memoridem comments on Rationalists Are Less Credulous But Better At Taking Ideas Seriously - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Yvain 21 January 2014 02:18AM

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

Comments (285)

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

Comment author: memoridem 25 January 2014 11:34:03PM *  1 point [-]

I'm alive. It is my default state.

Stop eating. Let's see how default it is.

They have zero to do with one another and should not be combined in this discussion.

If that's how you want to have your definitions, I can live with that.

Please give me an example of a long term goal that would require 10 Billion years? How about 1 Billion? 1 Million?

No need for that. Just always have plans for tomorrow.

It does affect me quite a bit to know why my instincts and drives exist. Maybe it does nothing for you. Okay. That is interesting.

Why/how they exist and what for are different things. Conflating the two leads just to confusion in this case, because the what for doesn't exist.

Comment author: Brillyant 26 January 2014 12:18:59AM -1 points [-]

Stop eating. Let's see how default it is.

I meant only that I am alive, and I see no reason that death is preferable at this point.

If that's how you want to have your definitions, I can live with that.

There is a difference beyond definitions here. We may have different definitions of death -- I think it is the end of individual consciousness. But the suffering caused by aging and disease is separate from any definition of death. It is an important distinction that goes overlooked oft times.

No need for that. Just always have plans for tomorrow.

Fighting to live; living to fight. I see this a hamster wheel. It has some novelty, but I see no need to prolong it indefinitely. Or, if it can be prolonged, it shouldn't be at the top of the list of problems facing humanity/the universe.

Why/how they exist and what for are different things. Conflating the two leads just to confusion in this case.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

I'm tapping on our conversation now. I'd be pleased to hear any responses you have.

Comment author: memoridem 26 January 2014 07:20:37AM *  1 point [-]

I meant only that I am alive, and I see no reason that death is preferable at this point.

This could easily describe my preferences as well. Perhaps we just have different thresholds for logging out.

But the suffering caused by aging and disease is separate from any definition of death.

I fully agree with this distinction, but it doesn't matter much to my preferences. I think permanent cessation of consciousness is bad. Some things in life are worse though, and could override this preference. Outcomes that we value don't have to be directly experienced, and death is no exception. For example I don't have to experience pain to want to avoid it. In addition living is instrumental to most of my goals.

It has some novelty, but I see no need to prolong it indefinitely.

I'm not bored yet. I can't imagine how I could be. I wouldn't choose immortality without the option of death however for various reasons. My ability to make long term plans will increase with technology. I might have million year plans, but can't imagine what they could be. Imagination is a very limited tool.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

You seemed to think we exist for our genes. This is simply wrong. Evolution explains how we came to be, not what for. Cryopreserving some of your cells in a jar or backing up your sequenced genome in the cloud might maximize your genetic fitness but would feel strangely unsatisfying, don't you think?