's abstracted experiments in trying to kill people slowly to get out of them what the point of death is like. This is so theoretical that I don't see the point really of the discussion.

Also, the answers you get from people can't easily be argued with, as some have fear of death, some none and as with other of our experiences, it depends on many factors as to how we react.I don't see that many can sensibly discuss this kind of thing in advance. We don't really know how we will react to a threat, danger, substantial experience until we meet it. Even if surmounted once, we might react differently a second time.

Now, had you not been so determined to box and package the direction of argument, we would not have experienced three pages of about the way the question was expressed. I will however be interested to see how far it can run with all the hedging around that you have planted.

Mike

[Bulldog]

Death is serious business, not a game for relieving one's boredom or challenging your mental prowess.  You folks are free to wallow in the subject, but I choose life.  No more from me on this thread.

[Dr. Dread]

Death is serious business, not a game for relieving one's boredom or challenging your mental prowess.  You folks are free to wallow in the subject, but I choose life.  No more from me on this thread.

Death is part of life. 

[Iconito]

I read back to the start after reading your above post; I was in doubt it could be the thread originator who wrote it. I think you argue completely against your own earlier remarks.

I wasn’t arguing. Those were questions (not rhetorical questions, but meant to be answered questions)

In answer to your question. Why would such a session by worse if it ends in death, if you want to argue that death is a nothingness and has at least to be a release from pain? Whereas to live, may be to endure extended pain and disablement without relief.

I see that as being possibly a worse alternative.

And I agree with you (I think... Is not like I have all this figured out. Otherwise, why would I want to discuss it? All I’m saying is “let’s assume that, when you die, you die for good, to the point that you don’t even realise you just died, because there’s no “you” anymore... What are the implications?”)

But really, this is reading like Caligula's abstracted experiments in trying to kill people slowly to get out of them what the point of death is like. This is so theoretical that I don't see the point really of the discussion.

I rather think that all of us (most of us? some of us? just me?) have to come to terms, so to speak, with our own death. I think discussing the subject might not be completely useless (for some of us, anyway)

Also, the answers you get from people can't easily be argued with, as some have fear of death, some none and as with other of our experiences, it depends on many factors as to how we react.I don't see that many can sensibly discuss this kind of thing in advance. We don't really know how we will react to a threat, danger, substantial experience until we meet it. Even if surmounted once, we might react differently a second time.

It’s a tough subject, I agree with you (again), but I stand for tough-subject’s right to be discussed

Now, had you not been so determined to box and package the direction of argument, we would not have experienced three pages of about the way the question was expressed. I will however be interested to see how far it can run with all the hedging around that you have planted.

Mike

But I really don’t think it’s THAT boxed and packaged... I just left out the afterlife. And I did it for at least two reasons: Number one, I didn’t want somebody expressing his fear of (say) burning in Hell, and somebody else responding “Don’t worry, there’s no Hell. You will reincarnate into a butterfly”, and a third one responding “that’s nonsense! When you die, you die for good!”. Now THAT is a pointless discussion... And, despite the fact that we do have such discussions all the time, I wanted this one to be different. I wanted this one to be limited to one set of believes. So I chose the set of believes that better suits me (That’s reason number two... Sue me! ) Granted, those who believe in the afterlife may find difficult to play this game... But if I make an open invitation to, say, a game of chess, should I be demonized because I’m leaving out checkers players? Backgammon players? Billiard players? Etc? Anyway. I take the chance to, once again, express that I never meant to be impolite or rude. If it sounded that way, please give a guy struggling with his second language the benefit of the doubt.

[Iconito]

Death is serious business, not a game for relieving one's boredom or challenging your mental prowess.  You folks are free to wallow in the subject, but I choose life.  No more from me on this thread.

And you will be missed, for you where the first one to grasp the “rules” of this thread and give an answer. Your answer was “so what?” which, granted, doesn’t make for a long discussion, but is clear enough and totally valid (and I’m NOT being sarcastic) You seem to be totally in peace with your death, don’t even think about it and focus totally in life. Now: I don’t know if you a) came to that mind-set after a long process, or if b) you rather never really thought about it and it’s just your guts talking. In case (b), man I do envy you. In case (a), I still envy you, but please understand that some of us may still be processing, and having a genuine interest in talking about it.

[knight66]

Incogneto. The term 'arguing' that I used and you quoted was used with its meaning of reasoned discussion; not with the more modern meaning o dialogue in conflict.

As to this: "I just left out the afterlife. And I did it for at least two reasons: Number one, I didn't want somebody expressing his fear of (say) burning in Hell"

This leaves out all those who may be terrified of there not being an afterlife.

Mike

[Bulldog]

And you will be missed, for you where the first one to grasp the "rules" of this thread and give an answer. Your answer was "so what?" which, granted, doesn't make for a long discussion, but is clear enough and totally valid (and I'm NOT being sarcastic) You seem to be totally in peace with your death, don't even think about it and focus totally in life. Now: I don't know if you a) came to that mind-set after a long process, or if b) you rather never really thought about it and it's just your guts talking. In case (b), man I do envy you. In case (a), I still envy you, but please understand that some of us may still be processing, and having a genuine interest in talking about it.

Yes, my processing is finished.  Some of that had to do with being diagnosed with prostate cancer about two years ago.  That's when I really had to get down to basics and "suck it up" in order to get through the ordeal.  That's when I decided to be strong and optimistic, no matter how I was feeling physically.  Anyways, I'm cancer-free for now but feel ready to face whatever comes next.

[Iconito]

Yes, my processing is finished.  Some of that had to do with being diagnosed with prostate cancer about two years ago.  That's when I really had to get down to basics and "suck it up" in order to get through the ordeal.  That's when I decided to be strong and optimistic, no matter how I was feeling physically.  Anyways, I'm cancer-free for now but feel ready to face whatever comes next.

Wao, man... I’m sorry to hear that... Although your last phrase made me very happy.

You made me think that, perhaps, the ultimate (not very conscious at first) goal of this discussion is to achieve that feeling of being “ready to face whatever comes next”. My (tentative) way of (trying to) achieve that is by trying to understand what Death means. My proposition is that Death simply means “Not-Me-anymore”, which is something that I certainly will never be able to experience... So, if the idea holds, really: Why bother? Focus on life (i.e. Me) and never think about it again. Of course, making the idea hold, well... That’s the process.