XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: mmcneill@fuzzysys.com   
      
   On 10 Jan 2008 09:05:11 GMT, Lars Eighner  wrote:   
      
   >In our last episode, <47855c95$0$3431$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com>, the   
   >lovely and talented Pro-Humanist FREELOVER broadcast on alt.atheism:   
   >   
   >> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality promise.   
   >   
   >First, I think it is worth considering what 'immortality' might be, and   
   >whether any of the things it might be are anything to be desired.   
   >   
   >What is important or interesting to you that would still seem important or   
   >interesting in 1,000 years?  10,000 years.  100,000 years.   
   >   
   >I'm guessing immortality doesn't mean extending corporeal life indefinitely.   
   >The limit on that seems to be somewhere around 120.  But I'm pretty sure   
   >even doubling the average span of about 70 years is what you have in mind.   
   >A Donovan's brain scenario?  Up to 200 years?  300 years?  It's a little   
   >like cable TV.  At first it seems great.  But after a few months or maybe   
   >even a few years, you have seen every Law & Order rerun a dozen times, and   
   >you begin to understand, cable is just a whole lot more of the crap that is   
   >on TV.  If you just live for TV, maybe it is different, but if you are of   
   >normal intelligence, soon or later TV bores you, and cable TV may shift that   
   >sooner-or-later in the later direction, but later or even later, cable TV   
   >will bore you as much as broadcast TV.   
   >   
   >So what does immortality mean?  Is there any concept of immortality that   
   >would not involve being incredibly dull after a while.  After 10,000 years   
   >what would still make you you?  What would you value, what would you know,   
   >what would you "see" that would not seem like a rerun, and a rerun of a   
   >rerun.   
   >   
   >The superficial appeal of immortality is that life is precious, and life is   
   >precious precisely because it is limited.  What would gold be worth if   
   >everyone had an immense pile of it?  When you can use gold leaf for toilet   
   >paper --- and so can everyone else --- you cannot expect to carry an ingot   
   >down to the 7-11 to get a loaf of bread.  If you are going to live for   
   >eternity, wouldn't that be an enternity on ennui after the first million   
   >years or so?   
   Insanity can have its constructive functions. After a million years,   
   insanity can still have its functions. Insanity works well for the   
   common person today (with some variations,   
   say from 20 to 30 years old). Why would it not work for the immortal?   
   In fact insanity seems to be part of any intelligent structure, no   
   matter what age or complexity. Ennui is a fixable hazard,   
   not at all inevitable. The qualia of drama can still be there for the   
   10,000th  rerun.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)