Deep Field

From: Rick Knight (rknight@platinum.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 1997 - 11:21:36 MDT


     Just got some snazzy Win95 wallpaper (okay the resolution could be
     better) of the composite photo of the Hubble Deep Field, a patch of
     sky 1/30th the diameter of the full moon and completely dark as viewed
     by the human eye. Hubble's images are billions of times greater than
     what we could see. The astronomers set their sight on this dark area
     of the sky only to render a field with hundreds of GALAXIES. Even if
     it's not infinity, it's inifite ENOUGH (there's that debate over
     ENOUGH again <G>) for we present-day pre-immortal beings.
     
     I've just been with that feeling of awe for a few days, the incredible
     enormity of it all. We are looking out farther and looking in deeper
     (both physically and mentally). It seems that as we become a smaller
     and smaller blip in the vastness, we become more aware of our
     fundamental connection to it all.
     
     This morning, some very unattractive old guy in an even-less
     attractive clunker of a van cut me off at an intersection. Living in
     a dense urban area, one's instinct is to chide, flip off, grumble some
     protest (which I did). However, it's starting to hit me more and more
     that as soon as I say that, something says back "He's you". Today,
     this prompted a philosophical question of why/how could he be ME? Why
     am I considering that I am not the isolated individual, but part of a
     continuum where we are just beginning to free exchange ideas, energy
     and contribution?
     
     Further, what is selfhood that it could be supposedly preserved
     chemically and resurrected from deep freeze? What is life without the
     context of familiarity? Does it take only an advanced intellect to
     re-adapt to an unrecognizeable future to which you suddenly awaken?
     Or does it take a disconnected heart as well? Does the person with
     irrecoverable amnesia, who remembers no past, has no context, no
     affinity with lovers, family, even children...has that original
     unrecoverable person died since there is no self context? Is one's
     self an energy, an essence? Or is the physiology of our bodies a
     conduit and containment field for that which is us? At the end of
     life, are we just as willing to give up the notion of the self we've
     amassed as we would a role in a play and just go onto another role
     (human, explicitly sentient or not) in the continuum of
     energy/information exchange in this vastness?
     
     If I had to choose ongoingness of my personal awareness, I'd choose an
     uploading and storage of my experiences because that's more me than my
     body which seems to curiously change from year to year. Freezing my
     body (or even more whimsically, my head) seems a rather quaint notion.
      Does extropian thinking focus so much on the physically proven and
     sound as to consider this the most preferable and viable solution to
     achieving "immortality"? As a mental exercise, I wonder what
     discoveries of the essence, the unforseen would radically change such
     notions? That which is beyond the horizon where the fishermen's wives
     are no longer visible from the shore and you are going on gut instinct
     and conviction.
     
     The Deep Field photo struck me in somewhat the same way the end of the
     second Moriarty episode of ST:TNG where they were able to convince him
     into believing he was no longer a holographically conjured character
     but a free, sentient and physically REAL person. But in the *actual*
     reality, (the Star Trek reality), he was only a program with plenty of
     storage in a small cube, perfectly content and oblivious to any
     preconceived limits other than his own perceived mortality.
     
     Personally, I'm rather curious about what happens to a "self" released
     from physical containment. I suppose for some extropians, in comes
     down to going for the likelier (or preferred) outcome: being
     resurrected physically in a more advanced future Earth or being
     separated from a pre-established self and assimilated into the unknown
     (which could also include just ceasing to "be" in a physical and/or
     self-aware capacity). Is life extension enough? Is even immortality
     enough? Seems like life without challenge and quest is apathy and
     inertia, once assured comfort has become mundane and there's no energy
     one needs to devote towards the most inane survival issue.
     
     To subscribe to life extension methods such as cryonics, I'd have to
     be more sure of what "life" is. Too many details missing from this to
     make an informed decision. To me, it's akin to a kid saying, when I
     grow up, I want to be a firefighter, all because s/he likes the trucks
     and the uniform and is completely oblivious to the danger and
     personality type required for such a job. Maybe that's enough of a
     notion to go fot it. For me, cryonics sounds like a better spin on
     life insurance...you may get to enjoy it. Gentlemen, place your bets.
     
     Rick
     
     
     



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:33 MST