This, but i take it as the observer of shit happens, takes the issue with existence of shit without knowing who or what is doing the shitting. If sourcing the shit becomes an encompassing preoccupation it might help to examine that knowing where the shit is coming from will never be useful in stoping, changing, or affecting the shits source nor will it affect the shit thats already happened

It’s an old discussion—goes back to antiquity (e.g., Seneca), and Bacon, and many others. There is a fairly common view that death itself can’t be bad, but dying is often quite bad. The ethical upshot of that is pretty obvious: making dying less bad is good. There are other arguments for the badness of death, in e.g., Parfit’s Reasons and Persons.

Here’s an article that denies that we can measure the badness of death for the person who dies: https://doi.org/10.1017/S135824612100031X

Absolutely.

I hope by the time I need to consider it, it is a legal option.

I am an avid euthanasia supporter since that experience, it would be so easy to go like I've been put under that I would instantly take that option over slowly withering away in a random other way.

Instant teleport between the two continuities of self-awareness, and unlike when you sleep, there is no sense of how much time may have passed. So if you were to be somehow rebuilt by a supercomputer a billion years after your death or something, it would feel like an instant.

Being dead is like being stupid, it’s only painful for other people.

Death is probably like sleeping without dreaming

Personally I write all of my articles from differing viewpoints so that my audience can truly and fully appreciate the depths of my insanity.

I mean we'll never fully specify a causal mechanism, but we can use these methods to reason with (and identify) potential sources of error.

[removed]

[removed]

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

If you lived until 400, you would not have solved anything pertaining to death, just delayed it.100% of people would still die, so I mean kudos on the longevity and everything, but making lives longer doesn't actually address death.

I agree with you. If we can start with a reasonable hypothesis, looking back at historical data is a valuable way to gather evidence for that hypothesis.

[deleted]

Yeah I mostly agree with you. Here's the distinction I'll make:

If you have a starting hypothesis (e.g. an increase in the money supply will cause inflation), you can very much go back and look at historical data to find support for your hypothesis.

But if you have a completely unlabeled dataset (just a bunch of variables labeled x, y, z, ...), and can see how those variables change over time, there's no way to look at the data and say with any confidence that "x has a causal impact on z"

Don’t fear the road that leads there as it is life itself. Rejoice in it and skip and hop along because we will all get there eventually.

You don’t. Even with life extension technology you can be killed at any time. It happens constantly around the world. Also the longer you live the greater your odds of dying in an accident. I’m a lot of fun at parties.

I haven't followed your technical example yet but I plan on it. Thanks for that!

> What else could our brains possibly be doing when they learn?

I don't think this argument says much--our brains use fuzzy heuristics all the time, and people were really bad at understanding causality (see things like raindances and voodoo) before experimental science came along (which manipulates the world to see how it reacts).

Are you talking about overbelief? Or a fuzzy notion of truth? I'm all for both.

Yoda: Forest fires promote new growth.

That's a whole lot of words and pictures to explain the concept of "shit happens." Sorry for my "rudimentary" response to an overanalysis of the understanding that life is shades of gray, not black and white.

[deleted]

It isn't

What is it like?