It does ring true to me a bit. How could it not, when one cannot imagine a way to exist forever with sanity? Have you ever stopped to imagine, just relying on your intuition, what would be like to live for a quadrillion years? I’m not talking about a cute few thousand like most people imagine when we talk about immortality. I’m talking about proper gazillions, so to speak. Doesn’t it scare the sh*t out of you? Just like Valentine says in his comment, it’s curious how very few transhumanists have ever stopped to stare at this abyss.
On the other hand I don’t think anyone hates death more than me. It truly makes me utterly depressed and hopeless. It’s just that I don’t see any possible alternative to it. That’s why I’m pessimistic about the matter—both my intuition and reasoning really point to the idea that it’s technological impossible for any conscious being to exist for a quadrillion years, although not to 100% certainty. Maybe 70-80%.
The ideal situation was that we lived forever but only ever remembered a short amount of time, so that we would always feel “fresh” (i.e. not go totally insane). I’m just not sure if that’s possible.
My intuition doesn’t differ much whether it’s a thousand or a quadrillion years. I’m feeling enthusiastic to try to make it work out, instead of being afraid that it won’t.
It’s true that I lack the gear-level model explainig how it’s possible for me to exist for quadrillion years. But neither do I have a gear-level model, explaining how it’s impossible. I know that I still have some confusion about consciousness and identity, but this doesn’t allow me shift the probability either way. For every argument “what if it’s impossible to do x and x is required to exist for quadrillion years” I can automatically construct counter arguments like “what if it’s actually possible to do x” or “what if x is not required”. How do you manage to get 70-80% confidence level here? This sounds overconfident to me.
“I’m feeling enthusiastic to try to make it work out, instead of being afraid that it won’t.”
Well, for someone who’s accusing me of emotionally still defending a wrong mainstream norm (deathism), you’re also doing it yourself by espousing empty positivism. Is it honest to feel enthusiastic about something when your probabilities are grim? The probabilities should come first, not how you feel about it.
“It’s true that I lack the gear-level model explainig how it’s possible for me to exist for quadrillion years.”
Well I do have one to prove the opposite: the brain is finite, and as time tends to infinite so do memories, and it might be impossible to trim memories like we do in a computer without destroying the self.
“For every argument “what if it’s impossible to do x and x is required to exist for quadrillion years” I can automatically construct counter arguments like “what if it’s actually possible to do x” or “what if x is not required”.”
That’s fine! Are we allowed to have different opinions?
“How do you manage to get 70-80% confidence level here? This sounds overconfident to me.”
Could be. I’ll admit that it’s a prediction based more on intuition than reasoning, so it’s not of the highest value anyway.
Well, for someone who’s accusing me of emotionally still defending a wrong mainstream norm (deathism), you’re also doing it yourself by espousing empty positivism.
I wasn’t really planning it as an accusation. It was supposed to be a potentially helpful hint at the source of your cognitive dissonance. Sorry, it seems that I failed to convey it properly.
Is it honest to feel enthusiastic about something when your probabilities are grim? The probabilities should come first, not how you feel about it.
Previously you mentioned being scared due to imagining to live for a quadrillion years. I thought it would be appropriate to share my own emotional reaction as well. I agree that probabilities should go first. And that’s the thing I do not see them as grim. For me it’s more or less 50-50. I’m not competent enough regarding future scientific discoveries and true laws of nature to shift them from this baseline. And I doubt anyone of currently living really is. That’s why I’m surprised by your pessimism.
Well I do have one to prove the opposite: the brain is finite, and as time tends to infinite so do memories, and it might be impossible to trim memories like we do in a computer without destroying the self.
You may notice that the whole argument is based on “it might be impossible”. I agree that it can be the case. But I don’t see how it’s more likely than “it might be possible”.
“You may notice that the whole argument is based on “it might be impossible”. I agree that it can be the case. But I don’t see how it’s more likely than “it might be possible”.”
I never said anything to the contrary. Are we allowed to discuss things that we’re not sure whether it “might be possible” or not? It seems that you’re against this.
It does ring true to me a bit. How could it not, when one cannot imagine a way to exist forever with sanity? Have you ever stopped to imagine, just relying on your intuition, what would be like to live for a quadrillion years? I’m not talking about a cute few thousand like most people imagine when we talk about immortality. I’m talking about proper gazillions, so to speak. Doesn’t it scare the sh*t out of you? Just like Valentine says in his comment, it’s curious how very few transhumanists have ever stopped to stare at this abyss.
On the other hand I don’t think anyone hates death more than me. It truly makes me utterly depressed and hopeless. It’s just that I don’t see any possible alternative to it. That’s why I’m pessimistic about the matter—both my intuition and reasoning really point to the idea that it’s technological impossible for any conscious being to exist for a quadrillion years, although not to 100% certainty. Maybe 70-80%.
The ideal situation was that we lived forever but only ever remembered a short amount of time, so that we would always feel “fresh” (i.e. not go totally insane). I’m just not sure if that’s possible.
My intuition doesn’t differ much whether it’s a thousand or a quadrillion years. I’m feeling enthusiastic to try to make it work out, instead of being afraid that it won’t.
It’s true that I lack the gear-level model explainig how it’s possible for me to exist for quadrillion years. But neither do I have a gear-level model, explaining how it’s impossible. I know that I still have some confusion about consciousness and identity, but this doesn’t allow me shift the probability either way. For every argument “what if it’s impossible to do x and x is required to exist for quadrillion years” I can automatically construct counter arguments like “what if it’s actually possible to do x” or “what if x is not required”. How do you manage to get 70-80% confidence level here? This sounds overconfident to me.
“I’m feeling enthusiastic to try to make it work out, instead of being afraid that it won’t.”
Well, for someone who’s accusing me of emotionally still defending a wrong mainstream norm (deathism), you’re also doing it yourself by espousing empty positivism. Is it honest to feel enthusiastic about something when your probabilities are grim? The probabilities should come first, not how you feel about it.
“It’s true that I lack the gear-level model explainig how it’s possible for me to exist for quadrillion years.”
Well I do have one to prove the opposite: the brain is finite, and as time tends to infinite so do memories, and it might be impossible to trim memories like we do in a computer without destroying the self.
“For every argument “what if it’s impossible to do x and x is required to exist for quadrillion years” I can automatically construct counter arguments like “what if it’s actually possible to do x” or “what if x is not required”.”
That’s fine! Are we allowed to have different opinions?
“How do you manage to get 70-80% confidence level here? This sounds overconfident to me.”
Could be. I’ll admit that it’s a prediction based more on intuition than reasoning, so it’s not of the highest value anyway.
I wasn’t really planning it as an accusation. It was supposed to be a potentially helpful hint at the source of your cognitive dissonance. Sorry, it seems that I failed to convey it properly.
Previously you mentioned being scared due to imagining to live for a quadrillion years. I thought it would be appropriate to share my own emotional reaction as well. I agree that probabilities should go first. And that’s the thing I do not see them as grim. For me it’s more or less 50-50. I’m not competent enough regarding future scientific discoveries and true laws of nature to shift them from this baseline. And I doubt anyone of currently living really is. That’s why I’m surprised by your pessimism.
You may notice that the whole argument is based on “it might be impossible”. I agree that it can be the case. But I don’t see how it’s more likely than “it might be possible”.
“You may notice that the whole argument is based on “it might be impossible”. I agree that it can be the case. But I don’t see how it’s more likely than “it might be possible”.”
I never said anything to the contrary. Are we allowed to discuss things that we’re not sure whether it “might be possible” or not? It seems that you’re against this.