Messages In This Thread

Chemoeum · (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 07:09 AM by Chemoeum.)

Well , let's see... For choice 1, it's like a 0% chance of keeping your normal, but a 100% chance of actually being alive. Choice 2, I'd die or I'd live my same life I have now.

So, choice 1 suggests that if I have a life now, unhappy or successful, I'd have another go to my life. I could do more good into the world, or completely the opposite. Maybe even neutral. An example scenario, I could have a good life with a family, and my mind goes totally different. My family may not get used to the new me, and I would not know them the same way I did in my other me. What's the point of living anymore if you cannot live it anymore? Another scenario, you may end up with a better life in another way, being able to accomplish many great things for mankind. Or another scenario, you could develop a much worse life, for much of mankind and yourself. What if others knew you as a bad person in your old you but you become a good person, and no one gave you that chance to let them see that?

So, no.

I could gamble on my life painlessly if I wanted to. The last thing I want now is pain. Hmm...

Now that I think about it, why do we live? If we are doing good for man, why are we even doing it? Why does life need to be good or bad? There's no point into it except for the want to actually do it. Everything is literally based on want. It's weird.

#SeriousPhilosophicalChoice2

(02-05-2014 06:56 AM)joelduque Wrote: If given the choice, I would not choose. Why would I pick an option with a not so acceptable component?

(02-05-2014 04:00 AM)TheGreatErenan Wrote: ... but I am asking this question for a real purpose related to research, so if you don't mind, I'd really appreciate your honest response.