A significant share of the broader ‘singularitarian’ community believes that they have a chance to live for hundreds of years, if they can survive until the arrival of an AI singularity, whole brain emulation, or just the point at which medical technology is advancing fast enough to keep extending our health-span by at least a year each year (meaning we hit ‘
I actually do not have to give up anything as I am entirely uninterested in changing anyone's convictions. I do not give a flying f*ck about what you believe. What I do care about is your acts and the way they reflect on me. And I intend to influence that via the means it was always influenced throughout human history, And, no, the means is not persuation. It's violence.
By the way, you never answered regarding how unspecial you came to appreciate this very special ideology, which I contend is part of justifying exceptional views.
srdiamond
I don't have to justify or convince you of anything. You're the one obsessed with trying to convince me that your worldview is correct and mine wrong.
Obsessing over the personal beliefs and private life choices of others, especially complete strangers, as though it is appropriate to have control over such people is defined in psychology as inappropriate boundaries. Inappropriate boundaries are considered a psychiatric condition. You previous comments in this blog make very clear you are suffering from inappropriate boundaries and are, therefor, mentally ill. Any further discussion with you is pointless.
Not at all. All I am saying is that the marriage contribution to health is specifically and exclusively due to the fact that it curbs excessive bahavior on the part of males that lack such self-discipline outside of marriage. Since life extensionists, by definition, already have such self-discipline, there is no basis to claim that marriage, by itself, offers any additional benefit to such people. You claim otherwise and fail to provide evidence (because such evidence does not exist) to back up such claim.
Now why would a so-called "narcissist" such as myself make such a commitment to others, even those I don't know personally? Because I feel a sense of commonality and, yes, even loyalty to those who share my values.
Do you? I admit that these claims, if true, would refute the "diagnosis" of narcissism--perhaps even help rebut my intuition that it's narcissists who desperately want to believe their resurrection is feasible.But what's the evidence before us? Robin Hanson shares your transhumanist/libertarian ideology, yet you rather brazenly violate his posting-numbers restrictions. Libertarian principles include a deep respect for property rights, yet you lacked the desire to respect Hanson's or, on the other hand, the motivation to discover or observe Hanson's strictures: 8 posts showing. (I'm just making a point, not telling you how much you should post--as I'm not a libertarian or a great respecter of property rights.)
If you're relying on the solidarity of your fellow narcissists, then your chances look truly dismal.
By the way, you never answered regarding how unspecial you came to appreciate this very special ideology, which I contend is part of justifying exceptional views. (See my "Is epistemic equality a fiction? The confusion between belief and opinion and the natures of fanaticism and philistinism" — http://tinyurl.com/6kamrjs )
Well, I think a narcissistic would usually say (and probably even believe) that he respects the rights and choices of others; probably would be more likely to make this declaration than one who was less narcissistic.
No. You call me a narcissist simply because I do not agree with your worldview, not because I'm really a narcissist.
I have never suggested or even insinuated that you or anyone else must adopt my worldview. I am well aware that most people do not identify with my worldview. I recognize and accept this. I merely ask to be left alone to live my own life and pursue my own objectives in peace. For this, you condemn me as a narcissist.
You, on the other hand, make clear that you seek to impose your worldview on others who may not identify with it at all. This makes you the bad guy in here, not me.
I think it narcissistic to believe that one is right and that all others are wrong and that it is acceptable to impose one's beliefs and worldview on others. This is the REAL definition of narcissism, not to mention arrogance.
Because, for starters, I am not a libertarian and I do not believe in unconditional rights to opinions, actions and worldviews.
Also, your positions and your determination to be left alone to do as you please (especially the creating strong AI and using biohacks parts) clearly reflect on and change my life in ways I find unacceptable.
You will have to give up the dream of ever having influence over those who do not share your worldview.
About $100K for neuro and $250K for whole body. In my case, I have about $1.5 million in life insurance. $100K for my neuro and $1.4 million for my wife (yes, I actually believe in taking care of family first, guess I'm not such a narcissist after all, am I?).
You must also count on the likelihood that some distant future society will enforce your contract--that it is both sufficiently diligent and sufficiently sympathetic.
What's the social value of "saving" such creatures? Far more likely, such a society will say "good riddance," assuming that your frozen heads haven't already been destroyed in war or social disorder--perhaps even in an uprising against the sort of narcissists who chose to preserve themselves, amongst all the other worthy causes.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cryonics. We don't expect any "external" society to reanimate us. Or at least I don't. It will be the future members of cryonics and similar transhumanist organizations, say in 2100 or 2200, who will do the reconstruction and reanimation of cryonics members. In other words, it will be future versions of ourselves that will do the reanimating. Why do I think this? Because if I happen to make it (without having to be cryo-preserved) I plan to reanimate all of the people who get cryo-preserved? Now why would a so-called "narcissist" such as myself make such a commitment to others, even those I don't know personally? Because I feel a sense of commonality and, yes, even loyalty to those who share my values. Any I know others who feel the same way as others.
How about that? A "narcissist" who believes in loyalty to others. Who would of thunk it?
You don't give any good reason that would explain why that correlation doesn't apply, other than a generic and self-serving claim that these people are actually intelligent and competent, which is a) unsupported b) weak (correlation between standardized measures of intelligence such as IQ and longevity applies largely to below-average individuals) c) possibly overwhelmed by negative correlations (e.g. depression, akrasia) d) not shown to be sufficient to compensate for any positive effect of marriage.
Quite the contrary. The positive longevity benefit due to marriage is exclusively because marriage results in most men taking better care of themselves and living healthier life styles. We are all familiar with the "Max Tucker" stereotype of a hard-partying single guy. This is the ONLY plausible mechanism of how marriage offers positive benefit to longevity.
My point was simply that most life extension/transhumanist types that I know personally already live healthy life styles and take care of themselves, whether they be married or single. Hence, the notion that marriage itself offers benefit to such people is spurious at best. This is reality, not special pleading.
kurt9, are you able to follow a simple train of thought. Just to remind you, you asked me "I/WE AM NOT LIKE YOU. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?". And I responded. The question was not "what compells me to agree with you". Honestly, your train of thought is either inconsistent or crappy.
Also:" My life is my business. If you don't like it, that's tough sh*t."Well, yes, and MY life is MY business and I intend to not allow the likes of you to change it radically by altering the environment in which I exist. Tough sh*t, eh?
Well, I think a narcissistic would usually say (and probably even believe) that he respects the rights and choices of others; probably would be more likely to make this declaration than one who was less narcissistic.
What makes this world view so "special"? And how did you stumble on this special worldview without being special?
Genesis reckons 120 years as the average lifespan, not threescore and ten. We seem to be achieving that for some individuals now.
I haven't signed up for cryonics or done those other things. I'm kind of indifferent to the prospect of longer life.
I actually do not have to give up anything as I am entirely uninterested in changing anyone's convictions. I do not give a flying f*ck about what you believe. What I do care about is your acts and the way they reflect on me. And I intend to influence that via the means it was always influenced throughout human history, And, no, the means is not persuation. It's violence.
This definitely wind the award for the most moronic ad-hominem post ever.
By the way, you never answered regarding how unspecial you came to appreciate this very special ideology, which I contend is part of justifying exceptional views.
srdiamond
I don't have to justify or convince you of anything. You're the one obsessed with trying to convince me that your worldview is correct and mine wrong.
Obsessing over the personal beliefs and private life choices of others, especially complete strangers, as though it is appropriate to have control over such people is defined in psychology as inappropriate boundaries. Inappropriate boundaries are considered a psychiatric condition. You previous comments in this blog make very clear you are suffering from inappropriate boundaries and are, therefor, mentally ill. Any further discussion with you is pointless.
Good-bye.
Not at all. All I am saying is that the marriage contribution to health is specifically and exclusively due to the fact that it curbs excessive bahavior on the part of males that lack such self-discipline outside of marriage. Since life extensionists, by definition, already have such self-discipline, there is no basis to claim that marriage, by itself, offers any additional benefit to such people. You claim otherwise and fail to provide evidence (because such evidence does not exist) to back up such claim.
Now why would a so-called "narcissist" such as myself make such a commitment to others, even those I don't know personally? Because I feel a sense of commonality and, yes, even loyalty to those who share my values.
Do you? I admit that these claims, if true, would refute the "diagnosis" of narcissism--perhaps even help rebut my intuition that it's narcissists who desperately want to believe their resurrection is feasible.But what's the evidence before us? Robin Hanson shares your transhumanist/libertarian ideology, yet you rather brazenly violate his posting-numbers restrictions. Libertarian principles include a deep respect for property rights, yet you lacked the desire to respect Hanson's or, on the other hand, the motivation to discover or observe Hanson's strictures: 8 posts showing. (I'm just making a point, not telling you how much you should post--as I'm not a libertarian or a great respecter of property rights.)
If you're relying on the solidarity of your fellow narcissists, then your chances look truly dismal.
By the way, you never answered regarding how unspecial you came to appreciate this very special ideology, which I contend is part of justifying exceptional views. (See my "Is epistemic equality a fiction? The confusion between belief and opinion and the natures of fanaticism and philistinism" — http://tinyurl.com/6kamrjs )
Well, I think a narcissistic would usually say (and probably even believe) that he respects the rights and choices of others; probably would be more likely to make this declaration than one who was less narcissistic.
No. You call me a narcissist simply because I do not agree with your worldview, not because I'm really a narcissist.
I have never suggested or even insinuated that you or anyone else must adopt my worldview. I am well aware that most people do not identify with my worldview. I recognize and accept this. I merely ask to be left alone to live my own life and pursue my own objectives in peace. For this, you condemn me as a narcissist.
You, on the other hand, make clear that you seek to impose your worldview on others who may not identify with it at all. This makes you the bad guy in here, not me.
I think it narcissistic to believe that one is right and that all others are wrong and that it is acceptable to impose one's beliefs and worldview on others. This is the REAL definition of narcissism, not to mention arrogance.
Because, for starters, I am not a libertarian and I do not believe in unconditional rights to opinions, actions and worldviews.
Also, your positions and your determination to be left alone to do as you please (especially the creating strong AI and using biohacks parts) clearly reflect on and change my life in ways I find unacceptable.
You will have to give up the dream of ever having influence over those who do not share your worldview.
So you counter statistics with stereotypes. Very much intelligent and competent.
So, what is the price?
About $100K for neuro and $250K for whole body. In my case, I have about $1.5 million in life insurance. $100K for my neuro and $1.4 million for my wife (yes, I actually believe in taking care of family first, guess I'm not such a narcissist after all, am I?).
You must also count on the likelihood that some distant future society will enforce your contract--that it is both sufficiently diligent and sufficiently sympathetic.
What's the social value of "saving" such creatures? Far more likely, such a society will say "good riddance," assuming that your frozen heads haven't already been destroyed in war or social disorder--perhaps even in an uprising against the sort of narcissists who chose to preserve themselves, amongst all the other worthy causes.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cryonics. We don't expect any "external" society to reanimate us. Or at least I don't. It will be the future members of cryonics and similar transhumanist organizations, say in 2100 or 2200, who will do the reconstruction and reanimation of cryonics members. In other words, it will be future versions of ourselves that will do the reanimating. Why do I think this? Because if I happen to make it (without having to be cryo-preserved) I plan to reanimate all of the people who get cryo-preserved? Now why would a so-called "narcissist" such as myself make such a commitment to others, even those I don't know personally? Because I feel a sense of commonality and, yes, even loyalty to those who share my values. Any I know others who feel the same way as others.
How about that? A "narcissist" who believes in loyalty to others. Who would of thunk it?
You don't give any good reason that would explain why that correlation doesn't apply, other than a generic and self-serving claim that these people are actually intelligent and competent, which is a) unsupported b) weak (correlation between standardized measures of intelligence such as IQ and longevity applies largely to below-average individuals) c) possibly overwhelmed by negative correlations (e.g. depression, akrasia) d) not shown to be sufficient to compensate for any positive effect of marriage.
Quite the contrary. The positive longevity benefit due to marriage is exclusively because marriage results in most men taking better care of themselves and living healthier life styles. We are all familiar with the "Max Tucker" stereotype of a hard-partying single guy. This is the ONLY plausible mechanism of how marriage offers positive benefit to longevity.
My point was simply that most life extension/transhumanist types that I know personally already live healthy life styles and take care of themselves, whether they be married or single. Hence, the notion that marriage itself offers benefit to such people is spurious at best. This is reality, not special pleading.
What makes this world view so "special"? And how did you stumble on this special worldview without being special?
Because it offers greater openness and freedom than all other worldviews. That is why it is superior to all other worldviews.
kurt9, are you able to follow a simple train of thought. Just to remind you, you asked me "I/WE AM NOT LIKE YOU. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?". And I responded. The question was not "what compells me to agree with you". Honestly, your train of thought is either inconsistent or crappy.
Also:" My life is my business. If you don't like it, that's tough sh*t."Well, yes, and MY life is MY business and I intend to not allow the likes of you to change it radically by altering the environment in which I exist. Tough sh*t, eh?
Well, I think a narcissistic would usually say (and probably even believe) that he respects the rights and choices of others; probably would be more likely to make this declaration than one who was less narcissistic.
What makes this world view so "special"? And how did you stumble on this special worldview without being special?