Why can't we live again?

[Dean Mullen]

I have a good reason to show how being consciouslly aware of reality maybe possible even after we are apparently died:

 

First of all what makes you, you?

 

1. A certain configuration of atoms

2. A brain created by this configuration of atoms

3. A certain place in space & time

 

Now this would suggest you could only live once because exact copies in terms of atomic configurations to you if they existed would not be you because they are seperate in space & time.

 

But if this is true, then when you move true time you are not you anymore and if you move through space then you don't exist anymore, but that it is not true, because when I move from point A to point B, I am stil I

 

so this means the third defintion of defining I or you as a seperate being is incorrect.

 

So you truly are

 

1. A certain configuration of atoms

2. A brain created by this configuration of atoms

 

So if even after we die, what if this configuration of atoms re-configured?

and recreated a brain? and was alive again, then theoretically this brain should re-produce you again.

 

Although the odds of an atomic re-configuration and the recreation of your brain exactly is unlikely, if time is eternal and space is infinite as some theories suggest, eventually it will happen and you will become consciouslly aware of reality again.

 

Even though this is not probable it is theoretically possible.

[John Cuthber]

Hypothetically a copy of you would be you, but the copying is impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

[hypervalent_iodine]

This is an interesting question, though I would have probably put this in philosophy rather than in physics since this is thought experiment and you aren't interested so much in the science of recreating someone. I had a very similar discussion with some friends of mine while camping once. Let me ask you this: if you did somehow manage to make an exact copy of yourself, but you were not dead, is that copy also you? Is it really only those two stipulations that make a person? If that is the case, if I took 'me' now and placed 'me' from 10 years ago, are we not the same person?

 

Another analogy that was made in our conversation is in Odysseus and the boat that he sailed in for 10 years following the Trojan war. Another thought experiment, not necessarily reflective on the book, but nevertheless. Odysseus leaves Troy in a ship (I don't remember its name). Over time, some of the panels on the ship need replacing for one reason or another and eventually, so do the sails, etc. By the time he returns to Ithaca, he has replaced every part of the ship. My question is, is it still the same ship?

[SMF]

I agree about the misplacement of this topic but while it is here, how about experience. Without the same past a copy would just be a twin or clone. To be the same person you also have to postulate an exact same environment with the same history, culture, parents and childhood experiences. Also, what do the physicists say about Dean Mullen's statement regarding infinite space and eternal time. SM

[rktpro]

Seems impossible. Neurons once dead can't be recreated or repaired. This should be practically possible not theoretically. Like, if someone dies of heart-attack, than recreating the same atomic structure is impossible. Science is unaware of what happens to atoms when one dies.

But, if you assume it to be possible for a second, then creating matter also becomes possible.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I agree about the misplacement of this topic but while it is here, how about experience. Without the same past a copy would just be a twin or clone. To be the same person you also have to postulate an exact same environment with the same history, culture, parents and childhood experiences. Also, what do the physicists say about Dean Mullen's statement regarding infinite space and eternal time. SM

 

This is sort of where I was going with my question. Simply making a clone does not make another 'you', as you are made up of both 'nature' and 'nurture' components. Another question that was brought up with by my ever-argumentative philosophy friend was this: if we pretend for a moment that both hemispheres of the brain are exactly the same, if you took half of your brain and placed it inside another person, is that person another 'you'? We assumed that by having one half of the same brain, they had the same neural connections generated by the same past experiences, so their memories, the way the process information, etc. would all be the same.

 

Seems impossible. Neurons once dead can't be recreated or repaired. This should be practically possible not theoretically. Like, if someone dies of heart-attack, than recreating the same atomic structure is impossible. Science is unaware of what happens to atoms when one dies.

This is true and no one is debating this. However, it isn't the point of the discussion.

[SMF]

My understanding of the post is that with infinite time the exact same person will occur. No mechanism was suggested, just that with enough time it would happen. I would like to know more about the infinite postulate, otherwise, this is just an interesting thought experiment that belongs in Other Science or Philosophy. SM

[hypervalent_iodine]

My understanding of the post is that with infinite time the exact same person will occur. No mechanism was suggested, just that with enough time it would happen. I would like to know more about the infinite postulate, otherwise, this is just an interesting thought experiment that belongs in Other Science or Philosophy. SM

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

[SMF]

In regard to separated hemispheres of the brain, the problem is that the two hemispheres are not identical. In Roger Sperry's hemispheric separation experiments he found that the two cortical hemispheres are specialized for different functions. In most people the left hemisphere is specialized for speech, math, and other more cognitive functions. The right hemisphere is specialized for spatial relationships and other more global functions. They normally operate together for an integrated human and both hemispheres share all the the other functions that are not a component of consciousness, but are necessary for normal human functions which are numerous. I don't see how dividing a brain into two individuals could work, but in any case the resulting two persons would be very different and subnormal. SM

[steevey]

Hypothetically a copy of you would be you, but the copying is impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

 

Cloning has already been done, but also, it could be possible for other atoms to have the same states and positions relative to itself that another configuration of atoms could have. It would be no more different that two apples on a tree. They are both apples, but in both the atoms occupy different exact positions.

 

I have a good reason to show how being consciouslly aware of reality maybe possible even after we are apparently died:

 

First of all what makes you, you?

 

1. A certain configuration of atoms

2. A brain created by this configuration of atoms

3. A certain place in space & time

 

Now this would suggest you could only live once because exact copies in terms of atomic configurations to you if they existed would not be you because they are seperate in space & time.

 

But if this is true, then when you move true time you are not you anymore and if you move through space then you don't exist anymore, but that it is not true, because when I move from point A to point B, I am stil I

 

so this means the third defintion of defining I or you as a seperate being is incorrect.

 

So you truly are

 

1. A certain configuration of atoms

2. A brain created by this configuration of atoms

 

So if even after we die, what if this configuration of atoms re-configured?

and recreated a brain? and was alive again, then theoretically this brain should re-produce you again.

 

Although the odds of an atomic re-configuration and the recreation of your brain exactly is unlikely, if time is eternal and space is infinite as some theories suggest, eventually it will happen and you will become consciouslly aware of reality again.

 

Even though this is not probable it is theoretically possible.

 

But otherwise, the reason is because we just don't know how. It would take an enormously complex machine to re-arrange all the atoms to a suitable state and jump-start the cell cycle and all its processes again without damaging any of them. There's also the fact that you need all the materials too, which is hard to make for a body. We don't even know how the simplest of life forms came about being.

Edited February 13, 2011 by steevey

[hypervalent_iodine]

In regard to separated hemispheres of the brain, the problem is that the two hemispheres are not identical. In Roger Sperry's hemispheric separation experiments he found that the two cortical hemispheres are specialized for different functions. In most people the left hemisphere is specialized for speech, math, and other more cognitive functions. The right hemisphere is specialized for spatial relationships and other more global functions. They normally operate together for an integrated human and both hemispheres share all the the other functions that are not a component of consciousness, but are necessary for normal human functions which are numerous. I don't see how dividing a brain into two individuals could work, but in any case the resulting two persons would be very different and subnormal. SM

 

I'm aware of that. As I said, it's a thought experiment.

[TonyMcC]

Let me ask you this: if you did somehow manage to make an exact copy of yourself, but you were not dead, is that copy also you? If that is the case, if I took 'me' now and placed 'me' from 10 years ago, are we not the same person?

 

I believe most of the cells that make up our body replace themselves over a period of about 7 years. I'm not an expert, but I believe this may not apply to brain cells. In a very real sense you are a different person from what you were 10 years ago.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I believe most of the cells that make up our body replace themselves over a period of about 7 years. I'm not an expert, but I believe this may not apply to brain cells. In a very real sense you are a different person from what you were 10 years ago.

That is correct, though I believe that it does not extend to the brain. Anyway, if you were a different person 10 years ago are you saying that the person you were then is not you? If so, how are you the person you define yourself to be now? Is it not in part because of 'you' from 10 years ago? If so, then if I stand you now next to yourself from 10 years ago, how is that person not 'you'? My argument at the time was that you differed in life-experience and thus they way you process and interpret information is also different, but that person was still you. However, if that is the case then the second stipulation of having the brain configured in the exact same way as per the OP is false. So who are you?

[zapatos]

I agree about the misplacement of this topic but while it is here, how about experience. Without the same past a copy would just be a twin or clone. To be the same person you also have to postulate an exact same environment with the same history, culture, parents and childhood experiences. Also, what do the physicists say about Dean Mullen's statement regarding infinite space and eternal time. SM

To be the same person you wouldn't have to have the exact same environment with the same history, culture, parents and childhood experiences. Those are only significant because they made you who you are now. And who you are now is, as the OP suggested, a certain configuration of atoms, and a brain created by that configuration of atoms. So if you were going to create a new person with that exact same configuration, that new person should already have a personality, memories, etc. based on that environment.

 

Although this also makes me wonder why by random atom configurations in the brain, people don't have memories of things they never experienced. Maybe the odds are just too great against getting just the right configuration together for a coherent memory of something that did not really occur.

Edited February 13, 2011 by zapatos

[SMF]

These ideas have been extensively explored in science fiction, primarily via the notion of a matter transmitter that doesn't actually send matter to a different location, just the information necessary to make an exact duplicate of a person at the destination. The experience of the sender is entering a booth, undergoing some kind of scan, and then leaving to go about his/her business. The duplicate at the destination experiences going into the booth and walking out at the destination. There are now two exact copies of the individual that begin to diverge in experience at this point (e.g. one knows that he is a copy). I recommend a somewhat different version of this in The Kiln People by David Brin.

 

The experiences of Dean Mullen in his original thought experiment would be to not detect any transition in himself between the point in his life from when the duplicate was made, to the copy created later. If the environment of the copy were also identical to the past, then Dean wouldn't even know that there was a billion year gap in his life. This further brings up the old conundrum-- how do you know that this hasn't happened to you already, dozens of times. The way I look at this question is that continuity of experience as stored in a brain are necessary for the continuity of identity of a person. Alter the experiences or the brain and the person is different. For interesting real life examples check out Phineas Gage for an altered brain and the book (also movie) Awakenings by Oliver Sacks for transporting a person, with stored experiences intact, forward in time (both are covered in Wikipedia). SM

Edited February 13, 2011 by SMF

[Dean Mullen]

Seems impossible. Neurons once dead can't be recreated or repaired. This should be practically possible not theoretically. Like, if someone dies of heart-attack, than recreating the same atomic structure is impossible. Science is unaware of what happens to atoms when one dies.

But, if you assume it to be possible for a second, then creating matter also becomes possible.

 

But the atoms are not destroyed they just disperse and become part of the earth, but with infinite time no matter how unlikely these atoms will re-configure even if it requires them finding a way to another universe.

 

I agree about the misplacement of this topic but while it is here, how about experience. Without the same past a copy would just be a twin or clone. To be the same person you also have to postulate an exact same environment with the same history, culture, parents and childhood experiences. Also, what do the physicists say about Dean Mullen's statement regarding infinite space and eternal time. SM

 

But what I don't understand is how the brain truly produces I and I am just the production of certain memories, It doesn't seem to make any sense because its almost as if I would come from nowhere? maybe I didn't state that question right because I can't put what I'm trying to say into words its that type of topic but anyways I think one must define what creates an experiencing and truly aware of reality consciousness, although it seems it is brain, we cannot be sure of that and we cannot define exactly where & how the brain produces actual experiences.

 

Also I don't believe changing one's memories destroys them, I believe even if we didn't have the same memories it would still be the same being experiencing these new memories regardless of what one's memories are there still the same being.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Dean Mullen

[36grit]

My philosophy on the subject is one of a Christian perspective.

Read at your own risk, for I surely wrote it at mine.

To resurrect the physical you, would only be to create a twin fully capable of rejecting your mind in favor of his or her own. The only way to truly live forever is to redirect your own thoughts and actions to ones that honor and respect the Father of all things. All else will be disassymbeld and cast back into the chaotic realm of Nod.

Those who find favor in the Father's eyes, will probably find themselves in a world full of their own thoughts, and ones discarded, that will exist as physical beings capable of choosing thoughts on their own. And when you decide to go and live among the fruits of your own thoughts, they will attempt to destroy you. And out of love for them, you will certainly let them that when their reckoning day comes, you can judge between them. All those who live, are the children of the Father and we will do what his child did. This is the cycle of worlds, life, free will and consequence in my opinion.