Resurrection and Duplication

[Samael_Khan]

Thanks for that. Checking out Altered Carbon a-net, my first reaction is to edit out my objection that the mind is the brain, and get into the plot; and my second reaction is that the plot summary reads like a Philip K Dick mixture ─ the airship house of ill fame is straight out of his The Crack in Space (1966) (a title that had his editor sputtering). I can't recall where I've come across interstellar travel by mind-transfer before, but its ancestor was likely Burroughs' John Carter.

A fine water-hole for a swim!

The only other show that I have seen that deals with the mind in such a way is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. (deals with cyber crime which deals with consciousness being something that can be transferred from cyborg body to cyborg boy and can exist in cyberspace. People hack minds so the consciousness acts more like a cpu than a spirit soul. In the authentic movie the protoganist even doubts whether her memories are real and whether she is a real person as her consciousness could have been manufactured.)

Altered Carbon is a very cool show but Ghost in the Shell is a whole nother level of philosophical and technological complexity.

 

[blü 2]

The only other show that I have seen that deals with the mind in such a way is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. (deals with cyber crime which deals with consciousness being something that can be transferred from cyborg body to cyborg boy and can exist in cyberspace. People hack minds so the consciousness acts more like a cpu than a spirit soul. In the authentic movie the protoganist even doubts whether her memories are real and whether she is a real person as her consciousness could have been manufactured.)

Altered Carbon is a very cool show but Ghost in the Shell is a whole nother level of philosophical and technological complexity.

Sounds a bit Matrix-y.

Of course, once we're all cyborgs, who knows what we can save to the ─ ah ─ cloud. Though I don't remember Data's positronic brain having any backup.

But I suspect that if, in the best SF traditions, it's Man's manifest destiny to populate the universe, it'll be done by our descendants H sapiens mechanicus. Where's R Daneel Olivaw when you need him?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sounds a bit Matrix-y.

Of course, once we're all cyborgs, who knows what we can save to the ─ ah ─ cloud. Though I don't remember Data's positronic brain having any backup.

But I suspect that if, in the best SF traditions, it's Man's manifest destiny to populate the universe, it'll be done by our descendants H sapiens mechanicus. Where's R Daneel Olivaw when you need him?

Ghost in the Shell is the movie that directly influenced the Matrix actually. Ghost in the Shell was influenced by Bladerunner. Bladerunner was based off "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K Dick whom you mentioned.

Ghost In The Shell: 10 Philosophies That Influenced The Cyberpunk Franchise The Most
Master of Sci-Fi: 10 Ways Philip K. Dick Influenced Sci-Fi Movies & TV
Top 10 Films Based on or Inspired by Philip K. Dick

I think that H Sapiens Mechanicus is inevitable. Added with a bit of manufactured human genetics. We constantly improve humanity almost as if we wish to gain immortality, which is understandable. Genetic experimentation and the Ghost in the Shell concept makes the mist sense to achieve such.

 

[danieldemol]

Perhaps you're referring to some other poster. I never said your identity gets destroyed.

Perhaps you are falsely equating identity with information.

 

[McBell]

Well there is no fear if I have no idea if a soul exists, therefore I would not know what it actually is.

It could be an immortal spirit with a personality
It could be a mortal spirit with a personality
Its moral alignment could be absolute good with sinful flesh contaminating it

Lots of different beliefs. I am entertained by the possibilities but I have no conviction of what it is myself.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[blü 2]

Ghost in the Shell is the movie that directly influenced the Matrix actually. Ghost in the Shell was influenced by Bladerunner. Bladerunner was based off "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K Dick whom you mentioned.

Yes, Bladerunner is an authentic classic, and contains Rutger Hauer's most impressive (only really impressive?) performance. The novel Do Androids Dream is quite distinct in plot and tone ─ though PKD lived long enough to see the rushes, which he said he liked.

Ghost In The Shell: 10 Philosophies That Influenced The Cyberpunk Franchise The Most
Master of Sci-Fi: 10 Ways Philip K. Dick Influenced Sci-Fi Movies & TV
Top 10 Films Based on or Inspired by Philip K. Dick

https://www.liveabout.com/philip-k-dick-based-inspired-movies-2432038
Thanks for the links ─ and for reminding me of Total Recall. Dear old Governator!

I think that H Sapiens Mechanicus is inevitable. Added with a bit of manufactured human genetics. We constantly improve humanity almost as if we wish to gain immortality, which is understandable. Genetic experimentation and the Ghost in the Shell concept makes the mist sense to achieve such.

And the Do Androids Dream market pressure to go those roads, yup.

 

[Clear]

Scenario:

- The personality of a person doesn't survive death (the soul isn't immortal)
- God retains the information of that persons personality in his memory.
- God imprints that information of the person's personality, which is stored in his memory, on the person's regenerated body or a new body at a later stage after they have died.

Would that be considered a resurrection or a duplication?
Might that dichotomy be false?

1) THE BASE CONCEPT OF RESURRECTION

The word resurrection is a compound word having two parts. Re-surrection.
The dictionary defines a "surrection" as "a rising".
A “re”-surrection is a rising again (e.g. “in”-surrection is a rising within)

If nothing of the original person survives death other than the memory of that person in another being, then I assume the original is completely gone. Nonexistent.
IF there is nothing left of the original person then a rising-again (“re-surrection”) of the original cannot occur since it doesn’t exist.

If God creates another personality, it is not the original and is a duplicate. The duplicate can be placed into a new body, but this is a new creation and not a change made to a prior, non-existent person.



2) THE BASE CONCEPT OF DUPLICATION

I see the generic principle of duplication as similar for any object.
If an original of the mona lisa painting burns up completely, it no longer exists. Nothing CAN be done to the original since it is gone.
If God makes an exact copy of the original Mona Lisa painting, it is a still a “duplicate” and not the original regardless of how much like the original it is.

In the O.P.s scenario, if I understand it correctly, I think it represents a duplication (a new creation) and not a resurrection (a modification of a prior creation).


Clear
ακνεειω

 

[metis]

LOL

But on a serious note.... having seen a "possessed" person, it has the capacity to change one's mentality of possibilities.

You better not tell this to your wife, or you could be in a world of hurt!

Just kidding-- being married to you, she'd have to be a saint!

BTW, my mother-in-law was worried about one of my brothers-in-law to the point of wanting to contact a priest for a possible exorcism. As it turned out, he had an acute case of ADHD, so they just worked with him and it worked over time.

 

[Kenny]

You better not tell this to your wife, or you could be in a world of hurt!

Just kidding-- being married to you, she'd have to be a saint!

BTW, my mother-in-law was worried about one of my brothers-in-law to the point of wanting to contact a priest for a possible exorcism. As it turned out, he had an acute case of ADHD, so they just worked with him and it worked over time.

PTL - I'm glad that they figured that one out.


In our case, it was a change of voice from a woman to a man with words that would be censored and the strength of multiple men.... it took 4 men to hold her down until she went back to normal. Side note, that was when the mother and those around her were involved in witchcraft (not my wife )

Other than that... I am nothing but a stuffed teddy bear that gets and gives hugs

 

[rational experiences]

Possessed.

Natural living presence.

No machine designed built by a lying human self irradiated extra mind brother. Machine non reactive.

Man human science thinker owned evil thoughts first but was safe physically.

Common human sense.

Built his evil. The machine by melt of God products that huge zero space held present. Why they said womb to make you ponder how large space is that owns anything held. The whole space body.

Then a second God mass gets destroyed by his human control.

Human designer then got irradiated when previously he was safe. Natural caring spiritual. Today AI said being of spirit is priceless only because he gave it away. Being his self.

And he irradiated everything else. Because he loves us you know.

Self possession human cause effect. Conditions returned to ground state extra. Just because science is satanism.

Then being as evil as he is studies it wanting those contacts. What for you ask? For mind control...knowing machines are involved in the cause.

Then in his evil ways makes a commentary of non God ideas based on scientific possession.

Not sensible. And even his words sound sickening. Yet here he is claiming his words are correct. Sophism in practice.

When not a scientist but spiritual aware as a healer I learnt why a little child got possesed as a human adult father male encoded its return. Scientist designer who says everyday I built it

Why the shroud of Turin was kept to prove sacrifice of life returned. Our brother the designer of artificial cause against God is a liar. Always was.

 

[metis]

In our case, it was a change of voice from a woman to a man with words that would be censored and the strength of multiple men.... it took 4 men to hold her down until she went back to normal. Side note, that was when the mother and those around her were involved in witchcraft (not my wife )

Sounds like the movie "The Exorcist", the basic plot of which was based on a true story-- although quite "Hollywoodized".

Other than that... I am nothing but a stuffed teddy bear that gets and gives hugs

Well Mr. Teddy Bear, meet Mr. Marshmallow, as I often have been called. I don't think either of us is likely to get the Macho Man award for 2021.

 

[Brian2]

Or I'm saying that people are transient already, never just one thing in a certain sense, but we take up space, have mass, have a part to play. If we disappear then its not like there's instantly someone to take our place...unless one appears at the other end of the transporter beam (a fictitious technology of course).

We are transient in this life and this body. There would need to be something of us (our core/who we really are) that was carried through from this life to any other life. If there is nothing that is carried through then anything that appears in another life claiming to be us, is nothing but a duplicate of us.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are transient in this life and this body. There would need to be something of us (our core/who we really are) that was carried through from this life to any other life. If there is nothing that is carried through then anything that appears in another life claiming to be us, is nothing but a duplicate of us.

Now that is just begging the question of the OP or presuming an answer. For various reasons I still think its a false dichotomy.

Most its because of biological reasons. If someone is hit hard on the head their personality changes. Does that mean there are two people, one before one after? It seems like they were one person and are now another. There's a girl born without an amygdala in her brain, so she has no fear. Having no fear her life is very low stress. If we could put an amygdala in, then the fear would appear. It shows the fear is transient, not permanent. The entire personality hinges upon what happens to someone physically. The evidence of continuity is not there.

 

[Brian2]

Now that is just begging the question of the OP or presuming an answer. For various reasons I still think its a false dichotomy.

Most its because of biological reasons. If someone is hit hard on the head their personality changes. Does that mean there are two people, one before one after? It seems like they were one person and are now another. There's a girl born without an amygdala in her brain, so she has no fear. Having no fear her life is very low stress. If we could put an amygdala in, then the fear would appear. It shows the fear is transient, not permanent. The entire personality hinges upon what happens to someone physically. The evidence of continuity is not there.

I guess to me the whole question is straight forward,,,,,,,,,,no possibility for anything else.
If God made a copy of me now it would be a duplicate. If God made a copy of me when I died, it would still be a duplicate.
That people change when their bodies, and particular their brains change is because we are both physical and spiritual. Our spirit is joined to our body and determines many things about us.
Our spirit is willing but our flesh is weak in so many ways.
If we look at ourselves we can see our limitations and strengths based on what our body is capable of.
Our heart/spirit is a different matter and can look on in our case and in the case of all people no matter what body they have or what changes they go through, and even if they cannot fathom what is going on or be able to control themselves, all that is known by God who can judge us fairly no matter what state our brains are in. And who values us because of our inner man, and not because of the physical which is so easily injured and changed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I guess to me the whole question is straight forward,,,,,,,,,,no possibility for anything else.
If God made a copy of me now it would be a duplicate. If God made a copy of me when I died, it would still be a duplicate.
That people change when their bodies, and particular their brains change is because we are both physical and spiritual. Our spirit is joined to our body and determines many things about us.
Our spirit is willing but our flesh is weak in so many ways.
If we look at ourselves we can see our limitations and strengths based on what our body is capable of.
Our heart/spirit is a different matter and can look on in our case and in the case of all people no matter what body they have or what changes they go through, and even if they cannot fathom what is going on or be able to control themselves, all that is known by God who can judge us fairly no matter what state our brains are in. And who values us because of our inner man, and not because of the physical which is so easily injured and changed.

Assuming that we our spirit is a separate thing joined to our body (like Peter pan's shadow in the cartoon film), sure. Then in that case you can't assume that the spirit is destroyed by damaging the body; but that isn't a given. Of course the OP thinks its Ok if their personality is destroyed, because they think God preserves the individual's personality. I don't. I no longer think God is preserving individual personalities for bringing us back later and that resurrection is through Jesus Christ...as in not individually but in his body the church. It is not the same thing as what the OP or you think.

I admit God could, if God wanted to, bring back individuals; but why? Why bring back all of this? The only argument I've ever heard was one having to do with fairness. It went something like "Things in this world don't seem fair, so of course there must be some kind of afterlife where things are made even, where suffering people have pleasure and happy people experience sadness." To me this is thin. It is a very thin argument, but its the best one I've heard for an individual afterlife.

How did I get to this point in the conversation? At first I just went along with the OP and answered in their paradigm. Then people started talking about duplication. I said I personally would have no problem with duplication...such as if I were completely destroyed and then copied by technology. To me that would just be more of the same. I'd never know the difference. That being my opinion. If I were cloned I think that would make more individuals not one with shared bodies. Then you started saying you thought the soul was riding in the body like a passenger, so then I pointed out that was an assumption though possible were God interested in such. There we are.

 

[Brian2]

I admit God could, if God wanted to, bring back individuals; but why? Why bring back all of this? The only argument I've ever heard was one having to do with fairness. It went something like "Things in this world don't seem fair, so of course there must be some kind of afterlife where things are made even, where suffering people have pleasure and happy people experience sadness." To me this is thin. It is a very thin argument, but its the best one I've heard for an individual afterlife.

I've heard the argument of love. That God loves us and so wants to bring us back to live forever.

How did I get to this point in the conversation? At first I just went along with the OP and answered in their paradigm. Then people started talking about duplication. I said I personally would have no problem with duplication...such as if I were completely destroyed and then copied by technology. To me that would just be more of the same. I'd never know the difference. That being my opinion. If I were cloned I think that would make more individuals not one with shared bodies. Then you started saying you thought the soul was riding in the body like a passenger, so then I pointed out that was an assumption though possible were God interested in such. There we are.

If you were completely destroyed and copied by technology then it would not be you it would be a copy of you, and that copy would never know the difference of course. But if it could think then it should be able to work out that it is not the original person.
Thinking being the important issue.
If technology copied me now then it would be a copy and if technology copied me after I died, it would still be a copy,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if the copies thought they were the original. God could do a dozen copies and each would be a copy and not be the original.
The only way it could be the original is if the is something real from the original that was somehow the person without a body (and not just a memory or plan) that is carried forward and placed in the copy of the body.
Is it me who is not thinking properly about this?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is it me who is not thinking properly about this?

I don't know your thoughts.

If you were completely destroyed and copied by technology then it would not be you it would be a copy of you, and that copy would never know the difference of course. But if it could think then it should be able to work out that it is not the original person.
Thinking being the important issue.
If technology copied me now then it would be a copy and if technology copied me after I died, it would still be a copy,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if the copies thought they were the original. God could do a dozen copies and each would be a copy and not be the original.
The only way it could be the original is if the is something real from the original that was somehow the person without a body (and not just a memory or plan) that is carried forward and placed in the copy of the body.
Is it me who is not thinking properly about this?

The claim "If you were completely destroyed and copied by technology then it would not be you it would be a copy of you," is an assumption that I am not changed intrinsically by physical changes. I'm already destroyed and copied. I'm changeable, not invincible. A transporter beam would just be more of the same I think.

I've heard the argument of love. That God loves us and so wants to bring us back to live forever.

That doesn't appear to be an argument but a personal revelation and could be wishful thinking. Perhaps God is not so personal, and what is so bad about that?

 

[Clear]

I've heard the argument of love. That God loves us and so wants to bring us back to live forever.



If you were completely destroyed and copied by technology then it would not be you it would be a copy of you, and that copy would never know the difference of course. But if it could think then it should be able to work out that it is not the original person.
Thinking being the important issue.
If technology copied me now then it would be a copy and if technology copied me after I died, it would still be a copy,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if the copies thought they were the original. God could do a dozen copies and each would be a copy and not be the original.
The only way it could be the original is if the is something real from the original that was somehow the person without a body (and not just a memory or plan) that is carried forward and placed in the copy of the body.
Is it me who is not thinking properly about this?

Hi @Brian2

I think your logic is proper on this point.

Whether the copy knew they were a copy of not, still, they would be a copy of the original.
I also think that your point was insightful regarding the fact that it would not matter if there were multiple copies of the original living at the same time, or if the original died and other copies still lived or the original died and copies were made after the original died.
A copy is still a copy regardless of the temporal aspect of when it was made.

Clear
ειφυτωνεω

 

[Brian2]

Hi @Brian2

I think your logic is proper on this point.

Whether the copy knew they were a copy of not, still, they would be a copy of the original.
I also think that your point was insightful regarding the fact that it would not matter if there were multiple copies of the original living at the same time, or if the original died and other copies still lived or the original died and copies were made after the original died.
A copy is still a copy regardless of the temporal aspect of when it was made.

Clear
ειφυτωνεω

I thought I was reasoning it properly but it is a bit like trying to explain the existence of God through an appeal to nature. The reasoning is right but it is hard to find the right words,,,,,,,,,,,especially when people are used to looking at things in a different way.

 

[Brian2]

The claim "If you were completely destroyed and copied by technology then it would not be you it would be a copy of you," is an assumption that I am not changed intrinsically by physical changes. I'm already destroyed and copied. I'm changeable, not invincible. A transporter beam would just be more of the same I think.

Physical change can change us as humans, that is plain from the amygdala etc . I do not assume that physical change does not change us. I do assume that physical change does not change our spirit however.
What I am assuming is that a copy is a copy is a copy. A copy of me, sitting next to me, thinking that it is me, is not me even if it knows what I had for breakfast last week. That is probably not an assumption really, it seems like logic to me.
I am assuming that we are more than a lump of material arranged in a certain way however. Life is more than that. A transporter beam only transports material. A copying of a body only for a resurrection ends up with a lump of dead matter unless a new breathe of life is put into it, a new spirit.
BUT probably the logic of what I said earlier about a copy being a copy and a copy sitting next to me not being me, would logically mean that there needs to be more than the material elements arranged in a certain way for me to be me. It is sort of an argument for the existence of the spirit.
I hope you could follow that.
Of course this is something that we cannot test and I don't know how it could be tested. If a 100 copies of me all thought they were me, how do we test if they actually are all me or not? Maybe multiple me's could be running around at the same time. It just seems "self evident" to me that a copy would not be me.

That doesn't appear to be an argument but a personal revelation and could be wishful thinking. Perhaps God is not so personal, and what is so bad about that?

Then of course that would mean that the creator of love and interpersonal relationships cannot love and relate. God would be less than His creation then I guess.