Modern Pascal's Wager adaptation: For real.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, well that's the problem with the argument, then.

IF I felt an infinite, immediate gain by being able to live forever, then maybe I should put all my efforts towards the objective in the OP. But I doubt people actually feel that way. Whether I die in 100 years or 400 years, that doesn't make much difference in how I feel today.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fair, but it's highly subjective let's agree. For some it may make a big difference. Especially when comparing 100 years to infinity. Ever heard of all those idiots who fall for religions simply because they promise an (unreal) eternal existence?

[Lestat]

I was actually going to make a post similar to this. I agree science will progress to where most people can live indefinitely, or at least a lot longer than we are now. As an atheist, I will feel very left out of this process (since it's not likely to happen within our lifetime).

So we die, while generations after us get to live forever. Of course, this is just in theory. They will soon become overpopulated and die as well.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
So we die, while generations after us get to live forever. Of course, this is just in theory. They will soon become overpopulated and die as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

How pessimistic!

First, there's definitely a chance some of us will live long enough. Have in mind that the progress of science will help to keep us alive longer and longer, and as I said there will probably be a point where scientific progress on the matter goes fast enough that they can "add" years to your lifespan faster than you "consume" them.

And about the overpopulation issue... There's plenty on earth we aren't exploiting to the maximum usefulness. And then there's space stations. In any case, if capitalism is still kicking, there's no reason to assume this technology will be available to everyone, so overpopulation needn't happen the way you say.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point, but I could maximize my efforts to minimize the amount of chances I have to die, however I could still get struck by a car walking to the store which is fifty feet away.

So as for progressing science, this I can attempt.

But I will continue to smoke blunts and skateboard daily, for no matter how hard you try to minimize chances of death, it can be over-ridden in a second.

[/ QUOTE ]

You play poker?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument, but I think it must ultimately fail to the mechanistic nature of human beings. We are machines. Machine parts can be replaced in the event of wear and failure. I have no doubt that a '69 Camaro can be kept in working order indefinitely, tens of thousands of years, even if none of the parts are original.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Chez's point is that it wouldn't be the same '69 camaro.

I want to criticize your "body is a machine" idea especially with regards to the brain but I think we've been down that road already.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is chez' point, but I think he is wrong, at least for any meaningful definition of 'same.'

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, well that's the problem with the argument, then.

IF I felt an infinite, immediate gain by being able to live forever, then maybe I should put all my efforts towards the objective in the OP. But I doubt people actually feel that way. Whether I die in 100 years or 400 years, that doesn't make much difference in how I feel today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we go with memories then all we need to do is find a way to transfer memories to someone else, should be much easier then keeping some body alive in perpituity.

but lets assume that its some continuity of memory that matters (like all personal identity solutions it has serious problems but lets ignore them), then I'm the same person as before to the extent that memories have continued. However a lot of my memories of 30 years ago have been lost and some of the memories I think I have of 30 years ago are incorrect. Rather than saying I'm the same person as 30 years ago it makes more sense to say I'm the same person to some extent and I'm more the same person that I was 10 years ago than I was 30 years ago.

We therefore have a diminshing interest in our future self although you could argue we have some duty to who we will become. It would reach zero fairly quickly (on a scale of immortality) or at least fairly quickly reach the point where my future self has no more 'sameness' than you and I.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! Finally a worthy answer [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But then I ask you, what's the difference if the time is 10 years? 1 year? 5 minutes? You're not the same person you will be 5 minutes from now, so why bother living anything but an extremely hedonistic life?

[/ QUOTE ]
as I said in my other response, I'm going with a diminishing sameness over time (though it has problems) and Hedonism is absolutely correct bearing that in mind.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we go with memories then all we need to do is find a way to transfer memories to someone else, should be much easier then keeping some body alive in perpituity.

but lets assume that its some continuity of memory that matters (like all personal identity solutions it has serious problems but lets ignore them), then I'm the same person as before to the extent that memories have continued. However a lot of my memories of 30 years ago have been lost and some of the memories I think I have of 30 years ago are incorrect. Rather than saying I'm the same person as 30 years ago it makes more sense to say I'm the same person to some extent and I'm more the same person that I was 10 years ago than I was 30 years ago.

We therefore have a diminshing interest in our future self although you could argue we have some duty to who we will become. It would reach zero fairly quickly (on a scale of immortality) or at least fairly quickly reach the point where my future self has no more 'sameness' than you and I.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...a parallel to another current thread, the 'now you' and the '1,000 years from now you' are two entirely different people, but at no point in between did you ever cease to exist, and that person enter into existence?

I think I'd be ok with the knowledge that it would seem to ME, living this life, that I would be the same person all the time. I might be wrong, as you point out, but I'd never realize it.