|
Starve.Org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .The Usenet Project
|
Page 238 of White Noise Keywords: "what," "later," "that," "restored"
> On 12 Feb, 13:48, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote: > > > We are all very comfortable with the concept of backing up the > > We are always in the process of re discovering ourselves through our > Bob600 replies:- I am not talking re discovering, I am talking re > > > This concept could also be applied to the data stored in the computer > > Close. The data is not consciousness. We are conscious of the data. > Bob600 replies:- Agreed the data is not consciousness, but without it > > > It is therefore a natural logical progression to believe that in the > > Applying what I mentioned about re inventing ourselves, this is what a > Bob600 replies:- You mentioned re discovering yourself, I mentioned re > > > All these technologies are currently being worked on, and all are > > We can always improve on technology, but not life itself, which is a > Bob600 replies:- We improve on "life" every day in every way. This is > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/216034.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h... > > > That being the case, and if we are spiritual beings as theists claim, > > For such a clever design, sounds like a silly question :-). > > To refer to 'the' soul is inaccurate. If you consider that 'soul' is > Bob600 replies:- I refer to the soul as that thing that Theists > > >Does it go to God and > > My point entirely. Why bring religion into this, with God references. > Bob600 replies:- I don't bring religion into this, its the purpose of > > > If the soul is transferred with > > Your logic is sound. See what happens if you leave religious > Bob600 replies:- I find it difficult to leave religious references out > > On Feb 12, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote: > > > We are all very comfortable with the concept of backing up the > > We are always in the process of re discovering ourselves through our > Bob600 replies:- I am not talking re discovering, I am talking re > > > This concept could also be applied to the data stored in the computer > > Close. The data is not consciousness. We are conscious of the data. > Bob600 replies:- Agreed the data is not consciousness, but without it There are many compelling descriptions of out of body experiences, > > > It is therefore a natural logical progression to believe that in the > > Applying what I mentioned about re inventing ourselves, this is what a > Bob600 replies:- You mentioned re discovering yourself, I mentioned re > > > All these technologies are currently being worked on, and all are > > We can always improve on technology, but not life itself, which is a > Bob600 replies:- We improve on "life" every day in every way. This is If you are building your body for example, the body is not aware of > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/216034.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h... > > > That being the case, and if we are spiritual beings as theists claim, > > For such a clever design, sounds like a silly question :-). > > To refer to 'the' soul is inaccurate. If you consider that 'soul' is > Bob600 replies:- I refer to the soul as that thing that Theists Im convinced that many will not let go of their dogmatic religious/ > > >Does it go to God and > > My point entirely. Why bring religion into this, with God references. > Bob600 replies:- I don't bring religion into this, its the purpose of > > > If the soul is transferred with > > Your logic is sound. See what happens if you leave religious > Bob600 replies:- I find it difficult to leave religious references out BOfL Back
to "The Usenet Project" Main Page
- Back
to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact
- Starve
Archive
From: bigfletch8@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Your future without a soul
Date: 17 Feb 2008
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
> > > software on our computers and considering it as a totally separate
> > > entity to the hardware. We can then, in the event of a hardware crash,
> > > restore that software to new hardware and perhaps better hardware, and
> > > carry on as if nothing happened.
> > creativity
> invention.
> > > hardware called the brain, all our consciousness really consists of is
> > > the data stored, plus data accessed through our senses, processed in
> > > the biological computer called the brain.
> > Some, like the autonomous nerve system, works on automatic, but we can
> > even be conscious of that .
> there would be no consciousness. Its the processing of the data that
> makes for consciousness. A bit like petrol is not power, but the
> processing of petrol provides power, both are needed for power to be
> created.
> > > near future, given the advances being made in these fields, that our
> > > human "software" could not be "backed up" and then "restored" to
> > > another biological brain or quantum computer, in the event of the
> > > death of our bodies. To be later restored to a cloned version of our
> > > own brand new better bodies.
> > priori is all about. Our 'authentic self' (could be described as an
> > accumulation of experiences, you know the sort of thing "the reaping
> > and sowing stuff") and we carry on where we left off.
> invention, two different processes. And our cloned self would also be
> an accumulation of the same experiences, carrying on where the
> "authentic" self left off, but doing so for millions of years and many
> "authentic" selfs.
> > > scientifically possible. And if it can happen, logically it ultimately
> > > will happen.
> > good description of 'self'. A 'unit of life".
> just the pre-ultimate improvement.
> > > what happens to the soul? Is it transferred with our "software" or
> > > does it remain within the rotting hardware ?
> > who you really are, it makes more sense to our current evolved
> > capacity to understand.
> consider makes us the "children of God", immortal and special above
> all other living things, in other words:- "the spiritual part of
> humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death
> and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come"
> > > leave the "new" cloned you soulless?
> > Guilt by association. Recognising your true identity is nothing to do
> > with religions, which are created stories for those who are a long way
> > off such discovery.
> the question, if one accepts that consciousness can be transfered to
> another body or bodies then the concept of the soul as a spiritual
> thing is meaningless and then so is the concept of God.
> > > the "software" if you then create multiple clones of your new body and
> > > download copies of your "software" into each, does each have a
> > > separate soul, or if there is only one soul are the others soulless
> > > versions of you? Or does the soul and therefor God not exist?
> > references out of the progression.
> of a rumination on the existence of God.
> > > software on our computers and considering it as a totally separate
> > > entity to the hardware. We can then, in the event of a hardware crash,
> > > restore that software to new hardware and perhaps better hardware, and
> > > carry on as if nothing happened.
> > creativity
> invention.
that what we consider invention, is in fact discovery. The "observer"
develops, not the observed.
> > > hardware called the brain, all our consciousness really consists of is
> > > the data stored, plus data accessed through our senses, processed in
> > > the biological computer called the brain.
> > Some, like the autonomous nerve system, works on automatic, but we can
> > even be conscious of that .
> there would be no consciousness. Its the processing of the data that
> makes for consciousness. A bit like petrol is not power, but the
> processing of petrol provides power, both are needed for power to be
> created.
consider a better analogy being that of the computer,
hardware,software (brain is both) and the internet being , a great
"reinvention" of the group sub consciouse, all able to be observed.
which adds more to this pov,although nothing replaces first hand
experience...except perhaps , explaination of what has happened to
someone who has had such experiences.
> > > near future, given the advances being made in these fields, that our
> > > human "software" could not be "backed up" and then "restored" to
> > > another biological brain or quantum computer, in the event of the
> > > death of our bodies. To be later restored to a cloned version of our
> > > own brand new better bodies.
> > priori is all about. Our 'authentic self' (could be described as an
> > accumulation of experiences, you know the sort of thing "the reaping
> > and sowing stuff") and we carry on where we left off.
> invention, two different processes. And our cloned self would also be
> an accumulation of the same experiences, carrying on where the
> "authentic" self left off, but doing so for millions of years and many
> "authentic" selfs.
ultimate folly.Of course some people belive they 'create' their own
children.
> > > scientifically possible. And if it can happen, logically it ultimately
> > > will happen.
> > good description of 'self'. A 'unit of life".
> just the pre-ultimate improvement.
"authentic self". Who is iot that recognises the improvements?
what is happening, only the observer can see.
> > > what happens to the soul? Is it transferred with our "software" or
> > > does it remain within the rotting hardware ?
> > who you really are, it makes more sense to our current evolved
> > capacity to understand.
> consider makes us the "children of God", immortal and special above
> all other living things, in other words:- "the spiritual part of
> humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death
> and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come"
the possibility of 'soul' why should there be any link to religious
beliefs.If you had your sight restored from blindness at birth, wouod
you suddenly believe in god because you see you for the first time.?
anti religious perception, and it blocks them from looking deeper..
They are convinced that the search is 'religious' by nature, when they
have gone beyong such dogmas.
> > > leave the "new" cloned you soulless?
> > Guilt by association. Recognising your true identity is nothing to do
> > with religions, which are created stories for those who are a long way
> > off such discovery.
> the question, if one accepts that consciousness can be transfered to
> another body or bodies then the concept of the soul as a spiritual
> thing is meaningless and then so is the concept of God.
expanding as opposed to transfering. Quiote easy, just look back at
who your thought you were twenty years ago. Again, mamny people
believe that such experience of greater reality, is something that is
only attainable after death. A bloody good copout for the dogmatic
leaders dont you think :-)
> > > the "software" if you then create multiple clones of your new body and
> > > download copies of your "software" into each, does each have a
> > > separate soul, or if there is only one soul are the others soulless
> > > versions of you? Or does the soul and therefor God not exist?
> > references out of the progression.
> of a rumination on the existence of God.
befor you attempt the ultimate quest" I'm exhillerated enough with
stage 'one' ;-)