Afterlife, digital copies or clones

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

I like to think that I raise awareness of just how muddy the waters already are.

 

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Jay created this thread, let's let him define what the topic is about.  Feel free to point out what discussion I'm having that is at all inconsistent with the two sentence OP, the points I'm discussing look to me to fit well with, "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."

Hi Eight bits and Liquid Gardens

I appreciate the value that both of you have brought to the thread and thankful that you have both chosen to engage this subject with Walker and me as there are many aspects of this to sort through and the more minds involved the better the picture we will have of the subject even if at times the road gets rocky.

I think the more diverse we are in perspective will help build a working platform to carry on from as each of us will have different aspects to consider and there are still many of Walker's ideologies that I am hoping to review in this thread and hope that we will all be able to be worthwhile discussion companions.

I am willing to allow reasonable latitude as that is the basis of this thread in exploring Walker's perspectives an hope that we will see each other as contributors rather than combatants, okay some playful duking it out is good.

jmccr8

 

jmccr8

[Habitat]

12 hours ago, third_eye said:

You are the only one I see around here that is constantly knocking and not only that, incessantly blowing up a deflated ego at every opportunity, on top of which, you lie constantly about not having "ego"

Whilst scolding poor old Mr W for being incessantly self-obsessed, you, then, by your endless narky replies to him, reveal the very same thing you claim to detest, an obsession with Mr W !  If its OK for you to be obsessed with him, why can't he be ? You really are not being even-handed. No wonder I think of you as Mr Sour-sop !

[SHaYap]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Maybe it's facial recognition, maybe it's gender, maybe it's as simple as having the usually continuous and maybe only liminally conscious sensory reassurance about which way is up. There's no obvious reason why the specific constellation of anchors would be the same for everybody.

Observe , some prepubescent Teen waking up one morning with a big red pimple on the nose.... 

~

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

But someone young, handsome, and a beautiful person can hope and chances are will find both. 

Or too much of some, one or the other and most likely, never both... 

~

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

And someone old, not perfect looking, but beautiful inside, could also find happiness...

Yes, it is never to late or to old to find love. My dad who is 79 has found love and intimacy with his beautiful girlfriend who is 80. She has rocked my dads world. 
 

[Habitat]

Amusing that a bunch of people who exhibit disbelief at the idea of an afterlife, then set about assigning rules and limitations to it, in the unlikely (to them) event it is actually real. Suffice to say, if there is an afterlife, and I have every reason to believe there is, then all bets are off about the how and why of it.

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Whilst scolding poor old Mr W for being incessantly self-obsessed, you, then, by your endless narky replies to him, reveal the very same thing you claim to detest, an obsession with Mr W !  If its OK for you to be obsessed with him, why can't he be ? You really are not being even-handed. No wonder I think of you as Mr Sour-sop !

Scolding? 

Your operatic overtures is on the wrong stage and in an off tune arpeggio trot, my little garden jewel of fruity drips. 

Your obsessive clinging to the root of this little parsimonious shrub shows that you are clung to where your logic sop is soured, neither dubyer nor I are obsessed with each other, but you are the precious little devoted creeper vine that adorns obsessively to it. 

~

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

neither dubyer nor I are obsessed with each other

No, you are obsessed with him, that is all too obvious, he most certainly isn't with you ! And needless to say, it isn't a magnificent obsession !

[Habitat]

9 hours ago, third_eye said:

I'm not persuaded that the consciousness defined as such fully measures up to the entirety of the entity, consider for instance if this recorded consciousness is downloaded into a vessel that is unidentifiable to itself, a look in the mirror only initiates a state of confusion, what carries on in terms of identity, how does one recognize oneself? Looking familiar but not quite recognizable... 

Isn't that a shade too similar to schizophrenia? 

~

 

Well, well, well,,,,,what do we have here, the incoherent absurdity app. been put on hold ? A rare excursion into plain talking, do keep it up ! 

[+Sherapy]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, you are obsessed with him, that is all too obvious, he most certainly isn't with you ! And needless to say, it isn't a magnificent obsession !

Hmm the obsession seems to be on your end. 
 

 

[Habitat]

11 minutes ago, third_eye said:

you are the precious little devoted creeper vine that adorns obsessively to it. 

Hardly, given as I have said before, I don't even read the majority of what he posts, it is too long-winded for my liking. You, on the other hand, hang on every word, in your unquenchable thirst for "lies" !

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Scolding? 

Your operatic overtures is on the wrong stage and in an off tune arpeggio trot, my little garden jewel of fruity drips. 

Your obsessive clinging to the root of this little parsimonious shrub shows that you are clung to where your logic sop is soured, neither dubyer nor I are obsessed with each other, but you are the precious little devoted creeper vine that adorns obsessively to it. 

~

I too was struggling to make heads or tails of Habbie’s rants. 
I thought it was just me. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Hmm the obsession seems to be on your end. 
 

 

No, it actually resides with you and three eyes, who are frankly, both inordinately attached to dear Mr W. And Mr W well knows it, and dare I say, plays up to it, with good humour !

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I too was struggling to make heads or tails of Habbie’s rants. 
I thought it was just me. 

Hardly surprised by that, you regularly fail to see the wood for the trees

[XenoFish]

This looks about right. Page 10 and it's already going to hell.

[SHaYap]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, you are obsessed with him, that is all too obvious, he most certainly isn't with you ! And needless to say, it isn't a magnificent obsession !

No, you say? my little darling of an  obvious fruity mini dubyer cake obsession?

~

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Well, well, well,,,,,what do we have here, the incoherent absurdity app. been put on hold ? A rare excursion into plain talking, do keep it up ! 

Hooray! You learned to read! 

~

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Hardly, given as I have said before, I don't even read the majority of what he posts, it is too long-winded for my liking. You, on the other hand, hang on every word, in your unquenchable thirst for "lies" !

No, I say, I know how to read with coherence , now you've forgotten how to read past your obsessive clinging to your tarty devotion to dubyer. 

~

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

No, it actually resides with you and three eyes, who are frankly, both inordinately attached to dear Mr W. And Mr W well knows it, and dare I say, plays up to it, with good humour !

 Inordinately? You're the ordained dubyer obsessed fruit climbing the wrong tree

~

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Hardly surprised by that, you regularly fail to see the wood for the trees

Spitting up the trees now eh? 

~

[jmccr8]

36 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Amusing that a bunch of people who exhibit disbelief at the idea of an afterlife, then set about assigning rules and limitations to it, in the unlikely (to them) event it is actually real. Suffice to say, if there is an afterlife, and I have every reason to believe there is, then all bets are off about the how and why of it.

Hi Habitat

You do realize that we are discussing an abstract concept of afterlife that does not exist yet in our technical world are it has to be physically built by humans so I fail to understand you assertion about assigning limits it doesn't physically exist because there is no tech and that is the limitation.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

22 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

This looks about right. Page 10 and it's already going to hell.

Hi Xeno

Stay tuned the movie hasn't started yet.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

What appears to dominate these discussions, to no value to anyone, is the admonishment of Mr W for his alleged "unrealism", by a few posters, but two in particular. One might query why this would be such a fixation, in fact it is the only interesting thing about this phenomenon. Given that there is nothing of any seeming objective importance at stake, I don't see Mr W selling anything, for instance, one has to look elsewhere for the explanation. I feel it lies in Mr W providing a contrast to the "team", who fancy themselves to be hard-nosed realists, and with him there to provide a seeming example of the perils of giving way to the fantastical, their fear of, and bias against, that which may not conform with "reason and logic" is shown to be justified, at least in their own minds. Unfortunately, his story is just one among billions, and whilst is has a comfortable familiarity, and is unthreatening to the world view they espouse, they are loathe to look elsewhere. He is a soft target. He does the job for them. They feel they are on the "right side", by opposition to him. He is the convenient whipping boy. And your insecurities keeps it all going.

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Xeno

Stay tuned the movie hasn't started yet.

jmccr8

I've seen it before. Think I'll pass. 

[Habitat]

21 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

You do realize that we are discussing an abstract concept of afterlife that does not exist yet in our technical world are it has to be physically built by humans so I fail to understand you assertion about assigning limits it doesn't physically exist because there is no tech and that is the limitation.

jmccr8

It is predicated on the supposition of the mind/body divide, which is a known falsity. 

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Yes, I think this problem might be inherent in all forms of incorporeal conscious after-life scenarios. I suspect that many living people's sense of self is anchored in some aspect of their body and its functionalities. Maybe it's facial recognition, maybe it's gender, maybe it's as simple as having the usually continuous and maybe only liminally conscious sensory reassurance about which way is up. There's no obvious reason why the specific constellation of anchors would be the same for everybody.

All that is gone in a disembodied consciousness. Some people wouldn't mind, I suspect, but some people could easily be precisely as you say, insane.

We'd have to hope it was like an acute-onset form of schizophrenia, which resolves itself after a time (in the living form of the disease, there is the urgent difficulty of surviving while being thoroughly unable to care for yourself, but without a body, that wouldn't seem to be a problem; you'll linger indefinitely). Until the madness abates, it can be very unpleasant and harrowing to go through.

I think we just re-invented Purgatory. But maybe for some portion of the people, the adverse reaction never would resolve, and if so, we've re-invented Hell.

Nicely observed.

 

Hi Eight Bits

I was thinking on this and the difference of teleportation, when teleporting a whole being all that it is travels together at one time and with a download only a portion of that being is being downloaded and if that is then downloaded into a clone that was not allowed to develop a consciousness which I think would be highly unlikely but for all intent and purpose it is a blank state body if the body mind relationship could be reproduced to the same level as the original body? For comparison the consciousness is the hard-drive and body memory is a non-transferable soft drive limited to the body it is in but every body has one, now once the download is complete would there be a problem with the body/mind communication if neither the body or mind recognize each other.

jmccr8

[Aquila King]

19 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What appears to dominate these discussions, to no value to anyone, is the admonishment of Mr W for his alleged "unrealism"

The topic of Mr Walker and his claims dominates these forums because Mr Walker is constantly dominating these forums. Just give it a little bit and he'll be in here tonight quoting everyone while spam posting walls of text with unsubstantiated BS about himself. Thus, we admonish him for it.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Amusing that a bunch of people who exhibit disbelief at the idea of an afterlife, then set about assigning rules and limitations to it, in the unlikely (to them) event it is actually real. Suffice to say, if there is an afterlife, and I have every reason to believe there is, then all bets are off about the how and why of it.

I don't have to know the answer to the question 25×47 off the top of my head to know that 32 isn't the right answer.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that certain answers are within the realm of possibility, while others aren't. Even if you don't yet have the definitive answer to your question at that moment.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Aquila King
Typos. Cuz I'm a dum dum with fast thumbs.

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It is predicated on the supposition of the mind/body divide, which is a known falsity. 

Hi Habitat

That is almost a complete thought would you care to expand on it. The topic at hand is not about religious/non-religious commonly known afterlife where a person dies and goes some place else or re-born in a different time or place in space by divine or godly cause so if that is what you wish to discuss there is another thread dedicated to that concept of afterlife and would be of greater benefit there.

Here we are discussing consciousness to an android or clone which does not necessitate specifically that one must die only transfer their consciousness so if your response to me is relative to the subject at hand please do engage and expressing complete thoughts would greatly appreciated.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

The topic of Mr Walker and his claims dominates these forums because Mr Walker is constantly dominating these forums. Just give it a little bit and he'll be in here tonight quoting everyone while spam posting walls of text with unsubstantiated BS about himself. Thus, we admonish him for it.

If you had a ratbag neighbour, would you admonish him, when he is having no effect on you ? He is having an effect on you, and that effect is in providing a foil for your prejudices.