Modern Pascal's Wager adaptation: For real.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a continuum, there's no magical moments.

Maybe its just me, maybe you're too young but it doesn't seem to me that I'm the same person I used to be. I wonder if the young me, if it could see me now, would think hey! I should have given up so much more temporary fun so this geezer can have a bigger house.

chez

[godBoy]

This was my point, I don't see how it's even possible to say that a machine like the brain or nervous system could exist forever. This is obviously mere speculation because I have no clue other than at this point in time it's no where near possible.

Our body's are natural machines that will wear and breakdown, I don't think it's reasonable to assume with a 100% certainty that we will ever be able to 'repair' the vital parts of the human body that make me 'me'.

[m_the0ry]

I personally don't believe there will be a technological singularity. There are inherent quantum limitations on what technology can do. There is already a mathematical formula that posits the maximum amount of computational power that can fit inside of a specific volume and it (literally) requires harnessing the power of black holes. There's a ceiling on what we can do.

Technology progression is an S-curve (population curve, natural curve, stable equilibrium curve, whatever you want to call it) and we are nearing the inflection point but not an asymptote.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking about overpopulation! Even with our current lifespans and death rates, the earth's population is expanding at an ever alarming rate! You'd have to have one heck of a world-wide birth control awareness and responsible parenting campaign in place. Even if they were in full effect now, it will be a close race to see if we'd make it even with our current mortality rate (although I do think there's still time, we better get a move-on).

I believe you're grossly underestimating the problem of over population. The only shot is to get off this planet and either find new resources or self-sustaining ones. The chances that the human race will become instinct within the next million years is probably as close to 100% as you can get. That shouldn't be surprising. Almost all known species become extinct within that time.

And that's not at all pessimistic. If anything, it's optimistic. Personally, I think we'll bring extinction upon ourselves through destructive wars within the next couple of hundred years if not within our own lifetimes or our children's.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes. Science as of today can extend people's lives, and will continue to be able to extend them as it progresses. It's definitely a possibility that if science manages to progress faster than people deteriorate, people's lives can be extended long enough to reach point X (where death by natural causes can be avoided).

Now assume that living forever will result in infinite gain. (not necessarily so, but at least there's a significant chance of this, whereas there probably isn't a significant chance that it will result in infinite loss, as you can just kill yourself anytime you want)

You see where I'm going. There's a slim chance that you have an infinite gain, out of a finite loss, so you should (rationally) put all your efforts towards this objective.

As I see it, this objective needs 2 things: 1) That you stay alive long enough. and 2) That science progresses fast enough.

So you should put all your efforts towards maximizing your health, minimizing your chances of dying and making world science progress as fast as possible.

Then again, we're not wholly rational beings, so I can understand that many of us (myself included), after being presented with this argument and finding it correct, still don't dedicate their whole lives to this end.

Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of Zeno's paradox of the racetrack: there is no way to cross the finish line in a finite period of time because you always have to traverse half the distance first, and there are infinite halves.

The value of infinite life might well be infinite, but if the likelihood of achieving it is infinitely small, it may not help us.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
You must be joking about overpopulation! Even with our current lifespans and death rates, the earth's population is expanding at an ever alarming rate!

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection, baby... Survival of the fittest

If overpopulation becomes an issue as important as you say, I think we'll have to reconsider our extremely benevolent moral/ethical codes.

[PowerRangers]

Is dying such a bad thing? It is the natural order.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Is dying such a bad thing? It is the natural order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not that bad, but thats not why.