Are you afraid of Death?

Not at all, death is part of life, accept it, embrace it, deal with it, it will always come, so make the best of it and don't sit there waiting and being scared of dying.

I'm not afraid of death, but I fear that there is nothing behind it. In other words: i'm afraid of stop existing.

That is quite irrational on at least two levels. First, not knowing what happens when you die, is the fear of death so you are basically contradicting yourself there unless you meant that you are afraid of dying due to pain, despair, etc.

The other level in which that's irrational is that if you die and simply stop existing, there's no reason to be afraid because you'll feel absolutely anything, you won't even hear your own thoughts. I may be sounding a bit cold or bizarre but those are my fears too and I have been growing out of them even though I'm not completely there yet - I still find it frightning even though I recognize it is illogical.

Think about it like this: How did you feel before being born?

i am not afraid of death. Simple.

Nothing special about it, if it comes, it comes. There's nothing to do about it.

Depends on how violent it will be and if it's something someone is trying to force. If I can help it, I'll make sure I live. If not, well then I start all over again with my stats reset and my hard drive wiped clean on sent on my merry way.

I also know it has no logic, but i can't help it. I just feel that way.
If I stop existing i won't feel pain or fear, so there is nothing to be afraid of, but I want to perpetuate my existence.

You can't and shouldn't perpetuate your existence. It's over when it's over. In this precise moment, it is an irrational fear - we are afraid of dying because we are alive, we want to keep living, we want to experience things we haven't experienced yet.

But think of my question, rethoric questions aren't just for filler. You didn't exist before you were born, therefore, you had no feelings and no thoughts. Now I ask: Was it such a terrible thing?

I do agree that you can fear death out of a fear of loss, but I would think/say fear of the unknown, a fear (most) all self-aware species have, would probably have greater precedence.

Vanni Chan's fear seems to originate from that type of fear. What death entitles is what scares her/him. Which is a rational aspect. We, humans, fear the unknown for good reasons but sometimes we let ourselves get carried away. As long as his/her fear is not crippling their life, I think that fear should be fine.

Fear of the unknown is rational, assuming we are talking about a strange growl in a bush or a dark cave, however, rationally speaking, death isn't unknown, it will be the same as it was before you were born - nothing. Of course we can't be sure about this but there is no reason to assume death is something new. We didn't exist before we were born and after we die, we won't exist again. In a way, we already know what death is like.

I have to agree that fear of death could be a good thing in the sense that it would make us live our lives to the fullest but as far as logic goes, there is no reason to assume we don't know death, we just can't be sure.

We have as much certainty in death as we do in... I can't think of a good comparison at them moment (god and life on other planets came to mind but those are... complicated for their own reasons). Maybe to know exactly what a person who's named, a name you randomly pulled out of your imagination, is doing at the very moment you imagine it. Without any means to view/observe, we don't know.

We know what happens to the body. We have no idea what happens to consciousness. We have no certainty that everything involved in the living process ends with death.

You just repeated my argument. I said we couldn't know for sure, which we can't (there are philosophies that suggest you can't be sure of absolutely anything, not even if your mother, lungs or a PBJ sandwhich is real) but my point was that there is no reason to think death is [adjective] just because we can't observe it. In my opinion, not being able to observe it is our answer. Since we can't observe it, all we can assume is that it's nothingness (which is a paradox but only due to our language, not to the existence of things).

To clarify: I'm not saying I fully understand death, I'm simply saying that it is wrong to assume you [whatever your point is, eg. go somewhere else] because we can't know.

And by the way, our consciousness is a product of our body, our brain. If we know what happens to our body, we know what happens to our consciousness. This is my syllogism, but not my findings.

Exactly, fear of the unknown. I mean, I'm not afraid of dying, I almost died in more than one occasion. I experienced it, being close to the edge.. it's not that bad. But I don't know, all my life I believed in God, but now I'm not sure. Neither I'm sure of eternity.

No, but I'd rather not die yet.

This...



Simply saying that since we don't remember it that it doesn't exist, is an assumption.

Also this...



Their are ideas posed by religions (for example) such as Buddhism, in which speaks of a cycle of reincarnation. (I read it differently, so I ended up replying in a weird way, sorry.)



How much do we know about consciousness? If you have any creditable sources I can read/watch to get a better understanding I would love those, but from my (best) sources (the Singularity Summit), we still don't fully understand what it is and what conditions it develops in. To the point some people question if the internet itself has a limited (compared to human) but existing consciousness.

Also, we don't know "everything" about our body, especially our brain, reason why the brain mapping project is so significant, it will give scientist the means to figure them out.

Even though I find this conversation very interesting, it is a little frustrating to talk about it because the concept of nothing is a paradox in every language. I'll try my best to clarify it.

The thing about my assumption is that, in a philosophical sense, we have already experienced nothingess. You know about Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, World War II but those things didn't scare you but you didn't exist. Following that reasoning, the year 3001 will be the same. There's no reason to assume death will be something else other than what was before you were born.

I'm not sure I understand the Buddhism part but my argument has nothing to do with it or any religion. In fact, I heard it from an atheist.

Regarding the consciousness thing, you can read the work of Antonio Damasio. Granted, using spirituality, you can turn that concept into a subjective, unknowable word but you can do that for other words like love, which, not matter how many pseudointelectual poets try, it has a definite meaning. But I digress. Antonio Damasio reached the conclusion that there is no body/mind duality since the mind, the consciousness, is a product of our brain. Therefore, it is part of the body.

I think that all humans have a certain fear of death, it's the price we pay for Self-consciousness. In knowing our existence we also have to face our mortality.
You just have to look at how people react when they are given a solution to this problem, for instance certain religious ideas, they will do anything for the promise of eternal life.
But that being said I think death is one of the most important aspects of life, its what gives meaning to the life we live.

Short answer: Yes im scared of death and I think everyone is

[2]Those things do scare me for the same reasons they would scare me then, though. Also ever heard of the idea/concept that all knowledge is available to us at birth, simply locked away within our minds, and that our "living and experiencing" is simply unlocking that knowledge. It has nothing to do with what were talking about, but your example reminded me of it.

[3]I understand this part, but I also see it as an assumption to "Assume existence before is the same as existence after life" and that "Either/both are simply nothing". [1]As well "That we have experienced nothing" I find to be an assumption. Though I am curious of what philosophy talks about this (would love to understand how they reached that conclusion). I've been procrastinating with a lot of things, one of them is to study some of Immanuel Kant's writings.



I am not one to side with religion often, but religion has as much bases a in "truth" as philosophy, often times tied hand in hand (philosophy that is true becomes fact). Buddhism, itself, has a deep tie into philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy



Antonio Damasio seems interesting, I think I'll look into him.



Sorry lol, I disagree. Using the example of, (can't remember what it's called) the perfect ideal. That what we conceptualize has no "perfect form" that uniquely defines it as "what it is". The example my teacher used at the time was "What is a chair?", "What makes a chair a chair?".



I would love to see him in a debate with Ray Kurzweil. I have to find out how he reached his conclusion.

Last things first, Damasio reached that conclusion by being a neurologist or whatever the word may be and spending his life studying the brain. I think his work has some Philosophy to it but it also has a lot of Science (I can't quite remember specific info at the moment, plus, there's a bit of a language barrier to determine the name of his work).

Now, comparing Philosophy to religion is quite a stretch. Philosophy may have some extremely subjective concepts that can't be proved, as religion does, but it is also the basis for Logic and one could say, Science.

It seems as though our little debate is starting to spread more than it should, I don't know if you agree but I'd gladly call it a day. Maybe my point of view is reductive and "ancient" but yours could be viewed as (the only expression I can think of) "whishy-washy". The idea that your body transcends into a higher form is, to me, one of those ideas created to sell religion and false spirituality to poor fools by embelishing life. I think life is already incredibly interesting and beautiful. Immortality, whether of the body or soul, is the true ugly concept.

How to explain... I'm curious what steps he took that lead to his current conclusion. I can not conclude his statement as fact when the same sources I derive fact from say "consciousness" is not fully understood. I, in order to accept what he states, need an understanding of what he's thinking/knows. Best way to do that is to understand how he got to where he is now (in terms of thought processes).



I find Buddhism a great example of how much the two can be intertwined with one another without (to my knowledge) interfering with each other. You have me curious of the less subjective concepts.



Never said they become "higher forms", to do so would be an assumption, the point I've been trying to make was in regards to "assumption of, is an assumption", not grounds to declare fact.

Personally I find life incredibly interesting, the opportunity to meet people I don't know who are different from me, limitless knowledge in an ever expanding observable universe that far out-stretch my ability to take in, the uncertain future that will never be fully within my own ability to predict, the ability to alter the affects of time on this world in my own small way from one small good deed to raising a child who will be so much more than myself (Child part is a fantasy in every way). I love life, and if I could, I probably (probably, internally contested subject) would, in my selfishness, give into the temptation of eternal life, fully understanding the things I would be giving up in exchange for being able to continue watching humans, and whatever else may exist in the universe.