What's better: being alive or not alive?

[ledwix]

Weird thoughts, but I'm beginning to think neither is better.

For instance, a man who was born in 1700 is not alive right now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Methinks it's neither. It just happens to be a different part of the time line. We can't really say objectively. So since not being alive is neither good nor bad, then being alive should also be neither good nor bad. Then preserving a life should not be considered good or bad, since making the transition from life to death wouldn't be considered good or bad. So why do we try and save ourselves? Is it only because of evolutionary logic, or is there something else? If any person were asked if he'd prefer a life or a death, he'd overwhelmingly likely say he'd prefer the life. So preservation seems to be an innate and obvious tendency, regardless of rationale.

But really...

I can't think of any particular reason why I am better than John Locke or Confucius just because I'm alive and they're not.

And does the fact that our matter happens to be alive make us better than the vast majority of matter that is not alive? Or does it just make us blessed and lucky? I don't feel obligated to look after the rest of the matter; I just think about using it and enjoying myself.

[wwwJ4mmYcouk]

You don't know what its like not to be alive therefore its pretty hard to answer this question - if not impossible.

[1mpuls3]

I don't know if it is better to be alive or not alive. I think that the chance of being alive is better maybe, but I really think that feeling alive is more important.

[lxDestinyxl]

Life is but still a mystery. There are many perspectives in which we can view life. Through many religions, we are given that there is no death, but an afterlife. Asking whether life is greater than death or vice versa is a vague and very subjective approach to this matter. It is how we define life and death which brings us closer to the true meaning of life and death.

Life means different things to different people. One given this question in a relaxed and peaceful society will have it that life should be fulfilling and eternal. However, surrounding us are others who find death more peaceful, whether war had intervened their way of life, or an illness has overwhelmed them.

Why we live and why we want to live is another statement. Through faith, how the body we are in is given, is through the nature of the soul. From a secular view, we are born through the lines of evolution, until our moment of life has come. The soul cannot be proven to be a non-living feature of our body, therefore ruling out religious views on this matter. However, taking in the meaning from the eyes of a Christian follower, life is a gift from God. It is a gift we should preserve, utilise and manage. His son was brought into our world to lead by example as to how we should live. The true meaning of life lives with the path His son has taken. Our purpose of life is to lead by example for others to follow, to take our own soul into Jesus' path and follow him into heaven.

With the exclusion of religious and secular sides, our society frequently chooses the option of life because we understand life greater than death. Our knowledge of life continues to expand, although it never reaches perfection; however, our knowledge of death can yet go so far. Nobody can know more about death than another. With our given, approximated time-frame, we use it to sustain our generations, and generations yet to arrive. We use our gifts of intelligence to make better of or for worse, to change our world. Utilising these gifts, we can create emotions which are powerful and can alter our actions.

In one sense, life can be better if we wish it to be. Given our position, we can understand more about life, but not as much about death. Therefore, many people can conclude that life is truly better than death, however our given knowledge cannot expand until we can experience the true nature of death. The meaning of life continues to elude us and has yet to be revealed.

[devonin]

Nobody dead has ever provably come back to tell us what it is or isn't like. This is not a meaningful question.

[Necros140606]

i think the concept of life is very labile, i think of us as just ways in which atoms, quarks, and ultimately energy collide and morph. we're just very complex chemical processes, and the chemical processes exist before we get born and after we die. we're a part of the cycle, and to be honest, a very tiny portion of the cycle, so i wouldn't bother with such a question. the definition itself of life is just plain arbitrary and given by humans seeking an explanation for their existance back in the ancient eras of men's evolution.

[Im Vince]

It is impossible to tell which is better if you haven't tried both, but for now I enjoy the life given to me and will try to keep getting better in life. Once I am not alive anymore, I will do the same thing (maybe, depending on what it is).

[wienerschmidtzel]

After humans are all dead and gone it won't matter will it? Everything is just a big waste of time... every belief every action because in the end the sum of risks = 1 where 1 is death. Or is it? It's all just a question of what you believe because the fact is that everyone dies and good and bad are human concepts. Here's a question for you: What is good and what is bad?

[OrganisM]

It's not hard to simply say "It's impossible to objectively talk about anything", so you're really not getting anywhere with that.

Obviously I prefer to live and try to influence the world in a positive way. I couldn't think of feeling any other way.

[Relambrien]

glados would like to have a word with you

[GG_Guru]

Just live your life, ayyyy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzxjt0Q57rA

[thechild]

Originally Posted by GG_Guru

Just live your life, ayyyy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzxjt0Q57rA

that was so random but I like the song

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by wienerschmidtzel

What is good and what is bad?

Mmhmm, good point, because for one thing to be better than another, we need to have some orientation of which direction is good and which direction is bad. What qualities are prioritized to make one thing seem better than another? And in order to do that, we need a definition of both terms, so it's kinda hard.

[welsh_girl]

Being alive is better bcause ... I don't really know what it's like being dead yet.

[Patashu]

Well if you're not alive you can't do anything, so that's pretty bad unless you couldn't do anything worthwhile anyway

[sarahxjane]

How would you know what being 'not alive' is?

When you're dead, I believe you are reincarnated.
Right away or not, I couldn't tell you.

If there is a transitional period, I doubt you can do anything on Earth.

Anyways, I'd rather be alive for a couple reasons:

1.) I'm alive.
2.) I can interact with people/things.
3.) I'm not dead.
4.) Some things in life are fun.




People are usually famous after they're dead though.
Take artists for example.

*Shrugs*

Not like you'll make money and prosper from it when you're dead though.




P.S: I'm not trying to spark a religion debate.

[ryanisadouche]

Being alive is a matter of perspective. Everything is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed.

[MrRubix]

I'm gonna have to side with Dev on this one on a practical level.

Even if we look at this question under a model of Expected Utility, we see that basically, even if we can estimate probabilities and relative utility payoffs for being alive, we can't estimate a damn thing for the state of being dead in itself. We have no idea what the probabilities are -- let alone ballpark them. We *can't* ballpark them at all. We also don't know the utility payoffs for anything because we don't know what options are available to us, if any, in death.

Even if, say, you consider a positive EU to be equivalent to "worth living" and a negative EU to be equivalent to "not worth living," you have no idea if death offers a higher or lower EU when compared to either EU payoff in the life state. Even if EU(Living) were, say, -1000, it's possible than EU(Dying) = -100,000 or something (just an example). We simply have no idea about ANYTHING regarding the death state.


****BUT, I am going to try to see if I can justify what the best option is with the Expected Utility model*****


As with many things regarding uncertainty, we can make assumptions. Assumptions, naturally, are a dangerous thing, but here is my rationale for why I feel like it's not unreasonable to do so.

I know that, in the life state, I have learned many things over the years, and I've come to various conclusions about how we came to be and how we operate. One of these things involve stochastic processes and long-term optimizations/evolutions, and I see this as being the primary driving factor behind how we came to be. In other words, I feel like small, gradual changes/processes have made us who we are today over the many iterations that our earth and universe has existed. In other words, I do not feel like we are who we are because of a God. I feel like we're the result of an optimization path.

As a result, I make the assumption that once we die, we cease to function because we are, in my opinion, nothing more than biological machines, where the components of these machines are essential for interpreting utility and existence. Without these components being active, we do not think, experience, feel, or interpret. We cease to experience utility, emotions, and so forth. Utility is primarily a human function. It is a measure of our own personal happiness. In the death state, we would be UNABLE to experience anything.

The only thing I can extrapolate about the death state is that it is no longer a life state. What I do know is that the continuation of the life state requires a proper functioning of certain biological components, which also happen to interpret utility. Without these functions, we enter the death state. Therefore I assume that in the death state, we are no longer "human," functioning in the same biological ways as we do in the life state. Since there is no evidence for the existence of any sort of of "soul" or anything that would imply a continued interpretation of utility, thought, or existence once our biological components cease to function, I feel like, to all intents and purposes, it's reasonable to assume that we only interpret utility in the life state.

Unfortunately, I don't think assigning a Utility value to anything in the death state is reasonable. If I simply say EU(Death state) = px = (100%)(0) = 0, then this implies that not experiencing utility is the same as experiencing ZERO utility -- that is, better than a negative, but not as good as a positive. I don't think such an assumption can be made. Since the death state would be one where I'd be unable to interpret my utility, I can't say it's worse or better than any relative payoff in any given state. We could "practically" assign it a value of 0, and say "not existing is functionally equivalent to being indifferent between living and dying." But again, I don't think we can assign it because it's not a "meaningful" assignment. I do not feel happiness or sadness in the death state.

BUT! What I *can* do is assign utility to the ENTERING of this state FROM the life state, which I can interpret. In other words, analyzing the utility of entering a state where I am unable to interpret anything.

If EU(Living) > 0,
this means p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 + ... + pnxn, the sum of all probabilities of certain payoffs occurring multiplied by their relative utility payoffs, across all possible actions we can take over all time points in our life, is positive. Which means we find living to be a good option -- we are experiencing something that makes us happy.

However, I know that death and life states are mutually exclusive. To enter the death state, I know I am giving up ALL possible utility payoffs for ALL other actions.

Therefore:
EU(Entering the death state) = (probability that I will enter the death state)*(payoff of entering the death state, including giving up life-state utility)

The death state (the other decision against the life state) has an uncertain payoff, whereas I know that ENTERING the death state means I am giving up a positive utility value. Even if I were a risk-neutral individual, indifferent between a guaranteed payoff and a payoff with equal expected value, I'd still have no basis for comparison. As a risk-averse human, I am unwilling to forgo this utility since I do not have multiple trials to regain back any utility I lose. If I die, that's it. No "retries" to see if I get a better utility. With a state of 100% uncertainty, the variance/SD/risk is not even able to be calculated -- it's literally infinitely risky. Even if expected values for events are the same, it does not mean the risk profiles are the same. With an event that only has a span of one trial, it's literally the biggest risk I can possibly take in the life state. You are *giving up* all positive utility values to enter an uncertain death state with infinite variance. Essentially, I know that by entering the death state, I will be giving up happiness, entering a state where I can not interpret utility. That, in itself, has a negative utility to me.

Since, then EU(entering death state) < 0, I don't choose it.

Therefore, it is worth living.

Sooo, that's my "mathematical/statistical" approach to proving why I would rather be alive than to not be alive.

It's a hugely longwinded way of saying "If I'm satisfied with how things are going in life, why give them up to enter an uncertain state? It's too risky."




Something interesting to consider:
What if EU(Living) < 0? This means, what if, on average, we are unhappy with our life? Entering the death state would then technically mean "giving up an average unhappiness." In this case, the utility of entering the death state is positive. We see happiness in giving up unhappiness.

So, does this mean that when we are sad, we should kill ourselves?

My answer to this is simply, not necessarily. Expected Utility, as I am describing it, is describing all events over a lifetime. Even if we have one bad event in our life, it may be counterweighted by future events of greater utility. I think if someone wishes to take their life, they are personally okay to do so. However, I'd only take my life if I were able to estimate that I'd be living a lifetime of unhappiness with no hope of gaining happiness -- if I were to actually estimate that my EU(Living) < 0.

The thing is, people who are sad fail to realize that there are always other options. Looking at the extreme scenario, if you're sad about how your life is going, then it is logically better to completely overhaul your life and take a huge risk in the life state as opposed to entering an infinitely riskier death state. Even something like quitting your job, changing your lifestyle drastically, starting your life and friend/family base from scratch, and moving to a completely new area is a better way to remove unhappiness and potentially gain happiness.

As silly as it sounds, this is the reasoning that has kept me from committing suicide once. After my father passed away, a lot of things became really messed up for me. I came very close, one time, to killing myself. However, I reasoned that it would be better to, at the VERY least, take some large risks in my life to try to feel better than it would be to die. Going into a state of nonexistence is foolish when there are potential options in life I have not yet tried. I would only kill myself if, estimated over my lifetime, I would, with sufficient evidence, not be able to pursue those options, where EU(Life)<0.

So, for most people, technically, EU(Life) is positive, even for the depressed. Just because you don't consider or understand your options doesn't mean they aren't still viable options. When you're alive, you literally have a nearly infinite range of possible routes to choose. If your life absolutely sucks, you're better off switching to a completely new route. A lot of suicidal people simply didn't do this. They may have put too much weight on locally-negative events and unreasonably assumed it made EU(life)<0. I simply can't imagine how EU(life) could be less than 0 unless you were, say, either a slave with no hope of escape faced with constant torture, or someone who, in some freak accident, lost their site/hearing/legs/arms or something. Things would have to be pretty bad for you to be UNABLE to go out and seek positive utility. It's everywhere, in many forms, and within many options.

[OrganisM]

Once you're dead, you're dead, so you might as well pass go and collect $200 for another 'round the bend.

[TheRapingDragon]

Originally Posted by wwwJ4mmYcouk

You don't know what its like not to be alive

Yes you do. You were "not alive" the whole time before your conception and birth. It is merely because in a physical alive state you cannot comprehend or acknowledge this previous non-existence.

Same way when you die you will never perceive your non-existence but will instead merely cease to exist.

The two can never co-exist in a single "knowledgeable thought".