Just an Evo robot

I'd take issue with the idea that dualism is a necessary condition to the existence of an afterlife. The notion of a bodily resurrection could be reconciled with monism. I.e. the idea that the existence of consciousness has a physical realization and can be altered physically in the observable universe does not necessarily vitiate the afterlife concept, if the afterlife is realized in some other physical universe or dimension that isn't observable from this one.Is this notion testable, or scientific? Of course not. Is it correct ? I don't know. Is it handwaving or wishful thinking ? Maybe.Can it be rejected out of hand ? I don't see how.

One view I don't personally agree with, but have seen bandied about has to do with energy. The "mind" is really electrical currents zipping along neurons and across synapses. If this energy is released at death, but somehow retains cohesion, you could possibly be left with a noncorporeal entity that still has the memories and thoughts the living person did. Once again, I don't personally hold this view, but it would be neat to see if others do, or if someone else has some good evidence to refute this idea.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

First, please be aware that I have no beliefs concerning the possibility of reincarnation. I do regard it as an unproven possibility for which there is some evidence but no established mechanism. This is why my responses will be ‘maybes’ rather than the certainties often contributed on this forum. I would suggest that the 'point of contact' is the mind. The 'spirit' would possibly have a range of physical bodies from which it could select (or for which it could compete?) suitable to it’s level of complexity or subtlety. A theory I’ve seen read is that the spirit unites with the body when the first breath is drawn. So not much was required of the body in terms of survival before that point. It is posited, however, that it has an influential relationship with the foetus well before that stage. Even if all behaviours were consistent with natural selection principles, this would not rule out the existence of any other explanation. Additionally, IMO, there are behaviours such as defence of a principle with one’s life, which does not appear to offer any benefit to the individual or relations. Animals also exhibit loyalty in excess of any benefit to their survival. Genetic defects and mutations can directly affect the brain and so produce changes in behaviour and intellect (however measured) which are frequently have much in common with other individuals so affected. It is again IMO far from established that such influence is entirely consistent and without any other influence. Also, why is the behaviour and IQ of identical twins then not identical?

Behavior and action are determined by two factors, genetic and environmental. Identical twins may have identical genetics, but there are differences in environment which affect them each differently, thus creating two distinct individuals. No, it wouldn't rule out any other possibilities, but as we've seen time and time again in nature, the simpolest explanation that covers all observed phenomena has a higher probability of being right. Until a simpler explanation came along, natural selection would definitely be the favored theory.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picturehttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Thanks for the quick response. Ah, a bit simplified and dogmatic for me. Would you agree to Factors presently known to influence behaviour and action fall into two categories, genetic and environmental? Certainly, but the individuals are also born with differences; for instance the spots on black and white cloned calves are clearly different. Very young babies also show character traits long before they can have been sculpted by the environment. And often these character traits are modified as the person grows and ages, which would be a difficult process if they were genetically coded. No problem with favouring the simplest theory, as long as it covers everything. Nothing to say it will not be superseded, as the Theory of Gravity was, either.As stated in my previous post, I am not personally convinced on way or another. I am simply indicating possibilities.

Any re-incarnation would have to exactly reflect the physical realities of our world, or otherwise the brain wouldn't work in the same way and to talk of it being 'an afterlife' would be incoherent. Once you've been forced into a position of accepting an identical material reality you're stuck with a conception of the afterlife which is a mere mirror of our own. Then there's the problem of what happens to people who've gone senile, or suffered from other mental degenerative conditions.

[qs]Any re-incarnation would have to exactly reflect the physical realities of our world, or otherwise the brain wouldn't work in the same way and to talk of it being 'an afterlife' would be incoherent.[\qs]I don't see on what basis this restriction would apply. What would need to be preserved other than the elements of information that lead to continuity of consciousness, whatever those may be ? The postulated "resurrection" need not be into a physical universe identical to our own.Unless one presupposes that the 4-D physical universe we observe is all there is, which I find an unreasonably restrictive position unsupported by any empirical evidence.

'Elements of information'? The brain thinks. The brain is physical. Therfore you need either a physical brain or a perfect simulation thereof to continue the brain's life.

If you've got the complete physical process of consciousness worked out, please cite some references. But if you are extrapolating the idea that because consciousness has a realization in hardware, it IS the hardware, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced.

That's missing the point. If reality really is monistic, then consciousness is insperable from the physical reality of the brain.

I disagree. An imperfect analogy: If I take a blowtorch to my computer's CPU, it will no longer run Windows XP. But, I have not destroyed Windows XP. And Windows XP, or Linux will run on different CPU architectures than Intel.Have to continue later...

Perdition The brain is the place where mind resides and is it coincidental that whatever affects the physical brain directly affects the mind as well? If we inject you with drugs we can alter not only the operation of your mind but over time we can alter your morals and even your sense of self.The brain does not release energy at death. What occurs is that the body is no longer capable of providing the necessary checks and balances that allow you to live.{Hemostasis}You exist on a limited basis precisely because the process of taking food from the enviroment,in concert with the molecular machinery that allows you to utilize this food to live causes accumulative changes in the cellular structures over time.Eventually those changes lead to imbalances in the hemostasis that lead to failures at the cellular level and then the tissues made up from cells to finally involving the failure of organs and organ systems.Although the food that keeps us alive is still available we can no longer utilize the processes within it to continue our existence.Without the use of electrical potentials between chemical elements within the cells of our body we no longer have a means for transmission of the eletrical impulses that allow both consciousness and other bodily processes.

---

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

It's not just imperfect, it's plain bad. Computers are carefully designed to have a hardware/software divide (and winXP goes to great lengths to maintain the illusion) - everything we know about brains tells us that there is no such divide in the brain.

Then please cite some references.

What do you want a reference for?