Tom Caylor wrote:
>Stathis wrote:
> >Scouring the universe to find an exact copy of RM's favourite marble may
>seem a very inefficient method of duplication, but when it comes to
>conscious observers in search of a successor OM, the obvious but
>nonetheless amazing fact is that nobody needs to search or somehow bring
>the the observer and the OM together: if the successor OM exists anywhere
>in the plenitude, then the mere fact of its existence means that the
>observer's consciousness will continue.
>
>
>What feature of the universe(s) causes you to be able to say that the dead
>OM continues to be conscious rather than continues to be dead? Aren't
>there just as many universes (or more?) or future moments in this universe,
>where there is no conscious OM? It seems like it's a wash (unknown) when
>it comes to being able to claim the existence of immortality or not, based
>on that type of argument.
How is this basically different to surviving the next minute? You are *far*
more likely to be dead almost everywhere in the universe than you are to be
alive. The "common sense" answer to this would be that you survive the next
mimute due to the continuous existence of your physical body. But once you
accept that this is not necessary for survival, because as we have discussed
before your physical body completely changes over time, and because if
something like teleportation were possible it would mean destroying your
body in one place and rebuilding it in a different place, possibly also a
different time, then I think the conclusion above is inevitable. The only
way you could *not* be immortal is if there is no successor OM after your
earthly demise, anywhere or ever.
--Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Have fun with your mobile! Ringtones, wallpapers, games and more.
http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl
Received on Mon Jun 20 2005 - 20:39:54 PDT