Sketch for Immortality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Sketch for Immortality:

I believe that the idea of an eternally recurring universe is never not possible. Today we spend our time seeking out the origins of the universe, the nature of time and the cosmos etc., but we have yet to pay close enough attention to the idea of existence and how a proper conceptualization of existence can quite certainly bring about an understanding which is unreliant upon empirical information for establishing the notion of eternity.

Death is not the end of one’s existence, but neither is new life the beginning of one’s existence again. There is only the dissolution of memory. The Self is immortal. Here is a quick and brief introduction to the theory.

  1. The Time of the Self:

The sense of self is a process which develops through memory, and each organic memory bank is unique to each brain, in each individual, so that when I say “me” I am refering to a “reaching activity of consciousness”- a combination of recall, presence, and anticipation. Each of these modes interact to form the immediate consciousness and sense of self. The most important of these modes is the recall, which exists as a foundation, or backing, to the other two tenses. Time is always experienced after it has passed, and as such the memory is required to move forward the process of presence and anticipation. You can understand this by imagining an individual who has a constant state of amnesia, who therefore, as soon as a memory is aquired, loses it, and can have no sense of self or recollection. This person would not be a self in the true sense of the word.

  1. Time at Full Speed:

When we sleep, we notice after waking how eight hours passed like it was really five minutes. Now, imagine that when you die, the world and its following [insert however long it continues to exist] passes in a similiar fashion as the time passed when you were sleeping, so that a gazillion years was over and done with without any notice.

  1. Possible Universes:

What ever exists, must exist, and the vanishing of a particular piece of that existence is not essentially a dissappearance, but rather a reconfiguration or suspension of some individual activity. Existence does not lose a part of itself into nothingness. That is impossible. If existence is whole, and its particulars must always exist within it, then any universe that does exist will eventually configure itself to allow an evolution of life- compounds must be ordered eventually to reproduce a previous state and organization they were once in before. As the life span of each possible universe passes, this inevitablity is always waiting. Several universes might begin and end in which such organizations do not take place, but this does not mean that they won’t, because such organizations must be possible if they consist of particular events within the context of the whole of existence. If we experience this universe that we now exist in, it is proof, then, that a universe must follow in which such existence happens again, because it was possible, and so will always be possible.

  1. Migration

When a life dies in an existing universe, it can be said that only the unique memory of that life, for that individual, is what comes to an end. After the death, the Self enters a dormant waiting period, like a sleep, until a future universe configures itself for to allow the generation of of life, the body, the brain, and the consciousness. At this moment, although perhaps taking a gazillion years, the Self is reanimated and lives again. However, this new self has no recollection of its past existence as a memory, but, if these ideas that I present are understood, the Self will intuit its immortality. Memory, however, cannot be reproduced in a future universe- it is an original residue that collects in each life, finally to disintegrate with the passing of the particular events in the previously existing universe.

  1. Ethics

Once this is understood, all fear is abolished. The source of violence in the human psyche is produced through the anxiety of death- the “being towards death,” as Heidegger once put it. Furthermore, religious beliefs, which posit the meaning of existence to be a sort of “test” composed by a God, who is rivaled by a Devil, will also produce the sense of dread and anxiety that mortality produces, and morality will proceed as if there are conflicting forces at work which influence man. Man will then panic, and this will cause him to “trip over his own shoe-laces,” so to speak, creating a nervous environment which can result in neglecting man’s care for his world. When man believes that indeed there is an end, he will live his life in pursuit of the measures he believes are structured by his God, or his Devil, whichever he aligns himself with.

  1. The Work:

Each world that evolves human life works only to generate conciousness. The greater the care of that world, afforded by man, the longer it will exist and continue to produce life. Each time a child is born, a consciousness is developed, and therefore has the opportunity to migrate when the individual dies. If, however, a birth does not occur, it becomes forfeitable and therefore loses the opportunity for life and migration.

  1. The Meanwhile:

Pleasure is how consciousness enjoys its process of existing. With the knowledge of immortality, as well as a proper functioning ethics in the world which exists, it can partake in the physical pleasures of the body without experiencing anxiety, the source of destruction. Since any one that lives, exists again in a new universe, there is the knowledge of moderation and cooperation between man and his material environment, in the present world, to preserve the opportunity to procreate. The greater the degree of perfection, the more lives can be produced.

  1. The Final Theory:

I believe that this universe is the first to ever exist, and that we cannot assume the process that I have explained has been occuring before this existence. If we do, we will become irresponsible and lose our interests in this magnificent possiblity that I suggest. What is at stake is the inevitable disintegration of conscious life- each universe that exists will be a copy of the last, so what ends with the end of this universe will be the draft of the next. If each universe reduces its quanity of life, the following will create less life, and should this process repeat, total extinction of all consciousness will happen.

There are several “holes,” unsolved problems, and many more necessary elaborations, which I would like to discuss if anyone is interested. I think that it is possible to work out the details which could eventually produce the final philosophy for mankind. I think this rough draft can provide a decent foundation from which to develop ethics, politics, and the sciences.

It is both a disenchantment of everything man has previously belived, but also a revival of everything magical and wonderful in life.

(By all means, ask me questions and work with me.)

2

“…There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy thought-forms reappear, but there is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the words.
Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities. Thy heart, O Brahman, is cleaving still to self; thou art anxious about heaven but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven, and thus thou canst not see the bliss of truth and the immortality of truth.”
Buddha

Most people seem to be obsessed with the idea of seeing their own ego live beyond the grave when they die (even the image of their bodies). Perhaps in part because of the survival instinct. I believe it is foolish to cling sentimentally at our own flesh, when there are so many others that carry our same thought patterns, and experiences of the like. We could say that as long as human being live, then immortality is possible (and that would make survival of the race a very high goal).

Though other animals can ‘feel’ and such, I don’t know if we live on completely through just any type of animal. I would say what we would need in order to live on after death would be for something to think like us.

Perhaps through we can live on through computers that can make decisions without outside input. For now they are just tools though.

I’ll try to give a more detailed response after I re-read this a few times.

3

Yes, but it is understandable, especially in the atmosphere created by religion. The “ego” is a faulty conception of the self created by a misunderstanding of the cogito. People fail to know that they are not an ego, but rather conscious of ego, via the Sartrean pre-reflective consciousness. In other words, I am not a determined “thing” with an essence, instead I am a project of creation and choice, evolving while existing. I am never the sum of my acts until I am over, because while existing I can never, for even a moment, divide myself from my intention- an ensemble of motive/act/end for a not yet. I am, as Sartre put it “not what I am and what I am not.” Consciousness is in a perpetual reprieve, and the ego is nothing more than a historical fact, what was, and in that sense is nullified…no longer.

I have a strange suspicion that every life form is evolving to have the capacity of consciousness, if not already capable of it. I don’t think that a type of life form can transfer into another, in the traditional sense of reincarnation. I think the universe evolves life and keeps a momentum of sorts, advancing each original type “up through the ranks,” might be a way to put it. Each genera cooperates through its language, verbal and behavioral, to continue the reproduction of its species.

Yep, I can imagine a society of silicon based life that maintains itself through robotics. That might indeed be the final conclusion on planet Earth.

Regarding the Buddha, I am inclined to identify his doctrine as a sort of nihilism and extreme aesticism, as if he teaches to “let life die slowly” and gently. I think there are certain moral gems in his teaching, but I don’t find his doctrine to be of any practical use for our species. I think we should continue to breed, but under different circumstances not yet achieved.

4

Would this facsimile of me in the next universe not only be me but also lead the exact same life as me? I can’t see how that would be the case and even if it was it doesn’t comfort me. Even if you could split up my atoms and then recreate them, like in Star Trek, you’d still be killing me and making a new being with the same properties and memories, but not the same unbroken focul point of perspective. To me, going into a transporter beam is a decision based on a fatal fallacy. I also think this idea of “immortality” you present is a close cousin to this same fallacy and provides no such comfort you describe. I think the best we can do is extend and improve our lives, and somehow gradually merge them into something larger than life that’s timeless.

5

Yep, that’s a big problem alright. I don’t yet know how to incorporate this idea into the bigger picture, but it has something to do with karma. The next life that Gamer would live would be materially the same, that is, the physical events would be duplicate. But the consciousness would experience greater pleasure because of the previous life’s collaboration of intentions invested in the choices, and the “predestination” of the body created in this life. Let me try an example:

In this universe I will choose to eat fattening foods. This choice has a direct result on my health- I become fat, and because of that I experience a series of events as a consequence of that- exhaustion from riding my bike, shame in front of females, mockery in front of my friends, etc. The intentions to eat fattening food with the knowledge of the possible consequences lessens the perfection of my body, its health, and as I maintain this course I am also designing the future “me” by laying down the empirical form of my body which will be copied in the next life. If this is indeed the first universe to exist (and this is the fundamental “make or break it” of the theory), then all the events that occur are accumulating as a kind of program to be re-installed when the next universe occurs. So the “same life as Gamer” would indeed happen but would be “rigged” by the last life and therefore a kind of karma that your would have to wade through consciously. “Setting the stage” for the next one, so to speak, but again, you wouldn’t be born again as Gamer with your memories in tact, but you would be facing what you had laid out in the previous life, just without the knowledge of it having been your fault. It would be like a recurve created in the past without a chance of recuperation in the future. You would live in the same physical conditions, but only be capable of different concious intentions, which could begin a modification anew. Granted, in the next life you can’t experience any sense of regret, but with the intuition of the idea now, you would be performing a sort of “amor-fati” in reverse- a “hate of freedom,” and in the next life you will experience dread before yourself. Strange, I can’t quite explain it like I want to yet. Let me work at it.

But no, the life isn’t “lead” the same way because each activity of consciousness is originally intentional- the empirical setting is the same, the consciousness experiences itself with a fresh potential of intentions.

Wait! Holy-shit! That’s it, man! That’s the transcendence of the cogito. That infinitesimal gap between freewill and determinism- the final compatibalism. Hegel’s Geist and dialectic- the thesis is the empirical (situation), the anti-thesis is the rational (choice), and the synthesis is the cogito (consciousness). These three program the next universe.

Oh my God. Excuse me, I’ve got to call Stephen Hawking right away.

6

There shouldn’t be any doubt.

Finally…someone is saying something intelligent about the immotality. Back in 2002, when I was still quiet, someone named ‘Polemarchus’ posted an essay regarding immortality. It was rather boring. What a great improvement since then.

Complete extinction is not possible, philosophically or scientically, it is impossible.

Anxiety and dread? Where do people get them in the first place?

He also spits on his own face. This is sad and bad at the same time.
If you see what is happening in this world now, it seems to be very true.

There are a few places I wish to question, but may be some other day I can.

détrop, below is Polemarchus’ remark on after life, what would be his answer to my question below?:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=138443

Polemarchus, WHY?

7

Well, these replies did take away some of the questions I had.

First of all, in this new world, how can we not know that your mother won’t abort you because of previous experience in a copy world? I don’t see immortality as being a sure thing here, but I may be misunderstanding your theory.

I assume these copies of ourselves are made after we die, when we die we goto a temporary ‘holding cell’, where time passes so fast we are not aware of it, and are then transferred to the next copy world. Can we locate this ‘holding cell’, and/or figure out the laws that govern the copy/holding process?

Does this theory explain why the universe is constantly expanding? Like, the universe is expanding with copies…

I would say some humans may become reckless without fear of death, and may become hedonistic/destructive… but the people won’t be directly aware of the things that are happening so it shouldn’t matter.

What if, because of different conditions brought on by this knowledge from the grave, the humans evolve differently, therefore creating the beings we will inhabit that are more intelligent, or not capable of rational thought?

Edit: Also, because humans don’t actually remember what happened in their previous life, they won’t become ‘bored’ with existing. They won’t at one point say, “I’ve done everything and now there is nothing to do”, because the knowledge stays but the experience is wiped clean…

Edit 2: And another thing, even the ego in the body is always changing. As human beings we have imperfect awareness, and therefore we are always learning. As we learn and think, so do our views change. I may not be the same person per se 5 years from now, even though I have the same body.

8

Clover:

I don’t want to say “should” or “shouldn’t,” but I will say there can be doubt, that following from the super-string paradigm and the idea of the continuous movement of the universe. I’m supposing that this universe will eventually collapse from a heat death, imploding by its own gravitational forces to reach a singularity. Then, beginning again. Of couse this is my speculation, and it should be, because this “immortality” idea is entirely hypothetical. Fun though, nonetheless.

Still, the doubt will always be directly related to what theories arrive through physics. In other words, the physicists let us know what we can doubt.

I didn’t think it was boring, a little different in approach, but not boring. Really, none of these ideas are original. Neither his or mine.

Indeed it is not a reasonable epistemological conclusion for anything- nothing cannot exist. However, the interesting proponent to the idea of nothing lies in the observational properties of particles and how they apparantly vanish when colliding with a particle of opposite charge. This brings forth the idea of anti-particles, and simultaneously a dichotomous concept of space- having at least two sides. This is an ontological problem. Where do these particle go? Is there a such thing as anti-matter?

I’m going with the existentialists on this one. Essentially these concepts are a concoction of several things. Uncertainty regarding moral truths and mortality are the most important. This question pans out like this: we are temporary existents and nothing we do matters because of that. That is the basic source of dread and anxiety.

GP:

Well, this wouldn’t happen in the theory I suggest here. If a child is aborted in this universe, then that fetus will be aborted in every universe to follow, again, assuming this is the first universe. So, in the next universe, every human being that has ever lived will live again, and die in exactly the same way.

Of course this presents another huge problem. As I mentioned before, somehow I’ve got to find a way to put in parallel both the empirical and the intentional (consciousness), so that physical events occur as a duplication of the last, but without effecting the ability to alter events by different choices. For example, if my mother gave birth to me in 1975, then in the next universe I must be born in 1975 but my mother must also have the capacity to choose not to become pregnant if she decides. That’s a problem. I don’t yet know how to solve that.

I don’t see it as a kind of “spirit” waiting to enter into the next body. What I see is the same physical events happening to cause consciousness to evolve in each living body, like a regeneration but without any identity, as that is nothing more than the active memory in the present brain given to be recollected by consciousness. The memory must dissolve at each death, but the body must be recreated in the next universe with the capacity to collect memory once again.

The more I think about it, the more I see this same glaring problem- what role does intention play and can it even exist. If the next universe is entirely determined, then the intentions must also be determined- but neither can choices be determined in the real-time of the experience in the next universe. Like this:

Four universes later, John is riding his bike, just like he did in the last universes. Can he decide to jump off his bike if in the last three universes he didn’t jump off his bike? Yes and no. John wouldn’t be able to have the memory of staying on his bike in the last universe, so he wouldn’t know that he in fact did, he would have the choice to jump off- but if he chooses to jump off in the fourth, he alters the determination of the event and changes everything. The only way to resolve this problem is to run the consciousness parallel to the empirical in a way that places consciousness slightly ahead of events and with the capacity to instigate a degree of indeterminacy. So that events aren’t precisly determined but orchestrated by consciousness while moving forward. I dunno. This makes my brain hurt.

No, but that idea can be played with a bit. I wonder how phycisists can call it “expansion.” What they observe is galaxies moving away from one another, but in order to determine this movement as “exapansion,” they would need a center point from which to reference the movement and call it “outward.” Without a center, there can be no “rim.” The expanding universe must be hypothesized from the theory of the big-bang, the original center point of the universe. Without a big-bang there is no real expansion, just movement in all directions.

Hopefully not. If one is convinced of a kind of karmic law, as I was explaining to Gamer, then life would be lived cautiously, as a sort of investment for the next life. Yet another problem though. Without a third authority, such as a God to punish, man would develop a love of fate and a loss of altruism because there would be no consequences- no remorse. For example, a serial killer would simply say to himself- “hey, I could do this over and over again for eternity,” and unless there was something to stop him, he certainly would. I think we need some kind of moral police to watch over this whole thing, each and every time a universe exists. I don’t know how to do that yet. Any ideas?

I don’t understand the question.

Precisely!

Yes, and that’s the deal with the cogito. “Ego” is never “what I am,” but rather “what I am going to choose to be.” The ego is an epistemological concept, not an ontological one. For instance- a fire-man can have more or less a set of similar characteristics, and upon choosing to be a fire-man I would adopt those characteristics. However, “being” a fire-man is not a script, it is only a physical category- “man who wears boots, carries axe, fights fires, etc.,” but a fire-man’s intentions can always change, which in turn shifts the category ontologically. In a sense, “being” a character is inventing the character through a constant improvisation of motive/act/end. It is, as Sartre put it, an existence preceding an essence. One does not become a fire-man, one is a fire-man in becomming.

9

Hmmm… Could these alternate universes account for things like sensing danger in relation to a risky event. I have heard of criminals getting bad feelings before going out to commit a crime, and then landing in jail. Some warriors have also talked of this ‘danger sense’, knowing when an enemy is watching them with violent intent. There are certainly other explanations for this ‘6th’ sense though in some cases.

Now, about the moral police. I have recently made a thread about the universal ethics that our politicians are trying to enforce on us now. ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=145572

Due to the fact the human is basically a mix of an evolved brain and emotions, that are seamlessly intertwined in one another, the human cannot make totally rational decisions all the time. So I would advocate building a machine that can make decisions without all of this bias, and without a survival instinct, but even then what kind of moral code would it enforce?

I would assume something along the lines of utilitarianism, something to enforce for the greater good and survival of the race. Moral decisions as calculations. It would need to be able to represent several human opinions, and weigh them.

There is question of whether we should include quality of life in the decision process as well. The public may not support this due to the number of hollywood movies like the terminator series. Just considering how many bugs we find and exploit in the computer systems we have now, and how much power that is put into this machine, hackers would have a field day.

At the very least we would need some more intelligent rulers and enforcers if we are going to use humans for our ‘moral police’. An aristocracy of philosopher kings (Plato) could be used for lawmakers. We could attempt to reduce chances of corruption through democracy, real democracy, perhaps something close to what the Athenians used. The people that enforce the laws are just as important as the lawmakers, as is apparent in our own justice system.

We could try voting in the police force, and make sure each person can only serve for so long/so many terms. Training each new human police force would be expensive and time consuming though, if they rely solely on their own bodies. There is the consideration of the philosopher kings using robot drones to execute their will.

There is the question of how space should be divided by the laws, and if it should be divided at all. Like, people in this community have different moral laws that you must abide by at all times, or a punishment occurs (or you get kicked out of the space). North Americas short lived legislative history is full of hundred year old (or more) laws that conflict with current ones, the politicians just paper over the old ones if they even do anything. So, obviously problems can occur with this.

No matter what we go at it from, it is possible for either option to be exploited. But there must be confidence that the system (including punishment) functions well, otherwise people will attempt to exploit it at all turns.

But just think of it, finally a form of justice across the universe(s). More political debates may rage about how much privacy should be given back to the people, or how trying to enforce a certain way is incorrect because there is no ‘law of justice’ written in stone. Same shit different day.

Now, I can’t think of any ways for something to get into the positions to manipulate any of these universes yet, not on this scale. It would need an iron grip over the world.

10

Nevermind that question, it didn’t come out right. I’m just now starting to grasp/understand the possibilites you are talking about. I’m only 16, so my brain isn’t as developed as yours :wink:

Edit: Come to think of it, the impact of life and death lessens because of the internet. Even if I die tomorrow my thoughts will be here, and people around the world will of read them, thereby allowing part of me to live on.

11

GP,

That’s a good question. Maybe. Like a kind of seepage, a premonition. At this point in our journey, however, I think we should remain skeptical. I have never experienced a “psychic” moment, and have never made any predictions about a furture event that wasn’t with the possibility to be infered. Most cases mentioned in your quote are probably only likelyhoods- criminals and warriors are in that element, those predictions come with the territory. Skepiticism aside though, I think that if this sixth sense were possible, it could very well be some kind of metaphysical power seeping through the boundaries of time and space…into the next universe. That would be too kewl.

The problem with this idea is that at any given time a conflict can have more than one possible solution, as well as several different contexts in which a judgement is made. For example, say Tom and John were just in a fight. Now, who is at fault? If we asked a computer to make this judgement, it would have to be capable of condensing every possible motive for fighting, of both John and Tom. Where would the computer stop in this process? John says he punched Tom because Tom stole his bike. Tom says he stole John’s bike because John owed him money. John says he couldn’t pay Tom because Bill owed him money. Bill says he couldn’t pay John because Fred lost his wallet, and didn’t have the money he owed to Bill. Fred says he lost his wallet because he was in a hurry to get to the store to buy medicine for his wife, and misplaced it. His wife says she got sick because the neighbor came over. The neighbor says he came over because he needed to borrow some butter since his refrigerator quit working because the electrician failed to fix the fuse box. The electrician says he failed to fix the fuse box because his tools were stolen by a thief. Etc., etc.

Working backwards we see that there is never an absolute rational way to solve anything.

I completely agree. It doesn’t take a genius to know that life can experience pleasure. The more life, the more pleasure. Who wouldn’t want to promote that? The nihilists will be taken care of eventually. They will be out-evolved.

Perfect. Society should be run by a hierarchy, and every individual has the potential to graduate through the ranks. Democracy should mean- the potential to become a leader. The elders have the wisdom, the youth have the strength. Each generation evolves through this system of education. You work when you are young- you rule when you are old. You reproduce and your children do the same.

This is what it comes down to. One day mankind will realize that it is not him that he is fighting- it is entropy. I believe that humanity has the potential to colonize the entire solar-system and beyond. If you want to check out something really cool (hard to believe, though, but still fascinating), do a google on the Urantia…and let your imagination run.

12

Come to think of it, this seems to resemble the same old freewill versus predestination and divine foreknowledge problem that is present in christanity, except without the being controlling it, just time and the person. Bare with me, as this makes my head hurt as well. Now this is assuming whatever/however is making the copies just can’t go back and edit the past.

Boethius and Aquinas both believed God existed in something beyond time, that time is not applied to God. That is, God’s knowledge of what to us is past and future is just like the knowledge that we may have of something that is happening in the present. Here are two quotes:

I don’t know if this will be useful, or if you will be able to fit this to the theory though because it puts God in the place of human capacity to make choice, in a way.

It would seem that the copies cannot be exactly the same if small changes compound over time. And at the same time, the decision of your mothers may be made the same way, or not. It would depend on how any factors she was aware of, her decision making skills, how much the environment effects her, she could make the decision many times over, but only one different decision would break the chain of stagnation of events in the next set of copy worlds. This is may be beyond reason due to lack of information.

13
14

I think that goes without saying.

15

Your hard-icon does not empower your speech…
Is there any other icon that you can use for non-sex forums?