Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
jmccr8

Afterlife, digital copies or clones

2,063 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

You are an objectified objectificator ! ( my turn to talk $hit now)

You hath overfloweth with abandon, my little flowery fruit of $hit... 

~

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

nah, you've lost it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

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. 

The beginning of the sentence contradicts the ending of the sentence. The you-that-is-not-a-copy ('you-zero" for short from now on in this post) has no perspective after the moment of loss. You-zero experiences what dying is like (I'm with Woody Allen on that, I don't want to be there when it happens), but then no thing. (or, as you mentioned in an earlier post, no thing in this neighborhood of space-time, maybe somewhere else).

In particular, there is no sense of loss and no sense of satisfaction anymore. But of what relevance is that to a discussion like this? I only care about the outcome now, beforehand. Whatever happens, you and I will have a different set of concerns after we die than we do now (possibly empty, possibly managerial responsibility for a grape-peeling operation, Joe Smith says we could each run our own planet - well, not Sherapy, but her hubby could, ...). Regardless of what the afterlife is, if I-zero or you-zero are going to have any earth-dweller-like satisfaction in it, then that satisfaction occurs now before death or not at all.

There's no question that such satisfaction is possible. People give restricted gifts to Harvard (and other charities) in their wills. That is, it's not just that people contribute to the survival of an organization "bigger than themselves," but continue to exercise their will within the collective beyond the grave.

For example, there is a scholarhip at Harvard only for people named Murphy. Guess how that happened? And did Mr Murphy-zero not enjoy the notion of influencing future humans that way? And if he did, when did he enjoy it? Before he died. (Regardless of whether he now looks down from heaven or up from wherever to admire his handiwork.)

Oh, I didn't make up that example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1935/11/18/murphy-scholarships-go-to-nine-deserving/

What if I wanted to exercise my will in a more complicated, nuanced way than choosing who gets my money? For example, I have many ideas about how to make life difficult for the historical Jesus guild, but nowhere near enough time that I-zero will ever see the day when the consensus of academics is "Jesus is a 50-50 proposition." I need an agent, somebody who knows everything I already do, whose very purpose is to exceed anything I have done, and even, yes, should we someday find Jesus' donkey-drivers' licence, to throw in the towel and admit my ("our") error.

It is not that a copy of me-zero is me, but rather in seeking an agent for this project, what better agent would there be? Since when do I not find myself being satisfied with the best I can do given the possibilities available to me?

It is very difficult to reason coherently about what it would be like not to be at all. Frankly, I don't think many believers think through what it would be like to be a human being without a body. In what sense is that me (me-zero or me at all)? And with all respect to @jmccr8, why would that state be perfection? Or, why would I expect my next "phase" to be everlasting? (That is, someday, I'll not only be without a body, I'll be without a Universe. WTF does that even mean?)

Bottom line, I think that the topic is more difficult than simply moaning about how annoyed atheists would be if you suggested that their beliefs about the world moving on without them was their idea of an "afterlife." Too bad. There's that, and there are other ideas besides that about in what sense "what we do in life echoes through eternity" (yeah, the writers of Gladiator cribbed that from actual ancient thinkers) than what Christians and Muslims prattle on about. Within that wider world of thought, Mr W is paddling with the mainstream for once. Deal with it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
39 minutes ago, third_eye said:

You seems to be experiencing some form of malfunction there, maybe you should download whatever you downloaded again

~

Liar, you always insisted on not having any weaknesses 

~

Might as well, a clone of yourself might just commit suicide at the first opportunity knowing it's a clone of you. 

~

You just did, one honest question, why doesn't your fantastically incredible alien godlike beings give your missus that kind of healing that they so constantly applies to you as you so claim so that your missus can also fully enjoy your superbly enjoyable personality , physically in a sexually pleasurable manner? They can't or won't? 

Was it her idea or yours? 

You are not hiding a clone of somebody for your naughty time are you? That's adulterous, even if it's just a clone with a copy of her consciousness downloaded into it's memory and not some specifically designed android for sexual functions, or more accurately, dysfunction. 

lol I have NEVER claimed to have no weaknesses I have many.  Still i guess i am kinda a superior human being :)  

You must have an incredibly low opinion of yourself to require validation and ego building  by knocking others.

An honest answer (using her opinion)   He gives her courage strength and stoicism to deal with what she has  

Also she believes she will be reborn in a perfect  new body on the new earth 

To her this life is pain and a trial because  we separated ourselves from  god.

Once reconnected there will be no pain, suffering or death  

to her sex is a pleasure of this world, legitimised by god in marriage, but like all material things less important then the spiritual aspects of life 

was what her idea or mine? 

(there wasn't any idea about not having sex it was simply too painful for her to do it, and no medical knowledge could help)

from what she says. The world is as it is because mankind sinned. God can give us strength,  courage, etc., to survive. He can enable us to be happy, even joyous, under difficult circumstances, but we caused the sin and he cant undo it until the resurrection 

I do not have the same religious beliefs she was brought up a biblical creationist person from  the age of abut 6 She attended regious schools until she was about 15/16,  working to pay her way, as a teenager and she worked most of her pre-married life as a ledger machinist  (Book/accounts keeper)  in church offices and shops , (indeed i have none)  but i respect and value   hers,  and support her in hers, because they help her, and empower her,  and make her the incredible woman that she is  

Those are YOUR libidinous thoughts :)   But as a thought bubble

It would not be adultery if  her mind was uploaded into a clone of her. after she  "died".  Indeed this is sort of what she expects with death and resurrection . 

She would be the same  woman I married and made vows to, and she would know and remember that, as i would. 

 Just because i have   a few bionic parts doesn't make me a different man to the one she married.   and no I would not, and have not, used any form of sex doll,  either traditional or robotic  As you say, It would also be breaking my vow to her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The beginning of the sentence contradicts the ending of the sentence. The you-that-is-not-a-copy ('you-zero" for short from now on in this post) has no perspective after the moment of loss. You-zero experiences what dying is like (I'm with Woody Allen on that, I don't want to be there when it happens), but then no thing. (or, as you mentioned in an earlier post, no thing in this neighborhood of space-time, maybe somewhere else).

In particular, there is no sense of loss and no sense of satisfaction anymore. But of what relevance is that to a discussion like this? I only care about the outcome now, beforehand. Whatever happens, you and I will have a different set of concerns after we die than we do now (possibly empty, possibly managerial responsibility for a grape-peeling operation, Joe Smith says we could each run our own planet - well, not Sherapy, but her hubby could, ...). Regardless of what the afterlife is, if I-zero or you-zero are going to have any earth-dweller-like satisfaction in it, then that satisfaction occurs now before death or not at all.

There's no question that such satisfaction is possible. People give restricted gifts to Harvard (and other charities) in their wills. That is, it's not just that people contribute to the survival of an organization "bigger than themselves," but continue to exercise their will within the collective beyond the grave.

For example, there is a scholarhip at Harvard only for people named Murphy. Guess how that happened? And did Mr Murphy-zero not enjoy the notion of influencing future humans that way? And if he did, when did he enjoy it? Before he died. (Regardless of whether he now looks down from heaven or up from wherever to admire his handiwork.)

Oh, I didn't make up that example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1935/11/18/murphy-scholarships-go-to-nine-deserving/

What if I wanted to exercise my will in a more complicated, nuanced way than choosing who gets my money? For example, I have many ideas about how to make life difficult for the historical Jesus guild, but nowhere near enough time that I-zero will ever see the day when the consensus of academics is "Jesus is a 50-50 proposition." I need an agent, somebody who knows everything I already do, whose very purpose is to exceed anything I have done, and even, yes, should we someday find Jesus' donkey-drivers' licence, to throw in the towel and admit my ("our") error.

It is not that a copy of me-zero is me, but rather in seeking an agent for this project, what better agent would there be? Since when do I not find myself being satisfied with the best I can do given the possibilities available to me?

It is very difficult to reason coherently about what it would be like not to be at all. Frankly, I don't think many believers think through what it would be like to be a human being without a body. In what sense is that me (me-zero or me at all)? And with all respect to @jmccr8, why would that state be perfection? Or, why would I expect my next "phase" to be everlasting? (That is, someday, I'll not only be without a body, I'll be without a Universe. WTF does that even mean?)

Bottom line, I think that the topic is more difficult than simply moaning about how annoyed atheists would be if you suggested that their beliefs about the world moving on without them was their idea of an "afterlife." Too bad. There's that, and there are other ideas besides that about in what sense "what we do in life echoes through eternity" (yeah, the writers of Gladiator cribbed that from actual ancient thinkers) than what Christians and Muslims prattle on about. Within that wider world of thought, Mr W is paddling with the mainstream for once. Deal with it.

good post but i dont get one point 

Regardless of what the afterlife is, if I-zero or you-zero are going to have any earth-dweller-like satisfaction in it, then that satisfaction occurs now before death or not at all.

we will remember our life and our loved ones and families after death and resurrection  (both the biblical and technological varieties) Indeed if the y are also resurrected (saved)  we will return to living with them   Why would that being not take GREAT satisfaction in regaining life and going on living it, and being reunited with lost loved ones  

Whose doctrine is it, that after resurrection, we will not have bodies, and indeed take human form on the new earth.

Biblically we are given back both body and soul,  and recommence a life very much like that lived by adam and eve, before the fall (including having sex and children, but without pain or suffering or death ) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, Habitat said:

When I was working in a place with a few "old" guys in their 50's ( they seem old when you're 20) and they would say stuff like that, I'd think they were crazy. Still reckon they were that little bit crazy ! Probably all the smoking they were doing

 There are many pleasures in life equal to, or better than, even the best sex. Being truly loved and loving another is just one of them.  A good MLT sandwich is another

. True love is the greatest thing in the world-except for a nice MLT — mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe." -The Princess Bride”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol I have NEVER claimed to have no weaknesses I have many.  Still i guess i am kinda a superior human being :)  

A superior liar is all that you have been shown to be. 

~

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You must have an incredibly low opinion of yourself to require validation and ego building  by knocking others.

Knock knock? 

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"

The incredibly low is my conclusion of what is you and yours in regards to claims and bloated aggrandizing,  thank you very much

~

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

An honest answer (using her opinion)   He gives her courage strength and stoicism to deal with what she has  

He?  Is this the same one with the three nipples? 

~

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Also she believes she will be reborn in a perfect  new body on the new earth 

To her this life is pain and a trial because  we separated ourselves from  god.

Once reconnected there will be no pain, suffering or death  

to her sex is a pleasure of this world, legitimised by god in marriage, but like all material things less important then the spiritual aspects of life 

Good for her, I wish her all the best, God knows she deserved it after all these years putting down with you

~

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

was what her idea or mine? 

(there wasn't any idea about not having sex it was simply too painful for her to do it, and no medical knowledge could help)

from what she says. The world is as it is because mankind sinned. God can give us strength,  courage, etc., to survive. He can enable us to be happy, even joyous, under difficult circumstances, but we caused the sin and he cant undo it until the resurrection 

I do not have the same religious beliefs she was brought up a biblical creationist person from  the age of abut 6 She attended regious schools until she was about 15/16,  working to pay her way, as a teenager and she worked most of her pre-married life as a ledger machinist  (Book/accounts keeper)  in church offices and shops , (indeed i have none)  but i respect and value   hers,  and support her in hers, because they help her, and empower her,  and make her the incredible woman that she is  

Thanks for sharing your fantasy but too much info truth be told, that should be her private bits between her private stuff, but hey, she puts up with you so, fondle away... 

~

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Those are YOUR libidinous thoughts :)   But as a thought bubble

It would not be adultery if  her mind was uploaded into a clone of her. after she  "died".  Indeed this is sort of what she expects with death and resurrection . 

She would be the same  woman I married and made vows to, and she would know and remember that, as i would. 

A clone is the same you say, maybe you should leave that to Her and her God and not you as her God 

~

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 Just because i have   a few bionic parts doesn't make me a different man to the one she married.   and no I would not, and have not, used any form of sex doll,  either traditional or robotic  As you say, It would also be breaking my vow to her. 

A few parts does not a clone, or a man make, if you respected vows, which I very much doubt that you do, the thought of a uploaded or downloaded substitute measures the same on the adulterous scale, better you check your screws on your bionic lies. 

~

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

And yet you have said that you would keep a clone and use it as you see fit, to me that implies that it is seen as a possession. Here is a thought you wipe a clone of it's being and replace it with you then someone decides that they need your body and wants to evict you and take possession what is the difference between hitting the delete button on either one of you in that instance?

jmccr8

when did i say that  i doubt it, as it goes against my ethics and beliefs 

 Ah yes a clone is not a human being unless/until it has slef aware consciousness (the pint i was trying to make about unborn babies) 

You cant take rights away from  a being who doesn't have them,  and you cant hurt a being who is unaware of self  or being harmed  becsue it has never become conscious .

Once a clone has its own self awre consciousness (any consciousness either its own or anothers' ) then it is a human with all the rights protections and duties of an adult human Until then it is like an unborn child and, because it is unconscious,and has never been conscious of self   peole accept killing it or imprinting a consciousness upon it 

Thus don't "wipe a clone of its being"  It is never allowed to develop one. The difference is the same as the difference between kiling an unborn child and a conscious awre child.

Ps i hve some sympathy for voluntary euthanasia of humans who have lost all sense of self  awareness My wife badly wants this for herself But it would have to be protected by things like living wills and consents given before the person lost their awareness (through accident/injury or disease) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
13 minutes ago, third_eye said:

The incredibly low is my conclusion of what is you and yours in regards to claims and bloated aggrandizing,  thank you very much

~

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
18 minutes ago, third_eye said:

A superior liar is all that you have been shown to be. 

~

Knock knock? 

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"

The incredibly low is my conclusion of what is you and yours in regards to claims and bloated aggrandizing,  thank you very much

~

He?  Is this the same one with the three nipples? 

~

Good for her, I wish her all the best, God knows she deserved it after all these years putting down with you

~

Thanks for sharing your fantasy but too much info truth be told, that should be her private bits between her private stuff, but hey, she puts up with you so, fondle away... 

~

A clone is the same you say, maybe you should leave that to Her and her God and not you as her God 

~

A few parts does not a clone, or a man make, if you respected vows, which I very much doubt that you do, the thought of a uploaded or downloaded substitute measures the same on the adulterous scale, better you check your screws on your bionic lies. 

~

Ive answered your questions honestly, as you asked me to, using her beliefs and values You choose to mock us both 

I will let others decide what that says about our comparative honesty  and characters 

You are nothing more than a troll and, going by your posts which may or may not represent your true self, nothing but an ugly, hate filled one, who is bitter at their world and those in it  i will continue to reply to you but not to feed you Only to point out your nature and character and the weakness and bareness of your responses :)   

You make so many errors, perhaps based on your own cultural indoctrination My wife and i are equal human beings  We are a team which together is greater and stronger than  either of  us as individuals 

I dont tell her anything or try to compel her to think or act, other than as she wants to.

  My job is to love honour protect and provide for her.

  He r job is to love honour  and provide for me companionship  and friendship as i do for her.

She chooses to be a home maker and never  worked for money  after we married  but spent long hours as a carer for children and her parent in our home  and more hours making the house a home, filled with love beauty and warmth  Both our house, and an acre and a half of   gardens, were a team effort, but the beauty of them was down to her more than me. 

You got just one thing right 

I am a fortunate man to have found and married a woman of her character  "virtue"   and energy  Indeed she puts up with a lot,  yet in 50 yeas she has never looked at another man nor been anything less than a loving wife . 

She is a very intelligent woman, so i guess she must at least have seen some glimmer of potential in me, to agree to marry me, given our age difference and otter complications.   

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

we will remember our life and our loved ones and families after death and resurrection  (both the biblical and technological varieties) Indeed if the y are also resurrected (saved)  we will return to living with them 

That's two different thoughts in one sentence. In the typical Adventist translation of the Protestant-canon Bible, that's how the afterlife is pictured. I don't dispute that that's what the specific depiction is, but I don't believe that the depiction is an accurate forecast. We'll see, or not, right?

As to the technological varieties, there are a few different ones on the table here. I go with the "transporter" scenario, because it's the simplest for me to think about. In that scenario, the current Picard is fully convinced that he is "the same person" as Picard-zero, in part because he lives in a society that agrees with him about that, indeed that's where he got the idea in the first place, from his upbringing in such a society. He thinks he remembers all that Picard-zero ever did, as much as the foibles of long-term memory allow anybody in our world to recall their autobiography accurately. Whom Picard-zero loved, Picard-now loves, etc.

Either way, the only satisfaction we can now detect resides in the satisfaction of the now living. It is not a valid objection to the realism or relevance of any scenario whether our current view of what our future selves will be like will be shared by our future selves looking back on us.

That is, in the scenarios where the copied us do remember having once been the current us. Presumably, future selves would experience satisfaction with their then-current existence, plus with whatever (if anything) they remember of their antecedents' existence.

Here and now, I can feel happy for them, but whether I am them is a different question. If I lived all my life in a society where taking a transporter was as common as taking a bus or subway is for the real me, then I can well imagine that I'd accept my current often-transported self as me-zero, to the probably limited extent that I thought about the issue at all.

Hope that helps.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
26 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That's two different thoughts in one sentence. In the typical Adventist translation of the Protestant-canon Bible, that's how the afterlife is pictured. I don't dispute that that's what the specific depiction is, but I don't believe that the depciction is an accurate forecast. We'll see, or not, right?

As to the technological varieties, there are a few different ones on the table here. I go with the "transporter" scenario, because it's the simplest for me to think about. In that scenario, the current Picard is fully convinced that he is "the same person" as Picard-zero, in part because he lives in a society that agrees with him about that, indeed that's where he got the idea in the first place, from his upbringing in such a society. He thinks he remembers all that Picard-zero ever did, as much as the foibles of long-term memory allow anybody in our world to recall their autobiography accurately. Whom Picard-zero loved, Picard-now loves, etc.

Either way, the only satisfaction we can now detect resides in the satisfaction of the now living. It is not a valid objection to the realism or relevance of any scenario whether our current view of what our future selves will be like will be shared by our future selves looking back on us.

That is, in the scenarios where the copied us do remember having once been the current us. Presumably, future selves would experience satisfaction with their then-current existence, plus with whatever (if anything) they remember of their antecedents' existence.

Here and now, I can feel happy for them, but whether I am them is a different question. If I lived all my life in a society where taking a transporter was as common as taking a bus or subway is for the real me, then I can well imagine that I'd accept my current often-transported self as me-zero, to the probably limited extent that I thought about the issue at all.

Hope that helps.

Not just Adventist.  Bodily resurrection is part of the Nicene creed ad is accepted by many christian faiths including orthodox Christians  From wide study it is a popular idea in all biblical based christian religions.

  Indeed i had never really encountered the concept  that  we would become some sort of spirit creatures upon Resurrection  But then maybe its a catholic belief and i never really got into the study of that faith 

Some believe we sleep until resurrection some believe we go to heaven for a brief period  but are eventually housed on the new earth  

You have jumped into a philosophical debate on star trek that i dont know even existed in the minds of the writers  Originally the transmat beam simply dematerialsed you (it didnt  kill or destroy you ) and sent your particles to a destination   (the same concept  was used very successfully in  the star gate series but there a specific "gate " was used to transport the people using wormhole technology  

Over time some other concepts came in as to what might happen if the  beam was interrupted or weakened (where, if anywhere, would the particles go ) 

More modern iterations of trek may go deeper into the issues   Basically the new Picard IS the old Picard; his molecules have simply  been transported from one location to another. There is no "thinking " he is the same being , he IS.  There is no past or future self, except as there is with all of us, as we passage through time  

The clone or replicant IS the original being in every important sense. Even if a dozen copies are made There is no way to tell one from another  at the moment of replication  (unless specific biomarkers are built into the process, as in blade runner  ) 

if you take one of the new jets for a non stop flight from New  York to Sydney and arrived 19 hours later  having slept through the journey you have progressed through time but not changed your being. If you took a transmat beam it would be just the same 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

See the source image

You are all the stalk of laughing fruity medication blooms I need, you are stalking me quite well, want a tummy tickle? My appalling stalking mutt? Left sock right foot? 

~

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ive answered your questions honestly, as you asked me to, using her beliefs and values You choose to mock us both 

Not my fault that you make a mockery of your beliefs and values, lying some more doesn't really help you any. 

~

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I will let others decide what that says about our comparative honesty  and characters 

I can decide for myself if you stop deciding for everyone else... 

~

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You are nothing more than a troll and, going by your posts which may or may not represent your true self, nothing but an ugly, hate filled one, who is bitter at their world and those in it  i will continue to reply to you but not to feed you Only to point out your nature and character and the weakness and bareness of your responses :)   

Sounds more like you're projecting what you've been doing and what we've been saying you are doing all these years, lying about it on top of denying it died not change anything or makes you right. 

~

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You make so many errors, perhaps based on your own cultural indoctrination My wife and i are equal human beings  We are a team which together is greater and stronger than  either of  us as individuals 

I don't believe you, not that I don't believe your wife, if she exists. 

~

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont tell her anything or try to compel her to think or act, other than as she wants to.

  My job is to love honour protect and provide for her.

  He r job is to love honour  and provide for me companionship  and friendship as i do for her.

She chooses to be a home maker and never  worked for money  after we married  but spent long hours as a carer for children and her parent in our home  and more hours making the house a home, filled with love beauty and warmth  Both our house, and an acre and a half of   gardens, were a team effort, but the beauty of them was down to her more than me. 

You got just one thing right 

I am a fortunate man to have found and married a woman of her character  "virtue"   and energy  Indeed she puts up with a lot,  yet in 50 yeas she has never looked at another man nor been anything less than a loving wife . 

She is a very intelligent woman, so i guess she must at least have seen some glimmer of potential in me, to agree to marry me, given our age difference and otter complications.   

You leave the otters out of this, they don't give a dam

~

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

You are all the stalk of laughing fruity medication blooms I need, you are stalking me quite well, want a tummy tickle? My appalling stalking mutt? Left sock right foot? 

~

Not my fault that you make a mockery of your beliefs and values, lying some more doesn't really help you any. 

~

I can decide for myself if you stop deciding for everyone else... 

~

Sounds more like you're projecting what you've been doing and what we've been saying you are doing all these years, lying about it on top of denying it died not change anything or makes you right. 

~

I don't believe you, not that I don't believe your wife, if she exists. 

~

You leave the otters out of this, they don't give a dam

~

ha ha love your last comment  The otters were a complication. Indeed they did give a dam  but we built a bridge..  . 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel
On 11/6/2019 at 8:42 PM, 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.

 

The afterlife exists and it's very different than Mr Walker's idea.

Technology is considered very primitive when we reach the next level of consciousness!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ha ha love your last comment  The otters were a complication. Indeed they did give a dam  but we built a bridge..  . 

Nice try, still a bridge too far, and no, there is nothing complicated about the otters, they never gave a dam, they made the dang dam. 

~

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
9 minutes ago, LightAngel said:

 

The afterlife exists and it's very different than Mr Walker's idea.

Technology is considered very primitive when we reach the next level of consciousness!

 

Regardless, I think biotechnology is more an extension of life by definition rather than afterlife. 

Its certainly very removed from the classic idea of what the average person associates with the term afterlife. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Really interesting mockumentary with Adam Savage from mythbusters which portrays what it would be like if everything was to progress how Mr Walker describes.

Dead set, I'd recommend a watch. I found it interesting. I actually saw this some time ago. 

I think it's as titled here, an extention of life, not an afterlife. 

 

Can you live forever?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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  

No, they would all have different awarenesses, always, two clones cannot occupy the same space so each copy will have different sensory inputs.  They diverge as soon as they look in different directions, we may be able to add another clones memories to mine, but it is extremely questionable whether our current brains can handle processing 10 different sets of sensory inputs.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Every one of the individuals would BE you and have your entire memories and persona

They'd have my memories and persona, but they are not me; you're not really engaging with my points and are just restating what I already responded to. You clone yourself and make Walker1, for a moment all your memories are in sync. The clone walks out the door never to be seen again; how can that be 'you' if the original you has no idea where the clone is, if it's even alive, etc?  Thus that's not 'you', that's a copy of you; if it was you, you'd be able to tell us something about it, like it's current location.  A minute after the clone leaves you croak; just as when you were alive, you still don't have any awareness of the clone.  If this clone is not you when you're both alive, which it clearly is not since your awareness of what they are experiencing is as unknown as if it was a totally different person, then it can't be you when you're dead either.  Where is the flaw here?  I understand that you are free to simply label all copies of you as 'you', but since you don't have any knowledge or experience of them unless we are in one of your sync processes, they then can't be you and there is obviously something that is not shared between you and thus something is lost when you specifically die.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

However imagine being twenty again, but with all the knowledge and experience you have now. 

In your scenario I won't be twenty again, a clone or a twin will be. Again, I will have no awareness after my death whether I have clones or not, I won't care, I won't experience anything.  What's going on with the clones is as unknown as when we were both alive.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Currently hypotheses on mind uploading often expect the original mind would be destroyed by the upload, perhaps multiple copies would not be viable either. It's a lot of information, and then there's the system itself. Would a brain network designed to operate in an organic environment function the same way in an electronic environment? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And I think he assumed  that somehow I have less experience of life, especially practical experience in the world.

I dispute that,  but i believe he took how he PERCEIVES me to be and ran with that   The perception has some truth but a lot of error. 

your last  comment is value based jumbled nonsense

Somehow you imply that my  (perceived) lack of experience means i lack  confidence and competence, and thus have to seek it online Nothing could be further from the truth   My life has bred in me almost total confidence and competence in my life. Thanks to my parents teaching and belief in me  I've known since i was a child that there is nothing i could not achieve if i put my mind to it, and was prepared to invest the time and effort required to achieve it.

  Just because i chose one path in life which suited my personality and love of people and teaching  doesn't mean i haven't lived other lives within  that path  or that i dont have the confidence and skills to live and survive almost anywhere. (getting a bit old for that now but could still do so if i had to) :)  eg put me on a desert  island and i could make fire,   hunt fish trap and desalinate water  using only the resources on the island  to survive. I could make water catchments and shelters and cooking utensils. 

Put me in the city without a home or any money  and i wouldn't like it much but i could survive, maybe even more easily, because there are more resources to hand, and because i am very good with people.

Whats popularity got to do with anything?

 First be yourself and stay true to yourself.  If that makes you popular, so be it. if it makes you unpopular, then still be yourself .       

I wasn’t talking about you. 
 

I was making an observation about Jay.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol its perfectly  normal You are conditioned to believe sex is very important  and indeed more important than  many other human needs.

It is NOT 

There are many circumstances where a couple has a good normal marriage without sex.

It is more common in older people but found across all age groups.  

Indeed historically, apart from producing children, many women were not required to have sex with their  husbands, because that pleasure (or duty)   fell  to the mistress or  a prostitute.

  Newsweek polls indicate that about 20 % of modern couples have a sex less marriage and another 20% report having sex only a few times a year (there may be some overlap here as a sexless marriage is sometimes defined as one with very rare sexual intimacy ) 

I have no issue with agreeing to disagree. I was just putting it on the table that sexless marriage is not the norm.

Each to their own. 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
On 11/6/2019 at 4:41 PM, 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.

robocop-2-1990-12.jpg

Image result for tom cruise tech support gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And I think he assumed  that somehow I have less experience of life, especially practical experience in the world.

I dispute that,  but i believe he took how he PERCEIVES me to be and ran with that   The perception has some truth but a lot of error. 

your last  comment is value based jumbled nonsense

Somehow you imply that my  (perceived) lack of experience means i lack  confidence and competence, and thus have to seek it online Nothing could be further from the truth   My life has bred in me almost total confidence and competence in my life. Thanks to my parents teaching and belief in me  I've known since i was a child that there is nothing i could not achieve if i put my mind to it, and was prepared to invest the time and effort required to achieve it.

  Just because i chose one path in life which suited my personality and love of people and teaching  doesn't mean i haven't lived other lives within  that path  or that i dont have the confidence and skills to live and survive almost anywhere. (getting a bit old for that now but could still do so if i had to) :)  eg put me on a desert  island and i could make fire,   hunt fish trap and desalinate water  using only the resources on the island  to survive. I could make water catchments and shelters and cooking utensils. 

Put me in the city without a home or any money  and i wouldn't like it much but i could survive, maybe even more easily, because there are more resources to hand, and because i am very good with people.

Whats popularity got to do with anything?

 First be yourself and stay true to yourself.  If that makes you popular, so be it. if it makes you unpopular, then still be yourself .       

From an evolutionary cloned perspective, popularity would matter in having an ability to get long, compromise, and adapt to changing circumstances this would help garner basic trust in ones competence. 
 

It’s ones demonstrated competence that lends to an overall confidence. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
On 11/6/2019 at 7:42 PM, 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

I`m going to take a different stance entirely.

We have meta materials and already use them to create crude invisibility devices. Give it 50 years and we should be able to create a room with which no electro-magnetic radiation passes through the ways. A room which is essentially cut off from all heat transfer between the inside and outside. That should in principle cause objects locked in the room to behave quantum mechanically.

Next, we dig up peoples bones from their graves, we load them into the device inside out `meta-room` which recovers a viable cell, reanimates it, and 3D prints the person onto their bone. This is all done with the bone and machine locked in the room to prevent all heat transfer with the outside world.

Hence, when finished printing we dont have a 3D printed clone. We instead have a 3D printed quantum clone. One which I will predict that due to the `meta-room` will come complete with all the memories and personality of the dead person.

In the Bible there are two waves of resurrection. I predict that 1st wave are people with skeletal remains. I predict the 2nd wave are those who got cremated or for which no remains exist. That, my dear friend, will require time travel and come much later.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.