If you could live forever....would you? (1 Viewer)

[Brennan77]

What do we mean by 'forever'?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[El Caliente]

4 pages and no Queen references?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_Jtpf8N5IDE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[superchuck500]

What do we mean by 'forever'?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

What do you think it means?

 

[Brennan77]

What do you think it means?

My definition is irrelevant to the question at this point.

I'm asking the OP what he might mean by forever in this particular hypothetical. My answer to the question would likely vary dramatically depending on the answer.

I'm assuming that his theory that we can transfer/reduce our consciousness to purely a physical medium through incremental/empirical means also implies that 'forever' is an also incremental, being a series of one moment of time after another. If so, what do we then mean by forever? An infinity of time? A very long period of time? Is forever even a possibility within our understanding of time?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[superchuck500]

My definition is irrelevant to the question at this point.

I'm asking the OP what he might mean by forever in this particular hypothetical. My answer to the question would likely vary dramatically depending on the answer.

I'm assuming that his theory that we can transfer/reduce our consciousness to purely a physical medium through incremental/empirical means also implies that 'forever' is an also incremental, being a series of one moment of time after another. If so, what do we then mean by forever? An infinity of time? A very long period of time? Is forever even a possibility within our understanding of time?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

My view is that you're over-thinking it. He most likely meant that as long as humans walk the Earth, you're among them. That seems to me to be the only sensible interpretation within the context of the question.

 

[Brennan77]

My view is that you're over-thinking it. He most likely meant that as long as humans walk the Earth, you're among them. That seems to me to be the only sensible interpretation within the context of the question.

I might be over thinking it, but as long as we are talking about uploading our personal consciousness and transferring our person into an artificial physical vessel, I'm sure we can afford the luxury of defining the terms a bit. In this hypothetical, a human person, uploaded into a computer, assuming this were possible, might conceivably outlive normal human life.

But judging by your response I guess I'd think we were talking about a very long time, and not necessarily 'forever'.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[superchuck500]

I might be over thinking it, but as long as we are talking about uploading our personal consciousness and transferring our person into an artificial physical vessel, I'm sure we can afford the luxury of defining the terms a bit. In this hypothetical, a human person, uploaded into a computer, assuming this were possible, might conceivably outlive normal human life.

Yes, fair enough. Sort of like when people start applying rules of physics in debating which superhero is better.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Yes, fair enough. Sort of like when people start applying rules of physics in debating which superhero is better.

"Better"? Or more powerful?
Superman is obviously more powerful that every Marvel super (except maybe Hulk), but most of them are better (cooler)

 

[saintmdterps]

I don't know about him, but I don't think I would want to outlive humanity.

Unless we develop interstellar space travel and there are some really hot aliens.

And I mean - eventually humans will evolve beyond compatibility with your existing genetic code. But that's a continuation of humanity, no?

Oh - and I'd like to be able to hibernate for 10 years or so at a time.

At this point I don't think humanity is deserving of continuation. Modern forms of humans appeared on this planet 200,000 years ago and civilization about 6,000 years ago, much to the grief of just about every other species of flora and fauna already here.

If you take all the good humanity has done for the planet and balance it against the evil, sadly the evil side of the scale wins, hands down.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

^^ I know that's a popular position but I'm not sure I can get behind it
Even aside from the vagaries of"good/evil" I'd be interested in seeing some in depth analysis on this
My guess is that, like today, "evil" has always been a better story, but for every Jack the Ripper there must be score of good people not commented on

Now I will cede that greed/acquisition are particular human failings, but on balance I think "we" share more than we horde

 

[jumpingoff]

BTW, this is an interesting/entertaining read that kind of falls within the topic.

https://www.amazon.com/Year-Million...8&qid=1477925059&sr=8-1&keywords=year+million

 

[Heathen Saint]

At this point I don't think humanity is deserving of continuation. Modern forms of humans appeared on this planet 200,000 years ago and civilization about 6,000 years ago, much to the grief of just about every other species of flora and fauna already here.

If you take all the good humanity has done for the planet and balance it against the evil, sadly the evil side of the scale wins, hands down.

Right, and i'd agree that humans have been far more destructive than "good" for the planet..but..Who decides if we are "deserving"? Under the assumption that there is no higher power to answer to, I would think that the "goal" of human kind would be to colonize the solar system, and eventually the galaxy, if we are not replaced by AI before then. Is there a "point" to space colonization? Well, other than human's innate "wanderlust" or crowding concerns, I can't really think of any.

We have evolved to live on one planet--this one. That doesn't mean through artificial means we couldn't eventually create an environment similar enough to earth to live on or find another world that, through tech we haven't developed yet, would take us there and be habitable enough for us (assuming what was living on said planet didn't kill us off).

 

[Heathen Saint]

My definition is irrelevant to the question at this point.

I'm asking the OP what he might mean by forever in this particular hypothetical. My answer to the question would likely vary dramatically depending on the answer.

I'm assuming that his theory that we can transfer/reduce our consciousness to purely a physical medium through incremental/empirical means also implies that 'forever' is an also incremental, being a series of one moment of time after another. If so, what do we then mean by forever? An infinity of time? A very long period of time? Is forever even a possibility within our understanding of time?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I guess that looking back I more or less meant as long as we are around as a species which is taking an admittedly large assumption in that we'd actually be around in the next couple hundred years..but I think we will. I think certain advances have to be made in longevity and the "hardiness" of human life and permeation of our species on at least one other planet before our chances of dying out like other major species of the past starts declining.

And I guess by hardiness--I mean more like genetically engineered beings..along with more the rudimentary like getting new organs when you need them, replacing body parts through accelerated regenerative processes, having a consciousness backup that would give you the option to come back in another cloned body were you to be killed in your biological "first" body. All sound pretty close to insane now, but give it a couple hundred years if not less, and I think one or more of these will be making a mainstream debut.

 

[saint_drago]

One of the new episodes of "Black Mirror" explores this idea. It's one of the best shows on Netflix and it really makes you think about what our species could be on the brink of.

I would live forever in this scenario. I just don't see the downside.

 

[Brennan77]

Right, and i'd agree that humans have been far more destructive than "good" for the planet..but..Who decides if we are "deserving"? Under the assumption that there is no higher power to answer to, I would think that the "goal" of human kind would be to colonize the solar system, and eventually the galaxy, if we are not replaced by AI before then. Is there a "point" to space colonization? Well, other than human's innate "wanderlust" or crowding concerns, I can't really think of any.

We have evolved to live on one planet--this one. That doesn't mean through artificial means we couldn't eventually create an environment similar enough to earth to live on or find another world that, through tech we haven't developed yet, would take us there and be habitable enough for us (assuming what was living on said planet didn't kill us off).

You touch on a good question here. If there is no higher reality or truth of existence that transcends the sum of empirical parts, then what is the point of living any longer or less? Why would any personal being's experience matter at all? To what end does it serve? Why would longevity or satisfaction of wanderlust matter? For questions like this to be entertained, we have to all agree that there are some truths of our existence that make the questions reasonable and meaningful.

So if the premise of the original question necessarily reduces and limits human consciousness and 'being' to the purely temporal and physical, then I'd have to answer the question with a shrug. Even the question "who cares?" becomes meaningless because what do we mean by 'who'? Any notion of truth or anything being of consequence would be an illusion.

If, on the other hand, we do in fact participate in some sort of truth, beauty and goodness, outside of physical selves, that make experiences matter, then I'd have to answer your question with differing considerations. Maybe if I lived longer, even through artificial means, I might more fully participate in the truth of reality. And maybe that'd be a good thing.