Ask Slashdot: Is Beaming Down In Star Trek a Death Sentence? 593
Artem Tashkinov writes: Some time ago, Ars Technica ran a monumental article on beaming of consciousness in Star Trek and its implications, and more importantly, whether it's plausible to achieve that without killing a person in the process.
It seems possible in the Star Trek universe. However, currently physicists find the idea absurd and unreal because there's no way you can transport matter and its quantum state without first destroying it and then recreating it perfectly, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The biggest conundrum of all is the fact that pretty much everyone understands that consciousness is a physical state of the brain, which features continuity as its primary principle; yet it surely seems like copying the said state produces a new person altogether, which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul.
This also brings another very difficult question: how do we know if we are the same person when we wake up in the morning or after we were put under during general anesthesia? What are your thoughts on the topic?
It seems possible in the Star Trek universe. However, currently physicists find the idea absurd and unreal because there's no way you can transport matter and its quantum state without first destroying it and then recreating it perfectly, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The biggest conundrum of all is the fact that pretty much everyone understands that consciousness is a physical state of the brain, which features continuity as its primary principle; yet it surely seems like copying the said state produces a new person altogether, which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul.
This also brings another very difficult question: how do we know if we are the same person when we wake up in the morning or after we were put under during general anesthesia? What are your thoughts on the topic?
To Be (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a great animated short by John Weldon that explores this topic. It's called To Be and can be found at this URL: http://www.nfb.ca/film/to_be/ [www.nfb.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
It's an existential question. There is no clear answer.
How you do define a life? It can't be consciousness unless you think sleep is death too. If you die but are then revived are you the same person?
You could say your life is your brain functioning, but the transporter (as depicted on Star Trek) keeps you conscious during the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, as others have pointed out, the matter that makes up 'you' changes constantly and is totally replaced every 7-10 years. You're literally not the same person you were 10 years ago.
I like Rudy Rucker's exploration of the metaphysics in Software [openlibrary.org], where characters argue that it's not the physical being that matters, it's the pattern that embodies 'you'.
And "potential existence is just as good as actual existence." :)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention, as others have pointed out, the matter that makes up 'you' changes constantly and is totally replaced every 7-10 years.
Though that's not quite true, Neurons, in particular, are not replaced, you die with what you were born with. Other cells are replaced more frequently, but the essence of consciousness is in the brain. No one would call you a different person after a kidney transplant, but nearly everyone would call you a new person after a brain transplant.
http://askanaturalist.com/do-w... [askanaturalist.com]
Neurons in the cerebral cortex are never replaced. There are no neurons added to your cerebral cortex after birth. Any cerebral cortex neurons that die are not replaced.
Re: (Score:3)
But those neurons take in water, salts, glucose etc. and dispose of waste products, break down dead organelles, etc. They are not the same matter from minute to minute, let alone year to year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:To Be (Score:4, Insightful)
Put It Simply... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on whether we are real and not all part of a simulation.
It depends what you're wearing . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . beaming down while wearing a red shirt does NOT seem to be a good idea.
Folks dressed like that never seem to last too long.
Re: (Score:2)
They said this air would be breathable. (Score:2)
"Get in, get out again, and no one gets hurt."
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know that the Crips wound up winning the gang-war; and got out of Compton.
Double Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
"... which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul."
No, all it says is that a copy of a brain is not the original brain.
If you make a perfect copy of an orange, all the way down to the subatomic level, then that copy is still not the original orange. It's the copy.
If you make a perfect copy of me, down to the sub-atomic level and that copy walks into my room, then I will not suddenly confuse that copy with myself.
Re: (Score:2)
If you make a perfect copy of an orange, all the way down to the subatomic level, then that copy is still not the original orange. It's the copy.
I disagree. Once you can make a copy perfect right down the subatomic level, then the distinction between copy and original becomes meaningless. A good analogy is computer files. If I have a file on my computer, say an MP3 of a hit song of my favorite band, and I copy it to another computer or device, I don't think of it as an original and copy cause they're both identical. Similarly, if you replace your aging hard drive with a new fast SSD drive by first backing up your entire filesystem, then restorin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm saying that they truly are two different things: one is a file on computer A, the other is a file on computer B (where A is not the same computer as B). The fact that their contents are equivalent doesn't change the fact that IN REALITY they actually are two different things.
Now, you could argue that this doesn't matter at a certain level (e.g. - digital copies of a movie are indistinguishable) and at those certain levels I would agree. However, here I was talking about people and people absolutely do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The materialist argument is that a copy of you is also "you," you've basically just been "forked.""
On some level, yes. On another, no. The copies are very similar and share a common history, but from the moment they "forked" they actually are different people because they are different human brains.
If you bring two copies of a person together and tell them they must choose one of them to die because by law only one "you" is allowed to exist, then there will be some serious consternation, stress, and conf
No, it's not. (Score:2)
Worst possible message on the transporter (Score:3)
Buffering
Buffering
Buffering
I never knew why they didn't just use the transporter memory to restore all the red shirts...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Worst possible message on the transporter (Score:2)
The did just that in the animated star trek series, to restore prematurely aged officers. Hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't transport through shields - not just enemy shields, but even your own. That's been a pretty consistent rule in the Star Trek universe. Otherwise, there are literally no defenses against enemy attacks, and that doesn't make for very fun storytelling.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no greater human than you. There is no lesser human than you.
Ya, well ... (Score:4, Informative)
... physicists find the idea absurd and unreal because there's no way you can transport matter and its quantum state without first destroying it and then recreating it perfectly, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
It's been established that ST transporters have Heisenberg compensators [wikia.com], so checkmate actual physicists.
Re: (Score:2)
argh, beat me to it. :)
Re: (Score:3)
argh, beat me to it. :)
My browser has a /. compensator installed ... allowing me to know both what to post and when to post at the same time.
And does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
I raised this very question (Star Trek, transporter experiment) to my daughter when she was a teenager. Her response was, what's the difference? Our atoms have already largely completely changed over many times by now anyway. I recall reading years ago, I think it was a Time Life book or perhaps an educational movie, that we're all breathing, and thus by implication incorporating, some fraction of the actual atoms that Leonardo da Vinci breathed; a matter of statistics. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether your consciousness this very instant is already a different "thing" that it was a second ago, and only your current state of your memory leads you to believe that it is the same.
Re: And does it matter? (Score:2)
I've thought a lot about. My conclusion is consciousness is an attribute of the physical universe, with various physical states corresponding to conscious states. So a storm is a conscious "feeling" though no memory or anything else specific to the brain.
The main attributes of consciousness are continuity and atomicity, so there could be said to exist a universal consciousness. However, rare configurations of matter can correspond to consciousness experiencing separation from the universe. These states occu
Depend on the perspective (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of the ship of Theseus has been debated for ages.
On the flip side, people can certainly think of something that is actually "self" as "non-self". This ranges from auto-immune system struggles to Dissociative identity disorder [wikipedia.org] to body integrity identity disorders [wikipedia.org]...
And of course people have gone to sleep and waken up [usatoday.com] speaking with a different accent [wikipedia.org]
The whole concept of "self" is a bit soft if you ask me...
An extreme metaphysical position (Score:5, Insightful)
The universe is entirely static, a four dimensional object where everything that has or will happen exists simultaneously in an eternally unchanging state.
Our perception of it dynamically changing over time is an illusion of senses only perceiving a single "slice" of that object.
Furthermore, our consciousness is not continuous, but rather a disconnected multitude, each trapped forever in a specific moment of our lives. Each convinced it has a history because of the illusion of memory. Each convinced it has free will because of the illusion of action.
Re: An extreme metaphysical position (Score:3)
Your model is flawed, it doesn't account for a present moment.
Re:An extreme metaphysical position (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends how you look at it. Time might be the illusion and the only thing that has ever existed is "now".
Some maintain..
Time is a concept, a relationship between two or more motions of objects.
It is not a physical thing.
Only "Now" really exists (due to dynamic interactions between objects).
The "Past" & "Future" are only concepts in our brains. There is no time "dimension".
Already been definitively answered (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are talking Star Trek, this has all ready been directly answered [wikipedia.org]. Riker beams up, but leaves a copy. Years later, he is rediscovered by the enterprise crew. Dr. Crusher and Jordi agree they are identical and equally "Riker" so it must be true. Eventually the duplicate wanders off to lead a life of his own. Glad I could wrap that up for everyone scientifically, once and for all.
Then there was the TOS novel Spock Must Die! [wikipedia.org] that had a similar plot.
Re: Already been definitively answered (Score:2, Interesting)
They also engaged a second beam in that instance fearing the one wasn't enough. When they realized the one was fine, they shut the beam down. Normally, that copy of the signal would have been lost. However, the unique atmosphere of that planet enhanced the beam, reflected it back and another Riker materialized.
It's not the same as saying there is or isn't an original.
They beamed him twice at the same time and in a fluke accident got down data and matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I could wrap that up for everyone scientifically, once and for all.
. . . on the other hand . . . a loose nut behind the transporter console split Captain Kirk into two Captain Kirks! One was the "nice guy" Captain Kirk, the other one was the "mean and nasty" Captain Kirk.
The gag was only together could they function effectively as a whole Captain Kirk. Each half would have died without the other one. So it was very convenient to have someone like Scotty on board to stitch up the two Kirks again with a few shots of Scotch.
Re: (Score:2)
Trek's depiction of the transporter is inconsistent to say the least. It's been shown that people in the transporter are conscious the whole time, but also that they can be held unconscious in the pattern buffer indefinitely.
The transporter has cloned people, de-aged and re-aged them, merged two people into one being and un-merged them again...
Think Like a Dinosaur (The Outer Limits) (Score:4, Informative)
Existence of duplicate ryker proves it (Score:2)
Their were a lot of transporter malfunctions on ST. The duplicate Ryker proves that it was possible to make two people, which means that at least one of them was not the original, which means that neither of them were the original.
Star Trek transporters were cloning machines that some moron put a suicide option into them and then pretended they were a transportation method. For no obvious reason, too. Leave the original alive back on earth and let the clones take all the risk.
Re: (Score:2)
The show Dark Matter takes your suggestion. They have a transporter-like technology that sends a copy of you elsewhere, and then when (or if) that copy returns to the transporter, its memories are transmitted back to you and it is disintegrated again. Copies automatically disintegrate after some time anyway (for plot reasons I guess), and if your copy never makes it back to the transporter pod you just wake up out of the pod feeling like nothing happened at all.
Given that that world has also shown the abili
Heisenberg compensator (Score:5, Informative)
That's what the Heisenberg compensator are for: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/... [wikia.com]
Opposite Take (Score:4, Interesting)
A scientific view of consciousness would state that if you could find a way to duplicate a physical body, then you could build a transporter as our consciousness is just the chemical and atomic state of our brain.
If we really have a metaphysical "soul", then just how would that re-attach to the physical form you transport elsewhere?
I liked how Dark Matter handled this better, where they created a clone at the destination while you were cryogenically stored at the origin, then if the clone made it back to the transmitter without dying you would get all of the memories of what happened.
Devices to facilitate telling a story vs. futurism (Score:4, Insightful)
The Star Trek Transporter is a device invented to facilitate telling a story. There was 50 minutes. Obviously they could get in their space shuttle and land on the planet, get from the clear place they chose to the town, and then start the story. Or they could beam in.
There is also the fact that the way the communicators work is elided in the story. Obviously the channel can't be open until you say the name of the person you're calling, and even with some speeding up of the original audio it's going to take a second or two for them to catch up and respond. But nobody waits for the phone to ring on Star Trek.
And of course the data transfer method of the future is to give someone your tablet :-)
These are story devices. We can speculate about matter transmission being applied to conscious entities and copying people, but we should be clear that the reason these are used in Star Trek is not because they think that is how things will be in the future. It's because they made telling the story in the present easier to do.
Yes and No (Score:2)
What??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The biggest conundrum of all is the fact that pretty much everyone understands that consciousness is a physical state of the brain, which features continuity as its primary principle; yet it surely seems like copying the said state produces a new person altogether, which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul.
Consciousness is a physical state of the brain. It is a section of the brain which is 'reading' what's happening in other areas of the brain (more like the 2nd informational hub of the brain, similar to a large rest stop on a superhighway.) You can damage/turn off those other areas without losing consciousness. Continuity is not a primary principle. There are many ways to break continuity. Your unconscious mind don't break continuity during most of those instances. You can watch that on brain scanners
Read "Meditations on First Philosophy"' (Score:2)
This also brings another very difficult question: how do we know if we are the same person when we wake up in the morning or after we were put under during general anesthesia?
The simple answer is there's no way to know that your memories are real. There's also no way to know that other people really exist. All that you can know for sure is that you exist, "I think therefore I am". Go read "Meditations on First Philosophy" [uconn.edu] by Rene Descartes.
Wrong Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, given the transporter doesn't exist yet, this is all hypothetical. However, assuming that a transporter had been developer for inanimate objects and your question preceded a decision to use it to attempt to transfer a living organism, then a different question becomes relevant:-
What is the mechanism by which the human brain achieves consciousness?
Because, I would argue, you can only answer the second question ("Is Beaming Down In Star Trek a Death Sentence?") when you know (1) How the Beaming Down process works; and (2) How the brain acts as the "container" for the mind [assuming it does].
Digging a little bit deeper... If it can be shown that consciousness is achieved merely from the result of a truly massive scale of parallel chemical processes that are taking place in the cells of the brain, then well, it might be possible. It would require technology that could scan the body not to a cellular resolution, but to an *atomic*, or possibly even sub-atomic resolution, instantaneously... then transmit that information to a remote location and reconstitute all that organic matter, with all those chemical "transactions", all synchronised to exactly the same point in time...
On the other hand, if consciousness exists through other means [I'm making this up, but, say quantum super-positioning] then the act of scanning the subject at the point of origin might in fact destroy the "data" before it could be "beamed" anywhere.
This is why my answer is that the OP asks the wrong question. It's not the beaming you need to consider first, it's to understand how consciousness functions at a materials science level. Only then can you start to understand the functional design requirements of the transporter.
No (Score:3)
On the contrary (Score:3)
It would mean eternal life.
Since it would first record the data of the person to beam, it would analyze it and obviously NOT beam any cancer cells and pathogens down, but delete those from the data first.
Second, it could be used to send the body of a 25 year old in perfect health but with the conscience of the real person, no matter the age.
In case of a fatal accident, the last backup from the last beam could be used to recreate the dead person.
Obviously all esthetic surgeons would go jobless as well.
The Mirror Universe. (Score:5, Funny)
But why is the copy in the Mirror Universe ALWAYS Evil and has a Beard?
Being an red shit is more or less Death Sentence (Score:2)
Being an red shit is more or less an Death Sentence
exact replica (Score:5, Funny)
The other day somebody stole everything in my apartment and replaced it with an exact replica... When my roommate came home I said, "Roommate, someone stole everything in our apartment and replaced it with an exact replica." He looked at me and said, "Do I know you?"
- Steven Wright
No different than just existing (Score:2)
We might as well be ripped apart and reconstructed every nanosecond right where we stand. I'm not the same persion I was a nanosecond ago. If I start fretting about it I'd never get anything done ever again.
Split-Brain Behavioral Experiments (Score:2)
Upload yer self to the cloud then... (Score:2)
install it in a new sleeve a la "altered carbon"
Die every day and live forever... if you are rich enough.
NO DOUBLE SLEEVING!
No (Score:2)
Because it is a TV show.
How do we know we are the same person (Score:2)
We're not the same person, we're recreated from our memories each time we wake up.
As a matter of cannon (Score:3)
Mind=software (Score:2)
I think ST solved this in an unsaid way. (Score:3)
Specifically there are three "places" you are simultaneously; or maybe two and two. In ST you have a thing called the buffer which is not a computer simulation. It's more a pocket universe. The beaming process involves duplicating you such that you identically exist in two places at once. You more than quantum entangled (you get misreads with quantum entanglement) but rather totally entangled. Almost like a mathematical transformation. You continue to exist alive somewhat constricted by a force field. You exist in real universe and the buffer universe simultaneously while particles in each are synchronized. There is one you in two places then possibly three once once you start to beam to your destination. The magic part is this is happening without measurement but rather magical entanglement on a three dimensional scale. You are one person (information down to the quantum level) existing in multiple places at once to varying degrees in the process in a quasi time.
Can this be done? Probably not. Let us not forget it was a plot device to speed up the stories rather than spending so much time in shuttles. What can definitely be done is in the relatively new sci-fi drama "Dark Matter". Where your consciousness and memories can be transferred to another body over distance; either a clone of you or possibly a generic body. Then your prime body goes into a deep coma. When the trip is done the new memories are copied back. Now this is really more of the metaphysical conundrum than Star Trek is. One could download to other bodies quite easily which could be a form of immortality as well as take backup of our minds. Traveling to other planets we could download to bodies developed for the environment (like avatar but actually downloaded rather than piloting). At what point could we become so comfortable having multiple bodies that we have no issues destroying the original rather than bear the cost of storage considering we could re-clone if we wanted our original forms?
I think it's safe (Score:3)
Just need to put on a clean shirt.... ah, my lucky red one! That means it's going to work.
The Material of a Soul is Information (Score:3)
Not only are Energy and Matter interchangeable but aso Information. Imagine a brain region prosthetic were placed onto the brain to replace a region expected to die from alzheimer's. Interconnected to the same brain regions as that which it replaces, it learns to imitation the same output patterns as per the same input patterns to that when the replaced region dies, the prosthetic takes over (such things are under development today). Now let's suppose the disease spreads and you eventually replace every part of your brain, one region at a time. At what point did you become no longer you?
So the Soul is: one's sense of unique and continued existence.
They say every cell in the body is replaced every seven years. To my knowledge this is true with the exception of neurons. However, would it matter if it included neurons? So long as you copy one's personality and one's memories, I think most of us would consider that to be pretty much what defines us. Perhaps some would include also one's innate drives or perhaps emotional/chemical balance, if not considering those part of the personality already.
If a person walks through a quantum replicator (assume such a thing existed) and two of him or her walked out the other side. They would be the same person until that moment from which time they would start being separate Souls. The reason being, uniqueness split at that point.
It is the information that defines us, not the matter.. The concept "1+1=2" works the same no matter where you write it. It exists outside of the world of matter and energy but it does exist because it remains the same. The matter and energy in which information is implemented brings it into the world the same regardless so long as the information is the same. The same with a person.
Also, is it not accurate to say that we are a slightly different person with each moment that passes? And over time, we come to be more different. Are you the same person at 45 as you were at 25, or at 15, or at 5 years old? The Soul is a concept inclusive of one's life's narrative. It is your story.
Philosophy 101 (Score:3)
Did some just take a beginners' philosophy class ?
Physics as we know it says this type of transfer isn't even possible. Whilst the OP mentioned Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle it seemed to miss that it means you fundamentally can't do this. You canNOT measure perfectly (enough even) the position *and* momentum (energy) of anything at sufficient level to re-create it elsewhere (even assuming you could). Star Trek techno-babbled "Heisenberg Compensators" to address this, but that's completely fiction.
If it *was* possible, well, then you given it's fantasy you can argue as to if the scanning/reading in *would* be destructive or not (Quantum Mechanics says the measurement will also change the state, but we're in fantasy land here...). If it's not then you have what's been covered by some SF stories, e.g. something goes wrong during transmission, and as you're not sure if a new copy is active at the destination you don't yet destroy the original. If communication issues persist then you may later find the new copy is perfectly fine. Now what do you do to the original ? If the original is destroyed in the process then you'd better hope the copying process works else you've just committed definite murder.
As for waking after sleep... are we even the same person we were before our last conscious thought process? Unconscious one ? Anyone who's ever had their mind changed about something,or experienced anything new has this happen whilst awake.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Hasn't "BeauHD" ever heard of Heisenberg Compensators?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Why Star Trek transporters won't work in real life has nothing to do with Heisenberg. A living being cannot survive the process of having all their atoms ripped apart, due to the large among to energy required.
I just ripped some atoms off my body and survived... if I could save a map of where they all belong and reassemble them somehow, I could probably rip them all off. I didn't rip apart the atoms themselves, but presumably I can do that after they've been moved away from my body.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe it's entirely contained in the intensely personal network of interconnection between our neurons, and possibly to some extent in the internal state of the neurons themselves (RNA, etc). Certainly we have managed to revive people whose brains have been almost totally inert.
The mechanism underlying awareness is still completely unresolved.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
"shared out-of-body experience" is also a new-age farce.
Conversations like this are being had all over the Internet by amateurs who don't know nearly enough about the relevant subjects to speak intelligently on them, and of course consider themselves experts nonetheless.
"Soul" is a religious concept, zero actual evidence of the existence of any such thing, and it is not a concept that should be included in such discussions.
"Consciousness" is only meaningful when people don't abuse it by using it as a modern synonym for "soul." Consciousness is NOT a magical floaty part of yourself that is really you but isn't made out of matter. It's a high-level abstraction of everything necessary for a complex nervous system to be responsive. The word loses all usefulness when it is polluted with superstitious tripe!
The philosophical problem of personal identity is important and relevant, but it is also technical, has a long history, and there is a lot more to know about it than what you can infer from its name and common sense! If you are not educated you cannot participate in the debate!
"Identity" is an abstract concept, not a concrete thing, and the brain arrives it by a very fuzzy cognitive process. All of our "oh its is so mysterious" responses just come from a simple, and ignorant, expectation that this abstract concept should behave more like a physical object. It is why people try to bend your brain with questions like:
if you chop a person's arm of, and attach a different arm, is it still the same person? What if you pull three neurons out of that person's brain, and replace them with three new neurons? What if you pull 300 nerouns out and replace them? 3 million? What if you just swap the whole brain out with a totally different brain that has the same memories? Where is the specific line at which it becomes a different person?
These questions don't point out a problem of reality, nor do they point out a problem of "the mystery of consciousness" or anything stupid like that. They demonstrate that the concept of self that we are using is not clearly defined. That's ALL they demonstrate!
I realize I am ranting. So I will stop. Have fun remaining blind while being led by the blind, on this one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The research supporting your assertion that consciousness is local is pretty thin, and common phenomenon like corroborated veridical OBEs (out of body experiences) suggests that consciousness may be a
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
There are no cooberated out of body experiences in science, you are believing mystical nonsense as silly as any other religion.
Re: Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
See, I didn't think so either, until I checked the scientific literature. There most certainly are examples of corroborated out of body experience. It's most often found in studies of near-death experience cases, especially of blind subjects.
Let me remind you that skeptics base their opinions on evidence, not on what some TV magician tells them is true.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence you would believe, and that until Penn & Teller tell you it's OK, there is no amount of peer-reviewed research you will ever accept? It would save us a lot of time with me providing citations and you not looking at them and deciding they're BS.
https://bioethics.georgetown.e... [georgetown.edu]
http://www.resuscitationjourna... [resuscitationjournal.com]
There's lots more where that came from. I just picke
Re: Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence you would believe, and that until Penn & Teller tell you it's OK, there is no amount of peer-reviewed research you will ever accept? It would save us a lot of time with me providing citations and you not looking at them and deciding they're BS.
https://bioethics.georgetown.e... [georgetown.edu]
http://www.resuscitationjourna... [resuscitationjournal.com]
There's lots more where that came from. I just picked this off the top.
Did you read your own link? Because neither link support the idea of OBE or consciousness existing outside the brain.
Let me summarize them for you since you took the assertion that I wouldn’t read it: there’s evidence of consciousness after clinical death. The brain does things we don’t fully understand yet. But it’s a huge leap to say that our consciousness exist outside your brain. Here’s a movie analogy, you believe consciousness is like “Dr. Strange” while existing evidence says it’s more like “Jacob’s Ladder.”
Re: (Score:3)
Good, you're making progress. Now that you accept the existence of NDEs, let's look at how they relate to OBEs:
https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
https://link.springer.com/jour... [springer.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That was very insulting of me to be so quick to be dismissive. My aura needs cleansing and my chankra isn’t aligned.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a high-level abstraction of everything necessary for a complex nervous system to be responsive.
Please describe an objective repeatable test that a "conscious" entity would pass, but an entity without "consciousness" would fail.
"I know it when I see it" is not an objective test.
The word loses all usefulness when it is polluted with superstitious tripe!
"Consciousness" is superstitious tripe.
Re: (Score:3)
Said the guy who just consciously posted a comment.
Bots can post comments. That doesn't make them "conscious".
How does "consciousness" differ from mere intelligence?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> "Soul" is a religious concept,
Nonsense. It has fuck all to do with religion. The fact that _some_ religions _hijack_ the term is orthogonal to the discussion.
> zero actual evidence of the existence of any such thing, and it is not a concept that should be included in such discussions.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
It is obvious you've never had an OBE, a shared OBE, an NDE, and don't know how to meditate.
I became a mystic when I dwelt in the presence of my Soul a couple decades
Re: (Score:3)
I became a mystic when I dwelt in the presence of my Soul a couple decades back.
I guess if you're not dwelling in the presence of your soul.. you're dead.
I don't have much time for mystics who throw out lines like "dwelt in the presence of". What does that mean? You shared an apartment with it? Did it ever stiff you on the rent? Did it ever float into the room and casually announce "... Akashic shitter's clogged"?
Re: (Score:3)
I know you are joking, but there are 4 different paths to enlightenment:
* The Fakir
* The Monk
* The Yogi
* Spiritual Marriage / Gnosis
You _don't_ need me as a sensei, you already have everything within you to learn. Practice any hobby that helps you to connect to the Divine. Music, Painting, Dancing, Gardening, Sports, etc. You'll know what works for you when your sense of time is slowed down -- what athletes call "Being in the Zone."
Lastly, stay away from drugs -- they are a mental crutch.
Re: (Score:3)
The core issue is that we don't know exactly what consciousness is. A sense of "self" resulting from a skillful architecture of atoms? What even is life? What is the minimum requirement that separates a non-living replicator (is there such a thing - prions maybe?) from a living replicator?
Until we can define these things explicitly, questions such as those posed in the summary can only be speculated upon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I could care less about some pseudo-skeptic.
Even when he is dead he will still deny the fact that The Source exists.
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Ok now I know you are trolling.
But if not, I want whatever drugs you are on.
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard the experiences are comparable.
What I'm doing is nothing new nor unique. When you listen to Terence McKenna, Allan Watts, Ram Dass, and other modern mystics and distill their teachings down to the raw essentials you find everyone teaches pretty much the same basic spiritual principles: Unconditional Love and Forgiveness for All. Based on my personal experiences I agree with that 100%.
What made my experience memorable for me is that a friend of my brother gave me one of Raymond's Moody's book Li
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Funny)
Come again?
Don't mind if I do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually listen to some of those youtube astral projection hypnosis videos when going to bed sometimes because I find them relaxing and they help me get to sleep but yeah, actually believing in it is a load of bollocks.
Re: (Score:3)
You can also have sex with a supermodel or captain a star ship
In my dreams I am a supermodel starship captain.
Re: Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
In my dreams I am a supermodel starship captain.
Well then. I'll see you tonight ...
Re: Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody knows shit about consciousness, and no physical model has ever explained it, despite some 150-200 years of scientific work on the problem – years which yielded countless discoveries in dozens of other fields, many presumably directly related.
How matter produces "awareness" is a question, not understood any better now, than in the time of Aristotle, or the dark ages.
Nor shall it ever be, I expect. Not as long as assumptions about the physical nature of the universe continue to remain as they have, from those ancient days, through the era of quantum mechanics. I'd wager consciousness is still a problem, unresolved, 150 years hence.
I do think that the work by Dr Donald Hoffman at UC Irvine is very interesting, at least in explaining how we are fundamentally wrong about consciousness and perception, because a real understanding of our environment can be demonstrated as evolutionary unfitness.
Re: Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an alternative to the problem matter producing awareness: awareness might be an inherent property of matter. I don't imagine an atom or electron has a particularly sophisticated awareness, but if it has even the smallest fleck of "I am!" to build upon, then it fundamantally changes the nature of the questions we should be asking.
In that case the awareness of an organism need not be a is not a fundamentally new feature, but an emergent structure from the interactions of more primitive consciousnesses. Much as the life of an organism emerges from the structured functioning of the life of its cells. Or the wisdom of crowds (and insanity of mobs) emerges from the interaction of large groups of people.
Dubious. Very. (Score:3, Insightful)
And your evidence for this is?
Re: Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not currently testable, but considering it's damn near impossible to test whether a fellow human is actually aware of anything that's not surprising. It's not a symptom of magical thinking, but rather of trying to find the source of something we have no reliable method of detecting in the first place. We're putting the cart miles in front of the horse.
And it's not at all a meaningless concept - it's a completely objective and deeply relevant one: either fundamental particles are conscious, or they're not. If they are, then that changes they way we should look for the source of our awareness - not for a mechanism that creates it, but for a path that allows it to emerge from lower levels. (presumably in a more sophisticated form)
Heck, you don't even need to assume it originates from fundamental particles for that to be a useful perspective - anyone who has watched an amoeba hunt will get the impression that it has some spark of awareness in it's single-celled body, and it's no great leap to assume our individual cells may possess such awareness as well. So how is it that the awareness of your neurons combines to form the gestalt awareness of "you"? It should be clear that starting from that assumption suggests an entire realm of research avenues that are overlooked by the assumption that awareness is something somehow produced by mechanistic "bio-transistors"
Re: Bullshit (Score:3)
It's not currently testable, but considering it's damn near impossible to test whether a fellow human is actually aware of anything that's not surprising.
It's entirely testable. I assume you're referring to the old "how do we know if he's aware or just emulating awareness" conundrum, which is another bit of meaningless handwaving. If an entity demonstrates perception of it's environment, the ability to process that information, and the ability to store and recall that information, then it is aware. Whether this is "true awareness" or "emulation of awareness" is a meaningless question. You might classify different entities as having different levels of aw
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
I am not aware of any scientifically verified detection of any component or emission of the human brain that is outside physics and chemistry. Only animal tissue, biological processes and electrochemical activity have ever been detected aside from invading pathogens. And we even know what neurons do. The brain is an organ, nothing more.
Re:After general anesthesia? (Score:4, Informative)
That's sleep paralysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's very common and nothing to worry about.
Re: After general anesthesia? (Score:2)
I heard that can be connected to sleep apnea, you might want to watch your blood pressure.