Afterlife, digital copies or clones

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Doesn't matter which it is. It won't be us, just a copy of us. The only way to have something like an afterlife is a virtual reality hooked up to your brain that's kept alive through some mad science.

very accurate but very prejudiced 

Not mad science just advanced science Indeed your consciousness COULD be stored in a form of virtual existence, until it was transplanted back into a host (either organic or artificial )  to continue its existence and begin a "real" life, again

 

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

See the rest of my post, added after the initial posting    I observed and found out things i could not have known, from  before my birth These were confirmed by my mother, by research, and by visiting the places we visited "together"  back in the forties. 

Hi Walker

Thanks I went back and read the addition.

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In a way, I dont care if it was "real " or not.

That is fine as I am not questioning if it was real or not the experience was real to you and that is what you have inferred.

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I was able to spend many interesting hours ( fully aware of what was happening ) with my deceased father. He could only be as he was back then, but he could interact with me and respond to my questions from his consciousness of the time  ie he could describe his views feelings  and thoughts on anything from the  period  It was like a fully interactive hologram where i was the only one alive and aware of the reality of the occasion,  but everything else was real and detailed and accurately portrayed .

You know I read my dad's diary from when he was a boy when I was a boy and he dreamed of running away and joining the French Foreign Legion and I could imagine that even though he did not run away. I think our minds are incredible like when I visualize what I am planning to build and can see and experience it in a sense but understand that it is my projection of thought.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

So I was talking to Walker in another thread and he posed that the afterlife has never existed and we will create it by downloading consciousness and either creating genetic clones or implanted in tech like androids what are your thoughts. Personally I wouldn't consider it as afterlife especially if the consciousness is downloaded into a clone that has potential to be a unique self of it's own.

jmccr8

Not quite right.

I posited that an alien civilization far older than us had developed this technology and spread it across the galaxy including on earth.  Thus ALL human consciousness through history, and also other consciousnesses around the galaxy, are stored and accessible,  going back until this species developed and built the technology 

 Such a clone would simply be an alternative future version of yourself

ie YOU will evolve and change during your future.

Such a clone would also do this.

Nonetheless both  current self and future self / future clone, are all the same person. ie the future  version  of you, without cloning, is the same as your present self.   So would a cloned/copied version be identical, but altered by experiences over time, as will happen to you in your future.    

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Thanks I went back and read the addition.

That is fine as I am not questioning if it was real or not the experience was real to you and that is what you have inferred.

You know I read my dad's diary from when he was a boy when I was a boy and he dreamed of running away and joining the French Foreign Legion and I could imagine that even though he did not run away. I think our minds are incredible like when I visualize what I am planning to build and can see and experience it in a sense but understand that it is my projection of thought.

jmccr8

Indeed, our minds are almost too incredible to believe  

I never really knew much about my dad's life before he met my mum. A few of the basics but little else.He was 7 years younger than her ( as i am 9 years younger than my wife) When the y married he was only  22 while she was  29 ( i was 25 and my wife 34 when we married)  He was just too young to go to war although his older brother did

In  part that was why i wanted to find out more.

  With mum, before  she died, i spent many hours listening to and documenting her early life.  Maybe that  was why i never felt the need to visit her virtual   consciousness /life .

 

[jmccr8]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I posited that an alien civilization far older than us had developed this technology and spread it across the galaxy including on earth.  Thus ALL human consciousness through history, and also other consciousnesses around the galaxy, are stored and accessible,  going back until this species developed and built the technology 

Hi Walker

Okay that is a potential that has yet to have any significant  evidence for which is not much different that saying god did it.

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Such a clone would simply be an alternative future version of yourself

A body develops due to use in the real world which is experience based, your clone would not have been raised by the same people in the same time under the same conditions those experience shape the individual so by implanting yourself into them you would have to erase the identity of that individual so I have to ask how does one determine the value of both identities in order to make a value judgment of which one deserves to exist?

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ie YOU will evolve and change during your future.

Such a clone would also do this.

Once the clone is possessed it can no longer exist so it cannot continue to grow nor do I see how you could ensue that you had absolute control over a body that may not respond as yours once did.

Piney's example of twins being clones, if the one that was born 10 minutes before it's sibling was became ill and was going to die do you think replacing your twin with your consciousness would be feasible, the developmental environment is the same so wouldn't that reduce margin of error?

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I never really knew much about my dad's life before he met my mum. A few of the basics but little else.He was 7 years younger than her ( as i am 9 years younger than my wife) When the y married he was only  22 while she was  29 ( i was 25 and my wife 34 when we married)  He was just too young to go to war although his older brother did

Hi Walker

As a child I was aware of many discussions with family friends and relatives even if I was playing with my sibs or their children so it is more of a subliminal memory of what they said rather than consciously listened to, could this not be an influence in your experiences?

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Okay that is a potential that has yet to have any significant  evidence for which is not much different that saying god did it.

A body develops due to use in the real world which is experience based, your clone would not have been raised by the same people in the same time under the same conditions those experience shape the individual so by implanting yourself into them you would have to erase the identity of that individual so I have to ask how does one determine the value of both identities in order to make a value judgment of which one deserves to exist?

Once the clone is possessed it can no longer exist so it cannot continue to grow nor do I see how you could ensue that you had absolute control over a body that may not respond as yours once did.

Piney's example of twins being clones, if the one that was born 10 minutes before it's sibling was became ill and was going to die do you think replacing your twin with your consciousness would be feasible, the developmental environment is the same so wouldn't that reduce margin of error?

jmccr8

Yes, indeed, it is a lot like " god "  but it is only " god" if we make it so. 

and yes my conclusions are based on my personal life experiences, but not beliefs.  Many other humans  write and talk about similar experiences 

While the ethics might be questionable, the clone would have no mind of its own, until your mind was transferred to it. There are a number of feasible ways this could be done.  It is no more morally questionable than aborting human infants before they have self  awareness  

Otherwise one would have to murder a separate,  individual,  self aware consciousness, to take over its body 

A body obeys a mind. That is how humans work. Once your mind is in a body it does as you tell it to.

Although it might have to spend some time learning the muscular control to walk talk etc., just as a child does   

I do not approve of killing even unborn children, and certainly not ones which are alive and evolving as an individual However it is sometimes the lesser of two evils

I would not allow one child to die, so that the other might live UNLESS the first was going to die no matter what was done to help it   I don't approve of having a child to get compatible organs for a sick sibling, but i do approve of  informed consent, where one person gives a part of them self so  that another might live   

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

As a child I was aware of many discussions with family friends and relatives even if I was playing with my sibs or their children so it is more of a subliminal memory of what they said rather than consciously listened to, could this not be an influence in your experiences?

jmccr8

I've considered that.  It is possible for some things, but not others. eg we visited dance halls i have never been in and saw the shapes of rooms, cornices, mouldings, placement of doors and  windows etc of the time.  

60 years later when i visited those places for the first time, they were still basically the same as when i saw them in my time with dad. ie in my virtual visit my fathers memories were accurate  and i shared them. 

 I could describe the clothing of himself, my mother,  and others, and my mother confirmed the accuracy.   Those clothes were long gone by the time i was old enough to see or recognise them in real life and there were no photos taken of the events .

On the other hand I  found out, by observation,  the make and model of the motor bike my dad rode.

Now consciously I had never known that, but it is something that i might have picked up sometime as a child form conversations Why however would it have gone from  an unremembered subconscious memory, to knowledge,  through a dream     

[Free99]

10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The cloning/downloading proposal does not sound like an 'afterlife' in any real sense to me.  The only way I see it works is that we posit that there is a 'soul' that is being transferred, not copied, to somewhere somehow while waiting perhaps for a new body (a la, the plot for countless sci-fi episodes/stories).  This would not be what Walker is referring to as he's talking about extrapolating from current technology which is obviously only dealing with the physical, and is definitely a copy and not a transfer process.  Under his scenario, if this technology existed someone could unbeknownst to me download my consciousness tonight while I'm sleeping and unaware of it.  That copy of my consciousness is then restored in a clone, or multiple clones, or perhaps from multiple different backups of my brain at different points in time of my life into multiple clones.  I then die and have no idea this at all happened, I don't even know there are copies of my (old) consciousness running around being dead and all, I share no senses or thoughts with them, only memories.  And that wouldn't change even if I did know about all these clones.

Don't pretty much all conceptions of 'afterlife' at least require me to know that I'm still alive?  'Afterlife' is really stretching it to refer to something like this, this is an 'afterlife' like Taco Bell taco meat is 'beef'; might be technically true under certain expanded definitions, but is regardless a major disappointment when compared with other scenarios/products that are typically referred to with those words.

Agreed I do believe that in the near future we will be able to download a complete human mind. Every memory and ounce of knowledge and wisdom. But this will never be any extension of life for the one it was downloaded from. In fact you could pack it all inside a clone or any form of artificial intelligence and it's still nothing more than a copy. The original will still terminate at some point in life and any idea of living forever is out the window because when your dead your dead. But if science could figure out what makes us human rather a soul or something else entirely and can move it along with the rest where you die and wake up in a clone or computer synthetic mind then who knows. I would be p***ed off being stuck in a computer,

[Rlyeh]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

An ancient race either by its own abilities or via advanced technology provides an internet of the mind which has existed for millenia

This links all consciousnesses in the galaxy  and can be accessed by any slef aware mind  that has achieved gnosis or enlightenment,  for communication and learning/education or entertainment 

As  a part of this, the consciousnesses of all self  aware beings (and possibly non self aware ones) are recorded and stored In a virtual library as archived "living" ie interactive, consciousnesses 

Any evidence?

 

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus you or I can do the following. 

Access a past consciousness  on earth to study history 

Access the life of a deceased loved one to share it with them and spend time with them 

Acces the minds of living people and  the cosmic consciousness itself 

Access the  present and past consciousnesses of species/individuals from  all over the galaxy and see their lives through their eyes 

By this you're saying you could solve every crime ever committed.

 

[Mr Walker]

23 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Any evidence?

 

By this you're saying you could solve every crime ever committed.

 

Only personal evidences.

it is  why i don't make this one of my fact claims. I am not even sure of it myself, but my experience of over 60 years  is very suggestive, and cumulative, and coherent.  .

Potentially yes;  Not me, but if a person could learn enough skill and mental discipline to direct their mind precisely enough.

Many crimes are solved with the help of people using this sort  of skill, despite some  scepticism and denial. 

I've spent my life trying to avoid official notice, so i am not the right person for the job. 

  I took me thousands of hours of learning, practice, effort and discipline,  just to be able to do the little i can do.

I am still not very good a t directing my consciousness to a particular time or place, so it becomes a bit potluck  (this is true whether it is all just dreaming or somehtng more )  i have concentrated on the history of my local area plus a few well known world sites. 

ps to say solve a murder You would need to access the mind of the murder or witnesses. Given you don't know who the y are to begin with, that is not an easy thong to do

You are riding other people's consciousnesses with this skill, not simply projecting your consciousness to a location  

Edited November 7, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Free99 said:

Agreed I do believe that in the near future we will be able to download a complete human mind. Every memory and ounce of knowledge and wisdom. But this will never be any extension of life for the one it was downloaded from. In fact you could pack it all inside a clone or any form of artificial intelligence and it's still nothing more than a copy. The original will still terminate at some point in life and any idea of living forever is out the window because when your dead your dead. But if science could figure out what makes us human rather a soul or something else entirely and can move it along with the rest where you die and wake up in a clone or computer synthetic mind then who knows. I would be p***ed off being stuck in a computer,

If YOU ie your consciousness is not dead, then you are not dead. If your consciousness can be retrieved from  storage, then you were dead, but are now alive again

  Our bodies are not US , our minds are . You would not even necessarily be aware that you had died, or that time had passed, but you WOULD be the same  human being as before (even  if uploaded to someone of the opposite sex or into an android body )

its not too bad being in an AI.

For a very short time i was a "human"  mind uploaded into a computer to pilot a fast needle /courier ship The accelerations etc precluded a human crew and while the computer could have flown it, some " people" believed it needed a "human"  to make the decisions  (the y were neither human nor people, but another organic sentient life form in another system )  

There was plenty of sensory input, especially while in system   but mainly "I"  was just so busy navigating and flying that i never really had time to be bored  

it wasnt really me of course.I was just hitching a ride as an observer on the consciousness that controlled the ship  and maybe it wasn't even real,   but it was fascinating fun and informative.

Not as much fun as riding a dragon, mind you, or being one of the crew on a huge war dragon  as big as a tennis court and with a fighting crew of half a dozen, aboard.   

[Rlyeh]

32 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Only personal evidences.

So what personal evidence points to some ancient beings creating a mind network?

 

[Mr Walker]

7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

So what personal evidence points to some ancient beings creating a mind network?

 

The existence of the network and an abilty to use it for various purposes. 

Human oral tradition describes experiences based on this going back to our earliest history  

 

[eight bits]

In recent years, there has been a lot of serious thinking about "the transporter problem," based on the Star Trek franchise's transporter technology. The device  is understood as making a copy of any physcial object by first utterly destroying it, then transmitting the information obtained during that destruction someplace else, and finally building a duplicate of the orginal object at that second place.

The interesting case is when the object is a human being. Questions include Is the operation homicide, and who is the surviving copy?

One thing that emerges from merely framing the problem within a specific science fiction setting is part of the answer to "What am 'I' apart from my memories?" One thing I am is my social identity.

Although some characters in Star Trek express reservations about using the transporter, I can't think of any occasion (except in stories where the transporter malfunctions, for example making competing "copies" of the "same" person) where any character challenges the identity of a character who has used the transporter. Certainly Star Fleet bureaucracy doesn't ever review the current Picard's commission on the basis that the person upon whom they conferred command of the Enterprise died the first time he  transported.

Even more persuasive to me, Captain Archer's dog is down with the switch (or would be; transporter technology will be new in those days, and not yet used so much with people).

The take away, then, is that my sense of my own identity is not just that I think that I'm the same person this morning as the fellow who went to sleep in my bed last night, but that everybody else agrees (yeah, verily, even unto the dogs, cats, cows, horses and squirrels whom I meet daily, and you, my fellow anonymous shades on the internet, doesn't this sound like something eight bits would post?). Obviously, you and all these other beings lack access to my memories; y'all are recognizing me as an identified fellow-being based on your and their own memories.

Given how much of my self-knowledge is inferential (Daryl Bem used the image of a person checking their watch when asked whether they're hungry ), I've got this sneaking suspicion that my basic sense of a persistent personal identity is largely inferential, too. My personal store of memories carries a lot of weight in that inference, of course, but the universal interpersonal agreement weighs, too.

Speaking of science fiction, the theme of a person waking up with different memories of themselves than everybody else's, or discrepancies between personal memory and current observations (e.g. who is that face in the mirror?), or competing instances of the "same person" meeting each other ... All of those scenarios, and the plot point that such a situation would be a disturbing crisis, depend on there being an inferential quality to personal identity, which the scenario would challenge in a way that real life never does (or only in pathological episodes - the business about the face in the mirror actually happens sometimes, and ordinary amnesia forces the victim to rely on social identity almost exclusively as a source of useful information about their own persistent selfhood.)

The bottom line, then, is that Mr W might yet win this thread. You can distinguish between the cloned or uploaded "me" and the guy writing about being cloned here and now. Then again, you could, if you wished, distinguish between me here-and-now and my "childhood self," or Picard could distinguish between the Data who stepped into the transporter and the Data who stepped out (i.e. distinguish conceptually, not "testably").

As lawyers say, there can be distinctions without differences. If I accepted, and everybody around me did, too, that the artificial "me" was me, then I might think of myself as living on past the "biological phase" of my being, just as it doesn't bother me  that "I" used to be two feet tall. That, too, was just a phase "I" went through, with everybody else doing likewise.

It might be tricky to get the dogs to go along with this, but if they were uploaded, too ...

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by eight bits

[Rlyeh]

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The existence of the network and an abilty to use it for various purposes. 

Human oral tradition describes experiences based on this going back to our earliest history  

 

How do you know it exists?  and if you used it to find this stargate, why not tell us where the stargate is?

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Psyche

At least here he would be on topic and I think that to have his perspectives developed and countered an a specific place would do two things, first reduce distraction in other threads and second explore the relationships that he sees that tie his god/alien, special abilities, religious constructs etc.together and if they are dependent or inter-dependent on each other.

Hey J

All the best with that. Mr Walker does not have a great track record for staying on topic. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. 

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I don't have the intention to ridicule or make judgments on him as a person I am just curious as about his self perception and it's relationship with reality or rather the known world as we know it.

With all due respect, they are quite clearly 2 different things. I think that's been well established recently. Personally I think it's more a 'man who fell to earth' syndrome, but if you wish to explore the character of that world, I'm sure we are all in for some astounding tales. Some of it is bound to entertain I guess. I don't think anyone intends to outright ridicule the man, he's just good at digging holes. I think we have all had a pleasent discussion with him at one time or another. Sometimes he's a very interesting poster. Sometimes..... not so much. 

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker is not the only person that has some interesting views but he is the most receptive to actually discussing his particular POV so that is why I have been trying to encourage him to bring that discussion to one thread where he will be on topic and his views constructively challenged and that may require some member support like redirecting a post in a thread to here for responses or helping not getting the thread shut down and see what develops.

jmccr8

I'm not sure about that. Self proclaimed 'knowers' show up all the time. The difference I'm seeing there is that Mr Walker has more manners than most, Illy, Mo, Habit, they all like to proclaim how inadequate modern science is and how misguided the more learned posters are when goat herders myths satisfy their word view better. Walker just shuts down and makes up some future science. Basically chess with a pigeon. He doesn't have the aggressive approach that the more eccentric posters tend to exhibit, which is what I find makes him unique. 

But best of luck to you. I do hope this goes how you hope it does. 

[Rlyeh]

12 minutes ago, eight bits said:

In recent years, there has been a lot of serious thinking about "the transporter problem," based on the Star Trek franchise's transporter technology. The device  is understood as making a copy of any physcial object by first utterly destroying it, then transmitting the information obtained during that destruction someplace else, and finally building a duplicate of the orginal object at that second place.

And if the original isn't destroyed you have two identical objects or people.

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

gee Ive always considered that, in reality, the classic  definition of after life is reliant on biotech (I dont believe in supernatural miracles   I've always assumed that miracles are examples of advanced technology including bio tech )

Would you not agree that if a discussion is involved with the classical 'soul', should you decide to join, wouldn't the best approach be to agree that you do not believe a traditional afterlife view is valid and that you consider biotechnology a technological idea of a man made afterlife a realistic alternative rather than saying 'your wrong' and then going of on a tangent about your interest in the possibilities of future biotechnology? 

Just a thought. 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

In recent years, there has been a lot of serious thinking about "the transporter problem," based on the Star Trek franchise's transporter technology. The device  is understood as making a copy of any physcial object by first utterly destroying it, then transmitting the information obtained during that destruction someplace else, and finally building a duplicate of the orginal object at that second place.

The interesting case is when the object is a human being. Questions include Is the operation homicide, and who is the surviving copy?

One thing that emerges from merely framing the problem within a specific science fiction setting is part of the answer to "What am 'I' apart from my memories?" One thing I am is my social identity.

Although some characters in Star Trek express reservations about using the transporter, I can't think of any occasion (except in stories where the transporter malfunctions, for example making competing "copies" of the "same" person) where any character challenges the identity of a character who has used the transporter. Certainly Star Fleet bureaucracy doesn't ever review the current Picard's commission on the basis that the person upon whom they conferred command of the Enterprise died the first time he  transported.

Even more persuasive to me, Captain Archer's dog is down with the switch (or would be; transporter technology will be new in those days, and not yet used so much with people).

The take away, then, is that my sense of my own identity is not just that I think that I'm the same person this morning as the fellow who went to sleep in my bed last night, but that everybody else agrees (yeah, verily, even unto the dogs, cats, cows, horses and squirrels whom I meet daily, and you, my fellow anonymous shades on the internet, doesn't this sound like something eight bits would post?). Obviously, you and all these other beings lack access to my memories; y'all are recognizing me as an identified fellow-being based on your and their own memories.

Given how much of my self-knowledge is inferential (Daryl Bem used the image of a person checking their watch when asked whether they're hungry ), I've got this sneaking suspicion that my basic sense of a persistent personal identity is largely inferential, too. My personal store of memories carries a lot of weight in that inference, of course, but the universal interpersonal agreement weighs, too.

Speaking of science fiction, the theme of a person waking up with different memories of themselves than everybody else's, or discrepancies between personal memory and current observations (e.g. who is that face in the mirror?), or competing instances of the "same person" meeting each other ... All of those scenarios, and the plot point that such a situation would be a disturbing crisis, depend on there being an inferential quality to personal identity, which the scenario would challenge in a way that real life never does (or only in pathological episodes - the business about the face in the mirror actually happens sometimes, and ordinary amnesia forces the victim to rely on social identity almost exclusively as a source of useful information about their own persistent selfhood.)

The bottom line, then, is that Mr W might yet win this thread. You can distinguish between the cloned or uploaded "me" and the guy writing about being cloned here and now. Then again, you could, if you wished, distinguish between me here-and-now and my "childhood self," or Picard could distinguish between the Data who stepped into the transporter and the Data who stepped out (i.e. distinguish conceptually, not "testably").

As lawyers say, there can be distinctions without differences. If I accepted, and everybody around me did, too, that the artificial "me" was me, then I might think of myself as living on past the "biological phase" of my being, just as it doesn't bother me  that "I" used to be two feet tall. That, too, was just a phase "I" went through, with everybody else doing likewise.

It might be tricky to get the dogs to go along with this, but if they were uploaded, too ...

 

 

I actually agree with this  Its kind of the thinking i've been doing on this since the early  sixties when i read a lot of science fiction on the topic and watched all the original start rek and dr who episodes.  Just about every variation has been thought  through, discussed, and modelled, in stories over the years 

One point. 

It isn't really necessary to break down and kill physically, the original person, in order to  create a copy 

This can be done by a computer  generating a detailed template   which can  then  be stored to be used  at any time  

Thus, two other scenarios are possible. 

First, as with star trek, the same body is physically transported  (science predicts this being possible for human beings by the end of this century) One problem discussed in the series is where the person is "lost" in transmission.  Sometimes the lost is found and recovered, at other times the signal is too degraded for recovery 

Second, it would be possible to create a copy,  while allowing the original to live.  This might be handy for long distance travel to other planets etc. 

One of Australia's  best  authors has written an entire series of adolescent science fiction, based on this concept, and what some consequences might be .   

(the twin maker series by Sean Williams including;  Jump , Crash, and Fall. ) 

 

http://twinmakerbooks.com.au/about/

Edited November 7, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

59 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Would you not agree that if a discussion is involved with the classical 'soul', should you decide to join, wouldn't the best approach be to agree that you do not believe a traditional afterlife view is valid and that you consider biotechnology a technological idea of a man made afterlife a realistic alternative rather than saying 'your wrong' and then going of on a tangent about your interest in the possibilities of future biotechnology? 

Just a thought. 

I believe the traditional after life view is a construct by non technical humans who encountered technology so advanced it seemed magical or miraculous (Arthur Clarke's  third law )  

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Not sure if i said,"You're wrong." but i probably  thought it.    However it is just an opinion based on the experiences of my life .

It is not about FUTURE biotech. It is about human religious beliefs being based on human's contact with, and understanding of,   existing alien biotech, over the last 10 millennia or so.  

Humans will reach this technology in a century or two at the most.

But, for me, it already exists, as ancient alien tech, and is accessible to humans for a wide variety of purposes.  

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

And if the original isn't destroyed you have two identical objects or people.

yes in one method of transport. And to be honest i don't see the problem with this, other than legal and financial issues. 

Might be my self  confidence and high self esteem   but i would like to have a dozen copies of me, and the abilty to share future experiences, and memories, and knowledge,  with them .  

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

How do you know it exists?  and if you used it to find this stargate, why not tell us where the stargate is?

I know it as i know anything i know.

And I' ve posted numerous times where the star gate is, if it is actually real.

We will have to wait until it is found, to determine that 

On the elliptical plane for most of the planets, and beyond the oort clouds.  It is far enough out not to be accessible until  humans have either reached a certain technological level OR have learned the skills and attitudes needed to connect to the cosmic consciousness.

I am not an astronomer. I travelled there but had no map or route to discover it  If it exists it will be discovered, or detected, when we have the technology to do so.   

That is standard protocol at all habitable systems, to ensure that sapient life forms have enough technology and  have demonstrated an abilty NOT to kill themselves off with violence,  to  be safe to invite into the galactic community.  We have to get out of the system by ourselves and get through the phase where we are likely to either annihilate ourselves   or destroy our tech base,   but then can use the technology for wider travel.

Vivid imagination or real experiences ?

Time will tell.

In the meantime it has been one hell of a ride.   

Edited November 7, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+joc]

15 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

So I was talking to Walker in another thread

That was your First Mistake....

[psyche101]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I believe the traditional after life view is a construct by non technical humans who encountered technology so advanced it seemed magical or miraculous (Arthur Clarke's  third law )  

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Its not a new idea. Thomas Reid postulated the very same way back in 1775. What indicates alien technology is involved? 

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not sure if i said,"You're wrong." but i probably  thought it.    However it is just an opinion based on the experiences of my life .

There's a pretty notable difference between the two. You're normally more polite. 

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is not about FUTURE biotech. It is about human religious beliefs being based on human's contact with, and understanding of,   existing alien biotech, over the last 10 millennia or so.  

There's absolutely no evidence that such is a viable idea. 

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Humans will reach this technology in a century or two at the most.

Maybe or maybe not. 

Will You Ever Be Able to Upload Your Brain?

RE... CONVERSATION : MIND The Future of the Mind How AI Technology Could Reshape the Human Mind and Create Alternate Synthetic Minds

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

But, for me, it already exists, as ancient alien tech, and is accessible to humans for a wide variety of purposes.  

Yeah, well see, that just sounds like crazy talk unless you can back that up.