Belief in the Afterlife

[ufology]

A computer simulation can't change the code of the computer simulation. That "person" in Sim City can't decide to change line 1087 of the Sim City code.

Perhaps it is a bad analogy. It certainly gets far from the point. IF everything I believe I experience is not real and is a computer simulation, there is no way I can alter the code for that simulation. I am just a manifestation of that code. And I can't even know if I am in a computer simulation. And even if I suspect that I am, the idea of a soul and an afterlife becomes...well...very strange.

Well, actually, computer subroutines can change the code of an operating system, but that's not even the point. Assuming we are part of the generated construct, we have evolved out of the processes of the construct itself into self aware subroutines that have come to question our own existence. There is nothing conflicting in this model at all so far as I have been able to tell. It is only a matter of time before we create our own AIs .. I'm sure you've read some Kurzweil ... like The Age of Spiritual Machines ... perhaps?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

True. I don't fall into any class of "believers" personally. Most of the rest of the post is really good too except this part:





Skeptics sometimes come across as far more abrasive than merely smug or superior sounding ... I've experienced it here many times. Also, skeptics are not always correct despite what you seem to imply. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking being skeptical. I consider myself to be skeptical in a genuine and positive way. It's essential to consider logical counterpoints if one is going to advance toward the truth. But skepticism isn't our only tool in the toolbox and being skeptical doesn't automatically make someone's conclusions true.

I was going to extrapolate on that more, but I thought my post was more than long. I had addressed it with this:

Other skeptics may reject the idea of an afterlife simply because they have no proof, or because they reject a religion that believers in an afterlife, or because they believe that the concept of an afterlife is used by others to control people, or even simply because they want to be like other skeptics.

There are “skeptics” who simply accept and defend the ideas held by the majority of skeptics without actually doing any critical thought—without actually being skeptics. I do think that some skeptics have done the work and get a bit smug and even abrasive when they get tired of going over the same things again and again. And there are pseudo-skeptics who adopt the beliefs of other skeptics and may also adopt the smugness and feel righteous and simply attack opposing views.

 

[ufology]

So if the laws of physics that govern this universe are explained by this universe all being a simulation in a gigantic computer, then what are the laws of physics that govern that giant computer explained by?

Yes ... we still run into the infinite recursion problem ( turtles all the way down ). What I tend to do is think that if we solve things one step at a time, we might get the answers. For example, if the universe we're in now is a generated construct, let's figure out how to navigate it as well as we've figured out how to navigate our planet. We'll no doubt develop some technology and perhaps even learn to communicate beyond this realm through the construct itself. Of course it's all science fiction at this stage ... but if you are into that sort of thing, it's also really interesting to contemplate

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Well, actually, computer subroutines can change the code of an operating system, but that's not even the point.

Yes. I know. I've even written code that can change its own code. That's why I said it was a bad analogy.

Assuming we are part of the generated construct, we have evolved out of the processes of the construct itself into self aware subroutines that have come to question our own existence. There is nothing conflicting in this model at all so far as I have been able to tell. It is only a matter of time before we create our own AIs .. I'm sure you've read some Kurzweil ... like The Age of Spiritual Machines ... perhaps?

But we can't KNOW that we are part of a generated construct. How would we detect this? How could we find the construct, let alone the generator? And if we could, how could we change the generator? Being self aware is one thing. Being aware of the generator of the self is another. Controlling the generator is quite another thing.

And this has spit to do with a belief in an afterlife.

 

[ufology]

Yes. I know. I've even written code that can change its own code. That's why I said it was a bad analogy.



But we can't KNOW that we are part of a generated construct. How would we detect this? How could we find the construct, let alone the generator? And if we could, how could we change the generator? Being self aware is one thing. Being aware of the generator of the self is another. Controlling the generator is quite another thing.

And this has spit to do with a belief in an afterlife.

I like the way you pose intelligent questions and responses, so let's not start getting all upset. We're just having a discussion. How would we figure out that we are inside a generated construct? That's what some very bright minds are working on right now. As mentioned above in other posts, we might be able to logically deduce it through certain experiments. We haven't actually measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun, but we still know the distance ... how? From geometry ... logic. Today we've only just scratched the surface of the quantum entanglement mystery ... and that may lead to quantum computing ... that may lead to sufficiently powerful intelligent computers that can test all the ways that we might be able to interface directly with the operating system. As for a belief in the afterlife ... I never said it has to do with belief. I said it has to do with possibility. Belief can only come if you first think it's possible, and so far that's all I believe. BTW: good points in your previous post too. Glad you dropped by to participate.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I like the way you pose intelligent questions and responses, so let's not start getting all upset. We're just having a discussion. How would we figure out that we are inside a generated construct? That's what some very bright minds are working on right now. As mentioned above in other posts, we might be able to logically deduce it through certain experiments. We haven't actually measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun, but we still know the distance ... how? From geometry ... logic. Today we've only just scratched the surface of the quantum entanglement mystery ... and that may lead to quantum computing ... that may lead to sufficiently powerful intelligent computers that can test all the ways that we might be able to interface directly with the operating system. As for a belief in the afterlife ... I never said it has to do with belief. I said it has to do with possibility. Belief can only come if you first think it's possible, and so far that's all I believe. BTW: good points in your previous post too. Glad you dropped by to participate.

I would think that quantum computing may lead to sufficiently powerful intelligent computers that can test all the ways that we might be able to interface directly with the generated construct. The generator, although, is a level above. This is asking for artificial intelligence that is aware of itself. And aware of the source of its intellegence. And aware of the source of its intellegence. And is aware of the generator of the source of its intellegence. And is aware and has the ability to alter the generator of the source of its intellegence.

We would have several levels of consciousness to go to get there. If there is a there there. And it still has spit to do with any current belief in an afterlife. We aren't even at level 1 of the concept.
And even if the concept is true, it doesn't neccessitate an afterlife. An "afterlife" is essentially irrelevant to the concept.

As I said, I wish I had some links to some of the philosphies on this subject. People with more time, and possibly more brains, than I have to think about this. The essential question becomes: Can we know whether or not that we are a computer simulation?

 

[ufology]

I would think that quantum computing may lead to sufficiently powerful intelligent computers that can test all the ways that we might be able to interface directly with the generated construct. The generator, although, is a level above. This is asking for artificial intelligence that is aware of itself. And aware of the source of its intellegence. And aware of the source of its intellegence. And is aware of the generator of the source of its intellegence. And is aware and has the ability to alter the generator of the source of its intellegence.

We would have several levels of consciousness to go to get there. If there is a there there. And it still has spit to do with any current belief in an afterlife. We aren't even at level 1 of the concept.
And even if the concept is true, it doesn't neccessitate an afterlife. An "afterlife" is essentially irrelevant to the concept.

As I said, I wish I had some links to some of the philosphies on this subject. People with more time, and possibly more brains, than I have to think about this. The essential question becomes: Can we know whether or not that we are a computer simulation?

Good post. But the concept of an afterlife is relevant because a generated construct could possibly facilitate it by way of memory storage of our data. Conceivably our data ( that which makes us us ) could be inserted into any other realm after our death in this one. If there existed a record of our entire existence, then we could be resurrected with complete memories and fully intact bodies. In every meaningful way this would amount to life after death.

 

[Akhenaten]

You see, ufology, people like Pure Argent who have established their credibility here get some leeway in not having to provide detailed support for every single thing they say.

I have credibility?

WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN

You didn't get the memo? Heads will roll!

 

[Akhenaten]

So if the laws of physics that govern this universe are explained by this universe all being a simulation in a gigantic computer, then what are the laws of physics that govern that giant computer explained by?

Talking rabbits.

 

[Akhenaten]

Conceivably our data ( that which makes us us ) could be inserted into any other realm after our death in this one. If there existed a record of our entire existence, then we could be resurrected with complete memories and fully intact bodies. In every meaningful way this would amount to life after death.

Congratulations. You've managed to discover the idea behind the Ba, the Ka, the Akh, the Name and the Shadow.

Pity you're well over 4,000 years too late.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Perhaps this was just a joke, but it misses the point. A brain in a jar can't contact a lab assistant. There are no other jars. Just your brain. In a jar. Thinking all of this up.

I'm sure Marduk was joking, however:

No. Under this scenario, obviously I make the rules. If I include a lab assistant, and other jars, then it will be so.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So if the laws of physics that govern this universe are explained by this universe all being a simulation in a gigantic computer, then what are the laws of physics that govern that giant computer explained by?

Funny how everything ends in the turtles dilemma.

Hans

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nobody is saying that the computational model necessitates an afterlife, only that it would make it possible.

Define 'possible'. Technically it is 'possible' to create an Afterlife in this universe, with a sufficiently advanced technology. The question is not whether it may be 'possible', but whether it is actually occurring.

The problem with a computational model is that in order for a person's mind to exist intact beyond death, it must be copied and stored somewhere before death. Why? Because the mind has probably already been destroyed (by oxygen starvation, trauma or disease) when the body finally dies.

But when does the program decide to back up your mind so that it can be regenerated later? Our minds are constantly changing as we experience life. Imagine that you have a massive stroke and a large part of your brain dies. Your mind has now been markedly diminished, but part of it still exists. Later, when you die, does the computer use a backup copy made before you suffered the stroke, or after? If before then it's not really 'you', but an earlier version. If after, then it's not a fully intact 'you', but a damaged version. In neither case is true Life After Death achieved.

As an analogy, imagine you are typing a story into your computer. To ensure that you don't lose your work, you make a backup copy every few pages. Unfortunately, you were just about to back up the last 3 pages when a power glitch corrupts the document. What do you do? Try to fix up the mess of corrupted text, or reload from the backup and try to remember what you typed into those last 3 pages? Either way, you don't have a good copy of your document!

Regarding the part about existing separately from this simulation. That too is entirely possible. Just add another universe ( call it universe_2.exe ) and take our data sets that have been stored in memory and insert them into it. Presto ... we've died in one universe and are alive in another!

With a fully re-entrant program you don't even need another executable, just run it again with other copy of the data sets. But when you run the program on the copied data sets, it executes exactly the same instructions so the mind/person still dies!

In order to achieve true Life After Death, the program must have some way of moving a person's mind to a different environment (another body, an ethereal form etc.), otherwise the mind is not really surviving death, but is just a re-run, doomed to repeat exactly the same death sequence.

If there existed a record of our entire existence, then we could be resurrected with complete memories and fully intact bodies. In every meaningful way this would amount to life after death.

Or would it simply be a recording of our existence, and the resurrected bodies merely copies of our own? Let's say I had a machine that could duplicate the position and momentum of every particle in your body, accurately enough that it could create a functionally identical copy of your mind. Would you be happy if I was to kill you now, since your mind will continue to exist in the other body? Or is the clone an imposter?

 

[Paul2]

Folo, the construct hypothesis is just sophistry until there's a way, even in principle, that we could distinguish whether we live in a construct or we live in the reality as it seems to us. Without being able to distinguish between the two, you're just multiplying entities, or hypothesizing at best.

 

[dafydd]

Good post. But the concept of an afterlife is relevant because a generated construct could possibly facilitate it by way of memory storage of our data. Conceivably our data ( that which makes us us ) could be inserted into any other realm after our death in this one. If there existed a record of our entire existence, then we could be resurrected with complete memories and fully intact bodies. In every meaningful way this would amount to life after death.

Which SF movie are you talking about?

 

[RobRoy]

Which SF movie are you talking about?

It's the basis of the Battlestar Galactica spinoff Caprica. Not a bad concept, but it underlined the issues with the creation of such a doppleganger.

 

[Stray Cat]

Funny how everything ends in the turtles dilemma.

Hans

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes ... we still run into the infinite recursion problem ( turtles all the way down ).

Right, so there's no evidence to support it and it doesn't explain anything. Not a great hypothesis, then.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

WRT the idea of a computer-generated copy of yourself existing after you die, I've actually seen this talked about a few times as being more or less real. In World Of Warcraft everything you do is recorded. If you, the real person, dies, then your avatar could live on as an NPC - using the records of how you acted to act like you were still controlling them. That's a step towards the idea of recording your brain patterns into a computer and letting them live on there.

I can't find the more in-depth things I've seen about this, but this link has this:

In the book you say: "WoW may have the potential to become the first real afterlife." How?

Every movement a player makes in WoW is recorded, even their interactions with others. The avatar captures their social self. To what extent the avatar is its controller is a philosophical question, but the avatar can outlive its creator and continue functioning in WoW as a non-player character (NPC). Research is under way that will make NPCs behave more like specific people.

Very cool, although I'm not a WoWer myself (watching The Guild is about as close as I get). What I think it shows, though, is that even if we did get a computer to record and replicate our brains 100% accurately, then the copy that would live on would be just that - a copy. The person that looks out from behind our eyes would still be gone, even though someone identical might be still around.

 

[ufology]

Folo, the construct hypothesis is just sophistry until there's a way, even in principle, that we could distinguish whether we live in a construct or we live in the reality as it seems to us. Without being able to distinguish between the two, you're just multiplying entities, or hypothesizing at best.

Not exactly. What I've done is show that the progressive brain destruction rationale as illustrated in your video does not apply to the possibility of an afterlife within a computational model of existence. I've shown further that serious scientific minds take the computational model seriously and that there is scientific circumstantial evidence in favor of the hypothesis. The computational model does not rely on a supernatural being or religious belief.