Deep Thoughts

[Danoff]

@Danoff You're making a false dichotomy here... you are trying to draw comparisons between people, even though you allude to the fact that nobody would act any differently when faced with the same situation.

I'm actually trying to say the opposite, that you can't draw comparisons between people, and that has an effect on some of the language typically used in these conversations.

But someone with cancer is very likely face considerably greater hardship than they are used to or have faced in the past, and that is what I might use the word 'battle' to represent - that merely going to work or spending time playing withtheir kids is no longer an activity that they would do without giving it a second thought, and becomes something that requires considerable effort and will power to achieve. It's not about drawing comparisons between what different people would do - I can easily assert that my uncle, for example, is extremely tenacious in the face of his own disease without casting any aspersions (as you are suggesting) upon anyone else.

You can definitely recognize that someone suffering from cancer, and cancer treatment, is struggling/fighting/battling to do everyday things - like I mentioned earlier about "fighting to stay awake". I agree with you that they can be fighting harder than ever in their lives just to get out of bed in the morning. The problem arises when someone says that they're struggling, fighting, or battling to survive, to live longer, or to beat cancer (unless that person was actually researching medicines to combat it).

If you're going to describe someone as tenacious, a fighter, a tough person, a strong person, you have to do that in reference to others. Without a frame of reference those descriptions have no meaning. This is true of anything. For example, "this rock is hard"... compared to what? Other rocks? Dirt? It's a relative term. Being tough, strong, tenacious or "a fighter" is most commonly used in reference to other people - especially in these types of circumstances.

Here's what I'm on about:

We all know, and Obama knows, that this is a lie. That there's no such thing as beating cancer with toughness or bravery. If I squint, I can see it if we're talking about being tough enough to do the rehab needed after surgery, or to be in good enough physical shape going into surgery to survive it. But "cancer doesn't know what it's up against"? We all know this is just being nice. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this anything but well wishes.

But I wince at this sort of nonsense for people who have lost loved ones to cancer (or whatever really, cancer is just the example here). It's a fantasy of control, and it's done a little at the expense of those who have died from the illness.

Edit:

There's another layer to this that slipped my mind. By framing "battles" with cancer the way we do, we pretend that choosing not to undergo treatment is weak and accepts "defeat" - that it would be cowardly. In my grandfather's case at a minimum, he very likely would have lived longer if he had chosen not to undergo treatment. But how is it weak to face your death, knowing the odds, and choose quality of life for the remaining time despite the certainty of death? That's brave. Undergoing treatment that you know has incredibly long odds to keep hope alive is braver? This is part of the problem that comes from mischaracterizing these events, we trample over some very personal, very difficult decisions.

 

[Lizard]

Something I have had thoughts about.

Are animals happier in the wild or in captivity? Assuming they are kept in good conditions of course.

I mean in captivity, yes sure they can't wander many miles of sea or land but all their needs are dealt with. They don't have to worry about food, water, other animals trying to kill them, they are more likely to recover from disease etc.

 

[Thematic]

Are animals happier in the wild or in captivity?

Mammals at least develop complex emotions, but usually do not possess the means to compartmentalize very much. Animals (yes including fish) get stressed when they are prevented from doing the usual survival-reproduction range of things. For instance, if you feed a "domestic pig", maybe play with them, but prevented them from grubbing (digging) or prevented a sow from building a nest for the litter, there would be discernible discomfort.

http://www.futurity.org/wild-animals-know-how-to-handle-stress/

 

[Danoff]

@Touring Mars

I'm actually trying to say the opposite, that you can't draw comparisons between people, and that has an effect on some of the language typically used in these conversations.



You can definitely recognize that someone suffering from cancer, and cancer treatment, is struggling/fighting/battling to do everyday things - like I mentioned earlier about "fighting to stay awake". I agree with you that they can be fighting harder than ever in their lives just to get out of bed in the morning. The problem arises when someone says that they're struggling, fighting, or battling to survive, to live longer, or to beat cancer (unless that person was actually researching medicines to combat it).

If you're going to describe someone as tenacious, a fighter, a tough person, a strong person, you have to do that in reference to others. Without a frame of reference those descriptions have no meaning. This is true of anything. For example, "this rock is hard"... compared to what? Other rocks? Dirt? It's a relative term. Being tough, strong, tenacious or "a fighter" is most commonly used in reference to other people - especially in these types of circumstances.

Here's what I'm on about:

We all know, and Obama knows, that this is a lie. That there's no such thing as beating cancer with toughness or bravery. If I squint, I can see it if we're talking about being tough enough to do the rehab needed after surgery, or to be in good enough physical shape going into surgery to survive it. But "cancer doesn't know what it's up against"? We all know this is just being nice. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this anything but well wishes.

But I wince at this sort of nonsense for people who have lost loved ones to cancer (or whatever really, cancer is just the example here). It's a fantasy of control, and it's done a little at the expense of those who have died from the illness.

Edit:

There's another layer to this that slipped my mind. By framing "battles" with cancer the way we do, we pretend that choosing not to undergo treatment is weak and accepts "defeat" - that it would be cowardly. In my grandfather's case at a minimum, he very likely would have lived longer if he had chosen not to undergo treatment. But how is it weak to face your death, knowing the odds, and choose quality of life for the remaining time despite the certainty of death? That's brave. Undergoing treatment that you know has incredibly long odds to keep hope alive is braver? This is part of the problem that comes from mischaracterizing these events, we trample over some very personal, very difficult decisions.

A couple of people appear to have stolen my posts here and made an article out of it .

https://lifehacker.com/what-to-say-instead-of-youre-a-fighter-when-someone-i-1797199066/amp

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...weet-donald-trump-war-survivors-a7851296.html

I think the independent version scooped me actually, so unfortunately I can't claim plagiarism. In fact, it makes it look like I stole it.

 

[Touring Mars]

@Touring Mars



A couple of people appear to have stolen my posts here and made an article out of it.

https://lifehacker.com/what-to-say-instead-of-youre-a-fighter-when-someone-i-1797199066/amp

I'd sue.

 

[Danoff]

Warning, Frozen movie spoilers (and insanity) here.

So I saw Frozen 3 times in two different forms in the last 5 days. Once on stage in musical form for one daughter, and twice more with the other daughter while she was home from school sick (it's what she wanted to watch, and she was sick!). Needless to say, I've had too much time to think about that movie. I got a little concerned with the protectionist trade embargo between Arendelle and Weselton that queen Elsa enacts in response to the Duke's failed assassination attempt. What's going to happen to Arendelle's economy when trade is halted with their closest trading partner? You have to think that it's going to be a major dent in their import/export statistics, and it's not like the Southern Isles are going to pick up the slack, they have their own international relations nightmare to deal with. Did the queen make a huge gaffe? I think not, I'll explain below.

There's also the problem of Kristoff's ice supply business. He was presumably trying to "bring back summer" so he could move some units. But the queen can make ice by waving her hands, even accidentally, Kristoff is not needed at all! But I think he's ok too.

Kristoff is ok not just because he's on the fast-track to marrying in to the royal family, but because they'll need an ice strategist/adviser. He'll play a vital role in directing the best use of Elsa's powers throughout the kingdom, so that she can concentrate on ruling. There are so many ways to use the ability to create ice out of thin air, that some thought really needs to be put into it. And that's ultimately what will ensure that Arendelle's economy surges beyond all of the nearby kingdoms - ice. The advantages are enormous.

Arendelle requires zero resources for defense. They can put up ice walls, create ice golems, or even just freak blizzards focused on enemy soldiers or fleets that can starve, freeze, and sink any attempts at conquering Arendelle. Elsa could single-handedly take over any kingdom she wanted to. I don't think her character would do that, but she could demand a fee for choosing NOT to freeze them out if she wanted.... unnecessary but possible. "Oh you don't want all of your crops to die? Pay the Elsa tax".

Arendelle has a bunch of other major advantages though. Refrigeration would be a huge one. The ability to preserve food through the summer and into the winter would already put Arendelle leaps and bounds over nearby kingdoms. But it goes farther. A block of ice placed in the right spot can supply mechanical energy for a mill, or freshwater for the town. The ability to control the weather can ensure that crop growing seasons are always bountiful, and icemelt freshwater can keep crops happy no matter what. There is no heat wave that could harm the residents of Arendelle. Heck, just transporting something heavy across town could be benefited from an ice skid magically appearing between where it is and where you want it to be. Construction also benefits from immediate temporary scaffolding and forms.

Elsa alone could create a massive ice-export business to nearby kingdoms. Places where it would be unfathomable to have a decent ice supply could have gobs of ice delivered to them right in the middle of the summer.

These are huge benefits to the economic well-being of Arendelle at zero cost in labor or natural resources. Elsa need only wave her hands and it is so. This leaves them time for recreation ice-skating in the summer and no-doubt crafting ski slopes in the winter - both of which would result in additional wealth from tourism. Arendelle is positioned to be an absolute economic powerhouse, and sent an early message to nearby kingdoms that any assassination attempts at their new important ruler would immediately be met with ostracism from trade with the most important trading partner, probably on the planet, at the time. The people of Weselton are left on the outside looking in from what will no doubt be an impoverished nation, all because of the rash decisions of the Duke.

Don't cross Elsa, she can give you your own personal inescapable flurry that will slowly freeze you to death right in the middle of a crowd and there's nothing anyone could do to help you.

This is what happens when I see a kid's movie too many times in a row.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Stand in the centre of the room facing a wall.

Walk halfway to that wall and stop.

Now walk halfway to the wall from the point you stopped and stop again when you reach halfway.

And again

And again

And again.

You'll always be moving towards the wall, but you'll never get there because it's always halfway towards it from the previous point.

Most of you probably knew this one already, I just though it's a fun scenario to ponder.

 

[Com Fox]

Warning, Frozen movie spoilers (and insanity) here.

So I saw Frozen 3 times in two different forms in the last 5 days. Once on stage in musical form for one daughter, and twice more with the other daughter while she was home from school sick (it's what she wanted to watch, and she was sick!). Needless to say, I've had too much time to think about that movie. I got a little concerned with the protectionist trade embargo between Arendelle and Weselton that queen Elsa enacts in response to the Duke's failed assassination attempt. What's going to happen to Arendelle's economy when trade is halted with their closest trading partner? You have to think that it's going to be a major dent in their import/export statistics, and it's not like the Southern Isles are going to pick up the slack, they have their own international relations nightmare to deal with. Did the queen make a huge gaffe? I think not, I'll explain below.

There's also the problem of Kristoff's ice supply business. He was presumably trying to "bring back summer" so he could move some units. But the queen can make ice by waving her hands, even accidentally, Kristoff is not needed at all! But I think he's ok too.

Kristoff is ok not just because he's on the fast-track to marrying in to the royal family, but because they'll need an ice strategist/adviser. He'll play a vital role in directing the best use of Elsa's powers throughout the kingdom, so that she can concentrate on ruling. There are so many ways to use the ability to create ice out of thin air, that some thought really needs to be put into it. And that's ultimately what will ensure that Arendelle's economy surges beyond all of the nearby kingdoms - ice. The advantages are enormous.

Arendelle requires zero resources for defense. They can put up ice walls, create ice golems, or even just freak blizzards focused on enemy soldiers or fleets that can starve, freeze, and sink any attempts at conquering Arendelle. Elsa could single-handedly take over any kingdom she wanted to. I don't think her character would do that, but she could demand a fee for choosing NOT to freeze them out if she wanted.... unnecessary but possible. "Oh you don't want all of your crops to die? Pay the Elsa tax".

Arendelle has a bunch of other major advantages though. Refrigeration would be a huge one. The ability to preserve food through the summer and into the winter would already put Arendelle leaps and bounds over nearby kingdoms. But it goes farther. A block of ice placed in the right spot can supply mechanical energy for a mill, or freshwater for the town. The ability to control the weather can ensure that crop growing seasons are always bountiful, and icemelt freshwater can keep crops happy no matter what. There is no heat wave that could harm the residents of Arendelle. Heck, just transporting something heavy across town could be benefited from an ice skid magically appearing between where it is and where you want it to be. Construction also benefits from immediate temporary scaffolding and forms.

Elsa alone could create a massive ice-export business to nearby kingdoms. Places where it would be unfathomable to have a decent ice supply could have gobs of ice delivered to them right in the middle of the summer.

These are huge benefits to the economic well-being of Arendelle at zero cost in labor or natural resources. Elsa need only wave her hands and it is so. This leaves them time for recreation ice-skating in the summer and no-doubt crafting ski slopes in the winter - both of which would result in additional wealth from tourism. Arendelle is positioned to be an absolute economic powerhouse, and sent an early message to nearby kingdoms that any assassination attempts at their new important ruler would immediately be met with ostracism from trade with the most important trading partner, probably on the planet, at the time. The people of Weselton are left on the outside looking in from what will no doubt be an impoverished nation, all because of the rash decisions of the Duke.

Don't cross Elsa, she can give you your own personal inescapable flurry that will slowly freeze you to death right in the middle of a crowd and there's nothing anyone could do to help you.

This is what happens when I see a kids' movie too many times in a row.

I've sort of done something similar with Zootopia, just watched for the 4th time and 2 things kinda hit me when watching it again (spoilers).

1: The Anti-Fox Spray was uneeded at all: This spray was only ever utilized in one scene and that was Nick told Judy that he's noticed it since he met her but what doesn't make sense is how Nick then follows up by being disappointed that he thought Judy was able to understand him. If you've noticed it, why would you think that? Nick's character is crafty so this feels a bit out of character. It was uneeded to upset Nick as well as Judy was already making racist remarks in the press conference and even tried to defend herself to Nick creating an us vs. them mentality which Nick doesn't like. You might think that spray was useful as a plot device for Judy to try and grab when Nick starts to threaten her but a PTSD-like reaction from when Gideon Gray attacked her probably would've been more effective, especially since after this scene you see a much kinder Gideon Gray which could've removed her troubles with Foxes.

2. I was also thinking about how a sequel to Zootopia would actually be amazing and already explore some of their themes of race since Judy and Nick ended in Zootopia as cops. I was thinking of since the first movie had themes somewhat similar to the crack conspiracy theory. A sequal could tackle issues like police brutality, war on police and race baiting media. Have Judy to supposed mess up and perform an unjustified arrest of a Predator and have police be targeted by citizens for supposedly being corrupted, with the media drawing into this. While Judy would be coming to terms with this, Nick would have issues as a Predator and a Cop being seen as a sort of traitor and sort of challenge his moral of not letting anyone get to him. While the Zootopia had Nick and Judy solve the conspiracy together, a sequel I think aould be interesting if they solved it and went through their struggles separate finding their own clues and then eventually meeting up only to discover that unjustified arrest was actually justified and wasn't made up to be by the media to draw attention and bring in cash (just to show how corrupt the media is). Not sure if this is too dark as the original plot of Zootopia had to be cut for being to dark with its shock collars on Predators.

 

[Pupik]

Stand in the centre of the room facing a wall.

Walk halfway to that wall and stop.

Now walk halfway to the wall from the point you stopped and stop again when you reach halfway.

And again

And again

And again.

You'll always be moving towards the wall, but you'll never get there because it's always halfway towards it from the previous point.

Most of you probably knew this one already, I just though it's a fun scenario to ponder.

It's one of Zeno's Paradoxes.

The reality is that you eventually trip over or pass out, stumbling over the finish line, and complete the journey.

 

[MisterWaffles]

It's one of Zeno's Paradoxes.

The reality is that you eventually trip over or pass out, stumbling over the finish line, and complete the journey.

One of my old functions teachers used a very good analogy of a frog only being able to jump halfway up the well with each jump. He asked the class how many jumps we thought it would take to escape, the majority of the answers were three to five jumps. Everyone's mind was blown when he revealed it would take infinite jumps to reach the top.

 

[Com Fox]

They can put up ice walls,

I know I replied before but I just remembered you posted this and now I'm thinking of Queen Elsa + Donald Trump fanfiction,

 

[Vegard]

it would take infinite jumps to reach the top.

He never reaches the top, that's the whole point.

 

[Com Fox]

I was just recently thinking about what could happen if Multi-verse theory turns out to be real. Like someone from a different timeline starts showing up in our timeline and the government eventually investigates the situation and creates our own method of exploring alternate timelines.

Would we have to limit ourselves? Would we discover that going willy nilly is too dangerous and instead turn our attention to defending our and ally timelines from any invading timelines while protecting our own from threats.

Would we go all out in war and invade as many timelines we can? Timelines come with infinite resources so an invasion isn't far off the question for supplies.

Would anything be worth it anymore? Infinite Timelines to go to would mean Infinite resources, completely devaluing anything you ever own. I could make some random drawing however an alternate timeline version of myself probably has it too. Money would be just glorified paper.

 

[Thematic]

@RESHIRAM5 A society that discovers quantum states isn't too far off post scarcity anyway. So generalisations about multiverses (ie. what I'm doing now) is based on nothing but it makes sense to me. Say, which is more likely, "human" minds without smart machines solving TOE over a couple of generations or centuries, or stumbling upon the way to have superintelligence that produces a universal model that some humans will try to comprehend.

If we put some natural constants - or something more interesting - of the multiverses on curves, what shapes will come up?

 

[LeMansAid]

Stand in the centre of the room facing a wall.

Walk halfway to that wall and stop.

Now walk halfway to the wall from the point you stopped and stop again when you reach halfway.

And again

And again

And again.

You'll always be moving towards the wall, but you'll never get there because it's always halfway towards it from the previous point.

Most of you probably knew this one already, I just though it's a fun scenario to ponder.

I don't agree. I don't see how there can be a unit of measure that is infinitely dividable. Sure, we can go smaller than millimetres, smaller than atoms - smaller, and smaller, and smaller - but at some point we'll reach the distance of the smallest particle in existence, where the choices are only stopping or meeting the wall, because that distance would not be dividable.

And what is "the wall"? When is it reached? Depending on the definition, it is possible that the person could not only meet the wall, but cross in to the wall. Look in enough detail and the texture of a wall will have relatively monolithic deviations where a part of the person could cross over the line deemed to be the beginning of "the wall".

 

[photonrider]

I don't agree. I don't see how there can be a unit of measure that is infinitely dividable. Sure, we can go smaller than millimetres, smaller than atoms - smaller, and smaller, and smaller - but at some point we'll reach the distance of the smallest particle in existence, where the choices are only stopping or meeting the wall, because that distance would not be dividable.

And what is "the wall"? When is it reached? Depending on the definition, it is possible that the person could not only meet the wall, but cross in to the wall. Look in enough detail and the texture of a wall will have relatively monolithic deviations where a part of the person could cross over the line deemed to be the beginning of "the wall".

👍 What I wanted to say.

Quite often if I'm patient enough someone else will say it for me. Obviously Zeno wasn't familiar with Planck.

 

[Com Fox]

I don't agree. I don't see how there can be a unit of measure that is infinitely dividable. Sure, we can go smaller than millimetres, smaller than atoms - smaller, and smaller, and smaller - but at some point we'll reach the distance of the smallest particle in existence, where the choices are only stopping or meeting the wall, because that distance would not be dividable.

And what is "the wall"? When is it reached? Depending on the definition, it is possible that the person could not only meet the wall, but cross in to the wall. Look in enough detail and the texture of a wall will have relatively monolithic deviations where a part of the person could cross over the line deemed to be the beginning of "the wall".

Isn't their that thing though that it impossible to half into 0?

Half of 1 is 0.5, half of that is 0.25, half of that is 0.125 and it keeps going on.

If 0 is the wall than it would be impossible to reach, in a situation where you can't move otherwise you touch the wall, you are stuck because you either stay the same or go way past half and actually meet up with the 0.

 

[Danoff]

What if our universe sucks?

We kinda wonder where all the other intelligent life in our universe is, why haven't we heard from them. Surely they're out there. But suppose that human knowledge just keeps expanding exponentially. If it's true that our knowledge of the universe is going to continue to skyrocket, fueled by improvements in a wide variety of fields, then we may be not nearly as far away as we think from uncovering an understanding of the universe so fundamental and comprehensive, that we'll develop the ability to do some really wild things.

Like... create our own universe, one that is more perfect than this one, and then go there.

We wonder, if time travel were ever invented, why haven't we been visited by ourselves from the future, or anyone traveling in time, or seen the results of it somehow. But suppose that the moment you invent time travel, you invent the ability to do something so much more amazing than merely travel back to see earlier version of your society, that you have no interest in doing so, and wouldn't want to because you wouldn't want to jeopardize the fact that you develop this amazing power.

People say, you could go back in time and stop Hitler, or something like that. But suppose you could reconstruct all life that has ever existed on Earth, and place those people in a utopian universe where they can live forever in perfect happiness? Would you go back and stop Hitler?

There are other reasons why time travel could be possible and yet it could be impossible to travel back to your own time. But I wonder, overall, how much it has been considered that people, or whole societies, may simply choose to leave our reality for a better one.

 

[Com Fox]

That my friend is the beauty of multi-verse theory.

Although then is our multi-verse so bad no one wants to visit?

 

[Carbon_6]

Maybe our universe has been deemed too primitive to visit by the inhabitants of whatever universe is out there.

Or, perhaps they too are not capable of travelling beyond the boundaries of their universe because, in terms of technological advances and intelligence, they're at the same point as we are.

 

[TB]

they're at the same point as we are.

Or still swimming in the primordial soup.

 

[Com Fox]

Not sure if this is more suited in the opinions forum or not.

but recently with the stress of the political climate and a lot of activism just going haywire. If there was a button that would solve your political problems BUT the same problems are instead inflicted on other people that your activism isn't targeted for. Who would push this button? Does this make the activist just as horrible as the idea that they're trying to fight against?

Also the knowledge of who would push this button gives me some troubling thoughts, I would never think about pushing it but what if one of my closest friends would me more inclined to do it? I like to think I can separate people from their ideaologies and opinions and still be friends, hell, I'm a massive critic of feminism but I'm still close with a few feminists, but this idea really puts my ability to separate people from opinions to the test. Would I be okay if 1 of the people I care about would willingly solve their issues by just flipping the table on other people? It's something I think is wrong but do I also think it is also wrong for someone else to think that?

 

[Danoff]

Celsius sucks

It just does. I love metric because math, and also because who needs two different gallons, or about a thousand different definitions of pounds. Is that pounds-mass, pounds-force, or are we talking currency? Or did you just hit something? Yup, metric is the best. It may not correspond to super-useful distances (although drug dealers seem to think it has useful quantities), but darn if the math doesn't work out. I get it, metric is better.

But what the heck is going on with Celsius? Don't think you can hide behind liters and kilometers over there Celsius, I see you. Celsius brings absolutely nothing to the table... oh water freezes at 0 degrees at a certain pressure, with like... no salt in it. Big deal. Does it make math easier? No. Is it intuitive? No.

Fahrenheit doesn't make the math easier either. But it's so intuitive. Thermostats can be in whole degree increments (because a degree doesn't represent just way too much temperature difference). But also, it's like percent-heat. This morning in Colorado with snow on the ground and absolutely frigid temperatures it was 5 degrees. About 5% heat felt like a great description of that. Almost no heat. In the middle of summer on a super hot day it can get up to like 100% heat. In Texas sometimes it's so friggin hot you'd describe it as 110% heat.

Fahrenheit is scaled nicely for Earth's weather. Ok, not in Antarctica because... that's not really Earth. But for where humans live, it's nicely scaled from 0-100. I just don't understand why Celsius gets such a free pass for being part of the metric system. Metric should just drop it and switch to Fahrenheit.

 

[Exorcet]

People say, you could go back in time and stop Hitler, or something like that. But suppose you could reconstruct all life that has ever existed on Earth, and place those people in a utopian universe where they can live forever in perfect happiness? Would you go back and stop Hitler?

This wasn't the point of your post and the part I'm quoting was just an example, but reconstructing those people wouldn't really do any good. The reconstructed individuals would be entirely separate people and those that suffered under Hitler would have still suffered. If the goal was to help the people who suffered then you would need to go back in time.

It's similar to the issue that I have with the concept of digitizing or uploading brains/consciousness. It's meaningless as far as preserving the original person because nothing actually happens to them. They're just copied. The most important part of their being, their experience and perception, is left alone.

 

[Danoff]

This wasn't the point of your post and the part I'm quoting was just an example, but reconstructing those people wouldn't really do any good. The reconstructed individuals would be entirely separate people and those that suffered under Hitler would have still suffered. If the goal was to help the people who suffered then you would need to go back in time.

It's similar to the issue that I have with the concept of digitizing or uploading brains/consciousness. It's meaningless as far as preserving the original person because nothing actually happens to them. They're just copied. The most important part of their being, their experience and perception, is left alone.

Suppose for a moment that you could reconstruct their experience and perception. I think that you'd agree that if a perfect copy of me were created right now, that copy would include my memory as well. There would be no way to distinguish which me was more legitimate if the copy were perfect. So perhaps one day we will have the technology to even determine what configuration of atoms a given person had at a given time.

Imagine that you could identify the configuration of all atoms in the universe at any time in history. I can't tell you right now that such a thing would be impossible.

 

[Exorcet]

Suppose for a moment that you could reconstruct their experience and perception. I think that you'd agree that if a perfect copy of me were created right now, that copy would include my memory as well. There would be no way to distinguish which me was more legitimate if the copy were perfect. So perhaps one day we will have the technology to even determine what configuration of atoms a given person had at a given time.

Copying memories and entire brain states doesn't sound unreasonable with sufficiently advanced technology, but I think that you would be able to tell yourself apart from your clone because you would not share consciousness (maybe that is a better term than experience and perception). Your clone might know exactly what you're thinking and be able to finish your sentences, but I would still count the clone as an entirely separate person because each of you could go on your own way and live entirely different lives independent of each other.

Looking at it another way, if you died and were then perfectly cloned later, would your consciousness return to reality, or would Danoff-2 have his own consciousness? I'd think Danoff-2 would have his own consciousness that you would be unable to access in any way.

 

[Danoff]

Copying memories and entire brain states doesn't sound unreasonable with sufficiently advanced technology, but I think that you would be able to tell yourself apart from your clone because you would not share consciousness (maybe that is a better term than experience and perception). Your clone might know exactly what you're thinking and be able to finish your sentences, but I would still count the clone as an entirely separate person because each of you could go on your own way and live entirely different lives independent of each other.

Looking at it another way, if you died and were then perfectly cloned later, would your consciousness return to reality, or would Danoff-2 have his own consciousness? I'd think Danoff-2 would have his own consciousness that you would be unable to access in any way.

Yea, I agree that you're two separate entities. The question of which one is the "real" you though, which is what I was pointing at earlier, is kinda fuzzy. Because they're identical copies. There's, by definition, no difference. So they're both the "real" you even though one of them is 1 second old.

I've been pro-cremation my entire life because I figure why leave a body around in a box taking up land. But what if 1000 years from now we're able to resurrect people based on DNA? What if I could somehow have been restored if I'd just left some fragments behind?

 

[Exorcet]

Yea, I agree that you're two separate entities. The question of which one is the "real" you though, which is what I was pointing at earlier, is kinda fuzzy. Because they're identical copies. There's, by definition, no difference. So they're both the "real" you even though one of them is 1 second old.

Right, I agree there. I'm not bothered with one being more real than the other. As far as anyone not involved in the cloning process is concerned, the copy and original are interchangeable.

I've been pro-cremation my entire life because I figure why leave a body around in a box taking up land. But what if 1000 years from now we're able to resurrect people based on DNA? What if I could somehow have been restored if I'd just left some fragments behind?

For anyone you left behind that somehow managed to live 1000 years, and those people interested in meeting their ancestors, etc, this would be a huge deal. My issue is that I don't think it does anything for the clone "donor". If I look at it from my point of view, I could be copied in 1000 years but my current iteration wouldn't know about it because my consciousness would be permanently destroyed in death (or maybe more accurately in post death decay). My copy would live a life that felt like a direct continuation of my old life and would be exactly as real as I am now, but the original me wouldn't benefit from this outside of having someone advocating my ideals in my place. I don't want to downplay that because that would be a really really nice thing to have, but I wouldn't recommend this method to anyone seeking a form of immortality. It's only an illusion of immortality as far as I can tell.

 

[Danoff]

For anyone you left behind that somehow managed to live 1000 years, and those people interested in meeting their ancestors, etc, this would be a huge deal. My issue is that I don't think it does anything for the clone "donor". If I look at it from my point of view, I could be copied in 1000 years but my current iteration wouldn't know about it because my consciousness would be permanently destroyed in death (or maybe more accurately in post death decay). My copy would live a life that felt like a direct continuation of my old life and would be exactly as real as I am now, but the original me wouldn't benefit from this outside of having someone advocating my ideals in my place. I don't want to downplay that because that would be a really really nice thing to have, but I wouldn't recommend this method to anyone seeking a form of immortality. It's only an illusion of immortality as far as I can tell.

I fully agree that creating another copy of me from my DNA, starting from infancy or whatever, with no memory, does me no good. But supposing again that there is a way to reconstruct memory. The problem with trying to imagine tech 1000 years in the future is that we're going to be absolutely terrible at it. I agree that I can't think of a way that memory could be reconstructed. But what if it could? Shouldn't I be putting my head in a jar of formaldehyde instead of being cremated?

I'm being a little facetious, but it does seem ever-so-slightly possible. The problem would be getting people to agree to hang on to my head for 1000 years. I seem to recall a STTNG episode on this.

 

[Exorcet]

Yeah, if you wanted to be on the safe side then preserving yourself in some way would be wise. I think there are some places that will preserve your body in the case of legal death already, but I don't know many details beyond that.

If there is a Star Trek episode centered around this topic I don't recall it, but I never was the most dedicated viewer of the series. I imagine that there are a bunch of episodes that I never saw or perhaps forgot about. I vaguely remember one about a time traveling historian, but I can't remember if that was TNG or what ended up happening.