Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Anyhow, we’ll set the rest of that discussion aside for now, since I want to clarify how I differ from some of the others.

I don’t believe in the purely mind-pattern definition of self.

I don’t see uploads, if possible, as being identical people to the originals.  You might be able to Ship-of-Theseus something to cross that causal barrier, but then you have to actually Ship-of-Theseus it to get the appropriate causal entangling.

If I get shot, and you re-instance a brain backup into the blank nervous system of some sort of empty clone doll, I don’t wake up - the clone does.

My suspicion has only grown greater on this with the whole quantum stuff.

…not that having a near-identical clone go on without me isn’t at least somewhat comforting as an idea, but then, so is a nice grave compared to naught at all.

[cultureulterior]

What about sleep?

[mitigatedchaos]

It’s the same physical hardware, and I think that makes a difference.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[kissingerandpals]

That stupid argument came about over a misunderstanding and people who have no idea about the context of it are giving their takes on it, and this is why I cannot stand Tumblr discourse

[mitigatedextras]

Sorry bro.

I just noticed the discourse expanding outwards now, like waves in a pond.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anyhow, we’ll set the rest of that discussion aside for now, since I want to clarify how I differ from some of the others.

I don’t believe in the purely mind-pattern definition of self.

I don’t see uploads, if possible, as being identical people to the originals.  You might be able to Ship-of-Theseus something to cross that causal barrier, but then you have to actually Ship-of-Theseus it to get the appropriate causal entangling.

If I get shot, and you re-instance a brain backup into the blank nervous system of some sort of empty clone doll, I don’t wake up - the clone does.

My suspicion has only grown greater on this with the whole quantum stuff.

…not that having a near-identical clone go on without me isn’t at least somewhat comforting as an idea, but then, so is a nice grave compared to naught at all.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Death is traumatizing.  Just, in general.

Is it really such a leap to think that our species is traumatized by it, not just us as individuals?

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[kissingerandpals]

What, too good to die forever like every other person on Earth?

[mitigatedchaos]

What, you think not-dying is some sort of hubristic demand?

“Not wanting to die” is a pretty vanilla position, dude.  We even argue over the morality of policy in terms of how people it saves/kills!  It’s pretty common!

Humanity just came up with a bunch of reasons why going feeble and insane was a good idea because they lacked the means to avoid it, not because going feeble and insane and then not-existing is actually a good thing.  

There’s no point in getting yourself hyped up over vaporware.  However, once the technology becomes closer to being within reach, that changes.

[kissingerandpals]

Death is part of the human condition, a part of reality that every religion, philosophy, and moral system invented by a culture tries to address. Of course it is hubristic to think you can bypass it. To completely bypass death is to change the nature of what it means to be alive.

The nuance between debates around “how can we make life fulfilling?”, “how can we stall death and avoidable illness?”, and “how can we prevent people from dying needlessly in dangerous situations that we are inflicting upon them?” is not the same at all as “how do we live forever?”

Every religion or tribal culture in the world has addressed the hubris about seeking immortality. Every culture has its own failure to achieve immortality myth. How is “wanting immortality is hubristic” a hot take?

Go write a bunch of symphonies if you want to live forever.

[mitigatedchaos]

So, is heaven hubristic, then?  Reincarnation?  Both are extremely old takes, both are far more commonly accepted than Transhumanism.

Or are the Christians and Buddhists and so on also Transhumanists?  Are they indulging in hubris?

We’ve already redefined things radically, multiple times, to even get to the point where “writing symphonies” is even possible.  

It doesn’t have to be, strictly, forever.  But arbitrarily going feeble and insane, and then involuntarily not existing, it’s not actually this deep, holistic or whatever thing.

And I think it’s incredibly hubristic to say that it’s up to you how much time someone should have with their parents still in their lives, and so on.  Because once the capability for the technology exists, that is a decision that’s being made, not just dodging out of the decision and all responsibility thereof.

[kissingerandpals]

Heaven is just an ideal to regulate behavior make your actions valuable to the people around you, to make the fear of death less unbearable, and to do good on Earth while you are here. Do you really need to be reminded of the Tower of Babel parable? It has *always* been hubristic to believe that one could reach heaven or that heaven could be recreated on Earth.

You know as well as I do that it’s not real. Pretending it is real is part of the ritual. Only biblical literalists and atheists actually believe it is a real place.

You guys are the only one trying to make immortality a reality, not just an ideal.

[mitigatedchaos]

I’m not so sure they interpret it the same way that you do.

And I’m sorry, but not wanting to die is not hubris.  We’ve just expanded the definition a little farther than you’re comfortable with, because we can see that, for the first time, it’s truly coming into reach, at least for aging.

You know perfectly well that if it were the other way around, introducing aging and death therefrom would be an unthinkably evil curse, not a blessing of connection to temporality.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[kissingerandpals]

What, too good to die forever like every other person on Earth?

[mitigatedchaos]

What, you think not-dying is some sort of hubristic demand?

“Not wanting to die” is a pretty vanilla position, dude.  We even argue over the morality of policy in terms of how people it saves/kills!  It’s pretty common!

Humanity just came up with a bunch of reasons why going feeble and insane was a good idea because they lacked the means to avoid it, not because going feeble and insane and then not-existing is actually a good thing.  

There’s no point in getting yourself hyped up over vaporware.  However, once the technology becomes closer to being within reach, that changes.

[kissingerandpals]

Death is part of the human condition, a part of reality that every religion, philosophy, and moral system invented by a culture tries to address. Of course it is hubristic to think you can bypass it. To completely bypass death is to change the nature of what it means to be alive.

The nuance between debates around “how can we make life fulfilling?”, “how can we stall death and avoidable illness?”, and “how can we prevent people from dying needlessly in dangerous situations that we are inflicting upon them?” is not the same at all as “how do we live forever?”

Every religion or tribal culture in the world has addressed the hubris about seeking immortality. Every culture has its own failure to achieve immortality myth. How is “wanting immortality is hubristic” a hot take?

Go write a bunch of symphonies if you want to live forever.

[mitigatedchaos]

So, is heaven hubristic, then?  Reincarnation?  Both are extremely old takes, both are far more commonly accepted than Transhumanism.

Or are the Christians and Buddhists and so on also Transhumanists?  Are they indulging in hubris?

We’ve already redefined things radically, multiple times, to even get to the point where “writing symphonies” is even possible.  

It doesn’t have to be, strictly, forever.  But arbitrarily going feeble and insane, and then involuntarily not existing, it’s not actually this deep, holistic or whatever thing.

And I think it’s incredibly hubristic to say that it’s up to you how much time someone should have with their parents still in their lives, and so on.  Because once the capability for the technology exists, that is a decision that’s being made, not just dodging out of the decision and all responsibility thereof.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[kissingerandpals]

What, too good to die forever like every other person on Earth?

[mitigatedchaos]

What, you think not-dying is some sort of hubristic demand?

“Not wanting to die” is a pretty vanilla position, dude.  We even argue over the morality of policy in terms of how people it saves/kills!  It’s pretty common!

Humanity just came up with a bunch of reasons why going feeble and insane was a good idea because they lacked the means to avoid it, not because going feeble and insane and then not-existing is actually a good thing.  

There’s no point in getting yourself hyped up over vaporware.  However, once the technology becomes closer to being within reach, that changes.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

(Though I might get asks in response to that post just now citing times at which I have been snarky in a non-reciprocal manner on this very blog.  We’ll see.)

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

The less smug you are, (and the less unethical you are), the less it stings when your most unethical behavior comes to light.

It’s good standard practice to avoid using “wit” (and snark) on people because they are low-status (”gross,” “smelly,” “ugly,” “fat harpy” and so on).  First of all, it’s just not a good mental hygiene habit.  Second of all, it cannot then come back to haunt you.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[tanadrin]

This pisses me off so, so much. Warning: what follows is not very calm. Probably not very charitable either. I write “fuck” a lot.

[mitigatedchaos]

< caring about opinions being actually good vs being seen to be good >

 Well, there’s your answer right there, isn’t it?

Scott may be the Rightful Caliph (or a contender for the position) within Rationalism and its Adjacency, but outside of our sphere, he has all sorts of markers that are low-status, or are tribal low-status, and he poses a danger to a lot of people that are farming status through toxic takes.

I mean, imagine if Rationalism became the new normal.  Sure, this would probably crash a lot of metaphorical trains and the results would be observable in the global GDP, but one of the trains that got crashed would be most of the established Commentariat, their pundits, the outrage-farming, clickbaiting and so on.

New ones would likely develop in the aftermath, because Rationalism doesn’t actually remove all sorts of base human emotions.  However, the new ones would be different people.  

Scott’s social status is zero sum with these people.  His gain is their loss.  They’re going to attack, attack, attack.  They may not even fully know why they’re doing it.

[mitigatedchaos]

@more-whales offers this take:

I’m also sick of snark passing for wisdom about important things but my evaluation is probably closer to Maciej’s and I do think you are off the mark wrt where this snark in particular is coming from. He goes on to tweet here he doesn’t think Scott is evil and he’ll try to articulate it more clearly, so we’ll see