Everyone of us someday will die

[howblackisyourflag]

Yet we never really seem to talk about it.

Whats your opinion of death?

Does knowing about it make you want to see change for future generations?

Do you see yourself as proudly carrying on the work of generations past, carrying the torch of human progress?

Do you just try not to think about it and get on with life?

Do you all secretly believe in transhumanism and we might one day live in a hard drive? :p Do we live there already? :D

[Broletariat]

I'm an Absurdist so I really don't care that much.

[Invincible Summer]

Do you all secretly believe in transhumanism and we might one day live in a hard drive? :p Do we live there already? :D

I'm a transhumanist, no "secret believing" here. So my views on death and existence should be fairly clear.

Mind uploading onto physical hard disks to "back up" our memory/personality is one thing that transhumanists do propose, yes. However, it's not like the H+ dream is to "live in a hard drive" or to simply exist in someone's USB drive. It's really just sci-fi at this point, but I think that uploading to the extent where our personalities that exist as data could be actually sentient, and thus more or less immortal is the ultimate end goal of uploading technologies.

But no we are nowhere near "there" yet. I mean, I suppose one could argue that avatars in games and MMORPGs and the like are "virtual selves." But we still have to control the avatar with our physical bodies, thus the virtual self does not exist if the physical self dies. However, the "social footprint" one leaves behind in the online community could be (this is sort of reaching here) considered sort of a "virtual self," albeit the decaying remnants of one.

[x371322]

I'm in the same boat here as Helios. Even though we're not there yet, I definitely accept that humanity will one day overcome our biological limitations. IE: Death. The human brain is made up of all these electrical signals right? So why can't we just replicate those systems in a computer? Well we're already doing this with mice, and even a cat now I think. We just don't have the computer power, or enough knowledge about the brain, to do it in humans just yet. Once we completely reverse engineer the brain (which will happen in the near future... maybe by 2020 or 2030 or so.) and advance our computing power enough to contain enough information (which we should accomplish this decade, and certainly by 2020), then it'll just be a matter of time before this all becomes reality. Of course at the point it's still science fiction as Helios pointed out. But at one time, and not that long ago, even heart transplants were seen as a frankenstein-ish mad scientist's wet dream, but now are very commonplace. Today's Science Fiction shapes tomorrows Science Reality.

[son of man]

I'm not sure I'd want to be in a computer forever. I think of death as the opposite of birth - a completely natural occurrence.

I think of Freud's reference to those that wish to go on living after death, be it in a computer or in some kind of heaven, that they are indulging in the childhood fantasy of living forever.

[Belisarius]

if you want to know something about the philosophy of death, you should read people like Hiedegger and Camus. Heidegger proclaimed in "being and time" that being-unto-death is what makes us give meaning to our lives. It is because we die that we can perform meaningful acts( imagine e.g. an immortal choosing between two jobs. it won't really be a choice, since if he wishes to correct it, he has all eternity to do so. for him there are no consequences for his choices). if you don't like reading him (which i can understand), De Beauvoir's "tous les hommes sont mortels" explains the same argument in fiction.

Camus on the other hand said that the only real philosophical problem is whether or not we should commit suicide. He thinks life is meaningless, so basically there is no point in living it. we have three options: we can commit suicide, but this would mean we would evade the problem in stead of dealing with it. we can hold on to the illusion life has meaning by slavishly following all kinds of religions or political propagandas, but then we still run away from the problem by delaying it. we can only deal with the problem of the absurdity of life by revolting against it. he calls this "the humanitarian revolt". we need to fight the injustices that show how meaningless life is. His philosophical works are "the myth of sisyphus" and "revolting man", his fiction ("the plague", "the stranger" and "the fall") also has this theme.

[Meridian]

I don't care much about 'death', because I won't be around to experience it.

Dying, on the other hand, seems like a painful process which I would like to avoid as best I can.

"Uploading minds unto a harddisk" sounds like a very vague application of terms. The meaning of the word "mind" is yet to be successfully clarified, from the instance it was first used.


It's really just sci-fi at this point, but I think that uploading to the extent where our personalities that exist as data could be actually sentient, and thus more or less immortal is the ultimate end goal of uploading technologies.I have no idea how the word "sentient" fits in here. Personalities, or 'data', can not be sentient. Moreover, how is it that personalities can exist as data?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not sure I'd want to be in a computer forever. I think of death as the opposite of birth - a completely natural occurrence.

So? "Natural" is not the same thing as "good" or "desireable".


I think of Freud's reference to those that wish to go on living after death, be it in a computer or in some kind of heaven, that they are indulging in the childhood fantasy of living forever.

Some could have said the same thing in the days before human flight. What of it?


if you want to know something about the philosophy of death, you should read people like Hiedegger and Camus. Heidegger proclaimed in "being and time" that being-unto-death is what makes us give meaning to our lives. It is because we die that we can perform meaningful acts( imagine e.g. an immortal choosing between two jobs. it won't really be a choice, since if he wishes to correct it, he has all eternity to do so. for him there are no consequences for his choices). if you don't like reading him (which i can understand), De Beauvoir's "tous les hommes sont mortels" explains the same argument in fiction.

I think Heidegger got it wrong. Shocking, I know. Just because one can change one's mind later on does not mean that either the original choice nor the subsequent change was meaningless. Irreversibility is not the same thing as being meaningful.


Camus on the other hand said that the only real philosophical problem is whether or not we should commit suicide. He thinks life is meaningless, so basically there is no point in living it. we have three options: we can commit suicide, but this would mean we would evade the problem in stead of dealing with it. we can hold on to the illusion life has meaning by slavishly following all kinds of religions or political propagandas, but then we still run away from the problem by delaying it. we can only deal with the problem of the absurdity of life by revolting against it. he calls this "the humanitarian revolt". we need to fight the injustices that show how meaningless life is. His philosophical works are "the myth of sisyphus" and "revolting man", his fiction ("the plague", "the stranger" and "the fall") also has this theme.

Meaning is ultimately anthropogenic. I don't think that necessarily means that life has no meaning, but if we keep in mind that meaning is something we impose on existence as opposed to finding it out there, I don't think we will go too far wrong.

But the anthropogenesis of meaning is why I think the vast majority of discussions over the meaning of life, the universe and everything are pretty useless. Even in Camus' time we did not know as much about the universe as we do know. Why should we even bother listening to people who were not in possession of all the facts?


"Uploading minds unto a harddisk" sounds like a very vague application of terms. The meaning of the word "mind" is yet to be successfully clarified, from the instance it was first used.

If neural activity is simulated to a good enough degree, mind (whatever that happens to be exactly) will be simulated.


I have no idea how the word "sentient" fits in here. Personalities, or 'data', can not be sentient. Moreover, how is it that personalities can exist as data?

How is it that personalities can spring forth from the pounds of mush inside the human skull? All this logomachism seems to me to be avoiding the point that human mental activity is the result of living neural tissue, a physical system that could concievably be simulated to very fine degree of detail.

[Belisarius]

i do think meaning and irriversibility are the same: if i have eternity to make a choice, then why choose at all? There would be no point in doing something. lack of meaning=lack of there being a point in doing something=reversibility. you could say i can live my life equally the same, as if a still am a mortal, but how can we know that for sure? What would life be like, if it didn't have its counterpart, death? I don't think it still would be a life. mortality is exactly what distinguishes us from mere atomic structures, like tables, chairs or computers.

in the case of camus, i agree it is a neverending story to discuss the meaning of life. We just care about things (there's heidegger again) and it's good that we do, otherwise suicide would indeed be the best option. but i don't think that even a much greater understanding of the universe will make it easier for us. our quest for meaning isn't any easier than it was for a greek or a roman, so why would it be for the future generations?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i do think meaning and irriversibility are the same: if i have eternity to make a choice, then why choose at all?

Because you want to do this thing now and that thing later.


There would be no point in doing something. lack of meaning=lack of there being a point in doing something=reversibility. you could say i can live my life equally the same, as if a still am a mortal, but how can we know that for sure? What would life be like, if it didn't have its counterpart, death?

Death isn't the counterpart of life, it is the cessation of life. Life without death would still be life, it just would not cease.


I don't think it still would be a life. mortality is exactly what distinguishes us from mere atomic structures, like tables, chairs or computers.

Not at all. Those things have a finite existence as much as we currently do.


in the case of camus, i agree it is a neverending story to discuss the meaning of life. We just care about things (there's heidegger again) and it's good that we do, otherwise suicide would indeed be the best option. but i don't think that even a much greater understanding of the universe will make it easier for us. our quest for meaning isn't any easier than it was for a greek or a roman, so why would it be for the future generations?

Because we would know more. Knowledge is power, and it being a cliche doesn't make it any less true.

[Belisarius]

1) in infinity there is no now or later.
2) it wouldn't end, but it would end as the life we know.
3)tha's why i said atomic structures. they cease to be tables, but not as atomic structures. they will just form new combinations.
4)with all the power in the world, life is very lonely. i think omnipotence is more of a curse than a blessing. a dutch poet, Kloos, made a poem about that (i'm a god in the deepest corner in my mind)(http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/ljc/kloos/god.html , if you know dutch, otherwise i can translate it for you).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How is it that personalities can spring forth from the pounds of mush inside the human skull? All this logomachism seems to me to be avoiding the point that human mental activity is the result of living neural tissue, a physical system that could concievably be simulated to very fine degree of detail.

But isn't the real problem that, replicating a persons memories and neurological system in an artificial way, still does nothing about the problem that the current person's personality and consciousness are still trapped in the trappings of the body; consequently, what has been achieved is simply a copy, the original will still die, and thus, mortality remains the same.

The problem is then, how to transfer consciousness as well, not just the memories and so on? Would it even be possible without transferring all or parts of the brain itself, etc? Otherwise it would just be a simulated replica, perfect by all obvious means, but not the same as the original.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not sure I'd want to be in a computer forever. I think of death as the opposite of birth - a completely natural occurrence.

We've been postponing death ever since the first remedies and medicines were invented. I think it's more natural to not want to die. If someone was mugging you and held a gun to your head, I'm 90% sure you'd say "Don't kill me!" and not "Go ahead, I'm going to die eventually anyway." :p


I think of Freud's reference to those that wish to go on living after death, be it in a computer or in some kind of heaven, that they are indulging in the childhood fantasy of living forever.

I personally am more in favor of mind uploading as a way to "backup" memories, or to "keep" a dying loved one in some form. The immortality aspect of it is really just sci-fi and will be for a long time IMO. I think that, realistically, when most transhumanists refer to "living forever" it really just means a highly extended lifespan and healthspan (the length of time one has good health)... say 200+ years or something (arbitrary number). This is mainly to be more grounded in reality, as to avoid the depressing fact that lots of H+ goals have to "wait" for technological advancement which may take awhile.

[Mumbles]

To me death is natural. Although I do fear it a bit because I wish I could live forever, that's just self-preservation speaking.

While the transhumanist stuff would make sense if we ever got the point where we were technologically able to do it, I don't think it'd be the same because we ourselves wouldn't be experiencing it I don't think. (correct me if I'm wrong in how transhumanists propose to upload the mind into the computers) But I just see it as if we were creating an eternal clone of ourselves, it wouldn't be our personal experiences in it and we wouldn't experience what it does. This is basically what Takayuki above mentions.

But if we don't reach the transhumanist level in my lifetime, I just view my life as part of the ongoing evolution of information. I hope that my life will add to the knowledge of scientific things so as to add to the total of information. My genes will possibly pass on and my children will just be the next of the species. It's inevitable that I'm going to die so I don't disillusion myself with ideas of eternal existence.

[Invincible Summer]

But isn't the real problem that, replicating a persons memories and neurological system in an artificial way, still does nothing about the problem that the current person's personality and consciousness are still trapped in the trappings of the body; consequently, what has been achieved is simply a copy, the original will still die, and thus, mortality remains the same.

The problem is then, how to transfer consciousness as well, not just the memories and so on? Would it even be possible without transferring all or parts of the brain itself, etc? Otherwise it would just be a simulated replica, perfect by all obvious means, but not the same as the original.

Well, there are some transhumanists that suggest mind uploading would be a permanent thing. That is, once you upload your mind, you have not made a "replica," but rather fully transformed it into data. Therefore, your flesh body no longer has any consciousness - it is "dead."

But in terms of "copying," I don't see how this detracts from anything. The physical body may die, sure, but if "who we are" is retained, isn't that what most people worry about? When we talk about fearing death, is it not the fear of losing the ability to experience things? Just because we do not have a muscle-and-bone body does not mean an uploaded consciousness would be prohibited from experiencing life. When the time comes for such advanced mind uploading to be available, I'm sure there would be tech to allow transfer of said consciousness onto some sort of robotic body.


To me death is natural. Although I do fear it a bit because I wish I could live forever, that's just self-preservation speaking.

While the transhumanist stuff would make sense if we ever got the point where we were technologically able to do it, I don't think it'd be the same because we ourselves wouldn't be experiencing it I don't think. (correct me if I'm wrong in how transhumanists propose to upload the mind into the computers) But I just see it as if we were creating an eternal clone of ourselves, it wouldn't be our personal experiences in it and we wouldn't experience what it does. This is basically what Takayuki above mentions.


I would like to make it clear that not all transhumanists are for mind uploading, nor is it the ultimate goal of transhumanism. It is just a proposed idea, probably one of the more extreme ones in the H+ catalogue.

Transhumanist ideas and actions range from taking supplements to enhance one's physical functioning, to making advanced prostheses widely available (maybe even desirable as replacements for able-bodied people), to augmented reality devices, to more extreme things such as mind uploading.

Transhumanism is basically a philosophy that proposes that humans take advantage of technology and use it to make our species *more* than what our natural bodies allow (hence trans humanism).


But if we don't reach the transhumanist level in my lifetime, I just view my life as part of the ongoing evolution of information. I hope that my life will add to the knowledge of scientific things so as to add to the total of information. My genes will possibly pass on and my children will just be the next of the species. It's inevitable that I'm going to die so I don't disillusion myself with ideas of eternal existence.

I don't think - especially at this point - many transhumanists "disillusion" themselves either. Since H+ is based in science, transhumanists should be aware of the limits of what we can achieve within the near future, and what is just science fiction yet something we should strive to create (e.g. nanobots, mind uploading).

Again, I'm sure most transhumanists - given today's technology - would be happy with even extending the human lifespan and healthspan. Even if it's to allow people to live at the prime of their health until they are 100, 150, then that's already a huge step.

[Stand Your Ground]

Death seems very overwhelming. The people you don't wanna leave behind, the people you don't wanna live without...

:(

We want world revolution, but we don't want to die getting it to happen, we want to see the result...we don't want to die in vain...

[Invincible Summer]

Death seems very overwhelming. The people you don't wanna leave behind, the people you don't wanna live without...

:(

We want world revolution, but we don't want to die getting it to happen, we want to see the result...we don't want to die in vain...

This is why I think embracing death is more unnatural than wanting to prevent it.

[Stand Your Ground]

This is why I think embracing death is more unnatural than wanting to prevent it.
That's just something I can't seem to do. Death is not something I'm waiting for.

[Mumbles]

Transhumanist ideas and actions range from taking supplements to enhance one's physical functioning, to making advanced prostheses widely available (maybe even desirable as replacements for able-bodied people), to augmented reality devices, to more extreme things such as mind uploading.

Transhumanism is basically a philosophy that proposes that humans take advantage of technology and use it to make our species *more* than what our natural bodies allow (hence trans humanism).



I don't think - especially at this point - many transhumanists "disillusion" themselves either. Since H+ is based in science, transhumanists should be aware of the limits of what we can achieve within the near future, and what is just science fiction yet something we should strive to create (e.g. nanobots, mind uploading).

Again, I'm sure most transhumanists - given today's technology - would be happy with even extending the human lifespan and healthspan. Even if it's to allow people to live at the prime of their health until they are 100, 150, then that's already a huge step.

Huh, that's pretty much what I believe, I didn't know transhumanism was the way to describe it though. Thanks for the explanation :thumbup1: I guess I'm a bit of a transhumanist myself, what all else goes along with being considered one? Or is that mostly it?
Sorry for the sidetrack.

[gilhyle]

There are, in the history of literature, some significant unfinished novels by great authors I never read them because I know in advance that I wont know the ending.

Similarly, I regret that I will die because the unfolding of human history fascinates me and I wish to know more of what will happen than I ever will.

I regret my death because I value myself and the loss of myself seems to me (however disproportionately arrogant this seems) the loss of something to the world of a certain importance.

I understand that the individualism promoted by capitalism enhances the dread of death beyond its true significance. I understand also that the limitations on democracy within capitalist society make it necessary that dying and in particular its pain will be inadequately managed.

But I believe also that if I build relationships and memories of substance in the course of my life, it is possible that they will so distract me as I die that I will be able to endure and maybe ieven not to notice much its existential significance which can be displaced by the overwhelming phenomenological significance of the moment which is arguably the greater truth.

Aging will make this more effective. The pain and endless discomfort which comes with age, the boredom in the face of repetition and the loss of loved ones will enhance the significance of the moment and convince me - I hope - that in an irreversable way death has become a good thing for me.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well, there are some transhumanists that suggest mind uploading would be a permanent thing. That is, once you upload your mind, you have not made a "replica," but rather fully transformed it into data. Therefore, your flesh body no longer has any consciousness - it is "dead."

But in terms of "copying," I don't see how this detracts from anything. The physical body may die, sure, but if "who we are" is retained, isn't that what most people worry about? When we talk about fearing death, is it not the fear of losing the ability to experience things? Just because we do not have a muscle-and-bone body does not mean an uploaded consciousness would be prohibited from experiencing life. When the time comes for such advanced mind uploading to be available, I'm sure there would be tech to allow transfer of said consciousness onto some sort of robotic body.


But exactly how would a mind and consciousness be uploaded without simply being a copy?

The point is that, the survival of memory is irrelevant as such if the goal is to extend life. Person A thus, replicates his or her mind, and this is loaded into a machine or a computer system or anything else. We can call this Person B, which is the replica. Person A is still conscious and lives its life on, and eventually die. Thus the time of copying is a divergence, where one life becomes two; and Person A still dies. Person B, a consciousness that did not experience any of the memories of person A in actuality (which is unimportant in itself) is not the same person (even if they think alike and share the same memories).

In other words, Person B still has the ability to feel and think, yes, but Person B is not Person A, and Person A still dies. The only thing created is a immortal copy of Person A.

The problem of course since the actual nature of consciousness and the mind is not exactly known to great detail, it is hard to fancy how it would be transferred. Hopefully any future discoveries might shed some light upon this, but what if by some thing, conscious matter cannot be transferred to data? Then again, then remains the alternatives of manipulating gene replication itself and transferring brains, I always liked that idea... :wub:

[Invincible Summer]

Huh, that's pretty much what I believe, I didn't know transhumanism was the way to describe it though. Thanks for the explanation :thumbup1: I guess I'm a bit of a transhumanist myself, what all else goes along with being considered one? Or is that mostly it?
Sorry for the sidetrack.

No problem! Transhumanism is a bit misunderstood IMO. It's not some sort of misanthropic, fantastical philosophy that wishes to see Skynet realized or anything like that. I believe it's actually more humanist than humanism.

But I don't think there's not too much more that comes with transhumanism (maybe someone else could chip in if I'm missing something). It's pretty much just the radical use of science & technology to make human life super-natural (meaning more than nature would allow). But, as with all progress, it comes with baby steps. It may just be zootropics or prostheses now, but 10 years from today it may be super-intelligent AIs or nanobots.


These pages are a good intro into Transhumanism: http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq
http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/transhumanist-values

You could also read some Nick Bostrom and Ray Kurzweil. The latter is probably the most well-known transhumanist.


I'm not sure if this transhumanist stuff needs to be split into the Transhumanism thread in Sciences & Environment (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transhumanism-t133200/index.html) or not, as it's sort of related to the OP's question, but not 100%.

[A.R.Amistad]

Death is what makes us great.

[Hit The North]

But I believe also that if I build relationships and memories of substance in the course of my life, it is possible that they will so distract me as I die that I will be able to endure and maybe ieven not to notice much its existential significance which can be displaced by the overwhelming phenomenological significance of the moment which is arguably the greater truth.



Death is the ultimate full stop but, honestly gil, that's no reaon to abandon punctuation altogether as you do in the statement above :lol:.

Death? I say, bring it on. At least the rent is cheap.


Death is what makes us great.

Life is what makes us great. Death just makes us not as great as we once were.

[x371322]

Death is what makes us great.

I just can't agree with this. How does death make us great? LIFE makes us great. Death is the end of that greatness. Death doesn't give life meaning, we do. It's love, happiness, friends, and family that give life meaning. Death brings an end to all of that.

Ever since humans realized they were going to die, we've found ways to avoid it. THAT is what makes us great. Our desire to LIVE.

[ZeroNowhere]

Death is what makes us great.
If this is all the reasoning and explanation necessary, then I shall keep this brief. Death is not what makes us great.

[Belisarius]

If this is all the reasoning and explanation necessary, then I shall keep this brief. Death is not what makes us great.
what i think he means is what i explained on page 1. He means that death gives meaning to life. we can live our lives passionatily because we all die.

[Meridian]

what i think he means is what i explained on page 1. He means that death gives meaning to life. we can live our lives passionatily because we all die.
How does 'death' go about and give meaning to 'life'? Does it ('death') have a spare of 'meaning' in its pocket, which it for some reason like to hand out to 'life'?

[A.R.Amistad]

If this is all the reasoning and explanation necessary, then I shall keep this brief. Death is not what makes us great.

I was short on time. Death is what makes us great because we do what we do in the face of our own mortality. To be immortal would be mundane life. No, you could not constantly keep giving meaning to your life, as the transhumanists on the transhumanist thread would want us to think. Its kind of like supply and demand. As the supply of life goes up (immortality) the demand goes down. Life looses its value when one is immortal. If one were immortal, no body would value any moment in life because these moments will last forever. By having a natural length of life, we re better able to appreciate life, and thus give it a more valuable meaning to ourselves. Embracing mortality is key to living an authentic life. Chasing after immortality will only lead to despair and disappointment 1. because it will never happen and 2. because if it did happen then your life would really become mundane. Why do you think we can experience things like passion in our lives? Immortality would rob us of having a passionate life, since there would really be no reason to be passionate anyway.

[gilhyle]

Death is the ultimate full stop but, honestly gil, that's no reaon to abandon punctuation altogether as you do in the statement above http://www.revleft.com/vb/everyone-us-someday-t135198/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif.


If only my love of the subordinate clause could make me immortal by being kept alive to finish an infinite thought.

The famous Irish nationalist rebel Robert Emmet, having been given a moment for prayer and reflection, notoriously refused to give his executioner the agreed signal to throw the lever, endlessly enjoying just one more moment until the the executioner thought 'fuck it' and just killed him anyway.

I hope for a long time to retain Emmets reluctance to die and to die suddenly just when I loose that reluctance.

[Belisarius]

How does 'death' go about and give meaning to 'life'? Does it ('death') have a spare of 'meaning' in its pocket, which it for some reason like to hand out to 'life'?
just read my post on heidegger on page 1.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was short on time. Death is what makes us great because we do what we do in the face of our own mortality. To be immortal would be mundane life. No, you could not constantly keep giving meaning to your life, as the transhumanists on the transhumanist thread would want us to think. Its kind of like supply and demand. As the supply of life goes up (immortality) the demand goes down. Life looses its value when one is immortal. If one were immortal, no body would value any moment in life because these moments will last forever. By having a natural length of life, we re better able to appreciate life, and thus give it a more valuable meaning to ourselves. Embracing mortality is key to living an authentic life. Chasing after immortality will only lead to despair and disappointment 1. because it will never happen and 2. because if it did happen then your life would really become mundane. Why do you think we can experience things like passion in our lives? Immortality would rob us of having a passionate life, since there would really be no reason to be passionate anyway.
I presume that you can deduce a priori what people's lives would be like if they were immortal, and that they would find them mundane? At least, I am rather curious as to the source of your in-depth knowledge of human psychology.

I am also not sure about what counts as a 'reason' for passion; I'm fairly sure that most times that we are passionate about things, it is not because we will die, and this does not even occupy a place in our minds. Of course, I could be wrong, and it could be subconsciously due to the possibility of death, or repressed sexuality, or something of the sort. It is also not entirely clear how a moment can last forever. Generally, moments do not do this, and I doubt that us being immortal would make such a thing take place, unless accompanied by time stopping somehow.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was short on time. Death is what makes us great because we do what we do in the face of our own mortality.

No we don't. Most people are too busy to give a thought to their own mortality except in situations where it is most relevant, i.e. where the distinct possibility of death is imminent or in old age.

Otherwise, people would not smoke or do any other risky activity.


To be immortal would be mundane life. No, you could not constantly keep giving meaning to your life, as the transhumanists on the transhumanist thread would want us to think. Its kind of like supply and demand. As the supply of life goes up (immortality) the demand goes down. Life looses its value when one is immortal.

Bollocks. Being alive is not a zero-sum game. Having a purposeful life is not some finite thing that has to be stretched to cover one's lifespan; we create purpose for ourselves, or purpose is thrust upon us by the rest of the universe.


If one were immortal, no body would value any moment in life because these moments will last forever.

Patent nonsense. Moments cannot last forever by definition, and since people, society and the universe constantly change over the time, the moments in an indefinate lifespan will never be the same.


By having a natural length of life, we re better able to appreciate life, and thus give it a more valuable meaning to ourselves. Embracing mortality is key to living an authentic life.

You've not actually demonstrated this. In fact, somebody capable of living indefinately has more to lose than someone with a finite lifespan.


Chasing after immortality will only lead to despair and disappointment 1. because it will never happen

There's no physical or biological reason it can't. Granted, it seems unlikely to happen in my lifetime, but that doesn't make it not worth pursuing.


and 2. because if it did happen then your life would really become mundane. Why do you think we can experience things like passion in our lives? Immortality would rob us of having a passionate life, since there would really be no reason to be passionate anyway.

Why not? Immortality would not automatically rob us of emotion, not unless we wanted it to. And even if we did eventually chose to lose our emotions, it would be with the wisdom and hindsight of centuries if not millennia. We would be in a far more qualified position to make that decision than we are now, with our finite lifespans and the limited knowledge and experience that necessarily follows.

[Meridian]

just read my post on heidegger on page 1.
I read it, but unfortunately it was nonsense.

You can not claim that death gives meaning to life, because 'death' can not give meaning to anything. Nor can 'life'.

To say, for example, "death/life is what gives us meaning" is nonsense, because it would be anthropomorphizing the terms "death" and "life". Only if 'death' was some thing, some being or force, it could 'do' anything. And only if it was human, it would be capable of 'giving' anything. But 'death' and 'life' are none of these, they are simply terms. It is extremely common to commit the error of treating these words as objects, ie. "Where our language suggests a body and there is none: there, we would like to say, is a spirit."

[A.R.Amistad]

Death in and of itself doesn't give meaning. We do. Honestly, I don't think we can even experience death, since death means not existing. How can we exist when we don't exist? I think by knowing that some day we will not exist is a good reminder that we need to make of our lives what he have here to live with.

[Belisarius]

I read it, but unfortunately it was nonsense.

You can not claim that death gives meaning to life, because 'death' can not give meaning to anything. Nor can 'life'.

Maybe I should nuance my views a bit: death doesn't give meaning, but we do, living in the face of death. that's what heidegger meant by being-unto-death.

[Glenn Beck]

Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.

[Belisarius]

Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.
if i'm not mistaking that's epicurus.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe I should nuance my views a bit: death doesn't give meaning, but we do, living in the face of death. that's what heidegger meant by being-unto-death.

I don't think we have to "live in the face of death" in order to have meaning or purpose or whatever.

Living in the face of life is the true challenge. Life is where all the action happens, so to speak.

[Belisarius]

I don't think we have to "live in the face of death" in order to have meaning or purpose or whatever.

Living in the face of life is the true challenge. Life is where all the action happens, so to speak.
but why do we care about the action? thought experiment: if someone else was born in stead of you, what would've changed? your replacement would have other friends, your own friends would just have one friend less, without knowing it, your parents would've had another child. conclusion: all action in life would be the same, yet one thing is missing: you. your existence in life is thus meaningless, since you can easily be replaced without anyone missing you.

it is living while knowing about your possible (your replacement) and even inevitable (death) non-existence that is difficult. but exactly this makes us give meaning to our lives, because it makes us live our finite lives to the fullest. it makes us care about things. it is because i am mortal that i'm writing this paragraph. i need to pass my knwoledge, since i won't be here forever to keep it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but why do we care about the action? thought experiment: if someone else was born in stead of you, what would've changed? your replacement would have other friends, your own friends would just have one friend less, without knowing it, your parents would've had another child. conclusion: all action in life would be the same, yet one thing is missing: you. your existence in life is thus meaningless, since you can easily be replaced without anyone missing you.

That is true, but also trivial. The fact of the matter is that I am here, living this life right now. Because it is likely that I will die in the span of mere decades, the possibilities for myself and others are greatly reduced compared to someone capable of living millennia or more.

The same applies to everyone else. In fact, quite a few have had even less time than I. Were their lives more meaningful? Or did their passing in fact rend the hearts of those who loved them?


it is living while knowing about your possible (your replacement) and even inevitable (death) non-existence that is difficult. but exactly this makes us give meaning to our lives, because it makes us live our finite lives to the fullest. it makes us care about things.

I don't think this is the case. On a purely selfish level, why should I give a fuck about a future I won't be living in? Why aren't I doing my damndest to get rich as quick as possible, and stay that way?

I don't know about you, but I actually feel that I give a shit about the vast majority of the universe that is not in direct contact with my person.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that because humans do not normally live a century, let alone longer, we are not properly equipped by evolution to think beyond a few decades about issues involving the whole planet or billions of people. We need to be either effectively immortal or vastly smarter than we currently are in order to truly look after ourselves. Or we could build machines to do the job for us. We've proven to be fairly good at that, actually.


it is because i am mortal that i'm writing this paragraph. i need to pass my knwoledge, since i won't be here forever to keep it.

You would be better off writing a book. I'm posting here because I want intellectual interaction with (mostly) like-minded people. Now that is something that could use a few millennia.

[Belisarius]

That is true, but also trivial. The fact of the matter is that I am here, living this life right now. Because it is likely that I will die in the span of mere decades, the possibilities for myself and others are greatly reduced compared to someone capable of living millennia or more.

The same applies to everyone else. In fact, quite a few have had even less time than I. Were their lives more meaningful? Or did their passing in fact rend the hearts of those who loved them?



I don't think this is the case. On a purely selfish level, why should I give a fuck about a future I won't be living in? Why aren't I doing my damndest to get rich as quick as possible, and stay that way?

I don't know about you, but I actually feel that I give a shit about the vast majority of the universe that is not in direct contact with my person.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that because humans do not normally live a century, let alone longer, we are not properly equipped by evolution to think beyond a few decades about issues involving the whole planet or billions of people. We need to be either effectively immortal or vastly smarter than we currently are in order to truly look after ourselves. Or we could build machines to do the job for us. We've proven to be fairly good at that, actually.



You would be better off writing a book. I'm posting here because I want intellectual interaction with (mostly) like-minded people. Now that is something that could use a few millennia.
1) i didn't say that the ones who die sooner have more meaning. i said that living while knowing you're going to die, makes the living meaningful, since we are obliged to give it meaning.

2)you say we should be immortal to take better care of the planet, but the planet or even the universe won't be around for all eternity. what will we the to next?

3)that book already exists, it's called "being and time" by Martin Heidegger. are you sure you won't get bored by discussing after a few millenia? because i would.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm just going to be brief. Why be scared of death? You have so much you can do before it rather than trying to avoid it.

[gilhyle]

Sure about that ?

Arguably no one ever worried as much about death as the man who - arguably - also had the greatest personal success in history : the first emperor of China.

Of course, he also killed himself prematurely by worring about death. :laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) i didn't say that the ones who die sooner have more meaning. i said that living while knowing you're going to die, makes the living meaningful, since we are obliged to give it meaning.

I dispute your apparent assertion that the only source of meaning in life is death. If non-consensual death was no longer an issue, there would still be an entire universe to deal with.


2)you say we should be immortal to take better care of the planet, but the planet or even the universe won't be around for all eternity. what will we the to next?

We'll have billions of years to think of something.


3)that book already exists, it's called "being and time" by Martin Heidegger. are you sure you won't get bored by discussing after a few millenia? because i would.

Why would anyone get bored? Sure it would be boring if one did nothing but discuss things for several millennia, but who would do that?


I'm just going to be brief. Why be scared of death? You have so much you can do before it rather than trying to avoid it.

One cannot "do things" when one is dead.

[AK]

Mind uploading onto physical hard disks to "back up" our memory/personality is one thing that transhumanists do propose, yes. However, it's not like the H+ dream is to "live in a hard drive" or to simply exist in someone's USB drive. It's really just sci-fi at this point, but I think that uploading to the extent where our personalities that exist as data could be actually sentient, and thus more or less immortal is the ultimate end goal of uploading technologies.
We - our thoughts, memories and aspirations (what makes us as people) - all exist on purely physical mediums; i.e., our brain cells. If you were to backup yourself onto a hard disk of some sort, and managed to re-implant these memories into a new brain in a new body, we would still not be the same. We would merely be a copy. Our lives would not continue, we would not be the same person - another person with our memories and thoughts would remain in our place. This is the main practical flaw I see of such a proposal.

[AK]

Why be scared of death?
I could argue both ways here. I tend to skip in and out of suicidal phases. When I think of my ultimate fate in a non-suicidal mood, I get shit scared. Panic attacks, everything. Yet, when I'm in a suicidal mood, I look at death in a different way. I don't think of it as the end of all bodily functions or as a sleep with no wake, I just think of it as the end of the current circumstances I am in. It sounds awfully like a non-productive rant to me, sorry guys. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We - our thoughts, memories and aspirations (what makes us as people) - all exist on purely physical mediums; i.e., our brain cells. If you were to backup yourself onto a hard disk of some sort, and managed to re-implant these memories into a new brain in a new body, we would still not be the same. We would merely be a copy. Our lives would not continue, we would not be the same person - another person with our memories and thoughts would remain in our place. This is the main practical flaw I see of such a proposal.

How about this way:


The Moravec Transfer gradually moves (rather than copies) a human mind into a computer. You need never lose consciousness. (The details which follow have been redesigned and fleshed out a bit (by yours truly) from the original in Mind Children.)

1. A neuron-sized robot swims up to a neuron and scans it into memory.

2. An external computer, in continuous communication with the robot, starts simulating the neuron.

3. The robot waits until the computer simulation perfectly matches the neuron.

4. The robot replaces the neuron with itself as smoothly as possible, sending inputs to the computer and transmitting outputs from the simulation of a neuron inside the computer.
This entire procedure has had no effect on the flow of information in the brain, except that one neuron's worth of processing is now being done inside a computer instead of a neuron.

Repeat, neuron by neuron, until the entire brain is composed of robot neurons.

Despite this, the synapses (links) between robotic neurons are still physical; robots report the reception of neurotransmitters at artificial dendrites and release neurotransmitters at the end of artificial axons. In the next phase, we replace the physical synapses with software links.
For every axon-dendrite (transmitter-receiver) pair, the inputs are no longer reported by the robot; instead the computed axon output of the transmitting neuron is added as a simulated dendrite to the simulation of the receiving neuron.
At the end of this phase, the robots are all firing their axons, but none of them are receiving anything, none of them are affecting each other, and none of them are affecting the computer simulation.

5. The robots are disconnected.

You have now been placed entirely inside a computer, bit by bit, without losing consciousness. In Moravec's words, your metamorphosis is complete.
If any of the phases seem too abrupt, the transfer of an individual neuron, or synapse, can be spread out over as long a time as necessary. To slowly transfer a synapse into a computer, we can use weighted factors of the physical synapse and the computational synapse to produce the output. The weighting would start as entirely physical and end as entirely computational. Since we are presuming the neuron is being perfectly simulated, the weighting affects only the flow of causality and not the actual process of events.

Slowly transferring a neuron is a bit more difficult.

4a. The robot encloses the neuron, the axons, and the dendrites with a robotic "shell", all without disturbing the neural cell body. (That's going to take some pretty fancy footwork, I know, but this is a thought experiment. The Powers will be doing the actual uploading.)

4b. The robotic dendrites continue to receive inputs from other neurons, and pass them on to the enclosed neural dendrites. The output of the biological neuron passes along the neural axon to the enclosing robotic axon, which reads the output and forwards it to the external synapse, unchanged.

4c. The robotic axon outputs 99% of the received biological impulse, plus 1% of the computed robotic impulse. Since, by hypothesis, the neuron is being perfectly simulated, this does not change the actual output in any way, only the flow of causality.

4d. The weighting is adjusted until 100% of the output is the computed output.

4e. The biological neuron is discarded.

Assuming we can simulate an individual neuron, and that we can replace neurons with robotic analogues, I think that thoroughly demonstrates the possibility of uploading, given that consciousness is strictly a function of neurons. (And if we have immortal souls, then uploading is a real snap. Detach soul from brain. Copy any information not stored in soul. Attach soul to new substrate. Upload complete.)

From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).

[AK]

How about this way:



From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).
Interesting.

Also, I read somewhere that scientists could now successfully regrow parts of the brain - information and all. Although, as far as I know, they can only regrow parts of the brain that handle basic actions such as walking.

[x371322]

We - our thoughts, memories and aspirations (what makes us as people) - all exist on purely physical mediums; i.e., our brain cells. If you were to backup yourself onto a hard disk of some sort, and managed to re-implant these memories into a new brain in a new body, we would still not be the same. We would merely be a copy. Our lives would not continue, we would not be the same person - another person with our memories and thoughts would remain in our place. This is the main practical flaw I see of such a proposal.

Ah, but how do we know that our sense of self actually exists? Some have speculated that continual consciousness itself is merely an illusion. How can you be so sure that you're really the same person today that you were when you were 10? How do you know you're not already a different "person" with the same memories?

Of course I myself am not advocating that this is the case, just playing some thought experiments. It makes me think...

[AK]

Ah, but how do we know that our sense of self actually exists? Some have speculated that continual consciousness itself is merely an illusion. How can you be so sure that you're really the same person today that you were when you were 10? How do you know you're not already a different "person" with the same memories?

Of course I myself am not advocating that this is the case, just playing some thought experiments. It makes me think...
Then I'd quite like to continue that illusion. And after all, it is just a speculation.

[Invincible Summer]

We - our thoughts, memories and aspirations (what makes us as people) - all exist on purely physical mediums; i.e., our brain cells. If you were to backup yourself onto a hard disk of some sort, and managed to re-implant these memories into a new brain in a new body, we would still not be the same. We would merely be a copy. Our lives would not continue, we would not be the same person - another person with our memories and thoughts would remain in our place. This is the main practical flaw I see of such a proposal.

But because we are talking about this as some sort of thought experiment, you and I both know that it is "merely" a copy. However, if your consciousness/thoughts/etc was to be transferred to another body, how would your - existing as that consciousness - know the difference? If you have the same thoughts, memories, aspirations, etc, then you wouldn't feel any different.

The only thing would be if one was placed in an uglier body or something then your life would be slightly different due to your appearance.

[Technocrat]

I don't think mind-uploading technologies will ever exist, and I'm a fan of science fiction and technology. I also don't think faster than light travel will ever exist. If c is a limiting velocity, that could just be that. It doesn't have anything to do with how smart we are or any kind of moral judgment. I am an optimist by nature, but I also recognize that our universe contains limits.

As far as dying goes - yeah, you're going to die someday. And there is probably no afterlife. Stop worrying about it and enjoy yourself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think mind-uploading technologies will ever exist, and I'm a fan of science fiction and technology. I also don't think faster than light travel will ever exist. If c is a limiting velocity, that could just be that. It doesn't have anything to do with how smart we are or any kind of moral judgment. I am an optimist by nature, but I also recognize that our universe contains limits.

Faster than light travel is impossible according to our current understanding of physics because the mass of an object (and therefore the energy needed to accelerate it) approaches infinity as one accelerates to light speed.

I don't see what that has to do with uploading. We may not know how to do it at the moment, but as far as I am aware there is no physical rule preventing it, unlike the case of FTL travel.

[Technocrat]

I don't see what that has to do with uploading. We may not know how to do it at the moment, but as far as I am aware there is no physical rule preventing it, unlike the case of FTL travel.

I'm just suggesting that there may be limits to what we can do. We do not know yet if there is a physical rule preventing mind-uploading. I'm just taking a wild-eyed guess when I say that I don't think we will develop mind-uploading.

[Turinbaar]

As long as I am, then death is not, and as long as death is then I am not. So long as I am alive I will do what good I can for those I love. That to me is enough for my own life.

[Revy]

I would love to live hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years. As an atheist, I don't see much meaning in death. In fact, that's what makes dying all the more tragic, because I can't bring myself to believe in Heaven or reincarnation.

When people say life is too short, they are right. Life is too short.