Immortality? I think not.

[Sean_353]

Consciousness, while nonetheless remaining an elusive concept, is unequivocally a physically tangible thing. There is no evidence to suggest that our sentience as intelligent biological organisms can be attributed to anything other than complex neural networks. Souls are laughably metaphysical, but consciousness isn't. And personally I think the brain is a lot more interesting than the "soul".

We live under the delusional and erroneous belief that our actions, our thoughts, or our human legacy are somehow eternally physically consequential － that either our consciousness or physical existence is immortal or will produce indefinitely observable effects within the Universe. It is debatable whether the matter particles which comprise us or the total quantity of internal energy (and by extension, entropy) we possess will remain in existence regardless of the cosmological state of the Universe or is affected by the cosmological arrow of time. But we know that the physical attributes and density fluctuations of a star become irrelevant and undetectable once it has reached critical mass and collapsed into a space-time singularity. Any black hole’s internal constituents cannot be noticeably differentiated from that of another, barring external influences such as gas clumps or stars (which can produce accretion disks). If the Universe ultimately contracts due to an accumulation of gravitational force or any other force which results in the reversal of the cosmological arrow of time, thus creating an infinitesimal space-time singularity similar to the one before the big bang, nothing － no astrophysical events, let alone human actions, preceding it － will have any effect whatsoever. Our actions are meaningless in cosmological time. We are limited by our biological lifetimes. Yet while this revelation is seemingly a depressing one, we can use it as motivation to take immediate action in our lives and extend our legacy beyond our mere short term physical consequences. While nothing is permanent, we can create a reasonably enduring effect on humanity and its institutions. Granted, this requires an inherent appreciation for the beauty of humanity and a will to contribute to the advancement of our species, but anyone who aspires to expand his/her legacy beyond his/her lifetime will undoubtedly possess this. In summary, we are not immortal creatures. No technological advancements or scientific revelations can attenuate this reality. But knowing how finite we really are can empower us to take action in our lives.

[brimstoneSalad]

Consciousness, while nonetheless remaining an elusive concept, is unequivocally a physically tangible thing.

Consciousness is a terrible term to use, but it is precisely NOT a tangible thing. Tangible means you can touch it. Can you touch consciousness? No.

Many things that are part of physical reality are nonetheless intangible. Information processes most of all.

"Consciousness" and other mental processes are best compared to computer programs.

Can you touch a computer program? No, of course not. You may be able to touch the computer, or the disk the program's data and instructions are stamped on, but you can not touch the active, executing flow of information and processing that is the program itself.

But we know that the physical attributes and density fluctuations of a star become irrelevant and undetectable once it has reached critical mass and collapsed into a space-time singularity. Any black hole’s internal constituents cannot be noticeably differentiated from that of another, barring external influences such as gas clumps or stars (which can produce accretion disks).

You're talking about information loss, and the violation of the (unproven, but sometimes assumed) perfectly reversible nature of all reaction.
You don't have to go that far, or that exotic. Quantum noise destroys information constantly, everywhere.

Our actions are meaningless in cosmological time.

Not necessarily so. But we can discuss that later.

[KenBrace]

Consciousness is some weird stuff. It is my believe that the exchange of energy and information is what produces consciousness. So with this line of reasoning a computer is conscious. Well sort of. If a computer processed as much information as a human brain then the level of consciousness would be equivalent. However, computers are very very far from that. So their level of consciousness might be comparable to a gnat or less.

We have some ideas about what causes consciousness but we have no idea what it actually is. It's not physical so you can't study it directly. That's why thousands of men have devoted thousands of hours to this topic to no avail. The study of consciousness has been man's greatest waste of time. Well it's not really a waste because it's fun to ponder over, but in terms of progress we're basic still where we started.

[Sean_353]

Consciousness is a terrible term to use, but it is precisely NOT a tangible thing. Tangible means you can touch it. Can you touch consciousness? No.

Would you prefer "sentience"? And yes, referring to sentience as literally "tangible" is immature and ineffectual at describing the aspect of the physical world to which I'm referring. Essentially I'm trying to convey that the physical world is the only world, and that while you cannot "touch" sentience collectively, it requires a complex set of neural networks comprised of tangible axons, dendrites, neurons and electrical impulses. Anthropic mechanism, if you will. And as we both know, to ascribe the characteristic of animals that we call consciousness or sentience to something as metaphysical as a "soul" is preposterous, since there simply is no requirement for this nor evidence to support its existence.

Can you touch a computer program? No, of course not. You may be able to touch the computer, or the disk the program's data and instructions are stamped on, but you can not touch the active, executing flow of information and processing that is the program itself.

I would argue that the individual constituents necessary for a computer program to function are easily physically tangible, even the flow of information which you seem to claim is merely a conceptual process (correct me if I'm misunderstanding you). Even entropy is technically quantifiable. You can (hypothetically) touch the electrons repelling each other through circuitry (electricity) and the photons through which the information is ultimately displayed to the user. But forgive me. I'm obviously new to this forum and I'm only a 14 year old. I genuinely do appreciate your comments.

You don't have to go that far, or that exotic.

Perhaps not. But I was attempting to compare the insignificance of astrophysical events prior to the big bang (or future big bang) to the properties of a star, and subsequently what is essentially a smaller version of such a space-time singularity. As you're well aware, black holes can provide fascinating information about the origins of our Universe. But that's not to say I'm perfectly content with the idea of space-time "singularities". A singularity is physically and conceptually a lack of knowledge about certain cosmological phenomena, which is why I don't feel they should exist. String theory is interesting, though seems to defy Occam's razor.

Not necessarily so. But we can discuss that later.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks again.

[Sean_353]

Consciousness is some weird stuff. It is my believe that the exchange of energy and information is what produces consciousness. So with this line of reasoning a computer is conscious. Well sort of. If a computer processed as much information as a human brain then the level of consciousness would be equivalent. However, computers are very very far from that. So their level of consciousness might be comparable to a gnat or less.

We have some ideas about what causes consciousness but we have no idea what it actually is. It's not physical so you can't study it directly. That's why thousands of men have devoted thousands of hours to this topic to no avail. The study of consciousness has been man's greatest waste of time. Well it's not really a waste because it's fun to ponder over, but in terms of progress we're basic still where we started.

I'm not a femenist, but don't forget women. And I suggest you supplant "man" with "humanity" in the future.

As for consciousness, it may be the effective reversal of the second law of thermodynamics - consciousness can be described as the organization or "ordering" of information, thereby reducing entropy. But of course, we still have little to no idea.

[brimstoneSalad]

Would you prefer "sentience"?

Sentience is more rigorous, yes.
We know quite exactly what that is.
Look into associative learning, and operant conditioning (operant being the key word there, and a clear indication of primitive sentience).

Essentially I'm trying to convey that the physical world is the only world,

Try naturalistic, or materialistic; these are more general and applicable terms.

Even entropy is technically quantifiable. You can (hypothetically) touch the electrons repelling each other through circuitry (electricity) and the photons through which the information is ultimately displayed to the user.

Just because something is quantifiable, doesn't mean it's tangible. Entropy is not tangible.
Also, an information and its flow are not tangible, since these are conceptual, even if the medium storing or carrying the information is tangible -- a word as a concept is not tangible just because it may be conveyed in vibrations through the air, or written on a page in a book with tangible ink.

But even in terms of that medium (if you forgive the conceptual nature of information), a flow of information in material can not be touched without disrupting it, and potentially destroying it.

Consider Epicurus' on death:

Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.

In terms of information, the moment you have touched it, it has very potentially ceased to be, and in the very least it has changed.

A singularity is physically and conceptually a lack of knowledge about certain cosmological phenomena, which is why I don't feel they should exist.

Study relativity. When you get that, you'll start to understand black holes.

String theory is interesting, though seems to defy Occam's razor.

String theory isn't theory, it's an incomplete metaphysical model, more like religion than science as of yet.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Look into generalizability of moral action. Anyway, all of this depends on your understanding principles of objective morality first. Ask me again once you think you have that well in hand.

[Sean_353]

Study relativity. When you get that, you'll start to understand black holes.

I'm well familiar with general relativity. When I referred to a "singularity" I was still referring to the infinitely dense, innermost constituents of a black hole invisible and currently (almost) impossible to study due to the space-time curvature which surrounds it (the event horizon). However, I "feel they shouldn't exist" because we know virtually nothing about them. Perhaps when/if we are capable of reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity and establishing deterministic laws that govern the behavior of black holes, a different term will be applicable. That is all.

I recognize and wholeheartedly respect that you may be substantially more educated in theoretical physics than myself.

[brimstoneSalad]

Black holes are theoretical, there may not be any. We can't study them directly, only mathematically.

Some think they can't form at all: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

But what do you mean, "deterministic"?

[Sean_353]

Black holes are theoretical, there may not be any. We can't study them directly, only mathematically.

Some think they can't form at all: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

But what do you mean, "deterministic"?

Thank you for the link.
I probably shouldn't have used "deterministic" so casually, but I'm referring to laws which would effectively predict the quantum mechanical behaviors of any individual particles/waves and the forces they exert within the bounds of the Uncertainty Principle. Some say the modern goal of science is to predict the behavior of all naturally occurring phenomena - of biological organisms, particles, etc., - within the limitations of Uncertainty. I imagine you're already familiar with scientific predetermination (not to be confused with predeterminism), and Feynman's "sum-over-histories".*

*I'm certainly not stating these as factually correct, merely using them as reference.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm referring to laws which would effectively predict the quantum mechanical behaviors of any individual particles/waves and the forces they exert within the bounds of the Uncertainty Principle.

That's like saying we can predict the results of a craps game, except the dice rolls.
How does that have anything to do with determinism? Or immortality, for that matter?

Look into chaotic functions.
The range of possible behavior (within the bounds of uncertainty) is so broad, such a prediction is pretty much as useless as astrology for practical macroscopic purposes; so vague, it could account for anything.