Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> 
> 2011/10/30 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
> 
>>
>>
>> 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?
> 
> 
> Death.
> 
You would call eternal existence of consciousness "death"? This seems quite
strange and narrow to me.
Why would you restrict it only to the human experience of death? Isn't that
extremely antrophocentric/egocentric? Yes, of course death is an important
aspect - realization of eternal consciousness means death of seperate
identity - but it certainly isn't all that there is to it.

benjayk
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32760389.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.

Reply via email to