>tfw back in uni >tfw wanted to go back because being at

>tfw failing classes before midterms

wew lad

>>25732472
First week of classes here and I still haven't attended a single one.

>>25732244
>The reality is that there is no escape and there's no telling where in the fuck you're going to end up next time around.
Made me laugh anon, but you're right.

I think we're both depressed though.

>>25733382
Only the normies that come to this board aren't depressed or mentally abnormal in some way. Hence "normies".

>>25733471
I like to imagine there's someplace in the universe where a civilization isn't a total cesspool of faggotry.

>>25733541
Apparently the physical laws of the universe aren't uniform, so maybe there's a fucking PARADISE out there and we're sitting here in the sticks, oblivious.

I hate how suicide is so intensely scrutinized. You are literally "re-rolling".

>>25733622
I'm convinced you don't have to wait until one turn is over to begin another though. I'll kill myself if it gets bad enough of course.

>>25733694
Yeah, but the shitty thing is that you never know if next time around you'll ever manage to realize that you never die. You'll live a life of suffering and fear, clinging to everything around you, and never realizing that death is by definition unattainable. Worse still, you may end up in a truly horrifying situation. How would it feel to have one's center of consciousness on this planet in the 1940s during the peak of the Holocaust as a Jew? It's fucking crazy and this train has no brakes.

That's one of the main reasons I don't want to die right now. Because I may be a blabbering faggot next time that thinks his (or her, or whatever) existence is somehow significant when it is really nothing more than a "gesture".

>>25733808
Yeah that is also one of my motivators for living. But if you think about it, it's inevitable that you'll realize it once again sometime down the line.

Think about how many times you've already realized it, only to go through so many more lifetimes of not knowing.

>>25733881
If it can happen once, it can happen again. So yeah, this is probably not the first time we've realized this.

It's just so fucking weird knowing it, though. Especially with the knowledge that I may never know it for millenia, potentially. I seriously can't even live right anymore because I know about it. It's both a boon and a curse-it gives you the courage to do stupid things but it also can act as a demotivator because you know that you are all there is, and so why even do anything besides the most basic of your biological programming? Eat. Sleep. Masturbate. And what you find immediately gratifying outside of those items.

>>25733881
One thing I'm most interested in, actually, is why can "it" only inhabit one center of consciousness at a time? What is this strange lucidity to my surroundings and life? Why can I only perceive wiggles with my sensory instruments and not someone else's? Why not a bee that I may spot on a walk?

I feel like the answer is really obvious, but I can't quite put 2 and 2 together on this one.

>>25734142
what is "it," exactly?

>>25734185
It is everything. It is the real you.

>>25734218
But the real you is just your brain and body and everything you have ever perceived, your memories. If "it" could inherit a bee, you wouldn't be you, you'd be the bee.

>>25734142
I'm not sure why the experience feels so "one-at-a-time". The way consciousness arises is still an absolute mystery to me. The main clue I have is that you can remove either half of the brain (surgically) and still feel like yourself but not experience what's happening to at the other half.

Physical entities aren't isolated and of course interact with everything around them, but sometimes they have to be in a certain proximity to interact in a certain way. Like how black holes are formed only when gravity overcomes other forces due to the density of the material.

I don't like babbling when my ideas are still so baseless, so I'll stop there. If we do figure it out one day, I'm guessing it'll be obvious like you suggested. Maybe they've already figured it out somewhere else in the universe and it's all a good time now.

>>25734185
If you conceptualize it you lose it, but one of the least wrong ways of putting it is "whatever is doing you". Your brain isn't a thing just sitting there all on its own, you can at least physically understand that whatever is doing you is doing everyone else.

>>25734349
That's a narrow way of defining yourself. It's not actually wrong, but you just end up defining something different. By this approach, the me who started writing this post isn't the me who's writing now. This approach is useful for solving some philosophical identity questions (like the Ship of Thesus) but it still ignores a more fundamental way of looking at things.

this thread went places

>>25734349
So I as I perceive myself am "it", and everyone else is "it", except they are only "it" in the context of them perceiving themselves?

We're both "it", then.

I have another theory. You can only lucidly be "it" when you're an intelligent organism. If that's the case, then what determines when you get a seat of consciousness where you're vividly aware of your own existence? Is it just random? Is there a queue of sorts? Suppose I kill myself right now-what determines the next destination? I obviously struck gold by becoming an intelligent organism this time, however there's no way to tell if I'll become one again in even the next billion years.

But then again if you were not hyper aware of your own existence, then that time as a simple organism should pass quickly-maybe inception as a sufficiently intelligent organism is like a "pitstop" of sorts amid trillions of other lifetimes spent in the semi-consciousness of an insect or who knows what half way across the universe.

>>25734705
Isn't this the basis of reincarnation?
You die, you reincarnate, you die, you reincarnate, endlessly, until you reach the highest point.

But in that case, what defines "you." If this theory where real, we obviously can't remember what we were in our past lives. Those past lives where not us, just being controlled by us

>>25734705
I feel like it's simpler than that. What would a physical basis for a queue system even be? Why even assume multiple sources of consciousness. How would those sources be truly separate and not the same phenomenon? It makes more sense to conclude that even though you experience it one at time, you're still everyone.

>>25734458
>The main clue I have is that you can remove either half of the brain (surgically) and still feel like yourself but not experience what's happening to at the other half.


That's super fucking interesting. Does that mean that the other half is "experiencing" just as the one that you *know* you are consciously experiencing?

If that's the case, then what it may mean is that consciousness is just a symptom of sorts that can't not happen. There's no "off".

Another thing worth looking into may be conjoined twins, who I think experience what the other half is experiencing, in at least some capacity.

>>25734952
>What would a physical basis for a queue system even be
Very true, that sounds silly now that you've pointed it out.

But why am I experiencing "here" in my dark dorm room, behind a computer monitor, and not "there" (somewhere in Russia playing Dota and chain smoking, on another planet, etc)? I feel like this is one of the biggest questions.

>>25734964
If you could keep it working, then the presumption is that yes that half is also experiencing. The problem is we don't know how to keep half a brain alive once we remove it, or even if we could we don't know how to meaningfully interact with it when it lacks traditional sensory input. An interesting thought though is that people with their corpus calosum (the structure that connects the two halves of the brain) do probably have two separate consciousnesses within them.

About conjoined twins, there could be a basis for shared sensory inputs or motor firing, but they don't share any inter-neurons, which make up 99% of our neurons in our brain, and are the type of neuron we know the least about but that seem to be the most important for consciousness. That makes me doubt a shared consciousness to any extent between them.

>>25735053
To me, it's the same question as why we only experience one consciousness at a time. I still don't have a good answer to it. A similar question that used to interest me is "why is it now? why isn't it tomorrow or a thousand years ago?". It feels like the wrong question is being asked, and that may be true.

>>25735216
I meant to say people with their corpus calosum severed.

>>25735216
>why is it now

Maybe it's because you've always been here. You just must experience it "one-at-a-time", each time entirely broken off from the others, so completely so that using the word reincarnation to describe the phenomenon (which I don't think is a phenomenon at all, more of just the automatic, obligatory manifestation of a self to contrast the whole) is inapt. It creates the illusion (that is necessary, you need to feel like an isolated, vulnerable organism in order to dance the dance that accords with your programming, the universe's programming for you to operate in your respective ecosystem) that "you" were by chance born in the year 1990 or whenever, and were never alive in 1600 or the year 1. It just really feels like time started when you were born, and will stop when you die-and it's totally natural to think like that. You're supposed to.

>>25735553
Those are some good thoughts anon.

>>25734964
My eyes missed your middle sentence until now, but you're absolutely right. There is no "off" for consciousness. Non-experience isn't an experience so you don't have to wait in a suspended state or anything. Even if all of the conscious beings in the universe were killed, there wouldn't be a sense of waiting or being off. You would "immediately" proceed to the next naturally arising consciousness, no matter how much measurable time had passed.