Is death natural?

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Jubloz Perhaps 1000 years wouldn't be enough, perhaps 10,000 wouldn't be enough, but I imagine I would at some point grow both mentally and physically fatigued of my existence and would welcome death.

No, I can gaurentee you now, you would never welcome death even after a lapse of 1 million years !

Death, unfortunately, does seem to me to be the destruction of an individual; the end of a life that can never again exist. I won't deny that I am extraordinarily skeptical of an afterlife or some sort of reincarnation, but I certainly can't prove that with the few years of life that I have.

It cannot be proved but felt at time of one's own death! I have seen my body by the side of myself in one dream. But, doubt of existence after death continues in the mind of living being (humans in particular!)

On a more philosophical note, it would seem that the level to which you grew as an individual would be interesting with a longer life span. I've met children that see the world through an adult's eyes, yet I have met middle aged men no wiser than a young teen. Given 1,000 years, could the fools gain some ground, or are some people perpetually bound by their own limits into ignorance and idiocy? And, if so, what about those who break away from their bindings and seem to see the world around them in clarity? Given ten times the life span, how much more could they achieve? What level of depth perception could they aspire to?

I am getting what you want to tell. Personality does not change with number of years one lives but is hidden in genes. It is not that a living being want to continue living 100 years, 1,000 years or 10,000 ....years. Main thing is that IT wants to exist, exist and exist and exist.....eternally. This infact, he exists eternally!

But due to ignorance, which he has taken granted from the birth itself that he is the body. He grows and educates himself about death. He watches, he who has taken birth dies some or the other day. He watches dead body decomposes. He finds all those who have died have never returned. All this too would happen to him also! That is why, he fears death. His basic wish to exist seems to get finished with the idea of death.

The problem, in whole drama of death is that everybody watches others dying. Till today, no body has seen his own death. If any body could see his own death, he would get convinced that self does not die, death is leaving of the body as outer cover only. I can tell you inner cover is identical to what one watches himself in dream.

Period of time for which you exist in the body is not matter of concern for the person in question, but is of concern for those who know him.

Gross example:
Suppose 5 persons are talking in a room. One person stands up and goes out for some work. For rest of the four persons, the fifth person has gone and is no more existing for them. But, the fifth person is well there existing for himself.

In this example person has gone with body but, in actual death he is without body !!!!

[Athena]

There are conditions of life that I would not want to experience, such as being conscious in a body without use of any muscles, not even the ability to speak with others.

I know older people who are loosing their sight and hearing. How will they communicate when they can neither see or hear? I don't think I would want to live long after loosing the ability to communicate. I know Heller Keller over came both deafness and blindness, and had a full and productive life, but I also know, I have far less interest in over coming such challenges than when I was young. I just don't have the energy and drive any more, and I can image the day of just not wanting to get up at all.

On the other hand, I can imagine becoming one with the oneness. I have my moments when I can let go of who I am. In fact, if I have another life, I hope I do have a different personality. So as Kuldeep once asked, who am I? Why should my ego have to exist any longer than my body? Does it matter if it does not?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Kuldeep No, I can gaurentee you now, you would never welcome death even after a lapse of 1 million years !

No, you can't.

Quote by: Kuldeep It cannot be proved but felt at time of one's own death! I have seen my body by the side of myself in one dream. But, doubt of existence after death continues in the mind of living being (humans in particular!)

I had a dream I shared a joint with God. Does this make it true? Also, are you implying that other creatures believe in an afterlife?

Quote by: Kuldeep I am getting what you want to tell. Personality does not change with number of years one lives but is hidden in genes. It is not that a living being want to continue living 100 years, 1,000 years or 10,000 ....years.

No, it's not. While biology does influence our personalities, so does our culture and our experiences.

Quote by: Kuldeep Main thing is that IT wants to exist, exist and exist and exist.....eternally. This infact, he exists eternally!

I have no idea what you're talking about. Our genes want to exist eternally? Are you implying that genes have autonomy? How does this make sense?

Quote by: Kuldeep But due to ignorance, which he has taken granted from the birth itself that he is the body. He grows and educates himself about death. He watches, he who has taken birth dies some or the other day. He watches dead body decomposes. He finds all those who have died have never returned. All this too would happen to him also! That is why, he fears death. His basic wish to exist seems to get finished with the idea of death.

Once again, I'm not sure what your getting at. Being aware of death is ignorance? I would think that having no sense of what death is would be ignorance. What are you trying to say?

Quote by: Kuldeep The problem, in whole drama of death is that everybody watches others dying. Till today, no body has seen his own death. If any body could see his own death, he would get convinced that self does not die, death is leaving of the body as outer cover only. I can tell you inner cover is identical to what one watches himself in dream.

Huh? Actually, I would be willing to bet that at least someone has seen their own death by being caught in some sort of recording, just to be medically brought back to life. The recording of their death would come in handy for the individual to review for a court case. Still, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

Quote by: Kuldeep Period of time for which you exist in the body is not matter of concern for the person in question, but is of concern for those who know him. Gross example: Suppose 5 persons are talking in a room. One person stands up and goes out for some work. For rest of the four persons, the fifth person has gone and is no more existing for them. But, the fifth person is well there existing for himself. In this example person has gone with body but, in actual death he is without body !!!!

Err, okay. Actually, the person would still exist to the other four, unless they had some really bad short-term memory issues.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Define natural. If you mean it in its literal sense, then yes death is natural; as is anything. If you mean it, as so many people wrongly use it, to mean evolutionarily beneficial, then the answer once more is yes. If we didn't die, there would be rapid overpopulation and we'd run out of resources. We have the conflicting will to survive because it's also evolutionarily beneficial to do so; not because death is unnatural.

That is so, but if death was not the natural end result then evolution would drop the need for reproduction. So both death and reproduction would cease. However this cannot be because death can happen for many reasons other then old age winding us down.

In nature a wolf will have less cubs when food is short, and more cubs when food is abundant. How the reproductive system of a wolf knows the difference is beyond me to say.

Also the soil depends on decay from things that died to keep it healthy so that plants can continue to grow. The circle would be broken if nothing died.

And yet everything (mentally normal) wants to continue living at any cost to overcome death or prevent it from happening. Many of the ideas about evolution are founded on that urge to survive death. That biological urge to survive has even manifested in a number of religious concepts, making Jesus the model for a evolutionary survial kit for eternal life.

[banko]

Of course death is natural why would it happen if it weren't? This is a ridiculous question. It is like asking are trees natural? Why else would everything in the world die if death was unnatural?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: banko Of course death is natural why would it happen if it weren't? This is a ridiculous question. It is like asking are trees natural? Why else would everything in the world die if death was unnatural?

Because people feel the need to attach their theistic beliefs to everything. :(

[Technosoul]

Quote by: banko Of course death is natural why would it happen if it weren't? This is a ridiculous question. It is like asking are trees natural? Why else would everything in the world die if death was unnatural?

The question is not really to ask if death is natural or not, the question is about why everything in nature is attempting to prevent death to survive if it is natural to die. If it is natural then how come people do not know that as a fact and pretend to counter-act that fact by buying cosmetics to "stay young". Etc.

Why are we seeking to find some supernatural way to disprove what is natural. I am not asking if a tree is natural, yet some Redwood trees were here before the Mayflower landed, who can know for sure when they will did of natural causes. Their bark can resist fire. They are trying to evolve ways to defend their self from natural death?

It is this paradox I observed that got me to wondering.

I was at the doctors office a long time ago and he said I must stop smoking or I would die from a heart attack. You will live longer if you stop smoking he said. And I said "why should I prevent death - it's normal for people to die - and a heart attack is a quick and fast way to go, why wait around for some long-drawn-out disease to kill me? The doctor thought I was crazy. Why is that crazy?

[Jubloz]

Techno, you're speaking from a very emic cultural perspective; many groups don't fit the description you just laid. There are numerous societies that are more accepting of aging and death than we are.

People, like all animals, strive to survive or they die and therefor aren't able to reproduce. Survival is in our genes, but that doesn't save us from the inevitable. I would go as far as to say that the will to survive is probably one the strongest elements of our psychology; evolutionary psychology has ingrained in us the need to live out our lives, much like the need to have sex.

I'm also not seeing your paradox. Your doctor thought you were crazy because:
A.) Smoking can and probably will cause a long and drawn out disease that will kill you.
B.) It is normal to die, and you will either way, but you will die sooner if you continue smoking

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz Techno, you're speaking from a very emic cultural perspective; many groups don't fit the description you just laid. There are numerous societies that are more accepting of aging and death than we are. People, like all animals, strive to survive or they die and therefor aren't able to reproduce. Survival is in our genes, but that doesn't save us from the inevitable. I would go as far as to say that the will to survive is probably one the strongest elements of our psychology; evolutionary psychology has ingrained in us the need to live out our lives, much like the need to have sex. I'm also not seeing your paradox. Your doctor thought you were crazy because: A.) Smoking can and probably will cause a long and drawn out disease that will kill you. B.) It is normal to die, and you will either way, but you will die sooner if you continue smoking

A and B. I asked for proof based on real science for his claim but he had none to support his "paid for" advise. They can bill the insurence for providing such advise. I did not believe him because he had no proof.

He also wanted me to take 8 presciptions costing hundreds of dollars per month. Each had negative or dangerous potential side effects. After feeling ill on those drugs for a week I trashed them all and went back to my "feeling fine" way of life. But added some natural things to my diet just to be safe. (oatmeal, olive oil, green veggies, green tea, etc.)
And I quit my job to remove stress from my life. And employed meditative processes.

It is better to live a quality life then a long term one all strung out on prescriptions, in my opinon, and made that choice.

Concerning your opening comments above A and B I agree. That was well worded by the way. I did not grow up in those other cultures so based my comments on the one here in the USA.

It is both natural to die and natural not to want to die. That is what I see as the paradox, or somewhat of a contradiction. Now every theist wants to go to heaven when they die but they just do not want to die to get there. Another sort of "contradition" in western cultures. We can explain why they are both natural, but not why they seem to contradict each other. But I guess you came as close as possible to a answer as we can get.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Technosoul A and B. I asked for proof based on real science for his claim but he had none to support his "paid for" advise. They can bill the insurence for providing such advise. I did not believe him because he had no proof.

Are you saying that there is no scientific evidence for serious health risks as a result of smoking? Yet you believe there is scientific evidence for the pseudoscience you are talking about? I'm confused.

Quote by: Technosoul He also wanted me to take 8 presciptions costing hundreds of dollars per month.

Eight prescriptions? For what? Which drugs? Eight different prescriptions seems really overkill for smoking.

Quote by: Technosoul It is better to live a quality life then a long term one all strung out on prescriptions, in my opinon, and made that choice.

I agree, and if smoking really makes you that happy, than go for it.I don't see why it would, though.

Quote by: Technosoul It is both natural to die and natural not to want to die. That is what I see as the paradox, or somewhat of a contradiction.

I wouldn't call that a paradox, I'd call it irony. A paradox is a contradictory statement like "never say never", irony is when people spend all their energy trying not to die and then die.

Quote by: Technosoul Now every theist wants to go to heaven when they die but they just do not want to die to get there. Another sort of "contradition" in western cultures.

I agree. It's actually suspected that the religious prohibition of suicide was instated to keep peasants from killing themselves to free their lives of a world full of harsh and unbearable conditions. No peasants equals no one to do your dirty work for almost no cost, so promising them a happy and blissful afterlife, if and only if they don't kill themselves, is a pretty powerful incentive to keep miserable people motivated. Why commit suicide and spend an eternity in pain when you could spend a mere twenty years in hell and the rest of eternity in paradise?

What can actually be scary is when a religious sect doesn't have the prohibition of suicide, yet they still believe they will be granted an afterlife in paradise; it can create perfect suicide militants, such as the terrorists who ran planes into the world trade towers.

[banko]

Quote by: Technosoul The question is not really to ask if death is natural or not, the question is about why everything in nature is attempting to prevent death to survive if it is natural to die. If it is natural then how come people do not know that as a fact and pretend to counter-act that fact by buying cosmetics to "stay young". Etc.

Can you show me how everything in nature is trying to prevent it? How does a tree attempt to prevent it's death? How does a mosquito attempt to prevent it's death?

The saying that the strong shall survive is natures way of weeding out weaker genetics in order to continue to have healthy and strong species. The fact that humans attempt to prevent it is more based on a fear of it. And people do know it as a fact. How can anyone claim to not know death is a fact when, since the beginning of time, everything has died?

Just because people are afraid of death and so don't want to acknowledge the fact that it is inevitable doesn't mean it is unnatural.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: banko Can you show me how everything in nature is trying to prevent it? How does a tree attempt to prevent it's death? How does a mosquito attempt to prevent it's death? The saying that the strong shall survive is natures way of weeding out weaker genetics in order to continue to have healthy and strong species. The fact that humans attempt to prevent it is more based on a fear of it. And people do know it as a fact. How can anyone claim to not know death is a fact when, since the beginning of time, everything has died? Just because people are afraid of death and so don't want to acknowledge the fact that it is inevitable doesn't mean it is unnatural.

The mosquito has survived in spite of massive efforts to kill them off by human beings. The reason is mostly based on mass-reproduction, the vast numbers of their population count insures they prevent the death as a speicies. Some creatures operate as a collective speicies rather then as individuals. As individuals they might fly away to avoid death but they have great disadvantages relative to the preditors and so are not always successful in their attempts to escape danger. Fight or flight are the two main self defense methods - they fly. But keep in mind they are designed as "feeders" for fish, birds, bats, and other life forms.

About trees, we have lots of different trees and so they do not all use the same methods. Being tall many trees have prevented death by the ability to bend when confronted by strong winds and to grow roots that keep them firmly planted. The Redwoods have created chemicals in thier bark that can prevent them from catching on fire during a forest fire.

It would be impossible to state how each and everything in nature attempts to survive death due to the amount of space it would take, to do that I would have to write volumes of books. So that is a rather unrealistic question for me to answer.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz Are you saying that there is no scientific evidence for serious health risks as a result of smoking? Yet you believe there is scientific evidence for the pseudoscience you are talking about? I'm confused. Eight prescriptions? For what? Which drugs? Eight different prescriptions seems really overkill for smoking. I agree, and if smoking really makes you that happy, than go for it.I don't see why it would, though. I wouldn't call that a paradox, I'd call it irony. A paradox is a contradictory statement like "never say never", irony is when people spend all their energy trying not to die and then die. I agree. It's actually suspected that the religious prohibition of suicide was instated to keep peasants from killing themselves to free their lives of a world full of harsh and unbearable conditions. No peasants equals no one to do your dirty work for almost no cost, so promising them a happy and blissful afterlife, if and only if they don't kill themselves, is a pretty powerful incentive to keep miserable people motivated. Why commit suicide and spend an eternity in pain when you could spend a mere twenty years in hell and the rest of eternity in paradise? What can actually be scary is when a religious sect doesn't have the prohibition of suicide, yet they still believe they will be granted an afterlife in paradise; it can create perfect suicide militants, such as the terrorists who ran planes into the world trade towers.

1 - that is correct, so far no one, not even a heart doctor, has been able to show me any studies that prove that smoking is the cause of serious health problems.

2 - I do not see why the link in my O.P. is pesudoscience. No one else said it was such when they debated that link in the Breaking News section of volconvo.

3 - Your confusion is due to the fact that my idea does not conform to your pre-established understandings about the topic.

4 - At that time they did not have any prescriptions for not smoking.
So I will have to give you the long story. I went in to get a new pair of glasses but found out I had get eye surgery first, the eye doctor had to use a hospital and so I had to go to regular doctor for a check up (required by the hospital before anyone can operate). That doctor told me I had heart problems and sent me to a heart doctor. (the hospital would not let the eye doctor remove that tiny speck from my eye if I might have a heart attack). The heart doctor ran a lot of tests, my blood pressure and so forth was all normal but I had in the past suffered a major heart attack. (which I misstook for heartburn). He said I should be dead because only about 5 or 10 percent survive a "major" attack.
Half of the heart does not work and is blocked. He said the cells are dead and cannot regenerate. He could not by-pass or make it operational again. So he prescibed 8 drugs to prevent the same thing from happening on the other side of the heart which in good operating condition. He told me also to stop smoking and not to drink coffee.
The drugs was to control blood pressure, thin the blood, and all the other stuff related. One drug was okay but can be found in foods also (vitimin suppliment). Insurence polices do not cover treatments used to stop smokeing, only counseling is paid for (per a rule by President Bush for medicare programs).

5 - Your last comments represent some valid speculations based on your interpretations of different informational data.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Technosoul 1 - that is correct, so far no one, not even a heart doctor, has been able to show me any studies that prove that smoking is the cause of serious health problems.

Perhaps I'm being thrown off, I'm making the assumption that we're speaking of cigarettes. Is this not the case? What substance are you smoking?

Quote by: Technosoul 2 - I do not see why the link in my O.P. is pesudoscience. No one else said it was such when they debated that link in the Breaking News section of volconvo.

This was in reference to your belief and talk of many supernatural concepts and various pseudosciences. I wasn't referring specifically to this thread, but was referencing you. My confusion is in the oddness of your willingness to, seemingly, believe anything that conforms to your desires despite lack of evidence, yet tendency to reject and ignore science that contradicts your notions.

Quote by: Technosoul 3 - Your confusion is due to the fact that my idea does not conform to your pre-established understandings about the topic.

You're also wrong about your 'pre-established' implications; I was born predisposed to conform to often incorrect assumptions, yet assessed them with skepticism as I grew rather than conforming to them. I've actually taken the time to confirm what I think to be true through reliable information and have disregarded what I learned to be false.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Technosoul 4 - At that time they did not have any prescriptions for not smoking. So I will have to give you the long story. I went in to get a new pair of glasses but found out I had get eye surgery first, the eye doctor had to use a hospital and so I had to go to regular doctor for a check up (required by the hospital before anyone can operate). That doctor told me I had heart problems and sent me to a heart doctor. (the hospital would not let the eye doctor remove that tiny speck from my eye if I might have a heart attack). The heart doctor ran a lot of tests, my blood pressure and so forth was all normal but I had in the past suffered a major heart attack. (which I misstook for heartburn). He said I should be dead because only about 5 or 10 percent survive a "major" attack. Half of the heart does not work and is blocked. He said the cells are dead and cannot regenerate. He could not by-pass or make it operational again. So he prescibed 8 drugs to prevent the same thing from happening on the other side of the heart which in good operating condition. He told me also to stop smoking and not to drink coffee. The drugs was to control blood pressure, thin the blood, and all the other stuff related. One drug was okay but can be found in foods also (vitimin suppliment). Insurence polices do not cover treatments used to stop smokeing, only counseling is paid for (per a rule by President Bush for medicare programs).

Ahh. I'm sorry to hear of your health problems and I fully support having researched the drugs you were being prescribed rather than blindly paying for them and consuming them; there is no need to pay a fortune for vitamin supplements, yet many people do. It is possible, however, that some of those drugs will help you to live longer. If they make you feel bad, and you have chosen a potentially shorter life that will be, by your standards, more enjoyable, than I also fully support this. You have weighed the risks versus rewards and judged which option agrees with you more.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz Perhaps I'm being thrown off, I'm making the assumption that we're speaking of cigarettes. Is this not the case? What substance are you smoking? This was in reference to your belief and talk of many supernatural concepts and various pseudosciences. I wasn't referring specifically to this thread, but was referencing you. My confusion is in the oddness of your willingness to, seemingly, believe anything that conforms to your desires despite lack of evidence, yet tendency to reject and ignore science that contradicts your notions. You're also wrong about your 'pre-established' implications; I was born predisposed to conform to often incorrect assumptions, yet assessed them with skepticism as I grew rather than conforming to them. I've actually taken the time to confirm what I think to be true through reliable information and have disregarded what I learned to be false.

1 - Yes I mean smoking cigarettes. The studies doctors use to discourage smoking are based on pseudoscience.

2 - I did not avoid sceintific evidence that can prove that it is the natural processes of evolution to embrace death as it's natural objective.
I debated each and everyone presented. My observation is that life forms view living as the natural idealogy.

3 - Indeed, your pre-established motive is not to agree with my idea because in reading it you felt it was not from a reliable source. Because you do not see me as one of your reliable sources, or that I did not parrot one of your reliable sources, that my idea must therefore be false.

I am not a scientist, not a paranormal scientist, not even a pseudoscience study group. Nor do I speak by the authority of something supernatural. I just get an idea, then I share the idea, then I debate to defend the idea. I am not writing a textbook about old ideas that have already been tested or approved by peer reviews. I am presenting some ideas that have scientific implications and the scientists are the "worker bees" who must then do the work to confirm the ideas presented. I am not the worker bee I am the idea maker who simply presents a canadate assignment for the workers.

[Jubloz]

Hmm, I don't want to hijack your thread, so I'll go ahead and start a new one to respond with as soon as I have a little more time available.

[banko]

Quote by: Technosoul The mosquito has survived in spite of massive efforts to kill them off by human beings. The reason is mostly based on mass-reproduction, the vast numbers of their population count insures they prevent the death as a speicies. Some creatures operate as a collective speicies rather then as individuals. As individuals they might fly away to avoid death but they have great disadvantages relative to the preditors and so are not always successful in their attempts to escape danger. Fight or flight are the two main self defense methods - they fly. But keep in mind they are designed as "feeders" for fish, birds, bats, and other life forms.

Survival of the species and preventing death are two seperate things. The natural way for anyspecies is to have the strong survive. Everything in nature serves a purpose starting at the bottom of the food chain and working up. Is your argument, why does nature want the strong to survive, or everything attepts to prevent death?

Quote by: Technosoul About trees, we have lots of different trees and so they do not all use the same methods. Being tall many trees have prevented death by the ability to bend when confronted by strong winds and to grow roots that keep them firmly planted. The Redwoods have created chemicals in thier bark that can prevent them from catching on fire during a forest fire. It would be impossible to state how each and everything in nature attempts to survive death due to the amount of space it would take, to do that I would have to write volumes of books. So that is a rather unrealistic question for me to answer.

Again you are arguing survival of the fittest and not attempting to prevent death. Nature gives things ways to survive in this world. That isn't to say that a redwood won't catch fire, just perhaps not all of them will - survival of the species.

Why are there forest fires that burn the readwoods? To clear out areas to allow new growth. Why do the weak and old animals get eaten first? Because the young are strong and need to continue the DNA - create new life.

Survival of the fittest is natural as is death. I really think the past few million years have proven both.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz Hmm, I don't want to hijack your thread, so I'll go ahead and start a new one to respond with as soon as I have a little more time available.

I will look forward to your new topic. Thanks for adding to this one your thoughts and opinons, they were within the context of what I had posted.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: banko Survival of the species and preventing death are two seperate things. The natural way for anyspecies is to have the strong survive. Everything in nature serves a purpose starting at the bottom of the food chain and working up. Is your argument, why does nature want the strong to survive, or everything attepts to prevent death? Again you are arguing survival of the fittest and not attempting to prevent death. Nature gives things ways to survive in this world. That isn't to say that a redwood won't catch fire, just perhaps not all of them will - survival of the species. Why are there forest fires that burn the readwoods? To clear out areas to allow new growth. Why do the weak and old animals get eaten first? Because the young are strong and need to continue the DNA - create new life. Survival of the fittest is natural as is death. I really think the past few million years have proven both.

The part about survivial of the strongest is normally about mating riturals within a spiecies. The have their mock combats between males and the winner gets the most females, or his pick of them. This will insure that the strongest and therefore most healthy will be the ones to pass on thier genes into the next generation. Unless accidents ocur those mating confrontations within a spieces group seldom have anything to do with getting killed.

True - nature gives life forms ways to stay alive and to dodge death. You are also correct to note that they do not aways work out and so sooner of later they die anyway. LIke gambling, sooner or later the house gets all your money. Consuming and being consumed. Something must die so that something else can have somehting to eat in order to stay alive.
The cow kills the grass to eat, we kill the cow to eat. The plants (grass and such) have evolved ways to keep growing new body parts from their