Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)

...this would be my "bliss." The ultimate choice... the ability to live on for as long as I'd want. How much is enough? Not a choice between eternal life or oblivion that must be made at some specific point. But an ongoing choice... eternal life that I can choose to end if/when I get bored. What about growth in a forever increasing/beneficial way? Would that be so bad?I understand that if the universe is finite, then eternal growth has it's obvious end in bordom.But what if the universe (or the knoweldge/ideas available to uncover/experience in the universe) is infinite? What if the "goal" is simply to continue learning/growing/changing for the better? And one is able to continually meet that goal, in a benficial way, for the rest of eternity?Yes, I see that you could say "I'll never meet my goals" in the sense that one will never reach "perfection" or "all knowledge" if knowledge is infinite. But what about such a scenario in the sense of the goal being the journey sort of thing? That way the goal is continually being met and changed at the same time.I see the problems you speak of... never reaching goals, unchanging goals, eventual change into "negative" aspects... but what if all that was avoidable as described above? Or is there another problem I'm not accounting for? But what if you're not ever "so radically different"? That is, what if there are an infinite number of ways to "have fun", but certain parts of your personality never need to change significantly?I suppose what I'm not understanding is how you're concluding that, given enough time, you'll change into something "radically different" or be horrifically bored. I do not see why one can't have plenty to do for eternity (given an infinite-type universe) and not alter their personality significantly?Or are you saying that even if you have lots of different things to do, you'll eventually get bored of "being you?" That's certainly a possibility, I suppose, but I don't see how it's inevitable.

Understood. Nothing wrong with that. Personal opinions vary greatly. I certainly can understand that you, as an individual, may very well not see anything worth being around for eternity with.Which is why I offered up my "best possible choice" of being able to live as long as one wished. Once the boredom, or horror sets in too much, then you can simply choose to cease existing. I do not claim that such a proposition is available from the Christian God, or any god, or even this reality. I'm just saying that's what I think the nicest thing would be.When I originally read your OP, I thought you were attempting to speak in a more objective sense. Saying something along the lines that everyone must feel this same way about eternity that you do. But, if you're not saying such a thing (which this last message of yours seems to imply), then I have no contention. And I completely agree that your personal opinions should be of great importance (the most important, even?) when deciding your eternal fate, if such a fate is supposed to be considered "good." Otherwise, it's more of a punishment then a heaven, no matter how "generally good" the sprinkles on top appear to popular opinion. Understood, I'm just saying that such a thing isn't necessarily the same for everyone. I'm quite sure that certain people do exist that would be thrilled by the idea of eternally keeping themselves amused/happy with an infinite number of varying ways.Personally, I'm not sure if I'm even one, but I certainly would enjoy the chance to find out

I see what you're saying now.It is quite possible that the 28-year-old Modulous may want to cease the existence of the 500-year-old Modulous by 28-year-old standards, if it were possible for 28-year-old Modulous to see what 500-year-old Modulous had become. However, the 500-year-old Modulous (obviously using 500-year-old standards) may not want to cease his existence at that time.In which case... we have the dilemma you're talking about.It all seems to rest on "what if I become significantly different from what I am now?" And I suppose the only answer to that is the other side of the coin: "what if you do not?"I suppose I'm just trying to say that it is not a case of only extremes. It is possible to change "enough to avoid the horrific feelings of monotony" for eternity and yet not change so much as to be "significantly different from what I am now."Or, at the least, I don't see what would prevent such a scenario from being a possibility. In which case avoiding the dilemma would be a possibility. Although I do not know how one could monitor such a development in order to make sure you stay on the straight and narrow. I would suggest that such an eternity of reincarnation would be similar to what cavediver describes as the tragedy of un-remembered experiences in a forced-upon you sense. In which case, I would think that such a situation would eventually fall into your "hollow and pointless gratification" compartment. Unless, somehow, there is some sort of external "brain-bank" that saves the memories of each life after they are completed? This would allow you to live each life individually, with no past memories... but once you "die", you could view the differences from life-to-life until you were ready (forced?) to reincarnate again?Edited by Stile, : Thinking outside the quote-box

I must admit that I'm also at a loss to demonstrate how such a scenario could be implemented, even if possible. That is what would definitely scare me off. It may certainly be possible for it to happen, but if we can't know that it's happening, it's quite possible to fall back into the dilemma. And I agree that the dilemma is something to be avoided. Greed combined with even beneficial-hope can be a very powerful, sneaky enemy, especially given an eternity to work upon someone.If it could be shown that monitoring the possibility is actually impossible in itself, that would render the dilemma back into full-force. Only adding in a "glorious golden apple above an uncrossable, bottomless pit of despair" useless temptation.That is, if the possibility exists, but is impossible to obtain... it is equally useless (practically speaking) as non-existing in the first place.And going one step further "not knowing how to obtain it" is, in practice, just as good as "impossible to obtain." In which case, without formulating a way to monitor and identify when one is "changing significantly" we're left with the dilemma as the only practical result that we can expect. Not during a reincaration-episode, no. And, while not in a reincarnation-episode... is there any lasting satisfaction in having the ability to view all such episodes? And if there is... why would someone need to begin such a reincarnation episode, then? ...that sounds like it's own dilemma in an infinite-regression sort of way. Stupid forcing. All "oh... this is the way things are..." I bet it's feeling pretty damn smug right about now.
If there is an actual intelligent being responsible for such things, they certainly should be prepared for a punch in the nose before any "understanding" gets explained (if such understanding even exists, anyway).

I agree that this is, basically, what I was discussing. And that we both seemed to fear changing "too much" (whatever that is).I've been thinking a bit, and I wonder if perhaps it isn't so hard to keep away from "too much" change. I'll try to explain, and maybe you can poke some holes in the following thoughts:While I was discussing in terms of "change" and "too much", I was basically considering only one category. That is "change" vs. "no change." And while "change" occurs, we can see that over an eternity, this "change" may creep (intentionally or otherwise) into things we consider to be "too much." That, generally, is the large fear.However, this fear can be easily lifted by simply breaking up the categories of "change." I'll use a relatively simply example to show what I'm talking about.Let's break my knowledge into two distinct areas: Ethics, and Non-Ethics. Ethics is things like moral judgements (how we do things). Non-Ethics is things like entertainment or academic learning (sports, video games, meeting other people, learning about cosmology, geography... things we do).So, with these two simple divisions, I think it's easy enough to get away from the dilemma. We can have infinite change allowed in the Non-Ethics department (unlimited academic knowledge to discover... unlimited entertainment...) yet allow no change at all in the Ethics department (not changing "too much").And then we can add other simple restrictions to make things more intereseting... like only allowing the Ethics department to change "for the better." For example, I would want my Ethics department to be able to change in the direction of "helping the people that are affected by my actions" and not in the direction of "harming" those same people. But, well, this all then gets into relativistic morals and how those can be determined in the first place. I'm just trying to lay a general blue-print here, not an exact specification.But I hope this is enough to show an implementation for how we can allow unlimited change for eternity (Non-Ethics department) yet not change "too much" (Ethics department) and therefore avoid the dilemma.More complicated versions may have multiple "departments" that are allowed to change or not change. And/or "departments" that are allowed to change only in a certain direction as in "to help others better..." or something like that.The problem on this would be enforcement of what can change or not change. With no enforcement, then we're right back into the problem of the dilemma. That is, if I later decide to have my "unchangable" Ethics become "changable", then I'm right back in the middle of the dilemma with the danger of changing "too much" being too easy. However, if we give this enforcement to God (He's still in charge of the afterlife? ) does that help? I'm not sure.[Aside - Maybe this is easier to think of for those who believe there is an Absolute Morality we're all following anyway? That way... the "unchangable" Ethics is already unchangable....]I'm way off into speculation-world now anyway, so maybe speculating about an enforcer-God isn't too much extra. Mabye it is, I dunno.

I totally agree with you.That is, if you're right about only the consciousness surviving for eternity. I'm simply speaking about if this (somehow) isn't the case. Um... I still think the alternative I presented is better than oblivion. I agree with you that IF we say the afterlife is not going to act in the same way as a temporal body, then my alternative may not be valid. But that does not remove it as an alternative. That is, I do not see how you're going to show that it's impossible for the afterlife to behave in such a way as to be very similar to how we experience things in our temporal bodies.Basically, I agree with what you're saying here: ...but I don't see how you're going to show that this is necessarily the case. Which means the alternative I present is still a possible (speculatory) alternative.Personally, however, I don't think we really have to fear that any of this is actually true to reality. I think the afterlife has a very high chance of being oblivion, or something that we are unable to think about or even consider. But, thinking in the realms of theoretical possibilities, I do not understand how you can imply that the alternative I'm presenting is impossible. And if it isn't impossible, then it certainly still is an alternative, and better then oblivion.

I'm under the impression that no one knows what the afterlife is like. That is equivalent, to me, as the afterlife being "anything" (including nothing/oblivion).I agree with you that our current temporal host will be rotting in the ground. Are you prepared to say that you know, absolutely, that it's impossible for there to be an afterlife such that we get a new "temporal host" that functions exactly like the old one, but anyone who is alive now cannot detect them in any way?It's the afterlife, everything is speculative guess-work and anything goes. I prefer not to make any claims on how the afterlife will or will not work, since we have absolutely no data on such things. I only make suggestions on possibilities, that's all. Again, I agree with you. But what is it about our "known knowledge of the afterlife" (that is... nothing) that is telling you that your above "if" statement is true? What is preventing it from simply being false? We have no data on the afterlife, we cannot know anything about it. Perhaps it is simply an alternate, parallel universe with slightly less restrictions. That way we could have an exact copy of our current temporal hosts, we wouldn't be able to communicate or detect this universe in any way, and my proposed-afterlife-possibility would be quite possible. Perhaps not. It's the afterlife, no one knows.I agree we can say something like "well, our current bodies rot in the ground, so we cannot possibly have those." But why is it impossible that we get duplicate-bodies (in functionality, not necessarily in exact make-up) that are simply undetectable by any "living" being? Exactly. Me neither. True, and neither can I. You are only right if I was attempting to say that my alternative "is the afterlife." But that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that IF my alternative was the afterlife, then it would be able to bypass Mod's dilemma.It's quite possible (and quite likely?) that my alternative is not the actual afterlife (if one even exists). But, really, my alternative has just as much support behind it as anyone elses (including yours). That is... it has no support at all.

That was the "if" I was referring to, yes. And yes, I am (sort of) suggesting that it can be a physical material world-type afterlife. In the sense that "can be" should be taken as the afterlife "can be" just about anything (as long as it is undetectable by our current standards). I'm not really proposing any specific afterlife, I'm simply attempting to propose an afterlife that would get around Mod's presented dilemma. In order to get around the dilemma I require your "if" statement to be closer to "false", because "true" leads into "only consciousness" like what you suggested, and I agree that in such an afterlife, we end in boredom... which does not get around Mod's dilemma. I'm not so much trying to say that an afterlife "will be" simlar to this one so much as I'm trying to say that an afterlife "could be" similar to this one. And, IF it is similar enough (in the sense of functionality of our senses-to-consciousness) THEN the alternative I'm presenting could be viable to get around Mod's dilemma.Going the other way... IF the afterlife is not very similar to how we experience life right now... THEN perhaps the dilemma just plain doesn't exist because of the differences with how the afterlife may work. Mod's dilemma itself relys upon the functionality of the afterlife being rather similar to the funtionality of our present life. Change that functionality, and we can't even say if the framework for Mod's dilemma still exists. Or, we may end up in obvious "only consciousness" and therefore the horror of an eternity in boredom. Either way... it's a dead end for attempting to get around the dilemma.What I'm saying is rather superficial and very speculative... I'm just tosssing out ideas, really. I don't even have any personel attachment to these ideas. I'm just proposing them as a possibility for getting around the dilemma, without having to say "well, the afterlife is going to be totally different, so you won't have to worry about such things." (As some of the religious-defenders seem to be implying, I find such to be an unsatisfying "non-answer") Yes, you are right. But, if we draw too much of a distinction between "temporal" life and the "after" life... then Mod's dilemma may very well simply evaporate because we can't really understand how the different "after" life would even function. Or, as you suggest, IF we just have our consciousness, THEN we're going to end up in boredom (given eternity). And, well, that's just a dead-end for trying to think of an idea that gets around the dilemma.My point isn't to provide an idea that's any specific sort of afterlife.
My point is to provide an idea for a possible afterlife that would have the qualifications necessary to get around Mod's dilemma.
-Such a thing may be impossible, but I'd be much more interested in hearing why the alternative I've presented still falls into Mod's dilemma rather than hearing that the alternative I'm presenting simply "isn't likely" or "isn't all that different from our present status." Neither of those are relevent to the point I'm trying to make.
For continuity's sake, here's a link to my post where I talk about "my alternative":
Message 92I'm not proposing that the afterlife "will be" another, alternate universe.I'm proposing an afterlife that gets around Mod's dilemma.
An afterlife that is another alternate universe helps to show that what I'm talking about can be a possibility, but it is not my main point.Since you showed that the afterlife you're presenting ends in horrific boredom (and I agree with you), I find the alternative you presented to be a dead-end for the means of "finding a way around Mod's dilemma", which is my current purpose in this thread.