25 replies to this topic

[enigma]

Cant sleep, just thought I might ask you guys something which is perhaps a little unsettling.

Each person is in a continuous state of change, cells die and copies are made to replace them. If a person is 20, when they are 80 they have not a single cell in their body that was alive from when they were 20. The 20 year old is already dead, each cell that existed in that 20 year old is dead, some copies would have been made of memories, distant and distorted but recent memories tend to gain emphasis. If you are an immortalist, you likely do not believe in the soul, so what is the value in future life when that life is not carried out by any aspect of you other than a distorted copy? Just because a person dies no discrete death, does not mean they do not die a continuous death, they are continuously being replaced by new cells, not repaired. They die no discrete death because the process is gradual/painless and unnoticeable, though when you have no cell in you alive, you are dead, so this can classify as a death.

Now, as for immortalism, the hypothetical situation where you may live to 1000, what in common does that 1000 year old share with when they were 20? They share no cells, they probably don’t share the same goals or the same view points. Many years ago what shaped the 1000 year old has almost no effect on how they see things today, again how is the 1000 year old of any value to the 20 year old, sharing not the same cells, only copies of cells that are long dead and copies of distorted memories?

Now perhaps we could prevent our views and goals from changing somehow but what is the value on being a brick throughout time, unchanging?

This is why immortality has never been attractive to me.

[mike]

Enigma,

Let's say you are 80 years old, and in excellent health. Do you think that you would want to stop living at that point just because you might feel you have little in common with the Enigma who once existed as a six-year-old child?

Mike

[jaydfox]

Well, different people have different views. I'm a very different person from who I was 15 years ago, but there is still something to me that I consider unique and unchanging. I used to call it my soul, but now I don't know quite what to call it. I don't think that an "exact" copy of me, atom for atom, electron for electron, spin-state for spin-state, would be "me", and I don't think that the version of me from half a second ago, which is VERY different on the finest scales, is not "me" (i.e. I think it's "me"). So there is something to me that goes beyond the physical description of atoms and spin-states, let alone beyond large-scale cellular structures and inter-neural connections.

I'm probably not unique in my opinion, but I'm defintely very different from many others here. To me, it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific question, even if some scientists/immortalists/psychologists think that science ultimately will trump philosophy and make it irrelevant, or at least subsume it.

I believe there is a core to me that would make a copy of me not me, and that allows the continuously changing and "dying" me to still be me. For me, that is what living forever is worth fighting for. If I didn't believe in that uncopyable core, I'd probably be mostly interested in living a really long time, but wouldn't see the need to live forever, since as you say, that person wouldn't be me.

However, that person who isn't really me would also want to live a lot longer, before becoming someone else who would also want to live a lot longer, so I can see that at any given point, even a million years from now, the being that evolved from me would want to live a lot longer. But if there were no core to me, I don't know that I would see forever as a necessary goal, just a really long time.

Of course, I don't see that I necessarily wouldn't see forever as a necessary goal. Sounds like circular logic. Anyway, like I said, just wanting to live longer, and knowing that that my various future selves will most likely want to live longer, ad infinitum, seems to me to be prototypical of immortalism. So even if there weren't a core to me that's uniquely mine, I think immortalism is still a valid position, and hence I can respect people who don't believe in such a core as immortalists.

[kevin]

Our physical bodies are constantly changing. The only thing we have in common with any of our previous selves from moment to moment is experience. The further we get away from an earlier self temporally, the more the difference we will see. I certainly would not want to be the same person I was when I was three or even twenty. I am looking forward to how I am going to change as I get older though. How do you know that you would not want to be the person you would grow into if you managed to make it to a thousand?

[DJS]

I personally do not believe in a soul, or for that matter any nonphysical phenomenon of significance. From my perspective I see human beings as physical patterns of information; constantly changing and adapting to the world around them. Our adaptability (and malleablity) is part of what I think defines us as "living".

Most scientists and philosophers would agree that it is not the particular atoms or molecules that combine to form your body that define who you are. In fact, I believe that one could make a serious philosophical case that there is no legitimate ontological difference between one hydrogen atom and another.

Therefore there is definitely a certain validity to the "continuity of consciousness" argument, though it should be prefaced that such a line of reasoning offers no evidence one way or the other as to whether temporal lapse in this continuity destroy some essential aspect of the self.

An interesting and I believe separate point which you bring up is the imperfect nature of human memory storage and retrieval. Now while there are many philosophical arguments out there that try to rationalize or explain away the gradual fading of our memories I personally do not buy into any of them.

Our imperfect memories and the nearly ubiquitous mental degradation that we all experience is entirely a product of our shared biological legacy. I do not disagree with you that the "Don Spanton Age 10" has faded nearly into oblivion. I find this fact to be most regrettable, though at the current time an unescapable reality. Alas, it is a universal aspect of the *human condition*.

Hopefully, in the future we will be able to remedy this situation by merging with our technology, thus fundamentally altering/replacing our substrate and improving our cognitive capacities (and with it the integrity, depth and scope of the "self") to an extent that at present can only scarcely be imagined.

[eternaltraveler]

when they are 80 they have not a single cell in their body that was alive from when they were 20. The 20 year old is already dead, each cell that existed in that 20 year old is dead, some copies would have been made of memories, distant and distorted but recent memories tend to gain emphasis.

This is not true. Neurons from when they were 20 are still alive, they might have less of them, but they are still the same ones (primarily).

And as for memories of your 20 year old self being distant and distorted; according to my grandfather (who is 85) he can remember those better than he can remember yesterday, and I sure remember almost as much about when i was 10 as I did when I was 12. That kid isn't dead, he's grown into my present self.

Memory is a powerful tool, technology will only improve it and allow more of our present selves to survive into the indeterminate future.

[DJS]

Memory is a powerful tool, technology will only improve it and allow more of our present selves to survive into the indeterminate future.

Yes Elrond, that's basically what I am trying to say.

[Infernity]

Oh gee, can't people go through the site before asking such questions...?

I should now look among hundreds of posts were are all the answers to that and the next questions it will probably make you ask, but I'm way to broken at the moment.

Not wanting to live forever is like wanting to suicide.

Damn I'll stop before I'll put myself into deja vu.

~Infernity

[enigma]

Let's say you are 80 years old, and in excellent health. Do you think that you would want to stop living at that point just because you might feel you have little in common with the Enigma who once existed as a six-year-old child?

No, im not saying this. If immortality was an accessible option, at any point I would take that option. At any point we are as much ourselves as ever, though at 100, It is my estimate that I will be a vastly different entity when compared to at present. And, for example if immortality became an option to that 100 year old (future me) its value would be great to him, though to the present me its value would be small. Its value would be declining logarithmic to me at any a specific point

I suppose it was implied in my thread title that I would not want immortality, though this is not the case, Its just the case that I don’t see much value in it.

How do you know that you would not want to be the person you would grow into if you managed to make it to a thousand?

It may be that I would want to be that person, though if I was ever that future person, I would cease to be the person that aspired to be the future person, a form of death.

I certainly would not want to be the same person I was when I was three or even twenty

I would not wish to be the me that existed when I was younger either, because they are different from the present us.

Most scientists and philosophers would agree that it is not the particular atoms or molecules that combine to form your body that define who you are

True, but if you were cloned exactly, molecule-to-molecule would you value that clone as much as yourself?

, in the future we will be able to remedy this situation by merging with our technology, thus fundamentally altering/replacing our substrate and improving our cognitive capacities

Good point, in the mean time there’s nootropics

This is not true. Neurons from when they were 20 are still alive, they might have less of them, but they are still the same ones (primarily).

I don’t debate neurons, but individual cells that compose those neurons?

Oh gee, can't people go through the site before asking such questions...?

If similar questions have been asked already, then I regret posting.

Not wanting to live forever is like wanting to suicide.

At no point will I ever not see the same amount of value in ongoing life, never wanting to not live forever.

[Mark Hamalainen]

neurons

are cells

[enigma]

QUOTE
neurons
are cells

The correct word I should have used would be atoms, though in 1000 years how many neurons would we have that were the same as when we were 20?

[kevin]

Enigma..

It may be that I would want to be that person, though if I was ever that future person, I would cease to be the person that aspired to be the future person, a form of death.

I agree that if one's memories are in such sad shape that you can't remember being 20 that the continuity of identity is gone and it would be as if that person were dead. Taken from this perspective immortality of the individual is moot in my opinion. However.. even the abscence of memory enhancing technologies, a virtual guarantee even in the short term, you would still be ALIVE with at least some memories and it is unlikely that future you, who won't remember YOU, will want to die. Think about that future you as a child to whom you are giving birth if you want a somewhat uncomfortable analogy. (for an tangential aside.. http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/4624307.stm )

If at this moment the first 20 years of my life were wiped out, I might be sad but it would not make me want to live in the future any less. You see what makes life so interesing is the present, not the past. We only use the past to help us handle the present and anticipate the future. If my memories fade and eventually disappear as I age, I have no doubt that I will be quite happy to make new ones.

[enigma]

if you want a somewhat uncomfortable analogy

You think I am perhaps interested in uncomfortable analogies? No, only of truth and truth above all else, even in those cases when it is not in my self interest to seek truth. That said, the only truth I am sure of is that I know no truth in absolute certainty, other than this sentence.

You see what makes life so interesting is the present, not the past

Absolutely, though the present is always turning into the past.

[DJS]

You think I am perhaps interested in uncomfortable analogies? No, only of truth and truth above all else, even in those cases when it is not in my self interest to seek truth. That said, the only truth I am sure of is that I know no truth in absolute certainty, other than this sentence.

This is a wise and rational way to approach things.

[John Schloendorn]

the only truth I am sure of is that I know no truth in absolute certainty, other than this sentence.

I feel true freedom is to replace "other than" by "including" ;-)

[Infernity]

Heh yep, I'd say Nothing is for sure, everything is possible...

~Infernity

[kevin]

if you want a somewhat uncomfortable analogy

was meant to be funny as giving birth to a child is certainly that.. obviously a little too subtle..

[enigma]

was meant to be funny as giving birth to a child is certainly that.. obviously a little too subtle..

This is fine, no ill will against you.

I think perhaps my original argumentt was more dysphemistic than I would ahave usually posted, perhaps being upset that I could not sleep at the time. Aswell, I am so often wrong in philosophy with new information being revealed each day it would not surprise me if i was completley wrong on this issue.

Good luck to you immortalists, your hopes are not vain or unrealistic

[manowater989]

Without even considering any of the arguments presented in the other posts, and regarding solely the process described in the first: yes, everything would be replaced over time, eventually nothing would be the same. But, exactly as you pointed out, there would be no discrete death, only change which is a "form" of death- to my mind, there is nothing wrong with this, THIS is what I want. As long as *I* continue, from moment to moment, I'm still here, I'm satisfied. To me, anyway, it isn't change but continuity break that represents death, and the terror it holds. That's why most agree that any transition would have to be slow; exact copies of memories and everything are not nearly as significant as an unbroken line of transition. I would rather be me, and be able to look back and be sure that at no point did I stop being me, and remember that and loose some memory of not being able to tie my shoe when I was three, than have something that has that memory but isn't me because at some point there was a brake, and *I* stopped, I died. That new thing didn't become me, that can only happen very slowly, over time, it simply replaced me, and that does me no good.

[signifier]

This is what Marvin Minsky asked in Society of Mind, in chapter 5, Individuality:

"Today, you put some money in the bank in order that sometime later you can take it out. Whenever did that future self do anything so good for you? Is 'you' the body of those memories whose meanings change only slowly? Is it the never-ending side effects of all your previous experience? Or is it just whichever of your agents change the least as time and life proceed?"

Every second, the stuff that makes up my body is changing... atoms are being replaced, cells built from new material, and so on. I am a flowing current, a radiating pattern of matter and energy, distinct at every second from everything I have ever been or anything I will ever become. In the midst of the complexity that is me, where am I?

But let's try not to be too philosophical. I am obviously not the same person I was a few days ago, and the me a few days from now is obviously not exactly me. But they share something in common. As far as I can tell (which is all that matters), I am experiencing the world right now. I am here, I can feel, I can think... and it feels so good to be here, it makes me so happy, that I really don't want to close my eyes and leave all this color and wonder behind for eternal darkness. Even if I'm only looking out for some intangible future self, there will be enough of me in that self for it to matter.

[enigma]

As long as *I* continue, from moment to moment, I'm still here, I'm satisfied.

True, at any point we are as much us as we have ever been, this is possibly the least depressing way to look at it.

Even if individual memories are lost over time, the influence of those memories and experiences on your past decisions led you on course to the development of the present "you"

This is true also, yet in saying this you influence my memory and experience and probably the course of my future actions, but you dont feel my emotions. This would be just as true for a clone redardless as to the extent of the influence, you would not feel their emotion. This holds true for your future self. We never directly feel the emotion of others despite influencing them.

This is what Marvin Minsky asked in Society of Mind, in chapter 5, Individuality:

This argument has probably been independently thought of 5000 times because of its reasonable degree of simplicity. This guys reasoning is the same as the reason why I plan never to save superannuation and to never care about the harmful long term effects of drinking a lot of alcohol [lol]

I have to say this is a much more intelligent forum than any other I have seen, some of what has been argued here is the kind of abstract creativity I have only ever seen when I did philosophy. You must each be taking piracetam.

Edited by enigma, 29 June 2005 - 05:45 PM.

[tous]

Memory - Nice but not neccarcary.
Body - new one old one - I like this one but Ill take what I can get.
Consiousness - This is the gold - your body changes - your memeroy fades - but you are still the same consiousness - some argue this ofcourse - you could say that maby a new consiousness is born each day and maby you just remeber that day before but I dont think that way. This is not to be confused with a soul or anything of this type.

By your logic cloneing would equal immortality. But its not you right just copy. Wich it the same as what your saying about immortality. But again by your logic why keep going after 7 years. (7 years is how long it take for the body to completly replace itself im told - I have no way to check for myself (And I would if I could).

This is all directed toward enigma main question. I have limited time and don't wanna read the rest right now.

(hahahahahaha limited time - on an immortality forum - I made a funny )