Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
Do you have any idea of how boring I am?
I really don’t see you as being any less so.
Do you really think anyone would want our chips inserted some time in any future?
Hard to say. I am not sure about whether it can be done in the first place.
Even if it could I would only call it an afterlife if it could experience the world and learn new things, meet new people etc… and if the mind controlled how it did this. Not sure if a machine simulation of the mind making decisions to some sort of algorithm would pass the grade for me.
Then could mummification be considered an afterlifr? Bodily material not decomposed for 100,000 years or longer, potentially.
mollwollfumble said:
Then could mummification be considered an afterlifr? Bodily material not decomposed for 100,000 years or longer, potentially.
Everything after death is also after life.
mollwollfumble said:
Then could mummification be considered an afterlifr? Bodily material not decomposed for 100,000 years or longer, potentially.
I would not call physical preservation of a body an afterlife. No.
party_pants said:
mollwollfumble said:
Then could mummification be considered an afterlifr? Bodily material not decomposed for 100,000 years or longer, potentially.
I would not call physical preservation of a body an afterlife. No.
It is roughly where the term came from ..
People could be placed into hibernation for as long as they wanted.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
Do you have any idea of how boring I am?
I really don’t see you as being any less so.
Do you really think anyone would want our chips inserted some time in any future?
Your chip would be placed in a new body not into someones else body.
party_pants said:
mollwollfumble said:
Then could mummification be considered an afterlifr? Bodily material not decomposed for 100,000 years or longer, potentially.
I would not call physical preservation of a body an afterlife. No.
What if your chip also contained information to clone yourself anytime in the future.
Tau.Neutrino said:
People could be placed into hibernation for as long as they wanted.
Ask Walt Disney.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
Do you have any idea of how boring I am?
I really don’t see you as being any less so.
Do you really think anyone would want our chips inserted some time in any future?
Your chip would be placed in a new body not into someones else body.
Yeah but knowing me i’d be inclined to envisage a rejection of the implant.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
People could be placed into hibernation for as long as they wanted.Ask Walt Disney.
why? he wasn’t.
JudgeMental said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
People could be placed into hibernation for as long as they wanted.Ask Walt Disney.
why? he wasn’t.
If it is all a fairy tale, who else would you ask?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
People could be placed into hibernation for as long as they wanted.
You could call it “Time travel”. Travel into the future.
There is the problem of robotic obsolescence. Computer technology tends to become obsolete faster than human beings age.
There is also the problem of copying the mind.
But from a religious aspect. (Checks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife), afterlife in modern religions is always either reincarnation or heaven and hell. Both have a punishment-reward aspect. I’m not sure whether the aboriginal reincarnation as a totem spirit has a punishment-reward aspect. Wikipedia doesn’t help much.
https://alcor.org/Library/html/religionandcryonics.html
> Statements like: “Cryonicists intend to raise the dead, claiming power that only God holds,” “The desire to extend life on Earth contradicts what is taught in the Bible,” and “The souls of those in cryonic suspension are caught in a hellish limbo between Heaven and Earth.” have been accepted as maxims among Christians (though the last is more often imagined than stated). Are these statements — and others like them — fair? More importantly, are they biblical? I contend that the ideas behind cryonics are fully compatible with the biblical view of life, and furthermore, that the intended results of cryonics coincide with many specific commands of the Bible.
> Cryonics: Extending Life or Raising the Dead?
> A major objection many Christians have concerning cryonics hinges on today’s common misconception of death. Because cryonic suspension cannot yet take place until after legal death, cryonics is often viewed as occultish. Many Christians regard Cryonicists as a group of “witch-doctors” out to raise the dead when, in fact, only God has that power. However, presenting clearly the true definition of “death” can often solve this problem.
party_pants said:
mollwollfumble said:
Then could mummification be considered an afterlifr? Bodily material not decomposed for 100,000 years or longer, potentially.
I would not call physical preservation of a body an afterlife. No.
If it was, you wouldn’t have much to write home about.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
…/cut/……
related one of the challenges with a conscious whatever, replicator, that cares about the organic, the concerns and activities related of the greater homeostasis.
memory, with a bunch of further mind tools, that sort of force
commitment to others, love, it’s an investment, which extends to larger groups, even states (or culture of you like, the ways of groups, a kind, kindredness).
the very practical thing, a lot of work often, is death can’t be managed by a mind that cares that much just like a switch.
oh look one of my family has died, just give me a day to reconfigure all the invested neurons, the structures, i’ll reflash it tonight. Tomorrow you’ll barely recognize they ever existed, and any doubts you have about the rule of the living, well, grab yourself some status why don’t you.
and what’s the difference anyway, your partner or child is off somewhere, they may have died an hour ago, you don’t know. You don’t instantly kill them in your mind because they’re out of sight. You’ll see there’s a disinclination to kill them whatever the situation.
hence ideas of an afterlife.
a desire not to kill those passed away, probably the essence of RIP, the softer respectable version anyway. A reminder perhaps that there are worse things than death.
so I think the living, the conscious living, they live something of the afterlife while alive, their children hopefully outlive them (as they’re meant to), and culture outlives them.
the afterlife has a very practical dimension, essential even, it could be said. No less so for many heathens.
the soft landing (backdrop) of the challenging task of giving a fuck.
technology is no fix, welcome the finite life.
.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
No thanks. The world would be full of Arnold Rimmers. Rimmer World. EEEEEK!
Woodie said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
No thanks. The world would be full of Arnold Rimmers. Rimmer World. EEEEEK!
You could have your own body as a clone
While your chip is in hibernation
your new body could be cloned from DNA information in the chip
Woodie said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
What if peoples minds could be uploaded to a small chip, would that be considered an after life ?
This chip could placed into a robots body, a cyborgs body or put on a shelf for a million years.
No thanks. The world would be full of Arnold Rimmers. Rimmer World. EEEEEK!
There could be a lot of people who want to come back as a hologram.
Or as a clone, or as a cyborg or as a robot, or as a new body not a clone.
There are a list of possibilities to come back as either a life form or non life form
Clone – life-form
Robot – non life-form
Cyborg – life-form
New body – life-form
Hologram – non life-form
Virtual Reality Environment – non life-form
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
…/cut/……
related one of the challenges with a conscious whatever, replicator, that cares about the organic, the concerns and activities related of the greater homeostasis.
memory, with a bunch of further mind tools, that sort of force
commitment to others, love, it’s an investment, which extends to larger groups, even states (or culture of you like, the ways of groups, a kind, kindredness).
the very practical thing, a lot of work often, is death can’t be managed by a mind that cares that much just like a switch.
oh look one of my family has died, just give me a day to reconfigure all the invested neurons, the structures, i’ll reflash it tonight. Tomorrow you’ll barely recognize they ever existed, and any doubts you have about the rule of the living, well, grab yourself some status why don’t you.
and what’s the difference anyway, your partner or child is off somewhere, they may have died an hour ago, you don’t know. You don’t instantly kill them in your mind because they’re out of sight. You’ll see there’s a disinclination to kill them whatever the situation.
hence ideas of an afterlife.
a desire not to kill those passed away, probably the essence of RIP, the softer respectable version anyway. A reminder perhaps that there are worse things than death.
so I think the living, the conscious living, they live something of the afterlife while alive, their children hopefully outlive them (as they’re meant to), and culture outlives them.
the afterlife has a very practical dimension, essential even, it could be said. No less so for many heathens.
the soft landing (backdrop) of the challenging task of giving a fuck.
technology is no fix, welcome the finite life.
Interesting.
Science can offer possibilities of an afterlife but religious people object to it.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Religious people want some sort of afterlife, ancient Egyptians wanted some form of afterlife, various other people want some form of continuance.
…/cut/……
related one of the challenges with a conscious whatever, replicator, that cares about the organic, the concerns and activities related of the greater homeostasis.
memory, with a bunch of further mind tools, that sort of force
commitment to others, love, it’s an investment, which extends to larger groups, even states (or culture of you like, the ways of groups, a kind, kindredness).
the very practical thing, a lot of work often, is death can’t be managed by a mind that cares that much just like a switch.
oh look one of my family has died, just give me a day to reconfigure all the invested neurons, the structures, i’ll reflash it tonight. Tomorrow you’ll barely recognize they ever existed, and any doubts you have about the rule of the living, well, grab yourself some status why don’t you.
and what’s the difference anyway, your partner or child is off somewhere, they may have died an hour ago, you don’t know. You don’t instantly kill them in your mind because they’re out of sight. You’ll see there’s a disinclination to kill them whatever the situation.
hence ideas of an afterlife.
a desire not to kill those passed away, probably the essence of RIP, the softer respectable version anyway. A reminder perhaps that there are worse things than death.
so I think the living, the conscious living, they live something of the afterlife while alive, their children hopefully outlive them (as they’re meant to), and culture outlives them.
the afterlife has a very practical dimension, essential even, it could be said. No less so for many heathens.
the soft landing (backdrop) of the challenging task of giving a fuck.
technology is no fix, welcome the finite life.
Interesting.
Science can offer possibilities of an afterlife but religious people object to it.
they have their own afterlife already planned
no
Afterlife/heaven really hasn’t been thought out too well, what religions tells us happens actually comes across as a punishment.
You die you can’t communicate with loved ones and miss everything they do.
You do get to met people who have died but that’s assuming you like people and are people suddenly not douche bags once they are dead.
Even if you control your own universe its still not real life is it and everything plays out the way you want, sound boring as well
Cymek said:
Afterlife/heaven really hasn’t been thought out too well, what religions tells us happens actually comes across as a punishment.
You die you can’t communicate with loved ones and miss everything they do.
You do get to met people who have died but that’s assuming you like people and are people suddenly not douche bags once they are dead.
Even if you control your own universe its still not real life is it and everything plays out the way you want, sound boring as well
Most people here know this stuff, but maybe some don’t, here are some musings about the future.
>>>Afterlife/heaven really hasn’t been thought out too well, what religions tells us happens actually comes across as a punishment.
When humanity created religion it did not know about the intricacies of the brain, its neural networks, synapses and neurons etc, nor did it know about the brains tiny magnetic field, or the electrical impulses that move around in the brain and body. Its that electrical activity that gets recorded by fMRI scans, that information can reveal emotions, thoughts, dreams, behaviors, orgasms, and many other things like drugs. Its this electrical chemical information that will be copied or moved onto smart chips that can hold a persons entire memory as electrical information.
The reward punishment behavior became distorted with religion and peaked with the inquisitions in the middle ages. now we are slowly seeing its influence decline in law, with more awareness with human rights, common sense observations that can be validated etc
The heaven, hell and purgatory spaces are all imaginary, with heaven as a reward, hell as punishment and purgatory as a maybe if one can be purified else its hell.
the possibilities in the future for afterlife technology are
Lifeforms
Cryonics in some form for space travel
artificial lifeforms many possibilities
cloned body of your own
or a different but new body/ blank mind
a cyborg ( many possibilities )
or as non life forms
robots( many different types)
hard light robots (holograms)
virtual reality environments ( imagine an entire world on a chip and people interact as in reality )
and the ability to move across different platforms if one wants to, ie human to robot back to cyborg, and maybe a VRE then back to a real body again
that’s how I see future possibilities, A body will become re skin able. People will see a path to continuance.
Then are will be a mass market. Where to put all these people ? In space on other other planets. A chip can be make to last for thousands of years maybe millions of years.
>>>You die you can’t communicate with loved ones and miss everything they do.
I see further decline in religions when people can see dead loved ones return with all their memories in a new body.
>>>Even if you control your own universe its still not real life is it and everything plays out the way you want, sound boring as well
With science and technology in the future you get to control your own body rather than some one else controlling you in an imaginary afterlife space.
and that will bring about extended banking loans and continuation of ownership of property and investments etc
I see huge changes!
Probably a multi Trillion dollar industry. $$$
i’d contend the afterlife, the idea, its origins, came about in substantial part as a prophylactic against killing the dead, or those recently passed away.
you might think you can’t kill dead people, but this more lends to its likelihood. It’s the sort of magic humans can perform.
as sure as anyone, pick anyone, has been polite to someone they don’t like in the last week. The probability’s high.
dissembling, sublimation, whatever repressed since you transitioned out of nappies, it generates a lot of conversion, there’s creativity plenty, much of it shared, and how effectual might the living feel of the dead, the latter can’t experience envy, jealousy, variously wandering comparisons.
so ask, how dead do you want to be? I can arrange a tribe of materialists to kill you after you are dead, to do the job properly, over and over, to make sure the idea of (a) you is thoroughly extinguished. This will require a very low tolerance of the memory of you, even though this is the working business of the living separated by space.
can the living envy the dead?
sure as the idea is dismissed with blunt contrast.
My musings are wild speculation
People will be still alive when their memories are transferred into a new body
It s a bit difficult to transfer someones mind after death due to heat loss, and that includes all the electrical information in the brain
unless the brains chemical makeup can be read which might be possible for a short time after death, dunno
if all the electrical energy in the brain leaves some foot print then maybe that can be read
remember this is wild speculation about the future
what happens will be different to my musings
for Transition
I don’t really care about some religious person who is wrong, nor will people in the future care about some religious person who was wrong in the past.
I dont go about threatening anyone because I don’t like their opinions about things.
You choose to read a thread, no one else forces you too,
You choose to reply to a post, no one forces you to, that’s your choice your making.
If other people think the same way are you going to threaten them too?
Does your religion teach you that, to punish people who don’t share your opinions ?
Do I have to read your mind so I know what not to say due to your attempts at veiled threats and censorship on a science forum.
Am I some sort of emotional punching bag because you don’t like what I’m saying due to your religious teachings which I might point out are only unique to you, no one else.
transition said:
i’d contend the afterlife, the idea, its origins, came about in substantial part as a prophylactic against killing the dead, or those recently passed away.you might think you can’t kill dead people, but this more lends to its likelihood. It’s the sort of magic humans can perform.
as sure as anyone, pick anyone, has been polite to someone they don’t like in the last week. The probability’s high.
dissembling, sublimation, whatever repressed since you transitioned out of nappies, it generates a lot of conversion, there’s creativity plenty, much of it shared, and how effectual might the living feel of the dead, the latter can’t experience envy, jealousy, variously wandering comparisons.
so ask, how dead do you want to be? I can arrange a tribe of materialists to kill you after you are dead, to do the job properly, over and over, to make sure the idea of (a) you is thoroughly extinguished. This will require a very low tolerance of the memory of you, even though this is the working business of the living separated by space.
can the living envy the dead?
sure as the idea is dismissed with blunt contrast.
wtf does this mean?
Michael V said:
transition said:
i’d contend the afterlife, the idea, its origins, came about in substantial part as a prophylactic against killing the dead, or those recently passed away.you might think you can’t kill dead people, but this more lends to its likelihood. It’s the sort of magic humans can perform.
as sure as anyone, pick anyone, has been polite to someone they don’t like in the last week. The probability’s high.
dissembling, sublimation, whatever repressed since you transitioned out of nappies, it generates a lot of conversion, there’s creativity plenty, much of it shared, and how effectual might the living feel of the dead, the latter can’t experience envy, jealousy, variously wandering comparisons.
so ask, how dead do you want to be? I can arrange a tribe of materialists to kill you after you are dead, to do the job properly, over and over, to make sure the idea of (a) you is thoroughly extinguished. This will require a very low tolerance of the memory of you, even though this is the working business of the living separated by space.
can the living envy the dead?
sure as the idea is dismissed with blunt contrast.
wtf does this mean?
Good Question.
consider the question.
can the living envy the dead?
it potentially reveals a lot regard the purpose of ideas of heaven, and the afterlife
granted it’s absurd, but what’s the chances there aren’t some realities in the unthinkable.
transition said:
consider the question.can the living envy the dead?
it potentially reveals a lot regard the purpose of ideas of heaven, and the afterlife
granted it’s absurd, but what’s the chances there aren’t some realities in the unthinkable.
If you could go star trekking and time trekking across the universe in your afterlife that would be something to envy
I imagine that once you are a dead whatever energy in your body dissipates into a disorganised much lower energy state perhaps even at the Planck level, so not sure how any afterlife could exist. Perhaps if the universe goes into a big crunch that scattered energy can reform
transition said:
consider the question.can the living envy the dead?
it potentially reveals a lot regard the purpose of ideas of heaven, and the afterlife
granted it’s absurd, but what’s the chances there aren’t some realities in the unthinkable.
What’s required is some mechanism that can ensure continuity of individual self-experience, after the device originally generating the individual self-experience is kaputt. It would require that the individual actually experience the transition and remain “the same person”.
In the future such technology might be developed but it’s a hugely complex challenge.
As things stand, the rest of us only get one squeeze of the sauce bottle.
Bubblecar said:
transition said:
consider the question.can the living envy the dead?
it potentially reveals a lot regard the purpose of ideas of heaven, and the afterlife
granted it’s absurd, but what’s the chances there aren’t some realities in the unthinkable.
What’s required is some mechanism that can ensure continuity of individual self-experience, after the device originally generating the individual self-experience is kaputt. It would require that the individual actually experience the transition and remain “the same person”.
In the future such technology might be developed but it’s a hugely complex challenge.
As things stand, the rest of us only get one squeeze of the sauce bottle.
I wondered how accurate an avatar could be made if you recorded detailed information about yourself everyday from adulthood to death, feeling, thoughts, ideas, who you are etc
>Am I some sort of emotional punching bag because you don’t like what I’m saying due to your religious teachings
it’s called soliloquizing.
killed any dead people lately with materialism?
transition said:
>Am I some sort of emotional punching bag because you don’t like what I’m saying due to your religious teachingsit’s called soliloquizing.
killed any dead people lately with materialism?
Material objects would kill lots of people.
I had an interesting question you could ask people on the street
“Would you prefer an virtual reality afterlife, were you are who you were in real life but can change anything you want about yourself and the environment but the core you still remains” or chance it to dying and hope heaven exists
transition said:
>Am I some sort of emotional punching bag because you don’t like what I’m saying due to your religious teachingsit’s called soliloquizing.
killed any dead people lately with materialism?
I think of my parents as still “alive” in the context of my life, since my experience of them is still very much functioning through all kinds of memories, dreams etc.
In a way it’s misleading to think of the dead as “gone”. It’s those still living who are gone, leaving behind the space-time position in which those who once lived are still “there”.
Bubblecar said:
transition said:
>Am I some sort of emotional punching bag because you don’t like what I’m saying due to your religious teachingsit’s called soliloquizing.
killed any dead people lately with materialism?
I think of my parents as still “alive” in the context of my life, since my experience of them is still very much functioning through all kinds of memories, dreams etc.
In a way it’s misleading to think of the dead as “gone”. It’s those still living who are gone, leaving behind the space-time position in which those who once lived are still “there”.
You aren’t dead if someone remembers you type thing
Cymek said:
transition said:
consider the question.can the living envy the dead?
it potentially reveals a lot regard the purpose of ideas of heaven, and the afterlife
granted it’s absurd, but what’s the chances there aren’t some realities in the unthinkable.
If you could go star trekking and time trekking across the universe in your afterlife that would be something to envy
I’d trek across the universe in a spaceship.
can the living envy the dead?
only if they are being tortured by a psychopathic criminalmaybe in the far future there will be no death, no crime and no religion or wars
maybe in the far future there will just be extinction.
maybe in the far future the universe will reveal its secrets.
Speculation.
You have to be almost perfect to make it into heaven, latest research from Emmanuel College Oxford puts the chances at ~ 1 in 560,000. We are a very select group.
Peak Warming Man said:
You have to be almost perfect to make it into heaven, latest research from Emmanuel College Oxford puts the chances at ~ 1 in 560,000. We are a very select group.
That 1 in 560,000 figure is more probably someones chance of getting into Emmanuel College Oxford.
Or its something else you have made up.
Peak Warming Man said:
You have to be almost perfect to make it into heaven, latest research from Emmanuel College Oxford puts the chances at ~ 1 in 560,000. We are a very select group.
I’m not sure I’d want to go to heaven, I don’t think I’d know anyone there.
Cymek said:
Bubblecar said:
transition said:
>Am I some sort of emotional punching bag because you don’t like what I’m saying due to your religious teachingsit’s called soliloquizing.
killed any dead people lately with materialism?
I think of my parents as still “alive” in the context of my life, since my experience of them is still very much functioning through all kinds of memories, dreams etc.
In a way it’s misleading to think of the dead as “gone”. It’s those still living who are gone, leaving behind the space-time position in which those who once lived are still “there”.
You aren’t dead if someone remembers you type thing
that’s the idea, and taken further in a sense you’re living among those passed away, the respect hopefully that makes a life worth living