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

Sherapy
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 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”

Some people have both, love and sexual intimacy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
24 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

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.

I was with you until the regaining memories and personality. Is that stored in bones? or somehow tied to them through some spiritual/as yet undefined scientific process?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
6 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

I was with you until the regaining memories and personality. Is that stored in bones? or somehow tied to them through some spiritual/as yet undefined scientific process?

Tied to the dead person who is linked to their bone cells through quantum entanglement.

We basically quantum teleport the persons mind from the past into the new clone via the bones.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

In particular, there is no sense of loss and no sense of satisfaction anymore.

Great, then you agree with me.  If you are just pointing out that I shouldn't use the word 'perspective' for a time when we're dead, duly noted. I agree with you that these topics are difficult to discuss but to be honest I don't see you being any more successful at providing absolute clarity either.  Your post specifically seems to have muddied the waters significantly.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

But of what relevance is that to a discussion like this? I only care about the outcome now, beforehand.

Okay, but you realize I was replying to Walker here and not you?  "Nothing is lost", 'you are just your memories and persona', 'clones with your downloaded memories are 'you' ', etc, that would be the relevance.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

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.

You of course don't know that, you don't know anything about heaven.  Having peeled grapes fed to me by nubile virgins sounds immensely satisfying, YMMV.  And that satisfaction is solidly 'earth-dweller-like'; I'm pretty sure why that was what was driving the creation of this conception in the first place.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

People give restricted gifts to Harvard

You'll have to point out for me where I said anything at all that intersects or disagrees with or depends on philanthropy, speaking of relevance to the discussion.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

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?

Why are you asking me these questions, you are talking about something else? Regarding the first part before the comma, here's Walker: "Every one of the individuals would BE you".  So yea, it is that a copy of me-zero is me, at least to the person I was replying to.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

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

Agreed, to not 'be' is difficult to work with, ergo my use of the word of 'perspective' for a situation where technically, pedantically, there is none.  I don't have as much trouble with the concept of a human being without a body, I've seen and grokked The Matrix and don't seem to have much in the way of struggles with the concept of brains in jars.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

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."

I'd say that's a rather misleading summation, quote me where I even used the word 'atheist'.  I used the word 'non-believer'; considering how much some 'moan' about the conflation of 'atheist' with other flavors of non-believers you'd think more care would be taken to be accurate.  I'm willing to open that up; I'm willing to say that the percentage of of English speakers who term the fact that their nation lives on after their death as an 'afterlife' is incredibly low, and to a lot of them yes, an eye-roll has been earned, because duh.  No one, especially me, has said that anyone cannot do things that satisfy them now even though those things won't reach fruition until after their death.  But since they are as you admit dead, then that seems a little off from the direction set by the OP.

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Within that wider world of thought, Mr W is paddling with the mainstream for once. Deal with it.

Deal with what?  That people can ultimately define words any way they want to?  Are no objections to those definitions allowed?  That can't be the case of course again due to your past responses to being referred to as an 'atheist'.  With what specifically, which of his ideas, is Walker paddling with the mainstream, and what mainstream?  He says a lot obviously so please be very specific.  I'm pretty sure that the mainstream doesn't include scenarios where one has no awareness ever again of anything as an 'afterlife'.  Language is determined by committee so to your point, I'd like to know which decent size group refers to a nation living on after a citizen's death, 'the afterlife'.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I agree with you that these topics are difficult to discuss but to be honest I don't see you being any more successful at providing absolute clarity either. 

Mmm, but if I succeeded in achieving absolute clarity in so short a space, then that would contradict my claim that the matters are difficult to discuss. Since I can't win, be generous with me that I play the game at all.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Your post specifically seems to have muddied the waters significantly.

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

Basically, and this will go for @Mr Walker as well, anything I am fully persuaded is me is me for any personal purpose (and so for each of you as well, with respect to yourselves especially if social institutions around us are crafted on similar assumptions). If, as he surveys his future (and assuming for a moment that the required tech is "just around the corner"), he views himself in the same or a similar kind of relationship to his clone or uploaded whatever as his 20 year-old self imagined himself to have been in relation to the flesh-and-blood man we all know and love today, then the matter is settled, for him.

What works for him doesn't work for you? Why would this subject be different than a thousand others?

The topic doesn't mesh with the topic you'd like to have (something more like how atheists interact with Christian and Muslim apologists on the subject of what happens to people after they die)? There's a button for that.

As to your challenges of relevance; relevance is much like humor; it suffers when it needs to be explained, and the explanation itself is neither funny nor relevant. I stand by the comments that I made, noting your objections with thanks.

I acknowledge that I accepted the risk of sticking to the widely discussed "transporter problem," rather than delving into the minutiae of the various Walkerian scenarios. For example, all my posts here are predicated on the frequently announced assumption that there is only one current instance of any given person in the ordinary and usual course of affairs. Mr Walker's speculations about the relationship among plural clones are secondary to the topic question, which concerns whether or not any of them can be said to continue Mr W's life and self, and if so, in what sense.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'd say that's a rather misleading summation, quote me where I even used the word 'atheist'. 

If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it. Quote me where I even used the name "Liquid Gardens."

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That people can ultimately define words any way they want to?

People can negotiate the meaning of words in a discussion. Mr Walker has been perfectly clear that his technological "afterlife" isn't the same as what he apparently assumes is the only valid Biblical "afterlife." That's the offer. You can counteroffer if you like, or there's that button I mentioned if your heart is set on discussing only the conceptions of afterlife that interest you.

I appreciate that on other occasions, Mr Walker has exceeded the bounds of negotiation in his quirky usages of words. In this instance, however, it is the Christians and Muslims who are among the latecomers to the discussion, their counterapologists later still. You can thwap him as you please for whatever you please, and Gawdnose Walker and I are no team. But I take his point, see ample precedent for it in the history of ideas, and frame my own posts accordingly.

Deal with that, and don't pretend you don't know what I'm urging you to do.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
12 minutes ago, eight bits said:

he views himself in the same or a similar kind of relationship to his clone or uploaded whatever as his 20 year-old self imagined himself to have been in relation to the flesh-and-blood man we all know and love today, then the matter is settled, for him.

In other words...he is delusional.  Noted.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

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? 

~

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Since I can't win, be generous with me that I play the game at all.

Then be generous when I use 'perspective' in reference to a time when you're technically dead.  Maybe I'm wrong, I won't claim to be clear, but it's hard for me to believe you didn't know what I was talking about.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

What works for him doesn't work for you? Why would this subject be different than a thousand others?

Nothing.  What's your issue with my responding to him here then?  I don't see anything different about this conversation than others I, and you, have had with him on things that are nonetheless also settled 'for him', so why are you picking on this thread as an exception?  I don't know why you are even mentioning this stuff to me, it's out of left field from my perspective.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

The topic doesn't mesh with the topic you'd like to have (something more like how atheists interact with Christian and Muslim apologists on the subject of what happens to people after they die)? There's a button for that.

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."  

You are definitely misreading me, I'm not looking to discuss the topic of how atheists interact with Christian and Muslim apologists, again I've never mentioned atheists I don't think I've mentioned Abrahamic-specific religions at all, so I have no clue what you are referring to and why you keep bringing either of these things up.  I'm semi-familiar with non-Abrahamic religions' conception of the afterlife, and a lot of them (maybe not Buddhism) also seem to deal with something unique, a self or soul, that doesn't seem to work well in Walker's conception which essentially involves multiple selves and souls that are all 'you'.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

I acknowledge that I accepted the risk of sticking to the widely discussed "transporter problem," rather than delving into the minutiae of the various Walkerian scenarios.

Great, that's cool, but it makes your comments about how 'the topic doesn't mesh with the topic that (you are imagining) I'd like to have' kinda weird and inexplicable.  Walker is mentioned by name in the OP, I have addressed specific things he has said, so how is my discussion of how can something be 'you' that you have no awareness from any more off-topic than the transporter problem?  When you want to discuss specific aspects of the topic that are actually a step removed from the topic, like the transporter problem, that's cool; when I want to discuss specific aspects of the topic that are also (maybe) a step removed from the topic, you tell me there's a button for it.  WTF?

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it. Quote me where I even used the name "Liquid Gardens."

"14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:".  Did someone else say something that has been interpreted by you as atheists 'simply moaning' about what constitutes an 'afterlife'?  Or is the process of elimination an invalid heuristic?

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

You can counteroffer if you like, or there's that button I mentioned if your heart is set on discussing only the conceptions of afterlife that interest you.

If you really think I'm off-topic then there's also a button you can use, have at it.  For now, I'm totally free to notice the incredibly significant differences between an afterlife where awareness continues (even if it's delayed) and one where it doesn't.  Nowhere will you find me telling anyone to not discuss any conception of the afterlife they want.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

But I take his point, see ample precedent for it in the history of ideas, and frame my own posts accordingly.

Again, which point?  Ha, he is rather verbose, is he not?  Until you state that or quote me or something I'm not even sure I disagree with it.  Ample precedent for what?  For people finding satisfaction and meaning in doing things while they are still alive for a future they won't see?  That people can find comfort in the knowledge that they are a part of something larger than themselves that will continue even after they are dead?  I don't disagree with that and haven't criticized that activity.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Deal with that, and don't pretend you don't know what I'm urging you to do.

I'm not pretending, I have no idea WTF you are on about here, the only message I'm receiving is that you are urging me to shut up or to create a different topic (on a thread you didn't create and in which the actual OP has replied to my posts a few times).  You quoted one sentence from me and wrote a whole post based on I don't know what, telling me to 'deal with it' and implying that I'm moaning about something.  You've declined to provide any quotes from me so I can correct whatever you are misinterpreting and instead prefer to just 'stand by it'.  What exactly are you looking for me to do?  I'm not saying that I haven't said something here that has led you to this criticism, but I've typed a lot and unless you quote me, no, I don't know what you are referring to and where this guff is coming from.

It'd be more interesting to me for you to go into why you keep mentioning Christian/Muslim with the references I'm talking about.  From almighty wiki, "In Hinduism, the belief is that the body is nothing but a shell, the soul inside is immutable and indestructible and takes on different lives in a cycle of birth and death".  Doesn't sound like that works well either with multiple 'me's in a bunch of clones.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
7 hours 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!

 

Hi LightAngel

Thanks for your input, an I do agree that the concept that we are discussing is a deviation of the norm but thought it was worth exploring with Mr.Walker and some of the other members. Personally I don't know if the standard concept of afterlife exists and is not something that we can state as observable or quantifiable so I see it as a potential but do not live with any expectation of.:D

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

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.

Hi Rapidmongoose

Hmm, well that is an interesting proposal although it does seem to be an abstract concept given that you have added Christian ideologies to the mix. I will not discourage you from expanding on it but please do remember that this is  Walker thread designed to address his concept of afterlife so that will be the main focus of discussion.:tu:

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
20 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rapidmongoose

Hmm, well that is an interesting proposal although it does seem to be an abstract concept given that you have added Christian ideologies to the mix. I will not discourage you from expanding on it but please do remember that this is  Walker thread designed to address his concept of afterlife so that will be the main focus of discussion.:tu:

jmccr8

In a way I have agreed that the afterlife doesnt exist.

Well... at least not yet because civilization hasn't advanced to the point where dead people from the past can be recovered. It will come. It might be decades away, it might be centuries, but it will happen.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


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

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) 

Even with euthanasia being legal this process is not just a matter of exercising ones right. I was a live-in caregiver for a lady who wanted to exercise this right (she was on Hospice) meaning she was terminal. 
 

The first thing that happens is she saw a therapist, then she met with the doctor. (I was in the room too as her advocate). The reality for the US is even though Euthanasia is legal no doctor will sign off on it, but this particular doctor told her to hang in there and let nature takes its course. The therapist helped her deal with the frustration of suffering and dealing with a chronic illness with no family support, she had COPD. It is not uncommon for those who have a disease or chronic situation to be overwhelmed and want it to be over with often they need someone who just listens to their perspective with compassion.
 

I actually think you do a lot of good hearing your wife out, being seen as viable and worthwhile even in a compromised situation is key, it is very difficult for families to adjust to who the person has become due to the illness and the pressures the care puts on loved ones ( often there is guilt for being a burden ) family efforts tend to go towards getting them better instead of helping them adapt and see their dignity and worth and value regardless of circumstances. It sounds like to me you are doing a really good job adapting and providing her the support she needs. You most likely have figured this out already but if not my two cents, it is really helpful to get her a Caregiver who bonds with her, who really likes her as a person, and offers you and her emotional support too this will give you each someone to confide in and talk to. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
34 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

please do remember that this is  Walker thread designed to address his concept of afterlife so that will be the main focus of discussion.:tu:

Isn't that every thread in this forum tho? :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

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

Hi Walker

I made no reference to your ethics what I did do was ask what would be the difference between you deleting the self of a clone or someone else deleting you from the clone body so that they could occupy it as you would be a clone and no longer the real Walker.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 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) 

Well, I would tend to see it differently as I have earlier said that the development of a human body is dependent on the working unity of the body and mind and this is evidenced in human growth development and I addressed the unborn baby issue when I said that the unborn baby is the body of the host mother until birth. One really can't compare an unborn baby with a clone until it is born and we agreed that the baby and the clone are not owned property so there are equal standards that must be met and maintained in that position for it to be universally accepted and a clone is a human.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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 .

None the less it is human and has the same rights as any other human so to keep it from developing as an independent human being is questionable.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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 

So why bother with clones you can do the same thing with a baby if that is your position, simply genetics? Are genetically different donors a problem for occupation if it is a natural or synthetic human baby, is it necessary to have you genetic dna as a base for possession and why, just because you want to look in the mirror and see your face?

We have human rights for a reason and what you are proposing for a clone is not the standard we live by, a clone is a human and that grants it the same right to life that you enjoy.

I am not attacking you we are examining what that potential is and could be within the guideline of what it is to be human so don't get sidetracked with it being personal.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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.

There is a big difference as outlined in this post, one cannot ignore aspects to justify a position and I would like you to show me that an unborn child is not responsive to environment before my son was born he could recognize my voice and react so that to me indicates a certain amount of awareness.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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) 

Walker you have my regards on that matter as it is personal for you and the position it puts you in but it has no bearing on not letting a human develop to it's potential. A clones potential is no different than anyone else's and may not see it's potential as being replaced by another.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Isn't that every thread in this forum tho? :lol:

Hi Aquilla

I thought it was time to collect and organize Walker's perspectives/experiences and musings so that they can be properly addressed and challenged and here this is his there so we won't be distracting other threads pursuing answers or challenging each other and am quite happy that Walker and some of the other members have joined in to share how they see and feel about these subjects and hopefully it will be an exciting discussion.:D

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
On 11/6/2019 at 2:42 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 late to this party and am too lazy to read 9 pages or so, but I'll share my thoughts.

Personally, I find the idea of uploading / downloading someone's consciousness into something else to be absurd. That is, if consciousness is a byproduct of the physical brain. The brain is a physical organ. Saying you can upload / download consciousness to and from it is like saying you can upload / download your liver or spleen. It makes absolutely no sense.

Now hypothetically, you could scan and create a carbon-copy of your consciousness into a computer or in another brain. But it wouldn't be your consciousness, it'd just be a copy of it.

The only way I can see this being possible is if the concept of the "soul" actually does exist as a separate thing entirely to the material brain, and that we could find a way to transfer it from one place to another. Apart from that though, consciousness transfer is just flat impossible.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Some people have both, love and sexual intimacy. 

And some people have neither. :w00t:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

I'm late to this party and am too lazy to read 9 pages or so, but I'll share my thoughts.

Personally, I find the idea of uploading / downloading someone's consciousness into something else to be absurd. That is, if consciousness is a byproduct of the physical brain. The brain is a physical organ. Saying you can upload / download consciousness to and from it is like saying you can upload / download your liver or spleen. It makes absolutely no sense.

Now hypothetically, you could scan and create a carbon-copy of your consciousness into a computer or in another brain. But it wouldn't be your consciousness, it'd just be a copy of it.

The only way I can see this being possible is if the concept of the "soul" actually does exist as a separate thing entirely to the material brain, and that we could find a way to transfer it from one place to another. Apart from that though, consciousness transfer is just flat impossible.

Hi Aquilla

Pretty much my position as well but I find the concept of creating human clones for this purpose worth discussing as I do not think that some issues involved have been properly addressed and hope that by discussing it we can see just how little significance some feel that those aspects have or been given consideration of.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
31 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

In a way I have agreed that the afterlife doesnt exist.

Well... at least not yet because civilization hasn't advanced to the point where dead people from the past can be recovered. It will come. It might be decades away, it might be centuries, but it will happen.

Hi Rapidmongoose

When you say dead people from the past isn't yesterday in the past? Does the length of time a factor and why dead is dead so I can only presume that there may be some social issue that you have not disclosed at this point.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 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? 

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.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
37 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

And some people have neither. :w00t:

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

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

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Yes i ve read all those books I found them exceedingly slow in their plot lines eg it took about 100 pages for one party to move a short distance down a river)   but my wife loved them 

I will just have to disagree about community. Ive never found people to be like that.

why on earth would i be barred from my community  especially if many others like me lived in it 

Iam assuming tha t, if I have access to this technology it is available to the general public, and many will be using it. 

By then everyone wlll have android servants and helpers to assist withe elderly and frail 

Hi Walker

Just for the point of focus let us not drift too far into the future on this and settle for being pioneers in a new industry as this is where social constructs will emerge from as it could be within our lifetime.

To be honest when cell phones first came out I didn't rush out and get one because it seemed like an umbilical that tied one to everyone else and actually didn't find it that appealing as I don't like distractions when I am working so there was a resistance to accept the tech and even today when at work my phone is in the vehicle while I am working and made responses during breaks or after work unless I am expecting a call from the client/supplier/sub-trade etc and when I am talking to someone in person I do not respond until after I have finished talking to that individual.

In the early stages of the type of scenario that we are discussing a limited amount of the population will trust or accept  it just look at some of the threads in the forum where AI has been discussed and see the level of trust there is today the is a percentage that fear AI will be the end of humans so what I am expressing to you is not something that I have just pulled out of thin air.

Given these parameters your neighbors and everyone else will not have access to this tech and you are a unique isolate so expect that there will be everything from curiosity to fear/anger/hate in the social mix and acceptance may not be as easy as you are trying to project here and how you as an android react could cause significant benefit or harm to the project and of course you would be subject to a lot of study by science and industry and may not find the experience as the romantic illusion that you project here.

jmccr8

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

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 ) 

Hi Walker

Yes this is what the bible says and you have already stated that this is not possible which is why you are considering alternative afterlife potentials so I have to wonder why you would bring it up in the context that we are speaking of.

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Tied to the dead person who is linked to their bone cells through quantum entanglement.

We basically quantum teleport the persons mind from the past into the new clone via the bones.

Hi RapidMongoose

Is this your own personal speculation or do you have any documentation that shows this is an avenue of current research or inquiry? If so please do give links.

jmccr8

  • Like 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.