Live data from Hacker News

Arguing for Immortality

vincentwoo.com

91–92 of 92 posts

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people dying does clear out old ideas. the leopard doesn't change his shorts. First, that's not necessarily true. Old ideas persist across generations even today. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. etc. Second, new ideas are not necessarily valuable anyway. Having just moved to the SF Bay Area, let new age religions and whatnot be exhibit #1. There's something to be said for passing the test of tim…

The reason why older people 'cling' to old ideas is that as we age our neural pathways become calcified along current paths and connections, making it more difficult to change our minds about something. If aging were inhibited, presumably that problem would be one of the ones solved as well, so people's minds would remain as agile and flexible as they were in young adulthood, indefinitely, and hence able to change an…

>That's quite a leap of faith, IMO.

From the studies I've read, I believe it's common knowledge now in Neuroscience. IANANS, though, maybe one can weigh in here...

>It might be so that clinging to old ideas is a chemical "problem", or it might be how the brain works.

Same difference, imho. The brain is a chemical machine.

>When studying other people, I come to the understanding that around 30 years of age, many people have decided on an ideology, decided which music they enjoy, what food they like, and many other interests. When presented with new information which might require change in that internal model, many people seem to ignore the new information rather than changing their model, because changing our internal model is hard, and it becomes harder the more elaborate our model of the world is. So, the older we get, the more elaborate our models, and the more reluctant to change we grow.

You just described the process I'm referring to, and there's a neurochemical explanation for it.

>I'm know people are different - I am fighting this kind of stagnation in my mind every day - but I'm not convinced that the people who are most likely to become immortal are the ones that are the least prone to stagnation. I'm afraid it's quite the opposite.

I think those most likely to 'become' immortal are whoever receives the treatment, drugs, genetic therapy, whatever form the implementation takes, regardless of how prone to stagnation or any other affliction they are.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#92

Aren't we already immortal? See, two possibilities exist. 1 There's no life after death: You don't exist before or after your life.[1] You only perceive anything during your lifespan. Since you can't perceive anything before or after, your life is infinite for you. Because when it ends, there would be no you to notice. Of course, such immortality ain't about prolonged lifespan, but it doesn't make it less cool (just…

Is your claim that mortality is indistinguishable from immortality? Here is a simple counterexample:

An immortal can count (by ones, out loud) from 1 to a googol. A mortal cannot.

Post reply on HN