Why not create an afterlife?

[Brickjectivity]

The only way for it to truly be is to take the actual brain and hook it up, but then you would have to find a way to cease brain tissue decay

You don't know that! I told you everything will be fine. Just leave your brain to me. Its in good hands.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I want you to imagine the world in a not so distant future where people have the technology to record their every emotion, thought and memory throughout their life. Upon death this collection of data will be uploaded to an afterlife matrix. The digital world created would be a never-ending paradise. After decades and centuries of use whole families have reunited after death.

In this idea the amount of time people would get in the afterlife matrix would be dependent on the survival of the human species and it's ability to continuously innovate.

But if humans are presented with the possibility of this future then should we accept it or reject it?
If you are religious do you think people would experience just the real heaven or just the digital one? Or both??
What do you think would be the potential benefits and potential dangers that could arise from having a Afterlife set up in this manner?

The idea of an artificial afterlife that everyone can believe in, have access to and it can be made to suit our desires of what we would want heaven to be is something I find fascinating.

So please when replying don't be afraid to explore this topic fully and don't limit yourselves to the few questions I could think of.

I just ran across the video about running virtual civilizations, and it was interesting. I think you would enjoy the first five or ten minutes. He talks about running trillions of years worth of simulated time using a trickle of energy from black holes, and he talks about overcoming the limits of the speed of light by slowing down our own subjective time as well as our real time by living near to black holes.

 

[questfortruth]

I want you to imagine the world in a not so distant future where people have the technology to record their every emotion, thought and memory throughout their life. Upon death this collection of data will be uploaded to an afterlife matrix. The digital world created would be a never-ending paradise. .....

The suffering is part of our life. Until that would be fixed by Jesus Christ, the eternal living is the eternal pain.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but I am not the sort of the person who want to forever.

I used to, but I don't desire afterlife.

I think one lifetime is enough, so I don't understand why people want to live enough life. I want no Heaven, paradise, hell, to to be reincarnated in a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. I want no reward, no punishment, no immortality.

So I don't see the appear of consciousness and thoughts to be uploaded to matrix of some sort of virtual world.

I want nothing. When I die, I just want to exist no more.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no "you" that can be transferred to a machine that is anything like the "you" that exists now for yourself. Granted, others could interact with an AI program and (if it sufficiently processed based on your thoughts and memories somehow) they might feel like they were communicating with "you", but it would never be "you", nor your consciousness and I can actually prove it, definitively.

Here's all the proof you should need: if the tech existed to transfer all of the data comprising your thoughts and memories into a machine/computer, and there was a sufficiently adaptable AI algorithm or program that could utilize that data to "reproduce" some version of "you", then this technological version of you could be uploaded/created at any time - EVEN WHILE YOU WERE STILL ALIVE. That last bit is the key to the proof. Which of the two simultaneous entities are YOU (as in, the consciousness that you are right now) experiencing? I'll tell you which... the physical one you always have been experiencing. SOMETHING ELSE is therefore steering the helm of the AI/program version of you... it isn't the "you" you know and love. Not even close.

What does it mean to be 'you'? if it means to have the same thoughts, memories, etc, then there would be two copies of you. Each would self-identify as you. After the split, each would diverge.

This is really nothing different than creating a copy of a computer program while it is running and then running both simultaneously. if they are given different data after the split, they will diverge. But which is the 'original' program? There is no meaning to that question. One process became two.

 

[Polymath257]

An even better question than any of yours... how would you even know if it worked? The moment at which you are transferred, "something" may have an awakening in the machine... how can you be certain that thing is you? At the point we were that far advanced in technology, the creator's of the tech could likely introduce all sorts of images into your mind to make you believe that you're simultaneously man and machine, and that the transfer is completely viable... but in the end, when the lights go out for the body it doesn't even matter to anyone but YOU that it is really "you," and your original self may not be there to audit/validate the success of the process. Whatever's in the machine, now answering for you, would likely report that YES! Everything is A-OK! But what does that mean? It means "something" transferred, perhaps, something that thinks it's "you", sure, okay - but even if it is, even if it isn't, the real "you" can't really know the difference.

And yet, in many ways the same issues arise when we go to sleep and then wake up. How do you know the 'you' in the morning is the same as the 'you' last night?

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but I am not the sort of the person who want to forever.

I used to, but I don't desire afterlife.

I think one lifetime is enough, so I don't understand why people want to live enough life. I want no Heaven, paradise, hell, to to be reincarnated in a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. I want no reward, no punishment, no immortality.

So I don't see the appear of consciousness and thoughts to be uploaded to matrix of some sort of virtual world.

I want nothing. When I die, I just want to exist no more.

I tend to agree with this. While the four score and ten could be extended, I think most people would go insane after, say, a few thousand years. Probably much sooner than that.

No thanks. Annihilation seems vastly preferable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I want you to imagine the world in a not so distant future where people have the technology to record their every emotion, thought and memory throughout their life. Upon death this collection of data will be uploaded to an afterlife matrix. The digital world created would be a never-ending paradise. After decades and centuries of use whole families have reunited after death.

In this idea the amount of time people would get in the afterlife matrix would be dependent on the survival of the human species and it's ability to continuously innovate.

But if humans are presented with the possibility of this future then should we accept it or reject it?
If you are religious do you think people would experience just the real heaven or just the digital one? Or both??
What do you think would be the potential benefits and potential dangers that could arise from having a Afterlife set up in this manner?

The idea of an artificial afterlife that everyone can believe in, have access to and it can be made to suit our desires of what we would want heaven to be is something I find fascinating.

So please when replying don't be afraid to explore this topic fully and don't limit yourselves to the few questions I could think of.

I'd say that's what we already have in heaven- for the same logic as the thread title 'why not?' ultimately reality reflects the will of it's creator- why do you think he would not do this?

There is also the opposite scenario:

Imagine a world where technology has progressed to where it can grant every possible wish instantaneously at no cost.. no matter how good or evil the intent- and including immortality

The only way this could ever work is if all it's citizens only ever chose to use this power for good, therefore there would need to be a proving ground, a separate reality where people must learn to choose good over evil in every possible form.

i.e. in this scenario- heaven is reality, and earth the simulation

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And yet, in many ways the same issues arise when we go to sleep and then wake up. How do you know the 'you' in the morning is the same as the 'you' last night?

Exactly!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What does it mean to be 'you'? if it means to have the same thoughts, memories, etc, then there would be two copies of you. Each would self-identify as you. After the split, each would diverge.

This is really nothing different than creating a copy of a computer program while it is running and then running both simultaneously. if they are given different data after the split, they will diverge. But which is the 'original' program? There is no meaning to that question. One process became two.

Ever see "The Prestige?" Hugh Jackman's character ends up having to wonder whether he is even himself. Who was it that was last copied and who was it who was last sacrificed for the show? He was at a loss, and indeed, he had lost himself.

Point being (when, as you said, how do you even know you're "you" when you wake again in the morning) there is no reason to pile onto the confusion and possible obfuscation of what "you" are.

 

[Thief]

I want you to imagine the world in a not so distant future where people have the technology to record their every emotion, thought and memory throughout their life. Upon death this collection of data will be uploaded to an afterlife matrix. The digital world created would be a never-ending paradise. After decades and centuries of use whole families have reunited after death.

In this idea the amount of time people would get in the afterlife matrix would be dependent on the survival of the human species and it's ability to continuously innovate.

But if humans are presented with the possibility of this future then should we accept it or reject it?
If you are religious do you think people would experience just the real heaven or just the digital one? Or both??
What do you think would be the potential benefits and potential dangers that could arise from having a Afterlife set up in this manner?

The idea of an artificial afterlife that everyone can believe in, have access to and it can be made to suit our desires of what we would want heaven to be is something I find fascinating.

So please when replying don't be afraid to explore this topic fully and don't limit yourselves to the few questions I could think of.

saw the movie
the bad guy died

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but I am not the sort of the person who want to forever.

I used to, but I don't desire afterlife.

I think one lifetime is enough, so I don't understand why people want to live enough life. I want no Heaven, paradise, hell, to to be reincarnated in a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. I want no reward, no punishment, no immortality.

So I don't see the appear of consciousness and thoughts to be uploaded to matrix of some sort of virtual world.

I want nothing. When I die, I just want to exist no more.

If it's true that consciousness is non-local, and we have some proof that this is the case, then the "I" you refer to is non-existent anyway. That is to say, it is an illusion, and who you really are is to be found in non-local consciousness, which is beyond your birth and death. That would mean that what 'I' is, is just universal consciousness playing itself as 'I'. LIke the TV signal, it continues on after the TV goes ka-putt. Non-local, or universal consciousness is not a personal consciousness, but that is what you think it to be when you refer to 'I'. Like the wave that emerges from the sea and returns to it, who you really are is not the individual called 'I', but The Universe itself. When you come to that realization, you will realize your own enlightenment. Until then, you will continue to believe that you are this singular ego called 'I' that is born and dies, when the fact is that you have never, at any time, been separated from The Universe in any way.

 

[godnotgod]

And yet, in many ways the same issues arise when we go to sleep and then wake up. How do you know the 'you' in the morning is the same as the 'you' last night?

The 'you' that you were when a child is not the 'you' that you are when older, but the CONSCIOUSNESS behind 'you' never changes. 'You', or 'I', is what we call Identification, and is a fiction, but consciousness is your true, unchanging nature. It is present even before 'you' has even come about as an idea, and is there even after 'you' die. Consciousness has no identity that is born or dies. It is unconditioned, unborn, unformed, unlike the identity known as 'I'. It is empty of any inherent self-nature. This, in the Buddhist world, is known as 'Sunyata', or 'Emptiness'. You are none other than the indestructible Sunyata, while thinking to be the 'I' that is born and dies.

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed — that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.

Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

by Zen Master Seung Sahn

 

[gnostic]

If it's true that consciousness is non-local, and we have some proof that this is the case, then the "I" you refer to is non-existent anyway. That is to say, it is an illusion, and who you really are is to be found in non-local consciousness, which is beyond your birth and death. That would mean that what 'I' is, is just universal consciousness playing itself as 'I'. LIke the TV signal, it continues on after the TV goes ka-putt. Non-local, or universal consciousness is not a personal consciousness, but that is what you think it to be when you refer to 'I'. Like the wave that emerges from the sea and returns to it, who you really are is not the individual called 'I', but The Universe itself. When you come to that realization, you will realize your own enlightenment. Until then, you will continue to believe that you are this singular ego called 'I' that is born and dies, when the fact is that you have never, at any time, been separated from The Universe in any way.

The universe is not a living being, it has no consciousness.