If super advanced health care was cheap, would you still eat healthy?

[Soikona]

It literally says right above it.

Yes, and it still doesn't make sense. Are you going to help me understand this shit or are you just going to be a condescending arsehole?

[shadowmouse]

it's meaningful to the person wanting to attain immortality with this. they wouldn't, they would die.

Prove it, within the context of the hypothetical that we've been presented. You have an opinion, that opinion ignores the conditions of the hypothetical to make your abstract point about souls.

Now, if we're trying to discuss reality and probabilities, I doubt the whole scenario is possible, but the question posed is whether one would eat still healthily if health weren't a long term issue. [Also note that the context of the hypothetical is healthy eating, not a quest for immortality.]

[Schattenlied]

Why not just admit that you're incapable of abstract thought and move on so the rest of us who enjoy theoretical scenarios can play with OP's question.


Because it's embarassing to see you miss the point every time it's explained for you in a new way.


It's a hypothetical situation used to discover things about how people act. You're busy discussing semantics or how it can't happen. It's not meant to happen, it's meant to explore what-if scenarios (that doesn't have to be realistic or even obey whatever rules you make up for the real world) and abstract thought is required for that.

I'm not the one missing the point here, buddy.


The OP asked

How about risk taking? Would you go parachute jumping? Dive off a cliff into water? Lots of drugs youd never touch otherwise? What else?

and said

Itll even have an emergency backup version of you stored in case of sudden death in the cloud

I responded with No and my reason why, that reason being: The backup copy doesn't carry over my persistent consciousness and therefore from my perspective, if I die I am dead, the backup copy doesn't actually benefit me in any way, so no, I wouldn't take extra risks.

You people are the ones that started bitching and moaning that somehow I was looking for a "loophole" and "arguing semantics", as if you expect everyone to answer the question with "yes and" instead of what they feel they would actually do in the situation.

I am not talking about how it "can't happen", I am talking the simple truth about a copy being a separate entity from the original... If you die and a copy is made, you won't suddenly start experiencing life through the copy, you are dead and gone, and the copy assumes it is you. It can happen, copy can be made just like the OP said, but it's not going to save you if you die, it's going to make a new entity with all your memories that will live it's own life as if it were you while you are dead.

You assholes could have left it alone, but you didn't, you wanted to pick a fight and argue about this shit so I obliged you.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it, within the context of the hypothetical that we've been presented. You have an opinion, that opinion ignores the conditions of the hypothetical to make your abstract point about souls.

Now, if we're trying to discuss reality and probabilities, I doubt the whole scenario is possible, but the question posed is whether one would eat still healthily if health weren't a long term issue. [Also note that the context of the hypothetical is healthy eating, not a quest for immortality.]

Did you even read the OP? read these two lines

Itll even have an emergency backup version of you stored in case of sudden death in the cloud.

How about risk taking? Would you go parachute jumping? Dive off a cliff into water? Lots of drugs youd never touch otherwise? What else?

this isn't JUST about eating healthy.

- - - Updated - - -

But how is 'transferring' and 'cloning' different?

Because this isn't about information, this is about consciousness.


Transferring consciousness from one body to another means that the original continues to experience life.

Creating a copy and destroying the original means the original does not continue to experience life.

I am the original, if I do not get to keep experiencing life, what good does the copy do me? What benefit do I get out of it?

[Dys]

I'd have a suicide day where I eat a KFC double down for every meal and die of a heart attack by 7 pm, at least once a year.

[frogger237]

The real question is: Can you have sex with the robot?

Id prob just live my life normally.

[shadowmouse]

Did you even read the OP? read these two lines

Congratulations on the obligatory internet snarkiness, oh person who is not the one that I was addressing. Give yourself a gold star, then look at the title of the thread and look at the part you carefully failed to quote:

Would you still eat healthy? Or just pig out until you get fat and jump into a new body?

Yes, OP extended the questions after setting up the part about eating healthy, and wouldn't you know it? Right, the part you quoted in your snark also fails to mention any quest for immortality.

So, beyond trying to be clever, did you have a point that was relevant to what I was discussing?

Since you've injected yourself, your own points are moot in the terms of the hypothetical. That stipulates that the transfer is "perfect" and OP further clarified that the level of technology is such that your own brain could be transferred. Within the terms of the hypothetical there is no "persistent consciousness" that fails to transfer, you've brought that in on your own. You'd might as well also claim that strawberries would unravel the entire thing and you couldn't be sure you'd never be exposed to strawberries.

The backup copy doesn't carry over my persistent consciousness and therefore from my perspective, if I die I am dead, so no, I wouldn't take extra risks.

And when the copy wakes up with your memories and the belief that it is alive, what then? Will you kill yourself because by your belief you cannot be you? That being the case, how do you know that you are the you that went to sleep when last you slept? Perhaps the you that you dreamed yourself to be was the real you, and the you who imagines typing a response is only an aberration marring that persistent consciousness?

[Schattenlied]

That stipulates that the transfer is "perfect" and OP further clarified that the level of technology is such that your own brain could be transferred. Within the terms of the hypothetical there is no "persistent consciousness" that fails to transfer, you've brought that in on your own.

Except for the part about "backup version stored in case of sudden death", that is not a transfer, that is a copy, the OP specified that himself.

And when the copy wakes up with your memories and the belief that it is alive, what then? Will you kill yourself because by your belief you cannot be you? That being the case, how do you know that you are the you that went to sleep when last you slept? Perhaps the you that you dreamed yourself to be was the real you, and the you who imagines typing a response is only an aberration marring that persistent consciousness?

I have stated many times in this thread that yes, from the copy's perspective nothing has changed... That doesn't matter to me, don't care. I am not the copy, I am this entity, if this entity dies, I do not suddenly start experiencing life as the copy, I'm gone, so how does the copy system benefit me in any way or make me less afraid to die?

The underlined is my entire point. Not whether or not the backup copy is possible, but why should I take additional risks or care about it if it doesn't benefit me.

[shadowmouse]

so how does the copy system benefit me in any way or make me less afraid to die?

Try answering the questions I posed, because they challenge your assertion. How do you know that you are you in the sense you propose? Do you also fear sleep? In the coma situation I described, how could you prove to yourself that you are you and not merely some form of echo believing yourself to be you?

Our lives are interrupted. We resume them and assume we are ourselves. I stop breathing in my sleep, sometimes for rather extended lengths of time. When it gets really bad (a device monitors and attempts to assist my breathing) I may dream of myself trying to wake up enough to breathe. One day, I won't make it, but in the context of the hypothetical, how do I know that I really do? Oxygen levels drop, cells die, the self that wakes calls itself by the same identity as the one that slept, and yet it isn't quite.

[Schattenlied]

Try answering the questions I posed, because they challenge your assertion. How do you know that you are you in the sense you propose? Do you also fear sleep? In the coma situation I described, how could you prove to yourself that you are you and not merely some form of echo believing yourself to be you?

No, because I am still the same mind in the same body, I go to sleep, I dream, I wake up, it is persistent, I am the same entity. There is a big difference between that and being KILLED (sleep is not death, people) and then having an entirely different entity with my memories created to live life in my stead.


Like I already said, nothing changes from the clone's point of view except for it knowing it is the clone of the dead guy, from it's point of view it's all been persistent, so I don't care about what the clone does after it's created, nor would I care if I were the clone, I care what happens to the current me, and the clone would be just as cautious and attempt to avoid death as much as I do.

[shadowmouse]

No, because I am still the same mind in the same body, I go to sleep, I dream, I wake up, it is persistent, I am the same entity

You imagine you are, but you've failed to prove it. With the death and replacement of cells, you are measurably not the same person that you were a year ago, yet somehow you think that you are.

[Schattenlied]

You imagine you are, but you've failed to prove it. With the death and replacement of cells, you are measurably not the same person that you were a year ago, yet somehow you think that you are.

Individual cells within the whole, parts are swapped out and replaced, others carry the weight while it's done and redistribute once it's finished, the consciousness maintains it's presistence.

Again, there is a massive difference between that and creating an entirely new entity from scratch and then giving it a copy of my memories after I die. How you could possibly call these two scenarios anywhere near similar baffles me.

[Noomz]

Lets say in 2050, they roll out a health care robot. It costs $50 and runs on solar. It can diagnose and cure you of all kinds of things. For the things it cannot cure, it will just grow you a new body (18 years old) and transfer your consciousness into it (in a perfect and painless procedure). Itll even have an emergency backup version of you stored in case of sudden death in the cloud.

Would you still eat healthy? Or just pig out until you get fat and jump into a new body? How about risk taking? Would you go parachute jumping? Dive off a cliff into water? Lots of drugs youd never touch otherwise? What else?

You make it sound like being unhealthy and on medication would be a great time...
You're also assuming that tranfering bodies wouldnt have side-effects and problems.

[Super Kami Dende]

Yes, and it still doesn't make sense. Are you going to help me understand this shit or are you just going to be a condescending arsehole?

I mean if you can't understand the simple words, there is no way to explain it without being condescending.

[Teraparte]

Yeah, I'd still eat healthy because eating healthy is fun, makes me feel and look good, and it's almost like a little hobby. I'm no food snob, though. I love some fast food and don't look down on others for enjoying it. For a treat, my fav is Popeye's. Love that dark meat fried chicken, thighs are best because they have the most moisture and flavor. Take that meat off the bone and use those yummy biscuits to make a sandwich with french fries and red beans and rice topping the chicken, then dip it in the gravy. That is like one of the fattest things ever, but DAMN is it good.

[Witchblade77]

I don't like most junk food anyways, a lot of it is just... it doesn't taste good to me at all. so i would pretty much eat the same way I eat right now. mostly healthy with small portions of sweets and stuff

[Treno]

Bullshit, I currently am on a strict healthy diet and spend the same as I did on my shitty unhealthy diet.

The only difference is Prep time.

Time is money, friend.

- - - Updated - - -

This is one of the most widely spread lies. It is in fact cheap to eat MODERATELY healthy. Sure organic will cost more, but you can't say with 100% certainty that organic is cheaper. For what you pay for McDonalds, you could feed your family several times in a more healthy manner. The problem is people are lazy and if you're lazy eating unhealthy is cheaper. Also ramen noodles from the package is not a meal.

Nice goalpost moving, there is a difference between healthy and moderately healthy. Though to be fair, the idea of eating healthy is ambiguous in and of itself.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess that also depends on the country you live in? I keep hearing stories how fast food is cheaper than vegetables / legumes in the US?

I can definitely tell you that feeding a wife and two grown up boys at McDonalds was more expensive than cooking at home with fresh ingredients where I live. Now...if you go highest class organic, that is something different

Exactly. It varies from place to place, but in large swaths of America, it is significantly cheaper to eat unhealthy than it is healthy. Produce prices can vary greatly based on location, as can meat, legumes and other protein sources. Meanwhile, cheap, unhealthy products like low grade hotdogs, balogna, ramen noodles, etc. are all significantly cheaper.

[Hooked]

I think when super advanced healthcare becomes cheap we wont have an option to eat anything other than what we are served by their robots.

[Devilyaki]

Can I have sex with this robot?

[Hooked]

Can I have sex with this robot?

The robot will tell you when artificial sex time is. It will probably be just an electronic device implanted in your brain also.

[josykay]

Well, people don't eat healthy when healthcare is damn expensive, you can not replace your body, and you have to live with the consequences or even die. So obviously, the answer for most people is no.^^