Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immortality, would you take it?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is the purpose of ignoring the distinction between indefinitely long life and literal indestructibility? The actual issue raised by this thread, and the only one relevant to human life in realit

Sense of Smell May Predict Lifespan If this study stands up, it seems to me it could be developed into a tool for older people in making their decisions about the rate at which they should be spendin

True immortality, as far as we know, is in reality absolutely impossible.     The entire universe is dying a slow death of entropy.  According to current physics, a true "eternity" of operation is

Little of what you perceive is not what was.

 

The light that hits your eyes let's you see things as they were when the light bounced off of them.  The sound that hits your ears let's you hear things as they were when they produced the sound. 

 

Can you divorce the validity of the senses into two types due to the undeniable role played by time?  I think not.  You still directly perceive existents across time and space (sorry they are there), and you, I, or any Objectivist knows, any call or wish for sense perception absent the means of perception is fallacious.

 

Part of the means involves the realities of time and space.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of what exists, exists. The starlight you see exists now, it is a fact which is perceivable. Its origin, as you say, was a long time ago; though you must admit this is a claim according to our theory of light, for which we find much evidence in support of but nonetheless is still an inductive theory.

You mention sound and light taking time but time reduces down to motion, so what you are left with is a transformative present. Time is a context needed to make sense of change, just like any other measure. Our perceptions are motion sensors. So when we see or hear what we see or hear is immediate. Our theories allow us to construct a meaning for what we immediately perceive. Such as this music I am hearing is travelling from those speakers across the room. That is theoretical but also verifiable (I could hit the mute button to prove it).

I think that we perceive motion caused by immediate objective reality only - however the form of reality we are conscious of depends on much more.

An adult sees a new heat source and knows it will burn to the touch. This information is not perceivable from looking at the heat source. A young child would touch it and accidentally burn their fingers. The adult has learned something about the nature of reality and reasons inductively to avoid getting burnt.

The mind acts like augmented reality glasses.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...