For a Stoic and even an aspiring one, that we will die is beyond our control, and so should not disturb us. We may be able to control the manner in which we die, or the time when we die, however, and to that extent those are matters of significance.

We Epicureans very much agree. :up:

It's good to know the Porch and the Garden have some views in common.

The brain exhibits delta waves when a person is alive.

Science has proved that death is not sleep. — The Opposite

:ok: I was merely referring to the perceived similarity between a brain with delta waves (dreamless sleep) and brain with no waves (death).

A simple equation to represent the above situation:

1. Brain + Delta waves (Dreamless sleep) = Death (not brain dead)

2. Brain - All waves = Death (brain dead)

@180 Proof

there
is
no godot
but
Death,
and
Sleep
is
her prophet. — 180 Proof

1. Insofar as perception matters, dreamless sleep = death.

2. There are two kinds of death viz. dreamless sleep & brain dead.

1. Brain + Delta waves (Dreamless sleep) = Death (not brain dead) — TheMadFool

This is the part I disagree with. Why equate dreamless sleep with death? There's zero evidence connecting them.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'dreamless sleep'. I dream every night. I'm also unsure how it's scientifically possible for to prove someone is not dreaming when exhibiting delta waves.

This is the part I disagree with. Why equate dreamless sleep with death? There's zero evidence connecting them — The Opposite

Good question! Consider it our best guess, a guesstimate if you will.

By the way, do you have any evidence that death isn't a dreamless sleep?

our best guess — TheMadFool

Why is it our best? It's quite basic to compare a sleeping person with a dead person merely because both are stationary.

By the way, do you have any evidence that death isn't a dreamless sleep? — TheMadFool

No. But you and no other have evidence that death isn't 'a pre-birth state', 'a synthetic mind-substrate extension', heaven/hell, purgatory, a lingering spirit, reincarnation, nirvana or any number of unimaginable afterlives.

Why is it our best? It's quite basic to compare a sleeping person with a dead person merely because both are stationary. — The Opposite

What's better then?

No. But you and no other have evidence that death isn't 'a pre-birth state', heaven/hell, purgatory, a lingering spirit or any number of unimaginable afterlives. — The Opposite

If you're correct, we should have some sense of being as opposed to nonbeing, existence instead of nonexistence or, to put it simply, life and not death when in a dreamless sleep. Care to share your views on that?

What's better then? — TheMadFool

I don't think there is a better...

a dreamless sleep — TheMadFool

... and I'm doubtful this is even a thing.

:ok:

It's interesting though, right?, how people back then equated what is physiological life (brain + delta waves) with physiological death (brain - any waves)? Science has come a long way but the question is what is life?

Insofar as perception matters, [dreamless sleep < death].

"there
is
no godot
but
Death,
and
Sleep
is
her prophet."

~180 Proof — TheMadFool

Remember (the minor gods) Thanatos & Hypnos are twins. :fire:

Remember (the minor gods) Thanatos & Hypnos are twins. :fire: — 180 Proof

Thanatos & Hypnos?

Where does Algos (god of pain) fit into the overall scheme?

The paradox: Pain (Algos) is a cardinal sign of disease and disease leads to death (Thanatos). However, when in pain, the last thing our minds is sleep (Hypnos) - pain (physical and mental) keeps us awake at night!

Check out the link with their names to an old post where I reply to you about "pain".

Check out the link with their names to an old post where I reply to you about "pain". — 180 Proof

:ok:

My take on desirability/appeal in descending order of preference:

Hedonic value

1. Joy [Best-case scenario]
2. Painless [Not bad]
3. Some pain, some joy [Manageable]
3. Painful [Worst-case scenario]

Realness value

1. Real [Want]
2. Illusion [Don't want]

Unfortunately, it's pain that, in a sense, keeps it real. Ergo, if we want not to lose touch with reality, we must not only accept pain but, oddly, even hope that we experience it. If we reject pain, there's a chance that we might be living in an illusion.

And a masochist's preference-list to boot. Here are some thorns. :flower:

I don't think there is a better... — The Opposite

Sorry I mean there is no better as in there is no best theory of death. @TheMadFool

@180 Proof

My take on desirability/appeal in descending order of preference:

Hedonic value

1. Joy [Best-case scenario]
2. Painless [Not bad]
3. Some pain, some joy [Manageable]
3. Painful [Worst-case scenario]

Realness value

1. Real [Want]
2. Illusion [Don't want]

Unfortunately, it's pain that, in a sense, keeps it real. Ergo, if we want not to lose touch with reality, we must not only accept pain but, oddly, even hope that we experience it. If we reject pain, there's a chance that we might be living in an illusion. — TheMadFool

On the same theme...

What do we want, what do we really, really want?

Happiness, right? Not just happiness but ecstatic bliss if that even makes sense.

What would we be willing to do for that?

Anything, of course. Among that is what you once equated transhumanist abolishment of suffering to viz. a 24 hr morphine drip.

Take it a little further and what we have is heaven, simulated.

Thus, if everything were perfect and it were all sunshine and rainbows, the odds are it's a simulated reality (an illusion or to the Indians, maya).

Pain, its existence, functions then as evidence/proof that the world then is real.

I might've missed a spot or two. Why can't a world that has pain as a feature not be a simulation? Nick Bostrom of simulation hypothesis fame seems not to share the sentiment as expressed in the following excerpt from Wikipedia:

Pains occupy a distinct and vital place in the philosophy of mind for several reasons.[17] One is that pains seem to collapse the appearance/reality distinction.[18] If an object appears to you to be red it might not be so in reality, but if you seem to yourself to be in pain you must be so: there can be no case here of seeming at all. — Private Language Argument

In other words, there's nothing that's realistic about pain, at least not to the extent and in the sense we think/believe. There's more that can be said.

"Pain" itself does not indicate reality (e.g. nocebos, phantom limb, angst, phobias, etc). That there is resistance to our efforts, resistances to acting and thinking, that the involuntary constrains and thereby enables 'the voluntary' (i.e. whatever we want, desire, prefer ...) discloses reality to (not merely "for") us. Whether or not "the world is a simulation", we belong to the world and therefore "we are simulations" too of that "world-simulation"; it's this "belonging to" that is involuntary, ineluctable, and constitutive of us/any entity being real. We equivocate the word reality by saying reality is otherwise, or, contra Occam, when we fiat (a) "reality beyond" – real-er than – reality" (ad nauseam ad absurdum) like ... "life after life". :pray:

NB: My formula – reality is that which encompasses reasoning that reasoning, therefore, necessarily cannot encompass, or exceed (just as no part is equal to or greater than the whole to which it belongs (à la a 'map =/= the territory' ... 'a pixel =/= the hologram' ... 'a set =/= the continuum' ...)) :fire:

"Pain" itself does not indicate reality (e.g. nocebos, phanthom limb, angst, phobias, etc). That there is resistance to our efforts, resistances to acting and thinking, that the involuntary constrains and thereby enables 'the voluntary' (i.e. whatever we want, desire, prefer ...) discloses reality to (not merely "for") us. Whether or not "the world is a simulation", we belong to the world and therefore "we are simulations" too of that "world-simulation"; it's this "belonging to" that is involuntary, ineluctable, and constitutive of us/any entity being real. We equivocate the word reality by saying reality is otherwise, or, contra Occam, when we fiat (a) "reality beyond" – real-er than – reality" (ad nauseam ad absurdum) like ... "life after life". :pray:

NB: My formula – reality is that which encompasses reasoning that reasoning, therefore, necessarily cannot encompass, or exceed (just as no part is equal to or greater than the whole to which it belongs (à la a 'map =/= the territory' ... 'a pixel =/= the hologram' ... 'a set =/= the continuum' ...)) :fire: — 180 Proof

Since you brought up Occam's razor, the question that naturally follows is, can this reality, keeping our assumptions to a minimum, explain pain? We will refrain, for the moment at least, from hypothesizing a "reality beyond".

Yes, pain keeps death at bay by functioning as a warning sign but have you noticed how fire alarms and humble alarm clocks are acoustic doppelgangers. It's as if pain has the dual purpose of awakening us and also avoiding death. I'm sure I won't have to spell it out for you what that means. That's all for now. Good day.

HI Fool---lol!! What do you think of the idea that there is an ultimate reality from which apparent reality is discerned, and that the method of discernment is biology. Such that, only certain aspects of ultimate reality are sensed by our biology. In this way of thinking, pain certainly is a sensing by ones biology that indicates that there is something of ultimate reality that is depremental to our biological nature. Much of ultimate reality is not sensed by various organisms, where you have a somewhat differing biology, you have a somewhat differing apparent reality. Reality does not come in discreet packages, where there is no separation, there is nothing which is an absolute other.

If only for the sake of consistency, it seems we're faced with a rather tough choice: ugly truths or beautiful lies. We could, if we so wish, dwell in the region and time where truth and beauty overlap - get the best of both worlds as it were.

Food for thought:

I suffer from anxiety and for the last 10 or so hours I'm having an episode and what do you know?, I had an epiphany. Pain/suffering does, as I said, drive off sleep but then you can't think straight (no gamma wave activity possible) - am I really awake then?

Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake, could you clarify how your post relates to my own?

Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake, could you clarify how your post relates to my own? — boagie

THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

I suffer from anxiety and for the last 10 or so hours I'm having an episode — TheMadFool

No good! I know it might not help much, but I think you're a pretty cool person who's kept this forum interesting. I hope it settles down soon, and you can get some rest. When the suffering seems unbearable, just remember that it will pass, like it always does.

Try controlled breathing, as the Buddha said, marry your breath. Control your breathing and you control your emotions. Not being sarcastic!

Thanks :up:

Much obliged :up:

It's good to know the Porch and the Garden have some views in common. — Ciceronianus

Yeah. Sunning in the Garden, then watching the rain from the Porch till our skies clear again.

Death is what our society teaches us it is.

Life is struggling, sufferings, and joys; only death is no trouble.