Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: > > 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 > death. > OK, I can see that this a possible perspective on that. Indeed most of the time immortality is used to refer to personal immortality (especially in the west). I agree with materialists there is no good reason to suppose that this exists. Quantum immortality rests on the premise that the supposed continuations that exist in the MWs of quantum mechanics are lived as real for the person that dies, while we have no clue how these possibilities are actually lived. It is much more plausible - and consistent with our experience and observation - that the other possibilities are merely dreams, imagination, or - if more consistent - are lived by other persons (which, for example, didn't get into the deadly situation in the first place).
On the other hand, I don't see why we would ignore immortality of consciousness, considering that the "I" is just a psychosocial construct/illusion anyway. We don't find an actual "I" anywhere. It seems very relevant to know that the actual essence of experience can indeed survive eternally. Why would I care whether an imagined "I" experiences it or not? How would you call this, if not immortality? Actually eternal youth seems closer to eternal life to me than eternally growing old, which would be more properly termed "eternal existing" or "not-quite-mortality". If we are cut off from experiencing the undeveloped innocent freshness of children - not knowing who you are - we miss something that is absolutely essential to life. It is not by chance that children are generally more open and happy, and learn faster, than adults. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32748927.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
