
The Collective Body: Russian experiments in life after death - lermontov
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/anya-bernstein-future-immortality-russia-cryogenics-review/
======
leggomylibro
The idea of individual immortality seems at odds with how the universe works.
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.

What is 'we' to us (and whatever other life is out in space) could be 'me' to
the universe, and some philosophers like Spinoza have explored the idea of a
"God" which is more or less defined as the empirical laws of this universe.

And sure, eventually this universe will also die. But that's okay, because it
is also probably part of some larger entity which will also eventually end,
and so on. 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.

The idea of collective transcendence is also interesting. One work which
explored it was Alpha Centauri, a Civilization-style game where the players'
colonies crash-land on a planet which eventually turns out to be sentient
thanks to global networks of fungus which act as neurons. If the player is
eco-friendly, they can eventually communicate with the planet and dump their
citizens' consciousness into the seemingly-immortal planet. Even that would
only delay the inevitable, but to quote the game's CEO Nwabudike Morgan:

>I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple
thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice.

Sound familiar, Thiel?

~~~
nlh
> 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.

~~~
dr_dshiv
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.

------
TomMckenny
This will sound odd to the vast majority but there are some who view the whole
idea of their personal immortality as awful and the drive to obtain it
incomprehensible. Even if it were in some harp filled cloud borne paradise let
alone in the real word. To some, permanent existence seems unspeakably
nightmarish.

~~~
antepodius
I don't think most people advocating for, say, curing death through aging are
advocating forced immortality. It's just a few years more- it's just not dying
tomorrow, or next year, or next decade.

Yes, if you imagine an arbitrary boundless personal future, there are a lot
more ways it could end up being on average a negative experience than a
positive one. I've never heard anyone argue against having an exit plan for
that eventuality (i.e., I've never seen anyone argue a 500-year old should be
prevented from killing themselves).

I don't think you would turn down a magic pill that would extend your
lifespan-with-a-21-year-old's-vitality tomorrow, would you?

I think all the 'immortalists' want is for everyone to live as long as they
choose to, and not have the choice taken away from people as it is now.

------
pnathan
Fascinating review. But, honestly, I really wish these ideas were treated as
derivative of the religious-cultural matrix they came from. Why is
transcendence given such a high priority? Speculatively - I am not an expert -
it is due to the regional influence of the "East" Orthodox church and the
underlying notions of theosis and transcendent mysticism that threads it in
ways that were less common for the West.

Ideas, particularly recurring and popular ones, do not arise _de novo_, but
have an interlinking with a population susceptible to them.

Personally, while I believe (religiously) in an afterlife, I don't desire
immortality. Long & healthy life would be nice; but my time in this universe
has an end, and _that's ok_. Let my child be an adult free of my control.

------
cryptonector
Immortality == the end of childhood.

Yes, I'm referencing the title of the novel, Childhood's End. But it's true.
If we lived 1,000 years, we couldn't have two children per-woman every 40
years -- we could only have two children per-woman every 1,000 years. That
would yield a minuscule number of children at any time. A life expectancy of
1,000 years would require finding a way to extend fertility from ~35 years,
otherwise many opportunities to reproduce would be missed completely and
fertility would drop well below replacement rate, furthering the end of
childhood.

No, we can have immortality, or we can have children, but not both.

I can't imagine a life without children. So I choose mortality. I want to die
(in time) so that my children may have children. And my children too will have
to die (in time). It's just how it has to be.

But we can talk about what would be a good life expectancy. 200 years would be
fine, provided the first 160 of them one could have a young body and mind. And
provided we can find a way to not get too bored :) Even 1,000 would be fine
provided our bodies and minds stayed young for 850+ of those 1,000. In any
case, I don't want to live 120 of 200 years in an old people's home.. Who
would?!

~~~
_ytji
If you haven't experienced 17776 yet, please do!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17776](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17776)

[https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football](https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football)

~~~
catbird
Wow. That was beautiful. I just spent the last couple hours reading through
it. Being stuck in my house looking at the world through a screen, I can
empathize with that little trashcan hurtling through space. Thanks for
sharing.

------
aww_dang
More than a few intrusive overlays covering an article largely about politics,
a paragraph about NeuroNet, followed by talk of climate change.

I seem to have skimmed past the part about life after death?

------
Koshkin
"Life after death" sounds like an oxymoron to me (unless we are talking about
revival, of course).

------
yters
First they need to revoke mathematics, that less probable states will
transition to more probable states.

~~~
vbezhenar
Life would not emerge at all if this statement would be that simple.

~~~
goblin89
There is a hypothesis that life emerged because living things dissipate energy
more efficiently[0]. As one possible implication, individual immortality given
humanity as we know it might appear counter to that goal. As a more far-
fetched implication, evolving humanity in a way that motivates accelerating
efficiency of energy capture and dissipation _even as individual longevity
increases_ could theoretically unexpectedly inch us closer to immortality.

[0] [https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-
theory-o...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-
the-origin-of-life-20140122/)

