Sorry, but the one thing you seem to know with any reasonable degree of certainty doesn't fly. "I think therefore I exist" (his actual reasoning was that he doubted that he existed, and that exactly that doubting was a certainly, therefore dubito ergo sum) contains several big problems.

First and foremost, it uses the concept of "existing". However, what "existing" is is left blank. Heidegger's Seinsfrage is probably the first serious attempt in philosophy of even asking the question of what "being" is in the right way. We have no clear and satisfactory definition or concept of being, so it is impossible to conclude it from anything. Furthemore, if you look at Asian languages which don't have a word bearing a meaning equivalent to "being" and subsequently don't ask any questions about it in philosophy, it seems not at all impossible that being as a concept is in fact a social construct.

That leaves us with Cogito/Dubito, I think/I doubt. However, the second problem we face is the concept of "I". What is "I"? Trying to prove the existence of a first person being "therefore I am" by assuming one in the premise "I think" is a logical fallacy.

Thirdly, both thinking and doubting are words. Words are not a priori, but rather a posteriori. Thus, to take their content and concept as a priori truths, is to risk turning something that is fundamentally a posteriori as a priori.


Now, the rest of what you said contains some very valid points, which are very culturally determined, and therefore necessarily very contingent. Your main conclusion, however, seems to strongly resemble my own position, namely that fully experiencing life and striving for personal mental development are worthwhile goals in life, insofar as worthwhile goals are possible.

Good point. Nanotechnology, genetic technology and artificial intelligence may indeed lead to (relative) immortality in the (relatively) near future. I know that I, for one, am hoping for it.

If that were to happen, however, it would lead to a change of the very essence of what it means to be human. We wouldn't have to look for gods anymore, we would be gods. Perhaps, then, the tragedy of human existence would disappear and be replaced by some sort of greatness. On the other hand, perhaps the greatness of mankind lies in its tragedy. Would we want to live in an artificial world of eternal happiness, like a Brave New World without the death? Are things like beauty, passion, even value still possible if we have forever to experience everything we could possibly think of?

Personally, I'm more than willing to find out. I do, however, fear immortality could be a burden that at least most of mankind couldn't handle, and one of which the mere prospect could be enough to destroy mankind.

:1orglaugh Hold that thought. I'll get back to you after a few more semesters.

I've barely even scratched the surface of suggested reading materials we've previously discussed.

Ya know bro, I am usually too busy having a good time to think about all that stuff. I'm sure if shit goes bad I might give it a thought. Haven't had to in 30 years so far. I'll let ya know if I do.

Heidegger is really worth reading. Sein und Zeit may well be the most important work of continental philosophy of the twentieth century. It takes a while to be able to fully accept his thoughts (and consequently build further upon them or reject them), but it is without a doubt worth the effort. Good luck with your studies :thumbsup

Immortality would most likely be a disaster. Lifetimes of everyone would stretch so far as to make death a vestigial concept of something 'lesser' and more 'inferior' being did.

If a Brave New World type of society arose we'd be no more than machines. Cogs in a greater machine greased to keep the world turning for no particular greater purpose than continued existance.

If there was no chance of death or other consequences for ones actions what incentives would there be to do or not do things. What would drive anyone to ever do anything?

Which leads me to have faith in a soul factor.

There is somthing I am sure of it.
I am not sure why I think so. I am not a religeous individual, I do not believe in ghosts or Jesus Christ or such things.

What I do know is that this universe has rules.
Rules for living and rules for not living.
How they work together is misunderstood I can only suppose.

Since there is no recollection of what it is to be dead for hours or for millenia or whether or not it has happened at all before the fact remains that I have been here for 34 years some months and some days and hours to the seconds.

Maybe time is irrelevant regarding life and death as both states must carry a constant. That constant must be awareness.

Ya can get atomic and theoretically say there is no such thing as "physical".
Nothing is solid but what makes them solid is the varying degree's of Gravity.

Gravity and Time have some scientific twists unto themselves.
How can it be that these "Masses" of nothing gather to shape what we percieve as reality? The dimension is pure gravity within the fabric of time.

Time is the real catalyst to begin deciding.

Deciding...

IS there a God? Is there somthing else beyond the scope of realisation when you realise that what we percieve is merely an anomoly caught within Time and Space flexing?

Answer is of course there is somthing.

Punkworld, you should know by now that a man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting, nor by thinking about what he will think when he has finished acting. A man of knowledge chooses a path with mind and follows it; then he looks and rejoices and laughs; and then he sees and knows. He knows that his life will be over altogether too soon; he knows that he, as well as everybody else, is not going anywhere; he knows, because he sees, that nothing is more important than anything else.

In other words, a man of knowledge has no honour, no dignity, no family, no name, no country, but only life to be lived, and under these circumstances his only tie to reality is his controlled folly. Thus a man of knowledge endeavours, and sweats, and puffs, and if one looks at him he is just like any ordinary man, except that the folly of his life is under control. Nothing being more important than anything else, a man of knowledge chooses any act, and acts it out as if what he does matters and makes him act as if it did, and yet he knows that it doesn't; so when he fulfills his acts he retreats in peace, and whether his acts were good or bad, or worked or didn't, is in no way part of his concern.

A man of knowledge may choose, on the other hand, to remain totally impassive and never act, and behave as if to be impassive really matters to him; he will be rightfully true at that too, because that would also be his controlled folly.

We must know first that our acts are useless and yet we must proceed as if we didn't know it.

I go on living, though, because I have my will. Because I've tempered my will throughout my life until it's neat and wholesome and now it doesn't matter to me that nothing matters.

Pleasure would probably drive people to do things, as would ambition for fame, intellectual recognition, social interaction... You might be right, immortality might indeed lead to disaster, but we have no real way to predict what the effects would be. Nor do we have a way of preventing scientists from achieving it, for that matter. The only thing that is beyond a doubt is that the next few hundred years will be very interesting both from a technological as well as a philosophical point of view. I'm particularly looking forward to the moment when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence :winkwink:

I will see ya folks at the restaraunt at the end of the universe.

Count on it.

"Life is empty and meaningless."

If you know what that says, it's a rather rewarding and freeing phrase.

some good points here...

You make some valid points, but also some that I will have to disagree with.

The main problem with what you are saying is that it assumes a gap between thinking and acting. This is indeed what Sartre's existentialism stated as well, that a man is nothing more than his actions (Mozart, after all, is the symphonies he actually made, not the ones he could have made), but that is an argument which, to me, seems invalid.
Intuitively, I would say that I am more than just my actions to myself, and what I am to myself is all that matters. But if I am more to myself than just actions, then I am in fact both actions and thought. Or, perhaps, the difference between actions and thoughts is one that can only made by an outsider about a subject, since a subject himself will always combine the two in his image of himself.
Either way, there is no reason to believe that the man of knowledge would choose to act instead of think. I, for one, would agree with Seneca, in that by scholarly pursuits one can get to know and communicate with the greatest minds in history and thus spend time in a more satisfying, fruitful way than would otherwise be the case. Obviously, studying the works of those minds requires both extensive time spent reading, as well as considerable time contemplating the thoughts put forth. I would argue that thinking, in this case, is also a form of acting, and quite likely one that the man of knowledge would prefer over a vast range of actions.

Which leads me to my next point, that it seems very doubtful to me that the man of knowledge, who realizes that objectively, nothing matters more than anything else, would choose to live his life just like any other man. The lack of an objective truth does not in any way lessen the value of subjective truth and judgement, in fact, it might even strengthen it. The man of knowledge, then, having realized that the bonds of social form and cultural expectation do not matter, would surely choose to follow his own subjective truth while ignoring traditional structures in any other consideration than purely practical ones. It would seem likely that precisely the man of knowledge would stand out from the crowd, because he alone would shape his life around what he considers important rather than what society considers important.

If you haven't already realized we've lived those situations many times through-out history. You can easily replace a superpower AI, with those who were the highly educated or who held the majority of the power. B/c lets face it, that's all a super AI would be. Not everyone would be it and surely those behind would catch up. It's all a process of information.

How are we not that now ? And what will be the difference between that time and this? NONE. There will always be the strong percentages of highly educated, greatly empowered(by whatever means), and those in abundance of technology. Those people will create the societal, environmental, cultural, lines to live by. You could easily says that's how we live now.

Are those not the same things that drive us now? Have they not always driven us since the dawn of time. There are only a few set classifications of awareness we can go before we completely deconstruct. If you look at the patterns of life and how intelligence evolves then you will see that even if AI reigned supreme and we had the brave new world society you would soon realize that there would be a vast number of species at the far lower ranks in and between. NOT everything or everyone would be at that level. For that reason, we will ALWAYS exist in the same patterns. The better at patten patterning we get has nothing to do with how empty life is.

Ahhh yes, who BEFORE us hasn't said that. Didn't our great grandfathers say THAT SAME EXACT THING. Don't you realize that we are ALWAYS on the brink of the greatest technology. That we HAVE more than any generation before us, and that the next coming decades will be amazing. Yes, sure, why not? When hasn't it been.

The function of life will continue to remain the same, it will vary to left or right sometimes and we will create more and go further just to have something to contrast our existence to. The fact still remains that we will evolve, we will create, we will destroy, and all life(and non-life) will continue to do the same with full intent. I mean... how else can we know anything about ourselves until we know everything about reality.