Your own mortality

[HemlockGrey]

I'm not a big fan of the whole dying concept, so I'm holding out for the immortality drug/gene therapy/surgery. Although I'll settle for the immortality of Alexander the Great or Mohammed.

[anybody_mcc]

Don't care , because it's natural ... mostly , but sometimes ( not often ) i care. I don't want to be immortal , because it's just plain stupid. Our brain's are not "build" for that , you would be bored after some time , you will be out of time after hundred or few hundred years. You will no longer understand the culture you are in well. Just look at the old people , even those brilliant ones , they do not "belong" to the world completely anymore. They may understand technology , but the society is too different for them. It's caused by technology , and that process is going to get much "worse" , since technology is advancing faster. So in order to be immortal , your "mind" will have to change during the process quite much. And IMHO it would not be me anymore.

That said sometimes i have urge to leave something to be at least remembered , but consciously i just want to live nice and pleasant life , nothing more. Although i must say that SirNitram's "i want to know how it ends" is interesting , but i am personally not interested in the final fate of universe , but"final" fate of humans. I would like to see what wil happen to "us".

[anybody_mcc]

Not to put you in a straight jacket, but you do realize that there's a good chance that even if this happens you won't know 'cause it'll just be a duplicate of you.

No, it will be me. I am my consciousness, my cognitive processes and the sum of my memories. That is me. Pointing out that I can be duplicated only makes it more cool.

That is just the same as trek transporters. It is just stupid to use it. If you can be duplicated and the original will live , it's obvious who you are. But when duplication process kills you , and produces ten duplicates , which of them are you ? Are you saying you are 10 people ? Just think about it a bit. It is like David said but the defining point is not slow transfer , but continuity of your "consciousness".
In the case of trek transporters , you are literally killed and the person at the destination is someone "else" , who thinks he is you. But it is rather philospohical question of identity and if you want to be destroyed and your duplicate to live it is your choice , because for everyone else it will be no difference ( in case of on duplicate ).

[weemadando]

Come on and hurry up science - I want to be alive for the 4th invasion by Omicron Persei 8...

[Guardsman Bass]

Personally, after thinking about it long and hard, and remembering what it was like to be in a dreamless sleep with no perception of time during my oral surgery, I'm really not afraid of death being the absolute end - I just don't want that darkness to come onto me painfully.

Not that I wouldn't want a kind of immortality. My ideal would be for my consciousness (not just a copy of it) to be uploaded into an artificial body, or possibly newer iterations of physical bodies, with the ability to go into 'hibernation' for possibly thousands of years at a time.

[Zadius]

The only regret I have about dying is that I will miss out on all the cool technology that is invented after my death.

[Morilore]

Sometimes I'm obsessed with this issue to a crippling extreme, other times I'm merely preoccupied with it. To stave off total psychological collapse and dispair, I've had to make a few unfounded, illogical assumptions about the universe in which we live.

I have had a similar experience. Right now its not impairing the function of my life. But when it comes up, I usually come up with one of several ideas:

1. The most "down-to-earth" one I think of is that if I extract the maximum possible amount of pleasure from life, stretching my consciousness to its operational limits, I might be able to die not caring at all because I have nothing more to look forward to. Essentially, I may be able to constitutionally alter myself to not fear death. Pretty elegant, the problem is I'm not too good at it.

2. I also have had similar thoughts concerning the omnibenevolent god-society that resurrects every sapient mind in history for the sake of pure goodwill. I just can't see why they'd care, though.

3. The progress of time is an illusory perception, and everything really exists forever. I think this, then I step out of sophist-world and curse the ancient Greeks.

4. One's perception of time may asymptotically slow down at the point of death. Two problems here. First, the only way to check this is to experience it. Second, even if true, depending on the manner of death and taking into account reports of certain near-death experiences, it may be possible that in your last moments your mind places you in hell. Imagine that, then combine it with my idea.

5. This is a weird one. I sometimes feel there is no conceptual difference between the one and the world. An atom of carbon in your hand is the same as an atom of carbon in your pencil. The only difference is how much control one has over it. If I die, what, really, has changed? Still a bunch of atoms, just certain processes have halted. At this point I should say "To disregard the mind as impotant in a process of the mind (the thought itself) is an absurdity, like typing "This sentence was never typed." But as soon as I contemplate consciousness, I find myself in an infinite self-perpetuating loop: "HOLY FUCK? HOW AM I CONSCIOUS?" Nothing in the world I have encountered has satisfactorily explained to me how I can perceive things in it, rather than the world just being a silent program (so to speak); this thought derails the entire process.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Death both terrifies me, because i dont know what happens next or if ANYTHING happens next, but at the same time i find it kind of interesting to think about because of the same reason. I care about my mortality, i dont want to die and would prefer to live as long as possible, but if i get stuck in an state like locked-in syndrome or something i already made it clear to my mom i'd rather take my chances on being right about reincarnation.

I wouldnt want immortality though. Not if i was the only immortal. That'd be more horrible than death to me because i'd have to watch everyone i care about wither and die like old plants while i just rattle on and on like a fucking Energizer Bunny. Nah. I'd rather just kick off when i hit 80 if that's possible, that'd be more than enough time to do anything i intend on doing in my life i reckon, and anything else is irrelevent at that point (death) anyway so if i missed something it'd only bother me a little.

If possible i'd rather not die painfully. I'd rather it be like going to sleep, just lulling off into...whatever comes next. I beleive in an afterlife, actually reincarnation or 'afterlife on Earth' as one book i read described it. Ifigure i wont remember, or only vaguely, who and what i was before next time. Course i have no idea if i'm right. If i'm wrong and it's just oblivion that doesnt scare me. It's unpleasent and kind of creepy, but if i cant feel anything i cant feel pain either so it wouldnt matter, a painles,s dreamless sleep is just as good i guess. But i would prefer to beleive, and i do beleive, in something after this. I dont know, makes me feel more comfortable to think this isnt all there is.

[kheegster]

I don't really worry too much about death itself, so long as the process is painless. In fact I wouldn't be overly worried if I was told I was going to die...I am going to miss a lot of people and a lot of things, but the idea of dying per se doesn't really worry me much.

To paraphrase Socrates' dying words, if there's an afterlife, it's going to be great, but if there isn't, what's more peaceful than eternal sleep?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Sometimes I'm obsessed with this issue to a crippling extreme, other times I'm merely preoccupied with it. To stave off total psychological collapse and dispair, I've had to make a few unfounded, illogical assumptions about the universe in which we live.

I have had a similar experience. Right now its not impairing the function of my life. But when it comes up, I usually come up with one of several ideas:

2. I also have had similar thoughts concerning the omnibenevolent god-society that resurrects every sapient mind in history for the sake of pure goodwill. I just can't see why they'd care, though.

I've done some thinking and research about this. A sufficiently advanced civilization will be able to build a computer the size of a planet that could, apparently, simulate the entirety of human history inside 100 nanoseconds. 1 This assumes that they're just simulating humans entirely, and the rest of the universe as needed for the simulated humans to interact with and not notice that they're being simulated. These simulated humans could even evolve to the point wherethey would be capable of building planet-sized supercomputers which would then be used for whatever purposes they want . . . like running ancestor-simulations, or simulating the probability that they are in an ancestor-simulation. This sort of recursive reality simulation can then be run to many levels deep as the guys up top will allow.

Now why they would do this? Probably won't be for pure benevolence. They might be doing their equivalent of playing The Sims, or Sim City 40k. Or they might be doing it for experimentation, or for recovering their own history . . . basically for the sake of knowledge.

What becomes more interesting is what might happen when members of this hypothetical super-civilization decide to merge with their own computers, creating a sort of super-mind which seeks to further its own internal knowledge, and survive to do this. This super-mind, and its agents may wish to figure out the sort of esoteric string-theory physics which might permit it to continue its existence in another universe. 2 A sufficiently advanced super-mind might eventually want to run whole universe simulations, using universes themselves as computers. (At a level of abstraction, the universe is nothing more than a computer which is computing the positions and interactions of the matter and energy contained within it. 3)

Of course, the trick here is that humans must develop to the point where they can build planet-sized supercomputers. And then, they must want to spend their time running ancestor and world simulations. Then they must want to expand and control everything in sight for the creation of more knowledge. Ultimately, they must want to survive the end of the universe, and must have the tools needed to do so.

This brings up the possibility that discussion of mortality becomes moot. As a collection of potential states in a finite set, you the meme will already be effectively immortal, though you may go through countless 'physical' guises. It is the sort of immortality that bacteria have, where you have a single set of genes propagated throughout millions of bodies. The set of genes may change gradually as the population of organisms hosting it is forced to adapt to new situations, but it is still the same fundamentally as those genes contained within the first bacterium that held them.

So, the trick to becoming immortal is the following:
A) Do your best to insure that humankind wants to progress to the point that they'd become a powerful enough civilization to build giant supercomputers that they will run simulations with, and eventually merge with to become gigantic superminds that will bend the multiverse to suit their whims.

B) Hope that you're running in a computer simulation. In that case, you will have already lived, at least once physically, and n times virtually. Continue to push towards the goal in A. Your 'gods' might be watching you to see what happens and may direct their evolution accordingly.

C) Hope that you're living in a universe created by a multi-verse bending supermind as found in A. You may well have physically existed n times already, and n! times virtually. Push humanity towards A to ensure that you the meme will continue spreading infinitely.

For an immortality that requires fewer stops at the fountain of amnesia:
A) Make a real stink of yourself as per A. A real stink. Become notable, live a really long time. Spend it all pushing humanity towards super-civilization. The 'gods' running the simulation might take notice and encourage the growth of your particular meme. Enough iterations, and you could become a greater part of the supermind. Hell, you might just found your own supermind.

Did I mention that I've been thinking really hard?

[CoyoteNature]

To me Death doesn't matter, I picked immortality because it was closest to what I think would happen.

You know contemplating eternity and infinity, you see I keep thinking what would happen after the heat death of the universe, when the very very last proton decays down to nothingness when there is nothing and when there is literally nothing left.

Then I thought about chance, the chance something will occur, one in a million one in a billion one in a quatrillion. Then I thought on that some more and realized that given a large span of time(whatever time means when there is literally nothing to create or define it) anything becomes possible. Vacuum fluctuations suddenly have the potential to create new universes in that huge scope of eternity. Maybe not the same universe but perhaps a different one, but then after yet more huge swaths of eternity a new one is formed and a new one and a new one and a new one. Each time chance rolling for improbable events to occur, maybe ressurection, maybe you (the real you as opposed to a copy).

Then I though about infinity, about the vastness of the universe, and with new evidence the possibility that perhaps the observable universe isn't all there is. I though about Everetts's multiple worlds theory, the Bubble idea(multiple Big Bangs), the idea that we might be expanding into another wavefront from another universe(inaccurate because technically its all one universe).

Then I thought beyond that, and beyond that, only in analogy, but still it was incredibly vast.

I then realized that nothing really ended, at least if you wait long enough or search far enough. That everything repeats the same and different.

That given enough time and space anything can and will happen.

Regardless if we do anything at all about it.

That is my thought when confronted with death, and endings of all types, not sure if its a belief or whatever.

But anyway.

[Guardsman Bass]

Why do you guys want to live forever so bad? Have you actually, seriously, thought about what it would be like to be immortal, to live for millenia on end? Aside from the fact that after millenia, your odds of getting killed by all the weird stuff (get hit by lightning multiple times on the same day, and such) would becomel likely, the sheer weight of your memories would be a drag.

[Pick]

I think death sounds kind of like a vacation. The ultimate freedom from responsibility, worry, and stress. Downside? You're dead.

So when it comes, okay, until then, I'll enjoy life while I can.

[Darth Raptor]

Heh. Terwynn, we've reached essentially the same conclusion and outlook on life. While my original idea revolved less around computational simulation and more around direct physical manipulation the end result is the same. Since I started thinking this way, I've pretty much been living the life you outlined in your first point (A).

It's an elegant belief system, I think. Kind of a "Neohumanism", if you will. The belief in objective morality and ceaseless progress leads to a the kind of transcient utopia I'm hoping for. It succeeds where so many other religions fail. Although you have the comfort of believing that everything is going to be okay in the end, the lives we live today are still important. The bad things are still bad, and the good things good, etc.

<snip>

Simple. If ten duplicates of me were made, they would all be me. A true divergence would occur as they inevitably started acting differently, but they are still no less me. As for which one has *my* consciousness, they all do. So what if the "self" you arbitrarily define as the physical original is destroyed? If the transition from original to duplicate is instantaneous, would the transition even be perceptible? To take it a bit further, you're not the same person you were when you were six. That person doesn't exist anymore, but has been replaced by an embodiment that believes it's him- your current iteration. When a cell divides, which is the original? Both and neither. My operational definition of self- the sum of my memories and cognitive processes, cannot be constrained to a single unique occurace. It can exist anytime, anywhere, and as many times as the powers that be so desire.

[Gil Hamilton]

My own mortality isn't a pressing issue, but I like Marina's idea in this thread. Particularly since in the future they'll likely assign absurd mystical powers to my giant monument, like wearing a scale model of my tomb on their head will greatly increase their concentration and allow them to pass their calculus final.

[anybody_mcc]

Simple. If ten duplicates of me were made, they would all be me. A true divergence would occur as they inevitably started acting differently, but they are still no less me. As for which one has *my* consciousness, they all do.

I'm not asking which one of them have your consciousness , but which one of them is you. And don't tell me that evryone of them , because saying you are more than one person is a sign of mental illness last time i checked.

So what if the "self" you arbitrarily define as the physical original is destroyed?

What's so arbitrary , it is a definition of self. You are just you , and not someone else too.

If the transition from original to duplicate is instantaneous, would the transition even be perceptible?

As far as i am concerned , there is no such thing as instantaneous duplication.

To take it a bit further, you're not the same person you were when you were six. That person doesn't exist anymore, but has been replaced by an embodiment that believes it's him- your current iteration.

And i don't see what that has to do with my objections. None of this versions ceased to exist , they just changed , and continuously. There was no point in time , when there was no "me".

When a cell divides, which is the original? Both and neither.

Correct me if i am wrong , but it is possible to tell which one is which. Not that this has much to do with our discussion. How do you want to divide a brain so both parts are functioning copies of the original.

My operational definition of self- the sum of my memories and cognitive processes, cannot be constrained to a single unique occurace. It can exist anytime, anywhere, and as many times as the powers that be so desire.

Interesting mysticism. And really your definition of self is wrong. You are not just your memories and cognitive processes , you are your body too. And don't give me that crap about sw and hw. There is no sw and hw in humans. You don't exist without your body.

[Darth Raptor]

I'm not asking which one of them have your consciousness , but which one of them is you. And don't tell me that evryone of them , because saying you are more than one person is a sign of mental illness last time i checked.

That's because, obviously, technology has not yet progressed to the point where you *can* be more than one person, so anyone who believes they are when it is not currently possible is delusional.

What's so arbitrary , it is a definition of self. You are just you , and not someone else too.

Your definition of self is predicated on a particular continuity of atoms, not the characteristics and capabilities of the cumulative whole. What is it about the matter you're made of *now* that makes it so special? If you can recreate an identical copy how is it any less you? Identifying the original, natural iteration of you as you is basing your self on a particular mass, not what that mass is like- ergo, it's arbitrary. Also it's useless, as your corpse rotting in the ground 200 years from now is more "you" than the bioroid bestowed with an exact copy of your neural net before you died.

As far as i am concerned , there is no such thing as instantaneous duplication.

It doesn't have to be instantaneous to be imperceptible. If you have a perfect record of someone's brain activity at any given point in time, and you revive a new brain according to those parameters, the transition would not be noticeable.

And i don't see what that has to do with my objections. None of this versions ceased to exist , they just changed , and continuously. There was no point in time , when there was no "me".

Actually, according to your definition of self, you have always existed. You had a front row seat at the Big Bang, because "you" are just the continuity of this particular body of atoms. Interestingly enough, taking your definition back in time actually duplicates you- although your duplicates are nowhere near as identical as mine. Before your conception, you were really two seperate entities- a spermatozoa and an ova.

Correct me if i am wrong , but it is possible to tell which one is which. Not that this has much to do with our discussion. How do you want to divide a brain so both parts are functioning copies of the original.

If I knew how to do this I wouldn't be posting on a message board right now. I'd be accepting my Nobel Prize. This is all idle speculation based on the assumption that any of this is even possible.

Interesting mysticism. And really your definition of self is wrong. You are not just your memories and cognitive processes , you are your body too. And don't give me that crap about sw and hw. There is no sw and hw in humans. You don't exist without your body.

Mysticism? You're the one suggesting there's something magical about the particular atoms you're composed of right this instant. If my brain can be sustained through artificial means, then what the frack do I need my body for? Furthermore, if what my brain can do can be done by artificial means, what do I need the squishy gray matter for?

[Mutant Headcrab]

Well, if things work out right, then stem cell research/gene therapy/etc...will achieve proper results by the time I reach an age that I have to worry about such things. Then I hop onto the surgical immortality bandwagon till cybernetics create a better, longer lasting alternative.

Immortality is such a bad word in my opinion. I eventually would like to die, but only at a point of my choosing.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I've done some thinking and research about this.

Snip complicated stuff for space...

Did I mention that I've been thinking really hard?

Ok not to throw this off topic, but what you described sounds strangely like kind of what happened, or was revealed, in the last episodes of an anime series i saw called Big O (title tiny-fied incase it's a spoiler).

Where at the end, the entire world as the characters saw it was basically the historical simulation of a vast supercomputer or civilization. They were all 'actors' on a 'stage' acting out events that had taken place many times previously and it just started right over again at the end.

At least that's how i saw it, it has several interpetations, but your description of the 'memes' and 'uber-Sim City' thing sounded very much like what happened.

[Guardsman Bass]

Where at the end, the entire world as the characters saw it was basically the historical simulation of a vast supercomputer or civilization. They were all 'actors' on a 'stage' acting out events that had taken place many times previously and it just started right over again at the end.

Although it's bad to continue off-topic, didn't some things change at the end (i.e., Angel was with a living Dorothy)?

[wolveraptor]

Continuity is a big part of immortality. Cloning yourself doesn't make you immortal. The clone could be imprinted with the memories that you have, but his consciousness would have begun in a test tube, while yours would've begun much earlier.

The best way to reach immortality would obviously be robotic transplantation. This will only be possible, if ever, in the distant future, so pack your shit and get in the cryo-chamber. Of course, you still run into the problem of running out of materials to build new robot-selves with, and a lack of energy. The only way to survive forever would be to shut yourself down and hope that time travelers from a parrallel universe rescue your body before it succumbs to nuclear decay. Better yet, travel to one of these universes yourself before your own undergoes death.

[Surlethe]

I'm holding out for an afterlife, but I'll live life here fully and prolong it, because I'm probably wrong about the afterlife.

Man, I love being alive.

[Darth Servo]

I plan on putting it off as long as possible. I enjoy life most of the time. Why think about death now?

[Dooku's Disciple]

I'm not certain how to vote on this one. When my time comes, when and however that may be, I won't fight it or worry about it. Instead I'll just think "enough already" and slip into eternal oblivion.

Not that I don't enjoy life, but all things must pass. I think of sleep as a nightly rehearsal for the grave, and I see nothing wrong in doing forever what I do for eight hours of every day.

DD