0
1 votes
the MILE premise
Posted by
brokenportal
,
08 December 2010
·
5,119 views
If your lost in a blizzard and you know there arent any towns for hundreds of miles in all directions, then you dont know that you can get to safety, but you do know that you have try to get to safety, you do have to go if you are going to get to safety.
Its the same thing with indefinite life extension. We are lost in the universe, tucked away on this tiny little orb, fighting the onslaughts of agings merciless seige as it snows its damage down on us. We dont know if we can beat the damage and escape the orb, but we have to see if we can. We are not at all content to sit there in the blizzard and do nothing. We dont know that we can succeed in getting to safety. We dont have to know that we can get there to go there, but if we are going to get to safety, then we do have try, we do have to go there if we are going to get there.
There are many that think we need to wait until science, or even politics or economics gives us the go ahead to say this cause is alright to support, but we dont. If we do nothing we will "freeze" to death at the hands of aging. The go ahead is ipso facto. We go because we must.
Its the same thing with indefinite life extension. We are lost in the universe, tucked away on this tiny little orb, fighting the onslaughts of agings merciless seige as it snows its damage down on us. We dont know if we can beat the damage and escape the orb, but we have to see if we can. We are not at all content to sit there in the blizzard and do nothing. We dont know that we can succeed in getting to safety. We dont have to know that we can get there to go there, but if we are going to get to safety, then we do have try, we do have to go there if we are going to get there.
There are many that think we need to wait until science, or even politics or economics gives us the go ahead to say this cause is alright to support, but we dont. If we do nothing we will "freeze" to death at the hands of aging. The go ahead is ipso facto. We go because we must.
Sometimes when you are caught in a vicious circle, you need help from somebody else to get out. Nevertheless, if you are trying for... thousands of years to find an answer and you don't find it, the next "logical" step is to question your methods, your logic and your impulse.
The questions which rise up in each category are:
Regarding the impulse: is trying to solve the question right? I.e. should I try to stay alive? Consider that you will be following a new path, nobody else has yet...
Regarding the methods: shouldn't I try to think outside the box? Is this the right path to solve the question? Maybe if I break out of my constraints I will find the answer... what does that mean? or maybe I should reformulate the question: this means going back to reconsider the impulse...
Regarding the logic: all this are "logical" thoughts. Thoughts created with a "common sense." The way "we all," human beings, think is the right way of elaborating thoughts. Deductively (A follows B, B follows C, so if A and B are right, I conclude C) and inductively (A, B and C have a common pattern: so I conclude it based on A, B and C). And what about the thoughts which... just appear in our minds? Outside our logic? Maybe all this questioning is nonsense. Maybe our logical pattern is wrong. Maybe there are other ways of thinking, given we were made in a different way.
This would be a "logical" conclusion. Actually... nothing but confusion.
So the second thing I wanted to point out, is that when we realize, that "trying to get out" leads nowhere, that means, it is not logical, we think of it as a negative value. So is not trying to get out right? We know that is not right either. So we think logically: if A (escaping) is not right our brain leads to think that A is wrong. So not A should be right, because not (not right) = right. Our brain leads us to think not right is wrong, and not (not right) = right. But not right is not wrong (not right = not wrong, which should be different from right is wrong!) and not (not right) is not right. We have forced ourselves into our logic, that we don't see it is wrong, when we didn't think that much we were better off... Negating an expression is not necessarily "undoing" the one negative, but negate everything again.
So we just know in the blizzard case we have to try to escape from it, even if it is "not logical" or what people wrongly state as "illogical." We have to try it because we have to get out and "we just know" we have to try. So if that is not the logical way, then not trying is not necessarily the wrong way. So maybe we should just do what we do. Try to get out of the blizzard. Don't question it.
Why?
One point would be: it creates confusion. Or it distracts you. You can always find thousands of reasons for doing or not doing something.
I think the best answer would be in the roots of our confusion: we think logically, because we use our brain. Our brain is not perfect. So we tend to mix "what we know," which is not correct from a logical not (not right) = right point of view (brain), with what we just know. Very often we tend to think of both as one. But our brain is just a faulty help. "What we know" is separate from it, and stands above it. Our brain cannot explain everything. Our brain would tell us not to try to escape from the blizzard. But we just know we have to, we just do it.
So having stated both points, the logical and the not logical one, the third point remains open. The not logical one actually derives from negating the logical one, thus "breaking" the logic; we know, that the logic is first of all most of the time badly interpreted and second, it is logic, that the logic is neither universal nor absolute. So a logical thought process of negating the logical one would be just saying the logic is wrng, so we just ignore it and "do it, without thinking about it."
Since both approaches are logical, I am out of options, I do not know the third point, because I cannot dyslink myself from my brain, from a logical way of thinking. I can not negate it again, that would be logical. I just don't know what the third approach is. If I could, I most probably wouldn't be able to express it anyway. At least that's what "I think..."
And that's one reason why people believe in God. That is in a logical way "faith": the third "option," which we will never understand??? Maybe it comes with death? Maybe life is a fight out of the blizzard, just to see that dying was the way out of the blizzard?
I do not know what is right, I already stated why. I even do not know if the third option exists. Still, I fight with a certainty that we will succeed.