>>The logical thing to do when one has the idea of jumping out of an airplane, is to lay down until the urge passes.
>
>
>In your conclusion.
>
>I claim that your conclusion is the result of some of your assumptions, beliefs, and desires (most importantly your desire to live another 20 years).
>
>You don't seem keen to accept that.
>
>I'm not sure why though.

No, no. I agree with that wholeheartedly. What I don't agree with is the idea that it is a logical rather than emotional/psychological conclusion. The desire to live longer is rooted in our emotions and psychology. The application of the science of logic should derive the same conclusions regardless of who is applying it. If it doesn't, then it isn't really a science, and if it's not a science, then it's not logic. My contention is simple. If the logic derives different conclusions to the same data for different people, then it's either bad logic, or it's emotion.

I want to live forever. If that conclusion comes from the application of pure logic, then your applying logic to the same set of data should result in your wanting me to live forever too. In fact it should result in our wanting everyone to live forever. That, of course makes no sense since logic actually says that everyone must die at some point or the human race would become untenable.

Bottom line is, emotionally I'd like to live forever. Logically it makes no sense at all.

>
>
>>But to argue that it is an act based in the science of logic seems to be stretching the definition some to me.
>
>The pursuit of happiness, and to some this would include sky diving, is most certainly a science.