We are all very comfortable with the concept of backing up the
software on our computers and considering it as a totally separate
entity to the hardware. We can then, in the event of a hardware crash,
restore that software to new hardware and perhaps better hardware, and
carry on as if nothing happened.

This concept could also be applied to the data stored in the computer
hardware called the brain, all our consciousness really consists of is
the data stored, plus data accessed through our senses, processed in
the biological computer called the brain.

It is therefore a natural logical progression to believe that some time in the
future, given the advances being made in these fields, that our
human "software" could be "backed up" and then "restored" to
another biological brain or quantum computer, in the event of the
death of our bodies. To be later restored, including continued awareness and memories to a cloned body.

Because they are all scientifically possible these technologies, and other related technologies are currently being worked on. And if it can happen, logically it ultimately will happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/216034.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7085019.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358822.stm

That being the case, and if we are spiritual beings as theists claim,
what happens to the soul? Is it transferred with our "software" or
does it remain within the rotting hardware ? Does it go to God and
leave the "new" cloned you soulless? If the soul is transferred with
the "software" and if you then create multiple clones of your new body and
download copies of your "software" into each, does each have a
separate soul, or if there is only one soul are the others soulless
versions of you? Or does the soul and therefor God not exist?

Views: 73

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Good question. Wrong forum. Why don't you ask them?
I thought I would ask someone intelligent
Well, your series of questions start with -

That being the case, and if we are spiritual beings as theists claim,

What's the point of asking these questions to a group of people who assume the premise to be false?
What is the point then of the existence of such a group?

And the same premise could be applied to similar questions to theists.
And the same premise could be applied to similar questions to theists.

My point exactly.
So discussion is dead if it bears no fruit?
This brings up another interesting question...

If we can someday get to the point where we can "backup" our "software", could we also create a program that would simulate Heaven or Hell? In other words, could we make a program that constantly provides stimuli that leaves us with a feeling of extacy or anguish?
They are working on that as well. Any direct stimuli to the brain is unlikely to suffer from a tolerance factor. It should work equally as well every time.
Impossible. If you back up your brain all you have is a copy of your brain. Your 'conciousness' is not part of the information on the disc.
Where is do you suggest the "conciousness" resides, I know the theist may suggest "the soul" but clearly it lies within the realm of the brain, as no brain activity, no conciousness. So couple all that data to sensory organs of sorts and will you not have conciousness? having insufficient data I would not like to say no, but perhaps you can.
You will have conciousness - but it won't be YOUR conciousness. It will merely resemble your conciousness.

Believing that you can back up your PERSONAL CONCIOUSNESS on a zip drive is like believing pricking someone with a needle will cause their identical twin to feel pain.
The analogy with identical twins fails. Each twin has their own, seperate conciousnesses. The backed-up consciousness is the same as the original (presuming no further changes in the original).

If I have written a computer program, save it to an external drive, and experience a hardware crash the next day, by restoring the saved program to the computer, I have the same program on the computer as I did before the crash.

So, too, with the saved conciousness: it is the same as the orginal. If the original is my conciousness, it follows that the saved conciousness is also my conciousness.

If the data are the same, in what way does it make sense to say that they "merely resemble" each other? Surely the same data is the same data?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service