So what does /sci/ believe happens from the observer's perspective

>>7856879
>There are no correct or incorrect answers.
Bullshit. The correct answer is you die. Anything else is just made up nonsense.

>>7856879

OP's thread does not deserve propagation, because he was clearly just visiting the old meme-website ytmnd.com and lazily came up with the idea for this thread with same ideas and source material without mentioning the old website.

The below is something that OP was probably just looking at, and was a noted "xD random meme!" about ten years ago, involving cats and metaphysics. In fact, the web page was created well before the youtube "keyboard cat" meme took off, which OP's filename disingenuously references.

http://whatyouseewhenyoudie.ytmnd.com/

>>7856891
Blah, damn my kind terminology. Replace 'correct' and 'incorrect' with 'right' and 'wrong' if it helps oneself understand that this is for speculation.

>>7856903
>this dense, making an assumption and posting their own link. Nice try Mr. Viruspants

I'm still up if anyone wants to add value to the thread. But, it's looking quite lame... Thank goodness I still have myself to talk to.

uh, i will contribute:
the "eye" of the observer closes
and he is no more able to precive anything new
like an end of a book

>>7856932
Tremendous. So the perceivable universe from the observer's perspective will cease to exist. Correct?

>>7856937
well, yeah, but from the observers prespective so would the observer himself, meaning he would not be able to gather information of any sort, existing or NON existing

File: FB_IMG_1446071281540.jpg (41KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x640px

>>7856941
Awesome, thank you for contributing. (not being condescending)

So the observer's perspective becomes that of which is nonexistent or as some may deem it "nothing." Completely reasonable.

I believe a large amount of the scientific community would agree with this.

Why, do so many believe that there is nothing? Well because there isn't enough scientific evidence to support any other "ideas" or "theories." Why isn't there, because there isn't a known way to fully test and understand everything there is to know about the entire process. All we have is concrete scientific fact of what happens from another observer's perspective. And the "word" of people who experienced "death" and came back (but so many humans lie and we can't really rely on this)

So ultimately, many of you may be wondering why bother speculating on something like this?

Exactly

>>7856879
>There are no correct or incorrect answers.
That could be more true than we realize. I mean the assumption seems to always be that the nature of death has already been determined.

/observer

>>7856977
>>7856985
there are many assumptions regarding death

whether from religion like incarnation or paradise, or the "scientific" if you could say that, that it is the end of conciousness

why is it so? because i believe that in the end, you we all want to not exist in some way

>>7856985
Saying we understand death is "similar" to saying we understand everything about the universe.

We do know a lot (especially compared to what we used to know), but at the same time there are things within the subject that we still don't fully understand.

And to say a theory simply isn't "correct" because there isn't enough evidence isn't enough notion to deem it irrelevant. The "what if" can be powerful in human thought. (I don't want to take a tangent, but it pisses me off how people can live only to sustain and don't think for themselves, but to each their own.)

>>7857008
Another thing to think about is how relative our consciousness is to everyone else and everything else.

As well as why we only perceive that of which we are able to perceive?

File: 51av79NK71L.jpg (46KB, 331x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 331x500px

>>7856879

>>7857008
>>7857019
I realize now I wasn't being clear enough. What I'm saying is, how do we know it's even a fixed thing that happens? The idea that the hereafter is any one particular way at this present moment is a bit strange when the even the distant stars here in the material world don't have a present moment for us either.

>>7856879
They start speaking in word salad and pass on to >>>/x/.

>>7857058
Not sure if real or joking, but I support it nonetheless

>>7857066
It may not "happen" in that regards. But, it depends on how time and change is viewed.

>>7857067
I haven't had much luck communicating such a thread there. I was kinda hoping to come across open minds here... Again "Speculation." Use everything you have in that brain and pineal gland and think about the possibilities.

File: B-52 Graveyard.jpg (237KB, 1200x847px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1200x847px

First of all I would panick, I would most likely say something like ''Is that it? It can't end like this'', then I would gradually lose lucidity, my thought process would be impaired.
Then comes the sense of peace: I understand that I'm dying, I know how unavoidable it is but it feels to good to fight it.
I get asleep smiling, then there is no ''then''.

It's like having sex. You was doing good, then you realized that it's going away, and then it popped. After that, who care, just go to sleep

>>7857107
And "then" or rather the absence of then is bound to infinite possibilities for it isn't defined. It could even be nothing...

One last thought about the whole "there is nothing." Because it is just as likely as anything else. But, I know certain people feel uneasy about this, so I want to also say..."nothing" is a tough definition in regards to such an unknown subject. Because what we perceive as nothing may be or is still bound by other parameters. I mean the universe came from "nothing," when you combine matter and antimatter they become "nothing," really any absence from perception could be argued as "nothing." So "nothing" is (in a weird way) something. Now it's important to think about this abstractly because if thought of literally by definition it's an oxymoron.

>>7857130
Lol

your brain releases dmt into your system before you die, what we do know is that we are induced into a trance before we are completely dead, its the transition of your consciousness or soul leaving your material body

>>7858098
OP here. DMT is truly fascinating IMHO. For it can be experienced while alive. And I know a lot of the scientific community could give a rip about this post-materialistic science because it doesn't have physical world study or application. But, it is interesting to theorize that the brain is like a television set and consciousness is more like a TV signal. And our perception of "reality" is skewed.

I apologize to the concrete thinkers for this thread, I understand how this can sound and how many will disagree with it. For those of you who enjoy thinking abstractly keep contributing. I mean it can be both entertaining and fascinating