Doesn’t associating your identity with (anything similar enough to) a set of physical parts rather than (pure magic or) a pattern of parts going through time imply a belief in non-local physics?
I think a suspended (I mean not just frozen, but not just vitrified either, any stasis will do, and I mean my argument to hold up against more physically neutral forms of stasis than those) version of my body that actually will not be revived is as much me as a grapefruit is. If physical parts do not vary in their relationship to each other, how is there supposed to be experience of any kind?
Alternatively, if one is made magically invincible, one could be entombed in concrete for thousands of years—forever, even, after the heat death of the (rest of) the universe if one is sent off into deep space in a casing of concrete. Is that what you say has a non-zero probability? Or are you talking about a multi-galaxy civilization devoted to keeping one individual under torture for as long as physically possible until the heat death of the universe?
I will add that I am strongly in the anti-”immortality” camp, as that word should not be used. I am in the anti-mortality camp, that’s how I’d put it.
Doesn’t associating your identity with (anything similar enough to) a set of physical parts rather than (pure magic or) a pattern of parts going through time imply a belief in non-local physics?
As your individual identity can only be associated with a specific set of physical parts at any given time, I’m pretty sure I don’t follow your meaning. I also find myself confused by the concept of “non-local physics”. Elaborate?
If the time it normally takes for a signal to go from your toe to your brain is t, and we consider your experience over one half t, your lower leg is irrelevant. Your experiences during that time slice of feeling something in your foot are due to signals propagated before one half t ago. Similarly, if we consider your experience over t, but double the amount of time every function of your body occurs at, you lower (entire? I’m not a biologist) leg would be irrelevant. That is, your lower leg could be replaced with a grapefruit tree and you wouldn’t feel the difference (assume you’re not looking at it).
The limit of that is stopping signals from traveling entirely, at which point your entire body is irrelevant. I think someone frozen in time would not have any experience rather than be eternally trapped in a moment. If someone is at a point where their experiences would be the same were they replaced by a tree, they’re not having any.
There’s no reason it would be logically impossible to harness the resources of galaxies towards keeping you alive and in pain, but eventually the second law of thermodynamics saves you.
If the time it normally takes for a signal to go from your toe to your brain is t, and we consider your experience over one half t, your lower leg is irrelevant. [...]
I don’t follow the meaning of what it is you are trying to convey here. Furthermore; how does any of that lead to “non-local physics”? I sincerely am not following whatever it is you are trying to say.
There’s no reason it would be logically impossible to harness the resources of galaxies towards keeping you alive and in pain, but eventually the second law of thermodynamics saves you.
There is a fine art to the linguistic tool called the segue. This is a poor example of it.
That being said—the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to closed systems. We assume the universe is a closed system because we have no evidence to the contrary as yet. It remains conceivable however that future societies might devise a means of bypassing this particular problem.
There is a fine art to the linguistic tool called the segue. This is a poor example of it.
I can see how “There’s no reason it would be logically impossible to harness the resources of galaxies towards keeping you alive and in pain, but eventually the second law of thermodynamics saves you,” looks random. I was contrasting the logically possible worst case scenario of “eternal unable to scream horror” with what I think is the physically possible worst case scenario, where you might think the logically and physically possible are the same here.
If there is a source of infinite energy, I agree one could be tortured forever—but even still it couldn’t be a frozen single moment of torture. The torturers would have to cycle one through states.
how does any of that lead to “non-local physics”?
It applies because of the speed limit issue. It’s just saying the nerve speed-limit analogy can’t be circumvented by doing things infinitely fast., rather than at nerve speed (or light speed). But the analogy is the central thing.
I will try again. What would it be like is all of your brain’s operations took twice the time they normally do? It would look like everything was happening quickly, one would experience a year as six months. The limit of that is at infinite slowness, one would experience infinitely little.
If there is a source of infinite energy, I agree one could be tortured forever—but even still it couldn’t be a frozen single moment of torture. The torturers would have to cycle one through states.
I fail to recognize any reason why this would be relevant or interesting to this conversation. It’s trivially true, and addresses no point of mine, that’s for certain.
I will try again. What would it be like is all of your brain’s operations took twice the time they normally do? It would look like everything was happening quickly, one would experience a year as six months. The limit of that is at infinite slowness, one would experience infinitely little.
… what in the blazes is this supposed to be communicating? It’s a trivially true statement, and informs absolutely nothing that I can detect towards the cause of explaining where or how “non-local physics” comes into the picture.
Would you care to take a stab at actually expounding on your claim of the necessity of believing in this “non-local physics” you speak of, and furthermore explaining what this “non-local physics” even is? So far, you keep going in many different directions, none of which even remotely address that issue.
Sure, it means that one can’t construct a brain by having signals go infinitely fast, the local means that to get from somewhere to somewhere else one has to go through intermediary space. It was a caveat I introduced because I thought it might be needed, but it really wasn’t. My main point is that I don’t think a person could be infinitely tortured by being frozen in torture, which leads to the interesting point that people shouldn’t be identified with objects in single moments of time, such as bodies, but with their bodies/experience going through time.
I don’t care to constrain the particulars of how “And I Must Scream” is defined saving that it be total anti-utility and it be without escape. Whatever particulars you care to imagine in order to aid in understanding this notion are sufficient.
I will add that I am strongly in the anti-”immortality” camp, as that word should not be used. I am in the anti-mortality camp, that’s how I’d put it.
Please elaborate on your feelings regarding the problems of the word “immortality”. I am agnostic as to your perceptions and have no internal clues to fill in that ignorance.
Doesn’t associating your identity with (anything similar enough to) a set of physical parts rather than (pure magic or) a pattern of parts going through time imply a belief in non-local physics?
I think a suspended (I mean not just frozen, but not just vitrified either, any stasis will do, and I mean my argument to hold up against more physically neutral forms of stasis than those) version of my body that actually will not be revived is as much me as a grapefruit is. If physical parts do not vary in their relationship to each other, how is there supposed to be experience of any kind?
Alternatively, if one is made magically invincible, one could be entombed in concrete for thousands of years—forever, even, after the heat death of the (rest of) the universe if one is sent off into deep space in a casing of concrete. Is that what you say has a non-zero probability? Or are you talking about a multi-galaxy civilization devoted to keeping one individual under torture for as long as physically possible until the heat death of the universe?
I will add that I am strongly in the anti-”immortality” camp, as that word should not be used. I am in the anti-mortality camp, that’s how I’d put it.
As your individual identity can only be associated with a specific set of physical parts at any given time, I’m pretty sure I don’t follow your meaning. I also find myself confused by the concept of “non-local physics”. Elaborate?
If the time it normally takes for a signal to go from your toe to your brain is t, and we consider your experience over one half t, your lower leg is irrelevant. Your experiences during that time slice of feeling something in your foot are due to signals propagated before one half t ago. Similarly, if we consider your experience over t, but double the amount of time every function of your body occurs at, you lower (entire? I’m not a biologist) leg would be irrelevant. That is, your lower leg could be replaced with a grapefruit tree and you wouldn’t feel the difference (assume you’re not looking at it).
The limit of that is stopping signals from traveling entirely, at which point your entire body is irrelevant. I think someone frozen in time would not have any experience rather than be eternally trapped in a moment. If someone is at a point where their experiences would be the same were they replaced by a tree, they’re not having any.
There’s no reason it would be logically impossible to harness the resources of galaxies towards keeping you alive and in pain, but eventually the second law of thermodynamics saves you.
I don’t follow the meaning of what it is you are trying to convey here. Furthermore; how does any of that lead to “non-local physics”? I sincerely am not following whatever it is you are trying to say.
There is a fine art to the linguistic tool called the segue. This is a poor example of it.
That being said—the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to closed systems. We assume the universe is a closed system because we have no evidence to the contrary as yet. It remains conceivable however that future societies might devise a means of bypassing this particular problem.
I can see how “There’s no reason it would be logically impossible to harness the resources of galaxies towards keeping you alive and in pain, but eventually the second law of thermodynamics saves you,” looks random. I was contrasting the logically possible worst case scenario of “eternal unable to scream horror” with what I think is the physically possible worst case scenario, where you might think the logically and physically possible are the same here.
If there is a source of infinite energy, I agree one could be tortured forever—but even still it couldn’t be a frozen single moment of torture. The torturers would have to cycle one through states.
It applies because of the speed limit issue. It’s just saying the nerve speed-limit analogy can’t be circumvented by doing things infinitely fast., rather than at nerve speed (or light speed). But the analogy is the central thing.
I will try again. What would it be like is all of your brain’s operations took twice the time they normally do? It would look like everything was happening quickly, one would experience a year as six months. The limit of that is at infinite slowness, one would experience infinitely little.
I fail to recognize any reason why this would be relevant or interesting to this conversation. It’s trivially true, and addresses no point of mine, that’s for certain.
… what in the blazes is this supposed to be communicating? It’s a trivially true statement, and informs absolutely nothing that I can detect towards the cause of explaining where or how “non-local physics” comes into the picture.
Would you care to take a stab at actually expounding on your claim of the necessity of believing in this “non-local physics” you speak of, and furthermore explaining what this “non-local physics” even is? So far, you keep going in many different directions, none of which even remotely address that issue.
Sure, it means that one can’t construct a brain by having signals go infinitely fast, the local means that to get from somewhere to somewhere else one has to go through intermediary space. It was a caveat I introduced because I thought it might be needed, but it really wasn’t. My main point is that I don’t think a person could be infinitely tortured by being frozen in torture, which leads to the interesting point that people shouldn’t be identified with objects in single moments of time, such as bodies, but with their bodies/experience going through time.
I guess I’ve gotten to used to the notion of human identity and consciousness being an emergent pattern rather than specific physical objects.
I don’t care to constrain the particulars of how “And I Must Scream” is defined saving that it be total anti-utility and it be without escape. Whatever particulars you care to imagine in order to aid in understanding this notion are sufficient.
Please elaborate on your feelings regarding the problems of the word “immortality”. I am agnostic as to your perceptions and have no internal clues to fill in that ignorance.
Just what Robin Hanson said.
Took me a couple of readings to get the gist of that article. Frankly, it’s rather… well, I find myself reacting poorly to it.
After all—is not “giving as many years as we can” the same, quantitatively, as saying that the goal is clinical immortality?