From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:32:46 -0500 (EST) Archived: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 08:13:40 -0500 Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 14:47:05 -0000 >Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 01:23:03 -0500 (EST) >>Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition >>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:12:29 -0000 >>>Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition <snip> >>>BTW - You can see I've just balanced and opposed your >>>'materialist' idea of the mind with a non-material concept >>>(quantum field) - which might be unavailable and unacceptable >>>to a machine-body. <snip> >>The technology does not require the identification of the state >>of of a photon anymore than it requires the death of the host. >>Think of it like a phone tap. In a phone tap a third party is >>able to receive the information without hindering the >>information from traveling to the proper party. <snip> >Hi Jason, >a) Just for fun - let's accept your premise of a material basis >of 'mind'. The human, with only a material mind, whether any >attempt is made at copying or not, will die at some stage. For >the material-minded human the death experience must be real - >and final. I.e. that human would know nothing more. >Any putative mind-copy (or simulation) inhabiting a machine-body >would be a new 'personality' and go on to develop in ways we >have no knowledge of. In fact, from the very first minute or so, >it would be an alien species. >b) Now let's examine the present evidence for saying that the >mind is more than the sum of its material brain-cells. Some of >the evidence of non-locality (the probable existence of the mind >in the quantum field _around_ the brain) is provided by Duggins >et al at: >http://www.isc.cnrs.fr/FPAR.htm#Duggins >"... Visual consciousness must then be considered non-local and >inseparable: the microconsciousness does not exist". >As sort-of confirmation, that non-local quantum field also seems >to be used by plants (for near 100% photosynthesis efficiency), >insects (for bees' navigation and geo-communication) and maybe >most other animals (navigation etc. again), which is a strong >indication that an organic living 'mind' is needed to access it. >BTW - there seems to be a possibility that the immaterial 'mind' >or 'consciousness' existing in the quantum field could be >immortal! Note: I found that to be unbelievable when first >presented with the idea some years ago - reading John W Dunne's >remarkable book 'The Serial Universe'. It makes a good case for >a form of immortality for an observing consciousness, regardless >of the apparent 'death' of its material body and brain. I've >read and re-read the book and can't find an obvious flaw in his >reasoning (however, be warned - it needs some mental >gymnastics). >And here's the latest assertion, as reported in the >'Independent', which comes at it from a slightly different angle: >http://tinyurl.com/lq3jxbk >"Is there an afterlife? The science of biocentrism can prove >there is, claims Professor Robert Lanza" I lean toward this reality being artificial. We could be living inside a virtual reality universe. If we are living inside a virtual reality univeres, say living inside an ultra-advanced computer then there could be a form of immortality available to humans when they die. However, it's also possible that a technology can be invented within this virtual reality universe that would also prove a more functional form of immortality, i.e machines within machines, the type of immortality I am referring to with regard to the filiment-growing bb. Ray, your tendency toward magical thinking is quaint but without a firmly developed back-drop to your concept of natural immortality, such as the one I provided about or reality actually being an artifical or virtual reality univese, then it's simply not, should I say worthy of consideration. It would reside in faith. I would strongly argue that humanity really needs to listen to the transhumanists who are attempting to help humanity comprehend and accept that this body is merely a vessel, that what is truly important is the consciousness, the mind. It's impotant humanity adapt to the new reaity before it become a reality. Because if humanity is not prepared then we could end up with a scenario that, let's just say isn't best for humanity in the long run. -Jason Gammon Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp