Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/30/2005 8:14:33 PM EDT
OK, in general terms we live a lot longer than we did in past times due to advances in science and medicine. But no matter what the human body is fragile and degenerates and lifespans while increased remain finite.

The notion of maintaining the human body for spans lasting more than 150 years is extremely unlikely. And even if science discovers a method to regenerate and replace the cells of the body an overall degredation over time should be expected based upon all observations of natural cycles. Furthermore the human body will remain fragile and vulnerable.

Now some have suggested biological, or "wet life" is merely a beginning and we will evolve into some higher life form. However, even if that is the case, again based upon all observations of natural cycles even that higher form will have a finite life span.

Basically, based upon our current understanding, to escape our own mortality we must escape the vessel of our bodies which are subject to age, death and decay. To remain within those bodies virtually assures the eventaul death of our self aware consciousness (soul?) as we have no proof of their continued existence outside the body.

Interestingly enough, if my memory serves me, this idea is expressed in the original Hebrew religion which has no literal "Hell." If the soul does not go to Heaven (where it can continue after the body dies) it simply ceases to exist at all.

So the challenge becomes to somehow maintain the "self aware consciousness" beyond the death of our bodies.

Obviously this will NOT be life as we currently know it.

While we have become use to living with replaced body parts and prosthetics if we simply transferred the brain to a robot body that would last several hundred years it wouldn't quite be the same as when the "self aware consciousness" resided in a human carbon based body. And the brain itself will remain fragile with a finite life span so this only potentially extends life longer.

And this is where many people have suggested the idea of trasnferring the "self aware consciousness" to some kind of database. This probably could be done in the future but would it remain a "self aware consciousness" or merely an archive "record"? Would the "self aware consciousness" actually transfer and continue to be "self aware" and "conscious"? Would that even be possible?

If so then we could certainly transfer that "self aware consciousness" into a cyborg type being that would approach immortality. When the host vessel reached it's finite age the "self aware consciousness" could simply be transferred to a new host. This could go on in theory forever until the end of time.

Obviously, again, this would be a very different existence from the one we currently know. We wouldn't have the same connection to a cyborg host that we have with our current bodies. And probably most would prefer that to simply ceasing to exist at all.

Others have suggested "host bodies" would not be necessary at all. The have promoted the idea of transferring the "self aware consciousness" to "virtual worlds" that could be created on some massive database. Life would become very different indeed. And again, in theory, we could go on forever until the end of time.

If these things came to be "genetic life" may be abandoned all together. We might cease to procreate new humans and "self aware consciousness." We might all live in some computer generated matrix and carbon based life forms would merely be an evolutionary step in the past.

And as intiriguing as the idea of maintaining our "self aware consciousness" in terms bordering on immortality would be the cost is obvious and apparant. Much of the passion and joy of life would be gone. We would likely not interact and bond with our virtual world to the same extent we do with the Earth. We would likely become far more practical and calculated. And while this would solve a great many problems (potentially crime, war and hate would become impractical) it would also be at the expense of things like love, honor and the "taste" of life.

In short if we began to live in a machine, we might become "the machine."

And ironically if we became something as cold and logical as a "computer" or a "machine" we might not understand the desire to want to "live forever."
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:28:12 PM EDT
I think we only get one round. Make the best of it.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:29:04 PM EDT
I thought of the very same question myself. Essentially creating an "artificail heaven". The very problem would be to find out what the soul is and where it exists. The soul is theoretically our cosciousness as you had said. But where does it lie? If we transfered brains from one body to another, does the soul come with it? Or is it truly a false transfer of bodies, just a mere transplant of organs(new bodies have all of the memories, etc but the old consciousness[soul] is replaced by another). I have often theorized that our science isn't a quest to find out where we came from like many have said but our true goal is to find out where we're headed(afterlife and future of humanity).

When our bodies die, energy is given off as part of the reaction. Is the soul contained whithin this energy? How are the impulses of the brain related to the soul?

Instead mainstream science is content to throw aside the ideas of the afterlife by denying that it exists without concrete evidence.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:32:58 PM EDT
Dude, it's only the Jack Daniels talking. You'll be fine in the morning.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:35:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 8:37:43 PM EDT by 1Andy2]
Actually, Hell comes from Hebrew religion.


Under Old Testament Law, followers of the law who made sacrafice to God and followed His Law outlined in the scriptures went to Abraham's Bosom. AKA Paradise. According to the Bible, this place is in the center of the earth, separated from hell by a large gulf.


Personally, I don't think your body is actually "you". You merely inhabit it for a short time and will ultimately spend forever in one of two places.

Sorry to bring religion into it, but it really is as much a religious question as scientific.

eta: And I don't think your soul is physically contained in any specific organ of the body. The soul is not physical.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:38:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:
I thought of the very same question myself. Essentially creating an "artificail heaven". The very problem would be to find out what the soul is and where it exists. The soul is theoretically our cosciousness as you had said. But where does it lie? If we transfered brains from one body to another, does the soul come with it? Or is it truly a false transfer of bodies, just a mere transplant of organs(new bodies have all of the memories, etc but the old consciousness[soul] is replaced by another). I have often theorized that our science isn't a quest to find out where we came from like many have said but our true goal is to find out where we're headed(afterlife and future of humanity).

When our bodies die, energy is given off as part of the reaction. Is the soul contained whithin this energy? How are the impulses of the brain related to the soul?

Instead mainstream science is content to throw aside the ideas of the afterlife by denying that it exists without concrete evidence.



I don't think mainstream science denys these things exist. They simply say they have no evidence either way. And science doesn't avoid these ideas, the ones I cited were expressed by scientists.

All "theoretical" science is stuff we currently don't know much about but would like to discover.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:41:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, Hell comes from Hebrew religion.


Under Old Testament Law, followers of the law who made sacrafice to God and followed His Law outlined in the scriptures went to Abraham's Bosom. AKA Paradise. According to the Bible, this place is in the center of the earth, separated from hell by a large gulf.


Personally, I don't think your body is actually "you". You merely inhabit it for a short time and will ultimately spend forever in one of two places.

Sorry to bring religion into it, but it really is as much a religious question as scientific.

eta: And I don't think your soul is physically contained in any specific organ of the body. The soul is not physical.



Don't worry about introducing religion. I don't consider it a hijack as the ideas are related.

I have heard several people express the idea that "Hell" is a Christian notion and not part of the original Hebrew religion.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:42:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Dude, it's only the Jack Daniels talking. You'll be fine in the morning.



Wanna hear something scary?

I don't drink or do drugs or even smoke.

Of course the result is topics like this.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:51:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Dude, it's only the Jack Daniels talking. You'll be fine in the morning.



Wanna hear something scary?

I don't drink or do drugs or even smoke.

Of course the result is topics like this.



Pretty soon you will be trying to make a Dodge Omni run 12s like me.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:58:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:01:43 PM EDT
Actually, this thread puts me in a mood for CS Lewis...
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:02:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, this thread puts me in a mood for CS Lewis...



I read the lion the witch and the wardrobe to a 4th grade class this year. great book.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:06:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:
These topics have been explored by such authors as Arther C. Clark and Kurt Vonegut Jr.

The book 2001: A Space Oddyssey talks about this when Bowman is becoming a Star Child. How the race that created the monoliths evolved like we have and then learned to store their conciousness in machines and finally in the fabric of space itself.

Vonegut explored the ability to step out of your body and then exist as energy in the short story: Unready to wear.

Arthur C. Clarke visited this theme over and over again:
  • The City and the Stars
  • Against the Fall of Night
  • 2001
  • And the best: Childhood's End
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:13:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 9:16:18 PM EDT by david_g17]
i don't follow the whole "put some 'self-conscious' code that is similar to the way your brain functions into a computer system" idea. That doesn't sound any different from cloning yourself to me. It would not prolong your life, but could be thought of, at best, as creating a new independent life similar to your own.

I mean, if the technology was available today, and you replicated your brain in code and ran it, there would not be 2 of you. there would be just you and a copy of your brain.

eta:

I guess it depends on how you define yourself. If you think of yourself as merely a particular set of responses to particular stimuli, then eternal 'life' in a computer is possible. However, if you believe there is more to life than reactions to stimuli, it changes things.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:14:12 PM EDT
I heard a scientist on the radio a few months ago say that children born today can expect to live into the low 100s.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:14:38 PM EDT
There is a good movie out, kind of pertaining to this topic . . .
It is called "What the bleep do we know"

Check it out, but have an open mind when you do. . . .

M4-CQBR

Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:18:34 PM EDT
Your topics make my head hurt
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:19:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Your topics make my head hurt



+1
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:22:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By killingmachine123:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, this thread puts me in a mood for CS Lewis...



I read the lion the witch and the wardrobe to a 4th grade class this year. great book.



I saw a preview at the theater last week.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:24:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 9:27:49 PM EDT by MachinegunManiac]
I used to think a lot like you do steyr. But I don't so much anymore as I've found other things to occupy my mind.

I think you need to get laid or something.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 9:27:35 PM EDT
If they ever offer you immortality, don't accept: It's impolite to be the last one to leave the party.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:06:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:
i don't follow the whole "put some 'self-conscious' code that is similar to the way your brain functions into a computer system" idea. That doesn't sound any different from cloning yourself to me. It would not prolong your life, but could be thought of, at best, as creating a new independent life similar to your own.

I mean, if the technology was available today, and you replicated your brain in code and ran it, there would not be 2 of you. there would be just you and a copy of your brain.

eta:

I guess it depends on how you define yourself. If you think of yourself as merely a particular set of responses to particular stimuli, then eternal 'life' in a computer is possible. However, if you believe there is more to life than reactions to stimuli, it changes things.



We aren't talking replication. We are talking transfer. Specifically if it is possible.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:20:18 AM EDT
this thread would be so much more popular if it was labeled "immorality 101"...

and more appropriate for ar15.com to boot.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:11:56 AM EDT
... Great topic.

... Not sure if I feel like I need to posses a "Self-aware Consciousness" once I pass. The evolutionary cycle is more complex than to be consumed by a notion that your living-consciousness must remain intact once you pass. Entire religions are based on the promise of achieving some heightened state of enlightenment after death if you behave a certain way on earth - it eases the mind of those afraid of change and uncertainty.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:36:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Great topic.

... Not sure if I feel like I need to posses a "Self-aware Consciousness" once I pass. The evolutionary cycle is more complex than to be consumed by a notion that your living-consciousness must remain intact once you pass. Entire religions are based on the promise of achieving some heightened state of enlightenment after death if you behave a certain way on earth - it eases the mind of those afraid of change and uncertainty.



I hear ya...but what IF life really is a cosmic joke?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:50:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


I have heard several people express the idea that "Hell" is a Christian notion and not part of the original Hebrew religion.



You were misinformed then. Hell, or Shoel as it is called, is very much a part of the Hebrew religion.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:52:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:
I heard a scientist on the radio a few months ago say that children born today can expect to live into the low 100s.



Apparently this A-hole doesn't pay attention to how children today drive cars or load their bodies with drugs and alcolhol.....I'd be surprised if they make it past 18!
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 7:57:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


I have heard several people express the idea that "Hell" is a Christian notion and not part of the original Hebrew religion.



You were misinformed then. Hell, or Shoel as it is called, is very much a part of the Hebrew religion.



http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-9.html

Rabbinic afterlife teachings varied in different places and times, and
was never synthesized into one coherent philosophy. As such, the
different descriptions of the afterlife are not always consistent with
each other. This is especially true for the descriptions of "Olam
Haba", the world to come.

Gehenna is fairly well defined in rabbinic literature. It is sometimes
translated as "hell", but Jews must take note that the Christian
version of hell is different from the Jewish view of Gehenna.

However, for Jews, gehenna--while certainly a terribly unpleasant
place--is not hell. The majority of rabbinic thought maintains that
people are not tortured in hell forever; the longest that one can be
there is said to be 12 months.

Gehennom (lit: the valley of Hinnom, in Jerusalem;
i.e. hell) is the sinner's experience in the afterlife. In other
words, it's the same "place" as gan eiden (lit: the garden of Eden;
i.e. heaven) -- it's the perspective of the individual that makes it
one or the other.

According to the Zohar, after death each aspect of the soul undergoes
a different experience on the afterlife journey. The lower levels of
the soul are purified and purged of physical and emotional
attachments, while the higher levels experience transcendental bliss.
The nefesh temporarily remains with the body in the grave, undergoing
the Hibbut Ha-Kever, the suffering of the grave. Simultaneously, the
Ruach experiences Gehenna for 12 months. "Gehenna is conceived of as a
purification process in which the psychic remnants from the previous
life are purged and transformed. This purgation process lasts only
twelve months and is tormentingly painful in direct proportion to each
individual's lived life experience.

After death the Neshama, since it not subject to being tainted by sin,
goes to Gan Eden Elyon, the Upper Gan Eden, where it experiences
divine reward and bliss. The hayyah and yehidah also return to Upper
Gan Eden immediately after death, and become as one with G-d as is
possible. "Those who have awakened these dimensions of their being are
able to perceive the infinite grandeur of the divine realms, to enter
the everflowing celestial stream - described by the Zoha as the
"bundle of life".

Given all this, what happens to the soul of the nonbeliever? The most
common belief in contemporary traditional Jewish communities is that
all souls go to the after-life. Nearly all, barring a handful or two
in all of human history, eventually end up in Gan Eden (roughly:
heaven), even non-believers.
Top Top