Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Steven81 t1_j6chw1k wrote

Reply to comment by Jenkinswarlock in I’m ready by CassidyHouse

There is a downside with being infused with such ideas from early on. I'm prolly older than a lot of this sub (hopefully not by a lot) but I came in contact with age of the spiritual machines and similar ideas in the mid to late 90s...

Ever since then , no matter how small the danger (towards my life) I get spooked. For example I had a minor hospitalization lately, my iv hooked veins often develop phlebitis soon after. A mostly benign condition that almost never develops to something worse like DVT.

Yet I'm losing sleep over it, misjudge even slight muscle pain on the upper arm as the start of some nasty DVT. That's not even my 1st time with phlebitis. I get it almost every time I get hooked with IV lines (for often silly reasons) , so my subconcious should have been trained.

I was not like that at all as a kid. I think my hope that longevity escape velocity happens in my generation, made me paranoid in some subconcious manner and I'm accutely aware of my possible mortality, more than I would otherwise be.

I hope that younger generations that learn/read of such stuff do not fall in this pitfall. Whether you have a lot to gain (or less) by staying alive for as long as possible, does not make your death at his moment more imminent/probable. Yet that's the subconcious feeling (suddenly each danger is acute) that often arises if you let it.

Be aware, live your life! Obviously avoid stupid dangers, but often that's enough your body (and some medical checkups as you grow older) takes care of the rest for the vast vast majority of cases (which very probably includes you)

Me stressing over it, even subconsciously has actually made my health worse than it would otherwise be (stress more generally). It's ironic, but it is there. Be aware, our minds can be stupid like that.


Frumpagumpus t1_j6g4uu2 wrote

then there is me where at first i was like, naw i won't destructively upload my mind into the computer because i want causal continuity, but then I thought about it some more, and I think causal continuity may be an old person value soon lol, screw it, i would rather be in two places at once, i will pre commit myself to it XD

(i wont be the first person in the star trek teleporter but heck yeah i would use it)


Steven81 t1_j6hw8fd wrote

Well you are a biological being, I.e. you are your neurons (which is why there is no turnaround in them), I don't think that full uploading will ever be a thing because mass suicide has never been a thing. We are material, not immaterial, hardly anything is immaterial, that's a category error that many in futurism do (just because we have a name for something doesn't mean it is an actual physical thing, for example every instance of a certain software installed in a different computer is actually a different program each time, I.e. differentiated matter gives rise to a very similar behavior, a bit of how monozygotic twins are actually two different people no matter how close alike they seem).

I doubt that materialism will ever be proven wrong, but I guess that's a question for a dif thread.


Frumpagumpus t1_j6i0i4n wrote

> you are your neurons

why does that matter. you go to sleep every night and the cessation of conscioussness doesn't bug you.

People have died for stupider reasons than "I want to create a clone of me that has my values and can clone themselves and possibly shut down their clones if needed such that they can perform tasks in parallel, oh and they also get a massive speedup and don't require nearly as much space or resources and could thus go into space much more easily and can save quite a bit of time on maintenance etc."

its for the cause (though to be clear i am not actively betting that destructive brain uploading will be a thing, more like, even if you had non destructive brain uploading or some ship of theseus stuff or whatever, once you were actually in the computer you would find it VERY VERY convenient to clone yourself. software processes fork all the time, and their children are killed and garbage collected with reckless abandon)

if you were trying to preserve yourself biologically probably the easiest way would be to stick your brain in a jar lol. which i bet a lot of people would also find morally objectionable XD


Steven81 t1_j6i1yei wrote

> and the cessation of conscioussness doesn't bug you.

It only matters in a platonic universe. If we do live in a materialistic world then it doesn't matter, because we are a thing which can switch on or off, but we are that thing regardless, if it switches off and then doesn't switch on, only then it is an issue. In fact materialism sidesteps a lot of the platonic/neoplatonic issues (immortality of soul and such ideas).

Only issue with creating copies of yourself (in a materialistic world), yet cease the function of the original is that you lose context, I.e. you do not see the world go on, instead you see it stop at the moment of the original's cessation. You can say that the world goes on in some higher level/sense but that's not at all what you're going to "see". You are going to see/experience the end of all. Which is -btw- why mass suicide has never caught on in most/any society, most people can make said connection in some subconcious level ("if I die, the world doesn't actually go on, at least not in any way that matters to me, at best it becomes a parallel universe to mine")...


Frumpagumpus t1_j6inapz wrote

idk seems more like a solipsistic point of view than a platonic one

(i actually consider myself a bit of a platonist, in particular i think the distinction between space of ideas/math our brains/gpt navigates and physical space we move through might be a bit more subtle than it seems on the surface, but i don't think that really makes any difference to present discussion (well, not in the way you seem to be arguing it, actually i think it could almost go in the opposite direction... abstract world might be a bit more material than first suspected))


Steven81 t1_j6io97d wrote

Platonism argues that we live in a world of ideas. That things like math or information are extant entities instead of shortcuts we use to describe more involved phenomenons.

Materialism believes that we live in a world of matter. That matter is primary and everything else are shorthand of how matter behaves through time.

Materialism does not believe even in the possibility of things like souls, essence... software.

It does matter whether we live in a materialistic or a platonic universe. In one case Uploading yourself is killing yourself, in another it is living forever without the need of pesky mediums.

It is a rather core question which will show up eventually.

And yeah Materialism can be quite sollipsistic (but not exclusively, for example it does not deny the existence of other experiences as valid, merely as not very relevant once said piece of matter ceases)...


Frumpagumpus t1_j6iung4 wrote

i think we disagree, I think your version of "platonism" is solipsistic lol, since it places so much emphasis on your point of view.

my version of platonism (which is not pure by any means but possibly just as aligned w/original platonism's theory of forms if not moreso than yours) is more: abstract and physical world can both be described with coordinate systems, e.g. numbers. So just like it turned out space and time were actually spacetime, there might be something similar going on.

and yes i don't believe in souls. (in particular there is no a priori reason to believe in them and even if it was a real concept it wouldnt' change much since the soul would also live in a reality similar to our own, e.g. that of space describable by a coordinate system, probably some timelike dimension as well in order to map to our own reality, in my estimation)

> In one case Uploading yourself is killing yourself, in another it is living forever without the need of pesky mediums.

uh, it can be killing yourself in both of them, because causal continuity is a "material" property...

the question is more of how much difference does it make, people die all the time, is it so bad to die, etc. You think maintaining your personal narrative is of paramount importance because it's tied to some trans dimensional soul or something. I see myself as more about fighting for my ideals, and making sacrifices when necessary or important.

Though i'm not sure it will really be much of a sacrifice actually, seems like that to us but we see things differently as exclusively embodied agents than future intelligences will.


Steven81 t1_j6j0968 wrote

> You think maintaining your personal narrative is of paramount importance

If we live in a materialistic universe , I don't think that concepts like "importance" can even enter the conversation.

Things either are or they are not in such a universe. In a materialistic universe your end is akin to the end of the world because there is a lack of observation in the particular timeline you always occupied. Yes the world will go on in some abstract way, but not in a manner that can -even in principle- matter to you. Say the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics ends up being true (basically time is multidimensional), in such a world how can it matter what happens in a parallel reality that is not ours. One's death in a materialistic universe is neither important nor unimportant, it does have a definite effect on the individual though (he gets stuck in a dead end version of the universe).

That's why I find a materialistic universe (if we indeed live in one) a partially solipsistic one.

I dont know how Platonism can be sollipsistic though. Plato certainly did believe that we live in a universe made of ideals and that we embody an image of them. The concept of a soul was paramount to his belief and especially to that of neo platonists. That's where Christians got it from (early Christians believed in bodily resurrection, there was no concept of an immortal soul, until neo platonists had their influence on Christianity around the 4th century ce, but I digress)...


Frumpagumpus t1_j6j0vr4 wrote

> If we live in a materialistic universe , I don't think that concepts like "importance" can even enter the conversation.

what, why does a soul or whatever have anything to do with importance? (my suspicion here would be you are trying to do something impossible to do with an axiomatic system)

> Yes the world will go on in some abstract way, but not in a manner that can -even in principle- matter to you

we just went over how "abstract" and "material" (the world) aren't necessarily so different... they are both spaces in a geometric sense mapped by coordinate systems


Steven81 t1_j6jvvdd wrote

> why does a soul or whatever have anything to do with importance?

It doesn't, I was reacting to something else entirely (namely a phrase of yours that I quoted).

> we just went over how "abstract" and "material" (the world) aren't necessarily so different...

A description of a thing (an "abstraction") is not the same as the thing in a materialistic universe. I can see how they can be neighbours in a platonic or more generally an idealistic universe.

Which is why it is crucial for us to know in what type of universe we find ourselves into.