Live data from Hacker News

At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

theguardian.com

271–280 of 287 posts

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#271
post #226
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death porn!

You've posted 15 comments in this thread, most of which have been flamebait or outright trolling. You can't do that on HN, whether death is real or not. Please stop.

I am just different from most people.

You see the term is meant to explain how people get enjoyment out of watching these sad stories, but they are just some dysfunctional replacement.

why do people go see sad movies? It is the same thing.

People on here talk about how bad trolls are and then they talk about stoicism and Diogenes. Diogenes would have been banned here as well, called a troll, etc. He pissed in the street like a dog right in front of people!

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#272
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sound just like the argument for the worship of god.

Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents, especially generic flamewar tangents. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's not a generic tangent - it's a direct reference to Pascal's wager [1]. Unfortunately the parent doesn't make their argument any more generic that Pascal's wager itself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#273
post #95
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some nearby introverts quietly disagree then dream of hiking in the mountains in nature. I guess that's a relationship of sorts.

I've never really liked platitudes like "family is everything" and "nothing matters without relationships" -- they don't seem to come from a good place. People who lack these things may enjoy their lives every bit as much, what's the point of denigrating their life?

Likely projecting their own existential fear of loneliness. Fear is not a good place

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#274
post #109

”But everybody dies, and there will always be places and experiences missing from anyone’s life – the world has too much beauty and adventure for one person to see.” Damn gut punch...

Everything he says in his article is more or less true - most of which we all already know.

Maybe the insight is that we forget what's important too frequently, and need a better mechanism to be reminded?

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#275

The nicest bit for me was where he talked about growing old being a privilege and not to lament every grey hair and wrinkle. Puts it in perspective.

As I often say, "Growing old sucks, but it is better than the alternative."* *I can't take credit. I got it from someone else, but I don't remember who.

"who" doesn't matter. We are just meat bags passing on good ideas and thoughts.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#276
post #149

My wife passed this year from cancer. Looking back we had no idea how close we were to the end, and in the last few weeks her beautiful mind was influenced by the disease. I’m sure someone on HN is going through this at least adjacently and my recommendation is to not wait to the end to have important conversations. For those that aren’t going through this now, maybe for a little while live life like you are...it mig…

[deleted]

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on empirical evidence Small nit but my so far amateur understanding of philosophy of mind indicates to me that there isn't empirical evidence connecting Mind to neurochemistry so clearly. Neither, of course, is there any evidence of the reverse, that a non physical Mind can magically influence the physical world through the brain interface. As an atheist, delving into the materialism vs dualism philosophical…

There is solid empirical evidence that every human was created out of basic physical materials (e.g. DNA, proteins). If this is the case, and you believe that every human is conscious then clearly the 'soul' must be derived from these physical materials and the processes which were applied to them.

Human bodies being made from matter does not imply that a hypothetical soul must also be made of physical matter.

It may not be scientific to propose that souls exist independent of matter (it seems a hard hypothesis to confirm or deny experimentally), but an idea does not need to be experimentally testable to be possible.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#278
post #199
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where faith steps in... There is wisdom in the ages that will help you and your daughter. Try and find a pathway of peace and guidance from the universe's deep pool of human experiences.

Appropriate for some people, irrelevant or worse for others. I know you mean well and don’t intend to harsh on you, but I think your statement could much better have started “this is where religion might offer some solace”. Every person has to make a different journey, and no tool is appropriate to everyone.

I am not religious. Never mentioned religion. Only faith and the deep pool of human experiences shared by all people. The fact that you cannot separate the two, is a problem for you and you alone to resolve. Think outside your parameters and you might find new knowledge and growth

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is solid empirical evidence that every human was created out of basic physical materials (e.g. DNA, proteins). If this is the case, and you believe that every human is conscious then clearly the 'soul' must be derived from these physical materials and the processes which were applied to them.

Human bodies being made from matter does not imply that a hypothetical soul must also be made of physical matter. It may not be scientific to propose that souls exist independent of matter (it seems a hard hypothesis to confirm or deny experimentally), but an idea does not need to be experimentally testable to be possible.

It doesn't even need to be that there are "souls," we just need to find a way to explain what Thought is. Saying it's the lights on an MRI aren't good enough - all the MRI tells us is that blood goes to certain parts of the brain during certain thoughts. Just like a radar gun displaying 50MPH isn't the car actually going 50MPH, so too do we need a way to explain what a Thought or Mind actually is.

So far this hasn't happened. If it had, it would be breaking news, because consciousness would be "solved."

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on empirical evidence Small nit but my so far amateur understanding of philosophy of mind indicates to me that there isn't empirical evidence connecting Mind to neurochemistry so clearly. Neither, of course, is there any evidence of the reverse, that a non physical Mind can magically influence the physical world through the brain interface. As an atheist, delving into the materialism vs dualism philosophical…

There is solid empirical evidence that every human was created out of basic physical materials (e.g. DNA, proteins). If this is the case, and you believe that every human is conscious then clearly the 'soul' must be derived from these physical materials and the processes which were applied to them.

> There is solid empirical evidence that every human was created out of basic physical materials (e.g. DNA, proteins)

Correct.

> If this is the case, and you believe that every human is conscious

At the very least, I know I am conscious, but let's continue.

> then clearly the 'soul' must be derived from these physical materials

Too far a stretch.

Mind / Thought / Consciousness is a unique problem. It is the unique problem, one that was carefully separated out at the beginning of the age of enlightenment when scientists carefully defined "qualitative" from "quantitative." Before that, heat was the feeling of heat and nothing else. Now, we can describe the "quantitative" properties of heat, that is, how certain temperatures cause certain materials to react, how biological entities react to heat, etc. That isn't the same thing as saying what it is to experience heat. Even though we can put someone in an MRI and touch a hot poker to their arm and watch the entire neurobiological system react and cause the arm to jolt, we still can't quantify the "experience of feeling heat." It's entirely separate, in fact it's separate in our language and scientific systems by design, because the "experience of feeling heat" is qualitative, it is immeasurable.

This is the split between materialism and dualism. Dualists believe the qualitative and quantitative will never shown to be the same thing, that even if quantitative can affect qualitative (heat causes certain thoughts), and qualitative can affect quantitative (thoughts can manifest real-world actions and consequences), they are fundamentally separate, "made of different stuff" (if consciousness is made of anything at all).

The materialist instinct is strong. As an atheist, I feel it too. Dualism implies magic, doesn't it? And magic isn't real. Perhaps, but not necessarily. Quantum physics can at times feel magic, too.

The long and short of it is you can't assume materialism is correct until the problem is more solved. Despite all these technological advancements in brain imaging technology, the fundamental problem of what is Thought remains. Acknowledging this isn't the same thing as acknowledging the validity of religion, or the possibility of the existence of souls - for example, panpsychism is a dualist hypothesis that states that the core nature of all things is consciousness, and that the more complicated things get, the more "conscious" they get. Considering the human brain is the most complicated thing we're aware of, that is a fairly straightforward and, in my opinion, believable concept. Far more believable than the existence of ghosts.

Post reply on HN