Hacker News Reader

The special projects videos in that game are some of the best science fiction creative work ever made, IMO. Also, something I still think is predictive and sends chills up my neck, "as the Americans painfully learned in Earth's final century" (presumably the 21st):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE

Text of the whole spoken:

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights""

All special projects video text, starting with 0-24:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24OXzIRIiMQ

Cutscene vids start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evs0nFCufNM&list=PL8407FAE1D...

Although a bit dated, I still don't see this kind of intellectual quality in most games. Paradox Interactive's Stellaris is about the closest thing to a spiritual successor to SMAC, but it's also its own beast and next-gen 4X.

> But the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter and energy is appealing, because it opens the door to the idea that we are all facets of the same thing.

I think it makes more sense if matter and energy emerge from consciousness though. If the universe is pure math, then only consciousness can make us think that there are real physical objects and energy. Put another way, if you think the basic explanation of the universe is consciousness, then you don't have to explain matter. If you think matter (and physics) is at the root of the universe, then you still have to explain consciousness.

> Put another way, if you think the basic explanation of the universe is consciousness, then you don't have to explain matter.

Of course you do. Consciousness observes some structure in its experience, so what is the origin of that structure? The consciousness itself? What is the nature of that structure? How does it behave if it interacts with other perceived structure?

These are the same questions that must be answered no matter what you take as ontologically fundamental.

That makes sense only as a solipsistic view. If there is only one consciousness, then it can dream up any reality it wants and it will be coherent. But if you allow for multiple conscious beings, they would agree on the existence and properties of matter and energy only if those things existed in some manner independent of those consciousnesses.

That idea assumes consciousness as emergent or made out of the energy and matter we perceive. While the content of our experiences obviously is, I'm not so sure about consciousness "itself". I personally feel it's self-evident the observer must be outside and cannot be made of what is being perceived. Like the dreamer is not made of dream "stuff", the gamer is not made out of video game code, the mirage in the mirror is not the mirror itself, etc...

So yes, "immortality" of "that which is conscious" is a given imho, because you cannot possibly be aware of non-existence (see: the thought experiment of quantum immortality). On the other hand, immortality of the individual and all its facets seems impossible given the constant change/entropy of everything.

> it opens the door to the idea that we are all facets of the same thing.

> What is 'we' to us (and whatever other life is out in space) could be 'me' to the universe

> That's how I choose to interpret the infinite, and it brings me comfort because it lets me see death as a change in perspective rather than a finality. It also helps me practice empathy, by not seeing much difference between what I feel and what others feel.

I'm 100% with you on this. I've largely gotten there through introspection and "logical" thinking, but I'd love some more formal structure (or for some definition of formal). Any suggestions on other philosophers to read on this subject?

I think a lot of the desire for immortality comes from the understandable (and totally human) fear of the unknown / death. But if you change your perspective - that "me" is only "me" relative to, well, me -- and that if you go up a level in abstraction (look at all of humanity or, really, all of consciousness), you realize that any one "me" doesn't really matter all that much -- and that someone else experiencing consciousness is just as valid and relevant as your own experience of consciousness -- and that from that slightly higher level perspective, there's a LOT of consciousness happening, and it's all valid and relevant and interesting (and will continue for a LONG time!)

Just because your one perspective may disappear in N years doesn't mean there isn't a lot of other experience that will still be happening, and that, to your point, death is only a change in perspective.

The Logos, according to jewish-hellenistic philosophy, was the eternal emanation of the One. Philo of Alexandria (b. 50BC) allegorically referred to the Logos as the son of God. Christianity claims to provide eternal life, simply through belief in the "Logos" (incarnated in Jesus).

So if one views oneself not as a separate person but as part of this eternal emanation, then by definition you do live forever.

You might enjoy Wait But Why's Religion for the Nonreligious post [1]. It gave structure to the thoughts I had for a long time.

I also say that my concept of God is explained in a Simpsons intro [2]. It is based on the Powers of Ten video [3], where the camera is looking down increasing its height exponentially. First at 1 meter, then 10, 100, 1000, and so on. By the end, after we pass by the planets, solar systems, galaxies, and on, we end up in Homer's bald head. In other words, we're all part of the same entity; just like the bacteria in our guts is part of us, we're part of what we call God. And Homer (aka God) is not alone, which fits nicely in the many universes theory.

Many religions came to this conclusion, but I'm yet to find a better way to explain it than that Simpsons intro.

[1] https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEuEx1jnt0M [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0

> I think a lot of the desire for immortality comes from the understandable (and totally human) fear of the unknown / death

For me, it springs from a desire to experience absolutely everything, to leave no stone unturned so to speak.

I consider myself a pantheist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

So this is all in line with what I think. We must remember that the human mind is not separate from the universe, it is part of the universe just like anything else.

So in essence, via your consciousness and mine, the universe is learning about itself.

Let that one sink in!

I do not believe that eternal life is something that is intended in this universe, but the Russian's are free to try.

Finite lifespan for an organism stems from the necessity to adapt to changes in the environment, thus -- generations with a cycle of life and death. Brains allow to adapt without physically having to upgrade to next gen. It seems logical that if or when we get to have updatable wetware (in software or somehow else, the options are open), the concept of individual immortality will make sense with how the universe works.

The computers would still stop working eventually; the universe as we know it also has a finite lifespan, and a machine will always require some amount of energy to function.

Well, there is a notion that there is a Darwinian evolution of the Cosmos (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0205119.pdf), and one might argue that we can't be sure about the future of the universe (especially adding the unknowns regarding multiverse and that whole line of thought) and what future technology might bring, regarding even, let's be optimistic, potential changes to the fabric of timespace itself. Given the non-zero chance of a technological singularity happening even in our lifespan.

> The idea of individual immortality seems at odds with how the universe works

There are things that are "immortal" - https://physicsworld.com/a/electron-lifetime-is-at-least-660...

Well, an electron is not an "individuum" - in the sense that all electrons, being elementary particles, are exactly the same. In any case, though, should annihilation, then, be considered a fatal accident?

> the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter and energy is appealing

Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

> In this physics thought experiment, a Boltzmann brain is a fully formed brain, complete with memories of a full human life in our universe, that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Theoretically over a period of time on the order of hundreds of billions of years, by sheer chance atoms in a void could spontaneously come together in such a way as to assemble a functioning human brain. Like any brain in such circumstances, it would almost immediately stop functioning and begin to deteriorate.

> "What is 'we' to us (and whatever other life is out in space) could be 'me' to the universe..."

i'm skeptical of collective transcendence but it's pretty easy to see humans becoming the neurons of earth's brain over time. and as other planets become similarly sentient, they'd become the cells of an even larger galactic organism. and maybe galaxies form a universal being, and this universal being becomes a cell in a multiversal being.

it's cellular recursion all the way down.

Have you heard of Cosmism? It was a Russian art-cultural movement in the early 20th century with similar ideas.

Do you think any finite amount of time, no matter how long, will eventually seem too short? Even if you live a gazillion years, eventually you will reach the end, and you will yearn for immortality all over again. The only real solution is real immortality.

> The idea of individual immortality seems at odds with how the universe works.

If only as a matter of simple statistics: the average time from the birth to dying in a fatal accident is for a human today well under 1000 years.

Consciousness is emergent from Milky Way chocolate bars. Until the first one was made we were all chemical reactions going about nothing, and when the last one is eaten, that's what we'll go back to.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is basically a tautological truth.

`Sound familiar, Thiel?`

The only person that's seriously competent and taking immortality seriously atm.