Sure, but this is a part of life on which we have no choice, this is different from actively pursuing something which would not make sense as though it had some sense. I'm not saying living 500 years would be a problem (I'm pretty sure we will have the medical possibility to do this very soon), I'm saying trying to extend it without any limit makes little sense as it is not really different from dying
I strongly suspect the individual would perceive it to be very different from dying, yes---both on the experiential level ("I look at my hands and I'm still here") and on the memory level.
Memories don't randomly vanish; there's pretty good evidence that the brain does retain useful content. So if you're arguing that "500-years-in-the-future you would be such a different person that we might as well say now-you is dead in 500 years," I think the burden of proof is on that claim because we don't make it for modern elderly people. It passes neither the common-sense sniff test nor the extrapolation test ("What's special about 500 years out as opposed to 70 years out that breaks continuity?").
It was not about 500 which I think we can live to, it was about searching a boundless expansion of life -- until a certain time where the physical limit of information stored in the brain is too large
