Thread: Death a misunderstood blessing

More nonsense,
I don't know why i ever expected you to prove your point.
This is a debate jack off, Grandstanding doesn't add anything to your argument.
When will you address the actual message of the post.

Look let me make it simple for you jack off

Point of post : life and death are equal in value because infinite life would eventually become a curse . < This was my opinion, read first post)
Fact: The universe is experiencing a heat death, If you believe the proven fact that the sun is a ball of plasma and fire then by definition you believe in the heat death of the universe.
(I've sent far to many links)

At this point this is beginning to become sad, its clear you just don't want to be wrong but have nothing to support your claims .

Originally Posted by Epictetus

More nonsense,
I don't know why i ever expected you to prove your point.
This is a debate jack off, Grandstanding doesn't add anything to your argument.
When will you address the actual message of the post.

Look let me make it simple for you jack off

Point of post : life and death are equal in value because infinite life would eventually become a curse . < This was my opinion, read first post)
Fact: The universe is experiencing a heat death, If you believe the proven fact that the sun is a ball of plasma and fire then by definition you believe in the heat death of the universe.
(I've sent far to many links)

At this point this is beginning to become sad, its clear you just don't want to be wrong but have nothing to support your claims .

Look, my real life has taken off to such an extent that I can’t spare much time to post here at the moment so don’t take my delay in responding as anything other than what it is – prioritising, but I’ve managed to put aside a few moments to respond.

With regards the science, we could debate the pros and cons ad infinitum. You would never accept my take on things and I would never accept yours.

I don’t have a point to prove, it is up to those that propose to prove. I have said from the start that neither I nor anyone else knows for sure what the future holds.

There is experimental science that gives us all the tech we now have at our disposal and there is no debate there – it is self-evident.

Then there’s theoretical science which is more akin to philosophy.

To take theoretical science as fact is not science, it is belief.

Yet when we listen to scientific theorists they don’t propose their theories as possibilities, they propose them as facts. They no longer say “this is what we think” they say “this is how it is”.

They are attempting to insert philosophy as science and I’m not biting.

Agree with this or disagree, the choice is yours.


So when will I address the actual message of your post?

Well here it is:

If you’re lonely then you should consider death as a viable option. If you’re alone then you may as well be dead?

This is what you’re saying isn’t it?

And you wonder why I think you may be a troll? We MGTOW are forever hearing this bullshit of “Oh, but you’re going to die alone!”

So What? What does it matter if you’re surrounded by others or alone – you’re dead.

To explain your point you could just as easily have suggested a real scenario of someone that is lying on his deathbed with no hope of recovery and whilst awake is in constant pain – death in this case may be considered a release and your point may have merit.

But you didn’t choose this obvious scenario did you? You needed to make up an impossible scenario where an everlasting being would consider death at least as beneficial as remaining alive and being alone.


Oh you lonely MGTOW men, you need us women to give your life meaning.

Bullshit!

You have a choice:

1. Seek meaning within yourself
2. Seek meaning in the affirmation of others
3. Don’t seek meaning at all and take life as it comes

Options 1 & 3 are the MGTOW way. Option 2 is what you are espousing and is NOT the MGTOW way.

You may as well say life is meaningless unless you hook up.

Is this a clear enough response to your initial premise?

Greetings Jackoff, I’ve decided I will show a full demonstration of my reasoning. Usually I hold the volume of my words back to not bore the reader but I won't this time.


With regards the science, we could debate the pros and cons ad infinitum. You would never accept my take on things and I would never accept yours.


Absolutely false. The amount of projection is always amazing to me. I am more than willing to change my views and beliefs, i always says it. The price of being wrong is incomparable to the price of being corrected . What I always say is that your “reasoning” doesn't meet my standard of evidence.

I don’t have a point to prove, it is up to those that propose to prove. I have said from the start that neither I nor anyone else knows for sure what the future holds.


What have you been doing if not proposing your point of view? Also isn't it convenient that I only have to provide proof? Ok but i will This “proof” will be data and science followed by reasoning and logic. I agree with you when you say we can never know as an absolute (remember i posted a whole thread on it?) Though moving past that since ultimately we have to, I said that people function based off of probability, not absolutes. Everyone knows they can die in a crash when they get into a car but they still do because we perceive the probability to be relatively low.

There is experimental science that gives us all the tech we now have at our disposal and there is no debate there – it is self-evident.


Experimental, more like progressing.is the argument that because science is progressing or experimental as you call it then it shouldn't be relied upon? That is extremely unusual considering that science contains some of the most exaggerated parts of human intelligence. Science, technology, engineering , and mathematics are all insanely important, better known as stem .Moreover science is home to the minds of humanities brightest and most analytical people in history. Additionally the standard of evidence for science is extremely high, to the point where one study can take upwards of 50 years before releasing its research because of just how meticulous the process of gathering evidence is. Do you see what I'm getting at? Science is the creme of the crop of collective knowledge , and understanding .

For instance when we see the planet go through its seasons we will readily and happily attribute the many people who contributed to us knowing the earths axial tilt caused it. Though on other hand when studies conflict with our moral, ethical, and internalized beliefs somehow its not true?


Furthermore the law of conservation of energy 1842 (first law of thermodynamics) is decently old for a scientific law to maintain such high status among the scientific community.


https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Law_of_conservation_of_energy


The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside.



That is because the principles upon which it was forged on have remained consistent with natural and tested observation.


Ever seen a ice cream cone melt? A bowl of soup cool off? All a result of this law. We see this law applied all day everyday in our lives because it in fact is most likely true. Why does it seem to be some type of great leap in logic to say the universe is also experiencing this. This is as close to fact as we can get in all honesty, to something that is true 99.99999.


Then there’s theoretical science which is more akin to philosophy.
To take theoretical science as fact is not science, it is belief

“More akin to philosophy” … That statement is indicative of your misunderstanding of science. Einstein and isaac newton were both theoretical physicist. Would you consider them philosophers, only in the broadest sense. Yes on a very base level i can see why you would say that , when you delve beneath the surface, philosophy is related to personal beliefs, while science is grounded in 99.99% reality and doesn’t conform to most human biases. Science is tested, experimented, verifiable, etc. Theory/Theoretical doesn't just mean some wild guess, it always has a decent amount of evidence to back it up or it will be laughed out of the discussion.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.
The advancement of science generally depends on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigour while giving little weight to experiments and observations



philosophy-lThe study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.


Yet when we listen to scientific theorists they don’t propose their theories as possibilities, they propose them as facts. They no longer say “this is what we think” they say “this is how it is”.


As always a complete perversion of what they actually represent. Science ALWAYS, and i mean ALWAYS carries the caveat that if new evidence contradicts or supports something things change. But lets say what you are saying is true then lets see why.It would most likely be to the notion that whatever is the “hypothesis” has undergone rigorous testing, scrutiny, and evaluation and had held steady.We all understand the theory of relativity is most likely fact , so we all say it is a fact.


https://blog.ed.ted.com/2016/06/07/whats-the-difference-between-a-scientific-law-and-theory-in-ted-ed-gifs/#:~:text=A%20scientific%20law%20predicts%20the,thi ngs%20happen%20as%20they%20do.

Scientific laws and theories have different jobs to do. A scientific law predicts the results of certain initial conditions. It might predict your unborn child’s possible hair colors, or how far a baseball travels when launched at a certain angle.In simplest terms, a law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why. A theory will never grow up into a law, though the development of one often triggers progress on the other.
We weren’t handed a universal instruction manual. Instead, we continually propose, challenge, revise, or even replace our scientific ideas as a work in progress. Laws usually resist change since they wouldn’t have been adopted if they didn’t fit the data, though we occasionally revise laws in the face of new unexpected information. A theory’s acceptance, however, is often gladiatorial. Multiple theories may compete to supply the best explanation of a new scientific discovery. Upon further research, scientists tend to favor the theory that can explain most of the data, though there may still be gaps in our understanding..In contrast, a theory tries to provide the most logical explanation about why things happen as they do. A theory might invoke dominant and recessive genes to explain how brown-haired parents ended up with a red-headed child, or use gravity to shed light on the parabolic trajectory of a baseball.

They are attempting to insert philosophy as science and I’m not biting.




No you are conflating the two, they are not. If they did they wouldn't be scientists…This is why i say you need proof. Show me the scientists who have not been discarded basing. their scientific discoveries on philosophy. Science has a system of checks and balances , stupid and illogical theories are not going to last.


Agree with this or disagree, the choice is yours.


NO. If one is true and one is false then I will believe what is true regardless of my old discarded belief. In this case there is only the choice to remain willfully ignorant.


So when will I address the actual message of your post?
Well here it is:
If you’re lonely then you should consider death as a viable option. If you’re alone then you may as well be dead?
This is what you’re saying isn’t it?
And you wonder why I think you may be a troll? We MGTOW are forever hearing this bullshit of “Oh, but you’re going to die alone!”
So What? What does it matter if you’re surrounded by others or alone – you’re dead.


The worst form of torture for a human being is isolation torture. You are talking about being alone in a normal sense like not having friends/family/gf , whatever. In that event there are still people in existence. In my scenario the universe is at the end of its life, everything in existence would be at a freezing point and there would be no light.Let me ask you dont you think these are two extremely different degrees of loneliness, There would be Nothing but you, so YES in that scenario it would be better of to be dead… “death a misunderstood blessing”.The only way you could say in that scenario that it would be better to be alive is simply out of fear of the unknown or the logic that life itself carries the value. The reason biblical hell is believed to be the worst punishment isn’t becuase they’re dead but becuase their concsiouness it being tortured forever. Since we are nothing but human isolation for extended periods of time equals pain, no amount of mental fortitude can going against a infinity onslaught of being the only things in existence ,there are no ways around it.The only thing left would be to employ a coping mechanism like stoicism or the thought the life itself is worth holding onto .If you think being alone in a pitch black space floating around aimlessly for eternity wouldn't lose it’s value then … hey that is an opinion you can have , but i don't.

To explain your point you could just as easily have suggested a real scenario of someone that is lying on his deathbed with no hope of recovery and whilst awake is in constant pain – death in this case may be considered a release and your point may have merit.
But you didn’t choose this obvious scenario did you? You needed to make up an impossible scenario where an everlasting being would consider death at least as beneficial as remaining alive and being
alone.


My point was that life and death are of equal value, because being alive in perpetuity would come with an ungodly agony of outliving all things. How can you not get that our scenarios are the same. The person you mentioned who is ill , IF given immortal life will experience the same framework of all things dying. My scenario is the logical conclusion.



Oh you lonely MGTOW men, you need us women to give your life meaning.
Bullshit!
You have a choice:
1. Seek meaning within yourself
2. Seek meaning in the affirmation of others
3. Don’t seek meaning at all and take life as it comes
Options 1 & 3 are the MGTOW way. Option 2 is what you are espousing and is NOT the MGTOW way.

You don't decide what is the mgtow way or not, really these are your personal beliefs.




You may as well say life is meaningless unless you hook up.




? completely unrelated


Anyway i will explain this as many times as it takes

Enjoying the discussion. Very enlightening and insightful, and happy to see the tone take a more respectful turn again. These types of topics can be divisive of course.

Epictetus, I agree with the theme of your most recent comment as it relates to the nature of the scientific process and its position as the authoritative method for describing and understanding our material/physical world.

I do understand where Jackoff is coming from with respect to philosophy and/or belief systems being inserted into the discipline, as opposed to sticking with the method itself. The "politicization" of the discipline, both academically and professionally, has been going on for decades, and has certainly went into overdrive in the last few years. Much of what parades as Science today is more accurately termed Scientism.

I once read a quote by quantum physicist David Bohm that said something like "science is an infinite and inexhaustible process" - with the conclusion that in order to have a fundamental explanation of the very nature of our reality, we would need a fusion of Philosophy and Science. He was/is not alone in concluding that. Many experts who go to the depths of their own scientific disciplines, particularly in the fields of biology, physics and astronomy come to very similar conclusions, with some even claiming intelligent design as the most likely explanation for things. Applying the scientific method/approach to the concept of intelligent design is in its infancy, but work is being done here as well, thus inserting Science into Philosophy.

What I find most fascinating is that, for all its accomplishments, Science has yet to explain the very origin or nature of human consciousness. That is the very crux of the intersection of Science and Philosophy, and for lack of a better word, the "failure" here is something to ponder deeply.

Hi Epictetus, thank you for showing your reasoning to such a degree. Now I'll try to do likewise:

Originally Posted by Epictetus

Absolutely false. The amount of projection is always amazing to me. I am more than willing to change my views and beliefs, i always says it. The price of being wrong is incomparable to the price of being corrected .

O.K., if I’m wrong in this then I’m wrong. My observation stems from the fact that you claim one particular theory as fact when there are other equally valid theories just because the one you propose is the current trend in scientific circles.

What I always say is that your “reasoning” doesn't meet my standard of evidence.
…
What have you been doing if not proposing your point of view?

Just what sort of evidence does one need to be sceptical? I have never claimed that the current theories are wrong, just that they should be viewed with scepticism.

As for the reasoning behind my scepticism? Science, like all fields of human endeavour is composed of human beings – apologies for stating something so obvious but it is important.

As such it is prone to all the failures that humanity has to offer – corruption, self-promotion, misunderstanding, miscalculation etc. all of which are present in the world of science if only one cares to look.

Are there safeguards against such things? Apparently, with notions such as peer-review and mathematical evidence, but being thought up and applied by humans they are also susceptible to the same human frailties.

Consensus of opinion is just that, it is not proof. As for mathematics, it is far more prone to error than one might think:

Proof that 1=2, running time ~3 minutes



Mathematics is a very powerful tool and can be very persuasive, but one that can easily be misapplied if you’re not very careful and one that can also be deliberately misapplied for personal gain.

Experimental, more like progressing.is the argument that because science is progressing or experimental as you call it then it shouldn't be relied upon?

Quite the contrary. When I said it is self-evident that was to say that it can be relied upon almost totally. Our gadgets are physical evidence that the science behind them is correct. I say “almost” totally because experiments by their very nature often fail and even on occasion provide misleading results. Sometimes people see only what they are looking for.

Moreover science is home to the minds of humanities brightest and most analytical people in history. Additionally the standard of evidence for science is extremely high, to the point where one study can take upwards of 50 years before releasing its research because of just how meticulous the process of gathering evidence is. Do you see what I'm getting at? Science is the creme of the crop of collective knowledge , and understanding .

All true, but as I’ve already stated these are human beings with human frailties. The “brightest” people however can also turn their abilities towards deceit, and being the brightest they can be very convincing.

Ever seen a ice cream cone melt? A bowl of soup cool off? All a result of this law. We see this law applied all day everyday in our lives because it in fact is most likely true. Why does it seem to be some type of great leap in logic to say the universe is also experiencing this. This is as close to fact as we can get in all honesty, to something that is true 99.99999.

I have no qualms with the conservation of energy, neither do I have any qualms with entropy. Entropy, however is not the only game in town. Collisions occur producing heat. If you accept the premise that new planets and stars form, they also produce heat. In a static universe model all of this would apply resulting in everlasting regeneration.

There is also the big bang / big crunch scenario, a repetitive cycle which would also result in everlasting regeneration.

It’s only in the expanding universe scenario where you get the concept of heat-death, a scenario that IMO has a few flaws of its own.

I have already mentioned that what we can observe shouldn’t be extrapolated to the entire universe because we can (potentially) only observe a very tiny amount.

Add to this the concepts of dark matter and dark energy. These are concepts that are receiving more and more credence within the scientific community yet are totally fabricated. Do you get this? They were made up to make the maths work.

Is it plausible that these things exist? Well, yeah – there must be some explanation right? But making things up is not science. There is nothing wrong with supposing that this may be case, but without evidence other than affect it should not be considered truth. Maybe someday this will be borne out but we’re nowhere near that stage yet – hence the term “dark” indicating our inability detect these things directly.

This is IMO akin to saying that we have no explanation for our existence therefore God must have created us.

Then there’s big-bang theory. In an expanding universe model there was only one “big-bang”. The problem with this is that it describes the universe suddenly coming into existence out of nowhere contrary to the conservation of energy.

This is creationism, just in another form.

No you are conflating the two, they are not. If they did they wouldn't be scientists…This is why i say you need proof. Show me the scientists who have not been discarded basing. their scientific discoveries on philosophy. Science has a system of checks and balances , stupid and illogical theories are not going to last.

Really?

Despite the evidence supporting the simplified heliocentric model, the scientific community was slow to accept a shift from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered view. The theory had been accepted by most for over 1,500 years after all.

Geocentric model: The Earth-centered view of the universe

I suppose that depends on your definition of the phrase “not going to last”.


I hope I’ve explained my reasoning sufficiently, if not then let me ask you this:

Is there anything within the field of science that you doubt? Is there anything that just doesn’t make sense to you? I can think of a few other areas where the common consensus leaves much room for doubt.

My point was that life and death are of equal value, because being alive in perpetuity would come with an ungodly agony of outliving all things. How can you not get that our scenarios are the same.

Erm, I think my point was that, at least to your way of thinking they are the same, this is why I questioned your proposing a hypothetical based in impossibility instead of one based in an actual possible scenario.

The pain you describe in outliving all things is purely speculative. Yes, for some this may be the case but it is in no way definitive. When dealing with the loss of a loved one some cannot stand the thought and proceed to take their own lives. Sad but true. Others though eventually come to rejoice in their newfound freedom, although they’re usually loathe to admit this even to themselves. It’s all very subjective.

All of this though is to take an exception to normality to make a very dubious point, normality in this case being a healthy body and a healthy mind. You seem to be making the assumption that the mind just couldn’t possibly be healthy in the scenario you describe, but this is the very projection that you accuse me of.

Some of us are quite content just to live without becoming pre-occupied as to why we live.


Anyhow the weekend is almost over and I may not have the opportunity to reply to this thread for a while.

Originally Posted by KRFJames

The "politicization" of the discipline, both academically and professionally, has been going on for decades, and has certainly went into overdrive in the last few years. Much of what parades as Science today is more accurately termed Scientism.

Exactly this ^^^.