 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Visions of the Future >
A Dialogue on Reincarnation
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0609.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
A Dialogue on Reincarnation
If you were offered physical immortality as a "Wallerstein brain" (a human brain maintained in a jar interfacing to a virtual reality through its sensory and motor neurons), would you accept it? The question came up in an email dialogue about reincarnation between Ray Kurzweil and Steve Rabinowitz, a practicing attorney in New York City (which he says may explain his need to believe in reincarnation).
Published on KurzweilAI.net January 6, 2004.
Ray: You mentioned that you believe in reincarnation.
I know that this is the belief of many traditions.
But as you know, following a "tradition" is not always
the most reliable way of achieving the truth of the matter.
There are a lot of traditions that have arbitrary and nonsensical
beliefs.
So I was wondering: do you really believe in reincarnation, or
are you just accepting without critical reflection this belief
from a tradition that has provided you with a lot of other benefits?
Or to put it another way, what evidence do you have for reincarnation?
One concern I have with this belief is that it can be viewed as
yet another rationalization for death. As I mentioned, our
religious traditions have gone to extensive lengths to rationalize
death. It is obvious to me that death is a tragedy, but up
until very recently, it has appeared that there was nothing we could
do about it, other than to rationalize that it must, after all,
be a good thing. This view would apply to reincarnation.
One might argue that what's the harm in rationalizing death?
The harm is that in rationalizing something that is tragic, we fail
to take the urgent action needed to avoid the tragedy, something
which is now becoming feasible. As Dylan Thomas wrote: "Do
not go gentle into that good night,. . .Rage, rage against the dying
of the light."
Steve: My reincarnation conjecture was in response to Amy's [Kurzweil,
Ray's daughter] statement [below], which blew me away. Ethan [Kurzweil,
Ray's son] had already expressed skepticism to me about the desirability
of immortality at a previous luncheon, but Amy's reason for rejecting
it took me totally by surprise: "So boring."
I suppose I'm rather Cartesian in my outlook towards life. As
far as evidence of reincarnation, I've read books that purported
to offer some, but really I didn't much care about such "evidence"
one way or another. There are certain basic assumptions which I
seem to be forced into—and from there, logic dictates the rest.
When I was little, my parents like to tease me by saying that if
they hadn't married, I would never have existed. I never could
buy that. The idea that my inner Self began at a particular time
and will end at a particular time is unimaginable to me. Now I
could just say that's just a subjective delusion or defense, but
in the end, I know I wouldn't be true to myself if I went down that
path, because the belief in my own timelessness is just too strong.
I could make believe that I don't really believe it, I could decide
that it is a foolish belief, but I know in my heart that no matter
what, I do believe it, and so to me it makes more sense to just
accept it as an assumption and see where I go from there.
I don't know if Amy's comment about boredom is just a statement
about her own current state of mind or an insight into the human
condition. If one does believe in reincarnation, it is a small
step to believe in higher beings for whom life is much more interesting
than that of humans. In that vision of reality, evolved beings
such as Amy would seek a birth on this planet to confront particular
goals—and facing death would of course be one of the main ones.
But her stay here would be a relatively short one—and then
back to having fun.
In many traditions, various beings attain immortality. For those
who do it by purifying their nervous systems, life is very, very
good, and these fortunate individuals attain great powers, visit
celestial beings and do all sorts of things as they wish. These
people are admired by all. However, occasionally, not-so-evolved
beings get the immortality trick done, and their feelings are much
more mixed. They feel jealousy as their friends ascend to heaven,
and need comforting.
So depending on your world view, and your own condition, physical
immortality may not necessarily be a blessing.
However, all in all, if you offered it to me, I would take it.
Fear of death is built in too, I guess, and maybe I'm proud enough
to think I could use the time to make it all worthwhile.
But it is a question worthy of thought. It is obvious to me that
we all wish for things, which if achieved, would not be to our benefit.
Ray: Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I do think Amy's statement is insightful. It is important to understand
my perspective—my "vision of the future"—in
its totality. Most futurists make two mistakes. They think linearly
whereas the trends are exponential. And they consider one trend
on today's world as if nothing else were going to change. Amy is
essentially correct, that if we simply extended human longevity
to hundreds of years, our psychology could not handle it. We would
indeed be gripped with a deep ennui. But extending human lifespan
is not the only radical change in store. We are also going to merge
with our technology and expand our cognitive and emotional capabilities,
as well as the depth and richness of our intellectual, relational,
artistic, sexual, and emotional experiences many fold, ultimately
by factors of trillions as we go through this century. So boredom
will not be an issue.
With regard to reincarnation, I'd say several things. Your starting
intuition, that "my inner self" is essentially timeless,
is reasonable. We do need to go beyond science when we consider
the nature of consciousness, which is to say the nature of one's
self. Science is about objective observation and deductions thereof,
whereas consciousness—the self—is about subjective experience.
There is a gap there. An intuition of a "timeless self"
is in my view reasonable.
But then you claim that from there, logic brings you to reincarnation.
But there is no logical bridge from "timeless self" to
"reincarnation." You jump from an essential "timeless"
mystery about the self to an ornate system of reincarnation, with
greater beings, celestial powers, babies coming back to planets,
etc. It's no more logical than stories of heaven, or other attempts
to explain in language essential ineffable truths.
A problem I have with these views is that it gives a concrete reality
to levels of reality that have no basis, but nonetheless effect
people's activities in this life (often negatively, but that is
not my main point).
Let's start with what we do know. There is a reality that we experience
every day. We can call it physical reality. Now some philosophers
say that this physical reality is really a dream, and so on. But
regardless of its true nature, we do directly experience it, and
so we can say that it exists.
Another reasonable intuition is that "reality matters."
People suffer. Suffering can be alleviated. Our actions have consequences.
It makes a difference how we act in this world.
Another insight that is quite consistent with how we act and feel
is that death is a tragedy. We don't celebrate it. We are saddened
by it. We feel it as a great loss. There is a loss of experience
and knowledge, not only in the departed, but in those of us left
behind. We don't reward murderers. We despise and punish them.
These are insights we can have some confidence in, in contrast
to claimed logical deductions about ornate systems of reincarnation,
heaven, etc. that we cannot experience.
While I respect your views and the tradition they stem from, I
don't really believe that you really firmly believe that reincarnation
or any other such "system" is the only possible explanation.
You may find the explanation comforting, but if you really consider
your true beliefs, you would have to admit that you don't really
know this to be true. As a mental experiment, consider the situation
in which somehow, a different truth were revealed to you. Put aside
how it would be possible for any such truth to be "revealed,"
but just imagine that somehow this happened. Would you be totally
shocked? Or would you shrug your shoulders and consider that now
you have a deeper insight?
So I come back to what we really know and can have confidence in.
There is a reality to joy and to suffering, and to the suffering,
and loss of knowledge and experience that illness and death brings.
And there is joy and gratification in knowledge, discovery, friendship,
and experiences that enable us to grow. And we can move in this
direction in the world that we know exists, rather than in metaphorical
realms.
I would not describe physical immortality as inherently a blessing,
nor a curse. Rather, we have the opportunity and responsibility
to embrace the growth of knowledge and experience, and to alleviate
suffering and destruction. The problem I have with many of the
common traditions regarding death is not only that they are "deathist
rationalizations," but they encourage passivity. To the idea
that "death is natural," I would point out that it is
natural for our species to push beyond its boundaries. We did not
stay on the ground. We did not stay on the planet. We did not
stay with our biological life expectancy (which was 37 years in
1800). And we are not staying with the limitations of our bodies
and brains.
Steve: I don't think we are in disagreement. But once you
open the door to timelessness of consciousness, what happens after
death becomes a legitimate consideration in deciding whether you
want physical immortality in your present body, as it may be modified.
If you offered me physical immortality as a "Wallerstein brain"
in a jar (a human brain maintained in a jar interfacing to a virtual
reality through its sensory and motor neurons), I, and I think most
people, would reject it no matter how good the virtual stimulation
might be. This rejection is based on an inner calculation (which
I believe the brain constantly makes in making all kinds of decisions)
weighing the risks that such stimulation not being "real"
means it may prove unsatisfactory in the long run and weighing of
the odds of some sort of preferable reality coming to pass through
natural means. It is true that death is painful and hence we seek
to avoid it, but after all, birth is painful too, and I don't think
we would advise anyone against that.
Finally, the future you paint below is only one future: you have
pointed out many times the risks of technology leading to unfortunate
outcomes if certain science is misused.
I'd like physical immortality for myself, I think; I'm just suggesting
some caution may be advised.
Ray: Steve, a relevant quote:
A mind that stays at the same capacity cannot live
forever; after a few thousand years it would look more like a repeating
tape loop than a person. To live indefinitely long, the mind itself
must grow. . . . and when it becomes great enough, and looks back.
. . .what fellow feeling can it have with the soul that it was originally?
The later being would be everything the original was, but vastly
more.
- Vernor Vinge
Steve: What fellow feeling indeed? I think that is the
great mystery, the thing that binds the infinite distinct points
on the time line into the sense of "I."
Ray: When I think of myself back in junior high school
or high school, I feel a bit of kinship to that person, but at the
same time it also seems like someone else.
Steve: Strange, isn't it?
© 2003 KurzweilAI.net
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
immortality discussion
|
|
 |
|
While reading "The Age of Spiritual Machines" I asked my girlfriend what she thought about life as a "Wallerstein brain", or life after uploading. She is a pre-veterinarian student, and values life and compassion very highly. After a brief discussion, she became so upset that she refused to continue talking about it.
I think her reaction was largely driven by fear. Like Steve, she takes comfort in the re-incarnation idea, and has believed it for as long as I can tell. She would tell me, "I will NOT be a computer. If you want to do it thats fine, but it makes me sad."
I think the difference between our views is that I believe everything that makes a sense you "me" is the result of the interactions and relationships of physical matter and energy, not a "me" or "soul" that persists in another dimension or universe. Unfortunately, having an understanding of emergence and complexity is probably a pre-requisite for people to be able to understand the feasibility of the physical view, and most people aren't interested in making the effort.
I think the advance of technology will gradually introduce people to realistic ideas about consciousness and immortality. As it becomes easier to appeal to science for answers about the big questions, religion is taken less literally. Contrary to the common opinion of this, I think this is a good thing for religion, not a bad thing.
We are well on the way to being able to mentally concieve the workings that produce consciousness in the medical, computer, and theoretical research fields. I have faith that the ethical implications of our greater understanding will unite people, rather than fragment them. This makes all the more interesting the questions that we must appeal to religion for answers, such as "why is there anything at all?". |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: immortality discussion
|
|
|
|
Let's suppose that due to quantum effects, one can't truly duplicate a person - but one can record the state of a person precisely enough that if you did so and created a duplicate, no one including the duplicate could tell that they were not the original.
The original and the duplicate, given the same exact environments might have reacted differently due to quantum level differences - but no one could tell from that which was which. That seems pretty adequate as a model for reincarnation. Maybe there's something better - some sort of quantum-level entangled-particle transmission of pattern - but even so it really wouldn't make a distinguishable difference.
Anyhow - given a complete record of a person's information state, there must exist other atoms and particles scattered around the universe that mirror those states - again, precisely enough that any measurements made could not tell the difference.
Of course, since they are scattered, they would also immediately transition to new states that are not equivalent to the person being modelled - but if we slice time up finely enough, and for each time slice pick a new set of atoms and particles matching that new state, we could reasonably say that those sequential sets of sets are measureably equivalent to the single set of atoms and particles that make up a person.
And not only would there be sets of sets matching what a person actually becomes and does, but also sets of sets that match paths that the person does not take. So if a person dies, somewhere in the universe there's a set of particles that reflect a state of that person in which they do NOT die, but continue on for another time slice. And then another, and another - on for as long as the universe has sufficient information content to model an on-going evolution of that living person.
Now I'm not saying that there's anything of mystical or practical significance in this. But for those who consider themselves to be "nothing but pattern", it might be a bit of a comfort. The dynamic progression of patterns that is you may die, but somewhere out there will be a series of pattern sets that mirror your life as if you had continued on.
And since there is no longer an "original" to match against, the selection of sets could just as well be such that the sequence of images shift to a paradise setting, or to a ghostly existence monitoring events in the real world, or just about anything else you care to imagine.
It doesn't do the original person any good once they're dead, but does somehow make the end of a life - your own, or someone else's - seem a little bit less crushing to consider. Somewhere out there, there's a sequence of patterns that reflect the mental and emotional state of someone dear to you but departed, as they would be if they had been and still are watching over you right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
From the dialogue:
A mind that stays at the same capacity cannot live forever; after a few
thousand years it would look more like a repeating tape loop than a
person. To live indefinitely long, the mind itself must grow. . . . and
when it becomes great enough, and looks back. . . .what fellow feeling
can it have with the soul that it was originally? The later being would
be everything the original was, but vastly more.
- Vernor Vinge
Ray: When I think of myself back in junior high school or high school, I
feel a bit of kinship to that person, but at the same time it also seems
like someone else.
There are real people who have been alive for mere decades who already seem somewhat like tape loops to me. Not that being incredibly predictable is such a bad thing; I bring it up only because it causes me to lean towards accepting what VV said here about 1,000-year-old minds.
The brain-in-a-jar thing doesn't seem so bad. Inevitably, in this type of discussions, someone suggests that we might all be brains in jars right now.
But, existing for thousands of years, that's a more interesting thing to think about. Perhaps such entities will choose not to live any longer, having grown tired of being a tape loop. Or, will it be vastly enriching and fulfilling? I suppose we won't know until we try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
I really don't see what the debate is. Those of us that choose to upload and take that route will ejoy such massive computation that we will be able to run evolution simulations. Some of which will produce all the different personalities, physicalities, and anything that has ever existed in the history of earth, the universe and so on.
To those people who choose the other route, I say, "Come back and talk to me when you get it right." I have no sympathy for anyone who given every opportunity for immortality still turns it down. How sad do you feel for the panhandler that refuses your five dollars? Confused, but not sad.
This will all settle down the day that religous people open their eyes and stop praying long enough to see that their "prayers" over thousands of years are finnaly being answered.
What day was it that the definition of a a "Miracle" including contrasting it's amazingness against the era in which it occured. If we were able to travel back in time with our 2004 technology, everyone who made the trip would be next to Jesus as an equal in the Bible.
I see the Singularity as the ultimate Miracle and the end for the Need for reincarnation.
As many of us are now becoming fully aware the days of science being objective are drawing to an end. It is becoming a religion. We have to "sell" our fellow humans on it's benifits (salvation), it's future (revelations), it's costs and limitations (commandments), and it's potential evil if misused (The Devil). Everyday life is a war of ideas and the battle lines are being drawn.
So the next time someone brings up reincarnation, kindly inform them that we don't need that anymore, then show them the way to the payphone so they can make a call. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting discussion and has provoked a number of questions. For me it is not a matter of whether reincarnation is true, but to what extent it is true. A little reflection shows us that reincarnation is happening all around us. Clouds reincarnate as rain; rain reincarnates as rivers, streams, lakes and oceans; lakes, rivers, streams and oceans reincarnate as the various flora and fauna, including us, that ingest it. In another example, we ourselves reincarnate through our genes and memes as future generations. Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe how our culture propagates through the mental equivalent of genes. We swap bits of cultural DNA, such as the melody of songs, stories, scientific ideas, etc. with each other. In Buddhism there is the image of the moon reflecting in a hundred bowls of water. We could easily say that our culture reflects in each of us in the same way. Susan Blackmore (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Meme%20Mach ine/mmsynop.html) goes so far as to suggest that we may be nothing other than "A conglomeration of memes." In any event, too a very large degree, we are the reincarnation of the memes as well as the genes of our ancestors. Whenever we entertain thoughts about gravity, Isaac Newton lives again in us.
There are some people who believe that we will go through a technological singularity in twenty or thirty years and we will attain the ability to upload our minds into computers and onto the Internet, thus achieving a form of immortality. What would this be other than a form of reincarnation? I would suggest that we have been uploading and downloading ourselves to a cultural network of human interaction ever since we began swapping stories with each other.
Something has often bothered me about this idea of uploading ourselves to computer networks and that is the question, "would it really be me, or would it just be a copy of me that made the transition?" I can't help feeling that there might be something vital missing. Steve Rabinowitz mentions a timeless sense of inner self that he feels might be the aspect of himself that reincarnates. If a scan of my brain were to be uploaded to a computer memory store would this sense of inner self be transferred or would it just be a copy of my sense of self. If my body were destroyed after the scan and upload, wouldn't my original sense of inner self be destroyed along with it? What would the copy be other than a sort of descendant of mine, albeit a more high fidelity descendant than is currently produced through my genes and memes?
There is a sort of conundrum here: if we look at the possibility of making the transition slowly and our brains were replaced bit by bit with nanobots, would our sense of self then make the transition? After all my brain replaces every atom in every neuron every few weeks and I still feel the same sense of self. Or, is it just a copy of the sense of self that I had a few weeks ago? What is it that creates this sense of self? If I look at the very core of my experience as a self, the very minimal sense of a self, I find that I am the observer of experiences. For example, if I am watching a television program, I am not the program, even if I might get completely caught up in it; rather I am the observer of the program.
A useful image for this observer might be a flawless crystal ball. A crystal ball is transparent, but it reflects the colours and forms that surround it. Those colours and forms are constantly changing, but the crystal ball itself is unchanging and empty, or transparent. In the same way our inner sense of self, while observing a constantly changing flux of experiences, does not change itself. Like the crystal ball it is transparent and unchanged by the reflections of its experiences. This gives rise to the feeling of a timeless sense of a self.
So, if I want to transfer my mind to a computer system, i.e. reincarnate into a cyberbeing, I would want to also transfer the observer, which is most essentially myself, as well. The same is true for reincarnating as a human being. There is some evidence, even compelling evidence, that small children have memories of past lives (see: http://www.childpastlives.org/birthmrk.htm), but the issue is the same: does my inner most essence, the observer, also transfer to that new child.
So, from this line of thinking, the issues of reincarnation and the uploading of my consciousness to the Matrix have the same concern: what is the nature of my inner most essence and how does it transfer to a new host? Even if all my memories are transferred, it does me little good if the observer remains behind. After all my genes and memes are already out there recycling themselves, reincarnating as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The human condition
|
|
|
|
In my opinion the whole concept of reincarnation is both pointless and counter intuitive.
If we hold reincarnation to be true, than it's highly likely (given the length of our history) that I'm reincarnated. But, I (the subjective ME experiencing this life aka ‘el sker’) have no recollection of all the memories, experiences and knowledge my past me's (them's?) had.
I am thus a unique being with it's own sense of consciousness, uninfluenced at a perceivable level by all previous me’s. I therefore feel no kinship or integrated being with all the previous and coming me’s (them’s?) nor with the supreme being known as my soul that is constantly reincarnating all over the place. So if I die, the subjective me dies and I will forever cease to exist in the physical world.
What then is the point in believing in reincarnation? It brings neither comfort nor rationalisation. If there is some higher plane of existence, what good does that do for the subjective me writing this tale? I will still be dead, that is to say no longer able to experience subjective consciousness as el sker.
As Descartes pointed out in his meditations on first philosophy the only thing you can be certain of is your thinking (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am), but this is a subjective experience. When I as el sker am no longer able to experience being as el sker, el sker (me) is dead and I (el sker, me) do not want that.
So as long there is no clearly perceivable continuity between all the different reincarnated me’s, in the sense of transferred knowledge or perceivavble integretated being with my ‘soul’, this me (el sker) wants to choose longetivity over death (I like living).
Because when I die, the subjective me dies …and that would suck.
Therefore, no more cycle of reincarnation for me, this little unknowing confined consciousness is taking over, it ends here, with ME!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The human condition
|
|
|
|
In my opinion the whole concept of reincarnation is both pointless and counter intuitive.
What then, if it is "counter intuitive" (for you)? What then? What point is required by you?
If we hold reincarnation to be true, than it's highly likely (given the length of our history) that I'm reincarnated.
Maybe. It is not granted per se. But may be so.
But, I (the subjective ME experiencing this life aka ‘el sker’) have no recollection of all the memories
You have forgoten 99.9% of "your life" either. So what? At every moment, you just don't have all remaining memories displayed. Do you? Hardly any.
I am thus a unique being with it's own sense of consciousness
This "thus" means only a big jump into a big conclusion.
uninfluenced at a perceivable level by all previous me’s.
Here you have a small point. But not everything you have been through, influence you either. In fact, nothing in the sense, that otherwise "it wouldn't be you".
I therefore feel no kinship or integrated being with all the previous and coming me’s (them’s?)
Not with yourself on July 11th 1992. The day, completely forgotten by you. (If the date is not right, please choose another!)
nor with the supreme being known as my soul that is constantly reincarnating all over the place.
Who says "it must be soul"? I say, just an information process might be enough. You can call it soul now, if you wish.
So if I die, the subjective me dies and I will forever cease to exist in the physical world.
It was the day, it was still a chance, you will be born in the future, somewhere in this Universe? When you have actually been born, the whole Universe was informed? That your born flag has just been set to 1. And that you must NOT be born ever again, anywhere? Is that what are you saying?
What then is the point in believing in reincarnation? It brings neither comfort nor rationalisation.
It does bring rationalisation, yes. This "born flag" has no need to be. It would be a headache, had it was actual.
what good does that do for the subjective me writing this tale?
I have no idea. Promoting some "common sense view"?
I will still be dead, that is to say no longer able to experience subjective consciousness as el sker.
It is not your real name. But even if it was, there is no guaranties, you can't have it again. If you are talking about memories, what makes you think, that they are so special? They are not! I ate chocolate too!
As Descartes pointed out in his meditations on first philosophy the only thing you can be certain of is your thinking (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am), but this is a subjective experience.
So what if the Descartes said so? You can't be certain even that, if you are pathologically sceptical. If you are sure only about that, you are still pathologically sceptical.
When I as el sker am no longer able to experience being as el sker, el sker (me) is dead and I (el sker, me)
So, tonight you will die?
do not want that.
Nature (of consciousness) doesn't care, what do you want or what you don't want. It is very irrelevant.
So as long there is no clearly perceivable continuity between all the different reincarnated me’s,
There is no "continuity" in your instance either.
in the sense of transferred knowledge or perceivable integrated being with my ‘soul’, this me (el sker) wants to choose longtime over death (I like living).
Sure. (Almost) every incarnation wants that. Me too. Wish us all luck!
Because when I die, the subjective me dies …and that would suck.
Every negative emotion suks. Removal of this instance from the circulation, sucks to me, too!
Therefore, no more cycle of reincarnation for me, this little unknowing confined consciousness is taking over, it ends here, with ME!!!
So you say, the born flag does exists? How many of them? Where is the capacity to store them all and to handle them (with FTL speed)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The human condition
|
|
|
|
In my opinion the whole concept of reincarnation is both pointless and counter intuitive.
What then, if it is "counter intuitive" (for you)? What then? What point is required by you?
El sker:
But, I (the subjective ME experiencing this life aka ‘el sker’) have no recollection of all the memories
You have forgoten 99.9% of "your life" either. So what? At every moment, you just don't have all remaining memories displayed. Do you? Hardly any.
El sker: Untrue. Although I have forgotten 99.9% of my life (data), I can vividly remember parts of it (information) which I use to guide me in life (knowledge). I have no recollection at all from a previous life hence no knowledge that I can use to improve my life or that of others.
Therefore, reincarnation for the subjective me is useless. If you view reincarnation as some form of information process that
I am thus a unique being with it's own sense of consciousness
This "thus" means only a big jump into a big conclusion.
El sker: why?
I therefore feel no kinship or integrated being with all the previous and coming me’s (them’s?)
Not with yourself on July 11th 1992. The day, completely forgotten by you. (If the date is not right, please choose another!)
El sker: No, but although I’m not the same person as I was july 11th 1992, I have integrated all the experiences I had prior to july 11th 1992 and afterwards into a meaningful pattern that defines me as the being that I am. Therefore this incarnation has continuity while reincarnation for me equals discontinuity.
So if I die, the subjective me dies and I will forever cease to exist in the physical world.
It was the day, it was still a chance, you will be born in the future, somewhere in this Universe? When you have actually been born, the whole Universe was informed? That your born flag has just been set to 1. And that you must NOT be born ever again, anywhere? Is that what are you saying?
El sker: No. I’m just saying that the subjective me that has a sense of self will cease to exist at some time. I believe it to be highly unlikely to be born again with all the different aspects of myself exactly the same as they were (this would make me the same person). If this would be possible, I would be reborn and my self would remain more or less the same (no discontinuity).
What then is the point in believing in reincarnation? It brings neither comfort nor rationalisation.
It does bring rationalisation, yes. This "born flag" has no need to be. It would be a headache, had it was actual.
I will still be dead, that is to say no longer able to experience subjective consciousness as el sker.
It is not your real name. But even if it was, there is no guaranties, you can't have it again. If you are talking about memories, what makes you think, that they are so special? They are not! I ate chocolate too!
El sker: Yes they are, I’m defined by –amongst other things- my memories. We might share an intersubjective frame of reference when it comes to eating choclate, but do you know how I experience chocolate? Or do you know how I felt and what I thought when my dog died?
When I as el sker am no longer able to experience being as el sker, el sker (me) is dead and I (el sker, me)
So, tonight you will die?
El sker: I sure don’t hope so :-). If you are referring to a dream state, that still feels like me…
do not want that.
Nature (of consciousness) doesn't care, what do you want or what you don't want. It is very irrelevant.
El sker: nature might not, but subjective me sure does!!
So as long there is no clearly perceivable continuity between all the different reincarnated me’s,
There is no "continuity" in your instance either.
El sker: As I pointed out before… I feel there is since my experiences are integrated into my being.
in the sense of transferred knowledge or perceivable integrated being with my ‘soul’, this me (el sker) wants to choose longtime over death (I like living).
Sure. (Almost) every incarnation wants that. Me too. Wish us all luck!
El sker: GL!!! ;-)
Therefore, no more cycle of reincarnation for me, this little unknowing confined consciousness is taking over, it ends here, with ME!!!
So you say, the born flag does exists? How many of them? Where is the capacity to store them all and to handle them (with FTL speed)?
El sker: Errr…. I just want to continue being until I get fed up with it…after that they can reincarnate my Atman all they want! ;-)
Thanks for your critical remarks!
Best Regards,
El sker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
1) Take a healthy human being.
2) do a complete cryonics process on him, and then bring him back to life. The entire process of freezing him, and bringing him back to life, should take *less* than 15 minutes (should be possible in the future).
The reason I say 15 minutes, is because people have already been clinically dead for such a period, and when brought back to life, no one questioned about their identity.
If you agree that the person who we brought back after 15 minutes of cryonics, is still himself, then, you've just disproved the reincarnation theory, since the freezing period could be extended for larger periods.
Just don't tell me that the "soul" first needs to smell the body's flesh decays, before it reincarnate itself... Also, don't tell me that the "soul" needs to first check out if its body has no way to be brought back to life, before it gives itself away to reincarnation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
Mr Kurzweill,
I would like to comment on the following part of your dialogue:
"To the idea that "death is natural," I would point out that it is natural for our species to push beyond its boundaries. We did not stay on the ground. We did not stay on the planet. We did not stay with our biological life expectancy (which was 37 years in 1800). And we are not staying with the limitations of our bodies and brains"
I really liked your answer.
I agree that it is natural for our species or possibly any kind of species to push beyond of its boundaries for various reasons such as to survive and adapt to the environment.
More specifically our species seem to be designed to push the limitations for reasons that exceed adaptation or survival--Unless if we consider the limitation of our bodies or brains that limits 'Us**? as a non-hostile environment at some point of time.
In that sense we may consider ‘Us**’, that: whenever we need to exceed limitations, it will be for the prime reason of our ‘survival’ and adaptation.
Either way I would like to point out the fact that whenever any kind of species are trying to exceed such limitations they are actually dealing with the 'laws of nature.....
In other words if the new ‘level’ or ‘state’ that they have evolve into, makes them ‘fit’ to the environment, then they will survive and qualify to adapt.
Take for example a scenario with a mutation that occurs to a population. According to modern theories, only a few mutations will end up transforming the whole population into a new form. The rest will probably die or if not it will never be able to evolve.
In a similar logic, when we observe human history we can see that after every moment that we decide to exceed our boundaries, some type of effort will begin and can result either in pain and distraction or in great success and transfer to a new ‘level’ such as ‘not staying on the ground’.
Therefore, It would be very important every time we are trying to exceed such limits to consider the nature of the new proposed ‘state’ that we would like to be in and focus on scenarios of failure.
In your case we could ultimately consider the fact whether the whole idea of exceeding our brains or bodies would simply result into a population that is able to evolve or not. Is nature going to allow this type of adaptation?
**( Us = our stored?? brain information that tells us its us...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
Stay with me on this!
A thought experiment:
Let's say you find yourself existing, alive and conscious, in position A.
If you move to position B then obviously you would find yourself existing, alive and conscious, there.
Now instead of moving to position B an exact duplicate of you is created at position B.
Where do you now find yourself located?
Well what are all the possible options?
a. Cease to exist anywhere
b. Exist at A only
c. Exist at B only
d. Exist at A and B
e. Oscillate between A and B
Which options seem more reasonable?
a. There’s no logical reason to believe that a duplication of your structure at B should cause you to stop existing at A so maybe we can eliminate this one.
b. Should be reasonable, you’re still at A
c. Since we’ve done nothing to the structure at A there’s no reason to believe you would find yourself only at B
d. Reasonable again depending on your metaphysical tendencies!
e. Since both the structures at A and B are continuous then there’s no reason to believe you should be oscillating between those two positions.
So it seems that only options b. and d. bear further discussion.
Whatever the philosophy, religion, or science there should be some answer to this thought experiment.
Lets look at it from the three different points of view that I believe encompass the spectrum of possibilities.
1. Dualism – consciousness and matter are separate and distinct.
2. Monism – consciousness is all there is and individuality is an illusion
3. Materialism – matter generates consciousness
Dualism has no real problem with the thought experiment. You could have exact physical copies of a body and still have two distinct individuals since each consciousness (spirit) is still separate and unique. It’s true that a third party would have no basis on which to tell the copies apart but each copy would still consider itself an individual existing in a specific location.
Monism also has no problem with the thought experiment. Since individuality is an illusion the illusion of individuality would also be complete between exact copies of any physical structure. All consciousness is One and expresses as all forms. You could replicate a form exactly billions of times and each form would still consider itself to be an individual!
How about materialism?
At first glance the obvious answer would be b. You still exist at A and someone else that looks and acts like you exists at B.
For materialism however this presents a quandary. Since both physical structures are identical and structure is generating your consciousness as an epiphenomenon, then shouldn’t you find yourself in the confusing position of being in two places at once?
It would be like looking at two superimposed TV screens with a different picture on each screen.
If Material 1 =Consciousness 1, and Material 2 = Consciousness 2, and Material 1 = Material 2, then Consciousness 1 = Consciousness 2.
Summarizing. If “you” exist at A because of brain A then ”you” must also exist at B if an exact copy of brain A exists there.
Further let’s say position B is 1 light year distant!
Somehow "you" would be controlling 2 bodies
instantaneously across that distance. That would be macro scale "action at a distance".
This violates physics as currently understood.
One could claim that for an instant there would be only one consciousness associated with 2 bodies but as soon as the experiences start to differ the consciousness would differentiate or split but this is obviously false. No matter what experiences I have consciousness seems to be continuous. Along with this consciousness would now be dependent on experience and not the brain.
So for a materialist it seems that only d. could hold! If not then there is something non-material involved with the generation of consciousness and materialism is refuting itself.
Of course a materialist could claim that the whole thought experiment is poppycock and that exact physical forms could not exist.
But then the onus would be on him to explain just why. In a vast universe why couldn’t the exact same physical structure reoccur?
Of course the exact structure that actually generates consciousness would first have to be identified.
Presumably this would have nothing to do with the body but be something in the brain and not only that, something unique in each brain that generates a unique consciousness in each case.
Yet aren’t all brains pretty much the same?
There is a medical procedure in which entire hemispheres of the brain are sometimes removed to quell seizures without, we assume, the “person” being erased.
Additionally cases have been documented where normally functioning people have virtually no brain material at all.
I would contend that the philosophy, religion, science that answers this question with a minimum of paradox must be the closest to the truth.
Ironically by examining our seeming physical individuality in the universe may we find that that is exactly what we are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
The prime two question are 1. weather we can achieve enough similarity between the original person to his cyber duplicate and 2. weather this similarity can be himself, in certain circumstances to the effect of achieving his survival. The reductionist theories of the self which may be summed as “My identity, survival, or continuity can be understood as reducible to certain other facts; these are facts about psychological connectedness and continuity”…” Psychological connectedness is the holding of particular direct psychological connections such as memory links, the connection between intention and action, and enduring dispositions. Psychological continuity is the holding of overlapping chains of strong connectedness”. A person’s survival consists of continuity, connectedness and the right kind of cause.
the term "self" is used here to refer to the continuant, lasting, changing individual along his altering phases of life from childhood, adolescence to maturity and old age, and possibly to a later phases of existence.
according to psychological reductionism, “a person just is psychological connectedness and continuity”. “there is psychological continuity if and only if there are overlapping chains of strong connectedness. X today is one and the same person as Y at some past time if and only if X is psychologically continuous with Y, this continuity has the right kind of cause, and there does not exist a different person who is also psychologically continuous with Y. Personal identity over time just consists in the holding of facts like these.”
The "right cause" is any reliable cause and not necessarily the normal one. personal identity can even survive the absence of normal, reliable, or direct causal connections between one stage of a person and a continuer “So long as the later continuer is caused to occur in some way, and the earlier stage of the person plays a crucial role, even if indirect and unreliable, then the continuer counts as the same person as the earlier person.” "Any relevant and sufficient cause connecting the earlier entity with the later qualitatively identical entity." If the memories, intentions, and dispositions that together comprise the self identity were to be sustained by some reliable process other than the normal activity of the brain, that identity had been preserved. For example, memory could be preserved on this view by substituting a mechanical replacement for a collection of neurons so long as no change in function occurred.” “it is the effect rather than the kind of cause that matters in these cases. Thus radically different mechanisms like brain transplants, teletransportation, or personality reconstruction can maintain the connectedness necessary to personal continuity and identity”
To sum it up, in order to maintain your identity, and survival it is required to keep: 1. some psychological connectedness 2. psychological continuity. 3. the right kind of cause which is maintained if x plays a crucial role, even if indirect and unreliable in the formation of y.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
What’s the problem with being a “brain in a jar”, we already are – at least a brain in a fleshy sack. Do you think it’s light or touch that enters your brain, it’s all electro-chemical pulses. We already live squarely inside our own heads.
As for reincarnation, wasn’t it Hans Moravec who said that given that it is unlikely we are the first civilization to achieve exponential technological feedback, it is much more probably that we are already “absorbed” and in fact living in a simulation of our own or another civilization. Once we are, than anything goes.
As for myself, I do not think immortality is not possible. By mid-life, think how little “you” are really like the “you” at 10. Now take it forward, 10^6 years ahead – what was “you” will be entirely washed away. Of course, as Vinge and Kurzweil have pointed out, in order to survive at all, your mind must expand – but that is just a way of exponentially washing away the you … especially as to keep up, you’ll have to trade knowledge and structure with other minds. Thus, you can be immortal only as part of all life. But that’s exactly the position any of us as individuals are in now.
Of course, if one day they come around handing out “upload” tickets, I’m in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Dialogue on Reincarnation
|
|
|
|
I think it was the guru Krishnamurti who said " Reincarnation is a Fact- but it is not True"
This was probably misinterpreted earlier. Krishnamurti meant that Reincarnation is not true because time, memory and the 'me' are not true, therefore any concept of a continuing self is not true.
This is the problem with Kurzweil's view and the reincarnation view. A perpetuatuation the self albeit expanded in capacity or multiplied nevertheless remains a self or selves. The root of the problem for Krishnamurti is identity which is is a repetition of the past based on memory. Human beings always look to the future 'to save us from all this' when the cause of all this is the sense of me. The question then is 'Can a human being experience 'all this' without the me?' This does not need time as past and future is me as we have said. You raise interesting points, RobinM.
I might suggest that all of the following fill the same human need for immortality. There are the ones based on traditional faith:
1. Reincarnation, the timeless cycle of death and rebirth, which are two sides of the same coin - a recurring theme in Eastern faiths
2. Heaven - a recurring theme in Western religions. This sometimes but not always involves resurrection after the day of judgement.
As our understanding of the world has increased and our technological imagination, the following varieties of immortality:
3. Actual physical immortality in our biological bodies
4. Wallerstein brains
5. Getting "uploaded" into a more or less immortal computing substrate, as we fantasize about endlessly on this board
6. Getting technologically resurrected via Quantum Archaeology, either by us or moral advanced aliens somewhere
7. We're a simulation, which is an interesting twist on the immortality theme, because it kind of means we are already uploaded in some way. Ie, if we're part of an infinite, immortal computing substrate, that makes us by extension immortal, or at least make some of these technological versions of immortality like QA seem more possible than they might otherwise appear to a reasonable mind.
I would say that although the technological varieties of immortality go from more to less reasonable as we go from 3) to 7). The premise of this thread, number 4, the Wallerstein brain option, reads as follows:
If you were offered physical immortality as a "Wallerstein brain" (a human brain maintained in a jar interfacing to a virtual reality through its sensory and motor neurons), would you accept it? In other words, would you accept immortality at any price? Many would say yes. I think a more interesting variant of this "brain in a jar" concept is a "brain in a hyperadvanced droid platform", where one's brain is transplanted into a platform that has a full range of physical movement, senses at least as great as (and perhaps much greater than) our existing human senses, AND can of course network into the virtual world as well. Cake and eat it too sort of thing. Other than 3), this variant of Wallerstein brain seems like the only one that seems somewhat worthwhile.
In any case, your point is interesting about the "me", is it an illusion or not, and how that affects our views of immortality. I would say the only reason we desire immortality in the first place is the "sense of me," which Sensoniq offhand calls an "illusion" without explaining why, but there is probably nothing more real to us as individuals. If we take away the sense of me, the need for immortality goes away, or is replaced by the sense of continuity of ourselves as part of the process of human history, and biological evolution overall. Without the "me", discussing individual immortality makes no sense, so if we think of the "sense of me" as an illusion, and we actually mean it, then we have in fact come to terms with our mortal existence, and should have no problem dying, which is part of the eternal cycle of death and rebirth, after all. This is one of the key lessons from many Eastern religions, this is how in their way they intend to make us feel comfortable with our mortality.
You hit this point beautifully with your guru quote, "Reincarnation is a Fact- but it is not True". The same could be said with most of the immortality options above, ie, "God, Heaven, resurrecting space aliens, etc, are all facts - but none are True".
However, I would offer a different interpretation of why Reincarnation is not true than the one you offered. I would say that all these variants of immortality (including Reincarnation) are "facts" because they resonate strongly with the irrational human desire to be immortal in some form, any form really. However, none of these are "True" because they are not literally true - they are faith-based. Of course, that means they are not "facts" in a literal sense, of course. They would more accurately be described as "faith-based tenets", ideas that resonate so strongly with our perceived need for immortality that they need no actual evidence to back them up. Any evidence or logical reasoning required to support them we will manufacture in our own minds.
The idea that being a brain in a jar would be a perfectly cool way to spend the rest of eternity is just as faith-based as any of these, of course. We have absolutely no idea how cool or not that would be - actually, it might suck, if anyone would think about these things longer than 2 seconds. When we actually have some Wallerstein brains bubbling in their eternity jars, and we can ask them through their VR interface how much they like it, then we'll know, not before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
