• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Some issues in Quantum Archaeology

scientific resurrection quantum resurrection resurrection biology resurrection of the dead

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 06:53 AM


This thread is based on the Quantum Archaeology threads see esp

 

http://www.longecity...topgams-thread/

 

====================================================================

 

1. You cant hide information.

 

This radical view is being advanced by science, although mainstream sceintists do not accept it.

 

"Information is incapable of being destroyed - that is the deepest physics I know "  Leonard Susskind, Stanford

 

Black holes were thought to suck in and destroy all information, but this is now believed not to be so: information returns to the parameters of the hole, and the debate is whether this information is usable.

 

Successful repeatable experiments have been done

recovering information exrinct for hundreds of millions of years in Resurrection Biology

and Archaeology, in its infancy is digitalising.

 

2. Infomration calculation is growing, with more data produced in one week than in the past 100 years.

 

3. Artificial Intelligence, a branch of hypercomputing, is advancing.

 

4. The past can be deduced from the present.

 

5. Simulation technology is advancing.

 

6. The environment is determined by the laws of physics.

 

7. There is no qualitative difference between describing a past human being and describing a past artefact.

 

8. Information can be rebuilt by calculation from physical events in the present.

 

9. There are more physical events in the present than there were in the past.

 

10. Events in the present have come about by events in the past following the laws of physics.

 

 

resurrection_274125.jpg


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 07:03 AM.


#2 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:11 AM

11.  Men so not exist uniquely nor independently, but are inevitabilities from evenmts in the past.

 

12.  There is no qualitative difference between reconstructing an extinct man's brain and reconstructing an extinct man's face.

 

13.  Memory is not outside physics but it is unconditionally determined by it.

 

14.  As the world exists by laws its must be time symmetrical.

 

15.  No human being is so unusual a high-level prototype design could not be made of him today.

 

16.  The laws of physics require that the present can reach into the past, and vice versa, when Recursive Machine Intelligence is achieved.

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 07:24 AM.


#3 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:31 AM

17.  The principle of interchangability means the exact atoms are not required to build a resurrection, but only a description of their place in the resurrectee.

 

18.  There is no qualitative difference bewteen describing a body in motion and a body at rest.

 

19. There is no difference in overall technique between describing a living man in the present and an extinct man in the past.

 

20.  The limits of science are not contained in the present but moving into the future.

 

21. Although arguments to the future are unprovable, men live their lives by making successful predictions.

 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:38 AM

22. Although the dichotomy between Classical and Quantum Science seems uinresolved, they both subscibe to the laws of physics.

 

23. The laws of physics will be known enough to be able resurrect any being.

 

24. Technology will keep improving.

 

25. Archaeology will improve to a point past the skill to resurrect any being.

 

26. It is irrelevant to the dead when resurrection takes place as only a moment will have subjectively past for them.

 

27. Death is an illusion since it can never be shown to be a final state.

 

giphy.gif


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 07:39 AM.


#5 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:02 AM

@the hanged man, why do you think, that information can't be hidden? I think, that you can.

 

Lets make an experiment. I wrote down a 3 digit number on a piece of paper and burned it. Can you recover the 3 digit number? 

 


  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#6 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:28 AM

yes of course

 

one of

0-1 factorial.

ie all possible combinations of any 3 of  0123456789,

including repeats.

 

Your 3 digit would be one of them on my list, andwould therefore be resurrected as information.

 

So even if that produces lots of answers your number would be resurected.

 

We can do that NOW.

 

With coming science we will able to eliminate to resurect the specific one alone, including the paper and ink you used, using bigger calculations than the one above.

and also resurrect you writing iot which is no different in quality of process, just quantity of process.

 

Once you had confiured the answer, you build it as new with coming microrobots.

 

9 years ago I was in a DARPA lab and asked if I wanted to see some of the microrobots they had built.

 

I said yes and they took me to a microscope becauise they were invisible to the naked eye.

 

It's freaked me I knew I had breatherd some in which were floating about.

 

600_0ff78dc9b893752c198bb26a78bb674e.jpg

 

Nature has already built microrobots ie in your body so they are clearly buildable.

 

A harder arguemnt is that your choice of numbers was strictly determined by preceding events, and wheth those were drawn on the QA GRID it would be inevitbly correct and easy to excavate.


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 08:54 AM.


#7 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:38 AM

@the hanged man, why do you think, that information can't be hidden? I think, that you can.

 

Lets make an experiment. I wrote down a 3 digit number on a piece of paper and burned it. Can you recover the 3 digit number? 

 

yes. And there's no time limit.

 

The reason the numbers are reciverabkle is becaue they are physical events inm the past and have altered their environment is a unique way.

 

No I cant reciover them now. which may be what you mean, but that is not what I wrote.

 

 

INFORMATION IS INCAPABLE OF BEING DESTROYED.

 

The worst destruction known in physics was the black hole.

There even the laws of physics were thought to be destroyed.

 

We now know this assertion by Hawking was wishful thinikng, and that information survives black holes.

 

burning paper to ashes looks final, but it is demonstrably not in science.  Just ONE repeatable experiment showing tha,t is enough to prove it.

 

see

 

http://www.nature.co...he-dead-1.10261


YOLF / other moderators

 

Is there a way spellcheck firefox for windows 10 can interact with longecity???

 

I dont have this problem on Kurzweilai.net or pother places so I guess it is here?

 

cheers


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 08:50 AM.


#8 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 10:25 AM

28. Things in one state are linked by immutable laws to things in all other states

29. The principle of reversibility.

30. The principle that event sequences repeat.

31. The principle of shortcuts.

32. The  size of calculation problem.

33. The principle of elimination.

34. Limits of sizes and calculation needed.

 

35. Principle of many routes to establish one past event makes QA possible.

36. Principle of Gridding enables plottig in 4 dimensions to pinpoint a single event.

37. Principle of parameters.

38. Information gaps may be overcome by studying huge numbers of common timelines

39. Mathematics means you dont need brute calculation.

 

40. Reconstructions might start with a prototype human.

 

41. Principle of copying.

 

42. Each piece of the quantum archaeology enables new pieces.

 

43. The idea of information node densities.

 

44.. Ettinger's maxims of identity.

 

 

antlers_wifi_2011_2_18.gif
One Linear history.

 

untitled_outside_003b.gif

4D QA Grid prototype high level event

 

giphy.gif

More event points in a more complex (bigger) part of real QA grid.

 

 

I'm listing these because each one of themn can be argued successfully, and collectiveklt (about 3,000 axioms) they point to Resurrection being feasible as a part of science and technology.

 

A.I. will probably do resurection by/during 2022, but it's fun to try and draught it long hand.

 

45. the amount we can sum grows on a trajectory

Man is a being that has never died.

Man is a being that never dies.

Man is incapable of death.

Man owns his future.

The laws of science cannot be broken.

You have been formed by eternity.

You will always be.

The dead will rise.

We shall rise.

We will rise in groups and we will rise for ever.

Resurrection is certain.

Immortality is certain.

A man is intrinsically precious from his conception, because he never dies.

You are intrinsically precious.

Your cause is as valid as the universe.

You, yourself are as valid as the universe for you, yourself are law in the universe.


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 10:56 AM.

  • like x 1

#9 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 08 September 2015 - 10:41 AM

Do you mean, that human resurrection is possible? And A.I. will do it? 


  • like x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 11:04 AM

Do you mean, that human resurrection is possible? And A.I. will do it? 

 

Yes that must be.Even an extinction event could not wipe the cosmos of many universes (M Theory), and since recursion and self-reflection are parts of Nature they cant be excluded from occuring elsewhere, and simulations of the pasts would have to occur under Bostrom's Law of Simulation, which can be extended into the infinite cosmos.

 

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

 

In an infinite cosmos, other beings resurrecting us coud never be said to be impossible.

If that is not impossible it must be possible.

 


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 11:07 AM.


#11 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 08 September 2015 - 11:29 AM

May I imagine how do you intend to resurrect people? 

 

Some one has died. You manage to somehow gather and calculate a lot of information about that some one. Then you make his/her DNA. And then you clone that someone using the DNA, that you have sintetized. Is it something like that? 

 

I think, that you will not be able to resurrect some one, you will be able only to make a very exact copy of that some one. 


  • Agree x 1

#12 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 08 September 2015 - 12:10 PM

No. The DNA is part of it. But the whole body at the point nof death and full memories are important for resurrection.

 

The principle of copying to extend life is a well established ion nbilogy.

Copying occurs now, in you, by the process of RNA transcription.

Your cells are copied and replaced, daily.

Are you a different person?

 

Yes but not significantly.

the QA copies will be even closer than you today from you yesterday. Less difference, becuase there will be no mutation errors in copying.

 

Copying is a perectly natural process, necessary for Life.

 

Ettinger's maxims of identity. above discourses on this in the best denouement on Isdentity in history I know.

That is ad hominem of course and irrelevant, but he brought forth many ideas into a cohesive arguement in The Physics of Immortaity.

 

So great a work that one can forgive his religious perspective, cmmon in the USA.

 

It was published in 1994....before the WWW and is an Herculean monolith, as important as and comparable to the Great Pyramid of Cheops Man's first attempt to conquer death.

 

Kheops-Pyramid.jpg

 

 

For it builds and it's title is a tribute to Etinger's work, and so far ahead that even Transhumanists doubt it can be correct.

 

He predicted Resurrection at the Omega Point at the end of time by calculations from the Laws of Physics.

I had a tutor very like John Wheeler, Frank J. had John Wheeler!

 

 

I predict Resurrection in 2022 by  the trajectories of sceince and hypercomputing - especially A.I., size of data, size of calculatuions we are doing, maths and quantum computing. Although Moore's Law is failing it is probably switching paradigms

and does not effect the Law od Accelerating Reurns.

 

And even if they slowed, the advance of sceince and technology will continue and the dead will wait!

 

Science & philosophy and theology move very fast, and Resurrection by science, like revival of the body after the hert stops, will become so common place peple will say they always knew it!

 

Meantime it is good to know death is an impossible state, because it cannot ever, logically, be irreversible.

 

This is a philosophy section of Longecity, not theology nor science. ie just the ideas and the logic to increase wisdom.

 

There is no known argument against resurrection, and Archaeology is resurrecting all the time.

 

oldest mathematics

 

Africa 20,000 years ago:

 

ishango.jpg

 

 

The usual challenge to that is but living things are different.

Living things ARE NOT  different except in comp[lexity which is just size of sums to do.

 

Billions of $s are bing poured into early Quantum Computers and hypercomputation is coming. These will be able to do extremely big sums.

 

Yes, A.I. will resurrect the dead by 2022.  I'm doing this long hand for fun.

 

tipler.gif

Prof Frank J Tipler

 

>>>>I think, that you will not be able to resurrect some one, you will be able only to make a very exact copy of that some one.<<<

 

Fine. Prove it. Maybe begin by defining how Resurrection is different from  Archaeology?

 

ship of theseus

trireme.jpg


Edited by the hanged man, 08 September 2015 - 12:30 PM.


#13 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 08 September 2015 - 12:35 PM

All of the things, that you write, @the hanged man, are extremely interesting. 

 

The technologies, that you are talking about, however, are not yet invented, so they don't exist now (2015). So, you are some sort of a believer. You believe, that these technologies will come up in the future. 

 

Copying occures now, in our bodies, correct, but at the level of molecules and cells. These changes of our bodies sacrifice the cells and the molecules in order to preserve the body as whole. You are talking about another type of copying - you copy the entire body. So, you no longer preserve the whole. You are replacing the whole with another whole :) There comes completely different question - is your copy you. If we have two identical twins, and one of them dies, does it means, that the death twin is still alive, because his brother has survived? No ofcourse. It is illogical. 

 


  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#14 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,289 posts
  • 94

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 September 2015 - 12:53 PM

but if the original body could be rejuvenated and the old bones grew New cells could the original consciousness be revived?
  • like x 1

#15 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2015 - 11:49 AM

All of the things, that you write, @the hanged man, are extremely interesting. 

 

The technologies, that you are talking about, however, are not yet invented, so they don't exist now (2015). So, you are some sort of a believer. You believe, that these technologies will come up in the future. 

 

Copying occures now, in our bodies, correct, but at the level of molecules and cells. These changes of our bodies sacrifice the cells and the molecules in order to preserve the body as whole. You are talking about another type of copying - you copy the entire body. So, you no longer preserve the whole. You are replacing the whole with another whole :) There comes completely different question - is your copy you. If we have two identical twins, and one of them dies, does it means, that the death twin is still alive, because his brother has survived? No ofcourse. It is illogical. 

 

sorry my post hjas been wiped. Pray read the references I set down above



#16 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2015 - 11:56 AM

but if the original body could be rejuvenated and the old bones grew New cells could the original consciousness be revived?

 

This is the aim of cryonics, and itls success it more obvious to see.

 

I dont yse consciousness which is a pre-science terms. Instead the workings of the brain

 to do with modeling yourself and  the environment.

 

In determinism these processes are absolutely automatic. Theyu dont seem so beause we have complexity and probably a program which says "I am unique" which though false, must give a big survival value.

 

You are interchangable with an identical one.

 

Past a certain level of dead it doesn't seem to matter

 

That level is thought to be about 5 nanometers.

 

In a blood transfusion, you dont need the exact blood cells you lost...someone else's will do and you are still the same person.

 

So what level of detail is required?

 

5nm up

 

An atom of oxygen is interchangabkle with another.

 

YOU are interchangable with another.

 

You will be 3D printed al over the world, and each will be you.

 

or you can just do your brain!

 

ytMVu.gif

 

 

>>>>The technologies, that you are talking about, however, are not yet invented<<<

 

 

Yes QA is anarguement in Futirism. But the precursors to the new technologies are already here and growing.

 

more, the proof of concept of resurrection vi medical sceince are already completed.

 

The principle of Interchangability aplies to you

unless you claim to be outside sceince.

 

Nopr does this disprove, nor conflict with religion, which will just be reinterpreted toinclude human science resurrecting the dead eg as Man doing the will of God.

 

No conflict.

 

Same as reviving a man from a heart attack.

 

But I think it easy to see that shortly we will be able to resurect the dead...and also rebuild anything from the past

eg today's news:

 

 

 

 

 

 

150909-homonaledi-ngs_3e90792b7d9db10c2d

http://www.telegraph...omo-naledi.html

 

 

"the species evolved near or at the beginning of the genus Homo, and existed 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old" see wiki

 

The EXACT individuals will be resurrected with all their brin reconstructed as well as their face (above)

 

we will be able to resurect the dead...and also rebuild anything from the past

....this must be.

 

 

This is foreseeable!

 

 

 


Edited by the hanged man, 10 September 2015 - 12:13 PM.


#17 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2015 - 12:23 PM

https://en.wikipedia...uel_of_Bulgaria

 

404bde11584df05df994cccc7995fe00.jpg

 

 

TThis is a facial reconstruction 1000 years old of Bulgarian ruler.

 

At the mpoment we need artefact for reconstructions, but as our calculations get better we will not need them.

To achieve this a Quantum Archaeology Grid has been proposed.

In Archaeology, the find site has a grid drawn over it, and each artefact recorded, p[lotting on the paper grid at the exac plot of the find.

 

the QA Grid divides the whole world into a grid and rfecords artefacts as plots, themn calculates all points (event nodes) on the Grid.

 

Not ponly fixed in 3D, but in 4 D

 

like a moving simulation of the universe.

 

This is forensic sceince atits best.

 

Everyone who has lived will be tracable with every action and thought they ever had.

This is going to happen in 7 years because A.I. will do faster calcuations!

 



#18 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 September 2015 - 01:20 PM

"Everyone who has lived will be tracable with every action and thought they ever had. This is going to happen in 7 years because A.I. will do faster calcuations!"

 

LOL, wanna bet? For example for a bottle of fine alcohol, magazine subscription for a year or something of that order? 

 


  • like x 1

#19 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 September 2015 - 02:05 PM

@the hanged man , in brief, do you claim, that all of the atoms of the entire globe will be able to be calculated where they have been whenever in the past, atom by atom, and thus it will be possible to be known absolutely everything about everyone, who has ever lived? That's cool. But if so, then I think, that you will have to wait more than seven years. Simply the atoms to be calculated are too many.

 

And the main argument remains - you will not be bringing the people back, you will be making their copies.

 


Edited by seivtcho, 10 September 2015 - 02:19 PM.

  • like x 1

#20 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 September 2015 - 02:16 PM

but if the original body could be rejuvenated and the old bones grew New cells could the original consciousness be revived?

 

It has to be possible the consciousness to be revived. If you want to make it easier for the future resurrection matematicians, you eventually may store information about your brain and personality - as much as possible - CT and MRI exams, the stage of the degenerative process of the brain (normal or eventually in degenerative disease), information about what you like or dislike, what makes you happy or sad, memories, sexual orientation, whatever you think out and has something to do with your brain, including the songs, that you like, the way, that you think on many questions, you may use the help of professional psychologist to describe your personality the best.



#21 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2015 - 08:32 PM

@the hanged man , in brief, do you claim, that all of the atoms of the entire globe will be able to be calculated where they have been whenever in the past, atom by atom, and thus it will be possible to be known absolutely everything about everyone, who has ever lived? That's cool. But if so, then I think, that you will have to wait more than seven years. Simply the atoms to be calculated are too many.

 

And the main argument remains - you will not be bringing the people back, you will be making their copies.

 

No.   I have refuted your main argument by citing the

 

Principle of Interchanability. and refering you to Ettinger's maxim of identity., to which you have not replied.

 

secondly,

You state the atoms to be calculated are too many. Why?

 

We know how many atoms need to be calculated.

 

We predict what coming calculation sysetms will be able to do, and it is much more than all the atoms and their histories needed, by 2022.

 

Hypercomputing (google) is being piomeered, and will probably be delivered by 2022.

 

the reasoning is the trajectory of A.I.

 

It can be shown that A.I. is becoming smarter and is accelerating.

 

During 2022 it will hit or have hit the knee of the curve of a hard-take-off, and a technological singularity will occur.

 

 

Next40YearsSingularity.jpg

 

 

 

My calculations are better than Kurzweil and Vinge and others since I understand A.I. construction.

 

A singularity has been imminent since 1996 and dangerously near since 2001, when sufficient tech infrastructure has been available to construct accelerating intelligence.

The Turing test has alreadu been passed, though people are in denail about it, and machines already outperform human intelligence in many areas by billions of factors.

 

A specialist A.I. machine can read and understand wikipedia in 3 hours, which all human kind could not do.

 

I designed my first Superintelligence in 2000-2001, and I have monitored world progress in A.I. since then.

 

A.I. is no slowing down or gettign worse, it is speeding up and getting better, faster, deeper.

 

One piece alone is needed for A.I. to launch Superintelligence-  ---self-improvement.

 

When that sub-system is achieved in the public domain, the Singularity will occur and the dead will rise.

 

paradigm-shift-cartoon.gif

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by the hanged man, 10 September 2015 - 08:59 PM.


#22 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 September 2015 - 09:29 PM

These things are getting very interesting :) Where can I read more about the quantum archeology?

 

Ettinger is writing about the mind as needed for keeping the identity, but notice, that he is also preserving his original body parts ! by the cryonics method - everything his body had before the death is inside his frozen body - from the organs through the cells, to the atoms, from which the cells are made of. He does not copy his body.

 

What exactly is "The principle of Interchangability"?

 

By the way, how many atoms need to be calculated?



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2015 - 10:27 PM

These things are getting very interesting :) Where can I read more about the quantum archeology?

 

Ettinger is writing about the mind as needed for keeping the identity, but notice, that he is also preserving his original body parts ! by the cryonics method - everything his body had before the death is inside his frozen body - from the organs through the cells, to the atoms, from which the cells are made of. He does not copy his body.

 

What exactly is "The principle of Interchangability"?

 

By the way, how many atoms need to be calculated?

 

the questions you put have been answered in  stopgam's thread (google)

which is where you can learn more about QA

 

Yes Ettinger wrote about the mind as the brain, and as a physical entity.

 

He warned me that it was wiser to free someone on death as there may be unknowns, and also the map is not the territory ie calculation is not a physical manifestation.

 

This is a wrong argument in philosophyL you can not argue to unknowns.

 

Quantum Archaeology asserts it may be possible to complete relevant parts of a matrix with all event node densities plotted.

 

By calculation. This is because everygthing is connected to everything else by causality.

 

You dont need dead frozen bodies to resurrect people. that is a misreading of Archaeology and calculation power



#24 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 11 September 2015 - 04:05 PM

Do you mean this topic: 

 

http://www.longecity...topgams-thread/

 

 

While I read it, the things are getting more and more interesting. 

 

There however still remains the fact, that your resurrected self will be only a copy of you - a clone of you if you like. You look like the people, who think, that they will be immortal, if some one is cloning them periodically. Yes, no matter what you write, it is a copy making (cloning) of people from the past, not resurrecting them. You simply think, that this is the correct way, and I think, that this is not. It seems, that this is some how build in our way of thinking, and none of us will change his view on that, But you know what? The both different views - being possible for resurrection in means of copy pasting, and being biologically immortal by preserving what you are, without being copied in the future really does not mess up with each - other. So, nothing bothers having the both technologies. 

 



#25 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 12 September 2015 - 01:17 PM

Do you mean this topic: 

 

http://www.longecity...topgams-thread/

 

 

While I read it, the things are getting more and more interesting. 

 

There however still remains the fact, that your resurrected self will be only a copy of you - a clone of you if you like. You look like the people, who think, that they will be immortal, if some one is cloning them periodically. Yes, no matter what you write, it is a copy making (cloning) of people from the past, not resurrecting them. You simply think, that this is the correct way, and I think, that this is not. It seems, that this is some how build in our way of thinking, and none of us will change his view on that, But you know what? The both different views - being possible for resurrection in means of copy pasting, and being biologically immortal by preserving what you are, without being copied in the future really does not mess up with each - other. So, nothing bothers having the both technologies. 

 

Philosophy really is the hardest discipline in the world .

 

Your objection is one of identity.

 

as u seem reluctant or are perhaps unable to read Ettinger's POI chapter 8 I reprint it here for you as is my legal right:

 

"AFTER THE MAP, THE REBUILDING

 

Once a quantum archaeology grid has been built and an individual's details extracted, microrobots can build them (or any other technical devices that have emerge from science).

 

If you produce a recipe or a map of a complete event, like a human being and all their memories at the instant of their death, it should be possible with technologies of the future to resurrect them. You could make lots of them.

 

Some find difficulty with problems of identity and some philosophers spend their careers pondering it.

Substrate independence- the idea each small piece of a human can be replaced without affecting the nature of a person has often been discussed in philosophy as the Ship of Theseus.



5312350300_ShipOfTheseus_triremecopy_xla
As each part of Theseus' ship is replaced is it the same ship?

Leibnitz' Identity of indiscernibles explains this in more detail and involves the idea that identical particles eg one atom of oxygen are interchangable. Robert Ettinger has dealt with identity in Chapter 8 of the Prospect of Immortality, which although drafted to deal with cryonics, is also relevant for quantum archaeology:-

 

 

"Striding eagerly into the new world, (the revived) feels like a new man. Is he?

Who is this resuscitee? For that matter, who am I and who are you?

Although most resuscitees will not represent such extreme cases-we hope most of us will be frozen by non damaging methods-nevertheless we cannot sidestep the issue. We are now face to face with one of the principal unsolved problems of philosophy and/or biology, which now becomes one of prime importance in an exceedingly practical way, namely that concerning the nature of "self."

What characterizes an individual? What is the soul, or essence, or ego? This seemingly abstruse question will shortly be seen to have ramifications in almost every area of practical affairs; it will be the subject of countless newspaper editorials and Congressional investigations, and will reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

We can bring the problem into better focus by putting it in the form of two questions. First, how can we distinguish one man from another? Second, how can we distinguish life from death?

Later I shall offer some tentative partial answers. First we can illuminate the question, and perceive some of its difficulties and subtleties, by considering a series of experiments. Some of these experiments are imaginary, but perhaps not impossible in principle, while others have actually been performed.

Experiment 1. We allow a man to grow older

Legally, he retains his identity; and also subjectively, and also in the minds of his acquaintances (usually). Yet most of the material of his body is replaced and changed; his memories change, and some are lost; his outlook and personality change.

 

131

It is even possible that an old acquaintance, seeing him again after many years, might refuse to believe he is the same person. On first considering this experiment, we are apt to feel slightly disturbed, but to retain a vague conviction that "basically" the man is unchanged. We may feel that the physical and psychological continuity has some bearing on the question.

Experiment 2. We watch a sudden, drastic change in a man's personality and physique, brought about by physical damage, or disease, or emotional shock, or some combination of these. Such has often occurred.

Afterwards, there may be little resemblance to the previous man, mentally or physically. There may be "total" amnesia, although he may recover capability of speech.

Of course he retains, e.g., the same fingerprints, and the same genes. But it would be absurd to say the main part of a man is his skin; and identical twins have the same genes, yet are separate individuals.

Although the physical material of his body is the same stuff, he seems-and feels-like a different person. Now we are more seriously disturbed, because the main continuity is merely physical; there is a fairly sharp discontinuity in personality. One might say with some plausibility that a man was destroyed, and mother man was created, inheriting the tissues of his predecessor's body.

Experiment 3. We observe an extreme case of "split personality."

It is commonly believed that sometimes two (or even more) disparate personalities seem to occupy the same body, sometimes one exercising control and sometimes the other. Partly separate sets of memories may be involved. The two "persons" in the same body may dislike each other; they may be able to communicate

 

132

  only by writing notes when dominant, for the other to read when his turn comes.

We may be inclined to dismiss this phenomenon by talking about psychosis or pathology. This tendency is reinforced by the fact that apparently one of the personalities is usually eventually submerged, or the two are integrated, leaving us with the impression that "really" there was only one person all along. Nevertheless, the personalities may for a time seem completely distinct by behavioral tests, and subjectively the difference is obviously real. This may leave us with a disturbing impression that possibly the essence of individuality lies after all in the personality, in the pattern of the brain's activity, and in its memory.

Experiment 4. Applying biochemical or microsurgical techniques to a newly fertilized human ovum, we force it to divide and separate, thereby producing identical twins where the undisturbed cell would have developed as a single individual. (Similar experiments have been performed, with animals.)

An ordinary individual should probably be said to originate at the moment of conception. At any rate, there does not seem to be any other suitable time-certainly not the time of birth, because a Caesarean operation would have produced a living individual as well; and choice of any other stage of development of the foetus would be quite arbitrary.

Our brief, coarse, physical interference has resulted in two lives, two individuals, where before there was one. In a sense, we have created one life. Or perhaps we have destroyed one life, and created two, since neither individual is quite the same as the original one would have been.

Although it does not by any means constitute proof, the fact that a mere, crude, mechanical or chemical manipulation can "create a soul" suggests that such portentous terms as "soul"

 

133

and "individuality" may represent nothing more than clumsy attempts to abstract from, or even inject into, a system certain "qualities" which have only a limited relation to physical reality.

Experiment 5. By super-surgical techniques (which may not be far in the future) we lift the brains from the skulls of two men, and interchange them.

This experiment might seem trivial to some. Most of us, after thinking it over, will agree it is the brain which is important, and not the arms, nor the legs, nor even the face. If Joe puts on a mask resembling Jim, he is still Joe; and even if the "mask" is of living flesh and extends to the whole body, our conclusion will probably be the same. The assemblage of Joe's brain in Jim's body will probably be identified as Joe. But at least two factors make this experiment non-trivial.

First, if the experiment were actually performed and not merely discussed, the emotional impact on the parties concerned would be powerful. The wives would be severely shaken, as would the subjects. Furthermore, Joe-in-Jim's-body would rapidly change, since personality depends heavily on environment, and the body is an important part of the brain's environment. Also, we may be willing to admit that Joe's arms, legs, face, and intestines are not essential attributes of Joe-but what about his testicles? If Joe-in-Jim's-body lies with one of their wives, he can only beget Jim's child, since he is using Jim's gonads. The psychiatric and legal problems involved here are formidable indeed.

Some people might be tempted to give up on Joe and Jim altogether, and start afresh with Harry and Henry. In one sense, this is an impractical evasion, since the memories, family rights and property rights cannot be dismissed. From another view, it may be a sensible admission that characterization of an individual is to some extent arbitrary.

 

duplicator.jpeg?height=380&width=400

Coming technologies may enable exact copies of living bodies. After that they will configure exact copies of persons long dead.
 

134

Once again, the suggestion is that physical systems (i.e., real systems) must in the end be described by physical parameters (operationally) and that attempts to pin profound or abstract labels on them, or to categorize them in subjective terms, cannot be completely successful.

Experiment 6. By super-surgical techniques (not yet available) we divide a man s brain in two, separating the left and right halves, and transplant one half into another skull (whose owner has been evicted).

Similar, but less drastic, experiments have been performed. Working with split-brain monkeys, Dr. C. B. Trevarthen has reported that " . . . the surgically separated brain halves may learn side by side at the normal rate, as if they were quite independent." (121) This is most intriguing, even though the brains were not split all the way down to the brain stem, and even though monkeys are not men.

There is also other evidence in the literature which we can summarize, with certain simplifications and exaggerations, as follows. Either half of a brain can take over an individual's functions independently. Normally, one half dominates, and loss of the other half is not too serious. But even if the dominant half is removed, or killed, the other half will take over, learning the needed skills.

There is presently no conclusive evidence that so drastic an experiment as ours would necessarily succeed; but in principle, as far as I know, it might, and we are not at the moment concerned with technical difficulties.

If it did succeed, we would have created a new individual. If the left half was dominant, we might label the original individual Lr; the same skull containing the left half alone after surgery we might call L, and the right half alone, in a different skull after the operation, is R.

 

135

L thinks of himself as being the same as Lr. R may also think of himself as Lr, recuperated after a sickness, but to the outside world he may seem to he a new and different, although similar, person.

In any case, R is now an individual in his own right, and regards his life to be as precious as anyone else's. He will cling to life with the usual tenacity, and if he sees death approaching will probably not be consoled by the knowledge that L lives on.

Even more interesting is the attitude of L, the formerly dominant half, now alone in the skull. Suppose that, before the operation, we had told Lr that the dominant half of his brain was diseased, and would have to be removed, but that the other half would take over, albeit with some personality changes and possibly some loss of memory. He would be worried and disturbed, certainly-but he would probably not regard this as a death sentence. In other words, Lr would be consoled well enough by the assurance that R would live on. Yet after the splitting, and transplanting operation, L would regard his own destruction as death, and it would not satisfy him that R lived on, in another body.

This experiment seems to suggest again that, psychologically if not logically, the physical continuity is an important consideration.

Experiment 7. A man is resuscitated after a short period of clinical death, with some loss of memory and some change in personality.

This experiment has actually been performed many times. (97) Death was real by the usual clinical tests (no respiration, no heartbeat) but of course most of the cells remained alive, and most people would say that he had not "really" died, and that he was certainly the same person afterward. This experiment is important only as background for the following ones.

 

136

Experiment 8. A man dies, and lies unattended for a couple of days, passing through biological death and cellular death. But now a marvel occurs; a space ship arrives from a planet of the star Arcturus, carrying a super-surgeon of an elder race, who applies his arts and cures the man of death and decay, as well as his lesser ailments.

(It is not, of course, suggested that any such elder race exists; the experiment is purely hypothetical, but as far as we know today it is not impossible in principle.)

The implications are apt to shake us. If decay is to be regarded as just another disease, with a possibility of cure, then when may the body be considered truly dead? If "truly" dead be taken to mean "permanently" dead, then we may never know when we are in the presence of death, since the criterion is not what has already happened to the man, but what is going to hap pen to him in the (endless?) future.

Experiment 9. A man dies, and decays, and his components are scattered. But after a long time a super-being somehow collects his atoms and reassembles them, and the man is recreated.

Once more, the difficulty or even impossibility of the experiment is not important. We also disregard the question of the possibility of identifying individual elementary particles. Is it the "same" man, in spite of the sharp physical discontinuity in time? If memory, personality, and physical substance are all the same, perhaps most of us would think so, even though we are disturbed by the black gulf of death intervening. But if we so admit, we must open the door even wider.

Experiment 10. We repeat the previous experiment, but with a less faithful reproduction, involving perhaps only some of the original atoms and only a moderately good copy. Is it still the same man?

 

athleeeeeeeeeeeee.jpg?height=400&width=3

We are doing things once thought impossible- it has much further to go.

 

137

Again, perhaps, we wonder if there is really any such thing as an individual in any clear cut and fundamental sense.

Experiment 11. We repeat experiment 10, making a moderately good reconstruction of a man, but this time without trying to use salvaged material.

Now, according to the generally accepted interpretation of quantum theory, there is in principle as well as in practice no way to "tag" individual particles, e.g. the atoms or molecules of a man's brain; equivalent particles are completely indistinguishable, and in general it does not even make sense to ask whether the atoms of the reconstructed body are the "same" atoms that were in the original body. Those unfamiliar with the theory, who find this notion hard to stomach, may consult any of the standard texts.

If we accept this view, then a test of individuality becomes still more difficult, because the criteria of identity of material substance and continuity of material substance become difficult or impossible to apply.

Experiment 12. We discover how to grow or to construct functional replicas of the parts of the brain - possibly biological in nature, possibly mechanical, but at any rate distinguishable from natural units by special tests, although not distinguishable in function. The units might be cells, or they might be larger or smaller components. Now we operate on our subject from time to time, in each operation substituting some artificial brain parts for the natural ones. The subject notices no change in him - self, yet when the experiment is finally over, we have in effect a "robot"!

Does the "robot" have the same identity as the original man?

Experiment 13. We perform the same experiment as 12, but more quickly.

 

138

In a single, long operation, we keep replacing natural brain components with artificial ones (and the rest of the body likewise) until all the original bodily material is in the garbage disposal, and a "robot" lies on the operating table, an artificial man whose memories and personality closely duplicate those of the original.

Perhaps some would feel the "robot" was indeed the man, basing the identity in the continuity, on the fact that there was never a sharp dividing line in time where one could say man ended and robot began. Others, well steeped in democracy and willing to apply political principles to biology, might think the robot was not the man, and ceased to be the man when half the material was artificial.

The subject himself, before the operation, would probably regard it as a death sentence. And yet this seems odd, since there is so little real difference between experiments 13 and 12; 13 merely speeds things up. Perhaps sufficient persuasion could convince the subject that the operation did not represent death; he might even be made to prefer a single operation to the nuisance of a series of operations.

Experiment 14. We assume, as in the previous two experiments, that we can make synthetic body and brain components. We also assume that somehow we can make sufficiently accurate nondestructive analyses of individuals. We proceed to analyse a subject, and then build a replica or twin of him, complete with memories.

Does the identity of our subject now belong equally to the "robot" twin? It might seem absurd to say so, but compare the previous experiment. There is scarcely any difference, especially since in 13 the subject was under anaesthesia during the operation; 13 was virtually equivalent to destroying the subject, then

 

139

building a robot twin. The only real difference between 13 and 14 is that in 14 both the original and the duplicate survive.

Experiments 15, 16, and 17. We repeat experiments 12, 13, and 14 respectively, but instead of using artificial parts we use ordinary biological material, perhaps obtained by culturing the subject's own cells and conditioning the resultant units appropriately. Does this make any difference?

In logic, one would think perhaps not, but blood is thicker than water. Some people might make a different decision on 15 and 16 than on 12 and 13.

Experiment 18. We assume the truth of an assertion sometimes heard, viz., that in certain types of surgery a patient under certain types of anaesthesia suffers pain, although he does not awaken and afterwards does not remember the pain. The experiment consists in performing such an operation.

Most of us do not fear such operations, because we remember no pain in previous experiences, and because authoritative persons assure us we need not worry. Even a warning that the pain under anaesthesia is real is unlikely to disturb us much, if we are not of very nervous temperament. Still less do we fear ordinary deep anaesthesia, in which there seems to be no pain on any level, even though for the conscious mind this gulf is like that of death. Yet a child, or a person of morbid imagination, might be intensely frightened by these prospects.

Thus again we note a possible discrepancy between the logical and the psychological.

Experiment 19. A Moslem warrior is persuaded to give his life joyfully in a "holy war," convinced that the moment his throat is cut he will awaken in Paradise to be entertained by houris.

 

synapse.jpg?height=315&width=400

The synapse...the most complex machine known- and still a mystery.

 

222222222222.jpg?height=400&width=387
An artificial synapse has been attempted in Germany 2012

 

We draw the obvious but useful conclusion that, from the

 

140

standpoint of present serenity, it is merely the prospect of immortality that is important.

Experiment 20. We pull out all the stops, and assume we can make a synthetic chemical electronic mechanical brain which can, among other things, duplicate all the functions of a particular human brain, and possesses the same personality and memory as the human brain. We also assume that there is complete but controlled interconnection between the human brain and the machine brain: that is, we can, at will, remove any segments or functions of the human brain from the joint circuit and replace them by machine components, or vice versa.

In a schematic sense, then, we envisage each of the two brains, the biological one and the mechanical one, as an electronic circuit spread out on a huge "bread board" with complete accessibility. From the two sets of components, by plugging in suitable leads, we can patch together a single functioning unit, the bypassed elements simply lying dormant.

To make the picture simpler and more dramatic, let us also assume the connections require only something like radio communication, and not a physically cumbersome coupling.

We might begin the experiment with the man fully conscious and independent, and the machine brain disconnected and fully dormant. But now we gradually begin disconnecting nerve cells or larger units in the man's brain, simultaneously switching in the corresponding units of the machine. The subject notices no change - yet when the process is completed, we "really" have a machine brain controlling a "zombie" human body!

The machine also has its own sensory organs and effectors. If we now cut off the man's sensory nerves and motor leads and simultaneously activate those of the machine, the first subjective change will occur, namely, an eerie transportation of the senses from one body to another, from the man's to the machine's.

 

141

This might be enjoyable: perhaps the machine's sense organs are more versatile than the man's, with vision in the infra-red and other improvements, and the common personality might feel wonderful and even prefer to "live" in the machine.

At this stage, remember, the man is entirely dormant, brain and body, and the outside observer may be inclined to think he is looking at an unconscious man and a conscious machine, the machine suffering from the curious delusion that it is a man controlling a machine.

Next, we reactivate the components of the man's brain, either gradually or suddenly, simultaneously cutting off those of the machine, but leaving the machine's sensors plugged in and the sensors of the human body disconnected. The subject notices no change, but we now have a human brain using mechanical senses, by remote control. (We disregard such details as the ability of the human optical centre to cope with infra-red vision, and the duplication of the new memories.)

Finally, we switch the human effectors and sensors back in, leaving the man once more in his natural state and the machine quiescent.

If we perform this sort of exchange many times, the subject may become accustomed to it, and may even prefer to "inhabit" the machine. He may even view with equanimity the prospect of remaining permanently "in" the machine and having his original body destroyed. This may not prove anything, but it suggests once more that individuality is an illusion.

Discussion and Conclusion. In discussing these hypothetical experiments we have touched on various possible criteria of individuality-identity of material substance, continuity of material substance, identity of personality and memory, continuity of personality and memory-and seen that none of these is

 

142

wholly satisfactory. At any rate, none of these, nor any combination, is both necessary and sufficient to prove identity.

One cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that we have missed the nub of the matter, which may lie in some so far intangible essence or soul. However, such a notion seems inconsistent with the ease with which man can instigate, modify, and perhaps actually create life, and with several of our experiments.

The simplest conclusion is that there is really no such thing as individuality in any profound sense. The difficulty arises from our efforts first to abstract generalities from the physical world, and then to regard the abstractions, rather than the world, as the basic reality. A rough analogy will help drive home the point:

The classification "man" is useful, but not sharply definable. Is a freak a man? Is an aborted foetus a man? Is a pre-Neanderthal or other "missing link" a man? Is a corpse a man if some of the cells are still alive? And so on. A label is handy, but objects may be tagged arbitrarily. In the physical world there is no definite collection of objects which can be called "men," but only shifting assemblages of atoms organized in various ways, some of which we may choose to lump together for convenience."



 

Where an entire human being is held in a computer simulation it should be easier to envisage retrodictions to all our ancestors and living reconstructions being mathematically and technologically viable.

No event happens in isolation, but is caused by myriad events that hurtle forward changing yet other events in the future.Computers should be able to plot backwards and reconstruct them to the neurons and synapses.

Tipler describes the principle of identity, that if  you make a good enough copy, it is the same event. Quantum Archaeology asserts that resurrection will take place long before the final state of the universe and is dependent only on mathematics computing and technology successes, likely to here before 2045 when computing equals group human intelligence, and this is anticipated  by trend graphs..

Robert Ettinger describes 20 experiments to find what identity is in chapter 8 of The Prospect of Immortality (free online), and by Oxford philosopher Professor Derek Parfit. "

 

from stopgam's thread (google)



#26 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 12 September 2015 - 01:20 PM

But let me put it on a personal level.

 

One morning you feel a pain in your side and are told you need part of your stomach removed.

 

It is removed in hospital, and the operation is a great success.

 

On going to your bank to draw yuor own money, the bank manager says, I'm sorry you are not ther same person. In order to get your money you will need to get the stomach put back. Then I wil pay you.

 

Is the bank manager right?

 

 

 

 



#27 follies

  • Guest
  • 29 posts
  • 4
  • Location:California

Posted 12 September 2015 - 02:11 PM

But let me put it on a personal level.

One morning you feel a pain in your side and are told you need part of your stomach removed.

It is removed in hospital, and the operation is a great success.

On going to your bank to draw yuor own money, the bank manager says, I'm sorry you are not ther same person. In order to get your money you will need to get the stomach put back. Then I wil pay you.

Is the bank manager right?


The bank manager isn't the same person, you need to ask someone else.
  • like x 1

#28 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 12 September 2015 - 02:30 PM

 
Yes, the difference between us is in what we mean by identity.
E.g. what what makes us.
 
 
According to you, something build from atoms, that is the same with you, is actually you. 
 
 
According to me, this is simply illogical. Two twins are not one and the same person. 
 
 
 
I like you :) hope that in the future the quantum archaeology grid will be built for each human individual, who ever lived, to the tiniest details (on the level of atoms perhaps), and microrobots will be able to build them. But the fact itself, that they will be build using your model, means, that this is a copy of you. The same as printing a book thousands of times. 
 
I don't agree, that interchangability of atoms is an argument on your side. Two atoms of oxygen are interchangable in function, but not in identity. You can't say this atom is the other atom. The first atom is not the other atom ofcourse. 
 
And Ettinger writes many things about the identity, but as you know, he has saved his original parts via cryonics :) and he has done this in order his original body to be revived, not in order for him to be copy-pasted. If he wanted simply to be copy-pasted, he would make for example a full body MRI, instead of cryonizing himself. 
 
On your example on the personal level, you mess up law definition of identity with the biological identity. These two are different, and can't be compared. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By the way, what is ment by "the Ship of Theseus" in yor philosophy? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#29 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,289 posts
  • 94

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 September 2015 - 04:51 PM

I don't see the point of creating duplicates of people long dead. On the other hand I read that the architect who designed the pyramids and his wife's mummies have been discovered with their brains still in the skulls. There is also a very life like statue of his wife so it is possible to see what she looked like in life. Now if it were possible to reanimate them that would be something else. It would be fascinating for future humans to meet them and hear what it was like to live in ancient Egypt. Obviously though at this stage of scientific development no one is thinking along those lines
  • like x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 12 September 2015 - 07:43 PM

 

But let me put it on a personal level.

One morning you feel a pain in your side and are told you need part of your stomach removed.

It is removed in hospital, and the operation is a great success.

On going to your bank to draw yuor own money, the bank manager says, I'm sorry you are not ther same person. In order to get your money you will need to get the stomach put back. Then I wil pay you.

Is the bank manager right?


The bank manager isn't the same person, you need to ask someone else.

 

 

Not necessarily, this could be a capitalist resurrection, not on the NHS.
 


  • Cheerful x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users