2dimes wrote:chang50 wrote:perhaps you can recommend a good,but cheap therapist?
Sorry, if you want Saxi (and in my opinion you do) it won't come cheap.
I'm only a poor pensioner so I think I'll pass on that one, but thanks anyway... : )
Moderator: Community Team
2dimes wrote:chang50 wrote:perhaps you can recommend a good,but cheap therapist?
Sorry, if you want Saxi (and in my opinion you do) it won't come cheap.
chang50 wrote:john9blue wrote:i'm banking on the possibility that technology will advance in my lifetime to the point where we can live indefinitely, and that i'll be able to afford/qualify for the chance to do so. if not, well, shucks
What a terrible prospect,immortality is my worst nightmare.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:+500 Saxibucks to Haggis.
-TG
You a fan of Tyr or just the quote itself?
Anyway +5000 saxbucks to Tails.
(saxi gave me the printing press, so I don't exactly need extras)
thegreekdog wrote:My serious is answer is no, I have not accepted death. I have thought about it a lot and I try not to think about it at all.
chang50 wrote: I am very aware of the paradox inherent in a naturalist caring about what happens after death,perhaps you can recommend a good,but cheap therapist?Perhaps it never occurred to you,but not everyone desires what belief in theism potentially offers at death so it actually makes more sense for them to not convert.
Hitchens wrote:“The clear awareness of having been born into a losing struggle need not lead one into despair. I do not especially like the idea that one day I shall be tapped on the shoulder and informed, not that the party is over but that it is most assuredly going on—only henceforth in my absence. (It's the second of those thoughts: the edition of the newspaper that will come out on the day after I have gone, that is the more distressing.) Much more horrible, though, would be the announcement that the party was continuing forever, and that I was forbidden to leave. Whether it was a hellishly bad party or a party that was perfectly heavenly in every respect, the moment that it became eternal and compulsory would be the precise moment that it began to pall.”
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There's no honor in death nor is there such thing as a good death.
-TG
jimboston wrote:thegreekdog wrote:My serious is answer is no, I have not accepted death. I have thought about it a lot and I try not to think about it at all.
My brother is one of those Cryonic freaks.
... but he can't afford to freeze his whole body, so he's only freezing his head.
(It's pretty expensive I guess.)
He asked me to sign a document with/for him... verifying he was "of sound mind and body" when he agreed to this Cryonic thing. This apparently would protect his assets after his death, so they can be used to first pay for the cryonics and later after he is "revived".
I told him I would sign it for $10K... otherwise I would do my dam-best to get those funds (for myself... as one of a few remaining legitimate heirs / he has no kids).
I call him "freeze pop".
I think he hasn't "accepted" death.
chang50 wrote:2dimes wrote:chang50 wrote:perhaps you can recommend a good,but cheap therapist?
Sorry, if you want Saxi (and in my opinion you do) it won't come cheap.
I'm only a poor pensioner so I think I'll pass on that one, but thanks anyway... : )
nietzsche wrote:You are right to be upset, maybe I used wrong words. I have neither proof nor right to say there's nothing after death. But let's keep that discussion in the many threads for that, not in this one.
It's not that you are cheating but that's not what I intended when I asked if you have accepted you own death. I was going more with the existential meaning of it.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:jimboston wrote:thegreekdog wrote:My serious is answer is no, I have not accepted death. I have thought about it a lot and I try not to think about it at all.
My brother is one of those Cryonic freaks.
... but he can't afford to freeze his whole body, so he's only freezing his head.
(It's pretty expensive I guess.)
He asked me to sign a document with/for him... verifying he was "of sound mind and body" when he agreed to this Cryonic thing. This apparently would protect his assets after his death, so they can be used to first pay for the cryonics and later after he is "revived".
I told him I would sign it for $10K... otherwise I would do my dam-best to get those funds (for myself... as one of a few remaining legitimate heirs / he has no kids).
I call him "freeze pop".
I think he hasn't "accepted" death.
Hey, as long as he can afford it without sacrificing too much stuff right now, I don't see why criogenics wouldn't make sense.
Sure there's a very small chance that it will work, but the potential payout is huge.
If I could afford it I'd pay a couple thousand for the 0.1% chance that I'm gonna increase my lifespan 10x.
jimboston wrote:Let's say they keep you frozen for 100 years, 200 years, what have you.
Then they thaw and revive you.
*Everyone you know and love is long dead.
*If you had kids, and they had kids, etc... your great great great grandchildren have their own lives and don't know who you are. They don't care about you / they have no feelings for you. You may be a curiosity to them, that's it. (In my brother's case he has no children and so if he has any relatives it will be great great great grandnephews / nieces.
*Assuming you're not a famous historical figure... no one will care about your revival.
*You will have no marketable skills. You're only value would maybe be as a historian for the late 20th and early 21st century.
Of course they cryogenics people will likely have revived thousands of people by this point... so even your value there will be minimal.
*It's possible that you would have money... if you setup a trust and it was invested wisely while you slept; with compound interest you may be wealthy. It's also possible that you will be destitute... that with hyper-inflation and gov't seizure of the assets of those crygenically frozen, you could be broke.
*The values and world-view you "went to sleep" with will not jive with the current values. You won't fit in.
Do you really want to be revived in 200 years???
Haggis_McMutton wrote:After all, if it sucks SO MUCH I can always go back to nonexistance at any point.
2dimes wrote:If Jim's brother is social I guess an extrovert, there might be a desire for some family but he should be able to find other people to interact with. Maybe he would find a thawed out lady and make a family. They could adopt if he's only a head.
Ok, maybe 90 is exaggerated, but there are a lot of people doing fine in north america these days that wouldn't be able to survive 100 years ago.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:+500 Saxibucks to Haggis.
-TG
You a fan of Tyr or just the quote itself?
Anyway +5000 saxbucks to Tails.
(saxi gave me the printing press, so I don't exactly need extras)
Ray Rider wrote:nietzsche wrote:You are right to be upset, maybe I used wrong words. I have neither proof nor right to say there's nothing after death. But let's keep that discussion in the many threads for that, not in this one.
It's not that you are cheating but that's not what I intended when I asked if you have accepted you own death. I was going more with the existential meaning of it.
hey np man, I'm not upset at all! I just thought you were interested in how various people have come to terms with their own certain death at some time in the future. I didn't think you would limit the discussion to naturalism since that's not the worldview by which the majority of humanity through the millennia has come to terms with death. Anyway, I'm outta here, carry on!
jimboston wrote:
So if they only have his head... how do they revive him?
1) Clone a new body from the genetic material in his head, and then implant his "brain image" into the clone.
2) Build a "robot" or some sort of cybernetic "body"... and implant his brain into said body.
3) Attach his unfrozen head to some sort of "robot"... I'm thinking something like a spider-leg body with a human head on top, but use your imagination.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:chang50 wrote: I am very aware of the paradox inherent in a naturalist caring about what happens after death,perhaps you can recommend a good,but cheap therapist?Perhaps it never occurred to you,but not everyone desires what belief in theism potentially offers at death so it actually makes more sense for them to not convert.Hitchens wrote:“The clear awareness of having been born into a losing struggle need not lead one into despair. I do not especially like the idea that one day I shall be tapped on the shoulder and informed, not that the party is over but that it is most assuredly going on—only henceforth in my absence. (It's the second of those thoughts: the edition of the newspaper that will come out on the day after I have gone, that is the more distressing.) Much more horrible, though, would be the announcement that the party was continuing forever, and that I was forbidden to leave. Whether it was a hellishly bad party or a party that was perfectly heavenly in every respect, the moment that it became eternal and compulsory would be the precise moment that it began to pall.”TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There's no honor in death nor is there such thing as a good death.
-TG
+1
The only circumstance in which accepting death would seem reasonable is one in which not doing so would mean undue hardship for your loved ones.
But accepting death for an abstract ideal, like honour or bravery or something. f*ck that.
2dimes wrote:jimboston wrote:
So if they only have his head... how do they revive him?
1) Clone a new body from the genetic material in his head, and then implant his "brain image" into the clone.
2) Build a "robot" or some sort of cybernetic "body"... and implant his brain into said body.
3) Attach his unfrozen head to some sort of "robot"... I'm thinking something like a spider-leg body with a human head on top, but use your imagination.
The robot fantasy is one that seems popular. I doubt it would be fun other than you could be 30 feet tall and shoot fire out of your titanium anus.
You can't be enjoying your favorite foods, and snuggle time. You're not really living are you?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users