X-Message-Number: 24947 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: Immortality and Differing Interpretations I would suggest that asking someone if they want to live forever has limited value. How can anyone really give an informed answer to that question? I would instead ask, "If you were still young and healthy, would you want to die tomorrow? If you think you're likely to answer 'No' that question today and 'No' to that same question tomorrow, then you have what I would call, 'immortalist tendencies'." Randolfe Wicker wrote: <<I know some people who have indeed become more decent as they aged. However, I know others that have turned into uglier and more hateful beings each day they lived.>> You're still thinking in the short-term. People that become embittered as they age most likely do so because they increasingly lose hope the older they get, their life didn't turn out they way they'd hoped, because they re just not over some perceived tragedy in their life, or whatever. But if they had time and youth and health to look forward to, I believe they would eventually experience the kind of psychological growth that leads people beyond these sorts of problems; growth that leads instead to more socially adaptive and productive attitudes. Randolfe continues: <<I think history would be even more interesting to most people because each would have his/her own interpretation of those events, which overlapped their own lives.>> This made me think about the nature and future of differing interpretations. Given that there is a truth that is knowable (debatable, I know), then: If two people worked together for five years to uncover the truth behind some event in history through debate, research, etc., two things are likely to occur: (1) the actual truth will become more evident; and (2) their individual perceptions of the truth will more closely approximate each other over time as the facts are uncovered. Now replace two people with billions and 5 years with thousands or millions. As the truths of our reality are revealed over time, our beliefs will merge to conform with those truths. It is our differing beliefs that lie at the core of what makes us different people. And the more we think the same, the more we are the same. Less differentiated; less individualistic. Would that be a bad thing? The only reason I can think of for valuing a belief that differs from mine is if I think there s at least a possibility the competing belief may be more true while mine is less true. Once I know my belief on some issue is true, the value of all competing beliefs falls to zero. The point being, would you prefer that people have differing interpretations as a result of their differing beliefs, or would you prefer that people knew and shared the truth even if that resulted in homogenization? Cheers, Scott Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24947