What indicated to me that he is deeply confused is that he believes a) in an afterlife, and b) that extending this life interrupts subsequent lives, which is related to (a). If it was simply a matter of not valuing a longer life I wouldn’t have the same response.
Rafael mentions the issue of lack of imagination, where my friend is worried that you’ll eventually learn all you can learn and life will become dull. To me, this indicates confusion, but not the type of deep confusion that would make me sort someone into the stupid bucket.
Assuming hypothetically that you do cycle from one life to the next, why also assume that unnaturally extending your current life will negatively interfere with/interrupt the subsequent life?
The standard new age theory of reincarnation is that each lifespan is intended to teach you one specific thing. So,, it works like courses or units at a university..if you don’t complete the unit ,you don’t get the credit. And, once you have got the credit, there is no point in hanging around I don’t suppose that many rationalists would regard that as true, but it is consistent.
Even if both things are consistent with a broader theory, they still seem like distinct errors. As a different example, “I’ll go to hell if I sin” and “Homosexuality is a sin” are both consistent with the broader theory of Christianity, but I think they’re still distinct errors.
I don’t think it matters too much though. The purpose of establishing them to be distinct errors is to establish that he is deeply confused, but either one of them alone (well, b wouldn’t make sense without a) would be more than sufficient, right?
Again, this boils down to using “confused” to mean “has an opinion I disagree with”.
Edit: if you are in a context where you can achieve correctness beyond mere consistency, by all means do so. But transhumanism and Life extension are not that context ,because they are so entangled with values and preferences.
What indicated to me that he is deeply confused is that he believes a) in an afterlife, and b) that extending this life interrupts subsequent lives, which is related to (a). If it was simply a matter of not valuing a longer life I wouldn’t have the same response.
Rafael mentions the issue of lack of imagination, where my friend is worried that you’ll eventually learn all you can learn and life will become dull. To me, this indicates confusion, but not the type of deep confusion that would make me sort someone into the stupid bucket.
I can see the contradiction between one afterlife and multiple ones. I don’t see the the issue of “interruption”.
Assuming hypothetically that you do cycle from one life to the next, why also assume that unnaturally extending your current life will negatively interfere with/interrupt the subsequent life?
The standard new age theory of reincarnation is that each lifespan is intended to teach you one specific thing. So,, it works like courses or units at a university..if you don’t complete the unit ,you don’t get the credit. And, once you have got the credit, there is no point in hanging around I don’t suppose that many rationalists would regard that as true, but it is consistent.
Even if both things are consistent with a broader theory, they still seem like distinct errors. As a different example, “I’ll go to hell if I sin” and “Homosexuality is a sin” are both consistent with the broader theory of Christianity, but I think they’re still distinct errors.
I don’t think it matters too much though. The purpose of establishing them to be distinct errors is to establish that he is deeply confused, but either one of them alone (well, b wouldn’t make sense without a) would be more than sufficient, right?
Again, this boils down to using “confused” to mean “has an opinion I disagree with”.
Edit: if you are in a context where you can achieve correctness beyond mere consistency, by all means do so. But transhumanism and Life extension are not that context ,because they are so entangled with values and preferences.