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. > 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. > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
