Faith in permanent death

[839311]

The scientifically "canonical" answer is that the visible universe is finite, because the speed of light and the age of the universe are both finite.

I wanted to say the cosmos, and not the world. I didn't mean the universe either, but the cosmos.

This scientifically 'canonical' answer strikes me as an utterly feeble attempt to answer the question. In exactly the same way as permanent death fails to address the possibilities, this explanation fails to address what is beyond our universe, and what was before it. Are there other universes? Other planes? Other layers? Other branes? Many dimensions, as physicists now think there are? Does the quantum world go deeper and deeper forever? Is there a limit to the cosmos, or is it infinite? Thankfully our physicists are using their 'imagination' and have proposed that we may live in an infinite multi-verse.

 

[atanu]

You're assuming that computers hundreds of years from now would be comparable to our current ones. What leads you to believe they should share any or all of these characteristics?

Your argument for why computers cannot have real consciousness is along the lines me claiming that since I cannot slam dunk a basket ball, nobody can, because it's a fundamental impossibility for my body to do it.

I provisionally agree to the idea that we are programmed computers. So, what stops another exact prgramme?

By your own premise, after life and pre-life are definite possibilities. It just means running the program again -- or even an upgraded one to be installed.

 

[atanu]

We had a discussion on this before. As I had stated, if a brain were to be reformed, why should I assume it's the same consciousness?

What do you mean by same consciousness?

 

[idav]

1. Speculation in life after death is interesting. Just in itself, this is enough to be of value. Many people are very much interested in knowing what happens at death, hence we speculate about the range of possibilities.

Speculation is fine and possibilities do seem endless at times. Though with what we do know about the brain it severly limits these possibilies as evidence suggests our consciousness will not stay in tact upon physical death. Makes things go from the realm of probable to improbable.

 

[atanu]

You still aren't getting it. There isn't even an inkling of intellect in computers. Not even close. Its not something we're striving for, or getting close to, or getting better at figuring out.

Otherright, another point is that even if a computer that has intellect is created, it would not make the intellect that made it false. The human consciousness is given and it is even present in situtations where it is denied.

 

[atanu]

New question!
If I removed all the power from my computer, & let the circuits be consumed by transistor eating bacteria, then it will utterly rot away.
Should I presume it will keep running programs in some kind of supernatural afterlife? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it just
ceases to function as a computer?

What? You can re-install the programs on another machine. The program continues and is upgraded also.

 

[839311]

Speculation is fine and possibilities do seem endless at times.

Yes, especially once we start mixing ideas about eternity, infinity, physics, and adding in everything that is unknown to us, all the mysteries of reality. You get an avalanche of possibilities. Still, it can be interesting to consider the possibilities. And the bonus is that even if you only have possibilities, one of those possibilities may be more or less accurate as to what reality is really like.

Though with what we do know about the brain it severly limits these possibilies as evidence suggests our consciousness will not stay in tact upon physical death. Makes things go from the realm of probable to improbable.

Again, brain death doesn't address the first 4 options of the OP. Not that I want to discuss the God option anyways, simply because it is discussed in numerous other threads.

Assuming that its even true that when the brain dies so does consciousness, which we don't know for a fact, although I agree that it is likely what happens.

 

[atanu]

And also, it suggests that there are real living and breathing people who don't have "souls". Consider this:

- Steve is a unique person with identifying characteristics.
- Steve suffers a brain injury. Those identifying characteristics become so altered that it's no longer reasonable to call him the same person as he was before.
- "Old Steve" has effectively died, but "New Steve" is most definitely alive. What has happened?

Your question contains the answer. It depends on how you define personhood. By your logic, I may find it reasonable to say that the Penguin of 5 year's age when he was 3 ft tall was a different person than the person he is now. OTOH in my definition, person is that who identifies the identifying characters.The person is not the identifying character.

Similarly, continuity of consciousness is true or false depending on what one considers the consciousness to be.

 

[idav]

Yes, especially once we start mixing ideas about eternity, infinity, physics, and adding in everything that is unknown to us, all the mysteries of reality. You get an avalanche of possibilities. Still, it can be interesting to consider the possibilities. And the bonus is that even if you only have possibilities, one of those possibilities may be more or less accurate as to what reality is really like.



Again, brain death doesn't address the first 4 options of the OP. Not that I want to discuss the God option anyways, simply because it is discussed in numerous other threads.

Assuming that its even true that when the brain dies so does consciousness, which we don't know for a fact, although I agree that it is likely what happens.

Yes speculation is fun but when trying to stay away from fanciful things we need to stay within what would be considered the most probable based on what we know.

It seems to me that the first 4 options assume that consciousness staying together even after death is somehow taken care of for us. That is where the issue is because from what we know this isn't the case. Of course we can speculate on it like how christians say we will be ressurrected implying our death would somehow be reversed and our consciousness will still be there but this is when it quickly goes into the realm of fantasy but still assumes we are gone unless we can be brought back somehow.

 

[Tristesse]

I wanted to say the cosmos, and not the world. I didn't mean the universe either, but the cosmos.

This scientifically 'canonical' answer strikes me as an utterly feeble attempt to answer the question. In exactly the same way as permanent death fails to address the possibilities, this explanation fails to address what is beyond our universe, and what was before it. Are there other universes? Other planes? Other layers? Other branes? Many dimensions, as physicists now think there are? Does the quantum world go deeper and deeper forever? Is there a limit to the cosmos, or is it infinite? Thankfully our physicists are using their 'imagination' and have proposed that we may live in an infinite multi-verse.

Cosmos and universe are one in the same.

"Permanent" death doesn't have an obligation to address all possibilities. What's possible and what's true are not the same thing. It's possible that unicorns ride you off into an eternal blissful paradise when you die. Thats a possibility, but is it likely?

 

[Copernicus]

FIrst, are you deriding imagination? It sounds like it. Imagination is one of the most powerful, effective tools available to the human mind. I don't want to believe that you don't use imagination at all to solve problems. I would honestly pity you.

I am not deriding imagination, but your misuse of it to justify belief in an afterlife. My rejection of belief in an afterlife is based on observations of how brains affect mental states. Your acceptance of belief in the afterlife is based on pure speculation and nothing else.

lol, why believe there is a brain in my head? Why believe anything at all? :bonk:

It is a legitimate question, given your from of argumentation. By your logic, scientists could never conclude anything at all if they could imagine an alternative explanation, however preposterous. It is still possible that combustible materials contain phlogiston, you know. A sufficiently inventive mind could come up with all sorts of explanations for experimental outcomes that did not involve oxygen as a crucial factor in what makes things burn.

I have a question for you that hasn't even been addressed a single time yet in this thread, even though Ive made it a few times. You know why I think it hasn't been addressed? Because it makes your argument look weak, and you don't want to acknowledge it for that reason.

Oh, I disagree. I think that it hasn't been addressed because it has no relevance to the question of whether or not there is an afterlife.

Is the cosmos infinite or not? If you think it is, what evidence do you have to believe it is? If you think it is not, what evidence do you have for believing it is not? Ive got some advice for you. If your going to try to find the answer to this question, I suggest you use your imagination .

I'm not really sure what you mean by "infinite", but that is a matter for scientists and mathematicians to address. It seems unrelated to the question of whether or not a mind can survive brain-death, although I suppose you have made some connection in your imagination.

So you have challenged me to use my imagination. OK. In my imagination, you have just slipped on a banana peel and fallen on your fanny. Well, it is an amusing possibility, isn't it?

 

[839311]

Your acceptance of belief in the afterlife is based on pure speculation and nothing else.

I don't believe in an afterlife. I think it is probable. Ive already said this a number of times.

By your logic, scientists could never conclude anything at all if they could imagine an alternative explanation, however preposterous.

Yes, that is precisely what my logic leads to lol (/sarcasm). Please, don't waste my energy on these ridiculous accusations.

Oh, I disagree. I think that it hasn't been addressed because it has no relevance to the question of whether or not there is an afterlife.
It seems unrelated to the question of whether or not a mind can survive brain-death, although I suppose you have made some connection in your imagination.

Ahh, you simply don't understand the connection and why I raised this point. The connection is that in both cases we lack evidence, and yet are compelled to examine the issues and try to understand them, because they have important consequences. So, when we don't have the answers, we try to figure out what the possibilities are.

You can, if you want, take a faith based position in one of the possibilities, like you have. Now, Im sure that in your mind you believe you are being rational. But it is the same explanation given by fundamental religious people. They will tell you that they are sure their beliefs are correct, and have their own reasons for believing it.

Does your brain death argument matter? Not much, because this explanation doesn't even address the 4 options I listed. As far as I can tell, your assuming that God(s) doesn't exist, which I think he might. Your assuming that this isnt a simulation, which I think it might be. I dont know what you think about the idea that we live in a closed system that is eternal, or whether you are just being ignorant regarding this point, which I think might be true. I dont know what you think about the possibility that the system is open and eternal, or if youve even thought about it, and how that would affect the possibility of having our consciousness reborn, which I think might happen. All these assumptions. And we don't even know that much about consciousness. The fact that you are alive should tell you its possible for you to exist. Why, then, would you assume that after you die its no longer possible? Because you no longer exist? Maybe you didn't exist before you were born either? Yet, here you are. The chance obviously isnt zero percent. There are people being born all the time. But we don't say that before they are born their probability for being born is zero. What a ridiculous claim that would be. Yet that is exactly the implication of what you are claiming.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "infinite", but that is a matter for scientists and mathematicians to address.

Not ending. Being of infinite quantity. Boundless. Etc. To my knowledge, this is the only meaning that is assigned to infinity. I've never encountered someone using it in a different way.

You don't think your qualified to address the issue of infinity? Its really not that complicated. This question actually falls in the realm of philosophy. How are scientists supposed to find proof for it? Go to the other side of infinity and come back? Mathematicians working on infinity, that is actually very funny lol.

 

[Penumbra]

I provisionally agree to the idea that we are programmed computers. So, what stops another exact prgramme?

By your own premise, after life and pre-life are definite possibilities. It just means running the program again -- or even an upgraded one to be installed.

What do you mean by same consciousness?

I feel that my previous replies, copied below, explained what I meant by the same consciousness:

We had a discussion on this before. As I had stated, if a brain were to be reformed, why should I assume it's the same consciousness?

Suppose we made two completely identical and yet separate brains. Would they naturally share consciousness since they are identical, or would they still be separate, because they each have all of their own systems?

Or, it is that we didn't exist.

Yes, I was born. It had something to do with two cells joining and then multiplying like crazy.

Suppose it were to happen two times within the same time stream- the exact specification of atoms and whatnot. Would that imply that both people are the same being? Do they share the same consciousness, and is it continuous? I say, I don't see why it would.

Suppose we entertain a similar scenario, where two identical physical scenarios occur simultaneously. That is, two pairs of cells, each being atomically identical to the other pair, unite in an atomically identical way, producing two separate and yet identical zygotes in the same world at the same time. If those zygotes grow up into people, do those people share a consciousness, or are they separate? Does being identical imply oneness? I don't see why it would.

The point is that being identical doesn't imply sameness. By "same consciousness", I mean that, for instance, me and you do not share the same consciousness, because I do not perceive what you perceive, and you do not perceive what I perceive. We have separate experiences of consciousness, and would not even know of the others existence if not for this forum.

And so those posts were about how, even if an identical being to me was reformed, what should lead me to believe that this is the same consciousness? I don't see why me and her would naturally share consciousness simply because we're identical.

Suppose we take another example, like a Star Trek transporter. You step in, it rips you apart atom by atom, and then reassembles you in a target location (either with the same atoms or via information that results in new atoms being put together in the same way). As far as anyone can tell, the "you" that stepped in and the "you" that stepped out are the same being, because you like alike, think alike, have the same personality and memories, and so forth (assuming it's possible and that it works like that).

But would it really be you? By most accounts, a human being ripped apart atom by atom should kill them. Does building a copy of a dead person mean it's the same person? Does that resurrect a person's consciousness simply because it's identical? I would think that, rather, the person that steps in, dies. Their consciousness ceases, since they are dead now. The person that is created on the other side acts like the original and looks like the original, and if the memories are transferred properly, may have every reason to believe they are the original, but really they might be a whole new being with a totally separate consciousness with memories of the previous person's life.

 

[839311]

Suppose we take another example, like a Star Trek transporter. You step in, it rips you apart atom by atom, and then reassembles you in a target location (either with the same atoms or via information that results in new atoms being put together in the same way).

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't use a transporter. What if something goes wrong, like a fly happens to fly in at the same time and you turn into a flyman? Or there is some kind of interference in the beam and you come out a deformed mass of flesh? No thanks. Id stick to the more traditional form of getting around.

 

[PolyHedral]

But would it really be you? By most accounts, a human being ripped apart atom by atom should kill them. Does building a copy of a dead person mean it's the same person? Does that resurrect a person's consciousness simply because it's identical? I would think that, rather, the person that steps in, dies. Their consciousness ceases, since they are dead now. The person that is created on the other side acts like the original and looks like the original, and if the memories are transferred properly, may have every reason to believe they are the original, but really they might be a whole new being with a totally separate consciousness with memories of the previous person's life.

They reproduce down to the quantum level in Star Trek, so as far as the laws of physics are concerned, it is the same person.

 

[Otherright]

It still remains an observable fact that mental states are controlled by the physical condition of a brain. We can induce unconsciousness by physically altering the condition of a brain. The prima facie evidence strongly suggests that brains cause consciousness. Minds are dependent on brains. Hence, the destruction of a brain very probably leads to permanent destruction for the mind sustained by the brain. This is why we believe that there very probably is no such thing as an "afterlife".

That answer covers the Abrahmic religions, but not the Dharrmic religions.

 

[Otherright]

Wishful thinking and superstition don't make the grade.

Neither does incomplete observation.

 

[Otherright]

They reproduce down to the quantum level in Star Trek, so as far as the laws of physics are concerned, it is the same person.

Please don't use bad science in science fiction to strengthen your point. While the teleportation of photons was done years ago, the teleportation of complex matter is probably never going to happen.

Theoretically, if it did, it would have to use principles of non-locality, then it really wouldn't matter where you were, you could potentially be anywhere in the universe. But since we're being silly about this and saying in the far future we've mastered these principles, you don't even need a space ship. Pick a quantum particle anywhere in the universe and re-materialize around it.

If you use entanglement principles, for your basis, then you get another variety. One where you have to have been entangled by the particles that are present there. Which means, you have to have been there to get there.

Either way, barring the infinite complexity required to get you back together, ST teleportation is silly.

But the neat thing is, technically (and philosophically), you've completely ceased to exist at point A, and continued your existence at point B, and I mean that in more ways than one, you literally no longer exist in between those points.

 

[atanu]

I feel that my previous replies, copied below, explained what I meant by the same consciousness:
.....
The point is that being identical doesn't imply sameness. By "same consciousness", I mean that, for instance, me and you do not share the same consciousness, because I do not perceive what you perceive, and you do not perceive what I perceive. We have separate experiences of consciousness, and would not even know of the others existence if not for this forum.

And so those posts were about how, even if an identical being to me was reformed, what should lead me to believe that this is the same consciousness? I don't see why me and her would naturally share consciousness simply because we're identical.

Suppose we take another example, like a Star Trek transporter. You step in, it rips you apart atom by atom, and then reassembles you in a target location (either with the same atoms or via information that results in new atoms being put together in the same way). As far as anyone can tell, the "you" that stepped in and the "you" that stepped out are the same being, because you like alike, think alike, have the same personality and memories, and so forth (assuming it's possible and that it works like that).

But would it really be you? By most accounts, a human being ripped apart atom by atom should kill them. Does building a copy of a dead person mean it's the same person? Does that resurrect a person's consciousness simply because it's identical? I would think that, rather, the person that steps in, dies. Their consciousness ceases, since they are dead now. The person that is created on the other side acts like the original and looks like the original, and if the memories are transferred properly, may have every reason to believe they are the original, but really they might be a whole new being with a totally separate consciousness with memories of the previous person's life.

Hi Penumbra

I do not really understand you. On one hand, you seem to believe that it is possible for future computers to exhibit intelligence. On the other hand, you seem to imply that it is not possible to replicate a computer. Which you believe? If we are programmed computers, then, in priciple, an exact replica can also be possible. And that proves the OP. No further discussion required.

.....
Your above explanation makes me remind you of your own basketball player example. Because your own particular consciousness does not extend beyond your body, you assume that consciousness is particular in all cases for every one. But, I have experienced power of pervasive consciousness in more than one individual.

Given that you are not owner/creator of your own particular consciousness, what makes you think that your particular consciousness is not simply a particular design (particular instance) made of consciousness meant to exist for a period -- just as gold may be designed as bangle and then again as a ring. How do you know that a wave like consciousness is not inhabiting your body as a particular instance?

I am not implying that the above is true. I am asking why the above is not possible?

I repeat that you are not a creator/owner of consciousness that evidently powers all beings and all observations. So, it is a general category. I repeat that it is not the ego I that controls the consciousness. The ego I is an emergent I and you may be confusing ego I with the general power of awareness that exists pervasively in all particular beings -- just as a particular instance of apple is not the same as the program that resides within every seed of apple.

That you do not know beyond your physical frame is simply because of conditioning of awareness and not due to the general nature of awareness. Dogs and cats have different conditioning and they sense more than we can. But the power of awareness is common in all beings. It is a general category on which life itself subsists.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Personally I like the theory that the self is a product of cosmological natural selection. We cannot possibly be aware of any state of being dead or not being born for that matter, all that is subjectively filtered out. It is only when we arrive at the fine tuning parameters of an observable universe we are capable is discussing thread topics such as these.