Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crocodile deathroll · 12-29-2002, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
What does choice two mean exactly? Im pretty sure number one covers it unless its inferring something mystical that im not grasping.

I think there are more mystical elements to question 1 because in implies there is some deity or a cosmic scrutineer to limit us to just one possibe existance.

Question 2 is a lot more realistic because it forces you comfront to prospect of total amnesia.

punta · 12-29-2002, 09:52 PM

I chose #2 because I felt it specifies the death of individual awareness (consciousness). If we become soil and are recycled into living microbes are we not in some sense "alive"?

punta · 12-29-2002, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PotatoError
An old star trek problem concerns the teleporters. It goes like this:

The teleporters in StarTrek work by first turning your body into a data, then beaming this data to a location and reassembling your body from the data. (something like this anyway).

The argument is that this teleporting method simply destroys your body and then makes a copy.

Questions that arise:

1) Where are *you* between the time your original self is destroyed and your new self is assembled (in Star trek i think your layout is stored in a buffer at each end and passed via a particle stream or something).

2) Is the copy actually you? When you enter a teleporter do you die and a totally different person who believes they are you steps out?

3) If *2* is proven true then should you fear teleportation? Or should you not care? If when we die we simply blank then I wouldn't care about walking into a teleporter knowing I would deexist. To everyone else observing, it would seem as if I was still me.

A more difficult question to answer is: does this make a difference?

Someone made an interesting point to this topic in a past thread. Almost all the cells in our bodies are constantly being replaced anyway. So a similar thing is happening to us already, only much more slowly.

For me it is a matter of perspective. Faster destruction and rebirth for greater rewards.

tronvillain · 12-30-2002, 12:16 AM

I chose option one, since as excreationist points out, option two seems to imply that something remains, albeit devoid of memories of life.

crocodile deathtroll:

Quote:

The huge hurdle is to get born and be started in the first place.
If you wind the clock back 200 years how do you know which brain that is been allocated to you?
If we reduce the brain down to individual molecules in isolation they all emulate the same physical processes. How do you sought them out if they haven't established any episodic, semantic and procedural memories?

You are constantly harping on about this, but I have yet to see you explain how there is actually any problem. The question "If you wind the clock back 200 years how do you know which brain that is been allocated to you?" is gibberish. Two hundred years ago you did not exist, and so knew nothing about the brain that would eventually produce you. At a fundamental level all brains are exactly the same, but the differences between two individuals occur at a higher level, so this is not a problem. It is the difference between a computer running Linux and a computer running Windows 98 - at a fundamental level (such as the level of individual molecules) they are essentially identical, but at a higher level they are very different.

Agricola Senior · 12-30-2002, 12:45 AM

I am an agnostic on this topic

I'm an agnostic on every topic

crocodile deathroll · 12-30-2002, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain
I chose option one, since as excreationist points out, option two seems to imply that something remains, albeit devoid of memories of life.

crocodile deathtroll:

. At a fundamental level all brains are exactly the same, but the differences between two individuals occur at a hight level, so this is not a problem. It is the difference between a computer running Linux and a computer running Windows 98 - at a fundamental level (such as the level of individual molecules) they are essentially identical, but at a higher level they are very different.

What do you mean by a hight level. Do you really mean a complexity level?

excreationist · 12-30-2002, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punta
I chose #2 because I felt it specifies the death of individual awareness (consciousness). If we become soil and are recycled into living microbes are we not in some sense "alive"?

They would partly be composed of atoms that don't come from your body... e.g. some of the DNA atoms of their parent/s. That life would be partly composed of your atoms, but it doesn't really mean it is "you". Parasites would also be partly composed of our atoms... but would you say that a tapeworm, etc, is "you"?

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
The huge hurdle is to get born and be started in the first place.

Unlikely things happen all the time... like people winning lotteries or grains of sand being arranged in specific arrangements. Evolution allowed our species to emerge. I wasn't responsible for my own birth.

Quote:

If you wind the clock back 200 years how do you know which brain that is been allocated to you?

My eventual brain would be made up of atoms that are scattered in the soil, in the water, in the air, in plants, etc. Even as a baby, atoms that would become integrated into my brain would be in the outside environment. What does it matter anyway?

Quote:

If we reduce the brain down to individual molecules in isolation they all emulate the same physical processes. How do you sought them out if they haven't established any episodic, semantic and procedural memories?

What do you mean they "emulate the same physical processes"? Emulate means to deliberately create a perfect simulation - e.g. on a computer. Our memories accumulated as a result of us learning things. If our brain was copied (maybe you mean that) the learning wasn't done by the copy's physical brain, but the original... or maybe there could be simulated or virtual learning... what were you talking about anyway?

About atoms in someone's brain being reused in someone else's brain:
I think it would be very unlikely. For a start, people's brains are stored in graveyards or if they are cremated, a lot of the atoms go into the air as things like smoke and water vapour. I guess the easiest way would be to eat someone's brain. But then most of it would be excreted and the stuff that is absorbed would be absorbed by cells that aren't in the brain. Maybe foetuses could be fed brains that are somehow forced to become part of their growing body. This would probably have to continue into their childhood since brains weigh a lot. They would have to be careful not to lose any of the brain atoms on the surgical equipment, etc. Otherwise the foetus's consciousness would not really be "yours". Note that there are about 100 BILLION neurons in the brain, and each cell contains the human genome I think (3 BILLION basepairs) and each basepair is made up of quite a few atoms. So each neuron would be made up of billions or trillions of atoms and all of those atoms would need to be absorbed by the foetus's/child's brain for their consciousness to be fully comprised of the atoms of your own. But even if that happened, I wouldn't say that it has "your" consciousness. It would develop it's own memories and become its own consciousness. I think consciousness requires a sufficient level of intellectual development and real-world experience. Those experiences would be the experiences of the child... therefore the consciousness would be the child's - not the brain donor's.

Quote:

Do you think like the Jehovah's Witnesses that when in spite of the fact that you are dead, you still remember the events of this life and you feel trapped in a void of eternal darkness?

From http://www.watchman.org/jw/jwafterl.htm

Quote:

He replaced it with the concept that hell is synonymous with the grave and that the biblical term of second death means extinction.

The redefining of these doctrinal positions was followed by Russell's successor, Joseph Rutherford, and is so today by all faithful Jehovah's Witnesses.

...Hence, the ultimate destiny for a portion of Mankind, after they awaken from a period of soul sleep, is to be judged unworthy of further life, be thrown into the "lake of fire" or "second death", thus being destroyed forever.

They will become extinct. They will cease to exist.

I've talked to Jehovah Witnesses about this before and they seem to agree. Another name for this doctrine is "annihilation". Does that sound like eternal awareness to you?

crocodile deathroll · 12-30-2002, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist

From http://www.watchman.org/jw/jwafterl.htm

I've talked to Jehovah Witnesses about this before and they seem to agree. Another name for this doctrine is "annihilation". Does that sound like eternal awareness to you?

Jelhovah's Witnesses typically contradict each other this has something to do with the Bible being so contradictory.

For instance:
Is it possible to experience either blessing or torment in Hades?

Luke 16:23-"in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment"

Luke 16:24-"'I am in agony in this flame'"

Here is more of it The Nature of Hell It is just riddled with contradictions

I was taught by Roman Catholic nuns they placed a very strong emphasis on Hell and Purgatory, and to get a direct ticket into Heaven you would almost have to self flagellate yourself like those old Medieval monks did in the name of their god.

punta · 12-30-2002, 01:19 PM

They would partly be composed of atoms that don't come from your body... e.g. some of the DNA atoms of their parent/s. That life would be partly composed of your atoms, but it doesn't really mean it is "you". Parasites would also be partly composed of our atoms... but would you say that a tapeworm, etc, is "you"?

I would say if it is partly composed of my atoms, it is partly me, or perhaps more accurately, parts of me; albeit in a microscopically tiny way.

I can see where such an inclusive definition of "you" or "I" may lead to ego absurdity but it is enough for my #2 vote.

crocodile deathroll · 12-30-2002, 01:40 PM

Why do scientists need to explore beyond the brain to find answers about many aspects of consciousness and find them here and here

This proves consciousness is a non-linear process

View Poll Results: The "afterlife" poll
When you are dead, that's it. Game over.	63	76.83%
When you are dead you will forget that you were ever born in the first place	13	15.85%
Reincarnation, because I can remember my past lives.	1	1.22%
You go to Heaven or Hell or where ever God sends you.	4	4.88%
You continue to exist in a parallel universe	4	4.88%
You exist on Earth in some ghostly spirit realm.	1	1.22%
Cryonics will save me	3	3.66%
Cloning will save me	0	0%
I am an agnostic on this topic	12	14.63%
I never give it much thought.	5	6.10%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

12-30-2002, 12:45 AM	#15
Agricola Senior Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Croatia Posts: 44	Ignoramus et ignorabimus I am an agnostic on this topic I'm an agnostic on every topic

12-30-2002, 01:40 PM	#20
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Behond the brain Why do scientists need to explore beyond the brain to find answers about many aspects of consciousness and find them here and here This proves consciousness is a non-linear process

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2002, 09:52 PM	#12
punta Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Can-a-duh! Posts: 148	I chose #2 because I felt it specifies the death of individual awareness (consciousness). If we become soil and are recycled into living microbes are we not in some sense "alive"?

12-30-2002, 01:19 PM	#19
punta Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Can-a-duh! Posts: 148	They would partly be composed of atoms that don't come from your body... e.g. some of the DNA atoms of their parent/s. That life would be partly composed of your atoms, but it doesn't really mean it is "you". Parasites would also be partly composed of our atoms... but would you say that a tapeworm, etc, is "you"? I would say if it is partly composed of my atoms, it is partly me, or perhaps more accurately, parts of me; albeit in a microscopically tiny way. I can see where such an inclusive definition of "you" or "I" may lead to ego absurdity but it is enough for my #2 vote.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.