Are you scared to die?

Thing is, you've already experience oblivion. Indeed, you've experienced 13.7 billion years worth of it. It could hardly have been so bad, since you don't remember it, eh?

Just picture what you felt five years before you were born. That's what oblivion is like. Hardly a traumatizing experience, eh?

Originally Posted by Labrynian Rebel

I'm not really afraid of death, because of my religion, but I can't stop thinking about what if I'm wrong and if I die, it's the end? Sometimes I sit down and think about what it would be like not to ever do anything or even think about things ever again, that's what terrifies me, simply not being. Death I can handle, not oblivion.

once again, though, this doesn't make any sense. If you die and it's the end, that's it. Nothing happens, it's over, and there is no reason to be afraid. It will be just like being asleep, or being unconscious. Oblivion is where you were before you were born, and you certainly weren't afraid then.

there's more to be afraid of with the afterlife. What if it isn't what you expected? What if you end up in the wrong place? What if you have to live in pain for eternity? What if you just weren't good enough to make it to paradise? It's the afterlife you should be afraid of, not inexistence. Inexistence is nothing, and there's nothing to fear about nothing.

edit: what GDwarf said.

My fear is more so dying before I do something truly wonderful with my life than the actual concept of death. I've always had a feeling that I would die at a young age, so I try to be as kind, charismatic, and even reckless, depending on the situation. I also try to keep myself spiritually involved, read up philosophy, and do research on things more significant than what's on VH1, and such.

What comes after is a bit of another story. What does one do for eternity, obviously, there would be more to do than just chill with God in Heaven for that substancial of time, but no one will really know until shortly after their death.

Originally Posted by John

Thing is, you've already experience oblivion. Indeed, you've experienced 13.7 billion years worth of it. It could hardly have been so bad, since you don't remember it, eh?

Just picture what you felt five years before you were born. That's what oblivion is like. Hardly a traumatizing experience, eh?

I love what you just said. I often think of that in the past to what it felt like before you were born, and yes, it's oblivion.

Personally I have no fear in death. I just see it as falling asleep, but forever.

But it's the way I die that can frighten me. Dying of old age is something I have no fear in, but if it comes to being held hostage with a gun pointed to your head, yes that is scary or being tortured to death.

When it comes to my religious views, I do believe that there is an afterlife, so maybe that stops most religious people from fearing death. But it's hard to think that way if before you were born, it was totally nothing. But in a way since you lived your life, that could lead you to someplace else because of who you are and how life shaped you... It's so hard to ponder on.

Perhaps death is the same principle.

Everyone dies eventually. This thought keeps me from being afraid, as you cannot avoid death forever.

I'm not particularly afraid of dying myself, or rather, what happens AFTER you die, but I am definitely afraid of HOW I'm going to die. I have this constant fear that I'll die a slow, tortuous death, slowly losing the memory of everyone I love, and eventually become a thoughtless vegetable before I pass away.

That would suck. I hope I just pass away peacefully in my bed, but who knows if death is ever really that peaceful.

I share the same sentiment as many-- I'm not afraid of death, but the actual process of dying could be... well, not good.
I do admit that there are things I'd like to see, such as how some technology advances or things like that, but I know I won't be able to, so whatever. It doesn't make me "afraid" of death, per se.

I actually heard an interesting idea once. If anyone's seen the film "Waking Life", in one scene, a character talks about the idea that it's possible that the minutes just before true and complete death are like one big dream. Dreams themselves can feel like they take place over hours when they're only occuring during minutes, so he says that those few minutes before death could be like an eternal lucid dream.

I dunno how much merit that has or what it's based on, but if that was the case, dying would certainly not be that bad. Imagine having what feels like an eternal dream in which you can do anything you want.

EDIT: I should add that I don't believe in any kind of afterlife, so that is irrelevant to me.
Although the dream thing I just mentioned could serve as an "afterlife", except it's cooler.

On the thought of us experiencing oblivion as being what it was like before you were born, I've thought about death being like that, and the conclusion I came up with was "then why can't we return from that again?" Of course that was way back when I was 11 or something but it was an interesting thought. That thought left me thinking about the nature of concienceness and time.

There seem to be three sides when it comes to death: the religous side, the Atheist side and the "I'll wait and see if there's a god" side. I don't think I belong to any, the first two are both shortsighted and take the easy road where there is no in between.
Atheists take many things for granted, intelligence and emotions are exclusive to human beings, they are the result of chemical reaction in the brain, and thus is concience too, right? Well if chemicals and electric currents are what makes concience that brings up a problem, a paradox.You see chemicals are made out of matter, but what is matter? Well matter actually doesn't exist as we know it (google "double slit experment", Í don't feel like explaining and experts will do it better then I can). Matter at the quantum level is not made out of particles or waves, it is everywhere and nowhere. It is concienceness that 'decides' where an object is in space, the act of observing creates the space where you find yourself in, without you observing matter is anyware and everywhere and has no real shape. So what defined earth, or the universe for that matter, in such a way that life could begin in the first place? Because if I understood it all correctly, without concience or an observer there is no time or space to begin with.


I also like to think there's another form of intelligence (or concienceness) at work besides intelligence of the living, human or alien. I'm not talking about a supreme being or something like that, but an intelligence that is part of the universe or is the universe (for all I know there could be something like a universal concienceness). This intelligence would be the reason behind the genius of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation they say, random mutation leads to a snake developing the hollow beadson it's tail that make him a rattle snake. To me that doesn't seem like a random thing to happen as it seems to have an intelligent reason behind it that goes beyond the random, yes i am familiar with the whole survival of the fittest theory, but really is it that simple? I like to believe there's a non-living intelligence behind it all, whatever kind of intelligence it would be I don't know, I think of life, the universe etc. more like being some sort of program like in a computer.

I've researched the very basics of quantum physics and such, it lead me to the thought that life and the universe itself in a way is an expression of the concienceness.


The point I'm trying to make: life is not just what it appears to be, and death possibly isn't either because concienceness is a lot more important to the structure of the universe than most people seem to realise.

Originally Posted by Iroas

On the thought of us experiencing oblivion as being what it was like before you were born, I've thought about death being like that, and the conclusion I came up with was "then why can't we return from that again?" Of course that was way back when I was 11 or something but it was an interesting thought. That thought left me thinking about the nature of concienceness and time.

The problem there being, of course, that just because from our PoV the experiences will be similar doesn't mean that they are, in fact, the same.

There seem to be three sides when it comes to death: the religous side, the Atheist side and the "I'll wait and see if there's a god" side. I don't think I belong to any, the first two are both shortsighted and take the easy road where there is no in between.

What's short-sighted or easy about it?

Atheists take many things for granted, intelligence and emotions are exclusive to human beings,

No they aren't. Take Ravens, for example, they can do reasonably complex problem solving, as can the great apes.

they are the result of chemical reaction in the brain, and thus is concience too, right? Well if chemicals and electric currents are what makes concience that brings up a problem, a paradox.You see chemicals are made out of matter, but what is matter? Well matter actually doesn't exist as we know it (google "double slit experment", Í don't feel like explaining and experts will do it better then I can).

Matter does, in fact, exist. The double slit experiment simply shows that light acts like a particle and a wave.

Matter at the quantum level is not made out of particles or waves, it is everywhere and nowhere.

Nope. Things do have a specific position on the quantum level.

It is concienceness that 'decides' where an object is in space, the act of observing creates the space where you find yourself in, without you observing matter is anyware and everywhere and has no real shape.

Not true. Observation is not some magical force in quantum mechanics. The act of observing quantum-level things does change them, but only because they're so small that the light you use is bigger than they are, heavily altering the way they act.

So what defined earth, or the universe for that matter, in such a way that life could begin in the first place? Because if I understood it all correctly, without concience or an observer there is no time or space to begin with.

I'm afraid you've been mislead as to what quantum mechanics actually entails.

This intelligence would be the reason behind the genius of evolution.

If so, it's not a very intelligent intelligence.

Evolution is the result of random mutation they say, random mutation leads to a snake developing the hollow beads on it's tail that make him a rattle snake.

Sure, why couldn't it?

In addition, evolution is far from random. Mutations are random, natural selection is definitely not.

I'm going to re-use my favourite little example here: The odds of flipping 100 coins and having them all land heads-up is 2^100 (2*2*2*2...a hundred times) or 1 in 1 267 650 600 228 229 401 496 703 205 376.

Clearly this is a massively unlikely event. Indeed, if everyone on Earth flipped a hundred coins every week it would take 4 062 982 693 039 196 700 years for one person to manage this.

However, if you are allowed to re-flip a coin as many times as you like if it lands tails, well, the odds drop to 1 in 1, don't they?

Natural selection is similar. Each step is random, but a bad random mutation dies out very quickly, while a good one stays around, allowing things that would be impossible by pure chance to happen all the time.

To me that doesn't seem like a random thing to happen

Argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy.

as it seems to have an intelligent reason behind it that goes beyond the random,

But what's your evidence of this?

Originally Posted by John

The problem there being, of course, that just because from our PoV the experiences will be similar doesn't mean that they are, in fact, the same.

Are you implying there are different forms of oblivion?

What's short-sighted or easy about it?

Because like I said, it's either yes or no with them, there is no other option.. They don't see other possibilities other then there being a god or not.

No they aren't. Take Ravens, for example, they can do reasonably complex problem solving, as can the great apes.

Ofcourse but that is completely besides the point I was trying to make. Let me correct myself, intelligence and emotions are exclusive to beings with a concience as in being aware of themselves. Atheist seem to rule out posibilities of other elements in the universe besides the living of having some sort of intelligence.

Matter does, in fact, exist. The double slit experiment simply shows that light acts like a particle and a wave.

If that was all the experiment proved it wouldn't have that much significance and wouldn't have stirred up all these philosophical debates about reality and the relation with the concience my friend., and don't make me bring up the string theorie please. There is no doubt matter exists, it's just not what it appears to be.

Nope. Things do have a specific position on the quantum level

Boy do you sound sure of yourself
You're pretty much countering everything I've read and heard up till now. Can you back your claims up? If you read up on quantum physics you would've known that the physical universe rather then being deterministic is probababilistic.

There are many explinations for how quantum physics work, this one for example which would back up my claims a bit:

many minds interpretation

Not true. Observation is not some magical force in quantum mechanics. The act of observing quantum-level things does change them, but only because they're so small that the light you use is bigger than they are, heavily altering the way they act.

I'll let someone with a Ph.D in physics talk for me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA

If this is not so then why do many researchers theorize that it is so?

There barely is a single thing you can say with certainty about quantum physics, don't sound so sure of yourself if even the top physicists aren't.

It's funny how you seem to have the answers to todays most incomplete science.

I'm afraid you've been mislead as to what quantum mechanics actually entails.

Meh, I said I've only researched the very basics. You on the other hand must be one of the top ranking physicists out there. Or not.

If so, it's not a very intelligent intelligence.

You're taking the complexities of life like DNA for granted. If you ask me it's not far fetched at all for there to be some unknown form of intelligence behind it. For some reason that seems very weird to people, but they almost automatically accept that it popped out of nowhere as if that is fact while that too would just be theory.

Sure, why couldn't it?

In addition, evolution is far from random. Mutations are random, natural selection is definitely not.

I'm going to re-use my favourite little example here: The odds of flipping 100 coins and having them all land heads-up is 2^100 (2*2*2*2...a hundred times) or 1 in 1 267 650 600 228 229 401 496 703 205 376.

Clearly this is a massively unlikely event. Indeed, if everyone on Earth flipped a hundred coins every week it would take 4 062 982 693 039 196 700 years for one person to manage this.

However, if you are allowed to re-flip a coin as many times as you like if it lands tails, well, the odds drop to 1 in 1, don't they?

Natural selection is similar. Each step is random, but a bad random mutation dies out very quickly, while a good one stays around, allowing things that would be impossible by pure chance to happen all the time.

Well thank you for explaining what I already knew. That's horribly simplified, but I look a little bit deeper into it. I am talking about a possible force. Let's take the peacock for example, with such a large bush of spectacular feathers it would be easy pray, it would only slow him down and make it less agile. Those feathers don't make him any more fit for survival then a chicken for example, it uses it for attracting mates. Not much to do with survival of the fittest, but the animal almost looks like a piece of art eventhough it's supposedly a product of randomness.

Argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy.

Haha yeah whatever. ;P

But what's your evidence of this?

Not much evidence, it's just observation. I like to observe nature, it fascinates me how total randomness can lead to such beauty not only in animals but in things like flowers too. It is all so perfectly balanced, everything has a role. Ants are one of my favorites, they run on instinct but look at how they work together, how they all have a certain role, how they have knowledge given to them by their instincts to build a hyve with specific chambers and functions.





Excuse me for any grammar errors and such, couldn't be bothered to check.

Originally Posted by Iroas

Atheists take many things for granted, intelligence and emotions are exclusive to human beings, they are the result of chemical reaction in the brain, and thus is concience too, right? Well if chemicals and electric currents are what makes concience that brings up a problem, a paradox.You see chemicals are made out of matter, but what is matter? Well matter actually doesn't exist as we know it (google "double slit experment", Í don't feel like explaining and experts will do it better then I can). Matter at the quantum level is not made out of particles or waves, it is everywhere and nowhere. It is concienceness that 'decides' where an object is in space, the act of observing creates the space where you find yourself in, without you observing matter is anyware and everywhere and has no real shape. So what defined earth, or the universe for that matter, in such a way that life could begin in the first place? Because if I understood it all correctly, without concience or an observer there is no time or space to begin with.

I sorta see what you're getting at, but it doesn't sound all that plausible to me. Granted, I have next to no knowledge in this area, and nothing to back me up, but if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that (hypothetically barring your "other consciousness" thing) if every living thing was wiped from the universe, the universe wouldn't exist because there's no consciousness to observe it? But isn't that just relative? You can't deny that the universe is "there", right? I don't really see what consciousness has to do with it... If a rock rolls down a hill, it'll act the same way whether someone's there to see it or not.

Or perhaps I'm way off the point, for all I know. Oh well.

Also, you seem to be taking John's responses a little too personally. He's just bringing about objective discussion on the matter-- I wish people wouldn't flip out so much when someone does that. Take it as friendly debate. Otherwise you learn nothing.

Not in the least. People fear death because of instinctual fear of the unknown, it's that simple. I for one believe that I'll die when I die, I'll just try my best to pull my life outta the gutter on my way there. Life is like a road to me, with bumps and potholes, but then you finally get to your destination, no matter how far away.

Originally Posted by Iroas

Are you implying there are different forms of oblivion?

No, but the argument that two things causing the same experience means that they must be the same doesn't follow.

Electrocuting the right part of a human's brain can cause them to, say, smell oranges. This does not mean that electricity has overmuch in common with oranges.

Because like I said, it's either yes or no with them, there is no other option.. They don't see other possibilities other then there being a god or not.

It's a binary question, so obviously there aren't other options.
You're argument is that there is a God (thus falling into one of the two options) he's just not the Judeo/Christian one.

Ofcourse but that is completely besides the point I was trying to make. Let me correct myself, intelligence and emotions are exclusive to beings with a concience as in being aware of themselves. Atheist seem to rule out posibilities of other elements in the universe besides the living of having some sort of intelligence.

In the same way that I rule out the possibility of an invisible unicorn tapdancing on my keyboard. It's theoretically possible (everything is, if you're willing to stipulate enough unknown things) but that doesn't make it a reasonable conclusion.

If that was all the experiment proved it wouldn't have that much significance and wouldn't have stirred up all these philosophical debates about reality and the relation with the concience my friend., and don't make me bring up the string theorie please. There is no doubt matter exists, it's just not what it appears to be.

That is all the experiment proves. Read up on it. It's still huge (the particle/wave fight was going on forever, and the fact that they're both is mind-bending in several ways) but it doesn't say anything about the nature of matter that Rutherford didn't prove much earlier.

Boy do you sound sure of yourself
You're pretty much countering everything I've read and heard up till now. Can you back your claims up? If you read up on quantum physics you would've known that the physical universe rather then being deterministic is probababilistic.

Indeed, and? Probabilistic does not mean that matter is everywhere, it means that given the same circumstances a particle may not behave the exact same way every time, but rather will have a certain probability of behaving a certain way.

This, it should be noted, only applies on the quantum level. On every-day level the universe is purely deterministic.

There are many explinations for how quantum physics work, this one for example which would back up my claims a bit:

many minds interpretation

This does not seem to back up your claim at all, actually. It's a mental shorthand to aid comprehension.

I'll let someone with a Ph.D in physics talk for me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA

I, alas, lack time to view that tonight, but I feel reasonably confident that Stephen Hawking, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and my highschool/university textbooks were not, in fact, wrong.

Seriously, read up on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is where all this "observation" stuff comes from. It simply states that observing things on a quantum level alters them because the only tools we can use to observe the quantum level are so powerful that they alter it.

There's nothing mystical about observation in quantum mechanics, the idea that there is comes from a misunderstanding of what's actually going on.

If this is not so then why do many researchers theorize that it is so?

They don't.

There barely is a single thing you can say with certainty about quantum physics, don't sound so sure of yourself if even the top physicists aren't.

It's funny how you seem to have the answers to todays most incomplete science.

Quantum Mechanics is not as unknown as you seem to think. Every computer you see now, every monitor, indeed, every electronic device would not work if we did not have a very good understanding of quantum mechanics.

Some of the properties of sub-atomic particles (heck, most of them) defy common sense, but that doesn't mean we don't understand them, it means we cannot intuit them, and that's a very different issue.

You're taking the complexities of life like DNA for granted. If you ask me it's not far fetched at all for there to be some unknown form of intelligence behind it. For some reason that seems very weird to people, but they almost automatically accept that it popped out of nowhere as if that is fact while that too would just be theory.

I'm taking nothing for granted, but whoever designed us did a cruddy job.
Our eyes are in backwards,
Our spines are terrible for what they need to do (four smaller spines would work immensely better, for example)
Our brains are heavily flawed,
Male reproductive organs cannot work at human body temperature, so they must be stored outside,
Our appendixes are utterly useless, indeed, they're potentially deadly.
Our teeth are incapable of repairing damage or of being replaced more than once.
Our digestive tract is poorly suited to a large number of foods that we eat.

The list goes on. Other animals have similar problems.
Whales need to breathe air, despite living their entire life in the water.
Tuna lack proper cooling, so they can cook themselves to death if they swim too fast.
Panda Bears are almost totally incapable of digesting the one food they eat.
Most flatfish. I really don't need to say more about the bizzare way their bodies get distorted, do I?

There is an endless list of solutions to engineering problems where, rather than going with the best possible design, a "good enough" design was settled for. This makes perfect sense with evolution as a semi-random process, but none at all if it's intelligently guided.

Let's take the peacock for example, with such a large bush of spectacular feathers it would be easy pray, it would only slow him down and make it less agile. Those feathers don't make him any more fit for survival then a chicken for example, it uses it for attracting mates. Not much to do with survival of the fittest, but the animal almost looks like a piece of art eventhough it's supposedly a product of randomness.

"Survival of the Fittest" means "Survival of the species that can successfully raise the most young." Peacock feathers, due to an odd bit of brain wiring, are seen as attractive to Peahens, so ever bigger and more flamboyant displays evolved over time.

Such a tail would be utterly useless from a design standpoint, hindering the birds for no net gain, but they do make sense if you allow for random mutations and natural selection.

As for them looking like art, that's debatable. They're a simple repeating pattern, using iridescent colours that many, many other birds (such as Starlings) also use. I see them every day at work (both Peacocks and Starlings) so I can vouch for them being very similar in that respect.

Not much evidence, it's just observation. I like to observe nature, it fascinates me how total randomness

First you say you know how evolution works, then you say that it's "totally random". If you think that then you don't know how it works.

can lead to such beauty not only in animals but in things like flowers too. It is all so perfectly balanced, everything has a role. Ants are one of my favorites, they run on instinct but look at how they work together, how they all have a certain role, how they have knowledge given to them by their instincts to build a hyve with specific chambers and functions.

Complex and interesting, definitely, but easy to explain with the theory of evolution. Difficult to explain if they're designed (ants have several odd design flaws too.)

Hell yes I'm scared to die.

I know I have to die eventually, but can't I accomplish my dreams first? I mean, not to mention that my death may be painful, and that all my loved ones would be sad for me. And, well, I don't know what happens when you die. Fear of the unknown, and all that.

And also, this primal instinct which goes, "Don't die. Don't die. Don't d- WATCH OUT FOR THAT TREE ie. Don't die."

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I am afraid of dying. I am an Atheist so as it stands I believe in no afterlife, however, if there were to be one, you would wake up to anything after death instantaneously, as if from sleep.

For example.

Is this life we are leading now a big dream and will we wake up in a different life with partial memory of this life when our time comes to "die" in this life.

Personally, i am a tad afraid of death. Only because i don't know what will happen after i die. Will it be infinite nothingness or will we come into a new life or will we finally meet our maker.

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

I'm more afraid of the events leading up to death than I am of actually dying. The reason for this is that I am firm in my faith, and I do believe that there is life after death. However, the thought of great suffering before that last moment is quite unnerving.

Pretty much the same as me. I'm more afraid of pain that comes before death than death itself.

I'm not afraid of death. I see it as an end to life. The end of ones usefulness. I welcome it as in to stay any longer would be a waste. This is not to say I hate my life and want to die, just that it scares me none at all. If I was told I was going to die tomorrow there would be few regrets. And I'd be fine. Annoyed at a short life, but not scared of it. I've seen death before first hand and have gotten over it.

"The end of ones usefulness" - The harsh truth

Originally Posted by Iroas

Boy do you sound sure of yourself
You're pretty much countering everything I've read and heard up till now. Can you back your claims up? If you read up on quantum physics you would've known that the physical universe rather then being deterministic is probababilistic.

There are many explinations for how quantum physics work, this one for example which would back up my claims a bit:

many minds interpretation

Have you heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Two physical properties of an object can only be verified simultaneously if their corresponding operators commute with each other. Momentum and position operators, however, do not commute (this is easy to verify mathematically).

That is not to say, however, that neither can be known or determined on the quantum level - what it means is that if we know the position absolutely, then the momentum is entirely uncertain, whereas if we know precisely what the momentum is, then the position is entirely uncertain.

Essentially, the relationship between the uncertainty in position and uncertainty in momentum can be summed up as:

(uncertainty in position) x (uncertainty in momentum) >= h/(4*pi),

where h is Planck's constant = 6.626 x 10^(-34)

ie. so if the uncertainty in one variable is zero, then the uncertainty in the other is essentially infinite.

That's actually an extremely basic principle in quantum mechanics. It's one of the first things students studying the subject will learn.

Who isn't afraid of dying? It's a fear that all thinking organisms share deep down, as there is nothing worse than having your mind completely destroyed and your sense of awareness and perception forever removed from existence. I doubt anyone is truly "accepting" of death, and that deep down, they do feel uncomfortable when thinking about it. That's why most people don't think about it most of the time.

This is one of the reasons why I support efforts to pro-long life through science and technology, no matter how "not natural" they may seem.