Jump to content

death and beyond


godc0mpl3x

What happens after your death?  

146 members have voted

  1. 1. What happens after your death?

    • Other (...)
      20
    • Reincarnation
      13
    • Nothingness
      83
    • Eternal life
      30


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Meh, Goddess, I'm not a fan of sifting, nor of necromancy.

 

 

 

Emotion is a phenomenon that occurs when a perceiving mind reacts to the world around it. Emotion is obviously not restricted to the confine of human mind, as shown by many animals. Who is to say that if an android was programmed with human traits, reactions, and moods, that it would not feel emotion?

 

How can you say that there is something that makes an animal emotion felt by animals, while saying that the soul doesn't exist? In that you are denying one esoteric thing, and accepting the presence of another(the presence of something "special" un-replicatable by technology)?

 

Nice rebuttal. Still, I am concerned that you say these things without any apparent background in robotics or programming. AI's aren't programmed with human traits and emotions, their programmed with command codes to imitate them. Please don't base a scientific argument in Hollywood, and please don't think that my denial of the likelyhood of one esoteric thing means that I'm contradicting myself when I mention a different esoteric thing. Am I even using the word esoteric right here? I'm not sure. Someone help me here. I mean like spiritual, or unique to the human race, something unknown and/or not understood fully. Like the formentioned soul and "fuzzy logic." Anyways, I'm saying this stuff that can't be replicated is based in our biology, not in our spiritual whatchamacallits.

 

 

 

Btw, I never said the soul doesn't exist. I just said there's no reason to believe it does.

 

 

 

What if...~...or her. Simple as that.

 

I seem to recall an argumentative tool, have to look it up though... ah, yes. I remember this one from old debates long passed. Russel's teapot.

 

 

 

Bleh, I hate the sound of that almost as much as I hate it when someone mentions the word "straw man."

 

 

 

Science does give us a lot of answers and it helped us progress as a race immensely, but if you really think it can answer every single thing under the sun then you're just arrogant.

 

"Alchemists are scientists... we strive to understand the principles of creation in the matter of the world, to pursue truth... It's ironic that we scientists... who don't believe in god... are in a sense the closest things to him."

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked the "eternal life" option. I guess that's the Christian viewpoint and I haven't seen any evidence of anything else; well except for the physical degradation.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, Goddess, I'm not a fan of sifting, nor of necromancy.

 

 

 

Emotion is a phenomenon that occurs when a perceiving mind reacts to the world around it. Emotion is obviously not restricted to the confine of human mind, as shown by many animals. Who is to say that if an android was programmed with human traits, reactions, and moods, that it would not feel emotion?

 

How can you say that there is something that makes an animal emotion felt by animals, while saying that the soul doesn't exist? In that you are denying one esoteric thing, and accepting the presence of another(the presence of something "special" un-replicatable by technology)?

 

Nice rebuttal. Still, I am concerned that you say these things without any apparent background in robotics or programming. AI's aren't programmed with human traits and emotions, their programmed with command codes to imitate them. Please don't base a scientific argument in Hollywood, and please don't think that my denial of the likelyhood of one esoteric thing means that I'm contradicting myself when I mention a different esoteric thing. Am I even using the word esoteric right here? I'm not sure. Someone help me here. I mean like spiritual, or unique to the human race, something unknown and/or not understood fully. Like the formentioned soul and "fuzzy logic." Anyways, I'm saying this stuff that can't be replicated is based in our biology, not in our spiritual whatchamacallits.

 

 

 

Btw, I never said the soul doesn't exist. I just said there's no reason to believe it does.

 

 

 

Call it what you want, but seems to me like this un-replicable "thing" within us would have to be nonphysical for it to be totally ruled out of technological possibility (are you describing a soul? hmm). I know my ideas have been conceived from science-fiction, but it is illogical to deny the possibility that in the future, the human mind's brain activity will not be replicated by AI.

[iNSERT "I R EATIN TEH SHIX ATM" BILL COSBY SIGNATURE GIF HERE, LOL]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall an argumentative tool, have to look it up though... ah, yes. I remember this one from old debates long passed. Russel's teapot.

 

 

 

Bleh, I hate the sound of that almost as much as I hate it when someone mentions the word "straw man."

 

 

 

If you want to prove something on a universal level and convince others, then yes the burden of proof definitely should be applied. From as far as I can tell though, I don't think she's trying to convince anyone - just justifying herself. After all, she brought up how it looks ridiculous in the eyes of others.

 

 

 

"Alchemists are scientists... we strive to understand the principles of creation in the matter of the world, to pursue truth... It's ironic that we scientists... who don't believe in god... are in a sense the closest things to him."

 

 

 

Maybe arrogant was the wrong word. It's okay to be arrogant. I meant ignorant. There is a limit to human understanding and comprehension. If you think that you can somehow answer every question there is, then you're just as "weak-minded" as Goddess for believing the crystal method. Omniscience sounds like an illogical fantasy to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Call it what you want, but seems to me like this un-replicable "thing" within us would have to be nonphysical for it to be totally ruled out of technological possibility (are you describing a soul? hmm). I know my ideas have been conceived from science-fiction, but it is illogical to deny the possibility that in the future, the human mind's brain activity will not be replicated by AI.

 

 

 

That last sentence gave me brain fart so bad :lol:

 

Ok, now that I've finally figured it out, I don't think it's that illogical. Obviously we haven't succeeded yet in replicating an entire human brain(or soul I suppose) with the technology we have. Having programmed for quite some time, I can say with some certainty that the current computing capabilities we have aren't capable of creating anything as complex as the human mind. We can replicate and even improve on certain aspects of the human persona but never create anything better.

 

 

 

For example, a computer, at least one running in a similar fashion to the ones we have today, will never be able to have "free will". I don't mean that in the deep physiological/moral manner that some do; but rather as the ability to chose. When I started school, my professors always made it a priority to stress just one fact: "A computer will do exactly what you tell it to do, nothing more, nothing less". This means that every time a computer appears to be "thinking" for itself, it is merely doing what it is supposed to do when presented with a certain situation.

 

 

 

Obviously this comes in incredibly handy for limited applications of the human mind but the in depth things, the ability to chose, the ability to decipher right and wrong, the ability to do things that don't make sense....the way computers are now, at this moment, restrict any truly perfect artificial intelligence.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to believe my beliefs are weak-minded but I am not weak-minded thanks very much. That is uncalled for.

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to believe my beliefs are weak-minded but I am not weak-minded thanks very much. That is uncalled for.

 

 

 

Was that directed towards me?

 

It was, and I agree with her. Attack the idea, not the person.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh, apparently it wasn't.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to believe my beliefs are weak-minded but I am not weak-minded thanks very much. That is uncalled for.

 

 

 

Was that directed towards me?

 

 

 

After re-reading your post I don't believe you are calling me weak-minded but referring to Reb's post. It was originally meant for you but now I realise the only person who actually referred to me being weak-minded was in fact Reb. Someone who I considered a dear friend... :( That was totally a low-blow Reb... really it was.

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Call it what you want, but seems to me like this un-replicable "thing" within us would have to be nonphysical for it to be totally ruled out of technological possibility (are you describing a soul? hmm). I know my ideas have been conceived from science-fiction, but it is illogical to deny the possibility that in the future, the human mind's brain activity will not be replicated by AI.

 

 

 

That last sentence gave me brain fart so bad :lol:

 

Ok, now that I've finally figured it out, I don't think it's that illogical. Obviously we haven't succeeded yet in replicating an entire human brain(or soul I suppose) with the technology we have. Having programmed for quite some time, I can say with some certainty that the current computing capabilities we have aren't capable of creating anything as complex as the human mind. We can replicate and even improve on certain aspects of the human persona but never create anything better.

 

 

 

For example, a computer, at least one running in a similar fashion to the ones we have today, will never be able to have "free will". I don't mean that in the deep physiological/moral manner that some do; but rather as the ability to chose. When I started school, my professors always made it a priority to stress just one fact: "A computer will do exactly what you tell it to do, nothing more, nothing less". This means that every time a computer appears to be "thinking" for itself, it is merely doing what it is supposed to do when presented with a certain situation.

 

 

 

Obviously this comes in incredibly handy for limited applications of the human mind but the in depth things, the ability to chose, the ability to decipher right and wrong, the ability to do things that don't make sense....the way computers are now, at this moment, restrict any truly perfect artificial intelligence.

 

No need to lecture about the lack of randomness in computing. I don't think you can say that there is not a possibility of random code in the future, and thus free will.

 

 

 

Even without free will, and without randomness in code, I believe a perceiving mind's ability to "feel" something is not necessarily hindered. There are animals that don't think, acting in a uniform way according to their current situation, and still have the ability to perceive genuinely.

[iNSERT "I R EATIN TEH SHIX ATM" BILL COSBY SIGNATURE GIF HERE, LOL]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends have fights and disagreements on certain topics every once in a while >_>. I'm sorry, I'm just a male with a scientific mind, a mundane thing on this forum I suppose.

 

 

 

No need to lecture about the lack of randomness in computing. I don't think you can say that there is not a possibility of random code in the future, and thus free will.

 

 

 

Even without free will, and without randomness in code, I believe a perceiving mind's ability to "feel" something is not necessarily hindered. There are animals that don't think, acting in a uniform way according to their current situation, and still have the ability to perceive genuinely.

 

Why are you comparing animals to computers...? Just because they both "percieve" doesn't mean the word means the same thing for both of them. By that I mean, founding your faith in the possibility of the generation of souls in AI's in biology doesn't seem to make any sense.

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I disagree lots with you but I don't call you names. At least you said sorry so all is well <3:

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you all are doing is pointless. Ill attempt to address three things in my response. Firstly how hard it can be to define life and its origins, then following on from this Ill explain why going to such extreme lengths of physical deconstruction is futile and lastly my views on the human consciousness.

 

 

 

You can simplify and simplify but the honest truth is, and which no one can deny, is that all we are an ordered collection of Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen and every single moment or reaction or feeling is nothing but a series of interactions between these molecules.

 

 

 

Take the very primitive earth, and now, to look back and define what is living and non-living is very difficult indeed.

 

 

 

Take prebionts essentially a molecular epidermis of a head and two tails that are chemical precursors to life. It is a phospho-lipid bi-membrane that due to the polarity of water is an exchange of chemicals. The head being hydrophilic, and the tails being hydrophobic. And so what occurred was a natural arrangement of these particles, essentially long chains of hydrogen and phosphorus in a type of net. Remember these were actually chemical precursors to life. The Miller-Urey experiment proved this. However, the actual reason for this jump is still unknown. Are you seeing what Im trying to get at here?

 

 

 

So, from a biologists point of view, anything that is living in our most human sense is something that has metabolic pathways for aerobic respiration but then again, about 3 billion years ago when the first cyanobacteria appeared in the form of stromatolites, the first oxygen was produced. But! But, before that 3 billion mark there were still organisms that lived. So in essence what Im trying to say is; that our very definition of life is not static and depends on the environment.

 

 

 

Ok, now to breaking the human body down you get collection of fats and other compounds known as sterols, nucleic acids and proteins. This is basically it. And theyre all made of the same thing, over and over and over again. If you whittle down, dont be surprised by what you find. There is no point in simplifying to this extent, because basically its useless.

 

 

 

Every thought, emotion, feeling and reaction is a collection of chemical pathways that trigger around your body. Everyone knows that. But to truly define what makes us us is something I have no idea about. No one does.

 

 

 

Would you be able to make a human by piecing together C-H-O-N-P ? Sure, but, would he or she have a sense of self? Again, the reason goes back to why this is futile. No one knows whether it will or will not happen, the fact remains that because we do not know specifically know the markers [easiest way I can explain] for human emotion we can never replicate them.

 

 

 

So, be happy to be you and dont ponder.

 

Now, onto the consciousness. How can it be defined I dont know. Can it be proved ? No. Because it cannot be quantified, we are puzzled. Again, flipping back the brain. Relays electrical signals down tractal axons all over your body. Then how can we be sure what our brain is sending to use is accurate ? Did I not just now touch this desk ? See the keyboard in front of me ? All our brain is the sum of our senses, an intermediary if you will between the world in our head and the world outside our head.

 

 

 

So, trying to define it, what, who, where, when, and how is pointless because our conscious is subjective because it is our conscious. Suppose then, you had the choice of reading what I wrote. While the neurochemistry in your brain reacted with the external environment in a singular and particular way, concurrently these chemicals generated a lie known as free choice. So are we wholly influenced by our external environments ? Much like the prebionts and their polar attraction to solvents in water? I do not think so. But I do not know for sure what happens beyond death. And I dont think anyone will ever know.

 

 

 

I'll add more later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who thinks the aforementioned arguments are pointless, you pretty much summed up everything that has already been said, simple English is your friend!

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who thinks the aforementioned arguments are pointless, you pretty much summed up everything that has already been said, simple English is your friend!

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying it was pointless going down into infinite detail about "conciousness" etc... because it is very hard to change a persons beliefs. Because of what they "feel". It's hard to describe.

 

 

 

And, I didn't really get your tone. Condescending ? Placating ? Annoyed ?

 

 

 

What are you saying ? Can you make it clearer for me ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

External lives and reincarnation. I believe in souls.

 

 

 

If someone is a good enough person they will be given the ability to reincarnate into anything they choose, but if they're bad - bamghost.

I dont need a siggy no moar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why are you comparing animals to computers...? Just because they both "percieve" doesn't mean the word means the same thing for both of them. By that I mean, founding your faith in the possibility of the generation of souls in AI's in biology doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

Again, we come to the conclusion that you are either denying the possibility that human brain activity will be replicated or that we have a soul. (either of which are reasonable viewpoints)

 

 

 

Adrenal it seems you believe in the mysticism of the human "soul" too. So, these simple chemical processes can't be replicated because their outcome (for some reason) must only be ascribed to a living organism? As in most things, there are a multitude of ways to arrive at the same answer. Who says we can't replace human body part X and replace it with robot part Y, and still have it equal the same product? It seems like you think AI technology is trying to, atom-by-atom, construct a human body; all science needs to know to replicate something by machine is its final product, and a piece of hardware that is able to achieve that product.

 

 

 

Also, I don't know why you brought up what defines a living thing. My argument wasn't that a robot could be living, but that it could achieve genuine emotion and a the aforementioned "you".

[iNSERT "I R EATIN TEH SHIX ATM" BILL COSBY SIGNATURE GIF HERE, LOL]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends have fights and disagreements on certain topics every once in a while >_>. I'm sorry, I'm just a male with a scientific mind, a mundane thing on this forum I suppose.

 

 

 

No need to lecture about the lack of randomness in computing. I don't think you can say that there is not a possibility of random code in the future, and thus free will.

 

 

 

Even without free will, and without randomness in code, I believe a perceiving mind's ability to "feel" something is not necessarily hindered. There are animals that don't think, acting in a uniform way according to their current situation, and still have the ability to perceive genuinely.

 

Why are you comparing animals to computers...? Just because they both "percieve" doesn't mean the word means the same thing for both of them. By that I mean, founding your faith in the possibility of the generation of souls in AI's in biology doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

 

 

Exactly this. I think it would be possible with the technology we currently have to replicate an animal's intelligence. It is just that humans are infinitely more complex.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.