Mortality

>>7781179
I think it would make of identity a thing in flux(which it already is if you're being strict about it) to the point where your identity is almost entirely different from one century to the next, as your old memories are replaced.

Whether you consider that pointless is down to your philosophical ideas about meaning.

>>7781179
>can only form a limited ammount of memories
ya sure about that

/sci/ might get a kick outta this, idk

>>7781179
>since we will not be able to neither form new memories or maintain old ones
I missed this part. You can form new memories, they simply replace the old ones.
>>7781192
Your brain is a finite physical object, there is a limit to the amount of information it can hold at any one time.

>>7781179
>Since we, as humans, can only form a limited ammount of memories
While that is probably true, you should wonder if we can ever meaningfully approximate our total memory capacity. By the time we get to the point medical science can repair and improve our bodies to the point of immortality, we'll probably have developed some way of augmenting the human memory as well.
But why would you even want to be immortal? Even if your body keeps working perfectly, you'll eventually get bored of life. And you can keep taking happy pills or treatments to remedy yoru depression, but what would the point be?

>>7781211
>While that is probably true, you should wonder if we can ever meaningfully approximate our total memory capacity.
Not on our lifetime, most likely, that is why i brought immortality as an example; since one lives forever, one creates ( or substitutes) an infinite ammount of memories, meaning eventually such a limit of our maximum capacity would be reached eventually.

>By the time we get to the point medical science can repair and improve our bodies to the point of immortality, we'll probably have developed some way of augmenting the human memory as well.
So the only way we can reach a longer lifespan is by becoming superhumans? That is possible, but we will eventually reach the question of wether that would be human or not in the first place. The religious community would go nuts over this stuff.

Read Heidegger's essay "What is Metaphyics?".

Or alternatively watch a lecture on it, I just did for 5 time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-4hV6Rf1k

He delves into questions similar to what you ask there.

>>7781298
>So the only way we can reach a longer lifespan is by becoming superhumans?
That depends on how you define 'superhuman', but human with a lifespan of 150 years is already going beyond the standard human capability. If medical technology will eventually allow us to replace malfunctioning body parts and keep them working, we'll become something that has those beyond-human capabilities - I think you can reasonably call that 'superhuman'.
>That is possible, but we will eventually reach the question of wether that would be human or not in the first place.
And it's a fucking fascinating question at that, if you ask me. You've probably already heard of it if you're into this kind of thing, but I'd like to suggest Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - it's a Dick novel about this kind of question. Blade Runner, the movie based on it, is also fucking amazing. The Ghost in the Shell anime movie is also great and deals with same themes. Other than those there's a whole heap of transhumanist stuff out there(fiction and non-fiction), but not all of it is worth reading.

File: hatman.jpg (52KB, 479x505px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 479x505px

>>7781353
>And it's a fucking fascinating question at that, if you ask me

>>7781179
eh, maybe?

Interesting ideas, but I don't think it relates to real life all that much.

Who would want to live that long anyway? I'm not even 30 yet and I am already feeling pretty tired of life.

>>7781353
>this whole post

>>7781199
>You can form new memories, they simply replace the old ones.
Replace the old ones? To what extent? If that is so, would not the you three hundred years from now be completely different from you? Would not it be a completely different person?

Borges' short story "The immortal" talks about this.

your post is literally trash, chock-full of unjustified assumptions

if you're willing to ascribe properties to humanity as a whole i expect you to provide accompanying statistics. well yes, we "AS HUMANS" can form only a limited amount of memories. but compared to whom? a non-human entity that stores infinite amount of memories? the amount of memories we store has little to do with what it means to be human.

>does that mean our maximum lifespan is determined not by biological, but neurological limitations
no you stupid arse, every neurological unit or process is by definition a biological unit or process. and where do you get that godawful idea to redefine the "I" by reducing it to a set of memories one acquires during one's lifetime? is the tip of your penis/clitoris suddenly not a part of you? do you even know how mereology works? memories, stripped of the walls that keep them in place, keep them 'alive', do not coexist unless they embody a biological system/organism.

literally stop posting and reading useless neuro-babble

>>7781199
memory death

>>7781483
No because the new ones will be colored by the old one's. The person you were in your eighteen year old memories is the person who experienced all the memories of earlier years. Even if you cannot explicitly remember them.

But none of this matters because immortality is a demon's project.

>>7781199
>Your brain is a finite physical object
no?
It is constantly changing both in size and what parts are prioritized.

>>7782095
you wot
how does your brain changing in size (I'm not fact checking you on this) make it not a finite physical object

>>7782157
Are you serious? Your statement implies that it can only store a set amount of memories because of it's physical boundaries.
That is in fact a false assumption so your entire argument falls apart.
Especially if you take into account the possibility of future neurological implants to expand your memory.

>>7781199
>Your brain is a finite physical object, there is a limit to the amount of information it can hold at any one time.
Physical finiteness--I assume you're talking about the size of a normal brain of an average human--doesn't necessary entail the conclusion that it can't store infinite amount of information, just as the physical finiteness of an atom doesn't necessarily entail that it's not turtles all the way down: i.e., that there is no single type of fundamental particles to which all other particles reduce to.