Alzheimers in heaven.

[Drich]

Look at this life like if it where the matrix. Our brains being a biological/Spiritual link or modem of sorts communicating and translating electtical input. In that our brains do not really store our personage or memories those are all stored in our real selves/soul on god's side of death/eternity. If and when we have a modem problem like alzheimer's or some other brain damaged mallity the problem is with the modem in our bio physical selves not in out actua spiritual being in Heaven.

So no our problem here do not follow us in heaven. these bodies are breed into corruption meaning they are literally designed to fail and this failure was not meant to be representative of our eternal being/soul. That is why Christ Himself say fear not the one who can destroy the body but the one who can destroy the body and soul in Hell.

It' s easy when you make it all up.


Reality isn't that tidy.

Do you think they wrote the matrix with the bible in mind? no then it is beyond reasonable to think that spanning a 2000 year old biblical description to fit a 20th century movie is not the easiest way of making a point. So no it is not easy. I make it look easy. if you want book chapter and verse simply ask. even then do you think the bible was written with this specific mental disease in mind? do you think they had the terms or the wherewithal to be able to accurately and scientifically capture this specific aliment? no. so tell me again how would this (finding a relatable modern example) be easy and still fit within the confines of what was written? In truth it is not that is why there are far more guys like you doing what you do than there are guys like me trying to make something ancient relatable.

It's as tidy as being two creature in one body. one physical and the other spiritual/soul. the physical being self contained avatar of the Soul. things like physical looks damage and or attributes die with this body, while the intellect moves on or is up loaded to a new one.

[mordant]

I was always told you'd be "more you than you ever were" in heaven. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If he's going to take out all the parts of me that he doesn't like, leaving only what he approves of, I may as well have alzheimers. I am the combination of all my parts. If you strip away too much, especially without my consent, then it won't be me in heaven. It'll just be a stripped down facsimile that calls itself Chad. That's not what I call a reward.

Apart from how one is allegedly supposed to comport oneself in heaven, it is ETERNITY and I don't personally believe that we are adapted to it (in the sense of "natural selection"). As such ... hedonic tone insures that eventually, out of sheer boredom, one would not wish to have more new experiences. Even imagining biological immortality here on earth is hard for me to fathom beyond maybe a couple hundred years. Much less some sort of celestial theocracy. Maybe my curiosity and ability to experience novelty is more robust than I know, and I could go hundreds or thousands of years (especially if there were no real economic or experiential constraints somehow), but eternity, I'm quite certain, would be out of the question.

Therefore to exist happily in heaven one would have to be transformed into something other than human. Some have suggested a lobotomy. I don't know that it would have to be that crude, but I would no longer be me, and that is the same as there being no heaven for me. It'd be for someone else.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Apart from how one is allegedly supposed to comport oneself in heaven, it is ETERNITY and I don't personally believe that we are adapted to it (in the sense of "natural selection"). As such ... hedonic tone insures that eventually, out of sheer boredom, one would not wish to have more new experiences. Even imagining biological immortality here on earth is hard for me to fathom beyond maybe a couple hundred years. Much less some sort of celestial theocracy. Maybe my curiosity and ability to experience novelty is more robust than I know, and I could go hundreds or thousands of years (especially if there were no real economic or experiential constraints somehow), but eternity, I'm quite certain, would be out of the question.

Therefore to exist happily in heaven one would have to be transformed into something other than human. Some have suggested a lobotomy. I don't know that it would have to be that crude, but I would no longer be me, and that is the same as there being no heaven for me. It'd be for someone else.

I think this presupposes that there aren't infinite amounts of things to do in an infinite universe; but lets just say there isn't. I think some people definitely catch the travel bug, or are more novelty-driven individuals; but I feel like the vast majority of people on earth are content living their whole life in the same country, or city, or even neighborhood. We almost dislike having too many options and choices and prefer sticking with the same things.

My prediction is that, in our current state, if we were given eternity. We would settle into routine fairly quickly. Perhaps becoming glacier-like, happily sticking with those routines as they slowly drift across eternity. I don't think boredom will be an issue. But speaking of evolution, it is odd that a feeling such as boredom exists at all. I don't know if there are papers on it, but boredom seems like one of the few emotions that suggest that the portion of the universe we are given isn't enough for us, we want eternity.

[Chad32]

I was always told you'd be "more you than you ever were" in heaven. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If he's going to take out all the parts of me that he doesn't like, leaving only what he approves of, I may as well have alzheimers. I am the combination of all my parts. If you strip away too much, especially without my consent, then it won't be me in heaven. It'll just be a stripped down facsimile that calls itself Chad. That's not what I call a reward.

Apart from how one is allegedly supposed to comport oneself in heaven, it is ETERNITY and I don't personally believe that we are adapted to it (in the sense of "natural selection"). As such ... hedonic tone insures that eventually, out of sheer boredom, one would not wish to have more new experiences. Even imagining biological immortality here on earth is hard for me to fathom beyond maybe a couple hundred years. Much less some sort of celestial theocracy. Maybe my curiosity and ability to experience novelty is more robust than I know, and I could go hundreds or thousands of years (especially if there were no real economic or experiential constraints somehow), but eternity, I'm quite certain, would be out of the question.

Therefore to exist happily in heaven one would have to be transformed into something other than human. Some have suggested a lobotomy. I don't know that it would have to be that crude, but I would no longer be me, and that is the same as there being no heaven for me. It'd be for someone else.

That's another point. Eternal life isn't going to feel so great once you've done everything that anyone can possibly think of doing, more times than anyone can count. You really would have to be transformed into an entirely different being, meaning there won't be anything left of who you were down here. That's not a reward. It's just cessation of existence. Which is what atheists believe will happen anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Faust's Bargain.

[mordant]

Apart from how one is allegedly supposed to comport oneself in heaven, it is ETERNITY and I don't personally believe that we are adapted to it (in the sense of "natural selection"). As such ... hedonic tone insures that eventually, out of sheer boredom, one would not wish to have more new experiences. Even imagining biological immortality here on earth is hard for me to fathom beyond maybe a couple hundred years. Much less some sort of celestial theocracy. Maybe my curiosity and ability to experience novelty is more robust than I know, and I could go hundreds or thousands of years (especially if there were no real economic or experiential constraints somehow), but eternity, I'm quite certain, would be out of the question.

Therefore to exist happily in heaven one would have to be transformed into something other than human. Some have suggested a lobotomy. I don't know that it would have to be that crude, but I would no longer be me, and that is the same as there being no heaven for me. It'd be for someone else.

I think this presupposes that there aren't infinite amounts of things to do in an infinite universe; but lets just say there isn't. I think some people definitely catch the travel bug, or are more novelty-driven individuals; but I feel like the vast majority of people on earth are content living their whole life in the same country, or city, or even neighborhood. We almost dislike having too many options and choices and prefer sticking with the same things.

My prediction is that, in our current state, if we were given eternity. We would settle into routine fairly quickly. Perhaps becoming glacier-like, happily sticking with those routines as they slowly drift across eternity. I don't think boredom will be an issue. But speaking of evolution, it is odd that a feeling such as boredom exists at all. I don't know if there are papers on it, but boredom seems like one of the few emotions that suggest that the portion of the universe we are given isn't enough for us, we want eternity.

Schopenhauer regarded this as the fundamental problem of the human condition -- that we are in a constant contention between suffering and boredom.

I don't think he meant boredom in the sense that a lot of young people mean it ... that "there's nothing to do" that I'm interested in, when in fact there is, if you get off your ass and have a better attitude. I think it is based more in the notion that while there can inherently be no such thing as a totally non-novel experience, nevertheless experiences have much in common with other experiences and after a few hundred years of that, it will have insufficient novelty to be of real value. When there is little or no value in your moment to moment experience, then your moment to moment experience feels subjectively meaningless, and you grow weary of it.

So even in an infinite universe with infinite time -- maybe one can say, especially in that scenario -- the commonalities between current and countless prior experiences become far greater than their unique qualities.

Even at age 62 I have a strong sense of deja vu such that most anything I experience is generally familiar and so not an object of ardent interest (or excitement, anxiety, or loathing or whatever) as it was, say, 40 years ago. Even negative things are familiar. I'm about to travel to visit one of my brothers who is circling the drain physically and it is alarming enough to me that I moved the visit up by a few months, just to be on the safe side. But I have lost my son, my prior wife, my oldest brother, my mother, and some fairly close friends already to "other than natural causes" so I have been here, done this before. I know just what to expect. I know exactly how it will feel when I eventually get The Call. I understand the grief process. It's almost like I don't have to bother with it, except that I do.

As such, if I were to fall victim to a sudden fatal heart attack or stroke, and I were in the process of meeting the pavement just before the lights went out, my reaction would not be "no! not yet!". It would be rather sanguine, intermixed with relief. That's not to say there's insufficient value in my life at present, or that there's no enjoyment; it's just to say that my life to this point is sufficient and I do not want to live past my "best used by" date. Go out when you're on top, so to speak.

Where I'd be in 200 or 500 years, it's hard to say for sure; maybe I'd have some unexpected new lease on life. But I have trouble getting excited about never-ending life just the same. I'd have to be sold on it. Dog knows, I have never been particularly sold on it to date.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Schopenhauer regarded this as the fundamental problem of the human condition -- that we are in a constant contention between suffering and boredom.

I don't think he meant boredom in the sense that a lot of young people mean it ... that "there's nothing to do" that I'm interested in, when in fact there is, if you get off your ass and have a better attitude. I think it is based more in the notion that while there can inherently be no such thing as a totally non-novel experience, nevertheless experiences have much in common with other experiences and after a few hundred years of that, it will have insufficient novelty to be of real value. When there is little or no value in your moment to moment experience, then your moment to moment experience feels subjectively meaningless, and you grow weary of it.

So even in an infinite universe with infinite time -- maybe one can say, especially in that scenario -- the commonalities between current and countless prior experiences become far greater than their unique qualities.

I wonder how much of this is perspective driven. The alphabet contains only a handful of letters, but with those letters we can compose and express an infinite array of sentences. The universe contains a handful of different atoms, but those atoms can be arranged in perhaps infinite amount of ways to create all the variety and diversity of things we see in the universe. The ability of things to aggregate and recombine ensures that there will always be something "new" to experience throughout eternity, and I don't know how much the commonalities affect that. Sometimes the change in one variable is enough to give the whole thing new life, such as when you paint the interior of an old home, and the whole house feels like its new. Or how some people get a haircut after a breakup, and feel like they've started a new life.

[LastPoet]

Well, i know that my already frail books of math analisys, physics, chemistry are hard to digest for my limited brain. I seem to read philosophy books in a breeze, I understand the author as in its subjective view oh so clearly.

Call me stubborn, but I prefer more... technical books where you have to reason your way out of them, instead of reading a novel and claim you have study it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, i know that my already frail books of math analisys, physics, chemistry are hard to digest for my limited brain. I seem to read philosophy books in a breeze, I understand the author as in its subjective view oh so clearly.

Call me stubborn, but I prefer more... technical books where you have to reason your way out of them, instead of reading a novel and claim you have study it.

That's why I like history.

[mordant]

Schopenhauer regarded this as the fundamental problem of the human condition -- that we are in a constant contention between suffering and boredom.

I don't think he meant boredom in the sense that a lot of young people mean it ... that "there's nothing to do" that I'm interested in, when in fact there is, if you get off your ass and have a better attitude. I think it is based more in the notion that while there can inherently be no such thing as a totally non-novel experience, nevertheless experiences have much in common with other experiences and after a few hundred years of that, it will have insufficient novelty to be of real value. When there is little or no value in your moment to moment experience, then your moment to moment experience feels subjectively meaningless, and you grow weary of it.

So even in an infinite universe with infinite time -- maybe one can say, especially in that scenario -- the commonalities between current and countless prior experiences become far greater than their unique qualities.

I wonder how much of this is perspective driven. The alphabet contains only a handful of letters, but with those letters we can compose and express an infinite array of sentences. The universe contains a handful of different atoms, but those atoms can be arranged in perhaps infinite amount of ways to create all the variety and diversity of things we see in the universe. The ability of things to aggregate and recombine ensures that there will always be something "new" to experience throughout eternity, and I don't know how much the commonalities affect that. Sometimes the change in one variable is enough to give the whole thing new life, such as when you paint the interior of an old home, and the whole house feels like its new. Or how some people get a haircut after a breakup, and feel like they've started a new life.

One must keep in mind that only a small subset of POSSIBLE configurations is of interest to us as the sort of beings we happen to be. One novel configuration is found on the inside of a blast furnace but I'm not about to go there in the interest of experiencing something new. Or to the near vicinity of a star, or the poisonous, violent atmosphere of gas giants. Then there are the configurations that are tolerable but don't particularly strike our fancy, like the need to get a certain amount of exercise in a certain time frame, perhaps in less than ideal weather. Or the need to be kindly and indulgent with a loved one suffering dementia, for the eight millionth time.

In other words the menu of possibilities is not really infinite due to the constraints of our very being. And while, sure, you can get a haircut after a breakup, I know someone who with the exact same motivation had some plastic surgery done that they now very deeply regret -- so there's the problem of unintended consequences.

You have a commendable positive outlook about the possibilities and I suppose I appear way more negative than I actually am in real life by comparison. Which of us is likely to be correct? The truth is probably somewhere in between, as life tends to be both better and worse than we expect. That is why I allow that it would be prudent of me to accept biological immortality if offered to me, because I should explore the possibilities. Even if I might do so with less expectation of particular outcomes than you, I acknowledge that my conceptual framing and experience are inadequate to make a confident pronouncement that it would be a waste of time.