Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I don't think there is any problem in believing in some kind of vague afterlife or eternal spirit of some sort. I think the failing in humanity is when this belief is part of a system that requires you to deny pleasures here on Earth for the promise of some kind of utopia in the afterlife.

On a side note and since it is kind of related and maybe raises even more questions, my grandmother recently passed. She had alzheimers but died from an aneurysm. I wasn't all that close to her and didn't go to the funeral mass on Saturday. However, I remembered a dream from Saturday morning, which is rare. She was in it which would also be rare. She was among family at a gathering of some sort and when I asked her if everything was ok, she was like yep, fine now, as if everything was cured and she was her old self. Was a weird feeling to wake up to that memory of a dream. Makes you wonder about dreams and the afterlife and stuff.

Yah I haven't had anything weird happen (dreams...stuff around the house...etc)...mom passed like 5 months ago.

I think it was a lot harder for me than my sisters or even dad maybe (I don't know if that's even possible) because of the finality of it all. If I don't believe in spiritualism or heaven/hell, then she's really just completely gone. It was a sudden death, too...so I didn't really have time to organize my thoughts--not that it would have made it any easier. It just happened so quickly, and she was just gone for forever. My sisters and dad get to cling to the fact that if they're "good" enough here, they'll get to see her later on down the line.

I don't have that to cling to, so I've basically tricked myself into believing in spiritualism so I can have something to hope for when I die? Like I said before, if I can feel like it's separate from religion, it can't hurt to hope.

 

Originally Posted by Hank H1LL

I understand what you're saying in the bolded part, but you're discounting the factor of continuity in that existence of "you."

I've made this point before that we exist for moments, over and over again, until those moments add up to become a lifetime. cheesy but that's real shit. the problem for me is that "you" is defined at least partially as existing as an individual, and copying the individual across time/space dimensions creates just that, a copy of a "you." nothing more, nothing less.

I have to work so I'll check back later tonight

I agree with you about the continuity of "you" It might be true that your cells will all die and be replaced at some time but it doesn't happen all at once. And "you" persists throughout the slow changing of your physical matter. What you are can and does change all the time but it is still you, just a different version.

I can also agree that copy of "you" will be just that, a copy. But if the new "you" is created as an exact mimic of your state at the time will the new "you" feel as though it had existed as the old "you" with all the same memories, experiences etc.? IF so won't this new "you" in a sense be the old "you" too....

 

Originally Posted by Hank H1LL

I think you're zeroed in on "it." I don't think that makes the same human, objectively speaking. I might be able to be convinced otherwise but not yet.

I think the copy can effectively be the same person as it remembers being the old person etc etc, but in reality it never experienced those memories itself. I guess it depends if you're observing from the 1st or 3rd person in that sense. that's the difference between transcribing a life into another vessel and moving that life through space-time, imo anyway.

I guess we're gonna argue about words and I always give up once we reach that point.

I think we're going to mostly disagree with how our terms are defined. You are linking "You" with physical identity and I think of it more as an illusion, there is no "You" - at least not in a sense that moves through life.

To the point that the copy would remember the experiences of the original, but isn't the "You" because it didn't experience it, I don't think I am persuaded by that. We have the ability to falsely remember our experiences and these memories can change over time, and even be created. It is possible for you to create a memory that you believe happened to you, but never actually occurred. Whether or not what you remember actually was the case, or actually happened to you, does not affect what you do with these memories; They are just as real to you and they inform your life just the same. So if you are still you when some of your memories never happened to you, why can't you still be you if none of your memories happened to you?

but i got to get going, probably won't be back on until tomorrow night, maybe wed morning.

Since this thread seems to be lingering on the first page, I figured I'd chime in and say solid thread title.

That's my input on the whole topic, other than "lol".