[HN Gopher] The Seven-Year Rule
___________________________________________________________________
The Seven-Year Rule
Author : thecosas
Score : 62 points
Date : 2025-04-26 17:13 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macsparky.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macsparky.com)
| FrankWilhoit wrote:
| The whole point of learning is that it is cumulative.
| metabagel wrote:
| It can be emotionally freeing to learn from the mistakes of
| that other person you used to be, rather than your own mistakes
| which you return to again and again with feelings of regret.
| metabagel wrote:
| So basically, it's a neat mental trick to provide emotional
| distance and allow you to move on with your life, and also
| allow you to keep your mental model of yourself fluid
| (changeable).
| FrankWilhoit wrote:
| Key word: trick.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "So why not focus your energy and attention on the present
| moment?"
|
| Because sometimes having a better future requires focusing on
| that instead of just now. Of course, ironically, having a better
| future often requires I become more present in the moment I'm
| in...
| mattlondon wrote:
| Regret is real for a reason.
|
| "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" as they say,
| even it was over 7 years ago...
| metabagel wrote:
| How much time and energy should you spend today regretting your
| mistakes of 10 or 20 years ago?
| dgfitz wrote:
| I think the correct answer in terms of mental health is: as
| little time as possible.
|
| The actual answer is more complicated. Someone who got locked
| up for 25 years knowingly committing a significant crime
| might regret it for the majority of their sentence, at least.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I don't think this is true at all. Living your life
| ignoring all of your past mistakes can be just as unhealthy
| as dwelling on them needlessly. Dwelling on past mistakes
| can lead to hopelessness and depression, but ignoring them
| entirely can lead to narcissism and repeating damaging
| patterns.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| I think mistake is an overused word, and a choice that
| qualifies as a mistake in the future may not be judged as a
| mistake now.
|
| Simply put... we make choices based on the information we
| have now. And our future judgment of our choices should
| account for the information we had back then, most of which
| has probably been forgotten.
|
| But to answer your question, we shouldn't regret our mistakes
| but it is very good to remember them.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Depends a lot on the mistake and your life since then. Is it
| something you could still fix today? Is it a mistake you keep
| repeating? Is it a huge mistake that still directly impacts
| your relationships and today in some way?
| sxg wrote:
| Lots of comments here disagreeing with the article and missing
| the point...sure, the seven-year rule can be taken to a
| ridiculous extreme, but I think many people suffer from dwelling
| too much on past mistakes and overcorrecting them. Seven years
| seems like a roughly reasonable period of time to learn from a
| serious mistake and then move on with life as an improved person.
|
| The spirit of the article is saying that you should ultimately
| forgive yourself for making a mistake after a period of time (not
| always literally seven years).
| frozencooler wrote:
| Perhaps it be better to consider 3.5 years as a half-life
| instead.
|
| Every 42 months, half your life has or could be upturned.
|
| That's how long it takes to find yourself in new job, or for a
| new child to become a fully talking toddler with a personality,
| or a long-term relationship to solidify, or a national
| government to turn over, or a pandemic to initialize and then
| resolve. That all tracks.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| >> Lots of comments here disagreeing with the article
|
| That might be true in twenty-four hours, but only three
| comments were posted on this thread before yours.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Is that why the IRS insists that we keep the past 7 years of our
| tax records?
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| >>> The person you are today doesn't share a single cell with the
| version of you from seven years ago. (This is, of course, a
| generalization as some cells regenerate much faster and others a
| little slower.)
|
| No, that is not even remotely true. Most of the neurons in the
| central nervous system (the part of the body one could argue does
| the most of thinking) stay mostly the same from adulthood to
| death[1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis
| joshuaturner wrote:
| ah man I really wanted to be a new person
| daxfohl wrote:
| A body's atoms do completely recycle every 5-7 years though.
| 98 percent are recycled annually. Weird.
| darkr wrote:
| Incorrect
| daxfohl wrote:
| I thought so too, but it seems reasonable considering
| we're 70% water, much of it flowing and actively taking
| stuff out and around. Plus cells are apparently way more
| dynamic than is typically conveyed in high school bio (I
| think there was a quantamagazine article a while ago). So
| it's perhaps surprising that a body's atoms aren't fully
| recycled even faster than that.
| malux85 wrote:
| Then just believe it,
|
| Abstract thing A you can never measure gives you joy and
| renewal
|
| Abstract thing B you can never measure holds you back and
| limits you
|
| The practical difference is zero or near zero, so go and be
| joyful and happy!
| scoofy wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether the cells actually change. The
| persistence of the self, and even consciousness itself, are
| very possibly an illusion.
| jstanley wrote:
| Consciousness is the only thing that can not possibly be an
| illusion.
|
| Whenever this comes up I have to wonder if half the people
| are secretly p-zombies and actually genuinely aren't sure
| whether consciousness is an illusion because they've never
| experienced it? I know that's not a very charitable take
| but I just can't see how any conscious being could imagine
| that consciousness could be an illusion!
|
| Consciousness isn't the illusion, consciousness is the
| _audience_!
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| The person above meant "the persistence of consciousness"
|
| Yes, we are conscious (or at least I am, I'm assuming
| y'all are too).
|
| But consciousness isn't static. My consciousness today is
| not my consciousness of 5 years ago.
| sage92 wrote:
| Begs the question: by what metric are you using to track
| the change/staticity?
|
| I don't see how one can concretely come to the conclusion
| of whether it changes or stays the same, when the
| presence of consciousness itself is a prerequisite of
| making that very claim
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| Well if you believe there's something magical about
| consciousness I could see why you'd believe the same
| person's consciousness at different points in time is the
| same consciousness.
|
| If you believe consciousness is a function of sentience
| and self-awareness, and presumably that AI can one day be
| conscious (not saying it is right now), then I don't see
| how you can believe consciousness is persistent.
|
| If the AI is copied/moved to a different server, is it
| the same consciousness? Or in Star Trek when you get
| beamed up are you the same consciousness?
| sage92 wrote:
| Safe to say you tend to lean towards your second
| presentation of consciousness.
|
| I tend to lean towards the idea that conscious is akin to
| a field in the sense of an electron field - that what we
| can measure are simply "excitations" of a more subtle
| field. Not a perfect metaphor, but it's the closest thing
| to what matches my meditative experiences. IMO, it's
| illogical for me to let another subjective being define
| what my substrate is, so I primarily rely on meditation
| and then supplement with objective observations.
|
| All in all it really depends on what you define as
| consciousness. The issue that I have with most
| "objective" interpretations of consciousness is that we
| can only measure the excitations of this mysterious
| "life" thing is. If there is more to us than can be
| measured, e.g, that there are first person experiences
| that can be felt subjectively but not measured
| objectively, then any objective measure of consciousness
| will likely be limited. Consciousness seems from my pov
| to be the Achilles heal of the axiomatic assumptions of
| our scientific paradigm (at least in the west)
|
| In response to your question, it depends on your
| definition of consciousness. Is neural activity the
| source of consciousness, or is neural activity the result
| of consciousness? How can we know for sure which?
| deepsun wrote:
| "Blindsight" by Peter Watts is exactly about that.
| k__ wrote:
| "The case against reality" is also about that.
|
| But as far as I know, not many scientists think this is a
| reasonable idea.
| scoofy wrote:
| Ultimately it doesn't matter if it's reasonable. If it
| were true, life would be absurd. So, philosophically, we
| can assume it's untrue because the alternative means
| being wrong about it doesn't matter.
| scoofy wrote:
| > Consciousness is the only thing that can not possibly
| be an illusion.
|
| It can be. Suppose consciousness is a series of
| infinitesimal snapshots, where existence flickers for a
| moment and then disappears, with a new existence birthed
| in the next moment. Like a motion picture, at each moment
| we do not have a sensible version of consciousness,
| merely a burst of sensation, but in aggregate, as a film,
| consciousness springs from nothing.
| richardw wrote:
| People run on autopilot unless we put in effort to focus
| on the current moment. Almost everyone demonstrates bad
| habits that show how little conscious awareness and
| control we have. LLM's can replicate a lot of our
| activities, so the realm of "consciousness" is in the
| things that the AI can't do by simply repackaging and
| regurgitating content back at us. What we can claim as
| conscious special sauce has grown smaller over the last
| 15 years.
|
| Argument 2:
|
| Could we design a machine that is absolutely sure it's
| conscious, but is not? If so, what differentiates us from
| it? Open question, I'm not sure. But I'd be surprised if
| we can be permanently sure.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Argument 2 seems more like a thought-experiment or a
| question than an argument. (Unless maybe I missed the
| point?)
|
| Anyway, isn't a machine that "is absolutely sure" (of
| anything at all) having subjective experience (I think is
| the word, not a brainologist) by definition anyway?
|
| We could clearly design a machine that asserts that it is
| self aware very strenuously printf("I
| *am* experiencing existence!");
|
| But whether or not it actually sure of anything or
| experiencing at all is the question in the first place.
| satisfice wrote:
| Consciousness is a phenomenon, but not an illusion. An
| illusion is something that seems to be there, yet is not.
| But consciousness is a self-evident experience.
|
| However, there are gradiations of consciousness. The
| experience we have on the edge of sleep is qualitatively
| different than the experience even five seconds after
| waking up to a cat attack in the middle of the night (I
| have experienced that).
| sage92 wrote:
| You've stated this so matter of factly that I imagine you
| have knowledge that somehow has alluded most people.
|
| You mention gradients, which implies you can measure the
| delta/change of conscious, which implies you have a solid
| working definition, AND a static still point that does
| not change which this "consciousness" gradually changes.
|
| From my perspective, which is first person pov, if I can
| detect changes in my "consciousness", then where am I
| looking from to _notice_ this change? Is consciousness
| not the requirement of change detection?
| cwbrandsma wrote:
| That sucks, since I developed a neurological issue from Covid I
| could really use a refresh of my nervous system.
| akubera wrote:
| I'm reminded of the SMBC comic https://www.smbc-
| comics.com/?id=2722 which resonated with me. If it takes ~7 years
| to master something, you should dedicate yourself to becoming
| good at it. Or at least you don't have to tie your identity to
| what you do you right now; you can reinvent yourself and
| experience more from of life, but you have to give yourself the
| time to do so.
|
| It's been almost 14 years since that was published, so maybe some
| self-reflection is due.
| gmuslera wrote:
| So if Theseus was aboard his ship for many years it would add
| another layer of it that ship still is his own?
|
| In Vernon Vinge's A Fire Upon The Deep you have pack of dogs that
| are not so smart individually, but they had a pack personality
| that was smart. Even (for one case in the book) the dogs could be
| replaced but the personality remained.
|
| Changing individual cells doesn't change what is the you of your
| consciousness and memories. Of course, even without cell
| replacement you change with time, new memories, insights and so
| on, but both changes happen at different abstraction levels.
| globnomulous wrote:
| Peter F. Hamilton's _Pandora 's Star_ contains a wonderful
| variant of this thought experiment: in the future he describes,
| memories are editable; so it's possible to commit a crime, like
| murder, and then wipe all memory of it, so that you are, from
| your own perspective, innocent. The justice system, of course,
| says otherwise. The metaphysics (whether or not it's possible
| to step into the same river twice) don't matter. Technological
| advancement dictates the answer to the philosophical question
| about continuity of the self and guilt.
| borski wrote:
| > Changing individual cells doesn't change what is the you of
| your consciousness and memories.
|
| It's a metaphor.
| smitty1e wrote:
| > As you read these words, you are uniquely yourself, different
| from who you were a moment ago and who you'll become in the next.
|
| By extension, a "culture" is a snapshot of a subset of the human
| population. To be clear, copious physical artifacts outlive
| people, so the state of the State is more than my reductionism.
|
| But, in keeping with Barlow' Pronciples[1]
|
| [1]
| HellDunkel wrote:
| It feels so strange to read blogposts like this in 2025. The
| level of mediocrity makes you question if this has been created
| by a human or an ai bot. Next you start questioning yourself why
| you still look into your smartphone like a junkie.
| johnfn wrote:
| > I recently spoke with a friend who was still dwelling on
| something that happened thirty years ago. "Why do you care?" I
| asked him. "That was four versions of you ago. That person
| doesn't exist anymore. Move on."
|
| Do you think this actually helped your friend? In any way?
| travisd wrote:
| Of course! It helped your friend realize what kind of person
| you are and hopefully spurred them to find better friends who
| possess actual human empathy.
| blaze33 wrote:
| Seems to me the Dalai Lama used the 7 years cell replacement
| thing as a metaphor to explain some classic Buddhist teachings.
|
| > still dwelling on something that happened thirty years ago.
|
| Exactly that: clinging causes suffering.
|
| Buddhism also goes a step farther, they have a whole doctrine
| about emptiness and no-self: there's no permanent or unchanging
| self to be found.
| efitz wrote:
| "My cells" are not "me".
|
| Without resorting to metaphysics, "I" am a slowly-but-constantly
| changing set of experiences, memories, predilections and
| preferences that happens to be instantiated in and associated
| with a particular physical body. My relationships with other
| people tend to be the most important things to me and the things
| that most shape whatever direction my identity is going.
|
| My body is not the same exact set of cells or molecules that I
| was 30 years ago. But I'm like the Ship of Theseus- the essence
| of what I am is a direct consequence of my formative experiences
| regardless of what pieces I'm built of at any given moment.
|
| It's my choice (within the constraints of how brains work) of how
| much I let past experiences affect my current behavior. But I
| can't forget those experiences and if I could, then I would not
| be the same "me" in a much deeper sense than just having
| different cells or molecules.
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| And there is the 7 year inch.
| mehulashah wrote:
| itch?
| alganet wrote:
| Nope. I am going to decide not to renew myself into a new thing.
|
| I don't live like Buddha or the Dalai Lama. I don't have a castle
| or forest of isolation to shed my skin. I also don't want to.
|
| I am shaped more by what others perceive of me than myself. It is
| a tragedy of this age. I cannot change that.
|
| But I can challenge some of those assumptions by choosing to see
| things from multiple perspectives. By choosing to not completely
| do that to others (there's always a risk, but hey, I'm doing the
| best I can. Are you?).
|
| I have learned to perceive Buddhist thinking in this age as a
| difficult thing to concilliate with reality.
|
| Religion-like rules are supposed to draw my attention. Well, fuck
| it. I cannot avoid it, but I can choose to try to understand what
| it means in this context I am, which, again, is very different
| from what some Lama wrote.
|
| Sure, I can totally empathize with someone who is tired and wants
| to let it all go. I have been there. You can let it go, and it's
| OK with me. But I cannot pretend that I enjoy this Mad Men
| transition into eastern meditation clear-your-mind shit. Fuck
| that.
|
| What I am is deeply shaped by living among others, being
| influenced and shaped by others opinions. I will not forget that.
| But I can pretend to. Not by their rules though. As I said, can't
| forget.
| brianhama wrote:
| By this logic, there's no reason to save for retirement either.
| Might as well maximize enjoyment now.
| Muromec wrote:
| Yes, and?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-26 23:00 UTC)