The eternal observer.

As I see it, two things would matter: what we were able to observe and if what we observed could change us. It would be hell if what we could observe was too limited. It would be non-existence if what we observed couldn't change us.

The eternal observer.

As I see it, two things would matter: what we were able to observe and if what we observed could change us. It would be hell if what we could observe was too limited. It would be non-existence if what we observed couldn't change us. — praxis

Intriguing dichotomy, this seems to cover my thinking.

As human beings have the environment change us as well as have it usually bring about varied experiences, however, we are not entirely in control of all that is, only that which is limited to our physical capabilities or immediate surroundings. If there is a continuation after death how much freedom would be bestowed upon us and how much would be taken away?

And I do believe it is that fear of death which keeps us going everyday. When immortality is imagined, the thought of no motivation and no desire comes up. It's like an endless stream of things but nothingness at the same time. Seeing this, some might say that one is living to die. Waiting for the "nothingness" to swallow you.
When one dies, they cannot live their death. Thus, we always live others' deaths and that is the only way we know of the existence of death. When one dies, the world dies with them. There is no forward and backward for them. It's almost like saying they never existed, except for the fact that people have memories of them, which can be quite shaky, seeing how the human brain works and is even known to have hallucinations. And then, these days, we have the physical memories of them, in audio or visual forms. Other than that, are we fooling ourselves about the existence of a person? Are these devices built to capture someone who accompanies us without showing us the harsh reality?
These are just questions which I think about.

Although I have not read all the posts here with great care, it seems that some posters, at least, would find the idea of an eternal existence to be tiring and dreary at best, insufferable at worst. For my part, I can imagine being perfectly happy to "carry on" forever. However, I say this with a great deal of trepidation as I can imagine there would be some aspects of an eternal existence that are either not even imaginable or that I have not though carefully enough about.

Let's talk about ways we could imagine an eternal existence to be intolerable. My life, like all lives, is not entirely a bowl of cherries (however, on the whole, I am confident I have been more fortunate than most, but who knows?). I live in a very cold climate - what would it be like to face an eternity of Januarys? When I was in my 20s, I embraced the cold; in my 60s, I find it very unpleasant, and increasingly so. Perhaps after several thousand Januarys you would need to talk me off a ledge. On a more serious note, I, like almost everyone, have experience the loss of something dear to me (relationships, a job I loved). Could I tolerate an eternity of experiencing such loss even if such events were infrequent?

Likewise, would I tire of the good things in life? Perhaps the pleasure in eating an ice cream would be greatly impoverished were I to face an infinite number of cones to lick in the future.

In short, would I tire of existence? My guess is that I would not, but that is almost certainly because I expect that, were I to live forever, I would become increasingly resilient to the challenges of life and would therefore not be overwhelmed by them.

Although I have not read all the posts here with great care, it seems that some posters, at least, would find the idea of an eternal existence to be tiring and dreary at best, insufferable at worst. For my part, I can imagine being perfectly happy to "carry on" forever. — expos4ever

I think it's down to temperament, this one. Some people think they find the idea exhilarating, others imagine it will be tedious. Generally this probably reflects how you feel about your own life now as a finite creature. Personally, I think even the idea of living to 100 seems pretty awful. Even with good health and minimal challenges. I generally find the older I am, the more self-contained I become and the less interesting life becomes. I have had many experiences, lots of fun and love but frankly, there's only so much of it I want or need. It starts repeating on you. I suspect an appetite for life is a little like an appetite for food. Some people seem to have no off switch and others are more quickly sated.

Since death as a total cessation consciousness (nothing) is not an experience, the only alternative is 'what it is like to be something'. In this sense a version of Samsara (cyclical life) is true, just without any individual continuity of the small self incarnation (soul memory/identity). Death is just a phenomena of radical transition and renewal. I suspect soul continuity (reincarnation) has become a crutch to give hope that good works in this life carry over to the next. Such an idea likely bolsters practical morality.

If we could devise a way to functionally forget ourselves, without damaging the capacity to renew our sense of the self, then maybe immortality would be an easier prospect. But the challenge of entropy, bodily degradation, programmed cell death, erasure of memory makes it all moot. We become world weary when physical/mental maladaptation/dysfunction make daily requirements of living monotonous and uncomfortable/painful.

Give Bryan Johnson a disease, or other intractable mental or material difficulty, and he may revise his desire to live a long life.

We become world weary when physical/mental maladaptation/dysfunction make daily requirements of living monotonous and uncomfortable/painful.

Give Bryan Johnson a disease, or other intractable mental or material difficulty, and he may revise his desire to live a long life. — Nils Loc

Good points. It reminds me of ethical suicide, or specifically speaking, euthanasia. But I am not sure if you are actually thinking about this. I even think that, when time passes by, there are less arguments about living a long life.

Since death as a total cessation consciousness (nothing) is not an experience, — Nils Loc

I disagree with this. Death is an experience. We don't discover if we can have consciousness in whether we experience the act or die or not. Science will tell us about the future. For example: when someone is killing himself, he is literally experiencing death because he has this purpose and the suicidalis committing it. What we don't have awareness at all is about what happens afterwards. When the dark pit of death finally catches us...

What we don't have awareness at all is about what happens afterwards. When the dark pit of death finally catches us... — javi2541997

Yes, this is more of what I mean by death is not an experience. Dying is an experience but one cannot be dead to oneself, presumably. If by some strange turn of events we are aware after death with memory, there will be a continuity. If there is no continuity, there will still be 'something it is like to be', some level of awareness/being.

If the universe is mostly empty of being/awareness in its own time, it's a wonder I'm here now. An infinity of time has no duration (content) for the unconscious. So inevitably, awareness happens.

I agree. A very nice answer with deep thoughts... It makes me rethink what I wrote previously. :up:

So, if I understand you, dying is (all paths are) experienced and death (horizon) is the complete cessation of experience; I agree.

I have had many experiences, lots of fun and love but frankly, there's only so much of it I want or need. It starts repeating on you. — Tom Storm

I've speculated that this "temperament" is a function of memory ... from an old thread
"What gives life value?"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622502
(NB: also assumes perpetual youth-fitness & health-regeneration).

That makes total sense. A very interesting frame.