On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 2011/11/1 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> 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"?
>
>
> What do you mean by "consciousness" ? I don't care about "eternal" not
> me... it's the *same* thing as death. When talking about dying, what's
> important is the person who die, if something is left who doesn't know that
> it was that person... what does it means that its consciousness still
> exists ? For me, it is just a vocabulary trick to not employ the word death
> where what you mean is death.
>
> Immortality means immortality, not death, not resurection.
>
> A person is the sum of her memories, without memories, there is nothing
> left.
>
>
>> This seems quite
>> strange and narrow to me.
>>
>
> Not to me, just read in a dictionary.
>
> *immortal* (ɪˈmɔːtəl)   —*adj*  1.  not subject to death or decay; having
> perpetual life 2.  having everlasting fame; remembered throughout time 3.
>  everlasting; perpetual; constant 4.  of or relating to immortal beings or
> concepts
>
>> Why would you restrict it only to the human experience of death?
>
>
> Because if you want to define "mouse" to mean "dog", it's fine, but the
> mouse stays a mouse.
>
> Quentin
>
>


With many worlds, and even more so with computationalism, the question of
identity is greatly blurred.  Consider a civilization that has reached a
technological singularity/omega point/super mind.  This super mind serves
as a hub for conciousness experiences.  If the supermind decides to
simulate your life and experience it, then when it completes this
experience it has all the memories you have.  Such consciousness hubs also
connect very different beings into the same ultimate stream of
consciousness.  Paths exist between you and any other person.  It is only a
matter of time until you experience the point of view/life of anyone else
you might run into on the street.  Ultimately, experiences do not belong to
any single perceiver (unless perhaps you say there is only one perceiver).
 For example, imagine a future youtube which allows sharing of fully
immersive experiences.  You upload your experience and it gets 1,000
"views".  Anyone in the middle of viewing this experience cannot say which
of the 1,000 viewers they will be once the experience ends.  One's
identity, from a first person perspective may change, but it never ends,
and it will return to similar/identical states an infinite number of times.
 Under this view (implied by computationalism and arithmatical realism), it
seems the conventional definitions of death and immortality don't apply.

Jason

-- 
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