Postulating a Basis for Belief in a Technological Afterlife

[Bob Cross]

Postulating a Basis for Belief in a Technological Afterlife

by

Bob Cross

 

I’ve been thinking about the implications of the accelerating advance of technology in our world.  Extrapolating this to the far future has led me to postulate the plausible expectation of a non-supernatural afterlife – a Technological Afterlife.

 

Think about the advance of technology we’re experiencing.  Compare 2023 vs. 1923.  Compare that to 1923 vs. 1823, etc.  It’s advancing exponentially.  So, imagine what will be possible – not just in a century – but in millennia.  I like to use Arthur C. Clark’s idea about what vastly advanced civilizations will be like to us (he meant extraterrestrial civilizations, but it would apply to our own civilization millennia from now as well).  He said their technology will basically appear to be magic to us.  So…just about anything that you can imagine will be conceivable (so long as it doesn’t violate the laws of physics).

 

Try conceiving that in the far future mankind will be able to transfer the contents of our minds to hard memory – to be restored upon the event of our death.  (I can imagine nano-machines effecting this – one machine detecting at each neuron).  Our bodies will be quickly reconstructed to perfection from just our DNA – to then be repopulated with the stored memory of our minds.  This probably isn’t actually that far off – maybe a century or two.  (There are some issues with insuring that it really is our consciousness that gets restored and not just a duplicate of ourselves, of course.  And we still haven’t figured out just what consciousness is - so, anticipating it does require a leap of faith that that will be figured out.)  Once achieved, humans will basically be immortal.

 

(And, as a side-effect, it might also mean teleportation, like in “Star Trek”, with DNA-code and mind contents teleported wherever desired to then be used for restoration on site.  This may be how real interstellar travel is effected – robots sent ahead first to prepare the way with whatever planetary terraforming is required, followed by teleportation of mind contents.)

 

This step isn’t that controversial.  And I’m hardly the first person to postulate the “minds to hard memory” thing. It doesn’t really require much foresight to foresee its advent.   It’s my next step that goes off the deep end:

 

Now take a much bigger leap into the far, far, far, far, future – multiple millennia from now.  Now technology is so advanced that mankind will be able to see back in time with perfect clarity – enough that the minds and DNA-code of long dead people can be saved to hard memory in the same fashion.  And – boom! - long dead people will be able to be restored to life!  OK, this is a real leap into the unknown!

 

Note that I’m not postulating actual time-travel as there are paradoxes linked to that.  Rather, I’m just postulating seeing into the past with perfect clarity.  No paradoxes there.

 

We can at least say that this expectation doesn’t violate the laws of physics.  In fact, a current tenet of physics is that “information cannot be destroyed”.  (In fact, this was one of the final things Hawking solved regarding black holes).  And, since we’re extrapolating technology to near infinity, it’s only natural to anticipate a way to recover it.

 

But how such recovery will actually be possible is unknowable for us.  If I were writing a science fiction story, I might use sci-fi buzz words like “manipulating parallel universes” or such.  But the real technology used will be many orders-of-magnitude even more unimaginable to us (like stone-age men trying to anticipate jet engines or smart phones).  Again, I invoke Arthur C. Clark:  It will appear to be magic to us.  So, it must be taken on faith.  But note that it’s not faith in the supernatural.  Rather, it’s faith in human ingenuity.

 

Note that if a few millennia won’t suffice then just wait for a few tens of millennia, a few hundreds of millennia, etc., with technology advancing exponentially throughout.  The combination of information indestructability and extrapolating technology to the edge of infinity renders the expectation plausible.

 

Let me be clear:  I’m in no way saying that I KNOW this technological advance will occur.  I’m only saying that it has enough basis to warrant a belief that it will.  In other words, all I’m saying is that secular people, sans religion, have a plausible basis for an expectation of an afterlife.

 

What will this be like for us?  After death, we won’t experience the intervening millennia – we’ll be inert.  Our next conscious thoughts will be millennia later, upon being restored.  So, the intervening millennia will zip by in a flash for us.  The world we enter will be like heaven to us, comparably – living in perfect health for eternity with the Universe to explore.

 

Why would such distant people want to restore us?  They won’t.  But they will want to restore their parents.  Then their parents will want to restore their parents, and so on – eventually getting all the way back to us.  Don’t leave descendants that far forward?  No problem.  Some ancestors of yours will do so and be restored, and then will want to restore any of their children that didn’t.   Then those children will want to restore their children, and so on.

 

Will there be space for us?  Of course.  By then mankind will be expanding throughout the galaxy and will need warm bodies – or at least will have space for them.  There may even be planets devoted to each civilization and era – and that’s probably where we will be restored:  Populating them without needing space travel (or even teleportation!).

 

I realize this almost sounds religious.  But it’s not, since there is no supernatural factor involved.  The assumptions are purely within the bounds of science and rationality.  But, having tumbled to it, I admit that it’s about as comforting as religion.  But, don’t worry if you don’t join in the belief.  This faith has no penalty for non-believers – they will be restored the same as everyone else.  Of course, some of history’s most evil people may not be cleared for restoration – but that will be independent of their beliefs.

[Bufofrog]

24 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

This step isn’t that controversial.  And I’m hardly the first person to postulate the “minds to hard memory” thing. It doesn’t really require much foresight to foresee its advent.   It’s my next step that goes off the deep end:

In fairness, I think the first part of your statement is also "off the deep end" since that is firmly in the realm of science fiction. 

28 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Now take a much bigger leap into the far, far, far, far, future – multiple millennia from now.  Now technology is so advanced that mankind will be able to see back in time with perfect clarity – enough that the minds and DNA-code of long dead people can be saved to hard memory in the same fashion.  And – boom! - long dead people will be able to be restored to life!

This does not seem like philosophy this seems like science fiction.  I think this would be a better fit in Speculations or The Lounge sections

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Bob Cross said:

Our bodies will be quickly reconstructed to perfection from just our DNA

This is not how DNA works. DNA does not contain information for reconstructing our bodies. The only way to use DNA to get a body is to let it go through the entire developmental process. And then, the result will depend on both DNA and the developmental environment, which surely will be different from the original. So, the "reconstructed" body will be different from the original.

This includes the brain. The "reconstructed" brain will be different from the original. Thus, it will not fit the stored contents of the original brain.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Genady

[Ken Fabian]

10 hours ago, Bob Cross said:

Compare 2023 vs. 1923.  Compare that to 1923 vs. 1823, etc.  It’s advancing exponentially

Much like how I don't believe in gods, I don't believe in exponential progress either. I expect the progression is more like an S-curve. They can look very similar... for a while. Let us hope it is not a U-curve.

I don't want to die - although that may change as my body and mind deteriorates from age - but not enough to set aside experience and reason in favor of religious faith in an afterlife. I doubt a technological version is possible but I'm not much attracted by it; seems that whoever it is achieves consciousness in that body won't be me, even if he thinks otherwise. So I struggle to feel any attachment to his fate, apart from a vague "good luck".

Better medical care for the life I have - with or without a capability to extend it - will remain a better goal in my view

[wtf]

12 hours ago, Bob Cross said:

Try conceiving that in the far future mankind will be able to transfer the contents of our minds to hard memory – to be restored upon the event of our death.  (I can imagine nano-machines effecting this – one machine detecting at each neuron).  Our bodies will be quickly reconstructed to perfection from just our DNA – to then be repopulated with the stored memory of our minds.  This probably isn’t actually that far off – maybe a century or two.  (There are some issues with insuring that it really is our consciousness that gets restored and not just a duplicate of ourselves, of course.  And we still haven’t figured out just what consciousness is - so, anticipating it does require a leap of faith that that will be figured out.)  Once achieved, humans will basically be immortal.

Who runs the hardware? Assuming you can "upload your mind" into a digital computer -- a claim I consider preposterous for reasons I won't go into here, so for the moment I'll accept the hypothetical -- who runs the machines?

Your mind-program runs on a digital computer made of chips and requiring electricity to function. Someone has to build the computers, run them, monitor them. Metals and plastics must be fabricated. Chips must be made in factories. Electricity must be generated. Massive hydroelectric dams must be built, or if you prefer, massive wind and solar farms. Windmills and solar panels require rare earth elements that must be mined, usually by children in third-world hellholes that urban futurists don't see but never mind that, let the kids mine the elements as they do today. See https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara just as one of many examples. But you're an elite first-worlder so you won't have to know about their lifetime of misery, just as right this moment you never stop to contemplate the children who mine the cobalt to power your electric car. 

So who are these people? Is there a huge class of slaves living underground whose lives consist of digging the earth to supply the raw materials for the computer chips, windmills and solar panels? They build out the electric grid, they sit in rooms monitoring computers to make sure your uploaded mind is having a pleasantly ethereal existence. 

As long as your claim is that "minds will be uploaded to computers" you have to consider who builds and runs the computers, builds the electric plants that run them, who digs the metals out of the earth.

When a baby is born, who decides whether it's a privileged uploaded Eloi, or an underground-dwelling slave labor Morlock?

What am I missing? It seems to me that even momentarily granting your premise of the possibility of "uploading your mind to a computer," the idea almost immediately falls into absurdity. Billions condemned to earthly slavery while you and your friends float in the ether. Will you in your uploaded heaven whip the third-world slaves to make more electricity to keep your digital hallucination running? Of course you will. You do that right now. 

Is your phone tainted by the misery of the 35,000 children in Congo's mines?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/phone-misery-children-congo-cobalt-mines-drc

Elitist technocrats. Don't get me started. And remember: Once in a while, the Morlocks eat the Eloi. Why shouldn't those child miners and slave laborers just unplug your sorry butt and save themselves the trouble? What's in it for them to keep your simulation running? They'd have no more compassion for you than I do for this browser tab when I close it.

[Disclaimer: Overheated rhetorical invective aimed at your idea and at all those pseudo-intellectuals espousing these post-human delusions, not at you personally.]

Edited July 10, 2023 by wtf

[Bob Cross]

23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

In fairness, I think the first part of your statement is also "off the deep end" since that is firmly in the realm of science fiction. 

This does not seem like philosophy this seems like science fiction.  I think this would be a better fit in Speculations or The Lounge sections

I don't care how it's categorized.  But I wanted to counter the notion that the concept of an afterlife has been scientifically disproven.  We just had Arnold S. declare that Heaven doesn't exist.  A few years ago non-believers posted declarations on billboards that "there is no afterlife" on US-59 here in Houston.  No room for discussion.  That seems to be the understanding among non-believers - that science has disproven any afterlife.  Well, it hasn't.  There's room for it if what I proposed gets figured out.

Quote

 

This is not how DNA works. DNA does not contain information for reconstructing our bodies. The only way to use DNA to get a body is to let it go through the entire developmental process. And then, the result will depend on both DNA and the developmental environment, which surely will be different from the original. So, the "reconstructed" body will be different from the original.

This includes the brain. The "reconstructed" brain will be different from the original. Thus, it will not fit the stored contents of the original brain.

 

A technological speed bump.  Obviously, I don't have the details figured out yet.  Stone age men didn't have the blueprints for jet engines either.

13 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Much like how I don't believe in gods, I don't believe in exponential progress either. I expect the progression is more like an S-curve. They can look very similar... for a while. Let us hope it is not a U-curve.

I don't want to die - although that may change as my body and mind deteriorates from age - but not enough to set aside experience and reason in favor of religious faith in an afterlife. I doubt a technological version is possible but I'm not much attracted by it; seems that whoever it is achieves consciousness in that body won't be me, even if he thinks otherwise. So I struggle to feel any attachment to his fate, apart from a vague "good luck".

Better medical care for the life I have - with or without a capability to extend it - will remain a better goal in my view

It's been a long time since mankind has regressed, technologically, if ever.  Soon we'll have AI to help us - the current rate of advance will accelerate!

I mentioned that the issue about who's consciousness is restored would have to be figured out.  Another techological speed bump.

I am in no way suggesting this is a basis for discounting the life we have.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Bob Cross

[Genady]

20 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Quote

 

This is not how DNA works. DNA does not contain information for reconstructing our bodies. The only way to use DNA to get a body is to let it go through the entire developmental process. And then, the result will depend on both DNA and the developmental environment, which surely will be different from the original. So, the "reconstructed" body will be different from the original.

This includes the brain. The "reconstructed" brain will be different from the original. Thus, it will not fit the stored contents of the original brain.

 

Expand  

A technological speed bump.  Obviously, I don't have the details figured out yet.  Stone age men didn't have the blueprints for jet engines either.

I did not point to something that needs more details. I pointed to a mistake.

[Bob Cross]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

I did not point to something that needs more details. I pointed to a mistake.

So...unless you can conceive of how to do it right now in every particular, it's impossible?

Edited July 10, 2023 by Bob Cross

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

So...unless you can conceive of how to do it right now in every particular, it's impossible?

No, it is impossible because DNA has only part of the information necessary to reconstruct the body and the brain. The other part, which is interactions with environment during development, got lost. Without this other part, you don't have enough information to reconstruct the body and the brain.

[Bob Cross]

On 7/10/2023 at 10:19 AM, Genady said:

No, it is impossible because DNA has only part of the information necessary to reconstruct the body and the brain. The other part, which is interactions with environment during development, got lost. Without this other part, you don't have enough information to reconstruct the body and the brain.

Explain cloning then.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Explain cloning then.

They have identical DNA, like homozygous twins, and the bodies are similar, but different. Especially, the brains. You can check many studies of homozygous twins. They help to distinguish between genetic vs. environmental effects on development.

[wtf]

On 7/9/2023 at 7:32 AM, Bob Cross said:

Try conceiving that in the far future mankind will be able to transfer the contents of our minds to hard memory – to be restored upon the event of our death.

I have another objection or concern that comes to mind, would be interested in your feedback. 

Every physical computer has only finitely much memory. In the future it will be a lot, but it must be finite. That implies that the computer can only be in a finite number of states before repeating.

So you are uploaded into digital heaven (more about that in a moment). You are served a seemingly endless supply of delightful digital heavenly experiences. Then one day you notice that you're in the same scene you've been in before. You realize that since the computer is only capable of being in finitely many states, you are condemned to loop forever. 

After the billionth time you've had sex with the celebrity of your choice, you realize it's not really fun anymore. It's boring. You realize you are not in heaven. You are in hell. 

There's a relevant Twilight Zone episode. Petty crook dies and goes to the beyond. His host (named Pip, played by the delightful Sebastian Cabot) tells him he can have anything he wants. Girls? They all fall for him. Gambling? He wins at everything. Crimes? Yes he can even commit crimes, and he gets away with them.

One day he starts getting bored. He asks Pip if there could just be a chance he'd get caught committing a crime. Pip takes out his notebook, says, "Ok, you'd like to be caught." The guy says no, I just want there to be a CHANCE of getting caught. That's the excitement, to not know. He says, "If this is heaven, then I'd rather be in the other place."

Pip lets out a devilish laugh and says, "Heaven? What ever made you think this is heaven? This IS the other place!" 

And so it would be for your existence inside a digital computer. After the millionth time through the same experiences, you would beg your machine maintainers to unplug you. You would beg for death.

And then you remember -- you are not in digital heaven. In your life you committed a crime. You are CONDEMNED to your endless existence of the same predictable experiences, over and over for eternity. It's your punishment. You are in hell.

What say you?

By the way note that it wouldn't help to allow you to interact with the other uploadees. There's only so much memory and only so many states, and in the end, everyone's collective experiences must loop endlessly through the same finite set of experiences.

Edited July 12, 2023 by wtf

[Genady]

2 hours ago, wtf said:

There's a relevant Twilight Zone episode.

Yup. Here it is: 

 

[Bob Cross]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:02 AM, Bufofrog said:

In fairness, I think the first part of your statement is also "off the deep end" since that is firmly in the realm of science fiction. 

This does not seem like philosophy this seems like science fiction.  I think this would be a better fit in Speculations or The Lounge sections

Earlier I said I didn't care how it was categorized, and I still don't.  But I want to go back to this anyway.  I wouldn't categorize it as science fiction since that doesn't have any constraints.  I'm postulating a basis for a belief - that constrains me to plausibility.  I think a better categorization would be "Technology Forcasting".  But, since this concerns belief in an afterlife, it should continue to fit nicely here in the General Philosophy category.

On 7/10/2023 at 10:19 AM, Genady said:

No, it is impossible because DNA has only part of the information necessary to reconstruct the body and the brain. The other part, which is interactions with environment during development, got lost. Without this other part, you don't have enough information to reconstruct the body and the brain.

The brain is the only part that has to be reconstructed precisely - for restoring the mind contents recorded earlier.  But that recording - using nano-machines you'll recall - can also record the spacial locations of all neurons as it does so.  Then, when the body - including the brain - is constructed, the brain will be identical to the original.  Our bodies change continuously and there is no need for such precision for that.

Catch up!  You're stuck in 2023.  This is happening centuries from now, after centuries of AI-assisted technological advancements.

15 hours ago, wtf said:

I have another objection or concern that comes to mind, would be interested in your feedback. 

Every physical computer has only finitely much memory. In the future it will be a lot, but it must be finite. That implies that the computer can only be in a finite number of states before repeating.

So you are uploaded into digital heaven (more about that in a moment). You are served a seemingly endless supply of delightful digital heavenly experiences. Then one day you notice that you're in the same scene you've been in before. You realize that since the computer is only capable of being in finitely many states, you are condemned to loop forever. 

After the billionth time you've had sex with the celebrity of your choice, you realize it's not really fun anymore. It's boring. You realize you are not in heaven. You are in hell. 

There's a relevant Twilight Zone episode. Petty crook dies and goes to the beyond. His host (named Pip, played by the delightful Sebastian Cabot) tells him he can have anything he wants. Girls? They all fall for him. Gambling? He wins at everything. Crimes? Yes he can even commit crimes, and he gets away with them.

One day he starts getting bored. He asks Pip if there could just be a chance he'd get caught committing a crime. Pip takes out his notebook, says, "Ok, you'd like to be caught." The guy says no, I just want there to be a CHANCE of getting caught. That's the excitement, to not know. He says, "If this is heaven, then I'd rather be in the other place."

Pip lets out a devilish laugh and says, "Heaven? What ever made you think this is heaven? This IS the other place!" 

And so it would be for your existence inside a digital computer. After the millionth time through the same experiences, you would beg your machine maintainers to unplug you. You would beg for death.

And then you remember -- you are not in digital heaven. In your life you committed a crime. You are CONDEMNED to your endless existence of the same predictable experiences, over and over for eternity. It's your punishment. You are in hell.

What say you?

By the way note that it wouldn't help to allow you to interact with the other uploadees. There's only so much memory and only so many states, and in the end, everyone's collective experiences must loop endlessly through the same finite set of experiences.

I never said anything about "digital heaven".  The contents of the human mind is finite and that was what was being recorded to memory for future restoration.  The subject will be physically restored to real life - in a future that I expect to be sort of equivalent to something we might call heaven, but just as infinite as any other time in the universe has been.

I want to add that last year Ray Kurzweil (one of the founders of Google, famous for technology predictions) predicted that Nano-Machines were only about eight years away!  That sounds a little early to me, but if he's right that will be Earth-shattering!

Edited July 12, 2023 by Bob Cross

[wtf]

2 hours ago, Bob Cross said:

The contents of the human mind is finite and that was what was being recorded to memory for future restoration.  The subject will be physically restored to real life - in a future that I expect to be sort of equivalent to something we might call heaven, but just as infinite as any other time in the universe has been.

Human experience is finite, but our lifespans are short. If you're uploaded to a computer, you'll inevitably reach the point where your experiences duplicate. Once that happens often enough, you'll beg to be unplugged.

2 hours ago, Bob Cross said:

I want to add that last year Ray Kurzweil (one of the founders of Google, famous for technology predictions) predicted that Nano-Machines were only about eight years away!  That sounds a little early to me, but if he's right that will be Earth-shattering!

In no alternate universe, let alone this one, was Ray Kurzweil ever a founder of Google. He joined the company as an employee in 2012. Nano machines are not the subject of the thread. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by wtf

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, wtf said:

Human experience is finite, but our lifespans are short. If you're uploaded to a computer, you'll inevitably reach the point where your experiences duplicate. Once that happens often enough, you'll beg to be unplugged.

No neuroplasticity equivalent for learning then. You are thinking in hard-machine terms, when it's a software that's executing. If we can have experiences in our brains, which is just data, why would it be impossible to replicate via software? Why can't those software-based characters interact and share experiences, increasing their respective knowledgebases?

[TheVat]

50 minutes ago, wtf said:

Human experience is finite, but our lifespans are short. If you're uploaded to a computer, you'll inevitably reach the point where your experiences duplicate. Once that happens often enough, you'll beg to be unplugged.

Why assume all personalities fit that scenario?  Some love repetition, some don't, and a lot of research suggests human personality is fairly malleable as life circumstances change.  Perhaps a Matrix dwelling mind would become more like the gamesters of Triskelion in that famous ST episode, whiling away the eons playing games of chance.  300 quatloos on the human!

Even if repetition is inevitable, this planet has hosted around a hundred billion human lives, and no two exactly alike.  The same might be the case for other planets with sentient species.  A robust universe simulation could offer trillions of years of unique experiences of sentient lifetimes before one would "start over."  By then, one might have forgotten a lot of them.  Or there could be other experiences to move onto beyond our present imaginings.

[StringJunky]

We already have a natural model via the dreaming process. We can synthesize experiences as a lived experience within them.

Edited July 12, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

5 hours ago, Bob Cross said:

The brain is the only part that has to be reconstructed precisely - for restoring the mind contents recorded earlier.  But that recording - using nano-machines you'll recall - can also record the spacial locations of all neurons as it does so.

How do you know that the mind contents are recorded in the spatial locations of the neurons? I bet they are not. The neurotransmitter concentrations, release, absorption, and other molecular level mechanisms inside and outside of neurons are crucial as well.

Moreover, how do you know that brain is not a quantum rather than classical computer? If it is, it is impossible in principle to record its state without destroying it.

[Genady]

@Bob Cross, 

Just to clarify my comment above. I meant to say in the first statement, "How do you know that the entire mind contents are recorded in the spatial locations of the neurons?".

[zapatos]

20 hours ago, wtf said:

Human experience is finite, but our lifespans are short. If you're uploaded to a computer, you'll inevitably reach the point where your experiences duplicate. Once that happens often enough, you'll beg to be unplugged.

If my lifetime lasted the length of the universe my experiences still won't be exact duplicates. As long as my surroundings change, my experiences change.

[Bob Cross]

21 hours ago, wtf said:

Human experience is finite, but our lifespans are short. If you're uploaded to a computer, you'll inevitably reach the point where your experiences duplicate. Once that happens often enough, you'll beg to be unplugged.

In no alternate universe, let alone this one, was Ray Kurzweil ever a founder of Google. He joined the company as an employee in 2012. Nano machines are not the subject of the thread. 

I'm not loading anyone into a computer.  I'm just storing a snapshot of our minds in one to enable it to be restored after our deaths.  That storage is finite but, after restoration, our prospects will be as infinite as in any other living organism.

I guess I got some bad info on Kurzweil.  Nevertheless, what I said about his nano-machine prediction stands - and that's what matters.  Among the many revolutionary advantages they will bring will include repair to cells and other bodily structures.  So, pristine cells and arteries, for example.  Like a "fountain of youth"!

18 hours ago, Genady said:

How do you know that the mind contents are recorded in the spatial locations of the neurons? I bet they are not. The neurotransmitter concentrations, release, absorption, and other molecular level mechanisms inside and outside of neurons are crucial as well.

Moreover, how do you know that brain is not a quantum rather than classical computer? If it is, it is impossible in principle to record its state without destroying it.

The brain is a collection of neurons and their connections.  That - and their states - can be recorded.  If it's more complicated than that, we'll have centuries to figure out those details.  Again, I don't have to solve all the technical details this minute.  I just have to make a plausible case that they will be solved.  And they will be.

In fact, once nano-machines become available (maybe pretty soon) the opportunity to make such a recording of our minds might be a good idea.  That's even if it will be centuries before restoration becomes possible.  That storage will eliminate the need for some sort of time-travel like technique to recover that info later.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Bob Cross

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

The brain is a collection of neurons and their connections.  That - and their states - can be recorded.  If it's more complicated than that, we'll have centuries to figure out those details.  Again, I don't have to solve all the technical details this minute.  I just have to make a plausible case that they will be solved.  And they will be.

In fact, once nano-machines become available (maybe pretty soon) the opportunity to make such a recording of our minds might be a good idea.  That's even if it will be centuries before restoration becomes possible.  That storage will eliminate the need for some sort of time-travel like technique to recover that info later.

If you don't record all the necessary information, you cannot restore the original state. I claim that it is in principle impossible to collect all the necessary information. This makes your case implausible.

[TheVat]

Moreover, how is that immortality?  How do we know that after your brain is precisely copied by some as-yet unknown (and implausible) method for a "quantum snapshot," then you will die, and a distinct consciousness will awaken that has all your memories?  It will tell everyone that "you" survived and are just fine, but that subjective report does not eliminate the possiblity that the original biological you lost consciousness and is gone forever.  

 

[Bob Cross]

On 7/13/2023 at 10:50 AM, Genady said:

If you don't record all the necessary information, you cannot restore the original state. I claim that it is in principle impossible to collect all the necessary information. This makes your case implausible.

Again, if the brain is just a collection of neurons, their connections, and the states of those connections, it is possible to collect all the necessary information using nano-machines - as I've described earlier.  Even if it's more complicated than that, the issue will not withstand the tidal wave of technological advancement to the edge of infinity.  These are simply techological speed bumps that will get flattened in that wave.

Regardless, I'm not filing for a patent on the technique.  I'm just making a case for belief that it will be solved.  That's a lower bar that I'm sure I've met.

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

Moreover, how is that immortality?  How do we know that after your brain is precisely copied by some as-yet unknown (and implausible) method for a "quantum snapshot," then you will die, and a distinct consciousness will awaken that has all your memories?  It will tell everyone that "you" survived and are just fine, but that subjective report does not eliminate the possiblity that the original biological you lost consciousness and is gone forever.  

 

As I said in my initial post:

"There are some issues with insuring that it really is our consciousness that gets restored and not just a duplicate of ourselves, of course."

So, yes, that is an issue that will have to be resolved.  Even the science isn't sorted out yet for that, so no point in my speculating how it might be achieved.  But, work on machine consciousness may be the vector that allows human consciousness to be sorted out.  And, again, my scenario includes extrapolating technology to near infinity.  That should bulldoze any solvable problem in our paths eventually.

Oh, and I just said "snapshot", not "quantum snapshot".

Edited July 14, 2023 by Bob Cross