[ExI] Fear of Death

[citta437 at aol.com]

"Terry writes

>> > Thoughts and feelings similar to fear of death
>> > arise from narcissistic desire for immortality
>> > that evolved in the genetic evolution of the
>> > human species.

Lee: "Later on, by the way, it becomes less clear what you mean by
"narcissistic". It's usually used somewhat pejoratively in English.

Naturally, I do *not* at all consider desires for living in the
far future---even if that were to mean living so long as the
universe does---as "narcissistic", unless one would consider
any life extension or even any increase in personal standard
of living to be so.  And then one would be guilty of using
the words in a very non-standard way.

>
> > I don't know how old you are, but let X = Terry's age. Then
> > Then would you call your desire to continue to live well past the
> > age X  *narcissistic*?

My reply> Desires to live well past whatever age is a genetic 
predisposition/
> narcissistic/ego causing dissatisfaction/duality, mental 
conflict/distress.

Lee: "Pardon my French, but that really sounds like a lot of BS.  It
sounds as though you are evading the question. Do you or do
you not approve of people trying to keep on living?  If so, why
call it narcissism?  Do you or do you not approve of people
seeking immortality for themselves and those they love, or, indeed,
for everyone?  Would you call that "narcissistic"?  (You did before.)
_______________

My reply: Re-read well the above where i wrote desires are genetic 
predisposition, the predisposition to be narcissistic or egoistic. It 
is none of my business to approve or not what people do to keep on 
living. Desires by itself are normal when self-love becomes an 
obsession to the point of narcissism, it caused suffering on the 
individual and those who are affected negatively by inducing envy or 
other passionate feelings, specifically, suicide bombers seeking 
immortality.

> [Lee again]
> > Because I want to keep on living---forget immortality (let's
> > say that all matter is due to disintegrate in a few trillion years)
> > ---why does that make me narcissistic?  Or does it?
>______________

My reply: The goal to keep on living for what? If the goal to keep on 
living for the sake of self-gratification is narcissism.
>  Want/desire cause suffering because of  misperceptions/
> assumptions of reality. Genes are the blue prints of  DNA. This is a
> fact not an assumption with existing evidence which can
> be tested by the scientific method.

Lee: "You wax from the banal "genes are the blue prints of DNA" to the
zen-like crap of "wants cause suffering because of [bad] assumptions
about reality", which really is a load.  What a preposterous statement.
Because, say, an animal wants to get a drink of water, or (if it's a
chimp, say, to settle an old score with a rival), this necessarily 
causes
suffering because of "misperceptions/assumptions" of reality?  Please."

My reply: I did not say bad, you inserted the word {bad] assumptions 
about reality. Assumptions are mistakes in thinking. The word bad 
implies a value judgement based on your perceptions. In connection with 
cryogenics, they may think their goal is noble to live in the future 
happily ever after is a belief not unlike any religious belief. I 
respect your belief so long it does not become an obsession/fanatical 
to the point of creating more chaos/suffering to yourself and those 
others affected in a way wherein people become blind to reality in 
order to obtain their desire at all cost.

Lee: > > "Those in the EEA who didn't fear death often did not leave 
behind
> > as many viable offspring. That's why. Clear enough?"
>
> No, what is EEA?

Lee: Sorry.  It's the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, supposed 
to
be ~1.8 million B.C. to 200,000 B.C., or something like that. The
interval where we got most of our built-in instincts and traits which
make us human.  It's the interval that the EP folks are always focusing
on.  So my statement is just what you were saying already, but just
in different language, I suspect.

> Lee:
> > Speaking very precisely, and not in the usual manner, it's
> > not death at all that I'm afraid of.  I merely regret not getting
> > to go on living.   Do you have a problem with that?"
>
> My reply: There is cellular death and the deaths of thoughts as in
> trauma, dementia  and there are those so called living dead who are
> comatose, asleep or during general anesthesia. The problem is when 
you
> failed to wake up during general anesthesia, stayed comatose till all
> neurons and body system all declined or become irreversible.

Lee: "You seem to have evaded my question.   I will *certainly* agree
that it is a BIG problem if you fail to wake up after general 
anesthesia,
but that's because it means you die.  Me, I have problem with that.

What criticisms do you have, again, for those who want to keep on
living, forever if possible? (Here "criticism" is positive analysis and
probing, as used in Pan Critical Rationalism, PCR.)  So it's 
narcissistic?
Well, what isn't?

> Humans share about 98% DNA with other primates
> according to the recent study/findings of the scientific
> method of investigation. The other 2% {a well -developed
> cortex} makes all the difference between humans and
> the apes. A well-developed brain in humans have the
> potentiality to reason, to use technological advancement
> and a language/scientific method to investigate beliefs of
> reality, thoughts and memes.

Yes. That's actually pretty old hat, but yes, I agree. This
is the sort of level of knowledge that you should assume
that the readers here already know quite well.

> Lee:
> > And reason tells me that if my life is worth living
> > for a certain (future) interval Y - X, then I would
> > rather be alive than dead during that interval.  Is
> > there a particular reason that you don't want to
> > be alive during the interval  2350 A.D. -  2650 A.D.?"
>
> My reply: Who doesn't?

Lots of religious people would rather be dead by then. Lots
of other people, e.g. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke
had other rationalizations (very clever ones, of course)
for prefering non-existence.

> Of course, I want to be alive with all my faculties for
> thinking and feeling intact.

Lee: "I'm glad to hear that!  Even in the far future, I take it?
Does this mean that you are an opponent of dying?"

I said in my previews post "Nobody dies". If you mean by dying as the 
irreversible loss of consciousness per se, no.

> Time does not exist permanently.

Lee: "That is the sort of statement that should seriously, seriously,
be deleted upon a re-reading just before you click on "send".
What on Earth are your poor readers to think of such a claim???
Have mercy."

My reply: Time exist as a thought so which time /thought is true?
> Feelings and thoughts change in time.

Lee: "Back to the banal."

> We are thoughts/feelings changing all the time. IF you
> cling to time past and future, you suffer for fear of
> losing a memory, a thought as well as a feeling of security.

Lee: "True enough. Do you happen to cling to time (past and
future) in such a way that you, Terry, also suffer for fear
of losing your, say, memories?  Or have you evolved
beyond that?  I can't tell from your words.  Sometimes
you just drop these platitudes without taking any kind
of personal stand, so that the reader is perplexed. "

My reply: I have no fear of losing some thoughts and memories specially 
when I need to be aware of what is happening around the world and my 
own community.

Lee: "In other words, do you approve or not of people being
afraid of losing memory?

My reply: I neither fear nor approve the loss of memories because today 
we have the means to delay the process.

> Terry {sometimes secure and insecure} :-}

Lee: :-)   Aren't we all!



-----