Recent Comments
SIAI Bloggers
  • Michael Anissimov Media Director
  • Joshua Fox SIAI Blogger
  • Ben Goertzel Director of Research
  • David Hart Director of Open Source Projects
  • Michael Vassar President
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky Research Fellow
Guest Bloggers
  • Seth Baum Pennsylvania State University
  • Nick Hay University of Auckland
  • Mitchell Howe Contributing Writer
  • Carl Shulman New York University
  • Peter de Blanc Temple University
Tag Cloud
academic academics accelerating change accelerating change agi AGI 08 ai Anthropic Reasoning anthropomorphism artificial intelligence artificial intelligence aubrey de grey barney pell biases BIL bloggers bloggingheads tv bruce klein catastrophic risks civilization conference conference agi 09 conference chairman conferences consciousness research conventions convergence convergence08 cto cynthia breazeal david hart director of research donations doug wolens eliezer yudkowsky eric baum esther dyson event horizon events evolution existential risks FAI feature length documentary films Friendly AI Friendly Artificial Intelligence future salon future shock futurist community goertzel google gsoc institute research fellow intelligence explosion interest journal interesting articles interviews intros JAGI jaron lanier john horgan justin rattner language search engine lesswrong life extension machine consciousness marcus hutter martin rees math mathematics media meeting microsoft mit morality nanotechnology natural language search neil gershenfeld new york times news office of naval research open letter open source open source open source projects opencog opencogprime optimization processes outreach papers peter diamandis peter thiel pitt podcasts prediction quantum computing radio ray kurzweil relevant articles research fellow risk roadmap school science science fiction shane legg SIAI singularity singularity summit singularity institute singularity summit spectrum talk transhumanism utilitarianism utility vernor vinge videos virtual reality pioneer volunteers xiamen university yudkowsky
Archives

The Meaning That Immortality Gives to Life

October 14th, 2007Eliezer Yudkowsky

I was once present when William Hurlbut, during a debate with Aubrey de Grey, spoke of “the meaning that death gives to life”; Hurlbut repeated the standard claims that life without death would be meaningless and empty. As I replied during the comments session, Hurlbut had not made a sincere effort to think about what meaning immortality would give to life, on the same order of the effort that has gone into thinking about “the meaning that death gives to life”.

Philosophers have put forth a mighty effort to find nice things to say about death. But this is scant reason to fear lifespan extension, when philosophers have not put forth an equally motivated effort to say nice things about immortality.

Such is human nature, that if we were all hit on the head with a baseball bat once a week, philosophers would soon discover many amazing benefits of being hit on the head with a baseball bat: It toughens us, renders us less fearful of lesser pains, makes bat-free days all the sweeter. But if people are not currently being hit with baseball bats, they will not volunteer for it.

Modern literature about immortality is written primarily by authors who expect to die, and their grapes are accordingly sour. Hurlbut, it seems, is afraid of living too long. Well, suppose Hurlbut’s most dreaded fear materialized, and he was forced to live forever - worse, in good health - worst of all, with his IQ rising at a steady rate of 1 point per year. What positive aesthetics might Hurlbut find in his inescapable fate?

We cannot ask Hurlbut this question today. Today he expects to die, and so he seeks nice things to say about death, and conversely awful things to say about immortality. But if Hurlbut were sentenced to life, he would probably stop tormenting himself by finding terrible things to say about his situation, and begin to wonder what nice things he might say instead. Such is human nature, after all.

I once discussed death with a woman who said that, because of her awareness of mortality, whenever she thought of a nice thing to say to someone, she would say it right away; because who knows if they might not meet again. What a terrible world it would be if we had unlimited time to say nice things to each other! We should run right out and step in front of trucks. Perhaps if we were immortal, this woman would have remarked on how, whenever you meet a person or deal with them in any fashion, you are bound to meet again someday - thus you should speak kindly to them. What a terrible world it would be, if people met thinking they would never meet again! Then why would people tip appropriately in out-of-state restaurants? We should run right out and sign up with Alcor.

Another common excuse for praising death is that it gives us a sense of urgency. Go hang-gliding today, go learn to play the flute today, for tomorrow may never come. These people must value initiative, if they use it to justify death - what would they say if they were immortal? Perhaps, “You’ve got to learn linear algebra eventually - why not start today?” You’re not saving yourself any work by procrastinating. Isn’t that a beautiful thought - that you’ve got to learn all these things someday, so why not begin now? Such is the meaning that immortality gives to life.

What is the meaning of humanity’s unfolding future, if we are to die, if we are to live? If we are to die, then perhaps the meaning is that - to reverse the words of immortal Gandalf - we are to take thought only for this one generation of the world. We are to bequeath the world in the best possible state to our children, but not otherwise meddle in their affairs. But if we are to live, then the future is our concern personally, and we shall ourselves reap the fruits of whatever we sow. Inescapable responsibility, inescapable consequences. Is this not equally a call to action?

I have met many people who, when I try to tell them of the Singularity, say, “But do you really think all this will happen in our lifetimes?”, as if the universe ceases to exist beyond the horizon of their personal deaths. Given what I’ve actually seen of people’s psychology, if you want anything done about global warming (like building 1000 nuclear power plants and moving on to real problems), then, yes, you should urge people to sign up for Alcor.

What meaning does death, the inevitable termination of existence, give to an effort to be a better person? Perhaps the notion of a virtuous life having a beginning, a middle, and an end; so that it is shaped, through a finite amount of effort, into having a satisfying conclusion; and then it is done, finished like a painting, put on a stand and exhibited. What meaning would immortality give to a virtuous life? An unending, unbounded effort; never finished like a painting, never simply exhibited; never flawless, always improving. Is this not equally a beautiful thought? It may even have the advantage of being equally scary.

But really, both sides of all these arguments fall under the category of “excuses to be virtuous”, which no one should ever need. As I remarked to the woman, after she said that her mortality leads her to say nice things to people right away instead of later, “That’s a beautiful thought, and even if someday the threat of death is lifted from you, I hope you go on doing it.” Once you know what virtuous behavior would help excuse death, or immortality, or whatever, just go ahead and do it without need for an excuse. If this essay has an object, it is to demonstrate the ease of finding beautiful thoughts just about anywhere.

Neither death, nor immortality, are needed to give meaning to life. Life gives meaning to life. The object of friendship is friendship, the object of learning is learning. At most, the particular meanings that death or immortality would give to an act of life are secondary shades, fine points of artistry, like the landscape in the background of the Mona Lisa’s smile.

In truth, I suspect that if people were immortal, they would not think overmuch about the meaning that immortality gives to life. People in the Deaf subculture may ponder the implications of deafness; some Deaf parents even want to ensure that they have deaf children. Yet I rarely find myself pondering the meaning of hearing - perhaps I should! Only clouds must be searched for silver linings.  Only things unvirtuous of themselves, must be excused by philosophizing them into excuses for virtue.

If, someday, the threat of death is lifted from humankind, perhaps only those originally born as Homo sapiens, we who were once mortal, will give thought to the meaning of immortality.

Comments (11) (RSS feed)

Toggle comment visibility Comment by Tom McCabe
Oct 14, 2007 5:49 pm

General rule: If something is not designed by an optimization process, it doesn’t have a meaning. The “search for meaning” seems to be an endless tarpit from which it is difficult to escape, because you can rationalize a meaning for anything. Say that my genetic code has an extra, random copy of “CTAGATGACCTTG” (it probably does, somewhere along the line). It’s obvious that this has no “meaning”, because it’s totally random. But if you looked, you can find a meaning: if that sequence wasn’t duplicated, I wouldn’t be writing this on a Compaq computer, or I wouldn’t be a Singularitarian, or I wouldn’t have met this random guy, etc., etc.

Toggle comment visibility Comment by Nick Tarleton
Oct 14, 2007 6:54 pm

“Death gives meaning to life” is a different statement than “death has meaning”; it’s asserting NOT(exists(death)) -> NOT(isMeaningful(life)), not isMeaningful(death).

It’s still false.

Eliezer, great post.

 
 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Joe Hunkins
Oct 14, 2007 5:53 pm

Thanks E - a thoughful and poetic post. When I bring up the singulariy people generally express a concern that they don’t want to live forever - that death is part of the human equation and they seem to think it is a *necessary* part. No, I can’t explain that and neither can they. Removing time constraints from sentience, which will certainly happen with conscious computing, is hard to fathom but I see a lot more upside than downside. Heck, you could always unplug yourself!

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Nick Tarleton
Oct 14, 2007 6:55 pm

From Transhuman Goodness: Deathism vs. Battered Person Syndrome

 
Oct 15, 2007 10:34 am

[…] 10.15.07 Eliezer Yudkowsky, SIAI Blog, The Meaning That Immortality Gives to Life. […]

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Bassam Younes
Oct 16, 2007 7:48 pm

The Samurais had a penchant for devising meditation techniques to cultivate presence/awarness. One of their favourites was to envisage in detail all the possible ways of dying.

George Ivanovich Gurdjieff the enigmatic mystic/philosopher, or “teacher of dance” as he preferred to call himself, liked to remind his students what they could not do if they would but bear in mind their “death” at all times. Mr Gurdjieff was on his deathbed when asked by one of his pupils if he was leaving them he replied, “Yes I am leaving you, and what a fine mess I’m leaving you in!”

Death reminds us that somehwere in this cyclic process of decay which we know as the visible world there is the potential for life.

A question here arises: Assuming I am able to bear death in mind, which is highly doubtful, can I hope to stop this process of decay? Certainly the Buddha seemed to think so, as did a host of others in his good company. This is afterall what is implied by the term immortality (the cessation of linear space and time) commonly known as LIFE!”

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Evelyn
Oct 18, 2007 4:07 pm

The Buddhist idea of reincarnation and the Nietzschian idea of resentiment may both be interpreted as the idea that we have obligations to the future to the same extent that we have obligations to ourselves.

A worldview which takes the agent out of the picture, doesn’t create the same obligations.

So, if I expect to come back, or I expect to be around, I’d want the future to be at least as good as today. If I’m out of here one day, then I would tend to trade benefits today for benefits later.

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Strange Loops
Dec 29, 2007 12:22 am

Interesting article. Some good points, occasionally stretched, but then the original arguments are stretched too (as you point out).

I’ve responded to it at my own blog, Strange Loops, if you are interested.

The short version of my main critique is that most peoples’ idea of personal immortality on Earth is akin to the religious idea of personal immortality in an afterlife like Heaven (that is, it is not a very well-formed idea). The fact is, we change throughout life, eventually to the point we’re not really the same person, so an immortal person is not the same as “me extended indefinitely forward in time” but rather “future evolutions of me”. In which case, we have immortality already in the form of genetic [or memetic or in the future some other] material passed on to life that evolves from us.

In other words, it’s not that I have a problem with the idea of extending life indefinitely (if we find that it is technically feasible, and we’ve no good reason to assume a priori that it’s impossible), but doing so doesn’t solve the problem of “there comes a point where I will not be around”.

More at my blog.

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by MCMLXVI
Feb 4, 2008 9:13 am

If I had all the time in the world to learn hang-gliding, I’d probably be putting it off for fear of permanent serious injury, but, maybe that injury would put me on a course to try something that wouldn’t have occurred to me before.

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Harry Banaharis
Aug 19, 2008 8:31 pm

Nice.

Of course, one inescapable fact of the human condition is our profound ability to rationalize. How else, after all, are we to deal with the sheer terror of the inevitable extinction of self that is the only outcome in this brief existence that is guaranteed?

One may ask is it courage or delusion that begets poets of those who dare to contemplate such things.

However, it is a necessary concession to the William Hurlbut’s of this world that the transhumanists or immoralists or whatever the current fashionable title is for describing those who are convinced that Aubrey de Grey’s/Ray Kurweil’s ‘escape velocity’ is a very real technological possibility, have them at a disadvantage.

I doubt that as a young man, Hurlbut never considered the prospect of living forever, or, at least, for a very long time. But in time, like most reasonable and sensible people, he would have had to come to terms with the tragic notion of mortality.

Such inflexible views are constructed and forged over time and it takes a paradigm shift to change one’s vantage. For that reason Huribut should be forgiven what may in time come to be regarded as an inane opinion.

It is remarkable, admittedly, for any sane person to consider that death actually gives meaning to life. Life gives meaning to life. Nothing is more symbolic and representative of life than the young who in most cases have yet to feel the cold touch of any notion of mortality.

However, it is a fundamental reality that most reasonable intellectuals past a certain age will share Hurlbut’s views and it is incumbent upon those on the other side of this ideological divide to understand with some sense of compassion, the forlorn and desolate vantage from which they regard life..

 
Toggle comment visibility Comment by Roko
Mar 11, 2009 10:26 am

“If, someday, the threat of death is lifted from humankind, perhaps only those originally born as Homo sapiens, we who were once mortal, will give thought to the meaning of immortality.”

- indeed. And we will think about those that we lost along the way. I really should get around to telling my older relatives about cryonics.

 

Leave a reply

Comments may take a while to appear, as they are moderated for spam.