Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[John 6IX Breezy]

...IIT states that this guy is not you.  

If IIT states such a thing quote them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ, you're the one linking papers. You should have already known that IIT defines consciousness as individual and intrinsically actual.

Go, let wonder lead you to knowledge, and stop spamming the boards with random links.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Of course; I had to give an entire lecture on this paper during a graduate seminar. But I must have missed where it says that when God resurrects me it's no longer me. You claimed that it does, so quote them.

[Silver]

I don't see this going anywhere rational anytime soon.

[The Grand Nudger]

It didn't start anywhere rational, so that's no surprise. If you gave an entire lecture on IIT without understanding it's definition of consciousness, you owe some students time or money John.

Imagine that god didn't wait for you to swallow a giant crayon. He copied you right now. Perfectly. Which one of the two is you - as IIT has it?

[Brian37]

HELLO MCFLY, try smashing your computer into a million pieces then try to turn it back on.

A sufficiently advanced technology could do exactly that, reproducing the original based on analysis of the pieces. Indeed there is a theory by Leonard Susskind that says information is indestructible. Admittedly, it is way over my head so I am unable to evaluate it. Google it and see what you can make of it.

The point is that you are oversimplifying this. I don't know how much you intuit or understand that there is absolutely NOTHING in known physics that allows for chemical and electrical processes to lead to consciousness. That isn't to say that it can't (because it apparently does) but the mechanism is utterly outside our understanding. Try to understand fire without any inkling of chemistry or the atomic theory of matter. That's where we are with consciousness. With that level of ignorance, it is pure hubris to declare that physics "proves" that consciousness cannot survive the death of the body - especially with outside help.

Yes, I am simplifying it because there is a fine line between real science and people using real science to justify absurdity.

We are cloning human tissue and will eventually get to the point of being able to replace a liver, or lung or heart. We might even be able to, in the future cure spinal cord injury. But just like a car, you can change the tires, change the oil, change the spark plugs, and even replace the entire engine. But that will only extend the life of the car, it will not make it last 10,000 years, or a million years. 

There is no fountain of youth, and there is no such thing as "forever" no matter how much we push the window of extending life. 

Consciousness is not a "forever" thing. It never will be. 

Even if technology got to the point of recording our thoughts on a computer, that recording would not be us, it would be a copy, a simulation. 

Where was your consciousness 4 billion years ago? Where was your consciousness 13.8 billion years ago?

What makes anyone think your consciousness will be around 10 billion years from now?

"Hubris" to me are when humans think they can escape their finite existence. One can only extend life, and we certainly can expand that window, but there is no such thing as "forever" for our species. No matter what, our sun will expand and destroy our solar system. And our species will be long gone by the time that happens.

Be it the old god/gods/God/deity mythology of antiquity, or even modern si fi woo, both of those are nothing more than a reflection of human's fear of death and false sense of security of a desire to continue forever.

There certainly is lots humans have yet to discover about science sure, but even scientists know, the even the entire universe will run out of energy and die. There is no "hubris" in accepting fact.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even a perfect copy is only a copy until it's had it's very first very own experience - which we assume..since it's conscious, will be immediately upon coming into existence. Then it's no longer even a copy of you. It's on the same footing as everyone else you know. Broadly similar, but possessing different life experiences.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Imagine that god didn't wait for you to swallow a giant crayon. He copied you right now. Perfectly. Which one of the two is you - as IIT has it?

Resurrecting a person and copying them are two separate events. And even if we pretend they are the same thing, IIT doesn't care about Star Trek teleportation issues (Ship of Theseus). That is a problem for the philosophy of identity to solve—not the neuroscience of consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are they? Not according to IIT. Resurrecting you is simply restoring a pile of decomposed matter into the last living state of some dead organism.

I can see that you give about as many shits about what IIT says and what doesn't square with it as I initially suspected. -but go off, keep telling me how the meat fairy -can too- make another you.

I certainly don't want to argue that, because I prefer to watch you say it over and over thinking that it's less silly than those other silly afterlives. Let's assume that it can. It can make another pile of meat that is exactly as you were at the very moment of your death. Is it conscious? Because, if so, according to IIT...it must then be individual, and intrinsically actual.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Are they? Not according to IIT. Resurrecting you is simply restoring [emphasis added] a pile of decomposed matter into the last living state of some dead organism.

Restoration is not replication—you will never end up with two Mona Lisas by restoring the original.