Live data from Hacker News

The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

laphamsquarterly.org

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#61

To me fear of death is a sign of not really having been born yet. If you can't make 50 years worthwhile, you can't make 50000 years worthwhile, and if you can't cope with being limited to 80 years or so, you will not be able to cope with the heat death of the universe. It also stands to reason that if you feel it's impossible to give up 100 years of grown personality and memories, it will be even harder and more pain…

The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever. - Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

Even the quote itself just demonstrates the not seeing the woods for all the trees I mentioned... as if throwing a baby on the floor would make it grow up, instead of the other way around.

But it doesn't stop there does it, and it's a perfect example of the shit you find if you just dig the tiniest bit.

http://www.calvertjournal.com/opinion/show/1487/roscosmos-pr...

> However, Tsiolkovsky’s interests did not lie just in the fields of engineering and rocket design; he was also interested in social reform. In 1928 he published a book called The Unknown Intelligence in which he argued that humans would colonise our galaxy and introduce the philosophy of panpsychism, a sinister form of anthropocentric perfectionism with a eugenic streak. Tsiolkovsky believed that atoms have their own form of intelligence and that if all the lower forms of life were eliminated, then the suffering of the “human, higher atoms” would be lessened, as they would not have to go back to the bottom of the pyramid of existence but would be reused again in the highest form of matter — humans. To achieve this, Tsiolkovsky suggested sterilising all fauna and aquatic life, and most of the flora on Earth, leaving only those plants necessary for nutrition. His plans did not stop there, but embraced the full extent of eugenics: he proposed using the same remedy to eliminate all “imperfect” members of humankind, so that only the best, healthiest and most intelligent people would be allowed to reproduce. Their offspring would then go on to create a higher caste of Nietzschean Übermenschen and, ultimately, reach the much longed-for goal of immortality.

Nietzsche would have laughed his ass off I guess.. just consider the opposite of the Übermensch, the last man:

> The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

> 'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth.

How do you get from that to sterilizing all life on Earth so you don't have to be a bird or a dog every now and then? That's so incredibly impoverished, and fits perfectly into what I outlined.

> We have more life than we know what to do with. We have life far beyond the point where it becomes a sick caricature of itself. We prolong life until it becomes a sickness, an abomination, a miserable and pathetic flight from death that saps out and mocks everything that made life desirable in the first place.

-- Scott Alexander ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/ )

> You ever look at their faces? ... “I’m pro-life!” [makes a pinched face of hate and fear; his lips are pursed as though he’s just sucked on a lemon.] “I’m pro-life!” Boy, they look it, don’t they? They just exude joie de vivre. You just want to hang with them and play Trivial Pursuit all night long.

-- Bill Hicks

> The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.

-- "Sophie Scholl - The Last Days

> If only we try to live sincerely, it will go well with us, even though we are certain to experience real sorrow, and great disappointments, and also will probably commit great faults and do wrong things, but it certainly is true, that it is better to be high-spirited, even though one makes more mistakes, than to be narrow-minded and all too prudent. It is good to love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love, is well done.

-- Vincent van Gogh

> A man has made at least a start on discovering the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will never sit.

-- D. Elton Trueblood

There, that's some quotes with some actual wisdom behind them, with actual brains and guts. A petty "me me me" isn't the solution to age-old problems, it's regression. Even after 3 decades of gobbling up sci-fi stories, even though I don't "lack imagination" to consider "uploading brains into virtual worlds", but simply imagine additional things, I can't unsee the people and their ticks. I can't unsee how we treat the poor and voiceless today, and how we show no signs of letting up. This new age transhumanism religious stuff, and it's nothing more, comes from the worst and the weakest, not the most noble humanity has to offer. I stand by that, and am still open for counterexamples, but require no more examples of it.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#62
post #47

To me fear of death is a sign of not really having been born yet. If you can't make 50 years worthwhile, you can't make 50000 years worthwhile, and if you can't cope with being limited to 80 years or so, you will not be able to cope with the heat death of the universe. It also stands to reason that if you feel it's impossible to give up 100 years of grown personality and memories, it will be even harder and more pain…

"the only way to ensure you will live "forever" is to severely restrict the agency of anyone else but you." Such a lack of imagination. What about virtual worlds where you're ego would be uploaded, leaving no physical remains to be fed? What about changing you're body for something that don't need to eat food? What about the tremendous immensity and ressources of space that await colonization? What about being able t…

I considered all of these and more before making my comment, and still made it as I made it. It's still there for you to reply to, and then maybe I can entertain you.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#63

To me fear of death is a sign of not really having been born yet. If you can't make 50 years worthwhile, you can't make 50000 years worthwhile, and if you can't cope with being limited to 80 years or so, you will not be able to cope with the heat death of the universe. It also stands to reason that if you feel it's impossible to give up 100 years of grown personality and memories, it will be even harder and more pain…

Personally, I think the optimal aim is agelessness. There are issues with immortality, as there is with any unlimited concept. I think what most people fear is a fixed time limit. I want to be the master of my own destiny, and not have biology telling me when to go. if we become ageless, people still die from trauma and suicide, but we lose that pressure of knowing we have such a limited time. That might be good for…

All these issues can also be overcome with a "live and let live" attitude, and expanding ones empathy beyond oneself, and tentatively even beyond the present. At least to me, the main difference between me living for 1000 years, and me and 9 other people living 100 years each, is that 10 people would probably be more interesting, even though I would only get to see a tenth of it.

Like that Roman dude said, the mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled, so it seems with life. To have or to be... if only I could live 1000 years, if only 10000, if only 100000... is it so absurd to at least consider it possible that we would treat it just like we treat RAM and CPU now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Sure, it's apples and oranges in a way, but satisfaction really is something that happens in the mind and not just the external circumstances, so I don't see why we wouldn't be able to consider any amount of time "not long enough" at some point. Doesn't mean we would, but if we did, we would have gained nothing, other than less diversity of persons.

> We feel free to express ourselves because we are ready to fade into emptiness. When we are trying to be active and special and to accomplish something, we cannot express ourselves... So we have enjoyment, we are free.

-- Shunryu Suzuki

> Of short duration are those who praise as well as those who are praised, those who remember and those who are remembered. And even that happens just in one corner of the world, and even there not everybody agrees with one another, a single person doesn't even agree with themselves. This whole Earth however is but a dot.

-- Marcus Aurelius

This does not change meaningfully, to me, if you replace Earth with Universe and short duration with 10^10000 years. It's the same basic problem, and even I am constantly in flux, not ever the exact same person I was an instant ago. So why not get over that? For me letting go of some things doesn't mean giving anything up, it's more like having the hands free to receive better things; I like the tiny actual place I have in reality more than an imaginary big one that requires all sorts of ballast and images, layers of abstraction and alienation.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you have such a strong emotional hostility towards cryonics? First off, you don't understand how cryonics work, from the organizations to the procedure. It is not freezing, but vitrification, as anti-freeze is essentially pumped into the circulatory system to avoid the damage from icing you mentioned (toxicity of the anti-freeze is another problem). It may or may not work, but it is purely based in physical ph…

I have roughly the same feelings towards anybody giving false hope of some kind of afterlife, it's not 'emotional hostility', just a serious problem with people selling bs and preying on the weak. As for the chances of rot vs ashes vs cryogenically preserved: the chances are - as of now - equal: 0.

> as of now

Don't shift the goal posts.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#65
post #7
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm sure you have a rigorous evidence-backed argument backing that up.

I think the chances are close to zero - desiccation of the brain tissue destroys the proximal and distal dendrites and therefore the connections that represent our memories and consciousness. Freezing causes the water to expand and rupture the cell membranes, which also causes irreversible damage and information loss. I hope we can discover a better preservation technique until we get neural uploading sorted, I think…

Freezing isn't used by anybody. Cryonics organizations use vitrification, which preserves the brain (and body) in a sort of liquid-glass state. The antifreeze used is massively toxic should the patient ever be warmed up, but at liquid-N2 temperatures it serves to preserve structure without the freezing damage you talk about, and nanotech-assisted recovery OR structural scanning would occur at that temperature.

The newer techniques of room temperature preservation (with no hope of biological recovery, but very high hopes of structural preservation) apply structural scaffolding that keeps such neural microstructure in place, fossilizing the smallest relevant structures in a way a simple polish-and-scan destructive process can pick up, today.

The latter point shows just how little jacquesm knows about this space. A rather large prize purse was recently won by a startup that preserved, through demonstrated scan-and-upload, a mammalian brain. Of course the brain-emulation software wasn't there to make a little VR mouse, but recovery of the brain's connectome was demonstrated.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As of now", sure, but the whole point of cryonics is that this may be different in the future. The definition of death has changed over the years. It used to be that death was simply cessation of respiration and heartbeat, which used to be (mostly) irreversible. Now with cardio-pulmonary machines that can take over those functions, there is brain death, which is cessation of brain function. Information-theoretic dea…

You don't solve a problem by changing definitions. Let me give you an example that might explain it better: People who believe in dowsing rods have a perfect answer to when dowsing doesn't work: you didn't dig deep enough to find the water. Works every time! That same argument holds in the case of cryonics: you didn't wait long enough. For evidence free statements requiring belief the proper label is religion, not sc…

The population in the west is already declining. Life extension would probably be beneficial and make the birthday decline even further.

The alternative to cryonics is total destruction of the human body with no possibility of being brought back. When given the choice between no chance at all and a chance, no matter how remote, of survival, picking the latter is the most rational approach (assuming your goal is not to die, of course).

You seem to be under the misconception that cryonics promises bringing you back to life. It does not. It simply preserves your body, in the hope that future technology will be able to do that.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#67
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what we are? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. For anybody that does not g…

Brother Cavil. I really feel like that - stuck in a body of flesh: limited in its sensory capability, very fragile, almost impossible to repair.

I don't know man, the human body is an incredible machine... I think it's more six of one, half dozen of the other. The one truth you can count on is: there's gonna be tradeoffs.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#68
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0 and 1 are really extreme probabilities. It's often better to think of a probability of 0.001 being closer to 0.5 than to 0. As odds ratios it's easy to see that 999:1 is closer to 1:1 than to infinity:1. 0 probability means that even infinitely many pieces of evidence will not change your assessment: no matter how many heads you see restored from cryogenic storage, you will still believe that the probability is 0,…

> 0 probability means that even infinitely many pieces of evidence will not change your assessment Well no, this isn’t really what probability 0 means. An event is not impossible if it has a probability of 0. More importantly probability informs you about how many times you should expect an event to occur, not what to do with this information if the event does or does not arise. In the Bayesian view, your probability…

I think there's a legitimate question as to whether every real number is actually physically real. [1] It seems credible that our universe can only actually present us with a finite number of possible sensory experiences, in which case an event with probability 0 actually couldn't ever happen. That said, even if the universe can present you with an infinity of observations you can certainly only consider a finite number of classes of them, leading to the same outcome.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0411418

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#69
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0 and 1 are really extreme probabilities. It's often better to think of a probability of 0.001 being closer to 0.5 than to 0. As odds ratios it's easy to see that 999:1 is closer to 1:1 than to infinity:1. 0 probability means that even infinitely many pieces of evidence will not change your assessment: no matter how many heads you see restored from cryogenic storage, you will still believe that the probability is 0,…

> 0 probability means that even infinitely many pieces of evidence will not change your assessment Well no, this isn’t really what probability 0 means. An event is not impossible if it has a probability of 0. More importantly probability informs you about how many times you should expect an event to occur, not what to do with this information if the event does or does not arise. In the Bayesian view, your probability…

> I wouldn’t personally use probability 0 for cryogenics either, but if someone insisted on it the way to interpret that would be to say, “Out of uncountably many trials, a successful resurrection occurs only countably many times.”

It'd be a weird universe in which uncountably many cryogenics trials occurred, but I concede that the concept of almost-certainty would be relevant in that universe. On the other hand, seeing even trillions of occurrences (each with probability 0) I would still be forced to conclude that it was more likely that something with non-zero probability occurred, e.g.: I'm in a simulation, I'm going mad, I've been hallucinating for the last million years (I'm assuming here that one can only see a million cryogenic revivals a year), etc.

Re: The Art of Not Dying: the First Emperor’s Pursuit of Immortality

#70
post #54
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0 and 1 are really extreme probabilities. It's often better to think of a probability of 0.001 being closer to 0.5 than to 0. As odds ratios it's easy to see that 999:1 is closer to 1:1 than to infinity:1. 0 probability means that even infinitely many pieces of evidence will not change your assessment: no matter how many heads you see restored from cryogenic storage, you will still believe that the probability is 0,…

0.001 is closer to 0 than 0.003 ;) All probability's have error bars, so 0 +/ 10e-20 is still very much 0.

Thanks, I can count :) Of course 0.001 is closer to 0 than 0.003, but my point is that linear distance is not a very good way of comparing probabilities-as-degrees-of-certainties: rather than differences of probabilities one should consider the ratios of odds ratios (or differences of log-odds-ratios) because these better represent how we update our certainty in the light of evidence.

Frequentist probabilities can have error bars (if I repeat some experiment N times and observe no successes, I estimate the probability as "0 with error bars"), but I'm not sure that Bayesian probabilities-as-degrees-of-certainty naturally have error bars. If you're uncertain of your certainty, isn't that the same as just being less certain? As I say, I'm not sure of the mathematics here.

Post reply on HN