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

[Mgt3]

Does anyone here believe that one day it will be physically possible for a person to maintain self identity and/or consciousness after their bodies have deceased? I've seen this written about by some scientists, including physicist Paul Davies. Seeing as the mind is composed of the same stuff as all other physical matter in the universe, it doesn't surprise me that some believe that a "real" afterlife of sorts could be obtained one day. What are your thoughts?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does anyone here believe that one day it will be physically possible for a person to maintain self identity and/or consciousness after their bodies have deceased? I've seen this written about by some scientists, including physicist Paul Davies. Seeing as the mind is composed of the same stuff as all other physical matter in the universe, it doesn't surprise me that some believe that a "real" afterlife of sorts could be obtained one day. What are your thoughts?

I too have heard a good number of people working at high levels in AI making the claim that "uploading" the mind will one day be possible. For starters, I don't see how that claim can be made since we can't yet quantify consciousness or self-identity. So, at a minimum, at this time there is no way to say if a person's consciousnes could ever be transferred in such a manner. We could never know if it really is good ole Joe, or just a fascimile.

We have the same problem with the notion of Star-Trek-like transporters. Even if we could overcome the exponentially large problem of transporting [producing an exact copy] of a large system of particles, we have no way to know if the "mind" could ever be transferred in such a way. And even worse, again there would be no way for us to tell the difference between the copy [an exact copy] and the original. We could never really know if Joe ceased to exist the moment Scotty began the transport.

Something else to consider: How could any process of uploading produce the mind of the original unless the original is deleted in the process? It seems to me that any so-called uploading process that does not intrinsically require deleting the original, has a problem. If it was your mind, wouldn't you know the difference between you and the copy? But then I guess the copy would be looking at the situation in an identical manner, so you really couldn't be sure if you are you or just a copy, except through the circumstances.

 

[NeoDevin]

I too have heard a good number of people working at high levels in AI making the claim that "uploading" the mind will one day be possible. For starters, I don't see how that claim can be made since we can't yet quantify consciousness or self-identity. So, at a minimum, at this time there is no way to say if a person's consciousnes could ever be transferred in such a manner. We could never know if it really is good ole Joe, or just a fascimile.

You seem to be arguing for duality, which there is no evidence for (physical "brain states" correspond 1-1 with "mind states", to within accuracy of measurement).

Even if it isn't eventually possible to "upload" onto a traditional computer architecture, there have been several recent attempts to simulate brain function directly, using massively parallel systems, and/or using artificial neurons (that is, computer chips designed to behave like neurons). There is no reason to think that such a system, were it able to reproduce the connectivity of the human brain, could not have a person's consciousness copied onto it.

The other alternative is to grow a new brain out of biological tissue (stem cell research could help us with this), and then somehow imprint the brain state of a person onto this "blank". Even if there were some fundamental reason that brain states cannot be replicated by silicon chips, there is no plausible explanation as to why replicating the biological brain directly wouldn't work.

To respond directly to the OP:

The only plausible reason why "eternal consciousness" (to within thermodynamic limits on the universe, and/or our capability of harnessing energy) would be impossible would be if the emergent property we call consciousness were somehow self-limiting. That is, if the conditions necessary for consciousness to exist and continue, necessitate the eventual termination of that consciousness. I don't see this as very likely, so I believe one day we will achieve this, assuming we don't go extinct first.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You seem to be arguing for duality, which there is no evidence for (physical "brain states" correspond 1-1 with "mind states", to within accuracy of measurement).

If you wish to go down that road, then my response is that we can never know the exact state of the system at any moment. Quantum limitations [Heisenberg] of measurement make this impossible.

 

[Blenton]

Yeah imagine if you were able to predict the thought patterns of your own brain. It would be some infinite loop that's bound to end horribly.

 

[arildno]

PARTIAL survivals of mental traits might well be possible, rather than a full re-capture of the mind.

But then again, how to ensure we retain Stephen Hawking's abstract thought processes, rather than his sexual fantasies?

Or perhaps the latter would be preferable?

 

[NeoDevin]

If you wish to go down that road, then my response is that we can never know the exact state of the system at any moment. Quantum limitations [Heisenberg] of measurement make this impossible.

Precision on that scale doesn't appear to be necessary for the correspondence.

Edit: Also, just because we can't know a quantum state, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you now arguing for a "dualism of the gaps"? Just because we (maybe) can't measure the brain state with enough accuracy, means that dualism exists.

At least you had more sense than the "god of the gaps" people, and chose something that can't be known, rather than just something which isn't known yet.

 

[Mgt3]

I thought it sounded too good to be true. Other than that, what hope do we have of an afterlife? The future does not look promising.

 

[Evo]

I thought it sounded too good to be true. Other than that, what hope do we have of an afterlife? The future does not look promising.

It's probably better to live this life as the only one you've got.

 

[Mgt3]

It's probably better to live this life as the only one you've got.

I agree in some sense, but most people would find little comfort in that when the subject is given serious thought. Think of how bleak the future really is: Total annihilation awaits us. There is no hope to live into the future or ever see loved ones again, and a painful death is in store for most of the world's people. How is one to "live in the present" when they know terror, torment, and anguish are staring at them in the horizon? I hope scientists start turning their attention toward that little issue instead of worrying how thin a television screen can be made.

 

[Mgt3]

PARTIAL survivals of mental traits might well be possible, rather than a full re-capture of the mind.

But then again, how to ensure we retain Stephen Hawking's abstract thought processes, rather than his sexual fantasies?

Or perhaps the latter would be preferable?

What's the current line of thought on this problem?

 

[BobG]

I agree in some sense, but most people would find little comfort in that when the subject is given serious thought. Think of how bleak the future really is: Total annihilation awaits us. There is no hope to live into the future or ever see loved ones again, and a painful death is in store for most of the world's people. How is one to "live in the present" when they know terror, torment, and anguish are staring at them in the horizon? I hope scientists start turning their attention toward that little issue instead of worrying how thin a television screen can be made.

Before your next gathering with friends or family, you could try this:

Hug the person next to you, take a deep breath, and imagine what life will be like once they're gone.

Then, hug them a second time, with a deep breath, while imagining what they'll do in life without you after you're gone. (after all, you don't know whose leaving first).

Then, hug them one more time, with a deep breath, and think about how you feel about being here, now, with them. Then enjoy your evening with your friends and family.

 

[LowlyPion]

I don't see the practical benefit of extending a consciousness beyond death.

Where would it start from anyway? From the disease wracked final moments, or from some time prior? And if some time prior then it is no longer a twin of the conscious existence it is replacing is it?

It seems its appeal is in an appeal to the ego, the siren call of immortality, heard by those that would want to grasp at the idea that they would live on. But as what, once the surcease is past?

And of what value to the loved ones left behind? Chambered in a computer that sits on a desk like a stuffed dead pet that has facility with working the Daily Jumble puzzle in the paper, and no longer snores?

 

[Mgt3]

If we are to believe David Deutsch, we're coming back at the end of the universe. Where do these guys come up with this stuff?

 

[BobG]

And of what value to the loved ones left behind? Chambered in a computer that sits on a desk like a stuffed dead pet that has facility with working the Daily Jumble puzzle in the paper, and no longer snores?

As opposed to a living elderly loved one that wanders around the house singing Toyota jingles until they finally pass out in your favorite recliner in front of the TV and snores loudly?

 

[Mgt3]

I don't see the practical benefit of extending a consciousness beyond death.

The practical benefit is that you live beyond death. . .

 

[Evo]

The practical benefit is that you live beyond death. . .

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?

 

[LowlyPion]

The practical benefit is that you live beyond death. . .

Not to put too fine a line on it, but you are still dead, and you are left with a computer that while it may no longer emit bio-gases at inappropriate moments is still just a program running in a computer with all of your quirks and faults - trapped forever without the ability to breathe deeply at the sea shore or cradle a tender flower petal in spring.

Imagine the horror of realizing that your continued operation depended on a Microsoft Operating System.

 

[Mgt3]

Not to put too fine a line on it, but you are still dead, and you are left with a computer that while it may no longer emit bio-gases at inappropriate moments is still just a program running in a computer with all of your quirks and faults - trapped forever without the ability to breathe deeply at the sea shore or cradle a tender flower petal in spring.

Imagine the horror of realizing that your continued operation depended on a Microsoft Operating System.

LOL

Seriously, though, if you can put the person on a chip you could no doubt give them a prosthetic body. Which makes me wonder, is mind uploading scientifically impossible?

 

[OAQfirst]

How far do you want to go with this? I reckon that wanting immortality is akin to wanting infinite wealth. You'll never be satisfied with what you have by seeking such things. Say you now have a fully duplicated androidish body complete with full sensory system. You can maintain yourself indefinitely. Now what? Thousands, millions, billions of years go by. What will be your motivation? Will you do anything? Watch television? Write a book? Have millions of kids? Just how will you define a purpose for your life if you no longer have a constriction to do something meaningful now?

 

[NeoDevin]

How far do you want to go with this? I reckon that wanting immortality is akin to wanting infinite wealth. You'll never be satisfied with what you have by seeking such things. Say you now have a fully duplicated androidish body complete with full sensory system. You can maintain yourself indefinitely. Now what? Thousands, millions, billions of years go by. What will be your motivation? Will you do anything? Watch television? Write a book? Have millions of kids? Just how will you define a purpose for your life if you no longer have a constriction to do something meaningful now?

Suicide is always an option after millions/billions of years and you think you've seen everything that you want to see.

 

[Mgt3]

I find it incredibly ironic that the song "Suicide is Painless" was playing when I read this.

 

[Evo]

Suicide is always an option after millions/billions of years and you think you've seen everything that you want to see.

If you read the fine print on your immortality contract, suicide is not an option. It's all or nothing.

 

[Mgt3]

If you read the fine print on your immortality contract, suicide is not an option. It's all or nothing.

Give me all. Death takes away life's meaning.

 

[Evo]

Give me all. Death takes away life's meaning.

Death gives life meaning. You have a finite amount of time here, make the best of it. Consider life a gift and enjoy it.

 

[NeoDevin]

Death gives life meaning. You have a finite amount of time here, make the best of it. Consider life a gift and enjoy it.

I plan to live forever.

Edit: Might it be better to say that the expectation of death gives life meaning, rather than death itself?

 

[Evo]

Edit: Might it be better to say that the expectation of death gives life meaning, rather than death itself?

picky, picky, picky

Yeah, that sounds better.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Imagine the horror of realizing that your continued operation depended on a Microsoft Operating System.

Gives "the blue screen of death" a whole new meaning.

Sounds like the afterlife will require frequent upgrades and patches.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems to me that are all forgetting the lesson of Moriarty: An uploaded mind can live in a virtual world. Your loved ones would never die; they would just reboot.

 

[Mgt3]

The question begs to be asked: Is it even physically possible to upload a mind?

 

[Loren Booda]

Since soul and mind are so intertwined, how can one download the mind without the soul?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The question begs to be asked: Is it even physically possible to upload a mind?

The question has been answered. We don't know, but there seems to be some serious problems; some of which may make it fundamentally impossible.

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

 

[Astronuc]

What's the lifespan of a cell phone, I-Pod, or laptop?

And what if the system crashes, or the power goes off, or one picks up a virus, trojan or work.

I don't see silicon (or GaAs) based microcircuitry capturing the neural patterns of the brain, and without senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing, would it mean anything.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What's the lifespan of a cell phone, I-Pod, or laptop?

And what if the system crashes, or the power goes off, or one picks up a virus, trojan or work.

I don't see silicon (or GaAs) based microcircuitry capturing the neural patterns of the brain, and without senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing, would it mean anything.

Cosmic radiation would get you sooner or later.

But, all of the inputs could be simulated. It is the classic "evil genius" scheme from Descartes. Ironically [if not prophetically], would the computer question whether it really exists or is merely a mind with inputs flowing from some evil genius?

 

[Mgt3]

Ivan, what do you make of David Deutsch's afterlife concept of an omniscient universe creating simulations as its computation increases infinitely?

 

[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?

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.