Oh my, this is too much, so I'm going to hold my horses and only ask one question :)
Does "immortality" include being in a state of no change?
If it does then you would be the same "being" during infinite amount of time.
Therefore you can't adapt to the changing environment and eventually couldn't even understand the world around you anymore (since your brain would not change anything about itself - no new neurons, no change of connections between neurons etc.).
That is just gruesome... No memories, nothing, just past.
If immortality includes change, then to what degree? Will you be just replacing your cells infinitely?
Then it would probably turn out after hundreds of years you are not "you" anymore since your brain "replaced" itself (all cells and connections would get replaced once every XXX years). Something similar to the "Ship of Theseus" dilemma.
We change during our current lives too, but that would be something new...
Computer data is no different. Hmm...
Cheers! :)
Thanks for commenting even if it's too much:) I thought the same and had a hard time to wrap my head around the topic.
From what I believe: no. Even if there would be a state of no change, eventually things will change. Maybe after some other million years of free floating through the universe ... Law of attraction cannot be escaped, so to speak :) the process of evolution would be reduced to a very low degree but not abolished.
Very good question, thank you! Probably yes, but the change of cells within an organism in a planetary environment must also adapt to the environment like climate change. So I think it's logic that you wouldn't be you after all this replacements. Whether you would still be you from your mentality ... Probably not. As I think the body is also responsible for forming language and expression of feelings. Having an exo-scelleton, for example, would lead into a different form of language as having your bones inside your body.
LOL. I imagine exo-scelletons wouldn't be as empathic because if you bump into something it wouldn't hurt much.
To remain as the same self vs. to have become a new "you": I think the probability that something in your consciousness remains the old you (through memory, when this memory gets refreshed or recorded continuously) is there but it's a matter of choice if one does see it that way or decides not to see it that way. Here comes constructivism into mind.
I tend towards the latter because from your physicality you are today a complete other Konrad than the 12 year old Konrad.
The "you" of your childhood is not there anymore. Your memory from your past is not precise and actually we remember events more vividly when we speak about them to others. So, a huge part of the 12 year old Konrad is not there any more. ... The longer I think about it the less I think that things like personality would remain the same. ...
I'd say what remains are some characteristics or typical "you" things which would show up no matter in which body. But that is just me, liking to think that way:) probably not wanting to give up certain identifications.
That is great and funny example! Thanks for the laughs.
I'm always saying that even the smallest change alters behavior, even if it's unconscious and those changes you are describing are not exactly small... I don't even dare trying to predict how it would alter our reality, it's just ...
Agreed. I always think about it in this way: what you were is shaping what you are, so the old you is always there altering present "you". Scary fact: you can't let it go completely no matter what, even amnesia leaves some parts of the old "you".
About the memory, you probably know that main function of it is not to remember, that's why comparing memories (about the same event) with someone sounds like you were in two separate planets :D
Ahh, so nice to have a talk like that in the morning, have a nice day :D
:)
I do, yes. That's why I would't like to be a judge in a court-room. To decide which one subjective perspective on an accident in traffic is "right" would be a pain in the butt. LOL!