4 ms·
I concluded that, with high probability, there is life after death. Simple: 1. Current life is clearly possible (cogito ergo sum etc). 2. When this one ends,
by foobarian 4y ago
I concluded that, with high probability, there is life after death. Simple:
1. Current life is clearly possible (cogito ergo sum etc).
2. When this one ends, statistically it's inevitable there will be another one. See e.g. Boltzmann brain [1].
The pickle is that the timespan between 1 and 2 could be very long. But since you're not aware of it that doesn't matter. Also, the other pickle is you won't remember it, and that one really burns.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
- simonh 4y agoThat's just a copy of you though. It's not you. If I offered to teleport you to work every morning, super convenient and free, but the teleporter destroys your body and creates a new identical copy at the other end every time, would you use it? There's an SF story where someone invents a teleporter, and it becomes very popular, but then one of them goes wrong and doesn't destroy the original body.
- foobarian 4y agoIf I get to keep the qualia yes absolutely.
- simonh 4y agoThe copy would keep all your memories and would experience qualia, the question is, is it you? After all, your body was torn apart to extract the information to build the new one. Bear in mind qualia are instantaneous, you don't keep them, only memories of them. Sorry, I added the example of the SF story while you were replying to my post. In that story now there's two of the same person walking about, both of whom think they are 'him'. The really disturbing this is, this might be what our lives are actually like. After all, our brains frequently stop being conscious and then summon consciousness back into being. Is it really the same consciousness though? Or is it a fresh newly synthesised process that just has memories from the last time your were conscious? I still wouldn't use the teleporter though.
- keymon-o 4y agoIf we persume that life is completely based on the physical world, then yes consciousness is based on memory and you can somehow replicate the same consciousness which will continue with different experiences. But if consciousness is based on what is percieved from physical world, then the consciousness can really take different forms, be parallel, be one single consciousness, and even not be dependant on time at all. I think more interesting concept, than comparing death with being partially unconscious, is losing your complete memory. If consciousness is related on having past memories and experiences, how can we say a person can be conscious and function without having any single recollection of anything that ever happened.
- simondw 4y ago> Is it really the same consciousness though? And to push it further, in what sense is each moment's consciousness the same as the previous?
- mariodiana 4y agoA variation on this story was the plot of the very first Star Trek novel: Spock Must Die! (I think there is a beaten up copy buried in my old closet at my mother's house, from when I was a boy.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock_Must_Die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock_Must_Die!
- nawwal 4y agoThis is kind of like the plot twist in The Prestige, great movie
- foobarian 4y agoDude, spoilers!
- velcrovan 4y agoAnother (competing) conception of “consciousness after death” is that (perhaps depending on the manner of death) consciousness continues but degrades further and further into an obscene, wretched stupidity. See https://thelocalyarn.com/article/death-decay-and-the-haunted-afterlife https://thelocalyarn.com/article/death-decay-and-the-haunted...
- BossingAround 4y ago1. and 2. are congruent. Where your thesis misses the mark is connecting 1. and 2. with your life after death. In other words, assert 1. and 2., therefore the human race does not die out when I die. But, assert 1. and 2., therefore my life will continue seems like a pretty big leap to me.