Scientific possibility of an afterlife? ...of somesort

shane9689 · 08-06-2014 04:12AM #1

hey, i'm going to take a giant leap out there with the scientific ideas of the afterlife and suggest we will have more life after death....i mean, if time is infinite, then anything that can happen will happen, right? because there is infinite time (thus opportunities) for it to occur, so statistically, if its even marginally possible, it will happen eventually right?
so mathematically, there probably is a very very very very very very very very marginal statistic for the chances of our bodies and mind being recreated in its exact form before our death once again as it has already been proven to be a possible form for us to take..... and since we have infinity for it to happen again, it has to happen again right? just as you roll dice, you eventually have to roll two 6's...eventually we have to take form again? and since we will be non-existent in the intervening time, we will simply become conscious again in our next form.... p.s i'm not a scientist, so if anyone here knows about chemistry or physics, any thoughts?

peaceboi · 08-06-2014 04:58AM

Checkout this video by Dr.Peter Fenwick,
consultant neuro-psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. He has researched near-death experiences over many decades, as well as the science of what happens when we die. Heard about this topic on the rte 1 radio show 'what's it all about' few weeks ago.
They also discussed few interesting findings from a Belgian Neuroscientist.
Podcast here http://www.rte.ie/radio1/whats-it-all-about/programmes/2014/0406/607106-whats-it-all-about-sunday-6-april-2014/?clipid=1527154

peaceboi · 08-06-2014 05:01AM

Sorry, correct link for Dr.Peter Fenwick http://youtu.be/-6kDMl6N3C4

nagirrac · 08-06-2014 05:55AM

shane9689 wrote: »

so mathematically, there probably is a very very very very very very very very marginal statistic for the chances of our bodies and mind being recreated in its exact form before our death once again as it has already been proven to be a possible form for us to take..... and since we have infinity for it to happen again, it has to happen again right? just as you roll dice, you eventually have to roll two 6's...eventually we have to take form again? and since we will be non-existent in the intervening time, we will simply become conscious again in our next form.... p.s i'm not a scientist, so if anyone here knows about chemistry or physics, any thoughts?

What you are describing is generally known as the theory of Eternal Return. Put simply this states that time is not liner but cyclical and that everything that occurs will continue to repeat itself in cycles for eternity. It was specifically this idea that led Nietzsche to his philosophy that existence is ultimately pointless and absurd, as we are just destined to repeat the same lives over and over for eternity. A somewhat horrendous thought if you think about it, even if there are specific life events that one might consider well worth it

Hotblack Desiato · 08-06-2014 11:17AM

peaceboi wrote: »

Sorry, correct link for Dr.Peter Fenwick http://youtu.be/-6kDMl6N3C4

How about a brief summary of what he says not just a link?

magicbastarder · 08-06-2014 05:32PM

shane9689 wrote: »

if time is infinite

there's the first big question.

SpaceTime · 08-06-2014 06:04PM

Well, it would be nice if there was and I think humans can't really easily handle the concept of mortality for very understandable reasons - it's horrible!

However, I'm definitely not counting on it and plan to live my life in the here and now.

frag420 · 08-06-2014 06:08PM

Happy groundhog day!!

magicbastarder · 08-06-2014 06:52PM

anyway, what's being talked about here is not an afterlife, just a repeat life. and it wouldn't be the same you, anyway.

shane9689 · 08-06-2014 07:02PM

yes, a repeat life....but one in which everything is the exact same up to a point...so if take it from an atheist stand point, then it is me! because what else am i other than a collection of matter...in this case, that matter has been put back together thus its the same me! in a sort of endless cycle....im not trying to justify some bias in my head that wants their to be an afterlife (everyone wants there to be one) but im just entertaining the idea out of curiosity for the loopholes in our knowledge of science

Pherekydes · 08-06-2014 07:07PM

shane9689 wrote: »

yes, a repeat life....but one in which everything is the exact same up to a point...so if take it from an atheist stand point, then it is me! because what else am i other than a collection of matter

We are not just a collection of matter! We are our thoughts, knowledge, experiences, loves, hates and feelings collected over a lifetime.

shane9689 · 08-06-2014 08:00PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

We are not just a collection of matter! We are our thoughts, knowledge, experiences, loves, hates and feelings collected over a lifetime.

which are stored in the brain, which uses chemicals and neurons etc... to collect and store this information. it can be replicated just its not an easy task to do.

smokingman · 08-06-2014 08:01PM

shane9689 wrote: »

everyone wants there to be one)

Well I certainly don't

nagirrac · 08-06-2014 08:22PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

We are not just a collection of matter! We are our thoughts, knowledge, experiences, loves, hates and feelings collected over a lifetime.

The materialist reductionist position, which is the predominant position by far in neuroscience today, claims that all conscious experience is caused by, and not just correlates to, neural activity. As Francis Crick said "you are nothing but a pack of neurons".

This would suggest as the OP has stated, that if we had the technology to build a human brain with exactly the same neural network as yours for example, and keep it fed and watered with a similar environment to what you are experiencing, it would have identical conscious experience to you.

If you find this unbelievable, then you have to consider some other position such as some form of dualism or dual aspect monism.

Akrasia · 08-06-2014 08:54PM

It is not possible for an intelligence to exist outside of a medium capable of hosting it. Our intelligence exists within the structures of our brain and nervous system.

A computers intelligence exists within the structures of the physical computer and the virtual machines that are created in the software.

There is no plausible mechanism for a soul to exist outside of the physical body, however, because of our advancing technology, in the distant future it should be possible for humans to create computers capable of hosting our intelligence, basically brain emulators where we can download our consciousness through some kind of interface

The first person to download his/her brain to an artificial computer will be the first person to ever have an 'afterlife'

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-06-2014 10:24PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The first person to download his/her brain to an artificial computer will be the first person to ever have an 'afterlife'

Depends on your definition of "person". I doubt the process you describe would amount to the transfer of a consciousness.

sydthebeat · 08-06-2014 10:26PM

Time is not infinite.

magicbastarder · 08-06-2014 10:34PM

some infinities are bigger than others, too.

robindch · 08-06-2014 10:43PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, what's being talked about here is not an afterlife, just a repeat life. and it wouldn't be the same you, anyway.

Tell that to the guy who worked the transporter in Star Trek.

shane9689 · 08-06-2014 11:19PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

Time is not infinite.

pretty sure that's debatable, i read up abit on the idea that it is finite, and if anything it just shows how limited our understanding of mathematics is but doesnt seem to entirely say time isnt infinite?...confusing anyhow.

also, even if time is finite, it still doesnt entirely de-bunk my suggestion, merely turns the odds from "has to happen" into "could happen".

shane9689 · 08-06-2014 11:21PM

also i was argueing with another person about this...and they said even if time was infinite, it doesnt mean we would be entirely recreated...and i suppose that is true too.... if time is infinite, everything could be in a constant state of change for eternity meaning nothing would ever repeat itself but rhater new things would constantly we cropping up in an infinite cycle? does that even make sense? my brain hurts

shane9689 · 08-06-2014 11:22PM

all this thinking has made me realise....we really dont know jack **** about anything (and im not talking about death, but everything in general)

sydthebeat · 08-06-2014 11:31PM

shane9689 wrote: »

pretty sure that's debatable, i read up abit on the idea that it is finite, and if anything it just shows how limited our understanding of mathematics is but doesnt seem to entirely say time isnt infinite?...confusing anyhow.

also, even if time is finite, it still doesnt entirely de-bunk my suggestion, merely turns the odds from "has to happen" into "could happen".

Yes it's completely debatable

bnt · 08-06-2014 11:54PM

There's a saying in science that goes something like "if you don't write it down, it didn't happen". So, if I've been "here" before in some form, but don't (and could never have) any awareness or memory of it, what's the point? We're back to Russell's Teapot again. :cool:

professore · 09-06-2014 12:16AM

Maybe we're all immortal beings who are part of some elaborate videogame, since our actual existence as beings of pure energy is pretty boring? Who really knows.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-06-2014 12:22AM

Akrasia wrote: »

A computers intelligence exists within the structures of the physical computer and the virtual machines that are created in the software.

Do not mistake the ability to perform rapid calculations as intelligence.

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program.

There is no plausible mechanism for a soul to exist outside of the physical body, however, because of our advancing technology,

Souls do not exist - unless you have evidence to the contrary..?

Brian Shanahan · 09-06-2014 12:44AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

some infinities are bigger than others, too.

And there's always room in Hilbert's Hotel, if only you know how to stack them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-06-2014 12:57AM

ninja900 wrote: »

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program.

I think John Searle has developed a useful analogy, when he points out that computers can simulate weather conditions, and predict when it's going to rain. But that's obviously not the same as actual rain.

09-06-2014 01:06AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "person". I doubt the process you describe would amount to the transfer of a consciousness.

Yeah that's how I see it, the same goes for the teleportation theories, strangely though it would work perfectly for everyone but you. Anyone familiar with Tarkovsky's Solaris?

09-06-2014 01:12AM

ninja900 wrote: »

Do not mistake the ability to perform rapid calculations as intelligence.

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program.

Souls do not exist - unless you have evidence to the contrary..?

And you are sure a human is truly intelligent? And not just following a very complex program?

Akrasia · 09-06-2014 08:36AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "person". I doubt the process you describe would amount to the transfer of a consciousness.

What is a person? What is the definition of death?

Death used to be defined as the moment the heart stopped, this was before we had the ability to restart the heart or put people on life support machines or transplant organs.
Now the definition of death is much more difficult to nail down. We can have people who have total brain inactivity except for the brain stem and can survive for decades on life support machines, or even just with feeding tubes and nursing care. The brain stem is capable of maintaining bodily functions but without self awareness or any higher cognitive function.

I would define someone in a persistent vegetative state to be dead as a 'person' because to me, the personage of someone is linked to their cognition more than it is to their corporeality.

If we can make a machine that can successfully emulate the brain and host a persons consciousness then I would have no problems in calling that a 'person'. There would be a legal and philosophical minefield in terms of the consequences of duplicating this personality, but regardless, each instance of this consciousness would be a 'person'.

Furthermore, artificial intelligence would also be entitled to the status of personhood once it reaches a level of self awareness such that it has an interest in it's own welfare.

I can see this merger between the mind and technology to be the way that humans will ultimately explore the universe. Would you volunteer to download your consciousness to a computer that will be installed on a probe/rover and sent to explore space? For you as a human, you would not have any of the experiences of the explorer, but you would also have a deep empathetic connection to what the explorer will experience/suffer on his journey. (I would only agree on two conditions. 1. there is a self destruct option, and 2, there is a hibernation mode that can alleviate the boredom of interstellar space travel)

Scientific possibility of an afterlife? ...of somesort

Comments