Is it Possible to Live Forever?

There have been a couple of new faces among the recurring participants at Sunday philosophy, and this suggestion came from one of them.  He expanded a little on his topic to garner votes; why can't science and technology make it possible to prevent decay and death of the body and extend our lives infinitely?  It is a very material and practical sort of question, but one that has philosophical implications.

For me, the question is what we mean by living.  For most people, the idea of preserving the body and preventing it from ceasing to operate is maintaining life.  We do not consider people with replacement parts - limbs, organs, aesthetic parts - to have less life.  As long as the consciousness recognizes the body as its own, life continues.  But how far can that go?  Assuming consciousness resides in the brain, can we remove it from a body damaged beyond repair and create a cyborg or android?  Would that life, that one consciousness, continue or become something new?  It is an idea that has been looked at in a good many works of literature and film all over the world.  In many cases, the self, the individual life, is solely in the consciousness, perhaps the "soul".  Other works, such as Stephen King's "Pet Semetary", do not paint such a clear picture.  In that particular story, dead bodies buried in a particular spot were resurrected and more or less thought of as the same people returned to life.  Later, they were considered inhabited or possessed by demons, but by taking over the bodies they had the same knowledge and memories as the people who had died.  Here is a great unknown, at least for me: is the self contained in the physical brain, or is it in the consciousness ("spirit")?  I lean towards the physical, but with no evidence to back me up.  Those who study these things would have a better foundation to draw such conclusions.  Further, what are the consequences of eternal life, or even just extended life?  In literature, creatures that are similar to humans but with lifespans far longer than ours are rather distinctly not human in terms of their interests and values.  What is pressing and urgent for us may be less important or even completely unimportant for a being that will see the same situation arise again and again, and see the consequences play out or resolve themselves.  One would think such beings would be more inclined to try to solve problems with long-term consequences, like pollution or environmental destruction, but they seem to keep out of humanity's way, until there is something exciting like a war or quest going on.  Humans who become immortal, or nearly, lose their humanity.  Vampires are a good example of this.  In many older stories, they are predatory and lacking humanity, if not entirely, at least in large measure.  In the last couple of centuries, literary vampires have become more civilized, but they are still not in the world of humanity.  Even Anne Rice's rather philosophical specimens consider themselves apart from the human world.  To have a life beyond human range is to remove oneself from human reality.

The Source opened the discussion, as is the custom, with a strong opinion of faith in science to extend our lives, not just in quantity but also in quality.  He remarked on several studies of cells, noting that we should be able to figure out how to halt their natural deterioration or induce regeneration.  He also pointed out, however, that much of human happiness is the result of our need to accomplish things in the time we have; with more time and less pressure, we would feel less need to act and consequently, in his opinion, less happiness.

Our Doctor spoke of the difference between living forever and just living longer, and reminded us of the dangers of extended life.  Many people live very long lives, but the last years or even decades are not fruitful or enjoyable for them.  A life of pain or unawareness is senseless.  The introduction from the Source was fantasy for the Doctor, since aging the pure biology, perfectly natural and not to be fought against, at least not in terms of defeating it completely.  Later he gave a more mystical interpretation, saying we do not know what we are, but we do know how we feel.  We know we are weak and need help, and when help is hard to find we create gods.  We want solutions, and today science gives us solutions, even though it has not solved every problem - yet.  He also praised the True Philosopher's prepared writing, calling it "for eternity".

In the meeting, the Philosopher introduced the religious aspect of eternal life, in which we are promised something beyond this world, often an existence of pleasure with our loved ones and without illness or hardship.  Some religions contain the idea of rebirth or reincarnation, but even then it seems the reborn is not the same person as before, but a new version.  He spoke of the concept of eternal life being something we can imagine, which makes it a possibility.  Also, as others noted at different moments, keeping the memory of somebody alive is one way of prolonging that life.

Our Leader. practical as always, said both in his oral and written contributions that living "forever" is simply impossible.  Til the end of the universe, maybe, but forever is metaphorical at best.  Picking up on the warnings from the Doctor, he stated that the real question is, How Long Can We Live? and that the length of life is more dependent on the quality of that life that the actual occupancy of time.  So, echoing other contributions, he wondered why people would even want to live for centuries, let alone til the end of the universe.

The Thinker also pondered this question, warning us that there are always unforeseen consequences when we get what we want.  Others brought up the comfort of religion and the fear of death as driving forces behind this desire.  Towards the end there was also another question about where life actually resides, and how much connection it has to the physical body.

So, it seems that this is another great human pipe dream, colorful, evocative, but not terribly productive to talk about without some good guidelines first.  At least the discussion did not threaten to go on forever.

a toast to colorado

When I was a student in Vienna, there was a brewery right across the street from the dorm.  We made it a habit to go down there for an evening beer, and one of their regular offerings was Hanfbier, or hemp beer.  Being young American college students, it gave us a giggle to be drinking it.  I remember it having a very light golden color and a delicately sweet taste, nothing terribly striking, a perfectly nice drink on a warm evening in the restaurant patio.  It's been a few years since I've had a hemp beer, and checking out the latest specialty shop, I saw a label I couldn't pass up.

It's an even better name in Spanish...

Special beer, made in Germany

Just popping the cap releases a sour extremely beery smell, and the bubbly liquid is somewhat darker gold than I remember from Vienna.  The taste is about right, though.  Actually, a little more flowery than the Hanfbier I recall, which was more lightly sweet than planty tasting.  This is another horchata-like flavor, but also with a little bit of that saison style floral essence.  It has a very round, mouth-filling sweetness, but it's not overly sugary or syrupy.  Still, I'd prefer to have a little something around to balance it out, perhaps something vinegary like olives.  Salty pretzels or chips might enhance the sweetness of the beer, drowning out the floral notes.

Our Lady of Altering Substances has been working on her "smoky eyes"

Destiny

While many can give a more generalized meaning to the term, for some of us "destiny" is intimately connected to the supernatural and magical, making it an idea that is more applicable to the worlds of fantasy and fiction than our own.  There are two conflicting desires in the acceptance of "destiny", as I see it: one, the desire for control over ourselves; two, the desire to avoid responsibility by not being in control.  As to the first, we can find a large number of stories that allow the characters to control or change their destiny - any story with a time machine points in this direction.  The message seems to be that only our own decisions can make us happy, and by trusting in fate or the will of others we relinquish the possibility of finding true happiness.  We are encouraged to live actively, put effort into making things happen, shape the very world we live in with our own hands, figuratively or literally.  Probably just as many stories, however, tell us that as much as we try to control our own existence, something outside of us is always really in control and we are helpless to change the path laid out for us to travel on.  The movie "The Butterfly Effect" seems to allude to this, and a number of episodes from shows like "The Outer Limits" show the futility of trying to change historical events.  This idea of helplessness in the face of destiny is quite old; we see it clearly in the story of "The Appointment in Samarra", and it has been referenced numerous times in other works as well.  I tell myself I do not believe in personal destiny, although events might be unavoidable.  That is, the event, like an assassination or disaster will occur, but the individual participants are changeable.  I probably just do not care for the idea of external control over my choices.

Our Doctor began the discussion by saying that is was huge and had no conclusion, as our topics often are.  The True Philosopher was not in attendance, but the Doctor critiqued his short article, saying it was "too cold, too academic".  Yet, he then took us into the territory of biology, mentioning the unavoidable changes and decay of living tissue and the directions we carry with us in our genetic codes.  He warmed up by insisting that for all the coldness of the technology we have developed, and only in the last 50 years, we are on the right track to know ourselves and universe.  We should still be careful, though, about believing we know things now.  A statement like, "Destiny doesn't exist," may be proven wrong in only a few years' time with the advances to be made.  Later he told us that we should compare our present experiences to the past to keep our footing and understand them, since we as humans need some kind of security or point of reference.  Medical destiny exists, in his opinion, since we can predict disease and death, but science does not lead us to certainty.  Rather, real science leads us to more questions, making it philosophy.  The problem with destiny as prediction, he went on, is that the world is constantly changing, as are we, and that change can confuse our predictions and make them less reliable and accurate.

The prediction angle came from the Organizer, who gave it a bit of time in his written thoughts, his opinion, as he called it this time.  He did not feel quite comfortable giving it a more respectable title on this occasion.  He reasoned that we can make predictions using models from the past and call them "destiny" if only to create the illusion that we are in control.  Later he wondered how far ahead we must predict for it to be destiny and not obviously simple cause and effect.  He expressed a bit of frustration with the advancement of science and technology, saying there have not been any real technological discoveries in the past decades, merely refinement of previous discoveries.  There were some huffy defenses of science after this contribution, which he then responded to by trying to clarify that the refinements are not signs of laziness or misguided effort, just the way things are.  Finally, he reminded us that we are incapable of seeing our universe objectively, therefore our predictions are always skewed.  As for exerting control over our destiny, we fool ourselves by believing we have that control, but even by doing nothing - that is, giving into the feeling of being controlled from beyond -  we still influence things around us.  It is not complete or perfect control, but influence means we are not completely controlled either.

The Constant Ponderer divided the issue into "destiny", which is rather personal and which gives us pleasure to think we can control, and "Destiny", which is outside of any human attempts to control.  He predicted we would return to magic after these centuries of reason and science, but without throwing out the lessons of logic and critical thought.  Another contribution revealed the idea that cause and effect is a myth for him, or if not a myth, something that has been given much greater importance than it deserves.  Destiny, capitalized or not, is not actually handled through effort, but with quiet contemplation.  By reaching mental stillness, we access destiny.

A more Pragmatic Participant stated that the idea of destiny is only necessary for human beings because of the limitations of the human brain.  By narrowing the possibilities to only one destiny, we feel a sense of security, imagining we have some stability.  This sensation is necessary for us to develop our intelligence and to be happy as human beings.  Although destiny is a mystery, this Participant put no stock in magic.

The Source spoke very little, preferring to listen to other opinions.  She did reference the Koran and the religious concepts of destiny as divine will, which manifest to different degrees in different faiths.  It seems the Koran says everything that happens is the will of Allah, but at the same time each person chooses the path that will lead to the destined events.  The mention of Islam produced a predictable reaction of smug sarcasm from the ever-present Blabbermouth, who snidely said we all knew that Islam was much, much better than any church we'd been to in our lives.  It must be his destiny to be offended by everything that does not play by his Euro-centric, 19th century rules.  At the very least it is predictable and modeled weekly.

a little experiment

 "Exotic beer", it says right on the label.  I'd been told the coconut was good, but had never heard of the palm nut variety, so I decided to pick that one up.  Spread the experiences around a little.  According to the label, it's actually brewed by Dutch brewery Huyghe for the Belgian Mongozo.  The beer is slightly dark in color, but transparent, with a bubbly, resistant head.  There's just a slight hint of spicy odor from the glass, under a noticeable sweetness.  The taste is sweet at first, but develops into a sort of bitter-grassy flavor, just a little bit like horchata aftertaste.  It's a nice enough beer for sitting around on a sunny day, enjoying some relaxation, but as much as it has nothing distracting or unpleasant in the way of flavor, there's nothing especially unusual or interesting.  Just fine, but not amazing.

Entitlement

This one was mine, so I did up a little thought casserole beforehand:

In the past we've discussed human rights and whether we get what we deserve, which are related ideas to entitlement.  If we have a right to something, like education, we can say we are entitled to an education.  If we perform a service and deserve payment or reward, we are entitled to that reward.  However, the noun "entitlement" is most often used in a negative way.  Somebody with a feeling of entitlement expects reward, deference or respect unreasonably, without fulfilling any conditions that would ordinarily mean deserving those things.  Entitlement is a selfish and self-absorbed way of viewing the world, since feeling entitled means everything you want is what you should get, no matter how other people can be inconvenienced.

The trick is being able to accurately judge what we deserve from other people or from life in general.  Some people are trained to expect more for themselves by parents who spoil them, others seem to develop the idea of being "owed" for their existence on their own.  Older people often consider the young to have a sense of entitlement because of greater choices in acquisition that they (usually) have.  I have to have a new phone, I should be able to buy what I want, I deserve to live however I want to.  Again, what is necessary is being clear about what it means to live adequately and without undue duress; the requirements for a "good" life evolve over time, and the standard of living of 50 or even 25 years ago is not acceptable to many people today.  Do we deserve the most advanced technology at every moment?  Are we entitled to gourmet food on every corner?  Should we expect every person we meet to automatically be in awe of our intellectual brilliance before we even open our mouths?  Are these the rights we deserve, or are we suffering from an unreasonable feeling of entitlement?

As somewhat expected, there was a good deal of focus on rights rather than entitlement or deserving things, although I did try to head that off in the beginning by saying a right did not require any action for its bestowal upon us, while being deserving of or entitled to something does mean we have fulfilled some requirement first.  The Normal Organizer was away with other duties, so we had only his written thoughts to go on.

First, there was some discussion about the translation of the word "entitlement", since there does not seem to be a direct translation that covers all the meaning and nuance.  Our Doctor insisted that there is no equivalent in Spanish, German, French or Italian, while our Mathematician tried out "merecimiento".  The problem with that suggestion, as pretty much everyone agreed, is that it does not quite deliver on the negative aspect that "entitlement" can carry.  The Doctor began his contribution by saying the existence of our group was extraordinary, possibly trying to imply that we should not take it for granted, or feel entitled to such opportunities to exchange ideas.  He then focused on rights, giving them form as a recent invention in human history, and themselves are not well-defined.  This makes them difficult to distinguish from entitlement.  Furthermore, our given rights and our possible entitlements are constantly changing in time and place, being expanded or restricted based on the cultural circumstances we might find ourselves in.  One clue to the sense of the word "entitlement" is found in its etymology; this time, at least, it is a useful examination.  It comes from Latin, naturally, referring to giving titles to nobles or important people to the authority or government.  With the titles comes certain wealth and power, as well as some responsibilities, although most people will focus more on the former.  The idea of the feeling of entitlement being the source of abusive behavior by people in positions of power came up repeatedly in the discussion.

The Mathematician, after the terminology suggestion, mused on inherent rights and entitlements, a concept raised by the True Philosopher.  The Mathematician was uncomfortable with rights in particular being inherent, as that means we will not feel the need to examine, create, and defend them.  Inherent, or inalienable, rights almost by definition cannot be taken away, although they may be denied.  However, we can easily see that the number and extent of rights are not equal in different places, even when there is a certain overlap of culture.  He later noted humanity's constant desire to simplify and optimize, for a relevant example in legal codes.  A number of our laws are meant to codify entitlements of citizens and others, who abide by the expected behavior of the society.  He then wandered a bit into the realm of the hypothetical, saying rules should be thought of proposals for experiments, possibilities to improve society and social behavior among humans.  He pointed out that when systems break, we change them, or at least try to before throwing them out.  Our rights and entitlements are within our own power to expand or modify, but we should be aware of the effects of these changes on our fellow citizens.  The Mathematician has a certain fascination with social experiments.

The True Philosopher answered the doubts about inherent, saying he was using the term in the epistimilogical sense, as a philosophical modifier rather than legal or biological.  He also presented us a good example of entitlement in the literal and figurative sense: a good many academics in his country of origin earn degrees, but in programs that do not actually require a great amount of effort, or based on publications that are poorly researched and plagarized.  After acquiring the "title" of MA or PhD, these people feel entitled to pay raises and better positions.  The requirements for entitlement exist, but they are poorly defined, allowing for a certain amount of abuse of the system.  He also firmly reminded us of the cultural differences in rights and permitted entitlement; countries exist in which citizens are not even entitled to their own lives.

Several other participants gave other examples of situations that result in a feeling of entitlement.  For one, arriving at a position of power.  Especially when that position is seen as permanent or untouchable, people may develop an attitude of superiority and believe they deserve more respect, money or attention than they have actually earned.  Another sector of a society that might demonstrate entitlement is the young.  Small children in particular may be coddled, because of their physical weakness or because of a cultural tradition of venerating children.  In most cases, hopefully, the rising number of responsibilities stamp out the overwhelming sense of self-importance, although there are always some that never quite "grow up".

summer's gold, or something

There's something that clicks with a German hell beer when it's a sunny summer day.  Bruckmüller appears to be one of those typical ones, with its very light yellow color, fluffy white head, and transparency in the light.  It smells typically beery too.  The taste is subtle and slightly sweet, no bitterness at all, and clean.  Once it goes down the throat, no aftertaste hangs around or appears as a surprise.  My refrigerator kept it cool, but not cold, perhaps more to the liking of "purists", but it is a nice beer for a warm afternoon/evening.  Refreshing but not demanding, good for conversation or quiet contemplation.

Not quite beer goggles, no

focus

Once I woke at dawn and traveled unlit roads
Once I lived at the edge of it and all
Under the noise and in the gloom
And the cold and the tears
I made bad impressions
Like toilet paper tails that soak up nothing
Yet they drag and flutter without a sound

Once I lived up high and quiet
With a different kind of cold
Then I was frozen out

Now I live in walls and mumbling
But I wake under the sun
And I sleep even after the moon
The road is clear and slow
Many clumps try to make detours
I circle and vere

One day I will wake in light and silence
I will be papered in
And scratchy
I will be splotched and electric
And all I will need will be words

Is Personal Identity a Myth?

An interesting question to kick off a new season of vaguely philosophical opportunities to jabber amongst ourselves!  The first part is not sarcastic at all, by the way.  There's plenty to chew on from all sides of that bone.

It was the word "personal" that really informed by thinking on the subject, the idea that we identify ourselves as individuals completely separate from whatever group we might also belong to.  Further, we might wonder if the individual is a mistaken perception and we are really cells or tiny components of something larger, yet beyond our ability to sense.  We can observe that there is some amount of variation in importance and development of individual identity in different cultures throughout the world; in the West, we probably place the greatest weight on individuality, self-sufficiency being the backbone of our society that it is, especially in the US.  However, it seems to be obvious that each person considers him- or herself as a single person, with particular experiences that are not completely shared by other members of the group.  While in some cultures, the well-being and survival of the group is more important than that of any individual member, this does not mean that the identities of those members are completely subsumed in that of the group.  People still make individual decisions, they just consider the benefit to others as more important than their personal gain.  Yet, there is also such a thing as group think and mob violence.  There are times when individuals make different choices in a group than alone, or seem not to be making conscious decisions at all.  We could chalk this up to instinct perhaps, some form of unconscious reaction as a survival strategy.  Some people, on the other hand, talk about a sort of universal consciousness, not readily tapped into by the majority of people, but existing and available to our perception under the right circumstances.  Under the tent of this "universal consciousness" we might place ESP or telepathy, or other forms of non-verbal, non-visual communication, besides group behaviors.  This would mean, essentially, that "instinct" is not innate or genetic, but something stored in an external consciousness that we only access in the right conditions.  I am not sure how to feel about this idea; geneticists and neurologists would have clearer thoughts on the subject.  In any case, the vast majority of the time is spent identifying ourselves as individuals, so even in the event that there is a superpersonal consciousness, our personal, that is individual, identity also exists, and takes up more time in our minds.  As much as we try, we cannot avoid being ourselves.

Our Leader, on the other hand, saw the question as something more related to our changing identities over time.  Each physical body, he argues, contains an identity that is presented to others and which others identify as a personality or persona.  Even identical twins, who have the same physical characteristics and may even be impossible to differentiate for others, have their internal and unique identities.  He insisted that the problem is the lack of stability in reality, therefore we resort to language games to create a base to depart from.  We consider ourselves the same person (in the majority of cases) that we were five years ago and at five years old.  We also consider people we know to be and have been the same people in those conditions, barring major changes that individuals sometimes undertake or suffer.  We recognize a person as an unchanged persona, even when they have changed a great deal physically or psychologically, perhaps because they retain the memories of what they were before these changes.  His perspective, in the end, is that we do not really identify ourselves, but rely on others to do so for the convenience of society.

The True Philosopher gave us the analysis of the self, and in his discussion leaned rather heavily on Wittgenstein, possibly because he is a familiar figure for us and his line of reasoning is easily followed.  His written thoughts, however, made quite a point of the impossibility of knowing the self, due to the limitations of human perception.  He ended up saying that it really was not that big a deal anyway, however.  Whether we truly know others is less important than knowing what they choose to show us, and truly knowing ourselves is also less important than what we present to others so they can identify us.  In his participation, he outlined the problem of perceiving the self, likening it to vision: we know that have a self, but the limits of the self are out of our actual perception in the same way that the eye sees but we cannot see our own eye.  Self is tacit, but "self-evident", and the truth of our being remains inaccessible to outsiders as their is to us.  As for changes, he later mentioned Heraclitus' river illustration, returning to the idea of the ever-changing universe composed of ever-changing units inside it.  We ceaselessly change as does everything around us, but we also have a burning need for stability that causes us to create an identity to represent our personal and stable existence.

The Source often writes out some preliminary thoughts when his topic is chosen, but this time did not.  Possibly because he himself was not quite sure where he wanted to go with it.  He began by saying that a better title might have been "Is Personal Identity Innate?" and continued along the lines of questioning how we deal with changes in our environment to maintain our sense of self.  He concluded his first contribution by saying that the self is the manifestation of our perception of our experiences.  Later he concurred with the Philosopher's view that a certain distance and (created) objectivity is necessary for there to be a self, and mused on the "shapes" that the self contains in representation of various emotions and personality traits.  He also noted that although change is constant, it is often unnoticeable at the moment.  Rather, we see the effects of change over time, especially after some separation, or distance, from the changing object.  He was allowed the last word, stating that we have a necessary distinction between permanent and constructed things, and that even concepts outside of the flux of existence mean nothing to us if we cannot perceive them.  He even hinted that existence depends upon being perceived.

The Doctor gave his normal diagnosis of "an infinite topic" and dug into the presentation of the self as a form of acting.  What we show to people is, for all intents and purposes, our self, as that is what interacts in the world and receives the actions and reactions of others.  Later on, he pointed out the physical connection between the brain and the self as personality, reminding us that people who have suffered trauma to the frontal lobe may experience changes, perhaps severe ones, to their personality.  However, they do not, in general, lose their sense of self or consider themselves to be different people.  They are the same people, with different personas.

A Newcomer noted that many people believe in reincarnation, which often depends on the preservation of the self in spiritual form as it moves through different bodies.  This self and identification is removed from the physical constraints of neurology mentioned by the Doctor, but a number of religious believers share the idea of the self having but little connection to the body.

We focused mostly on the question of identity as personality or self, only superficially delving into the second part of the question: myth.  When it was mentioned, there seemed to be a general agreement that a myth represents something untrue, but important socially or culturally.  Therefore, in spite of the falseness, the myth lives on as either "common sense" or urban legend, or even mythology, being presented as false immediately but with an important message for the listener.

It's a bit of a shame that we can never call the hivemind together on time, so that the discussion can go on for more than the 90 minutes we end of being allotted.  Unfortunately, people come late and leave early, and our time in the building is limited.  The devoted amateur philosopher is not a myth, but certainly a rarity.

moose not mouse

The cat seems to be a feature of the company's label, at least on the bottles for export.  My bottle was purchased in Madrid, but evidently made its way either from the US or was detoured here on its way there.  The moose suit recalls cold climates, where a good black stout is often welcome and enjoyable.

It's another chocolate syrup/shake kind of stout.  My kind of stout.  Sitting next to the window like it is, the light breeze pushes a mild sour-stout smell to my nose.  Up close to the glass it's much stronger.  Good to have a beer that tickles to olfactory sense every once in a while.  The first impression from drinking is smooth dark chocolate, slightly bitter, a 70 %-er, and a little wisp of smokiness comes up from the beer as it's swallowed.  The smokiness evaporates, but the pleasant bittersweet remains constant.  It's just plain tasty.