I haven’t started lifelogging, due to largely having other priorities, and lifelogging being kinda weird, and me not viscerally caring about my own death that much.
But I think this post makes a compelling case that if I did care about those things, having lots of details about who-I-am might matter. In addition to cryonics, I can imagine an ancestor resurrection process that has some rough archetypes of “what a baseline human of a given era is like”, and using lifelog details to fill in the gaps.
I’m fairly philosophically confused about how much to value my own life, and about whether to care about ancestor simulations (but I put moderate probability, at least 5%?) on them being morally or intellectually important. And I think it might be valuable not just for individuals but for society as a whole to be better preserving private details of our lives.
(I had kinda assumed this post was written by Mati Roy, who actively lifelogs and who I credit with getting me to take the idea more seriously. Turns out it was by Matthew Barnet instead. But I wanted to give a shoutout to Mati as well)
I can imagine an ancestor resurrection process that has some rough archetypes of “what a baseline human of a given era is like”, and using lifelog details to fill in the gaps.
One underappreciated part of “natural abstractions” and blessings of scale, as well as the general success of unsupervised learning and the continued intrusion of deep learning into neuroscience to revolutionize neuroimaging interpretation/control, is that it lends strong support to beta uploads: it seems like a large part of the brain really is just a huge pile of unsupervised learning of the world & body, which is both common to any functioning human and unrelated to what we see as personal identity. The distinguishing bits are much more on the surface-level in terms of preferences, personality, and autobiography. So human identities are much simpler and low-information than they look, making recovery of the differences between people much much easier.
I haven’t started lifelogging, due to largely having other priorities, and lifelogging being kinda weird, and me not viscerally caring about my own death that much.
But I think this post makes a compelling case that if I did care about those things, having lots of details about who-I-am might matter. In addition to cryonics, I can imagine an ancestor resurrection process that has some rough archetypes of “what a baseline human of a given era is like”, and using lifelog details to fill in the gaps.
I’m fairly philosophically confused about how much to value my own life, and about whether to care about ancestor simulations (but I put moderate probability, at least 5%?) on them being morally or intellectually important. And I think it might be valuable not just for individuals but for society as a whole to be better preserving private details of our lives.
(I had kinda assumed this post was written by Mati Roy, who actively lifelogs and who I credit with getting me to take the idea more seriously. Turns out it was by Matthew Barnet instead. But I wanted to give a shoutout to Mati as well)
One underappreciated part of “natural abstractions” and blessings of scale, as well as the general success of unsupervised learning and the continued intrusion of deep learning into neuroscience to revolutionize neuroimaging interpretation/control, is that it lends strong support to beta uploads: it seems like a large part of the brain really is just a huge pile of unsupervised learning of the world & body, which is both common to any functioning human and unrelated to what we see as personal identity. The distinguishing bits are much more on the surface-level in terms of preferences, personality, and autobiography. So human identities are much simpler and low-information than they look, making recovery of the differences between people much much easier.