Afterlife and the brain

[White Crane Feather]

Not 100% sure what you are asking me here, but I lurk this forum since some good time so giving your views, I assume you mean if a singularity "hasn't already occured"?

If that's the question, I'm not "so sure" but I couldn't know anyway.

Sorry... My thumb on an iphone and lak of editing precedes me I'm afraid. But I think i got it right.

If you are familiar with the singularity, whatch the last bit of the documentary "transcendence man" where he believes the galaxy will awaken in a network of extreme galactic nano technological infiltration. Glven the vast expanse of time and propensities in eternity, I have a strong feeling it's already been done times a billion.

And no.. You are right. It's impossible to know on an empirical basis.

[White Crane Feather]

That isn't quite the same as encountering your version of heaven, god, prophets. In some instances NDEs are totally contradictory between two subjects of different faiths.

Not the functions I'm talking about that occur on the cellular level. Some one suffering rigamortis, decomposition, etc, is definitely not coming back.

Edit: Even if we had the technology, I suspect the "living" person would be effectively brain dead.

So, like what exactly. Im pretty familure with the subject in more ways than most. I never claimed that any " faiths " have any authority. On the contrary, if you havnt noticed, I am very atogonistic toward religions. Though I understand deeply their purpose and beginnings.

So what happens if all that can be restored ( "the fifth element ")

Which leads me to your last comment.

This is incredibly surprising comeing from you. This implys a soul. If we had the technology to put everything back exactly as it was, why on earth would the person be brain dead.

[Rlyeh]

That is a false dichotomy

The answer is both yes and no.

If two apparently separate items are identical they are the same object, and not actually two objects. If two identifiably separate items are indistinguishable from each other, then they are not the same object, even though they seem to be identical..

No, they are the same type of object, but they are not the same object.

You're abusing semantics.

There are two indentical objects, separated by location, they are not in any form of quantum entanglement or superposition.

Are they the same object? It is a simply question. If they are indeed the same object, modifying one with modify both.

That approaches the concept of connected photons.

You're taking about entanglement, the objects in question are not entangled.

But i do not understand the purpose of your query, or what practical diffeernce it makes. I already know my consciousness is not unique to me, or trapped within my host body, so I am not as worried as some about making a dozen or more copies of myself to enhance/extend my experiences, learning and knowledge /understanding..

I guess that is the problem, you refuse to accept the demonstrable fact your consciousness is localized to your body thereby making it also unique. Edited December 4, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

This is incredibly surprising comeing from you. This implys a soul. If we had the technology to put everything back exactly as it was, why on earth would the person be brain dead.

Brain damage indicates a soul?

Somethings are not reversible. I doubt such technology will ever exist.

[White Crane Feather]

Brain damage indicates a soul?

Somethings are not reversible. I doubt such technology will ever exist.

I don't. If technology is allowed to proceed another few thousand years or Mabey less, we will most likely be able to have exact data of where every atom is in your brain is located, then things like self replicating nono bots will have the capability to put everything back together again.

If this is the case do you still think a person that "died" will not be themselves upon return of their exact material state?

[Rlyeh]

I don't. If technology is allowed to proceed another few thousand years or Mabey less, we will most likely be able to have exact data of where every atom is in your brain is located, then things like self replicating nono bots will have the capability to put everything back together again.

Assuming they know the structure of the individuals brain before hand.

If this is the case do you still think a person that "died" will not be themselves upon return of their exact material state?

Yes.

[White Crane Feather]

Assuming they know the structure of the individuals brain before hand.

Yes.

Of course some sort of detailed scan.

Really?!?!?!? That surprises the heck out of me. Why?

[Rlyeh]

Of course some sort of detailed scan.

Really?!?!?!? That surprises the heck out of me. Why?

Sorry, I missed the not. They will be the same person, if their brain is restored. Edited December 4, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Mr Walker]

No, they are the same type of object, but they are not the same object.

You're abusing semantics.

There are two indentical objects, separated by location, they are not in any form of quantum entanglement or superposition.

Are they the same object? It is a simply question. If they are indeed the same object, modifying one with modify both.

You're taking about entanglement, the objects in question are not entangled.

I guess that is the problem, you refuse to accept the demonstrable fact your consciousness is localized to your body thereby making it also unique.

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved. This is due to its nature as a form of "electronic" entity. It can be treated like all other forms of electronic recording. eg transferred, copied/dupicated, stored etc. The scientists working on this around the world put a timeline of less than 20 years on having this fully operational/workable, but elements of it are already being demonstrated. When this is done there could be a dozen or more copies of your "unique" consciousness made, all indistinguishable from the others at the moment of transfer/replication.

It is a bit like a recorded song. While the object on which a song is recorded is unique, and capable of differentiation, who is to say which of the actual songs heard on different records, tapes or computer devices is original or unique The human singer or synthesiser produced the first sound, but the songs live on long after that moment and even after the singer may have died.

In the case of a human consciousness the "song" is alive, and capable of continued learning, growth and evolution, once recorded..

Edited December 4, 2012 by Mr Walker

[White Crane Feather]

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved. This is due to its nature as a form of "electronic" entity. It can be treated like all other forms of electronic recording. eg transferred, copied/dupicated, stored etc. The scientists working on this around the world put a timeline of less than 20 years on having this fully operational/workable, but elements of it are already being demonstrated. When this is done there could be a dozen or more copies of your "unique" consciousness made, all indistinguishable from the others at the moment of transfer/replication.

It is a bit like a recorded song. While the object on which a song is recorded is unique, and capable of differentiation, who is to say which of the actual songs heard on different records, tapes or computer devices is original or unique The human singer or synthesiser produced the first sound, but the songs live on long after that moment and even after the singer may have died.

In the case of a human consciousness the "song" is alive, and capable of continued learning, growth and evolution, once recorded..

Wow!!! I'm Not sure I could articulate it that way... Information and sequence is what it is. It's an eternal smidget.

[Mr Walker]

Thanks Seeker. It must be the new pills I am taking. That is two compliments on my way with words, in one day.

[Rlyeh]

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved.

Demonstrated? So you can link me to the experiment?

Edit: Anyway I said localized, which science has shown.

Discussions are difficult when you insist on changing what I say.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Rlyeh

[SavageDragon]

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved. This is due to its nature as a form of "electronic" entity. It can be treated like all other forms of electronic recording. eg transferred, copied/dupicated, stored etc. The scientists working on this around the world put a timeline of less than 20 years on having this fully operational/workable, but elements of it are already being demonstrated. When this is done there could be a dozen or more copies of your "unique" consciousness made, all indistinguishable from the others at the moment of transfer/replication.

It is a bit like a recorded song. While the object on which a song is recorded is unique, and capable of differentiation, who is to say which of the actual songs heard on different records, tapes or computer devices is original or unique The human singer or synthesiser produced the first sound, but the songs live on long after that moment and even after the singer may have died.

In the case of a human consciousness the "song" is alive, and capable of continued learning, growth and evolution, once recorded..

Taking for granted that science demonstrated consciousness can be replied and transferred (I'd like to read a link too), I still have to understand why we should be able to continue living the experience and be aware of it similarly or parallelal to now.

The more I read it like you are putting it, the more it just looks like simple, cold informations stored in a memory. Not the "true" yourself.

[Mr Walker]

Demonstrated? So you can link me to the experiment?

Edit: Anyway I said localized, which science has shown.

Discussions are difficult when you insist on changing what I say.

Then you need to be clear in what you say and mean.

My/human consciousness is not localised if it can be; reproduced, dupicated, stored and transferred.

It is not localised when it can be transmitted to another personn or many persons like a radio broadcast, so they can hear my thoughts.

It is not localised when it can be used to operate any form of machinery from close range, like a wheelchair or bionic arm, or very long (eg interplanetary) distance.

It is now several years since i saw documentaries on these advances in science They were made in britain europe and america and looked at work done by darpa, scandinavian companies, and others on human consciousness. they were shown on the australian broadcasting channel in australia and were mentioned in posts on UM at the time.

One of the leading scientists concluded by saying that his chldren would never need to die because their consciousness would be transferable and virtually immortal. Another was quite afraid that the artificial intelligences aasociated with this work would turn on humans and create a scenario like that in terminator; but these scientists, working around the world, all agreed that the time frame for this was less than two decades.

[Mr Walker]

Taking for granted that science demonstrated consciousness can be replied and transferred (I'd like to read a link too), I still have to understand why we should be able to continue living the experience and be aware of it similarly or parallelal to now.

The more I read it like you are putting it, the more it just looks like simple, cold informations stored in a memory. Not the "true" yourself.

I hit the like button instead of the quote but it is a good question so that is OK

There are two ways of doing this. Transfering your consciousness to an AI or to another, perhaps cloned, human being. In both cases the host entity acts like we do. it collects data which goes to the brain and continues the experience of the mind. Our mind IS just a storage and retrieval system combined with a neural processing unit, and our self aware consciousness is nothing more than an evolved property of that mind.

So an AI can have a soul, a consciousness and a personality, just like a human. For more information you can check out neuroinformatics or simply google "transferring human consciousness"

However it is harder to find articles on transferring consciousness form one human to another. That is because while this process is technically easier, it faces a lot more ethical and moral questions. At the moment the belief is that human consciousness may be transfered to a self aware AI in about 10 years, given the progress in computing capacity

In 2004, Henry Markram, lead researcher of the "Blue Brain Project", has stated that "it is not [their] goal to build an intelligent neural network", based solely on the computational demands such a project would have.^[16]

It will be very difficult because, in the brain, every molecule is a powerful computer and we would need to simulate the structure and function of trillions upon trillions of molecules as well as all the rules that govern how they interact. You would literally need computers that are trillions of times bigger and faster than anything existing today.

^[17]

Five years later, after successful simulation of part of a rat brain, the same scientist was much more bold and optimistic. In 2009, when he was director of the Blue Brain Project, he claimed that

A detailed, functional artificial human brain can be built within the next 10 years

^[18]

Required computational capacity strongly depend on the chosen level of simulation model scale^[1]:

http://en.wikipedia..../Mind_uploading

Quantum computers, which are getting closer every day, will give the computing capacity required, and a lot to spare.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Rlyeh]

Then you need to be clear in what you say and mean.

The meaning was quite clear, you're just reverting back to your old tactics of changing meanings.

My/human consciousness is not localised if it can be; reproduced, dupicated, stored and transferred.

It is not localised when it can be transmitted to another personn or many persons like a radio broadcast, so they can hear my thoughts.

And after all that your consciousness is still confined to your body/brain. Making a copy doesn't refute this.

It is not localised when it can be used to operate any form of machinery from close range, like a wheelchair or bionic arm, or very long (eg interplanetary) distance.

I find it odd an english teacher (isn't that what you claim to be?), does not know the meaning of localized.

Remote controlling machinery in fact shows the consciousness is localized, it would defeat the purpose if consciousness weren't.

One of the leading scientists concluded by saying that his chldren would never need to die because their consciousness would be transferable and virtually immortal. Another was quite afraid that the artificial intelligences aasociated with this work would turn on humans and create a scenario like that in terminator; but these scientists, working around the world, all agreed that the time frame for this was less than two decades.

Opinions aren't experiments.

[Mr Walker]

The meaning was quite clear, you're just reverting back to your old tactics of changing meanings.

And after all that your consciousness is still confined to your body/brain. Making a copy doesn't refute this.

I find it odd an english teacher (isn't that what you claim to be?), does not know the meaning of localized.

Remote controlling machinery in fact shows the consciousness is localized, it would defeat the purpose if consciousness weren't.

Opinions aren't experiments.

As an english teacher I do not consider a radio/tv broadcast to be localised, even if the source of it is localised. It can be heard/seen by people over the whole earth and into space. There is no practical reason your brain cannot do the same. If another person can read your mind directly from a distance, then your CONSCIOUSNESS is not localised, only your brain.

The scientists' opinions came from scientists working on the physical machinery and artificial intelligences which are currently being made to store human intelligence and to create an AI capable of replicating and exceeding human mental capacity. They know what they are talking about. Of course whether they are telling the truth is a different matter. They were reputable scientists interviewed by a reputable documentary organisation.

[Rlyeh]

As an english teacher I do not consider a radio/tv broadcast to be localised, even if the source of it is localised. It can be heard/seen by people over the whole earth and into space. There is no practical reason your brain cannot do the same. If another person can read your mind directly from a distance, then your CONSCIOUSNESS is not localised, only your brain.

If someone copies my brain, then that isn't localised either. See what happens when people abuse meanings?

The scientists' opinions came from scientists working on the physical machinery and artificial intelligences which are currently being made to store human intelligence and to create an AI capable of replicating and exceeding human mental capacity. They know what they are talking about. Of course whether they are telling the truth is a different matter. They were reputable scientists interviewed by a reputable documentary organisation.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. Science is knowledge collected via the scientific method, opinions even from scientists are not scientific experiments.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

The brain does not survive death only the spirit does. The brain will decay with the rest of the body. The spirit must retain knowledge though or how would it know who to contact after death.

I have seen a ghost so I know something survives death.

Hi Hilander,

"The brain does not survive death only the spirit does. The brain will decay with the rest of the body." That, I cannot say yes or no to, but all I know is that I came back from the dead with my "awareness" intact. I remembered everything. Yes, the brain will decay, but it can also rejuvinate itself... I was dead for at least 6 hours. I saw my body rejuvinating itself right before my very eyes; however, the process was not a pleasant one -- I survived, nevertheless.

I, too, have experienced ghosts. Did I see them, or did they invade my consciousness? I think it was the latter because our servant did not see them when she rescued me from drowning. This happened when I was 8 years old. My last afterlife experience happened in 2000, but it was a profound one in many ways.

Peace.

Edited December 7, 2012 by braveone2u

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

I must add this, however. When my dearest friend died in my arms, he came back to his body 21 minutes later after being pumped up with some kind of machine. It was a brutal site to watch. Nevertheless, his heart started pumping. His brain was damaged... He died 6 days later.