>The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.

Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.

​

>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

No.

The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.

> I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.

>To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life

Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

sometimes you sleep without having dreams.

True. I have no issue with longevity or the study of it. I once checked the Internet for the people with the most longevity. It was the Japanese, but mostly with their diet from the 70's, vs what they eat now, which is somewhat Americanized. So I planned to start eating more fish and rice, but... I never really got around to it.

But your point is well taken, it is incredible what options are available now, and the advances that have been made.

But it doesn't mitigate it, even a fraction of a percent, it just delays it.

If some people see death as a problem to be dealt with (and eventually solved) then I have no issue taking advantage of whatever scientific breakthroughs they might come up with. If they can discover a way to stop our telomeres from fraying, I'll sign right up. But I view death as a necessary part of life. I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.

To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life, so I have less riding on the notion of "solving" the problem of death than one might have if one believes the grave is the end of consciousness.

[removed]

« …the problem of death » Is death an actual problem or just part of life?

I do not agree that children are ignorant to death. Children have come from the place we return to at death. It is adults who are ignorant.

The longer you live, the more chance you have to undergo subsequent life extension procedures. Aubrey de Grey called it "longevity escape velocity".

We write like that sometimes too.

Man, same. My fear is I’ll be in screaming agony and that will carry over into that eternal rest.

I remember the surgeon counting down, when he got to 7 a nurse told me to wake up.

No sense of time in between.

Having lived through a soul-crushing event that destroyed my very identity and forced me to rebuild everything about myself....I can verify what you're saying. Strength comes with practice and surrounding oneself with good, like-minded people to help you steer the course.

its also ego death, and tough to recover from. building and maintaining a sense of self after that sort of epiphany is a different kind of ill that philosophy is still trying to cure. Almost every trans-formative self narrative or post crisis identity salience is still at best slightly vulnerable and at worst fragile as hell.

I might have lost the plot along the way in this thread what was the question

I might

And that last part is the hardest for people to grapple with. Admitting that one sees that they're wrong and not reality is a harsh but necessary (and freeing) epiphany.

> Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.

Coped with? Sure, maybe. Accepted? No.

But: If there's a problem with with your car, for example, you can probably cope with it. But that's not the same as trying to fix it.

And saying that "well, eventually, all cars stop working" isn't an excuse to not fix it.

Coping with the machine being broken would be precisely the wrong thing to do.

The point is to always keep in mind that death is a problem.

> or, at least mitigate

Did you guys all miss this part?

Edit: The point was that the goal should be to 1) acknowledge that death is the problem; and 2) from that, at least try to eliminate the problem. Even if that is not successful. You may be able to, at least, mitigate it.

But the main thing, the starting point, is to not fool yourself into the notion that it isn't a problem. The problem certainly isn't going to get fixed if it is simply excused.

> You can only "solve" moral problems with logic or mathematics once you've already assumed a particular moral philosophy or ethical framework- consequentialism, for instance.

What if you merely present all of the valid options in a steel-manned manner, making no presumptions or epistemically unsound assertions along the way?

> Nothing can be solved WITHOUT logic and probability!

Disagree - heuristics can solve many issues, and there is substantial evidence that heuristics do not run on (actual, flawless) logic.

> logic and probability are basic elements of all actions and all analytics (of action).

So too with heuristics!

> Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

Is this necessarily an evidence-based True Fact, or might it be merely a heuristic powered belief?

> So its up to us and our "actual goals and logics" to set the moral standards. and so its up to us how many we safe or if we dont safe anybody and how we safe them. we dont have the the duty, only if we give us the duty!

What if people disagree with other people's "logic" and conclusions?

Agreed only the pattern seeking nature and the human inability to distinguish between abd avoid lumping all or miscategorizing this shit from that shit... can lead to a mistaken sense of a single shit source which while still unknowable could potentially be deduced *(im liking this more and more) a single cruel source negates random and amplifies unfair. The cruel piece of shit fact then becomes inescapable maybe life isnt a toilet we the observer are shit

> You can't solve moral problems with math. You can only express your moral beliefs in symbolic forms and manipulate them with the tools of mathematics

I agree you can't guarantee a solution, or create a solution that solves them directly, but a math based solution could cause belief formation that is sufficient to alter human behavior enough to (at least substantially) solve the problem, could it not?

On one hand, this is kinda "cheating"....but on the other hand, ignoring how reality actually works isn't flawless either.

To paraphrase: This article presents arguments. But there are other, contrary, arguments. Thus it's "flawed."

Exactly. The shitting is always occurring, whether it's a result of our own choices or not. Life is cruel, random and unfair. We just do our best to remedy that or, at a minimum, mitigate it. Find the positive lessons or things to be grateful for and move on.

Are you saying death should be eliminated?

That'd be nice, but there's no currently conceivable way that will ever happen. What you're suggesting is that people might live longer. But the difference between dying at 80 vs. dying at 200 is the same as the difference between dying at 40 vs. dying at 80. Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.

I feel like you either have a massive blindspot or you're just trying verbal gymnastics to trick yourself into an argument you know is wrong.

but he gives no fucks and has no intention of stopping