Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It felt as if a vault full of treasures had been closed down forever ...

That's the part that hurts. A lifetime of acquiring a means of perception, with so much that could be valuable to others - gone. The sooner we learn how to digitise our minds, the better.

[Consul]

I feel I should recommend this great, philosophically deep movie about love, death, time, and memory:

"With A GHOST STORY, acclaimed director David Lowery (AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS, PETE'S DRAGON) returns with a singular exploration of legacy, loss, and the essential human longing for meaning and connection. Recently deceased, a white-sheeted ghost (Academy Award-winner Casey Affleck) returns to his suburban home to console his bereft wife (Academy Award-nominee Rooney Mara), only to find that in his spectral state he has become unstuck in time, forced to watch passively as the life he knew and the woman he loves slowly slip away. Increasingly unmoored, the ghost embarks on a cosmic journey through memory and history, confronting life's ineffable questions and the enormity of existence. An unforgettable meditation on love and grief, A GHOST STORY emerges ecstatic and surreal - a wholly unique experience that lingers long after the credits roll."

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_ghost_story

[Jklint]

It felt as if a vault full of treasures had been closed down forever ...

The sooner we learn how to digitise our minds, the better.

Why would that be better since it's our minds which need improving. Digitizing merely records what's already there. How much information do we need to be better? If there is hardly any conformity now with differences as great as they are to the point where humans almost feel alien to each other or to values other than their own how is digitizing going to make things better. We've already for years been in the process of doing that already.

Digitizing artifacts into holograms that is a different story but still only recording what is already present at an advanced level.

[NukeBan]

Near death is nowhere near actual death, a very fundamental difference.

And you know such a thing, how?

Also an NDE is not a prophecy of some future life as many interpret it to be but a very special experience prior to closing down.

That could be. Or not. You haven't the slightest idea. Nobody does.

Man is an animal and when animals die they're dead.

A statement of faith, based on nothing.

With always more on the way what is the purpose of preserving it on the "other side"? No one could ever explain that without going theistic.

Well, you're already deep in to theistic, so why worry?

Not least, where would those on the "other side of the divide" go to or be at?

Why do you assume I could answer that? Or that you could?

It appears you wish to debate a theist. You'll have to keep looking.

[Jklint]

Near death is nowhere near actual death, a very fundamental difference.

And you know such a thing, how.

Quite simple: People have been known - not so unusual in these modern times - to survive the proximity of death making that difference as fundamental as it gets for those who managed a U-turn at the cusp!

Also an NDE is not a prophecy of some future life as many interpret it to be but a very special experience prior to closing down.

That could be. Or not. You haven't the slightest idea. Nobody does.

Feel free to argue with the science establishment on that one. If the brain can hallucinate with the help of chemicals it can encounter its most potent visions near death. The chemistry on how it happens has already been pretty well documented.

Man is an animal and when animals die they're dead.

A statement of faith, based on nothing.

You mean they aren't dead after they died??

With always more on the way what is the purpose of preserving it on the "other side"? No one could ever explain that without going theistic.

Well, you're already deep in to theistic, so why worry?

In what way am I deep into theistic. I think god is bunk and when you're dead life is over. How is that theistic?

Not least, where would those on the "other side of the divide" go to or be at?

Why do you assume I could answer that? Or that you could?

It appears you wish to debate a theist. You'll have to keep looking.

No I just hoped to debate with someone with common sense so you are right after all; I have to keep on looking!

[Sy Borg]

The sooner we learn how to digitise our minds, the better.

Why would that be better since it's our minds which need improving. Digitizing merely records what's already there. How much information do we need to be better? If there is hardly any conformity now with differences as great as they are to the point where humans almost feel alien to each other or to values other than their own how is digitizing going to make things better. We've already for years been in the process of doing that already.

Digitizing artifacts into holograms that is a different story but still only recording what is already present at an advanced level.

In context, I see a digitised mind as one that is capable of learning and growth, as opposed to a static digital replica of a mind that cannot improve.

Imagine if someone like Richard Feynman's mind could be preserved, to continue probing reality with that original and creative perceptiveness that he had? You'd like to think we won't only end up with the preserved toxins of the world's "leaders".

[NukeBan]

In what way am I deep into theistic.

You claiming knowledge you couldn't possibly have.

[Jklint]

In what way am I deep into theistic.

You claiming knowledge you couldn't possibly have.

No, that's what theism does. I don't need to claim anything. Everything I wrote is based on simple mundane reality the kind that's lived by every human without considering their mostly idiotic beliefs which seek to transcend through wishful thinking. At least I know the difference between death and near death which seems to elude you.

[Jklint]

Why would that be better since it's our minds which need improving. Digitizing merely records what's already there. How much information do we need to be better? If there is hardly any conformity now with differences as great as they are to the point where humans almost feel alien to each other or to values other than their own how is digitizing going to make things better. We've already for years been in the process of doing that already.

Digitizing artifacts into holograms that is a different story but still only recording what is already present at an advanced level.

In context, I see a digitised mind as one that is capable of learning and growth, as opposed to a static digital replica of a mind that cannot improve.

Imagine if someone like Richard Feynman's mind could be preserved, to continue probing reality with that original and creative perceptiveness that he had? You'd like to think we won't only end up with the preserved toxins of the world's "leaders".

I think I get it now. You're talking about what amounts to immortalizing a mind within a digital medium allowing it to forever progress and produce according to its ability. It's a highly practical idea as far as function is concerned but also one even more idealistic.

The world must be not only in a more advanced technological state which, if nothing impedes it, is certainly a possibility but also possess a very different mind-set to make it work and not back fire. Therein lies its probable negation.

To make it work wealth and power must remain subordinate to talent and genius which requires a complete reordering of a mentality which has ruled the world since we walked upright otherwise the consequences may be worse than we imagine. To every such idea like the one you mention there is always a very powerful yin/yang component. The more potent the idea the more in balance they have to be. The main balances achieved so far are arranged in treaties; history tells us how much they are worth!

Considering the propensities of the human race which are seemingly ageless hardly having changed throughout history, I'd be highly skeptical of its success.

[NukeBan]

No, that's what theism does. I don't need to claim anything.

Right, you're making no claims in this thread.

Next!

[Sy Borg]

In context, I see a digitised mind as one that is capable of learning and growth, as opposed to a static digital replica of a mind that cannot improve.

Imagine if someone like Richard Feynman's mind could be preserved, to continue probing reality with that original and creative perceptiveness that he had? You'd like to think we won't only end up with the preserved toxins of the world's "leaders".

I think I get it now. You're talking about what amounts to immortalizing a mind within a digital medium allowing it to forever progress and produce according to its ability. It's a highly practical idea as far as function is concerned but also one even more idealistic.

The world must be not only in a more advanced technological state which, if nothing impedes it, is certainly a possibility but also possess a very different mind-set to make it work and not back fire. Therein lies its probable negation.

To make it work wealth and power must remain subordinate to talent and genius which requires a complete reordering of a mentality which has ruled the world since we walked upright otherwise the consequences may be worse than we imagine. To every such idea like the one you mention there is always a very powerful yin/yang component. The more potent the idea the more in balance they have to be. The main balances achieved so far are arranged in treaties; history tells us how much they are worth!

Considering the propensities of the human race which are seemingly ageless hardly having changed throughout history, I'd be highly skeptical of its success.

I too have little confidence in the human race based on today's behaviour and the problematic imbalances we are creating both externally and internally. However, progress tends not to be linear, being more a plateau-by-plateau process. As seen with COVID, these plateaus are easy to predict generally;many experts have been warning for years that the next pandemic was only a matter of "when" rather than "if". The future, of course, is extremely hard to predict in particular, though.

I see evolution continuing beyond humans. I expect that we will see our successors as being as disturbingly ruthless as other animals would have found humans when they were on the rise.