On 30 Oct 2011, at 10:34, benjayk wrote:
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
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
can be conscious, since we know from our experience that even when/
structure is unconscious it can preserve continuity (we awake from
sleep and experience a coherent history).
The continuity may be preserved simply through similarity of
our continuity of personhood is preserved through the similarity of
brains states (even though the brain changes vastly from childhood
age), continuity of human consciousness may be preserved through
of brains (even though brains have big differences is structure).
So this could even be a materialist sort of non-technological
Sure. I would say that's the one exploited by nature, and that's the
reason why we do children, and why we might be tented to be angry when
the children looks of behave to much differently than us.
It's just that most materialists firmly identify with the person, so
mostly won't care much about it ("What's it worth that consciousness
survives, when *I* don't survive.").
That's something like a total individualistic illusion, which might be
less common that we might think, as people easily dies for their (good
or bad) ideas or values. There are "bad" forces in play in the sense
that a form of marketing encourage some abuse in the little ego
values, and some politics disencourage solid and valid education, to
even more control that marketing issue (and that leads to harmful
paradoxes (like alcohol encouraged (see almost any movies) and
cannabis illegal, just for one typical example).
people care more about values than the actual political world does
reflect (due to a lot of complex historical partially contingent
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
In my opinion, the singularity is the discovery of the universal
machine. Church's thesis if you want.
The rest is a sequence of deeper echoes.
and also much more elegant (surviving through
forgetting seems much simpler than surviving through acquiring
much memory and personal identity).
I sort of agree with this. But I'm not sure if this is communicable,
or need to be communicated.
I wonder why less people consider this possiblity of immortality,
I think that if you do that properly, you realize that all people does
that. The *moment* when they do that is irrelevant from that *moment*
perspective. That's one reason more to let people doing as they do,
which does not mean accepting they coerce against different personal
as it both
fits more with our intuition (does it really seem probable that all
grow abitrarily old?) and with observation (people do actually die)
other forms of immortality.
Mechanism is really a many-immortality theory. There is a plethora of
Some are short and provide shortcuts to the Nirvana, say.
Others are more like sequence of multiple incarnations and
reincarnations, and they prolonged the Samsara.
What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?
And it is this ...
Existence that multiplied itself
For sheer delight of being
And plunged into numberless trillions of forms
So that it might
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
For more options, visit this group at