Death is the Second

Before life, nothing mattered. There was no meaning. No value. No emotion. No thought. Noone to observe. No one to name things. No one to care. Just rock and water.

Life is the 1 from zero. Life allows for logic, math, concepts, representations, language, technology, emotions, meaning, and all the rest that we fight for.

Life without death is boundless like the universe.

If life is the first thing that mattered, then death is the second.

Without death, life would not know loss.

Death creates competition, speed, and endurance.

Knowledge of death creates urgency, planning, and consideration.

Death forces procreation and adaptation.

Without death, there would be only very old single-celled bacteria. Maybe not? Maybe, there are other reasons to reproduce? 

Immortality in the age of YouTube

From the days of ancient Egypt humans have been seeking immortality. While we work on medical advancements in this direction true immortality remains illusive. There is another type of immortality and it is the kind that you get when your image and personality is etched into long lasting media. From rocks and paper to hard drives we record our likeness for the world to remember. When everyone is immortal who will be remembered?

Unless the internet changes massively or ceases to exist the activity of individuals will be continue to be uploaded in mass. It has become so easy for anyone to create semi-permanent reflections of their lives that the value of each reflection, while long lasting, is reduced. We are no longer limited to the ruling class as the sole representative of humanities achievements and record keeping. The statues and memoirs of long past rulers will not be the only record past on. But with such access to the future minds of humans the lasting impressions we leave online are increasingly trivial.

Forums such as YouTube help us immortalize our thoughts and visages for the world to see and with more views comes more notoriety and "fame". While some people will be remembered by more people it is only the truly revolutionary, visionary and repugnant that will that live on in the minds of future humans. This kind of immortality can not be gained by simply talking into a camera on YouTube. To be truly immortal one must be immense.

But why do we seek immortality? I think it is a relative of the need to reproduce. The ultimate driving force for humans is the need to reproduce our genes and if done successfully the genes are what become immortal. So it seems that our lust for immortality is born from our deepest primordial desires. Although it is a lofty goal that moves many to great deeds both good and bad it is really an illusion and when we actually die we no longer care about how many views our YouTube channels acquire.

So what's the point? The point, may be, that people are motivated by those who came before them that made lasting impressions which gives them the notion that they too can live on in the records and memories passed down. We are frantic to create lasting copies of ourselves and the more copies we make the harder it is for the world to erase our mark. Our children, art, businesses, and work all lead to nothing if nothing remains after we die, and we all die. The Buddhists believe pain comes from desire but so does greatness and mediocrity.

Causalism not Determinism and Some Ruminations on Free Will

One problem I have in accepting determinism is the word determinism. Determinism implies a determiner which assumes some sort of agency. This makes sense due to the roots of determinism being either religious or scientific. From the religious perspective all actions are pre-determined by a deity agent and from the scientific perspective knowledge is gained from observation from human agents. Determinism from the scientific point of view is based on cause and effect and the lacking of true human agency in the equation. Humans are simply subject to prior causes and the effects cascade toward more cause and effect chains. This would be better described as "Causalism", not determinism.

Because determinism rests of the concept of knowable causal forces it is simpler and more objection to call it causalism. If causality can be mapped with perfection then the future would, presumably, be predicted but not determined. Determination seems like inevitability based on an agent's word instead of an objective assessment of what physical forces should do. The future doesn't exist and I believed that no matter how precise we can observe reality there would likely be missing data, error, or other mysterious forces such as underlying quantum chaos that would make perfect knowledge and predictability impossible. We might get to 99.9% but it still wouldn't be determined, just very accurately predicted.

Are all physical forces consistent, constant and reliable? I am not sure. While logic has taught us to rely on physics due to it's reliable predictive power it doesn't mean that there is some room for variation and change. The universe is mysterious and science is a fairly new discipline. We should not be so vein to think that we understand what is immutable. For example, if the speed of light is not fixed then many calculations would be wrong. We should be skeptical about our assumptions. This is an interesting TedTalk about the potential misconceptions in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

This doesn't mean we should discount science. The scientific method is certainly the best way to test truth claims about reality but I think there is room for philosophy as well.

Ruminations on Free Will:
Why can't a mind be a direct cause of an effect? If so why can't the agent, who owns the mind, be in control (choice) of that cause? Free will may lie somewhere in the chaos of the mind or somewhere in the conscious effort to change the future. The mind is just as physical as genetics and environment so why can't it have a discreet effect on reality and the future?

If all causes are products of prior effects and causes then can there be a first cause? This seems to lead toward a deity outside of time and space. The "turtles all the way down" argument doesn't lead anywhere.

If causes and effects can occur spontaneously or arise from complexity then the mind seems like a prime candidate for a machine capable of creating new chains of causation.

I do admit that I want Free Will to exist. I think it allows for more personal responsibility and change and I feel that I am free to make certain decisions. I do not believe in complete freedom and I admit that most actions are a product of prior or current physical forces acting inside and outside of myself that I can not control. But in those few moments where choice comes into play, and I can slow down and see the potential outcomes of an action I believe that "I" am free to choose. This may be rare and training myself to recognize them may be a lifelong discipline but it seems to increase my well being.

Here is a great conversation between Sam Harris and Dan Dennett about this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g
Check out Sam Harris's podcast for great content here:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast

This is a great talk between Sam Harris and David Deutsch about the power of explanation and the limits of knowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg