No one is either good nor evil.  Some do more good in this world and some do more harm, and that eventually works its consequences, but we evolve and learn and become (not necessarily for the better) as time passes.

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I think mind is a spiritual thing divorced from my body and that goes on after my body dies.  That explains a lot, especially how it is that my mind experiences its existence, such as the terrible itch on the scab on my knee  I got being reckless on a bicycle -- what is an "itch" anyway and how in creation can molecules and electrons moving around generate this experience in my mind?

The rest of the time I realize that if I get Alzheimer's or something like that my mind will dissolve, so it seems a good predictor of what will happen when I die, and even though the experience of "qualia" is a more difficult problem than the typical materialist is capable of understanding, the fact that I see no way to understand it doesn't mean there can't be a way.

Quanta and so on are fascinating but seem irrelevant to all this.  More important is the old criticism of Cartesian Dualism, how does mind move the body?

It enters my mind that if you believe in the Devil or in demons or whatever you admit or presume that "evil" is a real thing, and have the burden of showing that this is so.

Now, lots of bad things happen to all of us.  Typhoons blow, volcanoes erupt, diseases come and we age and die.  None of that, though, is "evil."  It is just what is -- and all have both good and bad aspects to them, depending on viewpoint.

People too do bad things -- they steal and kill and whatever.  Do these things have a good aspect?   I rather think not -- some more subtle perspective is needed -- the harm the criminal does harms the victim and also harms the criminal (in either a karmic way or in the Western sense of accumulating sins).  We know, however, that the criminal is motivated mainly by the same sorts of desires and drives that motivates all of us to do bad things -- they are just less inhibited, perhaps, or less intelligent (they don't get away with it).  I find it hard to say that my impulses -- my ambition, my pride, my libido, my desire to have others like me, and so on.  These are desires derived from the subconscious -- even deeper down -- and evolved as instincts that get modified and made acceptable by our acculturation and morals and so on, and it is hard to say that an instinct evolved for natural reasons (survival of genes) is somehow "evil," even though sometimes it leads to harm.

It's really easy -- never believe anything without good reason for believing it, and the more outlandish the thing the stronger the reasons have to be.  The secret to successfully employing this rule to reach any sort of truth is rigid honesty with oneself and complete suppression of what we would like to be the case in favor of what really is the case.

There is nothing wrong with beautiful churches (nor any kind of beautiful building, including beautiful jails and beautiful garbage dumps), nor with beautiful music (although if the only motive is being beautiful, the music quickly gets boring), nor beautiful anything.  Nor is there anything wrong with well put-together speeches and rallies and rituals and so on.  The thing to remember is that there is a thin line between persuasion and indoctrination -- when it comes to bringing people around to our point of view, reason is really the only justifiable method.  The rest is fine as entertainment but essentially corrupt as persuasion.

Advertising is probably the worst offender here -- TV is the boob tube for good reason -- it is designed for boobs -- people who are persuaded by cute babies and puppies and stirring music and hyperbole and little play-acts and so on (and pseudo-scientific claims).

Religion also engages in this sort of persuasion, as well as the propaganda techniques known as stacking the deck (failure to mention problems with one's argument) and bandwagon (making one's views seem heretical and even evil).

And of course there are politicians -- with flags and bunting in the background and bands playing patriotic music and the husband and wife and darling family all there smiling.  Ugh it makes me ill that this sort of thing actually gets votes, but nothing like the literature and advertising they put out -- especially the "negative" ads that imply ugly things about the opponent just shy of slander, it being well known that people tend to lose interest in a candidate attacked that way and even though they may not vote for the person producing the garbage they may not vote at all, and that is what the garbage hauler intends anyway.   Of course the fact that such things work has soured me on democracy as a method of government anyway.

It seems to me possible that as computer science advances and we get better and better at simulating things, that someday we will simulate an entire universe (in its own set of dimensions so it won't get in anyone's way -- of course the computer would generate the appearance of dimensions -- there would be no need to actually create them).

Given that this is a possibility, and given that anything possible must necessarily happen given time, and given that in any such simulation intelligences would in turn evolve who would in time begin to make their own simulations (simulations inside simulations etc.), it begins to get scary.

In fact, it would seem we are almost certainly, given the laws of probability, inside such a chain of simulations now.

One sometimes reaches a point with someone where they just say the same things over and over and seem to be incapable of either learning anything or of thinking outside their particular box.  They are a waste of time and all one can say is one is glad they don't have inquisitional power.

It is interesting that some people ossify like that and others don't.  I know I have opinions now I never imagined I would have even five years ago.  I think the difference is how one forms one's views (by using what one has been indoctrinated to -- "beliefs," or by using reason and evidence -- "opinions"), and whether one sees one's views as "faith" or as opinion.  Those of the first group seem to have just too much arrogance to admit they might be wrong, and cover it with "faith" to prevent such a thought.

Rereading the above paragraph a weakness in what I said needs dealing with -- how can a thinking adult be "indoctrinated" against reason?  Of course most of it is desire -- they find a view exciting or desirable or something they wish were true -- but the main reason is they become persuaded by non-rational means -- appeals to emotions such as testimonials and beautiful churches and music and patriotism and tradition and authority (the list seems endless).  There is only one valid reason to form an opinion -- evidence and its proper application.

God has to be "human like" (anthropomorphic) in some sense or he cannot be "God."  For example God has to be a person -- if he is a process or a natural phenomenon or a machine then he does not qualify for divinity.

So also, he has to be purposeful -- have objectives and do things -- not just sit like King Log.  Otherwise of what possible interest to us could he be?

But then God must also be some things that are very not-human, such as omnipotent.  If there are limits on God's power then again he is not God, even though he may be powerful and seem omnipotent to us, if he is not truly omnipotent then he is only superman.

And, again, for much the same reason, he must be omniscient -- although that leads logically to a King Log -- but still I don't see how a being that doesn't know everything that is and will go on can be said to be divine.

These things lead to all sorts of logical contradictions, and I have to say I would say that to be God he would have to be free of such contradictions and truly consistent.

Long ago I realized that such a being is just human nonsense, and I think most people do, even theists, since they tend to hedge their definition of God so as to make him fit logical necessity -- although when you think about it that is not only dishonest but a bit much.  And, of course, superman always is lurking about.

And of course God must be both perfect (which means he can only do that which is perfect) and at the same time have unlimited free will.  Huh?  God can't lie as that would be imperfect but he has to or his will would be limited.  My word the contortions theists go through to deal with this bit of plain logic.

How arrogant of me to say what God is and what God isn't.  Well that coin has two sides.

"Free will" is a tough one.  I think it has to be real, at least now and then, but I can see no logical way it could be and asserting it leads to logical contradictions (something "chosen" but remaining without cause and not random).

Of course as I have said before, the fact that I can see no way something could be the way it is may only mean a lack of imagination or insight on my part and proves nothing.

I hate to tell everyone this but there is no such thing as "new blood."  It's an illusion invented by each generation so as to look down on their predecessors.  Human beings stay pretty much the same, with a few cultural tweaks here and there that cycle (what was hip to your grandparents was old hat to your parents and is hip to you) and of course we do evolve, but that takes millions of years.

I read Socratic dialogues and have no difficulty, separated a whole world and several thousand years from them, fully understanding their motives and humor and relationships and so on.  Part of that no doubt is Plato's genius, but still it tells me people everywhere and every-when are pretty much the same.

We do not need new people every generation (although I must say I like children so a world without them would be lacking) to keep things fresh.  We just need seriously enforced term limits.

I tend to think that if technology solves the aging problem that in itself will solve a lot of other problems.  We would of course have to have a sustainable economy recycling and using only the energy of the sun (in its various forms) and we would of course have to be sure everyone is part of the package, not just the wealthy.  I tend to think we are making good progress if you look at the statistics around the world, but have a way to go.

We will never live forever -- just indefinitely.  That, I have to keep repeating, since it doesn't seem to sink in.

There is a more serious danger I might predict if death from aging were to stop.  We would still be exposed to accidents, and there is a set of personality traits that make one more likely to die accidentally -- the thrill of taking risks, criminality, immediate gratification, and so on.  These people would selectively die out more than those who are more conservative -- leading over a few thousand years to an extremely conservative, risk-averse population.  This does not sound good.

If one would be happy one must not be attached to things -- to material possessions, to those we love, to our nation or religion or ideology, not even to our own personal existence -- this is all because nothing is permanent and we therefore necessarily must suffer when they go away if we are attached to them.

This is good advice, if taken in moderation (another Buddhist rule, but really a common sense one that most religions have, the middle way) -- don't be grasping -- let go when the time comes and one suffers less.  I see the grief at death so common in the West that is just not expressed here -- people here do let go.  Hard to explain.

This is all fine and I am so immersed into this kind of thinking that I can't avoid bringing up Buddhism in this context, even though I think it, or at least it, as it is often interpreted, is wrong.  The prescription for happiness may be not to grasp, but maybe it doesn't so much say we shouldn't hold while we can -- why be unhappy just to be sure one is never unhappy?

This is however a digression from my point.  What I wanted to talk about is overcoming aging and ultimately death through technology and medicine and what I see holding up the research in these areas that is of a superstitious and religious nature -- that death is somehow "natural" or a good thing.  That barrier cannot be overcome until we realize that it is wrong, and evil, and in fact probably the greatest single evil in the world.

It seems to me it requires an anti-intellectual bent (I think more common in the States than in Asia where scholarship is honored) to be a Christian nowadays.  Christianity runs so counter in its very nature to what we have learned about cause and effect (no curses, no original sin, no demon possession) as well as to what we know about nature (species are not fixed, it is possible to change genetic makeup of organisms artificially) and of course what we know about the mind (no soul).

Those who want to believe can do so in spite of modern knowledge only by holding their hands over their eyes and ears (sorry that takes four hands to do well) and refusing to hear.

The willingness to believe what we want to believe without evidence or even in the face of evidence is I suppose a form of insanity, although I always chalked it up to being just a bad case of dishonesty.

God, being benevolent, created evil so we could appreciate and enjoy good.  God, being malevolent, created evil just naturally.  It seems that we get the same world whether God is one or the other.

It is incumbent on us to live healthy lives and to teach our children to do the same, but when it comes to other people I've always kept my mouth shut.  That is their business and just as I stay out of their morals I stay out of what they eat or smoke or whatever.  (As a matter of fact as part of trying to avoid being judgmental I don't even pay attention to such things).

Now regarding some of the responses I've gotten, a lot of people don't get it and keep with the mantra that everything dies therefore it is not an evil and further that therefore we must die.  This is an empirical conclusion, but not one that is a logical necessity, and one I think that if minds could be changed and resources accordingly redirected could be fixed.

My point (agenda) here has been more limited -- just to get people to see that death is wrong.  Not that suicide and self-sacrifice are always wrong (wrongs often have worse wrongs to override them) but that all else being equal death is wrong.

I read a novel the other day about a woman who jumped off a bridge in London and became the goddess of the Thames -- the old god had abandoned the place as too polluted.  Of course the Thames is now one of the cleanest industrial rivers on earth, and she took credit for it -- the pollution was not something that "just has to be accepted," but a wrong that people can do something to fix.

Over the years I've discovered to be wary of wishful thinking.  We know unconsciousness is possible since we sleep and so on, and it sure seems to have been our state prior to birth.

Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and find an afterlife as is so widely imagined.  I have to say though that it is just as possible, if our spirit survives our body, that we will find ourselves in a state of suspended nothingness, with the desires of people but no sensory input and no way to move or do anything (disembodied spirit -- not far removed from the Buddhist concept of "hungry ghost").

The ancient Stoics made the point that since death is nothingness it holds no terrors, nothing to fear.  Somehow I miss the point here.  Obviously I won't know what I'm missing, but now I do know what I will miss and I don't want to.

Oh, well, in the meantime life goes on.