By resurrection I mean the ability to bring back people, even long after they have died and their body has decayed or been destroyed. I do not mean simply bringing someone back who has been cryonically frozen. I also mean bringing back the same person who died, not simply making a clone.
I will try to explain what I mean by “the same”. Lets call the person before they died “Bob 1” and the resurrected version ”Bob 2”. Bob 1 and Bob 2 are completely selfish and only care about themselves. In the version of resurrection I am talking about, Bob 1 cares as much about Bob 2’s experience as Bob 1 would care about Bob 1’s future experience, had Bob 1 not died.
It is kind of tricky to articulate exactly what I mean when I say “the same”, but I hope the above is good enough.
If you want to, an estimate of the percentage chance of this being possible would be cool, but if you just want to give your thoughts I would be interested in that aswell.
I believe we’ll build eventually systems that we call resurrection, and which some people believe qualify as it. You haven’t provided enough information for me to guess whether we’ll build systems that you believe qualify as it, though.
If I brought you someone and said “this is your great-grandparent resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
If I brought you someone and said “this is your ancestor from 100 generations ago resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
If I brought you someone and said “this is Abraham Lincoln resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
If I brought you someone and said “this is a member of the species Homo Erectus resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
You must explain what you mean by “the same” before anyone can give you a useful answer about how likely it is that such a criterion will ever be met.
I have edited my shortform to try to better explain what I mean by “the same”. It is kind of hard to do so, especially as I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but hopefully it is good enough.
I will try to explain what I mean by “the same”. Lets call the person before they died “Bob 1” and the resurrected version ”Bob 2”. Bob 1 and Bob 2 are completely selfish and only care about themselves. In the version of resurrection I am talking about, Bob 1 cares as much about Bob 2’s experience as Bob 1 would care about Bob 1’s future experience, had Bob 1 not died.
This supposes that Bob 1 knows about Bob 2′s experiences. That seems impossible if Bob 1 died before Bob 2 came into being, which is what’s typically understood by the term “resurrect” used in the context of death (“restore (a dead person) to life.”). If Bob 1 and Bob 2 exist at the same time, whatever’s happening is probably not resurrection.
Let’s stick with standard resurrection though: Bob 1 dies and then Bob 2 comes into existence. We’re measuring their sameness, at your request, by the expected sentiment of each toward the other.
If I was unethical researcher in the present day, I could name a child Bob 2 and raise it to be absolutely certain that it was the reincarnation of Bob 1. It would be nice if the child happened to share some genes with Bob 1, but not absolutely essential. The child would not have an easy life, as it would be accused of various mental disorders and probably identity theft, but it would technically meet the “sameness is individual belief” criterion that you require. As an unethical researcher, I would of course select the individual Bob 1 to be someone who believes that reincarnation is possible, and thus cares about the wellbeing of their expected reincarnated self (whom they probably define as ‘the person who believes they’re my reincarnation’, because most people don’t think adversarially about such things) as much as they care about their own.
There you go, a hypothetical pair of individuals who meet your criteria, created using no technology more advanced than good ol’ cult brainwashing. So for this definition, I’d say the percentage chance that it’s possible matches the percentage chance that someone would be willing to set their qualms aside and ruin Bob 2′s life prospects for the sake of the experiment.
(yes, this is an unsatisfying answer, but I hope it might illustrate something useful if you see how its nature follows directly from the nature of your question)
Your response does illustrate that there are holes in my explanation. Bob 1 and Bob 2 do not exist at the same time. They are meant to represent one person at two different points in time.
A separate way I could try to explain what kind of resurrection I am talking about is to imagine a married couple. An omniscient husband would have to care as much about his wife after she was resurrected as he did before she died.
I somewhat doubt that I could patch all of the holes that could be found in my explanation. I would appreciate it if you try to answer what I am trying to ask.
I would appreciate it if you try to answer what I am trying to ask.
What I’m hearing here is that you want me to make up a version of your initial question that’s coherent, and offer an answer that you find satisfying. However, I have already proposed a refinement of your question that seems answerable, and you’ve rejected that refinement as missing the point.
If you want to converse with someone capable of reading your mind and discerning not only what answer you want but also what question you want the answer to, I’m sorry to inform you that I am unable to use those powers on you at this time.
My inability to provide an answer which satisfies you stems directly from my inability to understand what question you want answered, so I don’t think this is a constructive conversation to continue. Thank you for your time and discourse in challenging me to articulate why your seemingly intended question seems unanswerable, even though I don’t think I’ve articulated that in a way that’s made sense to you.
Do you believe that resurrection is possible?
By resurrection I mean the ability to bring back people, even long after they have died and their body has decayed or been destroyed. I do not mean simply bringing someone back who has been cryonically frozen. I also mean bringing back the same person who died, not simply making a clone.
I will try to explain what I mean by “the same”. Lets call the person before they died “Bob 1” and the resurrected version ”Bob 2”. Bob 1 and Bob 2 are completely selfish and only care about themselves. In the version of resurrection I am talking about, Bob 1 cares as much about Bob 2’s experience as Bob 1 would care about Bob 1’s future experience, had Bob 1 not died.
It is kind of tricky to articulate exactly what I mean when I say “the same”, but I hope the above is good enough.
If you want to, an estimate of the percentage chance of this being possible would be cool, but if you just want to give your thoughts I would be interested in that aswell.
I believe we’ll build eventually systems that we call resurrection, and which some people believe qualify as it. You haven’t provided enough information for me to guess whether we’ll build systems that you believe qualify as it, though.
If I brought you someone and said “this is your great-grandparent resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
If I brought you someone and said “this is your ancestor from 100 generations ago resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
If I brought you someone and said “this is Abraham Lincoln resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
If I brought you someone and said “this is a member of the species Homo Erectus resurrected”, how would you decide whether you believed that resurrection was real?
You must explain what you mean by “the same” before anyone can give you a useful answer about how likely it is that such a criterion will ever be met.
I have edited my shortform to try to better explain what I mean by “the same”. It is kind of hard to do so, especially as I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but hopefully it is good enough.
This supposes that Bob 1 knows about Bob 2′s experiences. That seems impossible if Bob 1 died before Bob 2 came into being, which is what’s typically understood by the term “resurrect” used in the context of death (“restore (a dead person) to life.”). If Bob 1 and Bob 2 exist at the same time, whatever’s happening is probably not resurrection.
Let’s stick with standard resurrection though: Bob 1 dies and then Bob 2 comes into existence. We’re measuring their sameness, at your request, by the expected sentiment of each toward the other.
If I was unethical researcher in the present day, I could name a child Bob 2 and raise it to be absolutely certain that it was the reincarnation of Bob 1. It would be nice if the child happened to share some genes with Bob 1, but not absolutely essential. The child would not have an easy life, as it would be accused of various mental disorders and probably identity theft, but it would technically meet the “sameness is individual belief” criterion that you require. As an unethical researcher, I would of course select the individual Bob 1 to be someone who believes that reincarnation is possible, and thus cares about the wellbeing of their expected reincarnated self (whom they probably define as ‘the person who believes they’re my reincarnation’, because most people don’t think adversarially about such things) as much as they care about their own.
There you go, a hypothetical pair of individuals who meet your criteria, created using no technology more advanced than good ol’ cult brainwashing. So for this definition, I’d say the percentage chance that it’s possible matches the percentage chance that someone would be willing to set their qualms aside and ruin Bob 2′s life prospects for the sake of the experiment.
(yes, this is an unsatisfying answer, but I hope it might illustrate something useful if you see how its nature follows directly from the nature of your question)
Your response does illustrate that there are holes in my explanation. Bob 1 and Bob 2 do not exist at the same time. They are meant to represent one person at two different points in time.
A separate way I could try to explain what kind of resurrection I am talking about is to imagine a married couple. An omniscient husband would have to care as much about his wife after she was resurrected as he did before she died.
I somewhat doubt that I could patch all of the holes that could be found in my explanation. I would appreciate it if you try to answer what I am trying to ask.
What I’m hearing here is that you want me to make up a version of your initial question that’s coherent, and offer an answer that you find satisfying. However, I have already proposed a refinement of your question that seems answerable, and you’ve rejected that refinement as missing the point.
If you want to converse with someone capable of reading your mind and discerning not only what answer you want but also what question you want the answer to, I’m sorry to inform you that I am unable to use those powers on you at this time.
My inability to provide an answer which satisfies you stems directly from my inability to understand what question you want answered, so I don’t think this is a constructive conversation to continue. Thank you for your time and discourse in challenging me to articulate why your seemingly intended question seems unanswerable, even though I don’t think I’ve articulated that in a way that’s made sense to you.