Immortality is binary - one either is or isn't immortal. 1 & 2 above ask for dependencies on fictional categories so the answer is no. 3 & 4 ask for dependencies on irrelevant categories. 5 asks no question.

socratus wrote:

socratus wrote:So, if there are in fact endless worlds and you place yourself in a quantum box
being both an observer of quantum experiments and a test subject of them,
then you will live forever. That, is how you become truly immortal.
If you could, would you hop in the quantum box and live forever?
---
https://interestingengineering.com/a-th ... s-immortal
===

1 - Does immortality depend on Hindu's reincarnations?
2 - Does immortality depend on "Time-Lord's"?
3 - Does immortality depend on time/space travel technologies?
4 - Does immortality depend on motion faster than constant speed of light?
5 - . . . . ?
===

1 - Wut?
2 - Wut?
3 - Wut?
4 - Wut?
5 - finally, something coherent.

The fact that I remember past girlfriends mostly by there tits says a lot about me, very little about them. Logging off for about a week, starting...... now.

Here is a very interesting talk by a neurosurgeon who explains how the material brain cannot be all there is to the mind:

Computer says, "Intelligent design supporter"

Next.

Wortfish wrote:Here is a very interesting talk by a neurosurgeon who explains how the material brain cannot be all there is to the mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Egnor

Michael Egnor is a pediatric neurosurgeon and intelligent design supporter who writes for the Discovery Institute

Wortfish really thinks posting the Egnorance is not automatically self-defeating?

Wow

I've listened to the talk, and it actually was rather interesting, at least in the first 20 minutes or so. After that it fell off a cliff: it's certainly not true that you can't understand biology without considering the "purpose" of whatever you're studying, and when he suddenly veered into Platonic Forms, that was one of the most bizarre moments that I have experienced in an ostensibly scientific address.

But the first part, when he was talking about his subject and the research that he has read about in that area, was indeed interesting. I don't agree with his evident agenda (that this research proves the existence of an immaterial soul that is independent of the material brain), but I think it does show that the functioning of the mind is not necessarily correlated with individual bits of the physical brain. That, in fact, consciousness and thought are emergent phenomena, on a higher level of complexity than the biological cells that form its substrate or matrix. I'd be interested in hearing more about this from someone who doesn't come with this agenda.

Actually, the mind in quantic in nature, you have to address somebody to see if his mind was there or not, in the absence of outside observation, it can be assessed to be both at the same time.

Ha ha!

When they say "Observation" or "Measurement" they mean making an interaction that can be detected by us.

For example in the double slit experiment where you shoot electrons and after measuring them you get a interference pattern instead of a diffractive wave like pattern, all they are doing is colliding photons(light) with the electrons.

Too many people misunderstanding or possibly spreading misinformation that our human consciousness is somehow directly causing the pattern change.