crocodile deathroll

If there were 36 exact copies of Bob, then any one number would be equiprobable and they would all momentarily feel like the are the one collective Bob but as soon as it drops down to a critical level of psychological momentum it will only then randomly land on the one number it cannot land on the lot. like a single ball on this wheel, Bob becomes Bob #11


[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

Yes I agree the atoms "created" life. With emphasis on created. Which implies the life is an emergent property that did not exist before this natural chemical process eventuated.

Shadowy Man

Yes, life is an emergent property of matter when arranged in a specific manner. That arrangement seems to be a product of a series of chemical processes that occur naturally under certain conditions.

At least that's the way that I think about it.

crocodile deathroll

Yes I too have reservations about calling it reincarnation, because I think this "soul" is just an expression of the subjective reality of the universe and not so much the individual person that expresses self awareness but the universe as a whole, so in that sense it is not truly and incarnation and therefore is no sense referring to it as a re-incarnation.
Of course this subjective reality may switch off and switch on somewhere else as it reorientates itself around another observer in the universe and that may well be Napolean and you will only be immersed in the memories of Napoleans brain, but all of Napoleans episodic memories will survive death of his death and when he finds himself reemerging as another person at the universe's subjective reality switches him on somewhere/somewhen else and it will still always feel to him like a first life event. Only a first life event effect.

Here is a extract I found in an interview with the theoretical physicist Paul Davies.
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s556223.htm" target="_blank"> This is it in full </a>

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Beoran

Crocodille deathroll, I think I don't understand what you are getting at. So, it's not really reincarnation? Is it something like Jung's "collective (sub)counciousness", but without the supernaturab baggage?

Faustus, what you propose is not reincarnation, but rather reproduction and teaching to others. Though I agree that teaching others and reproduction are very good ways to "immortalize" your onw ideas and thoughs. In fact, I have come to realise that many of my personality traits I have "absorbed" from my grand-parents and parents. In that way, my ancestors live on in me. And perhaps, when I find the right woman, I will be able to transfer a part of myself onto my descendants. That is the beauty of life. ^_^

faustuz

You are probably correct in saying that it is not technically accurate to call this reincarnation. I’m using the word more as metaphor than anything. The point is that reincarnation makes sense only if something of the essence of a being is transferred to another being after death. I’m arguing that that is exactly what happens in the course of existing in society. The people you touch, either as friends, enemies or incidentally get a piece of your essence, i.e. a piece of your consciousness. They may get your ideas, your memories or a common experience. In doing so they get a piece of you, they become you in a small way. This is the same as if a piece of your consciousness were transferred to another being via mystical means. Reincarnation as the term is commonly understood is a mystical process. However, if you take out the mysticism, the process I am talking about becomes similar to reincarnation. I think I’ll choose to continue to use the term for the concept, especially because this transference confers a type of immortality very similar to that which reincarnation would provide.

It sure is!

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: faustuz ]</p>

faustuz

Then Bob has really and truly been reincarnated.

faustuz

I hope you are not understanding that I ever said otherwise. However, for conscious beings identity is a continuation. The sense of being the same person in the past, and that we will be the same person in the future is what gives the conscious being a sense of identity. I would argue that without memories and the sense of continuation consciousness can not exist. It is nonsense to think that in 5 seconds you will be a completely different entity, a completely different being, then you are right now. And yet atoms are replaced, memories will have changed. In 5 seconds you will be only an approximation of the being you are right now, just like in 20 years both Bobs are approximations of the beings they were 20 years ago. Yet, both Bobs feel themselves to be the same entity as existed 20 years ago. Any reasonable definition of conscious identity must agree with them (unless we want to deny that there even is such a thing as identity). Thus while in 20 years the two Bobs are indeed separate entities, they are at the same time in part the same entity. They are the same entity in the sense that they both believe that they are the continuation of the Bob that existed 20 years ago.

faustuz

For conscious beings identity is a continuation of being. Do you believe you are a completely different entity than you were 5 minutes ago, or do you in some sense think you are the same entity? It is your memory of existing 5 minutes ago that convinces you that you are the same entity. The two Bob’s share the common identity of 5 minutes ago in the same sense that you share your identity with the being you were 5 minutes ago, in spite of the slight changes that have occurred in both your physical and conscious structure.

The problem here is that you are confusing the subjective for the objective, or as Sartre would say the en soi for the pour soi. We are talking about subjective identity here, which is the only kind that makes sense in terms of consciousness. In the objective reality, that which, say, gives an automobile its identity, two physical entities have completely separate identities. One Honda Civic is not the same car as another Honda Civic even though they are reasonable approximations of each other. This is because the automobile has no sense of its own continuous identity, nor do we have any reference to link the two entities as a single entity. For conscious beings we do have this reference, and that is an extrapolation of our own introspection. We sense that we are the same entity as we were 5 minutes ago because our sense of awareness of continuity leads us to that belief. We extrapolate this sense of identity to other similar beings, that is conscious beings. The sense of subjective identity being linked to common traits, what we call memory, thoughts, personality, etc. allows us to say that beings who carry these traits in common are in a subjective sense the same entity.

To recap the thought experiment, Bob #1 and Bob #2 both have an equal claim to the Bob that existed 5 minutes ago, in the exact sense that you have a claim to being the same entity as you were 5 minutes ago. It is memories of experiences, beliefs in common with the original Bob, thoughts in common with the original Bob, etc., that allows both Bobs to make that claim. Yet these are only approximations, the two entities at 5 minutes after the duplication event are not identical even in the subjective sense. That is no reason not to consider them as continuations of the same entity. We can then expand that understanding to a general principle: it is our thoughts, memories, beliefs, etc. that give us our identities. These are the elements of consciousness. To the extent that these conscious elements are shared by others, these others are the same being as we are, although only as an approximation. When we die these conscious elements live on in those others. We are therefore immortal, although not in an absolute sense.

crocodile deathroll

Take your 36 copies of Bob and destroy the original and awaken them all simultaneously. They will all have their sense of their own continuous identity and since they are configured in the same way they will all think as though they were the one person, and will all have an equal claim to Bob. But due to the environmental circumstances that each one will enter into when they are awakened I am of the view there would be a psychological dynamic like on this roulette wheel between the lot of them and the end result would be a gestalt switch mechanism kicking in to orientate to just one Bob in this case it just happened to be Bob #11.
If Bob #11 is killed later in life then he will regress right back to the phase where he was at one with all the 36 copies of Bob. This time around he falls onto Bob #36 but any number was equally possible.


So if Bob dies in real life he will of course have not only lose any sense of his own continuous identity but all past memories will be also obliterated as well. It will be exactly as though he had never been born in the first place.
But the universe will reorientate itself around another observer and continue on as though nothing has happened. It will be as though the great cosmic roulette wheel has been spun on Bob in real life and he will land on another number. But time he may come back as Mary and think "Bob who?"
The self aware universe may be the soul purpose for our existence but it is a purpose born out of mathematical necessity and not mysticism.