Do you believe in an 'afterlife'?

[Dr Mindbender]

Personally, I'd like to think there is something because I find the idea of oblivion pretty scary, even if most of the scientific evidence is to the contrary. As a side discussion, does the existance of an afterlife demand the existance of a god? If so why is this the case?

[Publius]

Do I believe in an afterlife? No.

Is it possible, in some sense, that there's an "afterlife"? Maybe.

But it's not something I really concern myself with.

[Raúl Duke]

Whether it's fortunate or not...

I don't believe in any sort of after-life unless proven otherwise.

I suppose we should all just get use to the idea of becoming "nothing".

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jonnydarko
I suppose we should all just get use to the idea of becoming "nothing".
Why is that though? Im not trying to champion theism (i hope i made that clear in the thread title) but has it simply become trendy within the left to assume that there is ''nothing''?

No one has yet tackled my question about why theism and the existance of a hereafter are supposedly dependent on each other.

[Jazzratt]

I behave as if there isn't one, it is not a question I concern myself with. I'll find out (or not) when the time comes.

[More Fire for the People]

Not sure, lean towards 'no'. Recently I've been tempted by the idea that our 'consciousness' or what have you is imprinted on the universe and someone [physical, not supernatural] could construct an afterlife from these imprints, or that it is a natural phenomenon.

[RedAnarchist]

I used to do, but now I doubt anything exists after death. Persoanlly, I don't believe it should matter to us in the present, its something that will only affect us when we're dead. And if there is no afterlife, then we won't be disappointed because we won't have any way to tell.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 10, 2007 09:31 pm
Not sure, lean towards 'no'. Recently I've been tempted by the idea that our 'consciousness' or what have you is imprinted on the universe and someone [physical, not supernatural] could construct an afterlife from these imprints, or that it is a natural phenomenon.
oh well at least theres someone else outside the 'no' camp! Hello there! hope you've brought a harmonica, its a lonely place!
:D :P

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I voted "not sure"

as was pointed out earlier in the thread we will know when the moment comes ... however its not something that concerns me ... if there is an afterlife i will be pleased to continue in some form or another ...

if there is nothing then i guess i'll never know i lived in the first place so there will be nothing to regret or fear ...

either way .. it sounds peaceful ...

[La Comédie Noire]

Ya know somedays I believe but I don't know if it's just me trying to comfort myself. Then I become confused and depressed, but then I think about all the people who don't have time to think these thoughts becuase they're to busy trying not to die.

Sometimes I wish there was an after life just so I could say so many things to my mom that I didn't get to say before she passed.

Oh well, we will all find out eventually.

I marked down "I don't know".

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 08:33 pm
but has it simply become trendy within the left to assume that there is ''nothing''?
Hey, bear in mind that if you believe there is nothing, and your wrong, it's all the more of a bonus :P


No one has yet tackled my question about why theism and the existance of a hereafter are supposedly dependent on each other.

They aren't, but they are logically linked - they both make claims which are difficult or impossible to prove empirically and tend to really on specious logic.

[which doctor]

I sometimes like to think there is an afterlife, but I don't think there will be one. I imagine life after death will be much like life before birth.

[bezdomni]

"If there is sin against life, it rests in hoping for another life and ignoring the implacable grandeur of this one."

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzrat
Hey, bear in mind that if you believe there is nothing, and your wrong, it's all the more of a bonus :P
Thats right, but according to the theists you'd better hope you're not wrong since they say theres more than one 'outcome'. Its probably my Irish upbringing but part of me is hoping there is nothing because i've had the idea of 'divine justice' drilled into me from an early age.
I know its completely pious and anti-materialist but its so hard to get out of your system!
:( :blink:

[apathy maybe]

Am I scared of death? Not really.
After all, I wasn't alive for the vast majority of the universes existence, why should I be worried that I'm not going to be alive for the vast majority of the rest of the universes existence?

OK, look at it like this. Posit the existence of an "afterlife" where some part of a person continues to exist after they have died (ignoring the logical problems right there, death after all is the ending of a person; ignoring also the question of what part of a person continues to exist, the mind? it is just the brain, the brain? after it has rotted away?). Now then, where is it? How do people get there?

It is on some other "plane" or in another "dimension"?

What about reincarnation? How does some part of a person find another part of something?


The problem with all these ideas is that they put forward ideas that are opposed to materialism. They posit dualism of the mind (the idea that there is something not-physical that exists in the brain) or the existence of a non-existent place. And starting from a logical first position, they can't be shown to exist, and most likely do not exist.


Another take, think of a computer. When a program runs, it occupies a certain amount of computer resources. When it stops running, it releases those resources for other programs to use.
So, the operating system can be thought of as the universe (the thing that everything is in side of), and then individual programs can be thought of as people or animals...
What happens when a person dies? They simply cease to exist, because that is how a computer works.

It isn't a perfect analogy, but the idea that we are living in a computer simulated universe means that we can examine these ideas in a way that isn't otherwise possible. Programmers are lazy, and try for simple things, and the universe is simple also (Occam's Razor).

[al8]

I don't believe in an afterlife. When you die you die. You stop ticking. You stop burning fuel and decompose, thus you stop being you. The you has become nothing or just scattered derivetives really.

The notion of an afterlife is a religious one. It provides false comfort for the gullible.

When you blow out a candle-light, does that same fire you'd just blown out magically continue to blaze at some other 'dimention' or 'plane', or does it just stop existing?

[leftace53]

I don't believe in an afterlife in the sense that one would go to hell/heaven or get reincarnated as something else.

But I think that death = life, no I'm not suicidal or anything such, but to me death is the same thing as life. I haven't quite refined my opinions on whether we carry on with the 'name/personalities etc...' that we have now, though I think that essentially we get to live a parallel life (maybe in a parallel universe) of sorts in death (note I said in death not after death).

[Comrade J]

I voted 'no' because I believe it is utterly ludicrous to even suggest that one might survive one's own death. What an incredibly ridiculous notion, and one that is all to similar to the view offered by monotheistic religions like Christianity, which weak-minded people cling to. There is (as far as I am aware) no evidence at all for the existence of an afterlife. Rational explanations can be offered for things such as 'ghosts' and 'ouija boards'.

To be honest, when I die, I really do hope it is just oblivion and I cease to exist in any form, I really wouldn't like to live forever.

[Held van Arbeid]

I voted no.

But I would think that if there was an afterlife, you would forgot all your experiences in this life. So I don't know if that would still constitute an afterlife.

[RedStarOverChina]

Yes.


In your afterlife, your flesh decomposes giving live to billions of bacteria and your bones slowly turn into ashes.

I'm not sure how appealing that would be if made into a religion though...

[synthesis]

I think it's a lot more likely for there to be a God than there is to be an afterlife. "We" exist in our brain, which is just another organ in an animal that thinks it's more special than it is.

In fact, as people created God because they could not conceive as to how they could exist without design, they created the afterlife because they could not conceive of the idea of not existing.

That's why the the concept of the afterlife survives when the idea of God is dying - because even though science has shown us how we could have existed without higher guidance, it is still impossible for the human mind to conceive of "not existing."

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Your personality cannot possibly survive death because your personality is dependent on a functional brain.

-Alex

[Publius]

Your personality cannot possibly survive death because your personality is dependent on a functional brain.

-Alex

Not necessarily.

According to functionalist theories of the mind your personality is dependent on an arrangement of symbols, or a pattern, which could, conceivably, be instantiated in almost anything.

So your personality could survive if the pattern that comprises it survives, or is somehow brought back again.

Now, with the technology and knowledge we have now, this is not possible, and it may not ever be likely, but it seems that, in theory, "your personality" could be preserved past your death.

Now, as to the heat death of the universe...

[La Comédie Noire]

I believe over your life time that your personality is released a little at a time through farting, that's why people in their old ages become senial because they've farted out all their personality!!!

That is why when humans had such short life spans you would hear more about supernatural events because they still had a lot of soul to release.

:D

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 12:24 pm
I believe over your life time that your personality is released a little at a time through farting, that's why people in their old ages become senial because they've farted out all their personality!!!

That also explains why women live longer than men....

This is ingenious! :o

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I imagine that by the time I die, oblivion will seem like a good prospect.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:12 am
I imagine that by the time I die, oblivion will seem like a good prospect.
Yeah, I was reading an article about Jeanne Calment or however that French lady's name is spelled, the one who is 112 or something. It suddenly dawned on me how at a certain point you sit back and realize that everyone you used to know is dead. I doubt you really give a fuck at that point but if you're a Christian I bet you're ready to join them somewhere.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 02:15 am
... What an incredibly ridiculous notion, and one that is all to similar to the view offered by monotheistic religions like Christianity, which weak-minded people cling to.
Without wanting to seem like a pro-theist, I am becoming concerned about these sorts of comments from atheist comrades. Is it possible to have just one serious, impartial philosphical discussion without ad hominem slur and playground arguments? There surely has to be a more convincing argument than ''religious people are stupid cuz i sed so there!''

Even though they may have had reactionary views of the world, Many of the strongest minded people throughout history have believed in some sort of enternal concept!

[al8]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 11, 2007 10:17 pm
Even though they may have had reactionary views of the world, Many of the strongest minded people throughout history have believed in some sort of enternal concept!
Well comrade, if that is true, I question; Were they strong-minded because they believed in and eternal consept, or was it because of something else? And if relgion (or a belief in some sort of eternal concept) - by itself - has been so common throughout history, wouldn't it be resonable to expect that a fair amount strong-minded persons would have had a religous background?

And to what strong-minded persons are you referring to? You surely mean someone progressive, someone like Malcom X perhaps?

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't like the terms strong minded and weak minded, it's one step away from seperating the "strong" from the "weak". But I'm sure he doesn't mean it in this way.

[Lynx]

Having no memory of your previous life is not an afterlife, its a new life :( :)
Some people claim to have memories, and flashbacks.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:44 am
Having no memory of your previous life is not an afterlife, its a new life :( :)
Some people claim to have memories, and flashbacks.
Culturally exected and encouraged flashbacks and 'memories'. Just imaginary stuff that is encoraged (usually in children eager to play along) and then interpreted within the dominant religious schema. What is acctually just a flight of fantacy is said to be "momories from an earlier life". Or some other thing depending on the superstition.

[bluescouse]

Yes there is an afterlife it's called maggots. :rolleyes:
Who want's another life? isn't this one shitty enough anyway?

[bubbles81]

I don't remember a thing about what I was doing before I was born, and when I die I expect oblivion. Tax free.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by al8+October 12, 2007 12:46 pm--> (al8 @ October 12, 2007 12:46 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 03:44 am
Having no memory of your previous life is not an afterlife, its a new life :( :)
Some people claim to have memories, and flashbacks.
Culturally exected and encouraged flashbacks and 'memories'. Just imaginary stuff that is encoraged (usually in children eager to play along) and then interpreted within the dominant religious schema. What is acctually just a flight of fantacy is said to be "momories from an earlier life". Or some other thing depending on the superstition. [/b]
Hm. I'm not disagreeing or bringing this up as an attacking but a mate of mine* swears blind he spoke as if he'd been alive previously without having learned about reincarnation myths. Probably bollocks but still interesting.

====

*Bit of a nutter, "inventor" of Experimental Theology.

[al8]

Well of cource he'd deny any foreknowledge. It's part of the package. Just imagine how awkward it would be if he had said yes. No superstition would survive such honesty.

People that propogate this nonsense or keep up this sort of act are rewarded imensely from the spiritual crowd for firming up their beliefs. They get easy respect, adoration and complements. If not more. That's why it is so difficult and painful for people to brake away.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:51 pm
Well of cource he'd deny any foreknowledge. It's part of the package. Just imagine how awkward it would be if he had said yes. No superstition would survive such honesty.

People that propogate this nonsense or keep up this sort of act are rewarded imensely from the spiritual crowd for firming up their beliefs. They get easy respect, adoration and complements. If not more. That's why it is so difficult and painful for people to brake away.
Whenever I hear of such things I take their word at face value and wonder why I don't have memories of my own :blush:

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:07 am


And to what strong-minded persons are you referring to? You surely mean someone progressive, someone like Malcom X perhaps?
i was thinking about the Egyptian, Roman and Greek empires, specifically. Not because of their politics, but more their scientific, mathematical and architectural prowess. The chinese dynasties were also deity fearing.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:51 pm
Well of cource he'd deny any foreknowledge. It's part of the package. Just imagine how awkward it would be if he had said yes. No superstition would survive such honesty.

People that propogate this nonsense or keep up this sort of act are rewarded imensely from the spiritual crowd for firming up their beliefs. They get easy respect, adoration and complements. If not more. That's why it is so difficult and painful for people to brake away.
no offence, but i was looking for a reply that enabled me to join this thread.

my personal belief, as all marxists are allowed :D , is close to the bhuddist conception of the wheel of life, you are born, you live and you make mistakes, you are reborn and have the chance to live your life without those mistakes, you are all ways surrounded by the same people, just in different roles and time.
eventually, you will learn the futilism of self, of ego and recognise you are part of "the universe of existence".
i also believe, in true terry pratchett analysis, that gods only exist as long as human beings believe in them.

these are "religious beliefs". they do not detract in any shape or form from our struggle to create a better "materialist" world. imo.

funny how you have to speak to a bunch of "atheisdts" and "agnostics" to get a real discussion on the "after life" and "religious belief", innit. :)

[Dr Mindbender]

heres a quandry, something i read in a pro-christian phamphlet was actually partly the pre-cursor to me starting this thread. Apparently this atheist guy was speaking to one of those theist right wing shock-jocks and he asked him, ''if you dont believe in any divine justice, then whats to stop you being as evil as you like'' (obviously assuming you could evade the Earth bound authorities).

This made me think, what if for example, youd been told you had a terminal illness and only had a month to live or whatever? Whats to stop you picking up a machine gun and going on a kill crazy rampage? Im no theist, but i believe in cause and consequence, or as my friend Isaac Newton put it, ''for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction!''

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:47 pm
Yes there is an afterlife it's called maggots. :rolleyes:

Not for me, I want to be cremated when I die.

[Dr Mindbender]

i want to be put in a cyrogenic pod and be blasted into space! Call me crazy but im optimistic that aliens with the technology to re-animate me might find my corpse.
:lol:

[Held van Arbeid]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 02:03 pm
Whats to stop you picking up a machine gun and going on a kill crazy rampage?
Empathy.

I'm not sure how to get that empathy, but lies (such as Christianity) aren't the way to make people do stuff.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:27 am
I behave as if there isn't one, it is not a question I concern myself with. I'll find out (or not) when the time comes.
Ditto.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Held van Arbeid+October 13, 2007 02:15 pm--> (Held van Arbeid @ October 13, 2007 02:15 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 02:03 pm
Whats to stop you picking up a machine gun and going on a kill crazy rampage?
Empathy.

I'm not sure how to get that empathy, but lies (such as Christianity) aren't the way to make people do stuff. [/b]
you might be a disgruntled alienated loner with a grudge against society in general. Yes we know capitalism creates and sustains those conditions, bit im referring to the discussion purely within the theological context.

[Held van Arbeid]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 13, 2007 03:28 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 13, 2007 03:28 pm)
Originally posted by Held van [email protected] 13, 2007 02:15 pm

Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 02:03 pm
Whats to stop you picking up a machine gun and going on a kill crazy rampage?
Empathy.

I'm not sure how to get that empathy, but lies (such as Christianity) aren't the way to make people do stuff.
you might be a disgruntled alienated loner with a grudge against society in general. Yes we know capitalism creates and sustains those conditions, bit im referring to the discussion purely within the theological context. [/b]
Ok... But the reason people go on killing sprees is because they're angry, they're violent, there not empathetic, they're crazy, etc. If you don't want this person to do that, then cure these things.

Christianity is dying. No one trusts it anymore. Yeah, Christianity could stop this person from shooting up the place, but it does it through manipulation.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Held van [email protected] 13, 2007 03:59 pm

Ok... But the reason people go on killing sprees is because they're angry, they're violent, there not empathetic, they're crazy, etc. If you don't want this person to do that, then cure these things.


Anger isnt an illness, its a state of mind if someone wants to commit a massacre then no amount of medication or therapy is going to stop that.
Even more so if there is no consequences or ramifications against themselves to fear.

Its like saying that communists are sick because theyre angry at the beourgiose!

Also, dont take me out of context, I'm not referring specifically to christianity but eternal perception in all its forms and interpretations. The world is bigger than the west.

[Vendetta]

Where's the 'don't care' option?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:40 pm
Where's the 'don't care' option?
thats hardly an objective viewpoint, or one which contributes to the debate.

[Held van Arbeid]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 04:09 pm
Anger isnt an illness, its a state of mind if someone wants to commit a massacre then no amount of medication or therapy is going to stop that.
Even more so if there is no consequences or ramifications against themselves to fear.

Its like saying that communists are sick because theyre angry at the beourgiose!

Also, dont take me out of context, I'm not referring specifically to christianity but eternal perception in all its forms and interpretations. The world is bigger than the west.
I'm aware anger isn't an illness. What I'm saying is, we have create conditions where they wont be angry enough to kill, rather than just threaten them with hell.

You don't need fire and brimstone and pushy jesus freaks to convince you taking another persons life is wrong.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Held van [email protected] 14, 2007 07:12 pm


You don't need fire and brimstone and pushy jesus freaks to convince you taking another persons life is wrong.
i never once referred to brimstone or jesus freaks, however going back to my original point what would there be to disuade the person from the afforementioned scenario? If i was pissed off at society and had nothing to lose, id probably go on a killing spree!

[Colonello Buendia]

I would like to live on after death but it is incredibly unlikely that there is one. If you want to live on they are developing software that allows scientists to upload our thoughts to a computer then if they transfer that to a robots computer hey presto you're back!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:27 pm
I would like to live on after death but it is incredibly unlikely that there is one. If you want to live on they are developing software that allows scientists to upload our thoughts to a computer then if they transfer that to a robots computer hey presto you're back!
i dont think you could still be classed as a sentient being, unless they manage to clone your brain and somehow transplant it into an android like in robocop. I dont think id like to end up that way, i think i'd be pretty miserable.

[Colonello Buendia]

I'd rather be worm food than a computer but as far as I'm concerned that's the only two options

[Robespierre2.0]

I guess I kind of have an optimistic, Epicurean view of death. We know matter cannot be created or destroyed, and that things are always in a state of change. When we die, you don't suddenly cease to exist- the materials that make up your brain still exist- they're just reverting to another form- and someday will take form as something else. If you think about it, the materials that make up your mind may someday eventually be assimilated into another mind- The parts of you will continue to exist in a constant state of death and rebirth up until the end up of the universe- and even then, who's to say it's ending and not taking another form?

... I find this to be a very naturalistic view of death, yet it doesn't seem so scary when you think of it- at least to me it doesn't.

[pusher robot]

i dont think you could still be classed as a sentient being,

I'm assuming you meant "sapient" not "sentient."

But why? Is there something magical about biological intelligence as opposed to machine intelligence?

That's a very anthropocentric point of view.

Consider this: there is no material in your brain that is functionally different than ordinary compounds commonly found laying around. Yet those compounds cannot in themselves think, they are not sapient. It is only in the patterning of those otherwise ordinary compounds that the higher-order behavior emerges. Complexity from simplicity. But the organic compounds are just a substrate for a pattern - it is the pattern itself which gives rise to sapience.

Given that, there is no theoretical reason why the same pattern cannot exist on some other substrate, like an electronic substrate, just as a technical drawing retains its complexity whether it is drawn on paper or displayed on a computer screen.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 03:58 pm

i dont think you could still be classed as a sentient being,

I'm assuming you meant "sapient" not "sentient."
Why? Synthetic electronics are not sentient.




But why? Is there something magical about biological intelligence as opposed to machine intelligence?
Sentience, self-awareness, 'free' will are all primarily biological, not mechanical, activities.


That's a very anthropocentric point of view.
Yeah! How dare they be humanist!


Consider this: there is no material in your brain that is functionally different than ordinary compounds commonly found laying around. Yet those compounds cannot in themselves think, they are not sapient. It is only in the patterning of those otherwise ordinary compounds that the higher-order behavior emerges. Complexity from simplicity. But the organic compounds are just a substrate for a pattern - it is the pattern itself which gives rise to sapience.
Sapience specifically describes wisdom. Sentience is the more generalized biological capability to feel. The patterns that arise can only certainly develop sentience, but not necessarily sapience. But I don't see any reason to disagree with the idea that we are chemical - based at our core, even though that is irrelevant to the point.


Given that, there is no theoretical reason why the same pattern cannot exist on some other substrate, like an electronic substrate, just as a technical drawing retains its complexity whether it is drawn on paper or displayed on a computer screen.
True, and maybe one day we will create truly sentient computers. But I don't see that happening any time soon, and I don't think reproducting our brains can reproduce the entity that recieves neural impulses, at least not in the sense that somebody will feel as if they continued on as a computer. A more accurate description, even if a mechanical sentience were created, would be that the computer felt as if it used to be a human.

[Lynx]

A copy of me is not me!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 03:58 pm

i dont think you could still be classed as a sentient being,

I'm assuming you meant "sapient" not "sentient."

But why? Is there something magical about biological intelligence as opposed to machine intelligence?

That's a very anthropocentric point of view.


In the present day, we already draw a distinction between (biologically natural) intelligence and artificial intelligence.
I cant see it happening, but computers/machines will unlikely ever be capable of complicated human concepts, for example love, anger or jealously. At this moment in time, and for the forseeable future (if not always) machine based intelligence will be based upon mathematically selected pre-programmed responses, dependent upon a human programmer. This is very different to sentient intelligence in the human sense of the concept.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:58 pm
A copy of me is not me!

The same can be said of the 'soul', if not more so. It's not you. It's invisible, immateral and unnoticable. A completly unneccesary hypothesis.

If your body dies. And your 'soul' lives on. Do you have memories, the same bodily experiences goals, attitudes, mannerisms if you no longer have the brain and body to do thoughs things? You don't. You have already broken up and devolved into something entirely different from what you where. And that means your not you any longer. Even though a soul 'survives bodily death'.

I highly recoment a philosophy-game called Staying Alive (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm). I think it is relevant to what we are descussing. It takes you through various senarios and asks how far you would go to survive and how. It was quite the mind-opener for me once.


[EDIT; added what I was responding to, since a post came in between]

[pusher robot]

I'm assuming you meant "sapient" not "sentient."
Why? Synthetic electronics are not sentient.

No, but computers have already achieved a level of sentience, i.e., they can sense and interpret those senses.

They have not yet achieved philosophical self-awareness, i.e., sapience.



Sentience, self-awareness, 'free' will are all primarily biological, not mechanical, activities.

Are they? Is there something particular about the definition of "free will" or "self-awareness" that requires a biological component? Or are you simply saying that because up to this point, the only entities possessing those traits have been biological? If the latter, why would you assume that it will always be so?


Yeah! How dare they be humanist!
I dare say there is more to humanism than Man's biology..

The patterns that arise can only certainly develop sentience, but not necessarily sapience. But I don't see any reason to disagree with the idea that we are chemical - based at our core, even though that is irrelevant to the point.
It is relevant. Unless you are a religionist, then the only source of human sapience is the patterning. I hope you would agree that the chemical compounds in and of themselves have no intelligent abilities; otherwise, we ought to be able to the exact quantities of compounds found in a brain, mix them together in a bowl, and get human intelligence out of it.

But once you concede that the intelligence lies in the pattern, what is the rationale for arguing that the patterns cannot be replicated?


True, and maybe one day we will create truly sentient computers. But I don't see that happening any time soon, and I don't think reproducting our brains can reproduce the entity that recieves neural impulses, at least not in the sense that somebody will feel as if they continued on as a computer.

Well that's all very interesting, but you haven't provided any reasons for thinking that. In raw calculations per second, average computers will - if trends continue as they have - equal the processing ability of a human brain in as little as 15 years, and will have the ability to precisely simulate the activity of every atom in a human organic brain in as little as thirty or forty years.


At this moment in time, and for the forseeable future (if not always) machine based intelligence will be based upon mathematically selected pre-programmed responses, dependent upon a human programmer.

I highly doubt that. Even now, many algorithms are produced through learning, not pre-programmed behavior. There is simply no reason why machine intelligence cannot be formulated in the same way that human intelligence is - i.e., through learning and reinforcement. One such rudimentary project: http://www.20q.net/

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 08:59 pm


I'm assuming you meant "sapient" not "sentient."
Why? Synthetic electronics are not sentient.

No, but computers have already achieved a level of sentience, i.e., they can sense and interpret those senses.

They have not yet achieved philosophical self-awareness, i.e., sapience.
Why haven't they achieved sapience if they have achieved sentience? Are the components of a computer not utilized and recognized by a computer? By your logic, a computer must be capable of self-awareness, because it is capable of sensing - the only step is to recognize that programming can be put into any reasonably powered machine to make it respond to its own functions.

But I don't think the sensory perception that a computer may exhibit are synonymous with human and animal intelliegence. The latter form of intelligence is notably different not because it has capability of self-awareness, but because its feeling has a final destination, which one would commonly refer to as a 'soul,' 'spirit,' 'mind' or 'consciousness'. The problem with this is clear: I cannot prove my own being in this sense to you, nor can I be certain that other creatures have this. In short, it is mystical. But I can disassociate my feeling that a computer might have similar experiences by reasoning that physical things similar to my own mind have that, whereas things which are so different as to comprise, basically, mechanical and electronic devices, are almost certainly not sentient.






Sentience, self-awareness, 'free' will are all primarily biological, not mechanical, activities.

Are they? Is there something particular about the definition of "free will" or "self-awareness" that requires a biological component? Or are you simply saying that because up to this point, the only entities possessing those traits have been biological? If the latter, why would you assume that it will always be so?
It is the latter, and I don't think that humans have or ever will have the capability to create this except via sexuality. It is possible, so no, I don't assume it will always be that way, I just expect it.




Yeah! How dare they be humanist!
I dare say there is more to humanism than Man's biology..
Of course, but 'anthropocentrism' does not mean ignorance of the world, just an interest primarily in human needs. This clearly requires worldly knowledge.



The patterns that arise can only certainly develop sentience, but not necessarily sapience. But I don't see any reason to disagree with the idea that we are chemical - based at our core, even though that is irrelevant to the point.
It is relevant. Unless you are a religionist, then the only source of human sapience is the patterning. I hope you would agree that the chemical compounds in and of themselves have no intelligent abilities; otherwise, we ought to be able to the exact quantities of compounds found in a brain, mix them together in a bowl, and get human intelligence out of it.

But once you concede that the intelligence lies in the pattern, what is the rationale for arguing that the patterns cannot be replicated?
I didn't say they couldn't be replicated, just that we can't do it yet. For all I know my sentience comes from a bunch of sentient cells, or it comes from a magical teapot sattelite. But I do sense a difference between what is known as artifical intelligence and humans, and I see a clear difference in the structure of the brain and nervous system versus that seen in a computer's processor.



True, and maybe one day we will create truly sentient computers. But I don't see that happening any time soon, and I don't think reproducting our brains can reproduce the entity that recieves neural impulses, at least not in the sense that somebody will feel as if they continued on as a computer.

Well that's all very interesting, but you haven't provided any reasons for thinking that. In raw calculations per second, average computers will - if trends continue as they have - equal the processing ability of a human brain in as little as 15 years, and will have the ability to precisely simulate the activity of every atom in a human organic brain in as little as thirty or forty years.
Simulation does not achieve the same results, for one. But for another, you raise a good point - I have not given any evidence that direct reproduction of an object's function would constitute a difference in the way of sentience. One cannot; the term is inherantly immesurable, at least for now. Unless we take your understanding, which seems to be that any mechanical device which takes input is sentient. That, however, ignores what humans are and what it means in reference to consideration of the human body and mind. It is a philosophical term meant to go, initially, to the root of human experience. If you think that human experience is comprised only of mechanical things, that your "consciousness" is nothing more than a set of neural rules, than I can't help you there. I cannot ignore the awareness I feel, however. The hindus describe this as "behind the eyes" and all cultures have some kind of terminology for it. Sentience is a part of that for us.

The problem is, you can't prove that your sentience is capable of beign aquired. If you really think that sentience is just a requirement of stimulus-response, then a gun is just as sentient as a human. If it requires self awareness, any kind of machine which utilizes its own devices is just as sentient, or sapience.

[pusher robot]

Why haven't they achieved sapience if they have achieved sentience?

For the same reason a dog is sentient but not sapient. It can feel, it can recognize and interact with its surroundings, it can experience impulses and emotions. But it is not self-aware in even the literal sense - it cannot recognize itself in a mirror. Furthermore, it is not philosophically self-aware - it cannot contemplate its own thoughts, nor is it capable of the kind of abstract reasoning that defines sapience.


But I do sense a difference between what is known as artifical intelligence and humans, and I see a clear difference in the structure of the brain and nervous system versus that seen in a computer's processor.

Well, yes. I'm looking forward into the not-so-distant future, when those differences are far less clear than they are today. Daily we are making strides to that end.


But I don't see that happening any time soon, and I don't think reproducting our brains can reproduce the entity that recieves neural impulses, at least not in the sense that somebody will feel as if they continued on as a computer

Well, I disagree, and I believe the trends support me. I project that we will see a human-intelligence-level machine in my lifetime (assuming a normal-for-today lifespan.) Furthermore, a sufficiently detailed reproduction or simulation MUST be able to reproduce the entity that you describe, because there is no other source for it. I see where the problem lies - in conceiving how something as nuanced and abstract as consciousness can arise from the interactions of relatively simple mechanisms. But - it does. It is possible both mathematically and physically to achieve great complexity from relatively simple mechanisms with deterministic behavior, duplicated billions and trillions of times.

A human brain is amazingly complex. But note that this complexity arises not from a design equally as complex, but from a segment of DNA code that couldn't store a fraction of the brain's ultimate complexity. How is this possible? Because simple rules, applied deterministically billions and trillions of time, can give rise to great complexity. Consider a fractal, a shape governed by a mathematical equation. One simple rule, but infinitely complex.



I cannot ignore the awareness I feel, however. The hindus describe this as "behind the eyes" and all cultures have some kind of terminology for it.

It is an illusion. That awareness, that consciousness, really is the result of neural activity and nothing more. Granted, amazingly complex and sophisticated neural activity. But there is nothing mystical about it.

[Sickle of Justice]

i voted yes. i don't necessarily beleive that theres some sort of paradice, but i would guess that there is something after one dies.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:58 pm
A copy of me is not me!
If you can't tell the difference, why isn't it you?

Why can't there be two copies of you?

[Lynx]

I can tell the difference and so can you: just count the number of individuals

There can be many copies of me, but they are separate from myself and from each other. I am only able to experience the world from the perspective of my body.

This is afterlife by proxy and I don't find that satisfying.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 03:01 pm

Why haven't they achieved sapience if they have achieved sentience?

For the same reason a dog is sentient but not sapient. It can feel, it can recognize and interact with its surroundings, it can experience impulses and emotions. But it is not self-aware in even the literal sense - it cannot recognize itself in a mirror. Furthermore, it is not philosophically self-aware - it cannot contemplate its own thoughts, nor is it capable of the kind of abstract reasoning that defines sapience.
A dog may not have the capacity to understand the concept of its own being; I will assume you're correct in this, for sake of the argument.

But a computer can easily be programmed to respond to its surroundings, and its internal hardware and software, in a dynamic, "self-aware" manner. In fact, that it what it done with most PCs at least in the most minimal level. How does electronic and mechanical recognition and response to a computer's hardware and software not constitute sapience, if you don't mark that as an unsolvable difference between humans and computers? If computers can be sapient, then they have already been made to be. Perhaps you mean something besides what is described here as "sapience"? Perhaps to you, sapience is to me what human sentience is.




But I don't see that happening any time soon, and I don't think reproducting our brains can reproduce the entity that recieves neural impulses, at least not in the sense that somebody will feel as if they continued on as a computer

Well, I disagree, and I believe the trends support me. I project that we will see a human-intelligence-level machine in my lifetime (assuming a normal-for-today lifespan.) Furthermore, a sufficiently detailed reproduction or simulation MUST be able to reproduce the entity that you describe, because there is no other source for it. I see where the problem lies - in conceiving how something as nuanced and abstract as consciousness can arise from the interactions of relatively simple mechanisms. But - it does. It is possible both mathematically and physically to achieve great complexity from relatively simple mechanisms with deterministic behavior, duplicated billions and trillions of times.
I don't disagree that you can make something that is more or less materially consistant with how the brain works. I am saying that if a machine were made to copy my brain, I would not feel as if I were that thing - even if the only difference is that the actual materials in either entity were different (not different makeup, different molecules, even if parallel) than there would be two distinct entities. If my memories were input into some kind of machine, it would only tell it how to act, as a human, I would still be in the state my mind / body are in.




I cannot ignore the awareness I feel, however. The hindus describe this as "behind the eyes" and all cultures have some kind of terminology for it.

It is an illusion. That awareness, that consciousness, really is the result of neural activity and nothing more. Granted, amazingly complex and sophisticated neural activity. But there is nothing mystical about it.
I never said there was something mystical aout it; only that there was something as yet not detected by our scientific means, at least not materially. I don't see how you can deny to yourself your own conscious mind, but I'm not surprised. It is hard to argue the point you are making and look at yourself in any meaningful way.

[pusher robot]

How does electronic and mechanical recognition and response to a computer's hardware and software not constitute sapience, if you don't mark that as an unsolvable difference between humans and computers?

Because it doesn't meet the criteria for sapience: reflective judgment, self-consideration, wisdom. It can be programmed with the knowledge of its own existence, of course - but knowledge alone does not constitute awareness. It is awareness that the computers of today lack.


Perhaps to you, sapience is to me what human sentience is.

Probably - I suspect you are using the "Star Trek" definition of "sentient," which is actually "sapient." Dogs and humans are sentient. But only homo sapiens is sapient.


I don't see how you can deny to yourself your own conscious mind, but I'm not surprised.

Ummm...I don't deny my consciousness. I only deny that it is irreproducible. I deny that we lack the ability to create consciousness.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 18, 2007 03:42 pm

How does electronic and mechanical recognition and response to a computer's hardware and software not constitute sapience, if you don't mark that as an unsolvable difference between humans and computers?

Because it doesn't meet the criteria for sapience: reflective judgment, self-consideration, wisdom. It can be programmed with the knowledge of its own existence, of course - but knowledge alone does not constitute awareness. It is awareness that the computers of today lack.
What is required for you to think a mechanical entity meets these criteria, then? If it can be programmed into a thing, isn't that thing with such programming sapient? If computers need more than knowledge to be sentient - or sapient, in your argument - what else do they need? The whole time you have been saying that it takes only certain bits of knowledge or mechanical organization to be sapient, but the computers of today are more tahn capable of handling the statements you described above. Are you perhaps alluding to something beyond that?




Perhaps to you, sapience is to me what human sentience is.

Probably - I suspect you are using the "Star Trek" definition of "sentient," which is actually "sapient." Dogs and humans are sentient. But only homo sapiens is sapient.
Sentience, for me, is characterized by an emotive recognition of the world, not necessarily self-aware, but a feeling of the world which is not simply a mechanical response, but a mental one.




I don't see how you can deny to yourself your own conscious mind, but I'm not surprised.

Ummm...I don't deny my consciousness. I only deny that it is irreproducible. I deny that we lack the ability to create consciousness.
I am referring to the mind, or spririt, or "behind the eyes," what yo call an illusion. But to what is that an illusion? surely, if our bodies have gone so far to trick us into thinking we are conscious, there must be something which is being tricked, even if we can only know that thing as an abstraction.

[jasmine]

No, but computers have already achieved a level of sentience, i.e., they can sense and interpret those senses.

Haven't read the whole thread but a computer is a machine. It cannot reason or make decisions. The decisions are programmed by humans. In the last 40 or 50 years the computer has only advanced in terms of the speed of its processing power (chips) otherwise it's the same machine and the programming languages are the same or just variations of the same thing.

As to whether or not there is an after life, any David Lynch fans here? If there really is no life beyond death then who cares? But if there is, you would do well to prepare yourself for it as best you can.

The idea of life after death doesn't just presuppose you become a bodyless version of your current self.

Also, at the subatomic level there is no matter. It doesn't exist. So neither do we!

[synthesis]

So matter does not exist because it does not exist when broken down into its elementary particles? That sounds to me like claiming a car doesn't exist because it wouldn't be a car if broken down into scrap metal.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@November 04, 2007 11:16 pm
So matter does not exist because it does not exist when broken down into its elementary particles? That sounds to me like claiming a car doesn't exist because it wouldn't be a car if broken down into scrap metal.
The remark was sarcastic, I think about the reductivism in the thread.

[jasmine]

Sorry Dean but my remark was not sarcastic. At the string or photon level there is no matter. A broken up car is the sum of its once functioning parts. But at the quantum level matter does not exist. It's a problem for a materialist.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:58 pm
Sorry Dean but my remark was not sarcastic. At the string or photon level there is no matter. A broken up car is the sum of its once functioning parts. But at the quantum level matter does not exist. It's a problem for a materialist.
Not really - at the atomic level, cells do not exist; at the cellular level, organs do not exist - so on and so forth.

The reality is that, by defining boundaries inside which you pass judgement outside of the external, you see a limited picture which ignores certain functions the seen material might have. It is as if you use different sized lens to judge something - the greater the magnification, the smaller your perception and hence more limited and narrow. However, narrow vision is sometimes important to understand the broader picture - it is simply the case that matter scientifically constitutes a given relationship between photons (or however it is composed). Likewise, cells are constituted by an array of atoms, molecules etc.. I don't think it's a problem except for those attempting to judge matter & the way our universe works.

[MarxSchmarx]

Now, with the technology and knowledge we have now, this is not possible, and it may not ever be likely, but it seems that, in theory, "your personality" could be preserved past your death.

How would you, in any meaningful sense of the term, "die", then? :wacko:

Oh, and those 7 of you who believe in an after life, I ask for a shred of evidence to justify your belief. And no, the scriptures are not justified belief.

[jasmine]

Not really - at the atomic level, cells do not exist; at the cellular level, organs do not exist - so on and so forth.

The problem you have is that the boundaries you define at the macro level do not exist at the quantum level. The division between you and your keyboard exists in your head but at the quantum level it's not there. A string is defined as a "line of energy" or likened to a vibration or a musical note.

A string is not matter. A particle, in earlier theory had a dual function, wave and particle, which behaved differently than matter at the macro level. Now you just have a line of energy that somehow creates matter.

The more "scientific" evidence is produced the stranger reality becomes. Believe what you want but you are still tiny, time-limited creatures living on a rock that orbits a giant fireball. Don't forget to pay the mortgage.

[Abe]

i voted yes. i don't necessarily beleive that theres some sort of paradice, but i would guess that there is something after one dies.

Why do we draw pleasure from seeing a herd of elephants or a sunset or a waterfall?
Evolution has programmed us to do so, without pleasure we would lack motivation to hunt, reproduce or even be concerned when we are ill.

The idea of afterlife is nonsense, you simply have to divorce yourself from sentiment and emotion to realise this.

We propagate this hypothesis due to our fear of death.

[Sentinel]

Do you believe in an 'afterlife'?
Do bears take a dump in telephone booths?


Personally, I'd like to think there is something because I find the idea of oblivion pretty scary, even if most of the scientific evidence is to the contrary. I understand that you are scared of death, we humans are afraid of everything we can't research, catalogise and control. Fear of the unknown is healthy. But why should you delude yourself, and believe in a dream you know has no scientifical proof to back it's claims of accuracy?

Religions teach us that death is 'natural', and that we are to accept it -- and all the shit our earthly masters put us through without revolting -- in order to get this 'afterlife'. I say that there exists no such thing as 'natural' -- as opposed to something mankind can achieve. Anything we do is by default 'natural' in this biosphere we are part of, as we evolved from it.

Now, as there is no proof that 'afterlife' exists at all, we should not put our trust in such a thing, but rather try to expand our lifespan, and eventually if possible conquer death itself. We may die, but we do not have to 'accept' death!


As a side discussion, does the existance of an afterlife demand the existance of a god? If so why is this the case?All discussions regarding the 'supernatural' belong in the same drawer in my opinion.

[Dystisis]

I don't know.

I reject the idea that we will somehow transfer our body and mind to some alternate universe much like this one, except we walk on clouds and hang with gods (or alternatively, bathe in fire and hang with demons).

Some people claim they can feel the presence of the dead, there are even those who claim they can communicate with them... there might be something to this, although physically there is as of yet no indication of such being possible. With that being said, I have seen some pretty weird/convincing shit in my life. I wont say anything for sure until we have come further in understanding quantum mechanics, or the organization of matter in general, and consciousness, though.

We have discussed something related to this in the HPG. The topic was transhumanism, and the current conclusion stands that it is impossible to fully copy your consciousness to another vehicle. The other vehicle, or body, with your mind, would still not be "you" (as in; You, reading this right now, would not be in control of the body), although it's personality would be exactly like yours and the mind would seem exactly alike yours for everyone else.

As far as I know, it is unknown at this point what exactly, physically speaking, part of the brain holds this "ultimate level of consciousness". Could even be it is a result of the brains mechanics as a whole. Or, it is something different altogether.

Therefore, I am unsure at this point whether or not this "ultimate level of consciousness" will remain after ones death.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes, anything can happen to my flesh of my flesh.

[F9]

I dont "believe" in afterlife because its something that noone knows anything and if one knows he cant tell us.So i cant personally "be;ieve" in something that may dont exist i vote not sure,the answer will come in time.

Fuserg9:star:

[al8]

I don't believe in an "after"-life. Because it derives from Religion - a lie if there ever was one. We die when we die. We stop funtioning and brake down. Like a candle-light blown out, we down go somewhere else we just stop existing.

[RHIZOMES]

Whether or not there is an afterlife is irrelevant to how I live this life.

[careyprice31]

this is my thoughts.



Personally, I'd like to think there is something because I find the idea of oblivion pretty scary, even if most of the scientific evidence is to the contrary. As a side discussion, does the existance of an afterlife demand the existance of a god? If so why is this the case?

but maybe the non physicalspiritual realm this dimention cant be detected by science because its non physical and probably relies on information that cant be detected by using our mortal mere human six senses. I guess thats why religion and other beliefs like that rely on faith.

You got to admit weird things happen with people and animals too that cant be easily explained.

[Dean]

You got to admit weird things happen with people and animals too that cant be easily explained.
Truth is stranger than fiction.

[Bud Struggle]

Truth is stranger than fiction.

But to discount what you don't "know" is bad science.

We are technically "creatures" with senses specificly designed to look at finding small animals to eat. We aren't REALLY equipped to look at the universe.

We have five senses 4/5 of them really all about getting something to munch on. Maybe it takes 12 senses to really "see" the universe as it is. You seem to want to go back to the pre-Socratic Protagoras's saying that, man is the measure of all things.

Maybe that's just not the case in this universe.