Teleportation

[motorollin]

@CannonFodder
The Oxford English defines a crackpot as "eccentric or foolish", and a crackpot idea as one which is "eccentric or impractical". Websters adds "unrealistic" to the list. By that definition, I think many of his ideas are crackpot ones, and he is potentially a crackpot himself. We'll probably never find out though, since he will be the first of our kind to evolve in to an energy-based life-form and move to a higher plane of existence.

--
moto

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
@CannonFodder
The Oxford English defines a crackpot as "eccentric or foolish", and a crackpot idea as one which is "eccentric or impractical". Websters adds "unrealistic" to the list. By that definition, I think many of his ideas are crackpot ones, and he is potentially a crackpot himself.

Eccentric he maybe but I wouldn't say the man was foolish.  Foolish is calling your boss a c*nt! ;-)

We'll probably never find out though, since he will be the first of our kind to evolve in to an energy-based life-form and move to a higher plane of existence.

The first?  People die everyday. :-P

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
Eccentric he maybe but I wouldn't say the man was foolish.

Maybe, but that definition says "eccentric or foolish, which means he only has to meet one of those two criteria in order to be defined as a crackpot.

CannonFodder wrote:
Foolish is calling your boss a c*nt! ;-)

You know my reasons for doing that. And I wouldn't have done it if the boss in question didn't happen to be my friend who I know would understand and forgive me :-)

CannonFodder wrote:

We'll probably never find out though, since he will be the first of our kind to evolve in to an energy-based life-form and move to a higher plane of existence.

The first?  People die everyday. :-P

You know what I meant. Stop beng awkward :-P :lol:

--
moto

[CannonFodder]

You know what I meant. Stop beng awkward

You know you love it really. ;-)

[Dandy]

motorollin wrote:

...
Do we have something more (the soul?) which would not survive the process of the body being broken down and recreated?
...

As far as I understood the concept of body and soul the body is mortal, while the soul is not.

So why do you think the soul wouldn't survive, if the body broke down?

[motorollin]

Dandy wrote:
As far as I understood the concept of body and soul the body is mortal, while the soul is not.

So why do you think the soul wouldn't survive, if the body broke down?

Because I'm not convinced that the "soul" is anything more than our way of comprehending our conscious existence. I believe that when the body dies, your consciousness dies with it.

--
moto

[Dandy]

@motorollin

motorollin wrote:

Because I'm not convinced that the "soul" is anything more than our way of comprehending our conscious existence. I believe that when the body dies, your consciousness dies with it.

Hmmmm - lets see:

All thinking is based on chemical-electric processes - so I'd say it's fair to say that consciousness = energy.

Do you know the physical principle that energy can't be lost - it just can be transformed (law of the conservation of energy)?

That's already secured cognition in classic physics (in our four dimensional space-time).

And if you read and try to understand what Burkhard Heim found out about the up to twelve dimensions our universe consists of, you might be tempted to change your mind - just follow the links I gave above (don't be afraid - there's nothing that could remotedly remind you of sex  ;-) )...

[CannonFodder]

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

This differs from the various religious teachings of a creator in what way exactly?

[Dandy]

CannonFodder on 2007/6/21 20:27:55

CannonFodder wrote:

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

This differs from the various religious teachings of a creator in what way exactly?

In that it's nowhere reported that the various religious creators used computers and simulations and so...

[CannonFodder]

Dandy wrote:
CannonFodder on 2007/6/21 20:27:55

CannonFodder wrote:

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

This differs from the various religious teachings of a creator in what way exactly?

In that it's nowhere reported that the various religious creators used computers and simulations and so...

Again, whats the difference?

[Dandy]

CannonFodder wrote:

Dandy wrote:

CannonFodder on 2007/6/21 20:27:55

CannonFodder wrote:

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

This differs from the various religious teachings of a creator in what way exactly?

In that it's nowhere reported that the various religious creators used computers and simulations and so...

Again, whats the difference?

Again:
In that it's nowhere reported that the various religious creators used computers and simulations and so...

[CannonFodder]

In none of the various religions is it reported that the various religious creators did not use computers and simulations and so...

[bloodline]

Sorry to interrupt this witty exchange... But if you create a perfect copy of someone (on an atomic level, yes yes, I know Heir Heizenberg would complain!) then you destroy the original... what difference does it make?

For the original it would just be like going to sleep... for the copy it would just be like waking up. You could say that the copy wouldn't be the same conciousness as the original... But then I put it to you that the conciousness you experience today is not the same as yesterday, it is a new conciousness.

If you died in your sleep you'd never know about it. If you died in your sleep then you were replaced with a prefect copy, no one would know about it.

[CannonFodder]

bloodline wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this witty exchange... But if you create a perfect copy of someone (on an atomic level, yes yes, I know Heir Heizenberg would complain!) then you destroy the original... what difference does it make?

For the original it would just be like going to sleep... for the copy it would just be like waking up. You could say that the copy wouldn't be the same conciousness as the original... But then I put it to you that the conciousness you experience today is not the same as yesterday, it is a new conciousness.

If you died in your sleep you'd never know about it. If you died in your sleep then you were replaced with a prefect copy, no one would know about it.

You make the assumption that the clone would have the memories of the original.

[bloodline]

CannonFodder wrote:

bloodline wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this witty exchange... But if you create a perfect copy of someone (on an atomic level, yes yes, I know Heir Heizenberg would complain!) then you destroy the original... what difference does it make?

For the original it would just be like going to sleep... for the copy it would just be like waking up. You could say that the copy wouldn't be the same conciousness as the original... But then I put it to you that the conciousness you experience today is not the same as yesterday, it is a new conciousness.

If you died in your sleep you'd never know about it. If you died in your sleep then you were replaced with a prefect copy, no one would know about it.

You make the assumption that the clone would have the memories of the original.

Of course it would, I implied that fact when I stated that the copy was identical on an atomic level.

[CannonFodder]

Of course it would

I don't think the clone would have the memories of the original.

When someone gets physical brain damage to the bits of the brain that control memory function, is it the memory that is damaged or the method of memory recall that is damaged?