No particular aspect. Just continuity: something which has evolved from me without any step changes that are “too large”. I mean, assuming that each stage through all of that evolution has maintained the desire to keep living. It’s not my job to put hard “don’t die” constraints on future versions.
As far as I know, something generally continuity-based is the standard answer to this.
Similar here. I wouldn’t want to constrain my 100 years older self too much, but that doesn’t mean that I identify with something very vague like “existence itself”. There is a difference between “I am not sure about the details” and “anything goes”.
Just like my current self is not the same as my 20 years old self, but that doesn’t mean that you could choose any 50 years old guy and say that all of them have the same right to call themselves a future version of my 20 years old self. I extrapolate the same to the future: there are some hypothetical 1000 years old humans who could be called future versions of myself, and there are many more who couldn’t.
Just because people change in time, that doesn’t mean it is a random drift. I don’t think that the distribution of possible 1000 years old versions of me is very similar to a distribution of possible 1000 years old versions of someone else. Hypothetically, for a sufficiently large number this might be possible—I don’t know—but 1000 years seems not enough for that.
Seems to me that there are some things that do not change much as people grow older. Even people who claim that their lives have dramatically changed, have often only changed in one out of many traits, or maybe they just found a different strategy how to follow the same fundamental values.
At least as an approximation: people’s knowledge and skills change, their values don’t.
No particular aspect. Just continuity: something which has evolved from me without any step changes that are “too large”. I mean, assuming that each stage through all of that evolution has maintained the desire to keep living. It’s not my job to put hard “don’t die” constraints on future versions.
As far as I know, something generally continuity-based is the standard answer to this.
Similar here. I wouldn’t want to constrain my 100 years older self too much, but that doesn’t mean that I identify with something very vague like “existence itself”. There is a difference between “I am not sure about the details” and “anything goes”.
Just like my current self is not the same as my 20 years old self, but that doesn’t mean that you could choose any 50 years old guy and say that all of them have the same right to call themselves a future version of my 20 years old self. I extrapolate the same to the future: there are some hypothetical 1000 years old humans who could be called future versions of myself, and there are many more who couldn’t.
Just because people change in time, that doesn’t mean it is a random drift. I don’t think that the distribution of possible 1000 years old versions of me is very similar to a distribution of possible 1000 years old versions of someone else. Hypothetically, for a sufficiently large number this might be possible—I don’t know—but 1000 years seems not enough for that.
Seems to me that there are some things that do not change much as people grow older. Even people who claim that their lives have dramatically changed, have often only changed in one out of many traits, or maybe they just found a different strategy how to follow the same fundamental values.
At least as an approximation: people’s knowledge and skills change, their values don’t.