Life after death?

[Ksa]

Ksa:

Even if you are right about a version on me in another universe (which seems rather uncertain to say the least), would it be me?

It reminds me of the nerdy Star Trek transporter problem: When Ensign Red Shirt is transported the atoms that currently are Ensign Red Shirt are dispersed on the Enterprise and replicated out of other atoms on the planet. The person on the planet thinks and acts like Ensign Red Shirt A. But is the Ensign Red Shirt on the planet really Ensign Red Shirt that was on the Enterprise or merely a duplicate Ensign Red Shirt A1. And if so, did Ensign Red Shirt A die never to be conscious again? I would say Ensign Red Shirt A died and A1 was born with A's memories built in.

Any multiple mes would be like Jennys A1, 2, 3, 4. They may be exactly like me. But my consciousness would not be connected to them merely duplicated by them. Thus, I still only live once.

Why would it not be you? You said it yourself, you're no longer baring the atoms you were born with, but does that make a difference? Say I change my processor in my computer, when I turn it back on, is it not the same Windows configuration the way I left it before changing the processor? It's the connection that counts. The atoms don't count, you can donate your kidney also!

[Jenny A]

Why would it not be you? You said it yourself, you're no longer baring the atoms you were born with, but does that make a difference? Say I change my processor in my computer, when I turn it back on, is it not the same Windows configuration the way I left it before changing the processor? It's the connection that counts. The atoms don't count, you can donate your kidney also!

Because when Jenny A breaks apart into component atoms, it's not a slow replacement of atoms maintaining a sense of consciousness. There's no longer continuous history. Jenny A is gone. That she is replicated as Jenny A1 would be of no difference to those who know Jenny A. It's not a difference they would be able to discern. But Jenny A is still gone.

If it helps try it this way: Suppose the transporter malfunctions and produces Jenny A1 and Jenny A2 simultaneously. They would not be each other thinking in duplicate, even if they would, at least initially, think very similar thoughts. Therefore because neither of them is the other, neither is Jenny A.

Cloning, is not immortality. Multiple copies of the same book, are different physical objects. Burn one and it's gone. It doesn't become the other physical books.

[Ksa]

Why would it not be you? You said it yourself, you're no longer baring the atoms you were born with, but does that make a difference? Say I change my processor in my computer, when I turn it back on, is it not the same Windows configuration the way I left it before changing the processor? It's the connection that counts. The atoms don't count, you can donate your kidney also!

Because when Jenny A breaks apart into component atoms, it's not a slow replacement of atoms maintaining a sense of consciousness. There's no longer continuous history. Jenny A is gone. That she is replicated as Jenny A1 would be of no difference to those who know Jenny A. It's not a difference they would be able to discern. But Jenny A is still gone.

If it helps try it this way: Suppose the transporter malfunctions and produces Jenny A1 and Jenny A2 simultaneously. They would not be each other thinking in duplicate, even if they would, at least initially, think very similar thoughts. Therefore because neither of them is the other, neither is Jenny A.

Cloning, is not immortality. Multiple copies of the same book, are different physical objects. Burn one and it's gone. It doesn't become the other physical books.

Yes but during clinical death you can die for a few minutes and there's nothing holding your consciousness there either and it's for a longer period of time than the startrek transporter. Despite all you rise again and feel like it's still you.

[Jenny A]

Yes but during clinical death you can die for a few minutes and there's nothing holding your consciousness there either and it's for a longer period of time than the startrek transporter. Despite all you rise again and feel like it's still you.

As I understand it, there isn't actually a period of no brain activity with clinical death--just very very low brain activity. But supposing you are right and it really does absolutely stop, then we might be back to Patient A and Patient A1. I just don't know. ---- But I wouldn't get in that transporter or volunteer to have my brain switched briefly off.

[Ksa]

Yes but during clinical death you can die for a few minutes and there's nothing holding your consciousness there either and it's for a longer period of time than the startrek transporter. Despite all you rise again and feel like it's still you.

As I understand it, there isn't actually a period of no brain activity with clinical death--just very very low brain activity. But supposing you are right and it really does absolutely stop, then we might be back to Patient A and Patient A1. I just don't know. ---- But I wouldn't get in that transporter or volunteer to have my brain switched briefly off.

People said the same thing about trains when railways got built "I would never climb on that thing". There was a fear that pregnant women would lose their baby and those concerns were brought forth even by some doctors!

[Jenny A]

As I understand it, there isn't actually a period of no brain activity with clinical death--just very very low brain activity. But supposing you are right and it really does absolutely stop, then we might be back to Patient A and Patient A1. I just don't know. ---- But I wouldn't get in that transporter or volunteer to have my brain switched briefly off.

People said the same thing about trains when railways got built "I would never climb on that thing". There was a fear that pregnant women would lose their baby and those concerns were brought forth even by some doctors!

I'll pass just the same. Thanks.

---

But to be perfectly clear, I don't see any evidence for continuing consciousness beyond a functioning brain. Brain dead is dead. A backup copy somewhere else is just a copy because so far there's no way to transfer consciousness from one brain to another or into anything else for that matter. Putting the copy in another universe doesn't solve that essential problem.

[c172]

Mmmmmmmcustard...

[Ksa]

People said the same thing about trains when railways got built "I would never climb on that thing". There was a fear that pregnant women would lose their baby and those concerns were brought forth even by some doctors!

I'll pass just the same. Thanks.

---

But to be perfectly clear, I don't see any evidence for continuing consciousness beyond a functioning brain. Brain dead is dead. A backup copy somewhere else is just a copy because so far there's no way to transfer consciousness from one brain to another or into anything else for that matter. Putting the copy in another universe doesn't solve that essential problem.

It's the thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits that misleads you. They have a reciprocal connection with the prefrontal cortex, inducing this sense of "you", by associating the way you feel inside with what you see and hear.

If you don't believe me or don't understand me, just alter the thalamus function temporarily with amphetamines. When you wake up after a day of use and you stand straight in the middle of the bed for 5 minutes, with a strong smell of burnt rubber in your nose, not knowing who you are and where you are, until it all comes back to you 5 minutes later, you will realize the truth:

That there isn't a "you" and that there never was a "you". It's simply an illusion created by your brain to mislead you into thinking you are a whole, a unique person, when in fact you are many things combined that will never make one.

[Jenny A]

It's the thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits that misleads you. They have a reciprocal connection with the prefrontal cortex, inducing this sense of "you", by associating the way you feel inside with what you see and hear.

If you don't believe me or don't understand me, just alter the thalamus function temporarily with amphetamines. When you wake up after a day of use and you stand straight in the middle of the bed for 5 minutes, with a strong smell of burnt rubber in your nose, not knowing who you are and where you are, until it all comes back to you 5 minutes later, you will realize the truth:

That there isn't a "you" and that there never was a "you". It's simply an illusion created by your brain to mislead you into thinking you are a whole, a unique person, when in fact you are many things combined that will never make one.

Two questions:

First assuming that there isn't a me and that me is just an illusion created by my brain to mislead me into to thinking I'm a whole person rather than a collective, how that heck does that change what happens when I die. Whether it's illusion or fact, self, or many selves, it ends with death.

Second, there's a platform problem with the argument that that there is no me. If I am being fooled by my brain into thinking I'm a whole unique person, who is the person who's being fooled?

[Ksa]

It's the thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits that misleads you. They have a reciprocal connection with the prefrontal cortex, inducing this sense of "you", by associating the way you feel inside with what you see and hear.

If you don't believe me or don't understand me, just alter the thalamus function temporarily with amphetamines. When you wake up after a day of use and you stand straight in the middle of the bed for 5 minutes, with a strong smell of burnt rubber in your nose, not knowing who you are and where you are, until it all comes back to you 5 minutes later, you will realize the truth:

That there isn't a "you" and that there never was a "you". It's simply an illusion created by your brain to mislead you into thinking you are a whole, a unique person, when in fact you are many things combined that will never make one.

Two questions:

First assuming that there isn't a me and that me is just an illusion created by my brain to mislead me into to thinking I'm a whole person rather than a collective, how that heck does that change what happens when I die. Whether it's illusion or fact, self, or many selves, it ends with death.

Second, there's a platform problem with the argument that that there is no me. If I am being fooled by my brain into thinking I'm a whole unique person, who is the person who's being fooled?

The problem with visualizing death is that man often uses waypoints/parameters/values in life that are not part of reality. If you cannot visualize death, it's fairly simple why, you're trying to fit a triangle into a square hole. Trying to describe an element of reality with elements that are not part of that reality. If everything you use to perform your analysis was indeed part of reality, such as your identity "you", then you would have no issues relating to death.

Person, nothing, void, God etc. are simply abuse of language. It doesn't exist anywhere. We say person why? Because the individual has a personality, therefore he's a person. But how many elements does his personality have, and how many regions of his brain govern that personality? And if some of those regions change or become deactivated, wouldn't that make him a different person?