2011/10/30 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>

> Nick Prince-2 wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4514b50b8eb469c3/c49c3aa24c265a4b?lnk=gst&q=homomorphic#c49c3aa24c265a4b
> > where I suggest that  very old or dying brains might
> > deterorate in a specific way that allows the transition of 1st person
> > experiences from an old to
> > a young mind i.e. the decaying brain becomes in some way  homomorphic
> > to a new young brain which allows an extension of consciousness.
> This is not even required. The decaying brain can become no brain, and
> consciousness proceeds from no brain. Of course this means that some
> continuity of consciousness needs to be preserved outside of brains.
> Theoretically this doesn't even require that structures other than brains
> can be conscious, since we know from our experience that even when/while a
> structure is unconscious it can preserve continuity (we awake from deep
> sleep and experience a coherent history).
> The continuity may be preserved simply through similarity of structure.
> Like
> our continuity of personhood is preserved through the similarity of our
> brains states (even though the brain changes vastly from childhood until
> old
> age), continuity of human consciousness may be preserved through similarity
> of brains (even though brains have big differences is structure).
> So this could even be a materialist sort of non-technological immortality.
> It's just that most materialists firmly identify with the person, so they
> mostly won't care much about it ("What's it worth that consciousness
> survives, when *I* don't survive.").
> If they like the idea of immortality, they will rather hope for the
> singularity. But impersonal immortality seems more in accord with our
> observations than a pipe dream of personal immortality through a
> technological singularity, and also much more elegant (surviving through
> forgetting seems much simpler than surviving through acquiring abitrarily
> much memory and personal identity).
> I wonder why less people consider this possiblity of immortality, as it
> both
> fits more with our intuition (does it really seem probable that all persons
> grow abitrarily old?) and with observation (people do actually die) than
> other forms of immortality.

Simply because it is just using immortality for meaning death . Immortality
means the  'I' survive... if it's not the case then it is simply plain old


All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to