Optimal decision of human (Longevity, death, etc.)

[Euler080]

I am posting here, for the utility of knowing on whether the below conformations would be optimal for us humans or not. If not, to know the conformations which you all might think as optimal.

We seem to be not knowing all the data, it may be possible that death itself could be optimal for us, or it may be possible that death could not be optimal for us, depending on what exists (if anything exists) after death, or depending on any other unknown conformations. What determines optimal conformation (structure)? Optimal structure/conformation might depend on what we would be composed of, after death, on what might make us feel to not to be in a particular state.

There seems to be a notion on there being nothing after death, as we what we all are composed of, seems to be known to get decomposed. But, do we know completely on how we work? Do we know completly on how our brain works? I am asking these, as we seem to be still not able to apply particle physics to know the working of humans. If we don't know completly on how we work, can we say as to be only made of matter which we see as to be decomposing? And as said before, we seem to be not knowing all the data, then could there be any unknown conformation/data, which might later make us be there in any of the state.

What do we do then? Would it be optimal to know more data? Can we know all the data within our lifespan? Then, would it be optimal to increase lifespan and know more data, to know ourself, and to have a stable conformation later? Increasing lifespan seems to allow even to die later.

It may also be possible that death could itself be optimal. There seems to be a chance nature here, from not knowing all the data, we may not be able to know on what would be optimal.

Before, I had notion of increasing lifespan itself as to be optimal, and thought no other action or conformation as to be optimal. Before, I saw attainment of longevity and knowing more data as a need. But now to me, it seems that we can't say on what is optimal, from not knowing all the data. As we need to do any of the action, I am now making actions to increase lifespan, to know more data, and to later make decision. It may or my not be optimal, but it seems to have option of dying later too. What do you all think, what will you do?

Miscellaneous on making optimal action with incomplete data: Though there could be data which we may not be knowing; if all the conformations or structures, are as known to us, within our interaction domain, it seems that at least we would be knowing greater quantity of conformations within our interaction domain. The greater probability of conformations or structures being not as we have thought, might express we not knowing certain conformations.

[lordoflight]

I'm the resident expert on this subject. Made a post called "proof of the afterlife". Had to bump it after no reply. No clear conclusions have been made.

But yes. It is optimal to know more about it. To configure the brain to reach the best possible afterlife. Unless its rigged and the afterlife is set.

I think the afterlife has to be real. Surreptitious spams posts saying it is not. But logic dictates the afterlife. Because life is suffering. You cannot escape it. You cannot simply say, "I don't want to be born." Noone cannot say they refused to be born. They are simply born, they had no choice. And it will happen again. But noone knows exactly what body they will be born into. Some believe it is reincarnation into one's lineage, or most similar DNA. But it is unproven.

[encode_decode]

Just a few brief comments as this is all I have time for today. I don't profess to be an expert however for a different take and a slightly different angle, here is my offering for now.

We seem to be not knowing all the data

We can not know all the data on all the different levels of abstraction.

We can know the basic structure of all information in reduced terms.

It is probably not optimal for us to know all of the data now as I do not think we are mature enough as a species to deal with it all. Also because existence is much greater than us it is also likely that we might not ever know all of the data since data changes over time with the constant changing of existence.

But, do we know completely on how we work?

Far from it. The common opinion that we have come so far is what I would consider having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. I would say that this goes for each one of us to an extent. The further down the scale we explore, the further down the scale we learn that we can explore.

Do we know completely on how our brain works?

Not even close when you consider the different levels of abstraction that we use to explain what we know - each level has many holes in it from an information perspective. Neuroscience is only new in the grand scheme of things so we rely on guessing at most things - the fun part about guessing is that a lot of the time it turns out to mirror some truth.

I am asking these, as we seem to be still not able to apply particle physics to know the working of humans.

I can nearly assure you that we can explain things even further below the level of particle physics. Ethereal. But still very realistic if your mind is open enough to understand what I would explain - we have a deeper connection to the universe than we can observe, however, the power we have over our surroundings is still limited by natural laws.

I have read your whole post - some of it is redundant given that some of the words can be able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function - I get what you are trying to get at.

[Pandora]

It seems that historically, humanity has always been drawn to that which is timeless. I think this is as far as it goes for us, like an eternal spiral of our imagination. We have extended our lifespans already, but it seems that our lives are less meaningful today then they were in the past. We have gained information, and time, but we also have lost meaningful quality of life (or a connection to other life forms). You want to gain more information and thus, meaning, but I’m not seeing this happening. Take an ancient warrior who died in the battle at a young age and juxtapose him with a today’s 102 yr old toothless lady living in a nursing home? Which one has lead a more meaningful life, and death. The only semblance of afterlife that we can establish of an individual is his/her reputation, or memory, passed on to the rest of the people, either through vocal traditions, architecture, or writing. In nature, it would be non-individual (only traits, or adaptations) that are passed on. Ancestor spirit worship was a parallel play on that, you will live in the memory of your descendants, just as your ancestors have lived through your own memory. Individual so called afterlife was possible only through extreme heroism and fame/wealth/influence; or a rare dumb chance (ex. Otzi). Otherwise, there is no compelling evidence of existence of an individual afterlife.

[Euler080]

Thank you for the reply.

yes. It is optimal to know more about it. To configure the brain to reach the best possible afterlife. Unless its rigged and the afterlife is set.

Yeah, I have started making actions for the attainment of longevity. It seems enough for now to know the complete working of human by particle physics or from any other elementary science which we know on. If we can explain all the working of human, completely, it might allow us know certain conformations/data/structures. And automation of knowing and searching data, and automation of making actions which we are doing now, might increase the speed of knowing more data.

I think the afterlife has to be real. Surreptitious spams posts saying it is not. But logic dictates the afterlife. Because life is suffering. You cannot escape it. You cannot simply say, "I don't want to be born." Noone cannot say they refused to be born. They are simply born, they had no choice. And it will happen again. But noone knows exactly what body they will be born into. Some believe it is reincarnation into one's lineage, or most similar DNA. But it is unproven.

Sorry, I didn't understand you.


"And it will happen again. But noone knows exactly what body they will be born into."

What proof do we have to say on we as to take birth again in other body? How can we say on it as to be the case, or it will be the case? Yes, from not knowing all the data, we can consider it as a possibility, among all the other possibilities, as there being no birth, or no after life, or some other after life than human world, etc; but I didn't understand on what evidence is making you express rebirth as to be the conformation which would happen (from your usage of the word "will").

[Will reply to others soon.]

[lordoflight]

If you want proof first you have to empty your glass. That's pretty much what Bruce Lee said and I'm saying it again.

The way Americans view life is from a perspective of ego attachment. Let me explain it this way. That is the foundation of American's way of thinking. With that mode of thinking as the foundation, it is harder for them to comprehend certain kinds of concepts. Everything in America is ego attachment, materialism, money, work, jobs, and their morality is founded on Abrahamic beliefs. Even atheists use the same Abrahamic, Western framework in their perception of how to go about reality. The western mind has a tough time comprehending reincarnation, because it uses a masculine, Abrahamic, framework, they aren't good at using abstractions and everything has to be concrete. Proof of the afterlife has to be concrete for them to understand it, they are poor at understanding abstractions.

When they read Jesus, they view hims as someone who is being literal. They dont understand he didn't mean to literally turn the other cheek. He was just going about it as a way of life. Not like it has to be literally done 100% of the time. Same as lust. You shouldnt be a pedophile preist who refuses to lust and then turns into a pedophile. You should just generally not go around lusting. Because its not making you happy. If you are in a harem of prostitutes then lust. But if you are around cunty feminists then don't lust, it will only give you heartbreak misery and sexual frustration.

Jesus, never said anything about anyone would die and go to heaven. He said people would be written in the book of life. Or inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. And he said good and wise people will go to hell. Even that people who believed and worshipped him would go to Hell. Obvious he didn't mean there was a literally Hell. Hell was made up by the Catholic Church later on. Jesus never talked literally everything he said was an abstraction. His idea of eternal life was reincarnation. But retarded westerners are incapable of grasping anything abstract. His idea of the golden rule was treating other people nice was because you might end up or reincarnate as them someday. Do into others as you would do unto yourself. Jesus said he was the King of the Jews and that he wouldn't change a letter of the law. But he obviously changed a lot of the old jewish laws. So he wasn't meaning anything he said literally. Just using abstractions that people with common sense should understand. But nobody has common sense and just take everything literally. Its like if Cartman of south park says he is the King of the Jews, that doesnt mean he actually really is a jew or wants to actually promote jewish customs. Jesus.


And its like this. How can you exist? Unless I am you. Because you seem like you to you. But not to me. To me your just a animated pile of meat, a talking flesh bag. The only way you would be real is if I am you. And the only way that can happen, is through some kind of reincarnation.

[surreptitious75]

We seem to be not knowing all the data it may be possible that death itself could be optimal for us or it may be possible that death
could not be optimal for us depending on what exists ( if anything exists ) after death or depending on any other unknown conformations

There seems to be a notion on there being nothing after death as we what we all are composed of seems to be known to get decomposed

No one knows what happens after death but as everyone is going to eventually die the question is academic because if there is something it will be discovered

Decomposition does not happen at the atomic level as the particles you are composed of have the longest lifespan of anything that exists
Photons in vacuum do in theory have an infinite lifespan although not in actuality because so called empty space is not absolutely empty

Many particles such as electrons for example have an estimated lifespan of I0 25 years while the Universe is currently only I0 9 years old
So from a quantum perspective you will carry on existing in some form for significantly longer than physics can actually measure in time

[Euler080]

Thank you for the reply.

We seem to be not knowing all the data

We can not know all the data on all the different levels of abstraction.

Why can we not know all the data?
[As said to lordoflight in another context, it seems that, we not being able to know all the data, as the possibility, as seems that of we being able to know all the data. But, it seems that can't say either as to be the case now, as we seem to be not knowing all the data, to prove either of them. To know we as to be knowing all or most of the data: if all the conformations/structures/data/things, are as we have thought, won't it be expressing on we as to be at least near to the completion of knowing all the data, within our interaction domain?]

Different levels of abstraction = Different levels of compoundness? Example: Molecular view as a level of abstraction, atomic view as another level of abstraction, particle view as another view of abstraction?

If we can't know all the data, can knowing greater quantity of the data, have greater probability of allowing us, to make optimal decisions or actions than the lesser quantity of data? I will think on this.

We can know the basic structure of all information in reduced terms.

Are you saying that we can know elements, or elementary particles, from the words "basic structure of all information in reduced terms"?

It is probably not optimal for us to know all of the data now as I do not think we are mature enough as a species to deal with it all.

I didn't understand; what problem would there be, if know more data? If we know more data, we might be able to take more optimal decisions than before? How would that be not optimal?

Also because existence is much greater than us it is also likely that we might not ever know all of the data since data changes over time with the constant changing of existence.

I didn't understand this completely.

It seems that data/conformations/structures/things might change only if the elementary particles which constructs it change.

But, do we know completely on how we work?

Far from it. The common opinion that we have come so far is what I would consider having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. I would say that this goes for each one of us to an extent. The further down the scale we explore, the further down the scale we learn that we can explore.

My friend says similar to what you are saying on how smaller scale elementary particles we can know on. I don't know on whether it same in the nature or not, i.e. on whether we can really break down every smaller scale particle or not. At least, if there is any uniform property for any pieces of certain smaller scale particles on division, that might allow us to know the complete working of humans precisely or exactly?

I am asking these, as we seem to be still not able to apply particle physics to know the working of humans.

I can nearly assure you that we can explain things even further below the level of particle physics. Ethereal. But still very realistic if your mind is open enough to understand what I would explain - we have a deeper connection to the universe than we can observe, however, the power we have over our surroundings is still limited by natural laws.

Didn't understand; but may be, any other experience might get connected later, to understand it.


And what is your decision, will you try to increase lifespan to know more data, or will you not do anything for increasing lifespan, and die later?

[Euler080]

Thank you for the reply.

It seems that historically, humanity has always been drawn to that which is timeless. I think this is as far as it goes for us, like an eternal spiral of our imagination. We have extended our lifespans already, but it seems that our lives are less meaningful today then they were in the past. We have gained information, and time, but we also have lost meaningful quality of life (or a connection to other life forms). You want to gain more information and thus, meaning, but I’m not seeing this happening. Take an ancient warrior who died in the battle at a young age and juxtapose him with a today’s 102 yr old toothless lady living in a nursing home? Which one has lead a more meaningful life, and death.

You seem to be expressing that, with increase in our lifetime, we as to be not knowing greater "meaning" than when we had shorter lifespan? [Error in syncing of your meaning of meaning with my meaning of meaning ? ] I don't know how much correct it is. It seems that, with increase in lifespan, if we continue to know more data, we might be able to know more meaning of this world, and be able to make optimal actions for any of the conformations which might occur after our death or in the future.

The only semblance of afterlife that we can establish of an individual is his/her reputation, or memory, passed on to the rest of the people, either through vocal traditions, architecture, or writing. In nature, it would be non-individual (only traits, or adaptations) that are passed on. Ancestor spirit worship was a parallel play on that, you will live in the memory of your descendants, just as your ancestors have lived through your own memory. Individual so called afterlife was possible only through extreme heroism and fame/wealth/influence; or a rare dumb chance (ex. Otzi).

That seems to be what it seems now, with our incomplete data. We might have to not depend on our present incomplete data, and might have to know the unknown for the later stability.

We might have to know more data, to know on what would happen later (if anything happens), and to be in stable state later. As I said before, we don't know all the data, death itself could also be optimal, from the unknown data/conformation.

[Euler080]

If you want proof first you have to empty your glass. That's pretty much what Bruce Lee said and I'm saying it again.

The way Americans view life is from a perspective of ego attachment. Let me explain it this way. That is the foundation of American's way of thinking. With that mode of thinking as the foundation, it is harder for them to comprehend certain kinds of concepts. Everything in America is ego attachment, materialism, money, work, jobs, and their morality is founded on Abrahamic beliefs. Even atheists use the same Abrahamic, Western framework in their perception of how to go about reality. The western mind has a tough time comprehending reincarnation, because it uses a masculine, Abrahamic, framework, they aren't good at using abstractions and everything has to be concrete. Proof of the afterlife has to be concrete for them to understand it, they are poor at understanding abstractions.

Thank you for the reply again. Till now: you seem to be expressing on there being rebirth of the dead (?); we need proof for that, right?; now in the reply for proof, you seem to be expressing on the existence of proof in abstraction. Can you please give that abstract proof? From my known data, I am not seeing any path, from which, I can say on there being a proof for the existence of rebirth.

When they read Jesus, they view hims as someone who is being literal. They dont understand he didn't mean to literally turn the other cheek. He was just going about it as a way of life. Not like it has to be literally done 100% of the time. Same as lust. You shouldnt be a pedophile preist who refuses to lust and then turns into a pedophile. You should just generally not go around lusting. Because its not making you happy. If you are in a harem of prostitutes then lust. But if you are around cunty feminists then don't lust, it will only give you heartbreak misery and sexual frustration.

Jesus, never said anything about anyone would die and go to heaven. He said people would be written in the book of life. Or inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. And he said good and wise people will go to hell. Even that people who believed and worshipped him would go to Hell. Obvious he didn't mean there was a literally Hell. Hell was made up by the Catholic Church later on. Jesus never talked literally everything he said was an abstraction. His idea of eternal life was reincarnation. But retarded westerners are incapable of grasping anything abstract. His idea of the golden rule was treating other people nice was because you might end up or reincarnate as them someday. Do into others as you would do unto yourself. Jesus said he was the King of the Jews and that he wouldn't change a letter of the law. But he obviously changed a lot of the old jewish laws. So he wasn't meaning anything he said literally. Just using abstractions that people with common sense should understand. But nobody has common sense and just take everything literally. Its like if Cartman of south park says he is the King of the Jews, that doesnt mean he actually really is a jew or wants to actually promote jewish customs. Jesus.


And its like this. How can you exist? Unless I am you. Because you seem like you to you. But not to me. To me your just a animated pile of meat, a talking flesh bag. The only way you would be real is if I am you. And the only way that can happen, is through some kind of reincarnation.

From the above paragraph, did you mean to say that, your expression of rebirth, as to be not exactly meant to mean re-birth, but to have some other meaning?

[Euler080]

We seem to be not knowing all the data it may be possible that death itself could be optimal for us or it may be possible that death
could not be optimal for us depending on what exists ( if anything exists ) after death or depending on any other unknown conformations

There seems to be a notion on there being nothing after death as we what we all are composed of seems to be known to get decomposed

No one knows what happens after death but as everyone is going to eventually die the question is academic because if there is something it will be discovered

Decomposition does not happen at the atomic level as the particles you are composed of have the longest lifespan of anything that exists
Photons in vacuum do in theory have an infinite lifespan although not in actuality because so called empty space is not absolutely empty

Many particles such as electrons for example have an estimated lifespan of I0 25 years while the Universe is currently only I0 9 years old
So from a quantum perspective you will carry on existing in some form for significantly longer than physics can actually measure in time

Thank you very much for the reply. I had not thought on the lifespan of particles itself, it seems to be a relation which would be of utility in knowing on after-death conformations. Now, data on the existence of particles (and thus the possibility of us being in that particle) seem to be eliminating, the proof expressing on after death to be nothing from the decomposition, along with other data expressed in the post (we not being able to express the working of human from particle physics; on we may not be knowing complete data).

[Miscellaneous: I am thinking now, if we are composed of only the particles which we know now on, and if we can know the exact location of all the particles of a particular human, can we be able to form back the same human, by constructing the structure with all the particles in the location as that of the human or not? - A path for longevity!; Multiple mes?!]

[lordoflight]

we are not our particles or our bodies as they are made up of different atoms than 5 years ago.

if your life is the only life then you will never experience my life thus my life is not real and i am just a p-zombie NPC with no soul. since that is not the case, reincarnation is real.

[surreptitious75]

if your life is the only life then you will never experience my life thus my life is not real and i am just a p zombie NPC with no soul

We all experience the same non duality because everything is connected to everything else [ there are no gaps in reality ]
So we do not have to experience each others lives in order for them to be real

[lordoflight]

if your life is the only life then you will never experience my life thus my life is not real and i am just a p zombie NPC with no soul

We all experience the same non duality because everything is connected to everything else [ there are no gaps in reality ]
So we do not have to experience each others lives in order for them to be real

Except no, we kinda do. If I never experienced my life then it is not real.

[surreptitious75]

If I never experienced my life then it is not real

You are experiencing your life though and so it must be real
You dont have to believe in reincarnation for this to be true

[lordoflight]

If I never experienced my life then it is not real

You are experiencing your life though and so it must be real
You dont have to believe in reincarnation for this to be true

I have to live as you some point in the future (the future is the same as the past in this context.) Or else you are not real and a pzombie.

If i am immortal (in the flesh) that means I am the last and final lifeform ever. That all lives were in the past (preceded me.) Think of it like sending data online. You have to wait for the first stack to clear. If the stack is infinite no other data shall pass.

[surreptitious75]

I have to live as you some point in the future ( the future is the same as the past in this context ) Or else you are not real and a p zombie

If i am immortal ( in the flesh ) that means I am the last and final lifeform ever . That all lives were in the past ( preceded me )
Think of it like sending data online . You have to wait for the first stack to clear . If the stack is infinite no other data shall pass

You cannot live as anyone in the future because all you will experience is the eternal NOW
The memories you have of the past can also only be experienced in the same eternal NOW

[lordoflight]

I have to live as you some point in the future ( the future is the same as the past in this context ) Or else you are not real and a p zombie

If i am immortal ( in the flesh ) that means I am the last and final lifeform ever . That all lives were in the past ( preceded me )
Think of it like sending data online . You have to wait for the first stack to clear . If the stack is infinite no other data shall pass

You cannot live as anyone in the future because all you will experience is the eternal NOW
The memories you have of the past can also only be experienced in the same eternal NOW

Thats kinda litterally what I just said.

[surreptitious75]

Thats kinda literally what I just said

You werent very precise with your use of language then but I shall let you off this time and my question is :
Can you NOW become Ecmandu and create a non zero sum reality because he doesnt actually know how to

[lordoflight]

Thats kinda literally what I just said

You werent very precise with your use of language then but I shall let you off this time and my question is :
Can you NOW become Ecmandu and create a non zero sum reality because he doesnt actually know how to

If I had to live out Ecmandu's life I'd have to live in hell for 4 million years so I'd rather not.

[surreptitious75]

You have a very high IQ like him so the two of you working together might be able to solve the problem
You could also get your girlfriend Marilyn Vos Savant with her IQ of 228 to help you so why not ask her ?

[lordoflight]

You have a very high IQ like him so the two of you working together might be able to solve the problem
You could also get your girlfriend Marilyn Vos Savant with her IQ of 228 to help you so why not ask her ?

I don't have a girlfriend and she banned me from her forum and deleted all my posts and so I think she has psychotic issues. Because my posts were trying to be normal.

[encode_decode]

Euler080

I feel the need to answer your response to my response in more than one part, so here goes.

For an optimal decision of human: which in English, would be taken to mean the best or most favorable decision of human - we have to first ask what context we are using the word human in here; given the parameters("Longevity, death, etc."), I can only assume you are referring to humanity, that is, mankind as a whole. Further leading us to consider what the optimal outcome should/would be for humanity. Once we understand the outcome(the result of the decision) then we understand how optimal the decision is, but . . .

. . . there are a lot of people that can not agree on the simplest things . . .

. . . at the moment, as is evident on this site - many people would like to have their own definitions of concepts that have had definitions laid out long ago.

Why can we not know all the data?

Because the value of data changes over time, for example: the value of historical data decays over time. We can only guess at the future with current models - this only serves the purpose of creating loopholes that can be exploited by the unscrupulous among us. Take away the unscrupulous and part of the data problem goes away. Basically you need to be able to snapshot the complete set of data at any given time and compare it to a snapshot from a different time to determine an outcome and compensate for the decay. This compensation is binomial in nature - that is - it adds to success or failure; the compensation can enhance the outcome or diminish the outcome.

The following may not seem intuitive and/or logical: there has to be rules and limits to what each of us can do but as you know man's ability to stick with a set of rules and know his limits is flawed. This is likely due to the fact that, as history has shown us, rules and limits also change over time. Understanding change and what causes it is important - understand change, then you can keep fine tuning the decision. Understand change, and you can begin understanding rules and limits.

If we can't know all the data, can knowing greater quantity of the data, have greater probability of allowing us, to make optimal decisions or actions than the lesser quantity of data?

Certainly it can . . . but whether this would happen or not is dependent on many factors including humans themselves. We would have to rely on mankind to develop the ability to make better decisions based on more data - sometimes less is more. Currently it seems as though many people prefer exploiting loopholes which hinders sound decision making.

I could have included a lot more in this answer but I instead chose to limit my response - it should be noted that because of this, we are not fully exploring the available data.