Itoarguments part 6

File proofs 57-74 10:15 am Tuesday, January 15 2002

It appears and we have good scientific proof that people’s consciousnesses are similar so is the structure of people's brain. The functioning is also similar. It appears that when a person sees red it is very similar to when another person sees red. The same goes for many other perceptions emotions memories etc.. This lead to the conclusion and gives proof to the concept that when similar brains functions in similar ways they produce similar consciousnesses. This leads support to the belief that identical structure and functioning produce identical consciousness. This is very useful result because it says that when we consider videntireplicas etc, they will have similar consciousnesses to that of the originals.

This lead to the generality that when similar brains functions in similar ways they produce similar consciousnesses. This leads support to the belief that identical structure and functioning produce identical consciousness. This is very useful result because it says that when we consider videntireplicas etc, they will have similar consciousnesses.

People’s consciousness are similar. The structure and functioning of their brains are similar. The closer that two brains function alike the more alike are their consciousnesses will be.

A person’s brain has the same structure and functions similarly over a period of time and that person has a consciousness that is similar to itself over time. If we can have similarity of consciousness why not similarity of the ixperiencit?

If the concept of the ixperiencit is part of consciousness identity of consciousness is a case of survival for all person with identical consciousnesses

One to one correspondence argument

Extension from first type of scientific immortality argument

We believe that if we keep some one alive forever he has immortality. That person over time corresponds to a physipath and an awarepath. If that person dies there is still that potential awarepath and potential physipath. There is also the awarepaths and physipath that correspond to his potential paths that he never utilized but could have.

Replica bias argument

Against Replica objection argument

It appears that the key to the replica objection is that in making a person no matter how closely it is like the original it is only a replica and consequently another person. Another point is that a replica being a different person is a different person and that different person have different consciousness

The replica objection is that a replica is not you and thus can not be you for the purposes of survival of death and immortality of you. It is true that a replica is not the same physical person but then you are not the same physical person as you were in the past. Much of the matter that you are made of is replaced over time. The particular matter that you are made of does not determine you.

A replica of an object does not have to have exact identity. When we talk about a replica we do not talk about how that replica is internally functioning or what exactly is the internal structure of all the atoms and how they relate. What is important is its external appearance and behavior. This can have almost nothing to do with the internal aspects including functioning and structure of the object. The replica argument is correct in saying that a replica will not have the identical consciousness of the original. Being a replica of an object is no guarantee that internal functioning and structure of an object will be identical to that of the originals. This is why we need another term -- identical replica or identireplica.

The key point in this anti “replica objection” argument is that it is not the matter/energy, place, or time that counts but the consciousness that is produced. If the replica has your consciousness then he is you. If the replica does not have your consciousness he is not you. How do you know if the replica has your consciousness or not? You can not because there is not enough information in the statement of “being a replica” to decide if the replica has a consciousness and if it does which one is it.

Types of replicas argument

There exist different types of replicas. Some types of replicas will be cases of survival for an original and some will not. Among physical replicas there are different levels. The necessary ingredient are looks, feel, durability, chemical composition, so each type of replica can have greater and greater identity until they are totally identical at every level. Although where and who made the replica may be important aspects of a replica a true replica will not be distinguishable from the original by physical means this means independent of any external source saying the replica is a replica. If any kind of physical analysis shows that the replica is a replica it is not physically identical.

The first level of replica is having the same looks, size, as the original this will not likely be a case of survival for the original because identical functioning and structure are the necessary ingredients for cases of survival for the original.

The final stage for the a human replica is identical structure and identical functioning.

====== not needed in this argument

Awaretheory gives a way to tell if another consciousness has your consciousness or not: through identity of structure and functioning. But it does not know how to determine identity of consciousness through isomorphic functioning. Possible mapping's of structure and functioning through a projection. The projection being an algorithm of varying complexity relating the complete system to the complete system rather than just parts. Isomorphic parts may not serve the same purpose in producing consciousness. We have to compare the total system.

Mortalist arguments

A generalized version of the mortalist argument against replicas:

1. The brain produces consciousness.

2. When the body dies the brain is destroyed so is the consciousness and the me aspect that it corresponds to.

3. A replica of the original is not the original person thus it is a different person.

4. A replica being a different person is not you.

5. So any replica of you will not be you. You no longer exist and your replicas are not you.

6. The replicas not being you implies that there is no survival of you after death.

7. Therefore survival after death is impossible thus immortality is impossible after death, also.

1. The brain produces consciousness is the basis of this Mortalist theory

2. When the body dies so does consciousness is also true

3. The replica is in fact another person

4. The replica is in fact not you.

5. Any replica of you will not be you.

In terms of the identity theory

If we analyze the mortalists argument against replicas in scientific terms we have the statements.

1. The physipath produces the awarepath. The physimoment corresponds to or produces the awaremoment.

2. When the physipath / physimoment stops so does the awarepath/awaremoment.

3. A replica’s physipath is a different physipath from the original’s. The replica produces a different physimoment than the original does.

4. Two different physipaths / physimoments are not the same person.

5. Any physipath (physimoment) other than your own is not you.

6. The replica not being the same person as the original means there is no survival of death for the original or immortality.

7. Therefore a person exists only as long as the original physipath/ physimoment exists.

The first three statements of the identity theory agrees with the mortalist anti replica argument. At step three all reference to the awarepath disappears. If the consciousness that is produced does not matter the argument will be valid. But consciousness and the ixperiencitness is the key to survival after death and immortality. When we remove reference to it we are dealing with a different topic. We have switched categories we are no longer following consciousness we are following a body.

A body with out your consciousness and ixperiencit is not you.

A body with your consciousness and ixperiencit is in the important sense, you.

1. The neuropath produces the awarepath.

2. When the neuropath is changed enough there is no awarepath produced. As in brain death.

3. If a replica does produce an approximate neuropath to the neuropath of the original it will produce an awarepath approximate to that of the original's awarepath.

4. An identical or approximate awarepath to that of the original is a continuation of you.

5. The replica does produce a continuation of you in terms of consciousness You are your awarepath and ixperiencitness

6. You have survived death in a different body.

If the replica does not produce an awarepath

But what if the replica, that is not you, has your consciousness? If we produce (assign to, place in, create in,) the consciousness of the original in the replica this is called science fiction by the mortalists. It is not science fiction if we can show scientifically how it can be done. The identireplica theory does show a scientific way of doing it.

You are dead, your replica is not you, but your replica is producing your consciousness. If this is not survival of the body this is survival of your consciousness which is preferable to not having a surviving consciousness.

Survival of the consciousness with out your particular body but in a replicas is better than survival of your body with out your consciousness.

If a different person has a version of your consciousness it is as if that person is you!

The identireplica theory of consciousness can not guarantee that a cidentireplicas will extend the awarepath of a person in this life or the next. Nor can it guarantee that any awarepath in a persons awarevenue will ever be extended in actual reality in this universe or any other in any time period. If the definition of an awarevenue is broaden there will be a more and more likely possibility of it being extended. The personal awarepath is not the only way that an awarepath can be extended. It can be extended with in a superawarepath where the superawarepath includes parts of the awarepaths of a person.

Simi-dualist argument against replicas

One argument against immortality based on the argument of Paul Edwards in his book on immortality. He starts with the premise that there is more to consciousness that just materiality. He states the need for this because he believes that materialist alone is not sufficient for immortality in the first place. It is this none materialist aspect of consciousness that is necessary for his argument. Without this premise he can not say that the mind dies never to exist again. If there is no mind in the first place it can not die. Consciousness just stops being produced. The matter does not disappear when a person dies it is still there but something changes. What is it? It is the way the matter and energy is changing. What makes matter, matter? Matter is matter because it is made of energy that is always changing. It affects a region larger than a point in space. Every piece of matter is made of subatomic particles that are essentially waves of effect. Each having its region of effect and interaction

Matter changes, and it is the complex changes in matter and energy that is consciousness. We see reality through this complex interactive change of matter. It appears to be cyclic in nature. Every neuron functioning is cyclic. Repeating the same types of change over and over. Matter and energy has the ability to create this cyclic change. We only see this reality through this change so what is really out there may be entirely different than this. This reality will change as the functioning of matter changes.

The argument against replicas comes in many forms the

Argument against immortality based upon dualist materialism

What is the definition of immortality in terms of the identity theory the simplest definition is that there will never be a time when you can not experience being consciousnes again. Another definition is: if time is not infinite as long as there exist a universe that can exist and produce consciousness you could experience consciousness again. This is a form of minimal immortality. The normal definition of immortality is that your body will never die. This is very limited especially because it does not guarantee that you will experience consciousness at all. The assumption is that there is a continuous experiencing of consciousness.

Sensepath argument

The functioning of the brain produces a reality then puts you into it and relates that reality to you. There is the reality of you that the brain produces. This reality that the brain creates of you does not have to be connected to the actual reality of yourself. Either the actual reality of your body or actual reality of your mentality.

The consciousness that the brain produces can even hide the actual reality of your mental self and the mental self of others. You think that your mental self is different than it is in fact. What is an example of this? The brain can make one think bizarre thoughts like controlling aspects of reality when you in fact do not. Concentration can make us think that we are paying attention to things when in fact our concentration is jumping around.

The sensepath argument for the identity theory

The sensepath argument can be applied to many different things.

Imagine a videntireplica of yourself. You are observing this videntireplica and thinking this can not be me. I am not experiencing the things that he is at this time. You are only experiencing a sensepath. This sensepath may or may not correspond to reality. If it does the information is limited. The brain now has to interpret that sensepath. If there is a videntireplica there will be a perception change.

Imagine the case where you are observing yourself but you think that it is a videntireplica of yourself not a cidentireplica of your self or some one else. How do you know that this person is experiencing what you are? What you are experiencing only sensual stimulation. Another person consciousness may not be visible through the sensepath. Stated in another way there may not exist sensepaths that produce another person consciousness within yours. However, an external path can be produced that will produce this type of consciousness. If this is possible then there may already exist neuropaths that can function in suck a way as to experience a different consciousness.

Looking at the brain and not seeing the consciousness that is produced by that brain is another example where the sensepath argument can be applied. The sensepath gives the impression that there is no consciousness produced in the brain if the sensepath is real

A fourth case is going back in time and seeing yourself. You are told that this person is you in the past. You believe it because it looks and acts like you did in the past, the environment seems (it fits your memory) the same as when you were a child. you believe time travel is possible whether or not really you go back in time or not the sense path gives you a limited amount of information there after you have to apply your belief system to interpret that information.

The argument goes as follows: What you experience is your sensepath. It may or may not correspond to reality and be a source of information. Second if it is a source of information it is a limited source of information. Your brain interprets the information within the sensepath by way of the structure of the brain because that influences and put bounds on the functioning. If the structure of the brain is different enough then it will produce with the same sensepath a variation in consciousness.

The sensepath is limited in the knowledge that it conveys. There are many different types of knowledge. The brain through it processing determines what the sensepath actually conveys. It may (does) not have the ability to process all the different interpretations of sensepath. It depends on the complexity of the sensepath information whether there is or how many interpretations exist for a sensepath.

Can every sensepath correspond to a reality? Every sensepath will not correspond to a reality for a particular Are there sensepaths that can never be generated by a reality? Can every sensepath effect the awarepath?

There exists directly generated sensepath and artificially generated sensepath A sensepath producer is reality but there can be artificial sensepath producers. Consciousness that are produced in a universe can correspond to many different realities beyond the reality of that universe. Yet the universe still determines what potential awarepaths and sensepaths, artificial or real can be produced. How does a universe do this?

Can we experience the awarepath through the sensepath? A general rule one can not experience the awarepath of another person through a person's sensepath. What does it mean to experience another person's awarepath through the sensepath? There can be many modified sensepaths that can stimulate an awareness of another person's awarepath. But in many of these cases the brain will have to already have a structure that can understand this sensepath The sensepath effects the awarepath what is an awarepath that can sense the awarepath in another person? There is the understanding about sensepaths and awarepaths through understanding the identity theory. Here we do not see the awarepath in another person we do the same thing as we do when we think that others have consciousness in the first place. We believe because we have good reason to believe that others have a consciousness similar to ours. In the same way we understand how others could have identical consciousness to us. In this way we can define a person as having identical consciousness to us then filling in the blanks so to speak why doesn't his sensepath look the same as ours do why isn’t he behaving like we do One of the reason is the sensepath argument. You can not tell the awarepath of another person through the sensepath. The sensepath does not sense the awarepath of another person it senses the physipaths of other people. How then do we extrapolate the awarepath of a person form the sensepath. A particular sensepath can be referring to many different awarepaths How is this possible? You look at a person you see some of his physical features How many different structures and functionings of a brain can fit into that head or more specifically fit the sensepath, we do not get a specific size or shape of a brain when we look at a person. The sensepath can be wrong so there are many different awarepaths that can fit into the parameters of a sensepath. A sensepath can be more and more physically specific. The human brain can not hold all the information about a body. If we take all the specific physical information that a brain can hold about another brain we will find that there will be a great deal of variation that leads to many different physipoints or physipaths and consequently awarepaths.

Just because the you can not see the awarepath of another person with your sensepath does not means that this person does not have either an identical consciousness or a close variation to yours. If a videntireplica of you were in the same room with you your sense path could not tell. If you understood this theory and you wee told that this person was a variation of your consciousness you could talk to this person and see the similarities in the responses that he gives to your questions and visa versa.

Am I in this other person? Though I may be very similar to this other person with identical memories, feelings, aspirations, knowledge

The sensepath argument has several aspects.

You experience the sensepath of a person not the awarepath. Second, the sensepath does not have to be connected to reality so what you experience through the sensepath (about another person(your cidentireplica)) does not have to have an awarepath at all it can be only a representation of you. Third, there is the interpretation of the sensepath by the brain one sensepath can be interpreted in many ways by different brains. The sensepath can generate a belief in your awarepath that the experience is either you or not you. You can be in a different world of understanding because of the sensepath.

Consciousness, including version of you, can be existing or being produced all over the place and we would have no idea that it exists. This is because our awarepath does not see it. The sensepath does not produce this belief in us either. The sensepath that this theory produces can change this perception in people.

Actualization argument

The actualization of a itofazpath is where the itopath (physipath, awarepath etc.) goes from being a potential itofazpath to having actually existed. Since itofazpaths can be infinitely long

How can I be in that other person at the same time as I am in me? How can I understand this because it seem contradictory? Why does it seem contradictory? If this is really me them I should be experiencing it as well as if you were experiencing both you would be in a different awarepath not the awarepath of you not the awarepath of the other person but a third awarepath that is composes of both awarepaths to some degree. This forms an argument in itself. This argument goes as follows if we have to experience all the possible you's at the same time for them to be you then there can not be separate aspects of you or the original awarepath consequently there is a contradiction because there is an original awarepath that does not contain all. How do we solve this contradiction? Either there can be many different versions of you or there can only be one version of you. All the potential you’s can not exist any longer. Could they ever have existed? What about the potential physipaths, do they just disappear? They obviously do not, but then does choosing one path cancel out the connections between the physipaths and the awarepaths that existed before? How is this possible? If one possible physipath will correspond to one awarepath before the actualization of the person how does this disappear after the actualization? This is what the theorist will have to deal with if they are to disprove the identireplica identity theory.

It not only cancels out the other possible physipaths /awarepath connections it cancels out the same awarepath/ physipath connections for all future actualization events. This means that once a physipath produces an awarepath then the same physipath has to produce not the same awarepath but a different one. Every time that one physipath is actualized in producing an awarepath that same physipath will have to produce another different awarepath if the identireplica theory is not correct. This is like branching out like the multi universe theory in physics.

The argument goes

What is the reason that when you actualize an awarepath with a specific physipath you can not produce the same awarepath again with the same physipath? Nor will any variation of the physipath produce a variation on the awarepath? Where as before the actualization of the awarepaths there not only corresponded the possibility of one path but many different awarepaths that corresponded to the a person potential. The potential did not disappear so consequently the potential of the variations still exists if it exists before.

Principle of actualization

The actualization of a physipath and its corresponding awarepath does not effect the relationship between any physipath and awarepath in the future or past. Consequently after the actualization, the correspondence between all the physipaths and awarepaths still hold.

Anti soul argument

Can not prove that a person’s consciousness is unique or singular nor that the ixperiencit does not exist in more than one person. It is not that the proof has not been developed but that we can not prove it. To prove is to assume axioms that presuppose soul properties. Like in geometry proving the parallel postulate from the previous concepts.

The continuation of someone's consciousness argument

Soul logic: singular, unique, independent, not necessarily tied to any particular conscious attribute such as does not need to have previous memories. Has the “I experienced it” aspect. Is not necessarily connected to one body or even to a body all the time. What would be proof of a soul existing? What would be proof that person has a soul?

What premise do we need for proof of a soul with these properties? What do we mean by uniqueness? What do we mean by singular?

To prove a standard soul theory we have to prove We have to prove singularity -- connected to only one body at a time We have to prove uniqueness -- there is none exactly like it We have to prove independence does not have to be connected to a body to exist That the soul can be connected to a new body after death We have to prove that the ixperiencit applies to only one person Not tied to any particular body or conscious characteristic

We have to prove that it applies to at least one person We have to prove that it applies to some people We have to prove that it applies to every one

Does a soul have to be singular and unique. How do we modify the soul theory to make it compatible with the identireplica theory of consciousness?

The identireplica theory says that you are not necessarily singular or unique. You are connected to bodies. The ixperiencit does not apply to only one person at time.

Beautiful and amazing theory argument

The amazing consequences argument

This theory fits together extremely well etc. The identireplica theory is a neat theory that ties many things about consciousness together. It is a very beautiful theory because it explains and predicts so much. It is a very optimistic /positive theory.

What is a beautiful theory One that fits well with the evidence. One that with simple basic principle explains a lot. One that is logically sound one that is based on science and math. One that can be used technologically. One that can make life better for people and other consciousness beings. One that can be understood.

The consequence of this theory has many very neat consequences for man and all conscious life forms. It is a happy positive theory

Good universe argument

This theory is so positive that it makes the universe a positive place. If you are an optimist this would fit the scenario that this is a positive universe. The argument goes if this is really a good or positive universe there will be a universe that produces good things including an optimistic theory of consciousness. Negative theories of consciousness will not happen. What is a positive theory? That death is not bad. That the past is not permanently lost. There exist beautiful experiences that are part of the conscious continuum and ixperiencit continuum and they can be produced and repeated. That there will be or can be an understanding of things and that it will have your consciousness. That there will be or can be an tieing together of consciousness that have existed in the past present and future and will never exist-- potential but not actual. It is positive because the present consciousness can effect positively future consciousness and be those future consciousnesses. It gives purpose and meaning to life. Because your consciousness is not just a dead end of limited or no value. There is purpose to some awarepaths in all awarevenues with the same ixperiencitness. So there are positive, useful awarepaths for everyone even if the present one is not. Ones consciousness is not stuck to one awarepath but will experience all the awarepaths if they go from potential to actual.

Purpose in life argument

This awaretheory gives purpose to life that some have said science or a greater understanding of the world has taken away. Existentialism, nihilism, solipsism, can be looked upon as depressing philosophies. Since the self -- the ixperiencit is spread out through space, time, matter, functioning, structure and potential, the purpose in life goes beyond one’s apparent solitary life. If you understand that there can be much beyond this life there then is much to work toward in this life. Some people can be very selfish. In fact they can be selfish toward themselves-- They live for today and suffer tomorrow because of bad choices they make today.

With out immortality it is said life has no meaning or purpose. If this life is all there is for a person then life can seem depressing. The identireplica shows how different types of immortality are possible. It shows how it can be produced buy the effort of mankind. It shows that life can be good or bad and that we can effect if it will be good or bad. The purpose in life can be the creating a world where life is better and individuals can survive death.

Anti selfish argument

Since the self -- the ixperiencit is spread out through space, time, matter, functioning, structure and potential, there is more to the self than what is here and now. There is reason to work for purposes beyond the current self, current physipath or awarepath, awaremoment, or awaresection.

Argument for bizarre theories

The consequences of the identireplica theory of consciousness is bizarre but bizarre seems to be more and more standard in science and mathematics the more that we know about the world that we live in.

This theory is a different theory about consciousness that may seem bizarre but bizarreness does not mean that this theory is wrong. Science has shown that reality is more complex and more bizarre the more that we know about it. Consider relativity, QM, Black holes, the evolution of man from simpler forms of life, that the earth is round that the earth goes around the sun. That there are an infinite amount infinities that are each infinitely larger than the next. Dark energy the big bang. Etc. Hundred of billions of galaxies. We start with basic principles and end with bizarre theories. Extremely long molecules

Anti legal arguments

The legal argument is that only through a body can we have a legal system that can punish wrong doers. Is it just to punish a different consciousness than the one that did the crime. If we have a choice to punish the body of the person who did the crime that no longer has but has a different person consciousness or a different person with the guilty person consciousness which would you choose

This argument says that legal issues determine immortality and the survival. Law does not determine science fact. We have laws that pertain to physipaths but not to awarepaths because we can not tell what awarepaths a person has. This does not means that we with enough knowledge can not eventually tell what at least some physipaths will produce.

Moral argument

Morals and the identireplica theory That justice can be served in the world because there can always be the possibility of that consciousness that suffered that injustice can exist again with out the injustice. Kant's argument for immortality for there to exist justice. Immortality or survival of wrong full death must exist for justice to exist.

Mortalists say that if there is no after life then we have to respect the one life that we are given, we will not do things in this world for rewards in the next because there is no next world. Because there is no next world and god will not fix the problems in this one we have to solve the problems in this world ourselves; we have to take care of this world.

Religions say that we need not make this world better because it is in the hands of god what ever happens and we will have an after life so we do not need to make this a good life.

The identireplica theory of consciousness does not guarantee a future life so there is good reason to make the most out of this life. It also does not guarantee that there will not be life or consciousness for you after this one either. What it says is that there is the potential for you and many different versions (awarepaths) of you to exist in the future. Some that are from your and other perspective much better than others. There is thus reason to take care of this world and make it a better place. Because we do not know when or where an awarepath of you will show up you should try to make it better for all. The second goal should be a better understanding of your self and this can happen only through science and mathematics. So we need to make this a better world for all and support science, mathematics, and technology. Since you r awarepath can show up everywhere or any where we need to spread these ideas out into the universe and make the whole universe a better and wiser place. This theory puts the power back into the power of the people. Some may say that this is not gods way but who is to say what gods way is when he allows us this power to know in the first place. I see it more as a group of people trying to get other to do what they want and then calling it gods way. If god wants something he does not need it form us. He can get it any where he wants. He needs nothing from us.

This theory then will state that we have to make the most of this life and make the most out of the futures lives. We need to communicate with future awarepath about what we are and see what we can become.

Against the legal or Guilt argument

Legal or guilt bias argument

The legal argument against identireplica immortality is: It is not fair or legal to punish a replica of you, for something you did. A court of law would not punish a replica for the original’s crimes because a replica is a different person from the original. The replica did not physically commit the crimes. Where the original is guilty, since the replica is not guilty, they are not same person.

If not the same person then not guilty, is it guilty if it has the same consciousness and or ixperiencitness but a different body? Is it the awarepath or physipath that is guilty. We consider the awarepath as guilty. Imagine that your mind jumped into a guilty person and suffered their punishment. We would not consider this fair on either the subjective or objective viewpoint. Consider a guilty person’s mind jumping into another person body to avoid punishment. We would consider this new body with the old mind.

Does guilt carry on to the same awarepath through all space time and matter? What about an awarepath that actually does not accomplish the evil deed? For instance, if the evil deed occurred in an awarepath that was produced in an awarepaducer and did not actually cause the evil deed happen only in the mind of the person? Good or bad has to be based on utility or the goal. We never know that the evil that we create is in an experience machine or not If it has not happened but just appeared to is it as bad. If Hitler only killed jews in an experience machine would it have been as bad? If all the awarepath that suffered in an experience machine would it be as bad? Awarepath are equal no matter where they are created ? Equal awarepaths

Is Hitler's awarepath always guilty ? Is only the later parts guilty? What about videntireplicas of Hitler are the awarepaths corresponding to these also guilty since death is not as important what is the deciding factor in deciding guilt? Pain that is suffered because of some one else? Then does this mean that the person that creates an awarepath that contains pain or death the actual one responsible and not the one that appears to create it ? For instance, it is not Hitler that is responsible for the guilt but the ones that create the awarepaducer that creates the awarepaths that contain this suffering. It appears that

The law should not be based on punishment of the original or cidentireplica of a criminal, it should be based on deterrence of certain behaviors and the rehabilitation into a productive job

Against communication with people in an after life argument

Communication with people in an afterlife bias argument

There is no proof that there is an afterlife or that people talk to people in the afterlife.

Communication with an afterlife does not disprove the identity theory. The obvious solution is that there is no afterlife and the experiments that claim to are coincidence, fraud, poor experimental design, considering only certain data, etc. But lets assume there is some realm beyond our reality that we do not understand. The first problem is that we do not understand this reality and have no evidence for it scientifically. Secondly, why does it have to be incompatible with this world. If there is another world that has consciousness in it that have knowledge of our world how does this disprove the identity theory. The identity theory is based on scientific materialism. But it is not dependent on it, it can accept that other worlds can exist that have different laws and properties than this world. There is no reason that another realm could be studied scientifically and in fact if there exists the consciousness of scientists they will be asking questions and developing theories about this other realm. Why would the identity theory be incompatible with another realm? The assumption is that there is one body one soul one consciousness and that communication with the afterlife proves it. It only shows at the most that there is a consciousness that is communicating with this world and has some valid information about this world. The identity says that there can be many ways of producing the same consciousness in a different universe or realm there can be many ways to have identical consciousness and many ways to have approximate consciousnesses. There is not way of determining if the consciousness in this other realm is an identical consciousness or an approximation of the original. In fact with the difference in reality it will probably be an approximation of the real thing a videntireplica. Communication with consciousnesses in the afterlife does not disprove the identity theory In fact it might validate some of the concepts of transformations through different worlds with different scientific laws of reality.

Does the experience of communication with souls after death disprove the identity theory? These experiences do not disprove the identity theory of consciousness and its consequences. The identity theory actually says that the experiences can actually exist of situations that do not in fact exist. All that is required is that a brain or equivalent produced the functioning that required to generate this consciousness.

What scientific evidence proves life after death in an after world? The experience of it does not prove the actual existence. The identity theory allows all sorts of experiences that are not connected to the reality that creates it.

There are at least three ways to view an after death communication from a dead person from the perspective of the identity theory. There is the case where the live individual experiences these communications. The experience of the dead in the after life ( what ever alter life is) and then the situation where the reality is actually true for every perspective like a scientific reality

What is the argument that we can have experiences that generate other sciences and realities. There are many different physipaths because there are many ways that the brain can function with many different structure. Then there are many different sensepaths that can stimulate the brain in any possible way. As we create different functionings and structures and manipulate in the correct ways we can create realities that in fact do not exist Imagine in this case the person that is experiencing an afterlife imagine a brain that senses are connected to a computer that can generate the sensations of being in the shadowy afterlife. What ever that is. Now we can imagine creating the cidentireplica of any person and have that brain at any time in it existence stimulated buy the computer that creates this shadowy afterlife. We have generated a person experiencing the afterlife. this afterlife can have numerous characteristics that are not related to reality like flying, disembodied spirit etc. Traveling through objects etc the computer can respond to the brain stimulation it supposed body

Communication with a person in the afterlife is supposed to be proof that there is an afterlife. Actually there only exists words from a live person but the proof is supposed to be that there is information that the dead person can only have so it has to be real. But there is many ways of trickery and people want to believe that there is an afterlife and will convince them selves that there is actually this information generated or communicated. If there are in fact souls in an afterlife does not imply that a cidentireplica does not have the same consciousness. There can be explanations of both phenomenons We still have to deal with the situation of awarepath physipath cidentireplicas videntireplicas. The questions do not go away with the existence of a real soul based afterlife. We can have any number of possible explanations of knowledge base communications that have nothing to do with souls for instance awarepaducers generating this reality. If the mystical other world exists it still has to live up to scientific explanation and prediction. It is possible that it may not be understandable but any time we can ask question about this world. the answers to these question either exist or they do not. We can break this down further into understandability and the degree of understandable we can then ask questions as to the understandability of the theory about this world. We can ask many peripheral questions. We can only not create a theory is the answers are indecisive or conveying no information or contradictory information. But then we can organize even a theory that has not information can have a theory of not information remember that we are looking for predictability structure of ideas into a system

Against reincarnation argument

Reincarnation bias argument

There is no proof that reincarnation exists. It implies that some force in nature recreates the Ixperiencit of a person in other creatures or people. This is counter to the concept that functioning and structure produces consciousness because the cows, flies, etc. do not have the functioning and structure of a person so they will not produce the consciousness of a person. But can they produce the ixperiencit of a person with out the other aspects of consciousness that a person will have. The Ixperiencit may be just the actual functioning of the moment or it may be a complex functions of the entire system being part of many different aspects of consciousness. Can a person experience what it is like to be a different animal all sorts of sensepath could be produced their is the potential of all sorts of sensepath that correspond to animal sensepaths For reincarnation to exist you have to have some soul like concept that carries over the person. Since the identireplica theory says that there can be many different identical consciousness -- souls at the same time there is not necessarily only one singular you. this is another reason that the reincarnation will not be true

Good for humanity argument

Awaretheory ideas tie people together in ways that have never been scientifically supported before. It encourages science and the pursuit of knowledge. It allows for the advancement of mankind through the concept of enhanced consciousnesss having the same ixperiencitness.

Good for other intellegent life forms argument

Awaretheory's positive ideas appear to apply to all conscious beings.

Good for secular humanist argument

We can have immortality or survival of death based on science and rational thought with out myths and superstitions we do not have to be so brave against the dying of the light. It is good for people that want to rational and believe in science but are too afraid of permanent death so they accept irrationality and irrational beliefs instead. Frankly it can give people more than any religion. It does have standards of morals based on judgements of others more advanced. It allows people not to have to suffer internal damnation. There is always redemption because there is always a better version of you. There can even be bad version of you created in an experience machine that do not evil to others or degrade there awarepaths but what if the awarepaducer effects fitopath to create awarepath that suffer? This has to be studied. The pain that is generated in the awarepaducer is the illusion of pain in others for no real pain is produced except in the awarepaducer.-- the consciousness produced by the awarepaducer the pain in others Is just a sensepath no an awarepath. However the production of the sensepath does take processing to create does this processing effect fitoawarepaths?

Immortality can be based on our own needs, desires, not on the whims of an imaginary god that can be controlled by less than good people. It is not so simple that people can achieve it with out great scientific efforts and organization. We have to be wiser than we are now to accomplish the creation of a specific awarepath so any one else in the universe will not just happen on us to produce unpleasant awarepaths There exists many physipath and their corresponding awarepaths that deal with knowledge and knowledge about making different awarepaths. Secular humanists believe in making a better world for everyone. This gives the process that can make life better We may first accomplish the first type of immortality first but we still have to know what we have accomplished. Keeping people alive for ever may not be producing the awarepaths that we wish so we decide to make change in the original but where do there change turn ones person consciousness into another. Second we and I do not want bad painful awarepaths of may self produced. If the effort is made to keep a body alive why not make it a good or productive awarepath happy and productive the productiveness of physipaths will determine if and how many of what kind of awarepath can exist on earth So being a productive physipath is important Of course productivity has many different aspects. Productiveness depends on the goal that is desired An awarepath can be the end result in itself with out the physipath that producing it being productive sort like a vacation for a person. There are so many possibilities.The identireplica theory gives all sort of possibilities with out a time limit. This does not mean that we should not work hard at the spread of these ideas and the application of them because there are many awarepaths that will produce a world that is entirely different from this type of world Frankly, a hell world of suffering and stupidity. The people that understand these ideas have tremendous purpose for their lives in learning, creating, and teaching these ideas to others. The ultimate goal is knowledge this mean the creations of awarepath of current people that have greater ability to understand and to use for positive means this knowledge

It is very predictive and explanatory argument Awaretheory is very predictive and explanatory

It is good for secular humanism argument People do not have to be scared off from secular humanism because it does not support immortality.

It is good for the advancement of science argument It encourages science because the way to immortality is through science and technology

It is good for the earth's environment argument

It is good for the earth because we have to take care of society and the earth to be able to keep producing consciousness. This earth is the only place we are sure conscious life exists in the universe. Awarepaths that are infinitely long can be connected to the earth awarepaducers can be connected to the earth and the planets around the sun

We will not think of a heaven or after life and not destroy this world thinking that this world is just a stepping stone to heaven or hell etc.

It is good for god argument

1.If god does not exist we eventually can create one or many.

2. We can make more conscious beings that are us that can appreciate god or the concept of god or gods better.

Near gods. How do you create a god? How do you create a religious god that is clearly not infinite in scope : knowledge power, wisdom? In an experience machine we can create many awarepath that can not exist out side of an experience machine with in this experience machine we can create the consciousness that corresponds to the awarepath of finite gods. They can appear to have powers over humans and universe if so desired they can be made much smarter.

What good to us is a god that we make?

How does the concept of god apply to awarepaths or visa versa? What kind of awarepath would a god have. How does it compare to human awarepaths? What is it in relation human awarepaths? We can ask the question is a god awarepath inclusive of sub awarepath like human awarepaths? If god does not have an awarepath then is it an awaremoment. The awarepath implies that there is or can be differences in consciousness at different parts and points of the awarepath. This might imply that a god has a different consciousness at different time.

For people that are religious, believe in good god, and can’t seem to understand evil or injustice. This is the perfect theory because it shows that if god created things this way according to the identireplica theory he also created the potential of many different awarepaths every one sharing in both bad and good awarepaths and that death is no longer what it appears to be. In fact evil appearing awarepaths may not actually effect people if they are created in an awarepaducer or even in fidentireplicas. Death can be an illusion. But what about injustice? We can ask if there are more potential negative awarepaths or awaresections than positive ones for one person than another. Then we can also ask about what potential awarepath will become actual. But since time can be infinite we may in up with an infinite amount of negative awarepath divided by an infinite amount of positive awarepath. We then need to include what modified path enhanced path and superpath will effect the nature of being a negative or positive awarepath. It may be that we can make a lot more actual positive awarepaths than negative awarepaths. There may be a percentage of potential positive awarepaths to negative but at higher levels there may be a different percentage.

The “you” singular “you” plural argument

Another person is not you. By the logic of the term “you singular” even if these other people have your consciousness they are not “you” singular. If this is the proof that immortality is impossible, it is a valid argument in other languages than english. The english language has a peculiarity it allows the word you to have both meanings plural and singular. It is only a semantic argument and does not work in the english language where you can be both meaning singular and plural Even though this might be a valid semantic argument is some languages, it does not negate the fact that if some one else has a version of your consciousness or has your ixperiencit or you are experiencing what he is doing this is a form of immortality for that individual.

Difference of survival of death and immortality argument

The difference of survival of death and immortality. We do not survive death. It is an oxymoron when we say this. If you survived death you have not died in the first place. Surviving means not dying. Dying means not surviving. Death means the death of the body which has happened when someone has died or not survived. The real question is does your consciousness or ixperiencit exist after or survive your death or any ones death. This is a different question from if you are immortal. Your consciousness surviving or existing after your death does not mean that you are immortal. If we prove that your consciousness exists after your death this does not prove that a person is immortal. Immortality means that a person is not mortal. Mortal means that you do not ever die. But we do die, so we are not immortal. The real question is does our consciousness or ixperiencit ever die? If can your consciousness die means that it stops or has the ability to stop where there is no consciousness or ixperiencit of yours existing? The answer again is yes. Can a consciousness die where it can never exist again ?