The Possibility of a Real Afterlife - What Do You Think?

[Ivan Seeking]

You would have to provide a link.

What do I think? Even without seeing it, my guess is that I'm not qualified to comment.

 

[Mgt3]

Sorry about that. David Deutsch and Frank Tipler argue that the universe is a giant cosmic computer that can and eventually will reproducing all possible quantum brain states.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Omega_point

http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/physicist.html

 

[Loren Booda]

Loren, as soon as you can prove there is a soul, we can address that question.

Has anyone in this thread proved that there is a mind?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has anyone in this thread proved that there is a mind?

Not in all cases.

 

[Negatron]

we can't yet quantify consciousness or self-identity.

No more than we can quantify the operations of a complex artificial neural network, but we can sensibly conclude that this is where the operations reside.

there is no way to say if a person's consciousnes could ever be transferred in such a manner

If my above reasoning is true, then it necessarily goes to show that this is, at minimum, theoretically possible.

We could never know if it really is good ole Joe, or just a fascimile.

If Joe and Mr.fascimile are equivalent, then it is also necessarily true that Joe remains Joe.

We have the same problem with the notion of Star-Trek-like transporters.

It's a misconception not an unresolved problem. Although I suppose the fact that it's a misconception is a problem in itself. If the function of the mind has been transferred, the mind, by implication, has been transferred.

How could any process of uploading produce the mind of the original unless the original is deleted in the process?

The upload could occur slowly, shifting data to new neurons at more or less the rate at which a biological brain does it. It's deletion just the same, as is the natural working of the brain, but once again, if the reproduction is equivalent this is inconsequential. The rate of transfer is also inconsequential, even if practically instantaneous.

so you really couldn't be sure if you are you or just a copy, except through the circumstances.

In any logically consistent way you could possibly look at the problem, if the copy is a copy of you, then you are you.

What if you live beyond death but have so senses, no sight, sound, touch, etc, you have no body, no one can see you or sense you in any way and you can't communicate. But you are conscious. Not too practical, eh? :uhh:

Not a particularly pleasant state of existence, but I see no reason for the requirement that an uploaded individual will be stuffed into a dark black tactile-less box. The transfer is the hard part, once that is over with the person could be provided with an existence which makes the former reality appear pitiful and depressing.

There is no apparent restriction for making such a transfer. Molecular resolution scans of biological structures are required, which are possible today but extremely impractical for such a high volume of matter. Voxel data interpreters for neural network reconstruction also exist. This is quite recent. I recall 1 cubic mm teravoxel data of biological scans being used for research at the moment with function being largely limited by processing power.

And that is the second problem. Processing power. There are estimates for functional recreation around. IBM if I recall correctly expects a 1 Exaflop requirement for tangible electromechanical equivalency and something below this for reduced-model neurological equivalency. Markram's chronological projection is 2018.

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3853/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf"

And there are estimates for molecular-precision models and even far fetched quantum models. These are very improbably a requirement for functional recreation, however nevertheless a potentially useful physiological reconstruction.

 

[rolerbe]

1. assume that the operation of the brain (and mind and soul) is mechanistic.
2. assume stable operation occurs above the quantum threshold (i.e. like all of the engineering artifacts we build).

Then I think it is safe to say that human conciousness can (eventually) be uploaded to a human engineered system. The actual upload would probably be pretty easy. It's reading the brain (either without destroying it, or before it decays) that is hard. I have no idea how to do this.

It doesn't matter what the state of existence is at that moment, after that, there's plenty of time for improvement.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In any logically consistent way you could possibly look at the problem, if the copy is a copy of you, then you are you.

I'm not sure but I think that Ivan is pointing out that a copy is a copy and not the original. The "mind" that is in your head will not be transferred into a computer this way. "You" will not wake up in a computer. Another entity, perhaps virtually the same as you, will "wake up" in the computer.
Perhaps you already get this and don't see what the difference really is. Most people see a difference though. I think that accomplishing this will necessarily shatter the concept of self. That could be dangerous sociologically.

 

[Math Jeans]

Which makes me wonder, is mind uploading scientifically impossible?

Memory and brain chemistry are quantifiable. If we discover how to precisely quantifying both, converting both into programming wouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[Negatron]

I'm not sure but I think that Ivan is pointing out that a copy is a copy and not the original. The "mind" that is in your head will not be transferred into a computer this way. "You" will not wake up in a computer. Another entity, perhaps virtually the same as you, will "wake up" in the computer.
Perhaps you already get this and don't see what the difference really is.

I get it. I'm aware what the perceived difference is, but there is no difference in any meaningful sense.

 

[Evo]

If the function of the mind has been transferred, the mind, by implication, has been transferred.

Therein lies the problem. We don't understand how the brain functions enough to even be able to consider such a thing. The brain is so complex that we may never be able to actually transfer thoughts. We might be able to mimic some functions but find and transfer memories?

 

[Negatron]

We don't understand how the brain functions enough to even be able to consider such a thing.

You don't have to understand how the software on a CD operates to copy it's contents. Reverse engineering the brain is a different matter entirely from extracting it's information. It's in the same class of problems as simulating any other "non-conscious" physical system, and the problem with simulating physical systems is almost entirely down to available processing power.

 

[drankin]

There isn't any supporting data to suggest consciousness beyond human mortality. The physics forum is the wrong place to suggest unsupportable ideas.

But, yes, there is consciousness beyond documented observation. I just don't have any supporting evidence to back up my claim.

 

[rolerbe]

Voxel data interpreters for neural network reconstruction also exist. This is quite recent. I recall 1 cubic mm teravoxel data of biological scans being used for research at the moment with function being largely limited by processing power.

I will miss Negatron. Too bad he missed the shift. Does anyone have a reference to the above? I'm seriously interested in this sort of technology. Thx.

On a side note, thinner TV's are the pathway to eternal life.

 

[bleedblue1234]

I don't think even asking this question we can ponder what 2-3 billion years of evolution can bring (if we last that long)...

If we can harness the power of extremely powerful computers a billion years into the future with natural biological evolution, i am sure humans will come up with something good...

I think it is too early to even bother asking such a question because we cannot factor in natural evolution of our neural capacities and just how computers will look centuries and millenia into the future (who predicted where we are today 100 years ago? typing on this machine would be incredible to them... and that's one-ten millionth of a billion years)

 

[Negatron]

I will miss Negatron. Too bad he missed the shift. Does anyone have a reference to the above? I'm seriously interested in this sort of technology. Thx.

Hi, you're referring to negitron. He registered after me but had many more posts. I suspect he was looking to register "negatron", but being the ruthless ******* that I am I didn't give him the chance.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/01/the_connectome.php
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2009/ninds-15.htm
http://www.smt.zeiss.com/brainmapping
http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/87E946200DB89851C12576480025CAC0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18638197
http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/
http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/Jahia/site/bluebrain/op/edit/pid/18699

There's quite a bit of it out there, much more from other counties/institutions. It all seems to have happened simultaneously after the technology to automate scanning and analysis become available. Processing power appears to be the main limitation at the moment, but there's also much to improve in the microtome and microscopy areas.

You could plausibly transfer a human mind within the next 10 years and it may very well happen, however at this point in time it does seem a bit precarious given all the unknowns and technological insufficiencies.

we can ponder what 2-3 billion years of evolution can bring

Ponder we can, but we will never get the chance to find out. Biological evolution is extinct for the human species.

 

[rolerbe]

Geez.

Thanks for the links. Sorry for the mistaken identity. Glad you're still with us.

I wonder how many posts I've either cross-attributed, or simply lumped together in my mind.