Vladimir_Nesov comments on Abnormal Cryonics - Less Wrong

56 Post author: Will_Newsome 26 May 2010 07:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (365)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 May 2010 01:37:32PM *  2 points [-]

That said the phrase "the situation of yourself dying" strikes me as an emotional ploy.

This wasn't my intention. You can substitute that phrase with, say, "Consider the subjective point of view of yourself-now, on the situation of yourself being dead for a long time, or someone else being dead for a long time for that matter." The salient part was supposed to be the point of view, not what you look at from it.

Comment author: Jowibou 30 May 2010 02:08:26PM -1 points [-]

Fair enough but I still think think that the "situation of yourself being dead" is still ploy-like in that it imagines non-existence as a state or situation rather than an absence of state or situation. Like mistaking a map for an entirely imaginary territory.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 May 2010 02:24:23PM *  1 point [-]

You can think about a world that doesn't contain any minds, and yours in particular. The property of a world to not contain your mind does not say "nothing exists in this world", it says "your mind doesn't exist in this world". Quite different concepts.

Comment author: Jowibou 30 May 2010 02:34:51PM 0 points [-]

Of course I can think about such a world. Where people get into trouble is where they think of themselves as "being dead" in such a world rather than simply "not being" i.e. having no more existence than anything else that doesn't exist. It's a distinction that has huge implications and rarely finds its way into the discussion. No matter how rational people try to be, they often seem to argue about death as if it were a state of being - and something to be afraid of.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 May 2010 02:41:53PM 1 point [-]

I give up for now, and suggest reading the sequences, maybe in particular the guide to words and map-territory.

Comment author: Jowibou 30 May 2010 02:50:39PM 0 points [-]

Clearly some of my underlying assumptions are flawed. There's no doubt I could be more rigorous in my use of the terminology. Still, I can't help but feel that some of the concepts in the sequences obfuscate as much as they clarify on this issue. Sorry if I have wasted your time. Thanks again for trying.