its a simple question and i had no idea where too put it other then in the science section, anyways is the afterlife in any way scientifically possible....are there any theories by scientists for the afterlife...energy theories etc....
is the afterlife scientifically possible
Define afterlife!
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Define afterlife! |
for the sake of the question, thinking after death...i.e you still exist and know you do...like a ghost
| Bannik wrote: | ||
for the sake of the question, thinking after death...i.e you still exist and know you do...like a ghost |
Does reincarnation count?
Err, I cannot see any possible scientific model that could work. The reason is that mind and consciousness are emergent from the physical brain. Take away the physical brain and there is no mind to 'think'.
OK, so you could postulate a method of 'capturing' the mind - a fairly common sci-fi plot. * You could take a 'brain print' of a person, record it digitally, and store it. Then, when the person dies, you could imprint the recording on another device (could be an artificial brain) which will then 'think'. This doesn't really solve the problem, though, unless you believe that the new 'brain' was a continuation of the old. I cannot see how that could possibly be - they are distinct entities.
A.E.Van Vogt has a stab at a possible 'theory' in his 'Null A' series of books, where he posits that if you can attune two systems to a critical similarity then consciousness will immediately be able to 'switch' between the two. Thus his hero - Gilbert Gosseyn - is killed repeatedly, but his consciousness and awareness immediately transfer to a super-clone every time he dies, and his life carries on, apparently as the same individual.
I am a big sci-fi fan but I must say that I always thought that Vogt's Null A series is weak - both in terms of the internal consistency/plot, and because Vogt seemed to genuinely believe that he was writing something profound and important. It is always a problem when a sci-fi author thinks like that
* Philip Jose Farmer uses this basic mechanism in his Riverworld series. I greatly enjoyed the books, but the metaphysical stuff was more of a distraction than a central part of the plot.
OK, so you could postulate a method of 'capturing' the mind - a fairly common sci-fi plot. * You could take a 'brain print' of a person, record it digitally, and store it. Then, when the person dies, you could imprint the recording on another device (could be an artificial brain) which will then 'think'. This doesn't really solve the problem, though, unless you believe that the new 'brain' was a continuation of the old. I cannot see how that could possibly be - they are distinct entities.
A.E.Van Vogt has a stab at a possible 'theory' in his 'Null A' series of books, where he posits that if you can attune two systems to a critical similarity then consciousness will immediately be able to 'switch' between the two. Thus his hero - Gilbert Gosseyn - is killed repeatedly, but his consciousness and awareness immediately transfer to a super-clone every time he dies, and his life carries on, apparently as the same individual.
I am a big sci-fi fan but I must say that I always thought that Vogt's Null A series is weak - both in terms of the internal consistency/plot, and because Vogt seemed to genuinely believe that he was writing something profound and important. It is always a problem when a sci-fi author thinks like that
* Philip Jose Farmer uses this basic mechanism in his Riverworld series. I greatly enjoyed the books, but the metaphysical stuff was more of a distraction than a central part of the plot.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
A.E.Van Vogt has a stab at a possible 'theory' in his 'Null A' series of books, where he posits that if you can attune two systems to a critical similarity then consciousness will immediately be able to 'switch' between the two. Thus his hero - Gilbert Gosseyn - is killed repeatedly, but his consciousness and awareness immediately transfer to a super-clone every time he dies, and his life carries on, apparently as the same individual. I am a big sci-fi fan but I must say that I always thought that Vogt's Null A series is weak - both in terms of the internal consistency/plot, and because Vogt seemed to genuinely believe that he was writing something profound and important. It is always a problem when a sci-fi author thinks like that
|
Well, as for technological immortality, he's probably on the right track, actually.
Here's my theory on that:
Suppose you make yourself a cyborg; add computer up-links to your brain. It would be useful for both storing information and doing calculations. Now, suppose the links were extremely high-bandwidth, and the computer it was connected to extremely powerful and well programmed. That would give you an opportunity to use the computer's thinking and information storing capacity more and more. Eventually, you begin to use the computer more than your own brain. This trend could continue until the brain is just an interface between the mind-computer and the body. Once it reaches that point, you could loose the body and brain, but still be mostly unaffected in the computer. Then, you could either make/get a new body, or live entirely as software.
Problem is, if the link were ever broken during that process, both halves (brain-mind and computer-mind) would be left broken and crippled; neither one a complete mind on its own.
Related topics
 |