ModusPonies comments on Post ridiculous munchkin ideas! - Less Wrong

55 Post author: D_Malik 15 May 2013 10:27PM

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

Comments (1240)

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

Comment author: Armok_GoB 10 May 2013 07:08:59PM *  11 points [-]

This one is the sort of thing where there are a bunch of assumption that shrouds reasonable on their own, but implasible in conjunction:

A1: you don't have to perfectly transfer your entire conectome to still be "the same person"; only things that are actually part of your current identity are needed

A2: if your identity changes gradually over time, even into something that if the change was faster it'd be considered disruptive, you're still "the same person".

A3: the human identity can be very extensively modified using behavioural techniques, hypnosis, and drugs that occur in the wild.

Then: you should be able to achieve immortality in a stone-age environment, by first modifying your own identity down to extremely small so it can be entirely transferred verbally, then modifying a victim more abruptly to a sufficiently similar state, and finally building that mind up again to be functional. Repeat for as long as you can maintain the dynasty.

EDIT: Hey! The OP specifically asked for outlandish ideas that seem like they wouldn't work! Am I just being judged relative the many ridiculously good posts here?

Comment author: ModusPonies 12 May 2013 09:03:05PM *  14 points [-]

This isn't a clever way to accomplish something. This is a way of willfully misinterpreting definitions until you can claim success without changing reality.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying.

—Woody Allen

Comment author: Scottbert 13 May 2013 04:53:11PM 1 point [-]

Gaming the system is, at least, in the spirit of munchkinry!

Comment author: Armok_GoB 13 May 2013 07:28:58PM 0 points [-]

Posibly, yes. It still does so far more subtle and harder to disprove than the naive attempt.