8 ms·

This is anecdotal evidence from a small (2) sample. But not all doctors die without treatment at home. Some (many?) are aware of the drugs they need to hasten t

by sago 12y ago

This is anecdotal evidence from a small (2) sample. But not all doctors die without treatment at home. Some (many?) are aware of the drugs they need to hasten their demise in a way that minimises their suffering. One doctor I discussed this with said that assisted suicide, in a very limited and measured way, isn't uncommon, if you know what to look for. As someone with a degenerative incurable condition, I'd like the option of being able to make informed decisions about the end of my life, beyond just refusing treatment. Because spending years dying of starvation (as MS campaigner Debbie Purdy recently did, because she was unable to cope with her symptoms, and there was no other legal recourse to help her die), doesn't fill me with excitement. We have an insane attitude to death in our culture at the moment. We seem to want to find any way to avoid the fact that being alive has a 100% mortality rate. I think our collective attitude needs to change. And the more articles like this the better.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
My mom suffered from MS here entire life, and a few years ago left us on her own terms (with the help of some pills) before the age of 60. I don't blame her of course. I also have no idea if she had any help from a doctor or not.
themartorana 12y ago
It's really hard to change perceptions about death when it requires considering one's own mortality. It is in this only that I understand the desperate quest for religion. The idea of going dark forever is terrifying to me, and considering I'm pretty much an atheist, I don't have much hope of anything else. When people ask me if I'm religious, I usually tell them I'm hopeful that I'm proven wrong. I know we all die. I know our lives on a cosmic scale are infinitesimal. But even I - as rational as I am, am extremely scared of facing that reality head on. So convincing the entire nation/world to do so... Well, good luck with that.
- sago 12y ago
  It doesn't frighten me. It won't go dark forever. Just as there was no 13.5bn years of darkness before I was born. There will be no qualia of time. I think attitudes are changing. The campaign to be able to determine how and when we die is shaping up to be a significant battle for a fundamental civil right. I think we'll win it. Whether it is soon enough for my wife to avoid threat of prosecution if she is with me when I choose to act, I don't know. I suspect not.
  - baddox 12y ago
    The 13.5 billion years of darkness before I was born is frightening as well, but it's done and over with, plus it's way shorter than the upcoming darkness.
    - visarga 12y ago
      The universe itself is the life you have, it doesn't die, just makes more conscious entities. Life itself will not die with me, but go on forever. We just need to think large when contemplating death.
      - sireat 12y ago
        What is your reasoning behind thinking that life will go on forever? Life - conscious life with qualia. Even for allowing for unobservable universe that is not given either. There is no guarantee that there will be more conscious entities say 200 years from now.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    Right - it's that ceasing to be, as before I was, that scares me. Now that I have existed, I like it much better than before. That said, that's my hangup, and has nothing to do with your right to choose to die with dignity. It's silly to me that you could choose to jump off a bridge, but can't choose something much less gruesome without fear that your or a loved one might find themselves tangled up legally.
    - sago 12y ago
      I know this is getting OT, so apologies. And thank you for the second paragraph. But I'm interested in the first. To me it doesn't seem like I will cease to be, in any meaningful way. To cease to have something is to have it at some point but not another. I will never experience not being. So I find it hard to worry about that. Of course I enjoy being, but it's not like I would rather be than not be, because the latter would suck. So I find your first paragraph strange. And therefore interesting. [edit, add:] I scan sympathise with the point made about others: I'd very very much rather my wife was than ceased to be. But me? Only for other people's sake. I can't imagine how it could possibly make any difference to me. I can't even imagine the idea that I'd miss out on all those good experiences I'd have if I lived. Because again that just presupposes that I'd be missing something.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  If this makes accepting death easier, the good news is the near-death experience. While I certainly don't intend to convince you that it's an afterlife experience (because no one knows quite what they are) it is typically positive and very powerful. Subjectively, it's an intense spiritual experience that seems to be unmatched by most things in life. As for whether it's entrance into an afterlife or the shutdown sequence of a dying brain... who knows? I don't think we'll have that answered within our natural lifespan. Both you and I are likely to die before we, as a species, know whether there's an afterlife. So we have to go into death without full knowledge but, to be honest, we go into every experience without full knowledge. Tomorrow we might wake up and find that the sky is purple. It's extremely unlikely, but it could happen. Honestly, I'm as irreligious as you are but I tend to think the odds are better than even that there's some consciousness after death, although "after" might not be the right word because I'm not sure whether time is even well-defined outside of this physical universe. Presuming that I came from nothing, that means that "nothing" can produce qualia, which means that if I become "nothing" after death... it makes a plausible case for rebirth. As Voltaire said, "It is not more surprising to be born twice than once." So, if the last moments of this life are a positive experience and the "next moment" is either nonexistent or a continuation that might be called an "afterlife", then I don't see much to worry about either way. Of course, others' deaths are still really hard to take, and I'm a hypochondriac who hates the thought of sickness (for the embarrassment and sense of failure, not the danger) but I don't fear my own impending death. I'm not likely to hurry it, but I have a lot of curiosity about it and I look forward to the experience.
  - jodrellblank 12y ago
    The two main disagreements I have with this are, one that I can't put into words very clearly and will come back to, and my generally repetitive comment on these issues that you - MichaelOChurch2015 - weren't born, you were made by your life experiences. A child was born, a nearly blank slate, and formed into 'you' by experiences. The idea that you could have been born "somewhere else" or "to someone else" or "in another time" is a nonsense idea. We know exactly what happens to children born elsewhere and elsewhen and to other parents - they become other people. Not people we clairvoyantly share qualia with, not people we are superimposed-upon or people we are hiding-inside, not "us" in any way shape or form, just 100% other people. Following that, the idea that someone could be born twice also seems nonsensical. (Boltzmann Brains excepted; MichaelOChurch2015 might appear for a few Plancktimes in the near heat-death void. Not that we'll ever know). The first point; moment by moment in life we experience our surroundings. Continuous sensory input which we continually respond to in large and small scales from planning the next week to blinking and shifting in our seats. I suspect this pervasive connection from experience to physical reality to be fundamental to qualia and consciousness, and so the idea that we could go to an afterlife with no body, no senses, no time, no drive for physical sustenance - and still in any way remain who we are - doesn't fit. If you don't get up in the morning, because you have no body and didn't sleep, and you aren't in your normal environment, you don't put on your clothes because they don't exist anymore along with all your other property, don't breakfast or exercise, don't stretch your achey ankle, don't prepare yourself for your day filled with not going places and not doing things that could affect the organisation of matter and cash, and you don't do all that in absense-of-time and there are no faces to recognise... then who are "you" in such an afterlife anyway? Especially if you arrived there age 95, demented and memoryless. If such an afterlife exists, so what? It's so different as to be not worth thinking of as a continuation of oneself. "Imagine waking up in someone else's body". "Is that what the afterlife is like?" "No, imagine not waking up. And you're not in a body". "What do I see?". "Nothing, you have no eyes and you aren't anywhere". That should have been laughed out the first time it was suggested. (I guess the short version is "we don't have a body. We are bodies").
- unabridged 12y ago
  >I know our lives on a cosmic scale are infinitesimal. I like to think of each consciousness as a prime number, an inevitable pattern if you write out every possibility. Our brains are contained within some 3 dimensional finite configuration of atoms, and in a large enough scale it will be repeated again. Even its exact position when you read this message.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
letstryagain 12y ago
> being alive has a 100% mortality rate. Well we assume it does but so far only about 95%
- tim333 12y ago
  Yeah, historically it has had a 100% mortality rate but there is a significant chance that things will change. eg. uploads http://www.inquisitr.com/1883084/mind-trip-humans-to-live-forever-by-2030-as-persons-consciousness-could-be-uploaded-to-computer/ http://www.inquisitr.com/1883084/mind-trip-humans-to-live-fo... and the like
  - Mahn 12y ago
    This idea of "uploading" the mind shows up every now and then and it is interesting, but I think that ultimately we need a much deeper understanding in what consciousness is and how it works, because as it stands right now, it sounds like at most we would be able to replicate or copy a mind (provided the computing power gets us there), but not so much "transfer" or "upload". This is because, as far as we know, if a computer were to perfectly recreate my brain, I wouldn't automatically exist in the computer, nor I would exists in both the computer and my body; but rather the computer would be an artificial self aware being with my data (memories, knowledge, etc) on it. But then again we need to understand consciousness better to give meaningful answers to these questions.
    - jpindar 12y ago
      One way to get around this might be to replace one section of the brain at a time with an electronic equivalent.
      - tim333 12y ago
        Yeah - the brain replacement stuff is already happening in a very minor way with cochlear implants and the like. Apart from the technical difficulties of uploading there are a lot of questions on what you'd actually want to do and why. Just having a simulation of you running on some box or a copy on Github might seem a bit pointless and I'm not sure many people would want it. I've thought of a couple of possibly practical things. Firstly for the benefit of the friends and relatives remaining alive it might be nice to chat to a version of the person who's biological body has packed up. This wouldn't even require uploading in the manner of scanning the brain. It could just be an AI that was good at method acting and 'becoming' the person in the way that a human actor can. I'd quite like an ongoing version of my gran for example who I could chat to. I guess more of a skype type chat than a robot. The other thing is death is annoying for the creation of art and similar stuff. It would be cool if there was an ongoing version of Beethoven say cranking out new symphonies. Also personally it would be nice to work on intellectual stuff that exceeds what I can do in a biological lifespan. I guess if the AI seems conscious at least as in being aware of stuff and interacts normally with people who are conscious in the normal biological way that's probably enough - it doesn't really matter what the philosophers think of it.
epicureanideal 12y ago
Sago, I hope you've heard of Alcor cryonics? It's not guaranteed, but it's better than 0 probability.
shiggerino 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/user/OrderoftheGoodDeath https://www.youtube.com/user/OrderoftheGoodDeath This is an interesting and entertaining YouTube channel that seeks to address the perceived anxiety and denial of mortality of today's society.

by sago 12y ago

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

My mom suffered from MS here entire life, and a few years ago left us on her own terms (with the help of some pills) before the age of 60. I don't blame her of course. I also have no idea if she had any help from a doctor or not.

themartorana 12y ago

It's really hard to change perceptions about death when it requires considering one's own mortality. It is in this only that I understand the desperate quest for religion. The idea of going dark forever is terrifying to me, and considering I'm pretty much an atheist, I don't have much hope of anything else. When people ask me if I'm religious, I usually tell them I'm hopeful that I'm proven wrong. I know we all die. I know our lives on a cosmic scale are infinitesimal. But even I - as rational as I am, am extremely scared of facing that reality head on. So convincing the entire nation/world to do so... Well, good luck with that.

sago 12y ago
It doesn't frighten me. It won't go dark forever. Just as there was no 13.5bn years of darkness before I was born. There will be no qualia of time. I think attitudes are changing. The campaign to be able to determine how and when we die is shaping up to be a significant battle for a fundamental civil right. I think we'll win it. Whether it is soon enough for my wife to avoid threat of prosecution if she is with me when I choose to act, I don't know. I suspect not.
- baddox 12y ago
  The 13.5 billion years of darkness before I was born is frightening as well, but it's done and over with, plus it's way shorter than the upcoming darkness.
  - visarga 12y ago
    The universe itself is the life you have, it doesn't die, just makes more conscious entities. Life itself will not die with me, but go on forever. We just need to think large when contemplating death.
    - sireat 12y ago
      What is your reasoning behind thinking that life will go on forever? Life - conscious life with qualia. Even for allowing for unobservable universe that is not given either. There is no guarantee that there will be more conscious entities say 200 years from now.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Right - it's that ceasing to be, as before I was, that scares me. Now that I have existed, I like it much better than before. That said, that's my hangup, and has nothing to do with your right to choose to die with dignity. It's silly to me that you could choose to jump off a bridge, but can't choose something much less gruesome without fear that your or a loved one might find themselves tangled up legally.
  - sago 12y ago
    I know this is getting OT, so apologies. And thank you for the second paragraph. But I'm interested in the first. To me it doesn't seem like I will cease to be, in any meaningful way. To cease to have something is to have it at some point but not another. I will never experience not being. So I find it hard to worry about that. Of course I enjoy being, but it's not like I would rather be than not be, because the latter would suck. So I find your first paragraph strange. And therefore interesting. [edit, add:] I scan sympathise with the point made about others: I'd very very much rather my wife was than ceased to be. But me? Only for other people's sake. I can't imagine how it could possibly make any difference to me. I can't even imagine the idea that I'd miss out on all those good experiences I'd have if I lived. Because again that just presupposes that I'd be missing something.
michaelochurch 12y ago
If this makes accepting death easier, the good news is the near-death experience. While I certainly don't intend to convince you that it's an afterlife experience (because no one knows quite what they are) it is typically positive and very powerful. Subjectively, it's an intense spiritual experience that seems to be unmatched by most things in life. As for whether it's entrance into an afterlife or the shutdown sequence of a dying brain... who knows? I don't think we'll have that answered within our natural lifespan. Both you and I are likely to die before we, as a species, know whether there's an afterlife. So we have to go into death without full knowledge but, to be honest, we go into every experience without full knowledge. Tomorrow we might wake up and find that the sky is purple. It's extremely unlikely, but it could happen. Honestly, I'm as irreligious as you are but I tend to think the odds are better than even that there's some consciousness after death, although "after" might not be the right word because I'm not sure whether time is even well-defined outside of this physical universe. Presuming that I came from nothing, that means that "nothing" can produce qualia, which means that if I become "nothing" after death... it makes a plausible case for rebirth. As Voltaire said, "It is not more surprising to be born twice than once." So, if the last moments of this life are a positive experience and the "next moment" is either nonexistent or a continuation that might be called an "afterlife", then I don't see much to worry about either way. Of course, others' deaths are still really hard to take, and I'm a hypochondriac who hates the thought of sickness (for the embarrassment and sense of failure, not the danger) but I don't fear my own impending death. I'm not likely to hurry it, but I have a lot of curiosity about it and I look forward to the experience.
- jodrellblank 12y ago
  The two main disagreements I have with this are, one that I can't put into words very clearly and will come back to, and my generally repetitive comment on these issues that you - MichaelOChurch2015 - weren't born, you were made by your life experiences. A child was born, a nearly blank slate, and formed into 'you' by experiences. The idea that you could have been born "somewhere else" or "to someone else" or "in another time" is a nonsense idea. We know exactly what happens to children born elsewhere and elsewhen and to other parents - they become other people. Not people we clairvoyantly share qualia with, not people we are superimposed-upon or people we are hiding-inside, not "us" in any way shape or form, just 100% other people. Following that, the idea that someone could be born twice also seems nonsensical. (Boltzmann Brains excepted; MichaelOChurch2015 might appear for a few Plancktimes in the near heat-death void. Not that we'll ever know). The first point; moment by moment in life we experience our surroundings. Continuous sensory input which we continually respond to in large and small scales from planning the next week to blinking and shifting in our seats. I suspect this pervasive connection from experience to physical reality to be fundamental to qualia and consciousness, and so the idea that we could go to an afterlife with no body, no senses, no time, no drive for physical sustenance - and still in any way remain who we are - doesn't fit. If you don't get up in the morning, because you have no body and didn't sleep, and you aren't in your normal environment, you don't put on your clothes because they don't exist anymore along with all your other property, don't breakfast or exercise, don't stretch your achey ankle, don't prepare yourself for your day filled with not going places and not doing things that could affect the organisation of matter and cash, and you don't do all that in absense-of-time and there are no faces to recognise... then who are "you" in such an afterlife anyway? Especially if you arrived there age 95, demented and memoryless. If such an afterlife exists, so what? It's so different as to be not worth thinking of as a continuation of oneself. "Imagine waking up in someone else's body". "Is that what the afterlife is like?" "No, imagine not waking up. And you're not in a body". "What do I see?". "Nothing, you have no eyes and you aren't anywhere". That should have been laughed out the first time it was suggested. (I guess the short version is "we don't have a body. We are bodies").
unabridged 12y ago
>I know our lives on a cosmic scale are infinitesimal. I like to think of each consciousness as a prime number, an inevitable pattern if you write out every possibility. Our brains are contained within some 3 dimensional finite configuration of atoms, and in a large enough scale it will be repeated again. Even its exact position when you read this message.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

letstryagain 12y ago

> being alive has a 100% mortality rate. Well we assume it does but so far only about 95%

tim333 12y ago
Yeah, historically it has had a 100% mortality rate but there is a significant chance that things will change. eg. uploads http://www.inquisitr.com/1883084/mind-trip-humans-to-live-forever-by-2030-as-persons-consciousness-could-be-uploaded-to-computer/ http://www.inquisitr.com/1883084/mind-trip-humans-to-live-fo... and the like
- Mahn 12y ago
  This idea of "uploading" the mind shows up every now and then and it is interesting, but I think that ultimately we need a much deeper understanding in what consciousness is and how it works, because as it stands right now, it sounds like at most we would be able to replicate or copy a mind (provided the computing power gets us there), but not so much "transfer" or "upload". This is because, as far as we know, if a computer were to perfectly recreate my brain, I wouldn't automatically exist in the computer, nor I would exists in both the computer and my body; but rather the computer would be an artificial self aware being with my data (memories, knowledge, etc) on it. But then again we need to understand consciousness better to give meaningful answers to these questions.
  - jpindar 12y ago
    One way to get around this might be to replace one section of the brain at a time with an electronic equivalent.
    - tim333 12y ago
      Yeah - the brain replacement stuff is already happening in a very minor way with cochlear implants and the like. Apart from the technical difficulties of uploading there are a lot of questions on what you'd actually want to do and why. Just having a simulation of you running on some box or a copy on Github might seem a bit pointless and I'm not sure many people would want it. I've thought of a couple of possibly practical things. Firstly for the benefit of the friends and relatives remaining alive it might be nice to chat to a version of the person who's biological body has packed up. This wouldn't even require uploading in the manner of scanning the brain. It could just be an AI that was good at method acting and 'becoming' the person in the way that a human actor can. I'd quite like an ongoing version of my gran for example who I could chat to. I guess more of a skype type chat than a robot. The other thing is death is annoying for the creation of art and similar stuff. It would be cool if there was an ongoing version of Beethoven say cranking out new symphonies. Also personally it would be nice to work on intellectual stuff that exceeds what I can do in a biological lifespan. I guess if the AI seems conscious at least as in being aware of stuff and interacts normally with people who are conscious in the normal biological way that's probably enough - it doesn't really matter what the philosophers think of it.

epicureanideal 12y ago

Sago, I hope you've heard of Alcor cryonics? It's not guaranteed, but it's better than 0 probability.

shiggerino 12y ago

https://www.youtube.com/user/OrderoftheGoodDeath https://www.youtube.com/user/OrderoftheGoodDeath This is an interesting and entertaining YouTube channel that seeks to address the perceived anxiety and denial of mortality of today's society.