Nick, the rewinding of the aging process is tricky. Now I am diverting from my lately absorbed worldview of an unlimited complexity of everything of which we (humans) can acknowledge only a part and build from that our 'mini-solipsism' (after Colin H) - matching in *part* with many humans, by which I lost faith in the figment of a physical world - incl. atoms (molecules?) after 1/2 c. of chemistry. Returning to the *conventional terms*: *aging* includes un-equilibratable changes, with ingredients within and without the organism so a *return *has the same difficulties as religion has in the *'resurrection of all'*. Partial retrospect may occur e.g. in the memory sense. What comp(?) could do is beyond me, we have very scant imagination about a *universal computer* (way above the capabilities humans can muster and master). We also have very scant imagination about circumstances leading to our term: *"TIME" * so the topic is ready for a dissertation of *'Alice'.* (I don't want even to mention (?) my denial for* 'statistical' and 'probability'* - both - provided by arbitrary limitations - lacking the 'time' factor, hence useless in most cases they are applied in.)
The 500 year old *you* is ambiguous: it is not only the brain - the tool we use in our mentality (what is it?) - that ages, but also the very organs of the other tool in our complex living contraption so I would refuse to prognosticate changes in the life-process (if there is such) with 500 years changes of tissues, chemical machines (glands, sensors, potentials and flexibility etc.) bodily coordination and mental compliance in the physiological processes. Good game, anyway. Best regards John Mikes On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Nick Prince <nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >Bruno wrote > > With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to being a > > baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more > > continuous way, by little backtracking. We always survive in the most > > normal world compatible with our states. But some kind of jumps are > > not excluded. > > Hi Bruno > > Maybe what I am trying to say is that very old or dying brains might > deterorate in a specific way that allows the transition from an old to > a young mind i.e. the decaying brain becomes in some way homomorphic > to a young brain. Indeed this defines the consciousness I am > considering and is therefore subtrate dependent. If all of physics > can be simulated on a computer then no problem. > > > If you accept the classical theory of knowledge, it is easy. Computer > > are already conscious. They have not the tools to manifest their > > consciousness, and by programming them, we don't help them with that > > respect. Consciousness is not programmable. It exists "in Platonia", > > and a universal machine is only a sort of interface between different > > levels of the Platonic reality (arithmetical truth). > > > This is an interesting comment! Are you saying that everything > including consciousness really emanates from platonia? Would you > agree that we exist eternally in platonia? If so then perhaps we need > only consider computationalism /QM as a means of comprehending the > steps to this understanding. This platonic realm is very useful but > hard to pin down as a concept. > > Best > > Nick > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.