I don't believe in the religions of the world because they are illogical. However, as a human being, whenever I get an illness or experience a death in my family, I long for what these religions promise. Resurrection in a world where I am healthy, immortal, and get to see my loved ones again. The thought of missing out on the technological marvels just around the corner... it's a hollow, bitter thought.
I find thought of technological resurrection to be logical. The idea that one day... a thousand years AFTER we have artificial intelligence for example... some futuristic society might use advanced technology- that I simply cannot understand- to resurrect people long dead... I find it plausible. Probable in fact, once I take into account the exponential nature of technological progress.
The idea of joining an organization working towards that goal, under the promise that I would be... remembered... and resurrected by this organization or at its behest, in some future society... I find that thought comforting.
I believe that such an organization, although atheistic, would be considered a religion. My own personal definition of a religion, is an organized belief of what happens to consciousness after death and how this should effect your present life..
This idea isn't mine alone of course. It has been around for awhile, and is growing in transhumanist circles under various names. Quantum archeaology is one. The Turing Church is another.
What do you guys think of the idea?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Personally, I would prefer to leave all reference to religion, church, etcetera, out of the debate as it alienates me from the discussion. I tend to see using religious terms as due to conditioning. The question (if I understand it correctly) is: can there be some sort of life after death?
Cryogenics is my first thought...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenics
The other avenues are through regeneration through DNA or developing computers that can replicate the brain with accuracy. The brain can be viewed as a biological computer which can be duplicated and programmed, to a degree. There is also cloning.
All those four possibilities (cloning; cryo'; DNA; Computing) seemed far removed from the present time. There was a leading article in New Scientist (page 2, 2nd April UK edition, "Bare Necessities") about the research of the J. Craig Vetner institute and the isolution and analysis of JVCI-syn3.0. This is apparently the "the tiniest genome that can support vital survival functions"..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407916305462
Combining that with developments like CRISPR..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR
might lead to the possibility of creating or replicating the human brain or what might be seen as the essence of it. That might be done in 'hardware', 'bioware' or a combination.
Another approach to the question is that of population explosion and life expectancy. It is not clear how much human life this planet can support. According to one historian (at least) England was overpopulated in the 17th century when it had a population of about 5 millions. Over-population isn't about absolute numbers but about land use and societal development. The levels these have reached determine the number of people they can support. So what happens in the distant future if life expectancy can be increased to far more than 100 years? What if people can increase the population at a rate exceeding 10% per annum. Twice that may easily be attainable. Perhaps what we need are other planets to inhabit so that everyone can live as long as they wish and have as many children as they please, but perhaps not on Earth?!
Thank you for this topic as I think this is a healthier discussion. Religion is best seen as the last bastion of superstition. Time to clear our minds and for humanity to look where we're going.
Great idea for me. Not really a great one for humanity. I hate to be pessimistic but are most individuals worth the resources it would require to resurrect them ? I think I am a genius , but I get the feeling most people don't share that same opinion. I get that feeling even here on this forum. What good would it do to keep people like me around possibly for centuries? Maybe it is best to move over and make room for somebody else.
The problem with that type of technological advancement is political and therefor religious. If the world were made up of logical critical thinkers, it might happen, but it's not and it will not....sadly.
"....Resurrection in a world where I am healthy, immortal, and get to see my loved ones again..." Is the other point you raised, Jon.
I have accepted there was no god from the age of about 12 so I am long accustomed to the idea that life is about 70-90 years and then it ends. We exist only as memories to family and friends, (and perhaps forum contributors :-)
I'm quite at home and relaxed about it. I wonder if it might be harder for people who have been conditioned as children to see comfort in life after death and only realised later in life what gods and religion are. Actually, "life after death" makes no sense. The reality is about how to extend a worthwhile life beyond body death and how to deal with grief...
http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/
"Life after death" refers to life after the body has died, but in future 'spare parts' and even possibly new or bio-mechanical bodies may be available. People might become like Cuban cars, able to keep going as long as the parts can be found or fabricated. Then there will be no specific point of death of the body, only stages of renewal and replacement. That may go on until people actually want to die.
Whatever the future and whatever one believes to be true or possible, dealing with grief usually requires the support of the living. I always find comfort in understanding, never in superstition or self-deception.
I ascribe to this -
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36000588
Go, Dinkan, Go!
LoL, where do I sign up? :)
To the OP, everyone wants to be immortal. You just need to buck up and understand that you're not. The continuation of that hope by dreaming up some kind of techno-recall of a long dead person is really reaching.
Let's figure it out in this paragraph, shall we? There's an outside chance of DNA being reclaimed and a clone sired from it. Then what? The brain of the clone would need to be replaced or imbued with the essence of the brain from the original bearer of the DNA. But, that DNA is common to a lineage so we can safely say that the exact person's mental architecture will not be intact. That's the technological aspect against the argument for precise reconstruction of a particular individual. We haven't even begun to approach how a person's mental processes and memory can be recorded for such a future purpose. To be able to even think of what you are proposing the technology for extracting the mental processing and memories of an individual brain would have to be currently extant and it isn't. I think it also safe to say that such an advance in technology is nothing less than science fiction at this juncture. Even if it was, that little problem of the mental architecture relating to a common-lineage DNA in the brain of the clone may conflict with the acceptance of the processes and memories of the original bearer. But, I do see how it can fuel an alternative stab at attaining immortality that isn't religiously (metaphysically) based.
What next? Transplanting the brain into a cyborg?
Immortality is a very charming thought of a goal that never was, and never will be attainable.
Nice post, Pitar, but like most things immortality can be a matter of degree, not absolute. A clone wouldn't need "that ... mental architecture relating to a common-lineage DNA in the brain" for a sort of immortality or a degree of it.
Perhaps what we have been talking about here is more life prolongation than immortality? Turning off the "aging gene(s)" or drugs to "treat aging" might make a significant difference....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140102123403.htm
Life expectancy is increasing and there is every likelihood of sounder health in old age. A life expectancy of 130 years is quite possible in a matter of centuries, or even decades. Maybe children alive today will live that long - and be healthy. Ultimately, a 400+ year life might be attainable by a combination of all means.
And why be prejudiced against Cyborgs?...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg
I'd reconstitute as a Werewolf if I could be contained during a full moon! :-) And "never" say never.
Their are several medical advances expected twords the middle and end of this century which have the power to not only prevent one from getting sick, but to also replace lost body parts, retrieve lost ability's at a much greater speed than rehab, and the possibility of treatments which could hault or exponentially slow the ageing process. Combine that with body augmentations through implants, and it becomes clear to see that the latter half of and the time after the end of this century will change the very ideas of longevity and life, and shake the idea of death to its core (hopfuly reducing the number of religious people through reduced fear of death). In fact, it is predicted that people born as far back as the 1960s may be able to be a part of this movement, some even being the first people to have a 200th birthday.
I find the idea that my sense of self could be transferred to a machine or clone absurd. I accept the possibility of cloning a long dead person :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15111-cloning-resurrects-long-dea...
Resurrecting their memories and sense of self in a continuum I find absurd. The Burden of proof is upon those making that claim. They must first define what consciousness is. They must first explain why consciousness and self awareness are separate or separable from the cells of the single entity. This is a fantasy/ science fiction remake of the philosophical / theist quest to answer the questions "What is Mind?" and "What is the Soul?"
All in due time chimp.
If consciousness is transferable then how is the theist argument for eternal life wrong? If the self can be moved then why can't it be moved to a heaven or hell? Why not transmigration of the soul in the never ending karmic cycle of life , death , and rebirth?
As I said, these answers will come in due time. We don't know for sure wether or not the conscience can be transfered, because as of this moment we lack the nessesary technology to test such a possibility. Unless you saying you know the answer already, which would be presumptuous to the point absurdity.
TLS , I like the new looks. I thought we had two new 16 year old atheists on the forum this morning. I admit I don't know for sure. The burden of proof is on the claimants . My doubts stand and my questions above need answers. Also my sense for the absurd is unshakeable
And the moral of this story stil stands as "All in due time"
So , this story requires faith?
Nope, just patience.