Re: Immortality

From: rwas <>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:25:27 -0600


jamikes wrote:

> As much as I enjoyed last years's discussions in worldview speculations, I
> get frustrated by the lately emerged word-playing about concepts used in
> just different contents from the conventional.
> May I submit a (trivial) proof for immortality in this sense:
> Death (of others, meaning not only persons) is a 3rd person (fantasy?),
> either true or imagined. NOBODY ever experienced his/her own death and the
> "time" after such, so "immortality" is the only thing in consciousness.

Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite clear
of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize that within the
of the narrow communication style prevailant here that this claim means
But your statement would seem to attempt rewrite my experiences as false by

I resent that.

> The
> world (experienceable worldview) does not include otherwise.
> To the forgotten things existing in another (branch of?) world:
> If I 'forgot' something: that dose not necessarily build another world of
> those things I forgot. Alzheimer patients are not the most efficient
> Creators.
> And please do not 'rationalize' about 'near death' and similar fantasies in
> this respect.

These statements *ignore* alternate forms of consciousness. It (in my opinion)
arogantly assumes that the consciousness emphasized for sequential thinking and

logic is the only perspective worth analyzying and building understanding upon.

> Excuse my out-of-topic remark to the topic.
> John Mikes
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False
> Hal Finney wrote:
> > Saibal writes:
> > > According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can
> > > also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I know for a
> > > fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a
> > > long time ago.

The consciousness you are aware of cannot access the information. It does not
mean it's gone. This is a wreckless assumption.

> >
> > Right, but to make the same argument against QTI you'd have to say,
> > you don't believe this because you have died. But this is not possible.
> > So the analogy is not as good as it looks. You do exist in branches where
> > you have forgotten things, as well as in branches where you remember them.

Sounds more like the spiritual model for consciousness. One simply assumes a
for conscious expression and can express (remember etc) based on the
capabilites of
the vehicle while traveling along the landscape of conscious-all if you will.

> That is true, but I want to make the point that branches where I survive
> with memory loss have to be taken into account.
> In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it is much more
> likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not diagnosed with the
> disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically cured. The latter
> possibility (conventional qti) can't be favoured above the first just
> because the surviving person is more similar to the original person.
> You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow
> transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that
> separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say
> that the surviving person has the same consciousness the original person
> would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the
> disease.

Or you could stop assuming consciousness is sequential and limited to
concepts of identity like: "My name is joe and I'm the only expression of
of me there is since I'm not aware of anything else...".

Another blatently wreckless assumption.

> Saibal

Robert W.

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at
Received on Mon Sep 10 2001 - 16:12:37 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST