On Apr 20, 3:00 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Your identity must be preserved as your brain continues to expand to make
> > room for all that informaton that must be stored. Now, I find it hard to
> Why should all the info be stored/your id. be preserved?
> We constantly forget stuff - as you get older and older, you will forget
> past stuff, so that different past histories would be compatible with
> your present state - maybe something like the quantum erasure experiment
> can function as an analogue: if you erase all info about which path is
> taken, superposition is restored.
> Same with brain: if you forget, many pasts will correspond to your
> present state. Your present state will be something like a narrow valve
> moving along a river - everything contained in the valve is "you", and
> the water flows through (water = events); but what is outside the "you"
> expands quite fast. You have no claim to a specific past which is not
> correlated with your brain state anymore.
Except that the evidence seems to support that our past is also
recorded in a reality "out there" that seems independent of our
brains. For example when we are reminded of something from our past,
from looking at old photos, or from someone from our past telling a
story about us, which as far as we can tell we would have never
remembered without that reminder from outside of our possible streams
of consciousness without the reminder. Like Bruno says, we might have
to simulate the whole universe, or at least the galaxy, in order to
make sure we were duplicated at a sufficient level of accuracy.
Actually my last statement begs the question, or supports my point
even more, it implies that there are levels of accuracy below (more
accurate than) the sufficient level. Accurate about what? About our
history, about our identity.
By the way, there are other theories of immortality which are
"supported" just as much as a quantum theory of immortality. And even
more general than immortality, why does (how can) the correct theory
of everything have to be supported by physical experiment? Physical
experiment shows only the normal probabilistic tendencies of things,
not everything, not the tails of the curves, where we have things like
immortality. If there is such a thing as immortality, how can we use
our sense of "finding it hard to believe" (Saibal) to argue validly
about it. Why could not our consciousness keep expanding
indefinitely? I think we have to face the limits of our scientific
process when it comes to these things. And when we do that, we open
the doors to seeing with our heart.
"Then from on high--somewhere in the distance there's a voice that
calls-remember who you are. If you lose yourself--your courage soon
(Gavin Greenaway and Trevor Horn, Sound the Bugle)
"God has set eternity in our hearts." (King Solomon, "the wisest man
"We are luminous beings." (Yoda ;)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at