6 ms·

You aren’t the same “you” that you were a few years ago, from a mental perspective. Brains change all the time. We don’t generally get hung up on this concern b

You aren’t the same “you” that you were a few years ago, from a mental perspective. Brains change all the time. We don’t generally get hung up on this concern because, fundamentally, the self-preservation drive is just an evolved reflex rather than anything fundamentally rational. We want some specific evolutionary-selected version of “self-preservation” for the same reason we crave unhealthy foods or are revolted by certain smells. TL;DR Let your rational brain decide what it wants, try to cope with the rest from there.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
There's nothing rational about a desire to live forever. It's completely driven by a fear of the unknown/driven that comes past death.
- Livanskoy 2y ago
  I don't see that as universal explanation. Anyone who enjoys live will want to prolong it (without sacrificing the enjoyment part, of course). Many people see the death not as "unknown", but as the "end of experience".
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Why do they see it as the "end of experience"? Because they don't know what comes after it? When I see people use that explanation, I also see a fear of the unknown. Nobody has any idea what comes after death: It could be the start of a brighter and better experience or it could be absolutely nothing. Taking things to the far extreme, for all we know, there could actually be a heaven or a hell as described by one of the desert-dwelling hallucinogen-enjoying people whose book caught on. And I don't mean some ethereal concept, I mean the actual things with 72 virgins or angels with 100 eyes and 50 wings and wheels on their wheels. Despite feeling implausible, we have exactly as much evidence of nothingness after death as we do of a heaven or a hell. Before you mention that this is absurd because there's no brain activity after death, we still don't know how the brain and "mind" work, we can't observe the vast majority of matter or energy in the universe, and there's a lot we don't know. Filling that unknown space in with "it's the end of everything I experience" is as irrational as filling that in with "72 virgins if I kill enough infidels."
    - cgriswald 2y ago
      You yourself seem to have internalized the idea that it is the end of the experience. The things you describe as possible are all different experiences to this one. People aren’t required to be rational for GP’s point to be correct. I don’t even think it is necessary that they hold a particular view on death. Plenty of Christians don’t fear death because they believe in heaven. Plenty of those who believe in nothingness fear the end of their experience. Nothingness has evidence. Memory and consciousness both appear tied to the body. Suggesting that’s equivalent to anything else because technically anything is possible is at best a god of the gaps argument. The rational take here is that we don’t know, we may never know, but that the evidence is suggestive of the same sort of nothingness we “experience” when unconscious or before we were born. Regardless, all that is required for the GP’s point to be true is that people do not universally fear death.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        > You yourself seem to have internalized the idea that it is the end of the experience. The previous commenter didn't say the end of "the experience." They said the end of "experience" (no the). If you want to be pedantic about the semantics, that's a pretty big thing to add, don't you think? One is the end of all sensation and the end of a particular set of sensations. And no, it doesn't require that people not universally fear death, it requires that people who see death as the end of all experience don't fear death, which appears to be tautologically false since they adopt an irrational and negative belief about what the post-death state is. > Nothingness has evidence. Memory and consciousness both appear tied to the body. Suggesting that’s equivalent to anything else because technically anything is possible is at best a god of the gaps argument. The wordplay is interesting here - I didn't mention memory, only consciousness. Memory does appear to be an embodied phenomenon in your brain. Regarding consciousness, I'm not filling the gaps with a god, I'm suggesting that denying the existence of the gaps is as bad as filling it with a god.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > which appears to be tautologically false since they adopt an irrational and negative belief about what the post-death state is. "Probably nothing" is not an irrational belief. You don't need 100% certainty to want to avoid that. > The wordplay is interesting here - I didn't mention memory, only consciousness. Memory does appear to be an embodied phenomenon in your brain. If I don't have my memories, then the old me is effectively gone forever. Wanting to avoid such a drastic and disruptive change has nothing to do with "fear of the unknown".
  - imtringued 2y ago
    The problem isn't the end of experience. The problem is that the universe exists in the first place. A lot of atheist afterlife logic runs into the problem that if nothing follows death, then this would also mean the end of the universe, but this is in contradiction with the fact that we can experience the universe and that it exists. Lots of people die every day and yet that "nothing" has failed to arrive.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > the problem that if nothing follows death, then this would also mean the end of the universe No.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > if nothing follows death, then this would also mean the end of the universe Huh?!? How the heck do you get from one to the other??? I see absolutely no logic connection there. Care to explain?
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
That's easy to say now, but it will be little comfort when you're watching from your hospital bed as your younger clone holds your wife's hand while they both watch the doctors pull the plug on your obsoleted body.
- LeifCarrotson 2y ago
  Sure, that would suck, but would you actually say that the sum of that loss weighed against the gain of N more happy and healthy years with your wife be negative? I don't think so, I'd sign up for it. Do you not think you could cooperate with yourself like that?
  - Loughla 2y ago
    That's my point though. It's not me. It's me, but it isn't in me. To your earlier question: am I a different person than I was in the past. No. My body and consciousness continued. The other new me will be me, but the me that is inside my body right now will cease. That is the flaw.
    - Xen9 2y ago
      In realistic replication your body probably would not be continued, at least for a while. You'd have a digital clone that shares some memories, most values and is cognitively at your level or above. If the preservation part is well-enough and you continue to hold it important to actualize your past wish of getting a realistic clone, one day they may be able to use the cryonically frozen body & the scans of you that were taken when it was alive to re-anime it or to create a digital clone that would be much closer to you. A commenter above pointed above that the body changes all the time. Getting replicated and having the old body die is almost the same what you had already gone through your whole, first biological life, but only at a larger scale. It does entirely replace the "hardware" (body) but most humans would agree that "they" are made of "personality, dreams, ideas, algorithms, memories, knowledge, logic, thinking, emotions, feeling, values" more than what computational medium these exhibit as long as it emulates what they have had in the past to some degree.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

There's nothing rational about a desire to live forever. It's completely driven by a fear of the unknown/driven that comes past death.

Livanskoy 2y ago
I don't see that as universal explanation. Anyone who enjoys live will want to prolong it (without sacrificing the enjoyment part, of course). Many people see the death not as "unknown", but as the "end of experience".
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Why do they see it as the "end of experience"? Because they don't know what comes after it? When I see people use that explanation, I also see a fear of the unknown. Nobody has any idea what comes after death: It could be the start of a brighter and better experience or it could be absolutely nothing. Taking things to the far extreme, for all we know, there could actually be a heaven or a hell as described by one of the desert-dwelling hallucinogen-enjoying people whose book caught on. And I don't mean some ethereal concept, I mean the actual things with 72 virgins or angels with 100 eyes and 50 wings and wheels on their wheels. Despite feeling implausible, we have exactly as much evidence of nothingness after death as we do of a heaven or a hell. Before you mention that this is absurd because there's no brain activity after death, we still don't know how the brain and "mind" work, we can't observe the vast majority of matter or energy in the universe, and there's a lot we don't know. Filling that unknown space in with "it's the end of everything I experience" is as irrational as filling that in with "72 virgins if I kill enough infidels."
  - cgriswald 2y ago
    You yourself seem to have internalized the idea that it is the end of the experience. The things you describe as possible are all different experiences to this one. People aren’t required to be rational for GP’s point to be correct. I don’t even think it is necessary that they hold a particular view on death. Plenty of Christians don’t fear death because they believe in heaven. Plenty of those who believe in nothingness fear the end of their experience. Nothingness has evidence. Memory and consciousness both appear tied to the body. Suggesting that’s equivalent to anything else because technically anything is possible is at best a god of the gaps argument. The rational take here is that we don’t know, we may never know, but that the evidence is suggestive of the same sort of nothingness we “experience” when unconscious or before we were born. Regardless, all that is required for the GP’s point to be true is that people do not universally fear death.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      > You yourself seem to have internalized the idea that it is the end of the experience. The previous commenter didn't say the end of "the experience." They said the end of "experience" (no the). If you want to be pedantic about the semantics, that's a pretty big thing to add, don't you think? One is the end of all sensation and the end of a particular set of sensations. And no, it doesn't require that people not universally fear death, it requires that people who see death as the end of all experience don't fear death, which appears to be tautologically false since they adopt an irrational and negative belief about what the post-death state is. > Nothingness has evidence. Memory and consciousness both appear tied to the body. Suggesting that’s equivalent to anything else because technically anything is possible is at best a god of the gaps argument. The wordplay is interesting here - I didn't mention memory, only consciousness. Memory does appear to be an embodied phenomenon in your brain. Regarding consciousness, I'm not filling the gaps with a god, I'm suggesting that denying the existence of the gaps is as bad as filling it with a god.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > which appears to be tautologically false since they adopt an irrational and negative belief about what the post-death state is. "Probably nothing" is not an irrational belief. You don't need 100% certainty to want to avoid that. > The wordplay is interesting here - I didn't mention memory, only consciousness. Memory does appear to be an embodied phenomenon in your brain. If I don't have my memories, then the old me is effectively gone forever. Wanting to avoid such a drastic and disruptive change has nothing to do with "fear of the unknown".
- imtringued 2y ago
  The problem isn't the end of experience. The problem is that the universe exists in the first place. A lot of atheist afterlife logic runs into the problem that if nothing follows death, then this would also mean the end of the universe, but this is in contradiction with the fact that we can experience the universe and that it exists. Lots of people die every day and yet that "nothing" has failed to arrive.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > the problem that if nothing follows death, then this would also mean the end of the universe No.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > if nothing follows death, then this would also mean the end of the universe Huh?!? How the heck do you get from one to the other??? I see absolutely no logic connection there. Care to explain?

fallingsquirrel 2y ago

That's easy to say now, but it will be little comfort when you're watching from your hospital bed as your younger clone holds your wife's hand while they both watch the doctors pull the plug on your obsoleted body.

LeifCarrotson 2y ago
Sure, that would suck, but would you actually say that the sum of that loss weighed against the gain of N more happy and healthy years with your wife be negative? I don't think so, I'd sign up for it. Do you not think you could cooperate with yourself like that?
- Loughla 2y ago
  That's my point though. It's not me. It's me, but it isn't in me. To your earlier question: am I a different person than I was in the past. No. My body and consciousness continued. The other new me will be me, but the me that is inside my body right now will cease. That is the flaw.
  - Xen9 2y ago
    In realistic replication your body probably would not be continued, at least for a while. You'd have a digital clone that shares some memories, most values and is cognitively at your level or above. If the preservation part is well-enough and you continue to hold it important to actualize your past wish of getting a realistic clone, one day they may be able to use the cryonically frozen body & the scans of you that were taken when it was alive to re-anime it or to create a digital clone that would be much closer to you. A commenter above pointed above that the body changes all the time. Getting replicated and having the old body die is almost the same what you had already gone through your whole, first biological life, but only at a larger scale. It does entirely replace the "hardware" (body) but most humans would agree that "they" are made of "personality, dreams, ideas, algorithms, memories, knowledge, logic, thinking, emotions, feeling, values" more than what computational medium these exhibit as long as it emulates what they have had in the past to some degree.