|
|
|
|
|
|
Micus
Like hell you will
 Patron
|
      
Well, certainly the mind can be explained due to particular chemical balances in the brain, and whatnot... but as far as I knew, once your brain shuts off, everything gets wiped clean.
-------
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?
Fagotto
|
6:47 am on Aug. 24, 2008 | Joined Oct. 2004 | 1080 Days Active
Join to learn more about Micus Connecticut, United States | Gay Male | 18400 Posts | 31405 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
( Bacon )
Visionary
Patron
|
Quote: from Micus at 11:47 pm on Aug. 24, 2008
 Well, certainly the mind can be explained due to particular chemical balances in the brain, and whatnot... but as far as I knew, once your brain shuts off, everything gets wiped clean. 
Yes, but we aren't talking memory here, we're talking consciousness.
-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.
|
|
|
allsmiles
Soothsayer
 Ad Free
|
I've thought of this too. I'm just hoping that the next time I'm conscious, I have an atmosphere and suitable strength of gravity around me.
-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.
|
|
|
|
|
hithere
Novice
Patron
|
I don't follow your logic...Matter can't be destroyed, so we are reincarnated? Um no, it's called decomposing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
holysaiyan1
![]()
Sign in to see more information
|
That's assuming that the number of possible states a consciousness can have is finite, and (relatively speaking) low. IF we confine the realm of discussion to human consciousness, then we're only talking about 100,000 or so years. So I suppose it's possible that someone alive today has the same consciousness state as someone who was alive 100,000 years ago, but since we don't know the number of possible states a consciousness can have, there's no way to say. My gut says that there's a huge number of possible states, and if I had to ballpark it, I'd put the number in the hundreds of trillions, if not higher. Consciousness is a very complex thing, so complex that we aren't even close to being able to understand the amount of and types of things that go into creating a consciousness from scratch.
-------
Vote for REAL change.
|
|
|
Just another kid
Enlightened One
Patron
|
Yes, our atoms will be reused, but they'll be spread out over vast, vast differences, and if one carbon atom from me in some alien life form means i've been re-incarnated, i guess that's fair enough.
-------
Incidentally this signature is available in the foyer.
|
|
|
InsaneBlue
Soothsayer
Patron
|
It is remotely remotely remotely remotely possible for all the atoms of one persons brain to be recycled into an identical brain. But for these atoms to be arranged the same way, the two individuals sharing these brain particles would need to be genetically identical (never mind how you're going to construct the new brain from all the particles of the old). Then you would need nature to treat it the exact same way. This is the only way to have a brain be identical to one before. And your cyclic idea of everything happening the same way after every Big Bang is quite interesting, but it is contradicted by our current understanding of quantam physics in which effect happens without cause. Take Uranium for instance, which is a radioactive material and therefore has deteriorating atoms. We can predict how quickly it will deteriorate, but there is no way of knowing when atom A and when atom B are going to go poof. They seemingly break without cause. So if nature is capable of such true spontanuity (sp?) that would mean that things would never happen the same way, even if set up the same way. In fact, it would always be very drastically different, as when everything is as dense as we believe it was before the Big Bang, quantum mechanics and the movement of particles have cosmic significance. Post edited at 9:21 pm on Aug. 25, 2008 by InsaneBlue
-------
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
|
|
|
( Bacon )
Visionary
Patron
|
Quote: from InsaneBlue at 2:19 pm on Aug. 26, 2008
It is remotely remotely remotely remotely possible for all the atoms of one persons brain to be recycled into an identical brain. But for these atoms to be arranged the same way, the two individuals sharing these brain particles would need to be genetically identical (never mind how you're going to construct the new brain from all the particles of the old). Then you would need nature to treat it the exact same way. This is the only way to have a brain be identical to one before. And your cyclic idea of everything happening the same way after every Big Bang is quite interesting, but it is contradicted by our current understanding of quantam physics in which effect happens without cause. Take Uranium for instance, which is a radioactive material and therefore has deteriorating atoms. We can predict how quickly it will deteriorate, but there is no way of knowing when atom A and when atom B are going to go poof. They seemingly break without cause. So if nature is capable of such true spontanuity (sp?) that would mean that things would never happen the same way, even if set up the same way. In fact, it would always be very drastically different, as when everything is as dense as we believe it was before the Big Bang, quantum mechanics and the movement of particles have cosmic significance.
I understand there may only be an infinitesimal chance of those atoms making up another consciously equipped brain after death, and yet.. Perhaps in a Universe of which potentially will never truly "end", those atoms will have to make up such a brain simply as there is only a finite amount of atoms in this Universe. That spontaneity apparent in nature may be a result of the specific variables defined by the big bang. And if that same big bang occurred again, is it not possible for the same events of spontaneity to occur? I guess this is all coming down to one's belief of fate. A predetermined Universe means that anything seemingly 'spontaneous' is merely a result of our ignorance.
-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
