Would Immortality be Worth It? | Open College Podcast No. 51 | Stephen Hicks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- When we think about our own mortality, we might conclude we must fill our lives with as many experiences as we can-don't waste time, get a move on- or we might reach a more fatalistic position: what is the point of doing anything? Would we be better off if we were immortal?
For some time, Professor Hicks has been doing a philosophical analysis podcast on a wide range of contemporary topics. It has been available on a number of other platforms. It is now being offered on UA-cam as well. Its mission is to “ to explain the chaos.”
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great in Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College in England, and Jagiellonian University in Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Nietzsche and the Nazis audiobook: • Nietzsche and the Nazi...
Playlists:
Education Theory: • Education Theory
Entrepreneurship and Values: • Entrepreneurship and V...
Nietzsche: • Nietzsche
There will be no limits to growth, Dr. Hicks.
Mathematics alone offers an infinity of delightful puzzles to enjoy. Even if our universe is finite (I think not), abstractions taken from it need not be.
The universe is finite? Why, because the law of identity demands that everything be some specific limited thing? But that doesn't mean there's a limit to the number of specific limited things in existence.
We will forget? No, we will technologically augment our minds without limit so that we need not forget. Cast aside your pessimism about the prospect of indefinite life extension! Life is worth living forever and ever! (And please consider reading "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch, if you haven't.)
Why duz my childhood spent in front of TV, watching Grasshopper on Kung Fu, keep bubblink2consconciousness?🤔
The meaning is in reason.
Not in a very long life.
Passive or active. Yin or yang. Mommy or daddy.
We apes prefer limited choices😂
I think a Buddhist perspective on the self is important here. If we don't have a Rock Hard Cogito, and accept that the character our self changes as the content changes (as things are learned and forgotten), then the person I would have become after mere thousands of years, let alone millions, would be so radically different from the person I am now, that the question of personal survival begins to dissolve. Similarly, the universe and the human role in it would be changing, so that would also produce novelty. You could go be a con-man in the andromeda Galaxy.
Great content!
Zen is false.
The self is reason.
Robert Wright is wrong, because he's for zen.
B. Wallace is for zen.
Big mistake.
Dr. Hicks, I quite enjoyed your talk. I advocate for a stronger distinction between “immortality,” which typically connotes an involuntary invulnerability to death, and “indefinite lifespan,” which more clearly connotes the scenarios you discuss here. We may in fact be in the first generation where lifespan increases faster than years lived, but that will not abolish other causes of death including murder, war, privation, accident, and the voluntary choice to end one’s life. I would definitely like to hear more in-depth discussion of the ethics around the increasingly likely possibility that at least some of us may get to live, if not millions, but possibly hundreds of years past humankind’s historic lifespan.