Afterlife, digital copies or clones

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Sherapy

I am inclined to consider that his lucid dreaming plays a big part in his perspectives on many subjects so it will likely be a side issue that is brought up on occasion.

jmccr8

Lol, duly noted.

 

[Tatetopa]

It makes for an interesting thought experiment, but I would have to abandon the term after life.  Personally, no offense to anybody that holds other beliefs, after life comes death and non-existence for me.

Memories are only a portion of our consciousness, maybe the largest one, but there is more.   Not to be woo about it, the "more" I think  is the organization of the synapses in our brain.  Maybe it is all set by genetics, but it is clear that all people do not respond in the same ways to circumstances, so can I call that organization of synapses personality for want of a better word?

If I were talking about computers, I would say that a computer is composed of a number of chips with different functions.  There is a permanent  set of instructions, the operating system that organizes the various chips functions and  determines their response to data input.  The operating system is required for the computer to function.  

Then there are programs and data that might be permanent or transitory that are the inputs that the computer system processes and the outputs, the results of the processing that are stored in memory.

Without memory, there is no history or continuity, but without the operating system, there is no facility to process memories or create a now. It takes both.  It is more than memory that decomposes with Alzheimer's.

If only memories are transferred, nothing will result in my opinion.  Some people have mentioned that transferring memories, like making a recording is not the same as being alive.  I would agree.  In addition to the memories, it takes processing to utilize those past memories to make specific decisions in the present and record the present state to be accessed in the future as a memory. Is that operating system awareness, and perhaps self-awareness?

The technology is not with us now, but it may some day be.  If I  could transfer my memory and my processing  idiosyncrasies to another platform, would it still be me?  Could I transfer it to 100 other platforms and all would still be me? If all of them possessed all of my memories and the operating system up to the point of transfer would they be me?.  If all of then answer a quiz  an instant after transfer, and all 100 respond in the same way I would, are they not me?

Is uniqueness a requirement for consciousness and self awareness, or just the result of the messy process of the flawed copies inherent in organic life?  .

But,  what if after I make these duplicates of myself, I die.  If the last spark of my consciousness activates the start up switch for my android body, it may be poetic, but does it represent a valid continuation of the original? No more memories or experiences accrue to my original body. It is hard for me to consider that a continuation of life much less an after life life even with 100 replications of me out possibly exploring the universe.. 

I would not argue that I could not make a duplicate of myself, just that it would not be an after life for  this me.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Nup i cant see anything lost

I don't think, again, that you've accounted for unique awareness; I think that is a huge thing to lose.  You essentially admit there is something to lose, you say the copies need to come together to share their minds, the reason they need to do that is because they are not sharing their awarenesses and sensory input and independent thoughts.  If you make 10 copies of yourself, lord help us all (jk ), and they scatter to the ends of the earth, you, the original, have no awareness of them; in that sense they are no more 'you' than any other person.  I agree with you, if you die from other people's perspective not as much has been lost; your specific uniqueness is gone but there are 10 other copies that are a lot like you still around to continue to spin tales small and tall.  But from your perspective, everything has been lost, you are at the exact same destination as if you had never copied yourself, you no longer will care or can have any satisfaction in your copies living on because there is no brain left operating to care.  Thus in the most important and selfish way, those copies are other people.  No matter how important you weigh that, something seems clearly to be lost.

The only way around it I think is to posit that something about us is unique and only transferable, and can't be copied, or that all copies are a supermind/organism with linked awareness, so that the death of one person is just the loss of sensory input.  Yes, your scenario may indeed be the most realistic way in which we can live on, but something clearly seems to be lost.  I and I'd guess most people would like there to be an afterlife of some kind, at least for a little while, especially if it is pleasant, but in contrast I don't know that I'd copy myself if your technology was available; in only one of those scenarios is there really anything in it for me post-death.

[SHaYap]

Let's drag the net a little further, consider "soul mate" 

Say, the clone is gender specific, would everyone end up marrying a version of themselves in an ultimate twist of narcissistic LGBTQ incestuous tendencies? 

~

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Let's drag the net a little further, consider "soul mate" 

Say, the clone is gender specific, would everyone end up marrying a version of themselves in an ultimate twist of narcissistic LGBTQ incestuous tendencies? 

~

That could make a great dark comedy. 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I think most of us understand lucid dreaming so it's not that much of a mystery in the greater sense. I think in part where trouble arises is when it is not made clear as to whether you are describing a dream or an event.

jmccr8

The point was i cannot prove to anyone what my dreams are or  how lucid they are, let alone if they involve real ( ie physical connection to things outside my mind)  Sure some peole luicid dream but tha t s not proof that i can or that i can construct and control my dreams 

 For me dreams can be just dreams, but some are  also  a connection to the cosmic consciousness, where through it, I can access other minds, travel  through space and time etc  Those can only be verified in the known environment, so you cant verify anything outside the solar system, for example. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

27 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

he only way around it I think is to posit that something about us is unique and only transferable, and can't be copied, or that all copies are a supermind/organism with linked awareness, so that the death of one person is just the loss of sensory input.  Yes, your scenario may indeed be the most realistic way in which we can live on, but something clearly seems to be lost.  I and I'd guess most people would like there to be an afterlife of some kind, at least for a little while, especially if it is pleasant, but in contrast I don't know that I'd copy myself if your technology was available; in only one of those scenarios is there really anything in it for me post-death.

Hi Liquid Gardens

Yes, good point and I have to wonder if for some that would favor this type of option for survival is if they chose and android body is it in part to make up for some self perceived concept of inadequacy be it physical or other that they feel that they could compensate for and still exist in the same known  environment?

I could see an application for space exploration where conservation of resources are limited and not having to supply food or oxygen, water, etc would allow they weight/space to transport tech or resources but I suspect that the personality  traits necessary to satisfy a successful transition would be quite limited and not a viable option for everyone.

Another issue I have is with genetic cloning is that there is a potential for the clone to not be a good candidate to clone from to continue a specific line  and there could potentially have to be a place to store original donor material, but who knows.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The point was i cannot prove to anyone what my dreams are or  how lucid they are, let alone if they involve real ( ie physical connection to things outside my mind)  Sure some peole luicid dream but tha t s not proof that i can or that i can construct and control my dreams 

Hi Walker

I am not sure as to why you feel a need to prove that you dream, nobody questions that. What is an issue for some is that you infer them to be real, the dream is the content isn't and may be aspects of your life that you are dealing with we don't know and that is why we ask and why I have created this thread. So you can actively and without constrict express you ideas so we can delve deeper into the Walker mystery unimpeded and see what challenges there are.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

We have broached this subject before and I will restate that aliens are not gods and as of yet there is no evidence to suggest that they have been here recently or in the past, besides You know that For me god is our ability to think,create and realize potential and that is something that can be observed , measured,  tested and recorded.

I am inclined to think that your belief does play a part in this as you must first believe that your experiences have the significance that you credit them for.

For me the ethics of it would be highly questionable and the movie "The Island" demonstrates this quite effectively, but I am interested in the number of feasible ways that you perceive that this could be done.

 

Yes that is my point and glad you brought it up.

 

The body and mind are what makes us human and the development of body and mind are dependent on each other and a clone would need that interaction to grow and develop, those experience of learning are unique to every living being and is not the same for all which is how we develop as a person so I do not see how one could avoid a clone from understanding it's self awareness. There are no shortcuts, it takes a certain amount of time for a body to develop so a clone would have to live a life until you decided that you needed it's body and the clones body is 25 yrs old when you need it and if your body is genetically weak and the source of donor material for the clone then you will need to continuously have other clones developing in order to ensure your continued existence because the clones body would likely have the same physical defects that you do because it is your dna.

But that is exactly what taking a clones self awareness does it kills it for the needs of another individual.

jmccr8

And i have always said that the y are not gods But that is what the y are often known as, and called, by humans who encounter them .

There is as much evidence that the y exist with us today as that the y visited in the past   

However, for an individual, present experiences with them   are more convincing than reading about past experiences by others

 Why  would i need to believe what i know or make more than wht is real  

I dont believe.

I know things by verification and some i cant verify, so i keep an open mind; neither believing nor disbelieving.

 None the less the experiences span over half a century and are extremely interesting educative and entertaining  i would like everyone to be able to have those experiences 

In theory a body could be kept perpetual in a state of non consciousness, like an induced coma, while it was physically growing and maturing; or it could be nurtured in an environment without sensory input so it never learned to think or be aware.

In future some neural connections could be temporarily severed to  prevent brain activity beyond that needed for autonomous body funcions  

For this to be ethical the clone would have to be grown  to a certain level of physical maturity WITHOUT its own self  aware consciousness Ie it would have no sense of being or identity  In the island the humans bred for body parts WERE self aware and self  directed which is what made it both morally wrong and an effective horror movie 

The island is probably old tech anyway We can now grow organs using stem cells and tissue to replace failing organs in a body rather  than rely on clones as a source.

   It is basic yet, but developing quickly  

[Tatetopa]

48 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The only way around it I think is to posit that something about us is unique and only transferable, and can't be copied, or that all copies are a supermind/organism with linked awareness, so that the death of one person is just the loss of sensory input. 

There is an thought..  If my 100 replicants were all linked so that they shared sensory inputs, parallel processed the data and stored it in memory accessible to all, then would the loss of one be just a reduced input, or would they, being me after all, grieve the loss of a part of the whole?  If I made a billion linked replicates, or a trillion,  assuming I had the enhanced capacity to multiplex all of those positional awarenesses and sensory inputs  would I approach omnipotence and omniscience?    Would I l be aware of the flight of every bird and grieve the loss of a single sparrow?  Well, you can see what I am driving at.  How would an advanced technology create a god if none existed?

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I am not sure as to why you feel a need to prove that you dream, nobody questions that. What is an issue for some is that you infer them to be real, the dream is the content isn't and may be aspects of your life that you are dealing with we don't know and that is why we ask and why I have created this thread. So you can actively and without constrict express you ideas so we can delve deeper into the Walker mystery unimpeded and see what challenges there are.

jmccr8

Its the old conundrum You accept/ believe i lucid dream, because it is within your experiences and understanding.

You struggle to believe other aspects, because the y are beyond your experiences and understandings.

.I get it, but can't do anything about it

The y sometimes are REAL. ie the y directly connect to other elements of the real, physical, and waking world, and can be proven to do so.  (but only to me, as i am the only one who lives the content of the dream and can thus test its connection to the real world)  

[onlookerofmayhem]

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I can access other minds, travel  through space and time etc  Those can only be verified in the known environment, so you cant verify anything outside the solar system, for example.

Go back in time and see how the pyramids were built. Find out who killed the Black Dhalia.

Please.

[Mr Walker]

23 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Liquid Gardens

Yes, good point and I have to wonder if for some that would favor this type of option for survival is if they chose and android body is it in part to make up for some self perceived concept of inadequacy be it physical or other that they feel that they could compensate for and still exist in the same known  environment?

I could see an application for space exploration where conservation of resources are limited and not having to supply food or oxygen, water, etc would allow they weight/space to transport tech or resources but I suspect that the personality  traits necessary to satisfy a successful transition would be quite limited and not a viable option for everyone.

Another issue I have is with genetic cloning is that there is a potential for the clone to not be a good candidate to clone from to continue a specific line  and there could potentially have to be a place to store original donor material, but who knows.

jmccr8

I would, especially after having lived so long in an organic body.

As long as the host had sensory inputs which could be used to learn, evolve, and grow through experience, an android body would be great (or much better than the alternative, anyway)

[Mr Walker]

17 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Go back in time and see how the pyramids were built. Find out who killed the Black Dhalia.

Please.

lol  Was waiting for someone to ask. That is a easy one. I saw it done.  Nothing magical or special, just known skills and technologies 

What i will say for now is, just think about it a bit, and consider the proximity of the Nile, and the Egyptians technology to move water and to carry heavy weights by boats using displacement   Also think about how they got the giant blocks to the sites in the first place  Plus you can move almost anything with a long enough lever and an adequate fulcrum. i've moved weights as great as those blocks (about 2..5 metric tons) alone, and by hand, using a lever, fulcrum, rollers   and time .

Never knew about the black dahlia (just googled it ) so never investigated it, and its a bit too time and place specific to easily access anyway. Also  not my area of interest or expertise.  

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, third_eye said:

Let's drag the net a little further, consider "soul mate" 

Say, the clone is gender specific, would everyone end up marrying a version of themselves in an ultimate twist of narcissistic LGBTQ incestuous tendencies? 

~

or might the y deliberately NOT choose a version of themselves, because they wanted something/one,  different to partner, and  to  complement their own skills, attitudes, and beliefs  Heck i love myself but i wouldn't want to be married to me.

My wife, being totally different to  me, adores me  

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And i have always said that the y are not gods But that is what the y are often known as, and called, by humans who encounter them .

Hi Walker

I understand that but the way you state it sounds like anyone not you would see them as gods and I am a not you and do not see them as gods nor do a great many that engage you.

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

There is as much evidence that the y exist with us today as that the y visited in the past

Okay you know the drill hands up against the wall and spread your feet  citations and links please.

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

However, for an individual, present experiences with them   are more convincing than reading about past experiences by others

Well,.. one should take into consideration that as of yet there are no verified cases so one can only presume that the incidents are so few and remote that supporting them would be tenuous. When we speak of evidence it should be evident that it can be observed, measured, quantified and qualified and repeatable so that is the base line for the use of evidence in the context of the thread. This does not mean don't express yourself rather be clear if it is an opinion or a perspective for consideration.

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 Why  would i need to believe what i know or make more than wht is real  

Do you believe in yourself if you don't you have no reason to know anything because you have no process between observing and knowing it's not like a cake where you can change up the recipe and still have a cake.

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I know things by verification and some i cant verify, so i keep an open mind; neither believing nor disbelieving.

You have to believe that they are what you think they are before you can know what it is and that is subjective experience.

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

None the less the experiences span over half a century and are extremely interesting educative and entertaining  i would like everyone to be able to have those experiences 

Of course and that is why this thread is here so we can explore that.

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In theory a body could be kept perpetual in a state of non consciousness, like an induced coma, while it was physically growing and maturing; or it could be nurtured in an environment without sensory input so it never learned to think or be aware.

Not likely, the body mind is a unit that is dependent on the full function of the unity the body needs the mind to develop through use and the mind needs the sensory input of the body in order to learn how to use it. If you use an accelerated grow to speed up development will the body continue to age at an accelerated rate and how would you control the effects?

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

For this to be ethical the clone would have to be grown  to a certain level of physical maturity WITHOUT its own self  aware consciousness Ie it would have no sense of being or identity 

Hmm,.. well,..ah How is it ethical to deny a human the right to be an individual even if they are genetic clones, they are not property and once a child leaves the womb it's first bond is broken and then raised to be a self-reliant individual being the genetic material as we are and can not be owned but a part of us.

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The island is probably old tech anyway We can now grow organs using stem cells and tissue to replace failing organs in a body rather  than rely on clones as a source.

Big diff an organ does not have the potential to be self aware.

jmccr8

[Dejarma]

any form of afterlife does not exist. I can live with this fact- seems others can't

[jmccr8]

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You struggle to believe other aspects, because the y are beyond your experiences and understandings.

Hi Walker

I am not struggling and me believing anything is not my purpose at this time, you have expressed some concepts over the years and they have been fragmented by the trail of dead threads lost in the encounters and skirmishes of the past. Here we can get everything in order and then get down to some serious business.

All I am doing at this point is trying to understand your experiences, how they occurred, what significance they held for you and if they are related to other incidents.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't think, again, that you've accounted for unique awareness; I think that is a huge thing to lose.  You essentially admit there is something to lose, you say the copies need to come together to share their minds, the reason they need to do that is because they are not sharing their awarenesses and sensory input and independent thoughts.  If you make 10 copies of yourself, lord help us all (jk ), and they scatter to the ends of the earth, you, the original, have no awareness of them; in that sense they are no more 'you' than any other person.  I agree with you, if you die from other people's perspective not as much has been lost; your specific uniqueness is gone but there are 10 other copies that are a lot like you still around to continue to spin tales small and tall.  But from your perspective, everything has been lost, you are at the exact same destination as if you had never copied yourself, you no longer will care or can have any satisfaction in your copies living on because there is no brain left operating to care.  Thus in the most important and selfish way, those copies are other people.  No matter how important you weigh that, something seems clearly to be lost.

The only way around it I think is to posit that something about us is unique and only transferable, and can't be copied, or that all copies are a supermind/organism with linked awareness, so that the death of one person is just the loss of sensory input.  Yes, your scenario may indeed be the most realistic way in which we can live on, but something clearly seems to be lost.  I and I'd guess most people would like there to be an afterlife of some kind, at least for a little while, especially if it is pleasant, but in contrast I don't know that I'd copy myself if your technology was available; in only one of those scenarios is there really anything in it for me post-death.

You wouldn't lose unique awareness It would be replicated in other hosts  (so it wouldn't be unique anymore but t would not be lost)  

Slowly it would diverge but to begin with, whether it was one new host, or many, all would have an identical unique  awareness  which had evolved  in your first mind  

Awareness is simply memory and current thought, and that is simply a pattern of neurological energy which we are able to self  direct  because we learn HOW to. 

Ps if this can be done, then it  would also be possible for  all the copies to be brought back together and all their new memories transferred so that each one learns and remembers the things the others learned and experienced in the interval.

Also you would not necessarily have any sense of death. Indeed the transfer could be done while you were still alive.  Every one of the individuals would BE you and have your entire memories and persona   You would live on in multiple copies each one believing  it was a continuation of the original  and actually being just that.

I still cant see what would be "lost"  if my mind or selff was simply transferred to another host.

   if anything my consciousness and slef would be expanded and enhanced, especially if we could all share our experiences and join our minds on a regular basis,  by ongoing memory transfer /sharing.  

I guess if you are not happy with your existing life you might not want to extend it. However imagine being twenty again, but with all the knowledge and experience you have now. 

[Dejarma]

41 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You struggle to believe other aspects, because the y are beyond your experiences and understandings.

yeah, that's me too.. now what?

[jmccr8]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I would, especially after having lived so long in an organic body.

As long as the host had sensory inputs which could be used to learn, evolve, and grow through experience, an android body would be great (or much better than the alternative, anyway)

Hi Walker

This is something that I have suspected for some time now. It is not just about sensory inputs but there are other factors involved. You are a socially dependent personality so you may not be able to cope with the perception change by humans around you and mentally in that aspect I would likely be a better candidate not saying I am a better person only that many aspects of my life are different given the environment I have lived in.Personally I wouldn't consider it an option unless there were significant extenuating circumstance with  A big "S"

jmccr8

[Dejarma]

43 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

an android body would be great (or much better than the alternative, anyway)

what alternative are you referring to?

[Mr Walker]

14 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I understand that but the way you state it sounds like anyone not you would see them as gods and I am a not you and do not see them as gods nor do a great many that engage you.

Okay you know the drill hands up against the wall and spread your feet  citations and links please.

Well,.. one should take into consideration that as of yet there are no verified cases so one can only presume that the incidents are so few and remote that supporting them would be tenuous. When we speak of evidence it should be evident that it can be observed, measured, quantified and qualified and repeatable so that is the base line for the use of evidence in the context of the thread. This does not mean don't express yourself rather be clear if it is an opinion or a perspective for consideration.

Do you believe in yourself if you don't you have no reason to know anything because you have no process between observing and knowing it's not like a cake where you can change up the recipe and still have a cake.

You have to believe that they are what you think they are before you can know what it is and that is subjective experience.

Of course and that is why this thread is here so we can explore that.

Not likely, the body mind is a unit that is dependent on the full function of the unity the body needs the mind to develop through use and the mind needs the sensory input of the body in order to learn how to use it. If you use an accelerated grow to speed up development will the body continue to age at an accelerated rate and how would you control the effects?

Hmm,.. well,..ah How is it ethical to deny a human the right to be an individual even if they are genetic clones, they are not property and once a child leaves the womb it's first bond is broken and then raised to be a self-reliant individual being the genetic material as we are and can not be owned but a part of us.

Big diff an organ does not have the potential to be self aware.

jmccr8

No It meant that, before humans reached our current level of technology, the ONLY way for a human to interpret such a contact was as if the beings were gods 

 

lol did i mean no evidence or did i mean the same quantity of evidence  All of this is individual experience based. You can read stories of such contact going back millennia and from the present.

i dont know how many similar experiences there are, but i have read dozens of them,  and the y form a common narrative for humans, since history was an oral tradition. 

i disagree i was specifically taught to think and analyse evidences objectively. i know some  modern theory says this is impossible, but it is not.  It s a skill rarely taught these days 

So one can objectively analyse and interpret evidences to arrive a t a factual conclusion, without being subjective in doing so. 

Of course there is a process between observing and knowing. Basically its applying  the scientific method  to what you observe

Even today humans remain unconscious in a coma sometimes for many years, before recovering (or dying   As we understand  the brain better, it will be easier to manipulate this on demand to shut off consciousness while maintaining  physical body function 

How ethical is it to abort babies before birth?

Humans do what social pressures and contemporary moralities allow them to.Once this is possible no one will be able to prevent it being used 

yep which is why organ growth will make the use of clones unnecessary.

it avoids any of the ethical and physical problems of growing clones for body parts 

[Mr Walker]

11 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yeah, that's me too.. now what?

Just pointing out. We believe what we find believable, and disbelieve what we find unbelievable. The difference lies in our own experiences with life  Thus we tend to believe lies which are believable and disbelieve truths we find unbelievable.

    We should check even the most believable claim as carefully as the least, partly because we are more likely  to be conned or mislead by believable claims, than unbelievable ones  

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i disagree i was specifically taught to think and analyse evidences objectively. i know some  modern theory says this is impossible, but it is not.  It s a skill rarely taught these days 

what are you on about???