Postulating a Basis for Belief in a Technological Afterlife

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Again, if the brain is just a collection of neurons, their connections, and the states of those connections, it is possible to collect all the necessary information using nano-machines - as I've described earlier.  Even if it's more complicated than that, the issue will not withstand the tidal wave of technological advancement to the edge of infinity.  These are simply techological speed bumps that will get flattened in that wave.

It is not just that we don't know how to do certain things to meet your goal, but that we don't even know what those certain things are. You are assuming first that all problems can be solved, and second that all problems can be solved by humans. I would argue that neither of those assumptions are true. Thus, until we know a lot more than we do now, it is not possible to claim you've made a "plausible case that they will be solved".

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Bob Cross said:

Again, if the brain is just a collection of neurons, their connections, and the states of those connections

It is not.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Cross said:

it is possible to collect all the necessary information

Quantum mechanics prohibits this.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Cross said:

tidal wave of technological advancement

No technology overcomes laws of nature.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Genady

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, Genady said:

It is not.

 

Quantum mechanics prohibits this.

 

No technology overcomes laws of nature.

Do we need quantum information, which, I think, is more fundamental than the electrochemical potential between atoms and molecules? 

Edited July 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Do we need quantum information, which, I think, is more fundamental than the electrochemical potential between atoms and molecules? 

The latter are quantum in nature, and I think that the "calculations" which brain runs are quantum.

[geordief]

On 7/13/2023 at 5:24 PM, TheVat said:

Moreover, how is that immortality?  How do we know that after your brain is precisely copied by some as-yet unknown (and implausible) method for a "quantum snapshot," then you will die, and a distinct consciousness will awaken that has all your memories?  It will tell everyone that "you" survived and are just fine, but that subjective report does not eliminate the possiblity that the original biological you lost consciousness and is gone forever.  

 

Might it not be that we die and are reborn on a continuous basis every  moment of our lives but that these events are too short and numerous  for us to be aware of them.

In the case you describe ,the theoretical passage between the two entities might be indistinguishable  from a normal life.

Edit:I think I can see now that death/rebirths occurring on an ongoing basis  at micro locations  in a system (the brain /nervous system)  is different from a total universal death followed by the birth of a near identical system .

So my question is not really relevant, perhaps

 

 

I am also interested in @Genady 's assertion  that our minds' calculations may run on quantum principles. 

Is this speculation or is there any direct  evidence to support it?

Edited July 15, 2023 by geordief

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is this speculation or is there any direct  evidence to support it?

It is an appealing hypothesis.

[TheVat]

The usual objection is the human brain cannot host the quantum phenomena required since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid decoherence.  But Orch OR, as Penrose and Hameroff's theory is called, is intriguing.  (most forums like SFN have an old thread somewhere on classical brain v quantum brain)

 

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Might it not be that we die and are reborn on a continuous basis every  moment of our lives but that these events are too short and numerous  for us to be aware of them.

In the case you describe ,the theoretical passage between the two entities might be indistinguishable  from a normal life.

Yes, that is one of the better counters to the idea that no real transition of consciousness is possible.  I have heard the example of the coma patient who has been completely unconscious and her brain has changed enough since last being awake that we could not say the same person is awakening.  Yet we do assume a continuity.  And the same goes for the "little death" of sleep.  (I know little death means something else in French)

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

The latter are quantum in nature, and I think that the "calculations" which brain runs are quantum.

 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

It is an appealing hypothesis.

If only one impulse can travel at a time, that would make our experience a series with discrete elements. An impulse can be generated 5-50 times a second. We do have latency gaps in our senses, so it's not smooth and continuous, like analogue. I'm only putting this here hypothetically, but that doesn't suggest quantum fuzziness in the emergence of sensations. I'm not saying quantum uncertainty doesn't exist in biological systems, of course it does, but is it necessary to explain experiential sensations? Might it not be going 'too deep', so to speak? Analogously, we don't need to know the fundamental physical properties of our cutlery in order to eat with them.

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The usual objection is the human brain cannot host the quantum phenomena required since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid decoherence.  But Orch OR, as Penrose and Hameroff's theory is called, is intriguing.  (most forums like SFN have an old thread somewhere on classical brain v quantum brain)

 

Yes, that is one of the better counters to the idea that no real transition of consciousness is possible.  I have heard the example of the coma patient who has been completely unconscious and her brain has changed enough since last being awake that we could not say the same person is awakening.  Yet we do assume a continuity.  And the same goes for the "little death" of sleep.  (I know little death means something else in French)

"How I hate those little slices of death we call sleep" - Voltaire

Edited July 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If only one impulse can travel at a time, that would make our experience a series with discrete elements...

In quantum computers, only one impulse travels at a time. It does not make them any "less" quantum. "Quantum" does not mean "fuzzy". It means that elementary units are quantum states, and operations are unitary.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

In quantum computers, only one impulse travels at a time. It does not make them any "less" quantum. "Quantum" does not mean "fuzzy". It means that elementary units are quantum states, and operations are unitary.

OK.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

And the same goes for the "little death" of sleep.  (I know little death means something else in French)

An orgasm or the shivers?

https://fr.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/petite_mort#:~:text=(Sens figuré) (Vieilli) Fait d'avoir froid,%2C d'avoir des frissons.&text=(Sens figuré) Orgasme.

 

(Never knew that before)

Edited July 15, 2023 by geordief

[Bob Cross]

23 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is not just that we don't know how to do certain things to meet your goal, but that we don't even know what those certain things are. You are assuming first that all problems can be solved, and second that all problems can be solved by humans. I would argue that neither of those assumptions are true. Thus, until we know a lot more than we do now, it is not possible to claim you've made a "plausible case that they will be solved".

Plausibility is subjective.  Those who have faith in the ingenuity of mankind will see this task as plausible.

Stone-age men couldn't draw up the blueprints for jet engines.  We still have them.

23 hours ago, Genady said:

It is not.

 

Quantum mechanics prohibits this.

 

No technology overcomes laws of nature.

It's definitely a collection of neurons and their connections.  And if the neuron can detect its own state, a nano-machine can too.  For sure, EEG sets detect enough of the brain's activity to decern emotions.

The brain's structure is not a law of nature.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

It's definitely a collection of neurons and their connections. 

It is definitely more than this. Much more.

 

6 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

The brain's structure is not a law of nature.

Quantum Mechanics' laws are.

[Bob Cross]

5 hours ago, Genady said:

The latter are quantum in nature, and I think that the "calculations" which brain runs are quantum.

You "think"?  I thought you had discovered a law of nature.

Quantum mechanics operate on the scale of atoms.  Neurons are far too macro for this.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Neurons are far too macro for this.

Neurons and their connections are not the whole story of the brain.

Quantum computers are macro, too. They operate on quantum, nevertheless.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Genady

[Bob Cross]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Neurons and their connections are not the whole story of the brain.

Quantum computers are macro, too. They operate on quantum, nevertheless.

"Quantum" can mean lots of things.  It does not equate to Quantum Mechanics.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

In quantum computers, only one impulse travels at a time. It does not make them any "less" quantum. "Quantum" does not mean "fuzzy". It means that elementary units are quantum states, and operations are unitary.

For a long-lived and reliable quantum bit, and processing, don't you need some sort of Bose Einstein condensate to have superposition states in the brain?  I never understood Penrose's idea of how this could be achieved in the warm noisy environment of the human brain.  Brains seem pretty classical in their functionality, but that's really an open question I guess.

[Genady]

Just now, Bob Cross said:

"Quantum" can mean lots of things.  It does not equate to Quantum Mechanics.

In the case of quantum computers, it does.

[TheVat]

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

An orgasm or the shivers?

Not mutually exclusive.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

that's really an open question I guess

me too

[TheVat]

8 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Quantum mechanics operate on the scale of atoms.  Neurons are far too macro for this.

Internal combustion operates on the scale of atoms interacting, especially hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms.  Automobiles are too macro for this.

😏

[Bob Cross]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

In the case of quantum computers, it does.

Your claim that the brain is a quantum computer doesn't seem to have much acceptance yet, that I can find.  Regardless, it is still made up of neurons and their connections.  Anything a neuron can detect a nano-machine can detect - and record.

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

Internal combustion operates on the scale of atoms interacting, especially hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms.  Automobiles are too macro for this.

😏

That's only chemistry.  Do neurons even bond chemically with each other to interact?  They exchange chemicals but that's a lesser operation.  If neurons aren't even doing chemical bonding how could they be doing quantum mechanics?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Bob Cross said:

Your claim that the brain is a quantum computer doesn't seem to have much acceptance yet, that I can find.

Now it is YOU who is stuck in 2023, it seems.

 

2 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

it is still made up of neurons and their connections

... and other important components.

For a simple example, myelin sheath structures control rate of propagation of signals in neurons. Different rates cause differences in arrival times of the signals. This affects the spikes. Etc.

16 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

They exchange chemicals but that's a lesser operation.

Lesser? This is how drugs affect brain. They don't modify neuron connections. The effects are dramatic, though.

24 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

how could they be doing quantum mechanics?

Paraphrasing YOU just a bit,

Quote

So...unless you can conceive of how [ it works ] right now in every particular, it's impossible?

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Bob Cross said:

Those who have faith...

Well sure, if you believe without evidence then I can see why you might also believe in shapeshifting and Santa Claus. Being pragmatic though I understand that some things are impossible to know, and humans are limited, just like every other living thing is limited.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Bob Cross said:

Stone-age men couldn't draw up the blueprints for jet engines.  We still have them.

Stone-age men thought that how fast you run is limited only by your abilities. We know now that it is limited by the speed of light.