When we go into deep enough sleep, we cease to exist that way anyway, much like the way an AI ceases to exist every time you reboot the computer.
The person I woke up as this morning has all the memories of the person I was last night, but that doesn't mean I'm the same consciousness. It's seems conveniently the case, because there's a continuity.
So ceasing to exist is like going to sleep, only not waking up.
Since we perceive time as linear, if there was an "end" to consciousness, we would not currently have recollection of the events taking place right now. because if we no longer exist, we no longer have the memories, so we skip to the end of the timeline, and there is nothing.
The fact that we are living in the present, and are conscious, proves that there will be life after death.
Oh, you are correct in that I'm not certain of what happens after death. But there is no evidence of afterlife activity. And in fact, cessation of existence is the only possibility compatible with an exclusively material world.
Souls have not been detected in any way, which means if they do exist, they are so ephemeral that they would dissolve to quantum mechanics.
This does not exclude non-material worlds, such as if the universe were a simulation.
>>726902670 one, you referred to consciousness as like rebooting an AI, and the AI losing it's memory.
First off, consciousness is.. con·scious·ness ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/ noun the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later" the awareness or perception of something by a person. plural noun: consciousnesses "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence" the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"
So, it's already described as a "state" and not the person you are.
When you sleep, you "still exist" As long as you are "ALIVE" you exist
You cease to exist upon death.
But to say you are a different "consciousness" is just incorrect, do to the fact that "consciousness" doesnt hold any personal characteristics.
>>726902951 Just because something does not exist, does not mean it isn't there.
If you built a closed in environment, and had people born in it, and all they knew was that world, and someone said, "but there is a man that lives outside our world" people would say that you dont exist.. when you do..
>>726903034 So you are me? You're a solipsist? Or do you not believe that each consciousness is an independant entity?
If I was hypothetically able to copy my brain's data into a computer and upload it, would that still be "me"?
Think the Star Trek teleports. They copy your every atom, disintegrate you, then basically re-create you at another location. Would that still be the same consciousnesses? Or would being "A" die, and being "B" just *think* it was being "A"?
You're right in that things might exist that we don't know about. But when it comes to the human being, we mapped ourselves out pretty extensively.
And there isn't anything we've detected to indicate a human soul, and we've looked. Hard.
We've also looked at other live to see what other properties might suggest that we are central to a greater purpose in this universe. And there's none.
As far as we can tell, we're fungus suspended in the film on the surface of a spec of dust. That's it.
You can suppose all you want that we mean something more, but then you're going to have to provide some evidence to that effect.
You can suppose all you want that there are worlds beyond our own (and String theory even suggests that might be the case) but any hints of the properties of these places, or whether they can support life, let alone who its inhabitants are, is pure speculation. We have no evidence.
>>726901492 Actually we live in a simulator, and like any game this game has certain rules far more limited than the rules outside where our developer is. We will just wake up in another simulation after death, it may reassemble something like heaven or hell but it'll still be part of the simulation. We aren't real
Anon provides a good point. Please continue with this discussion of consciousness and the nature of existence. As far as I'm concerned, you're all automatons or different manifestations of myself, but still myself and experiencing myself in a different way.
>>726903490 Well, when the tech comes out that can download our brains.
And when they have computers powerful enough to triangulate the constantly moving "point a" to "point b" locations for transporting through moving space at what ever speed the earth is moving through space.
>>726904109 Nobody's trying to prove a negative you fucking moron. The time to believe that something is true is when there's good evidence that it's true. Furthermore, people don't wait until they're 100% certain of something to act, they act on the information they have available.
If you have evidence that "souls" exist then do feel free to present it, but until then nobody has any more reason to believe they're real than they do to believe that things like leprechauns or fairies or law-abiding blacks or Santa Claus are real.
>>726904344 How much evidence does pacman have that he's real? Assume for a moment we could give conscious awareness to a simulated game character, how would it know we, the God, exist using the limited tools programmed into its simulation?
If you say there is a soul on the bases we can't disprove it, you're arguing from ignorance. You can argue we have twenty souls and three of them are purple. You can argue we have an inner penguin. It becomes meaningless.
But obviously I hit a nerve, as you're trying to discredit me.
But I'm not going to kill myself, and I won't hope the same on you. But I do expect you'll realize that all your desperate fantasies of greater glory under God are hollow, with no indications except your fellow parishioners patting you on the back and assuring you that OF COURSE Jesus will redeem your immortal soul, and that there is nothing in the universe that verifies that is a test of faith, because faith is important you know.
I'd have preferred if there was a greater construct, a purpose for my living, a benevolent deity. But I'd rather know the truth than live in accordance to comforting lies. And yes, it means having to find a point to everything without there being a point to anything.
Don't let your doubts kill you while you cling to faith.
>>726904651 that's not what this is about and you clearly missed something.. do you know who it was that was posted or are you just being a smart ass? lack of piety will only get you so far I am afraid
>>726904468 We're making the most advancements not in neurology, but in robotics, where we're trying to create robots that behave in a way that is comforting to human beings. Our work with digital assistants such as SIRI or Cortana follow those lines.
So we may not soon be able to map your brain and simulate it, we will be able to map your behavior and simulate that with reasonable authenticity.
But that simulation would probably work differently than your brain does.
When it comes to directly (or near-directly) brain mapping, we'll probably see development in cybernetics. When people lose the ability to engage in certain cognitive functions (e.g. associating names with faces, or doing math) we'll be able to give them a cybernetic replacement that does it for them, much the way we're creating cybernetic eyes and ears that connect directly to the nervous system.
At some point we'll be able to cyber-replace enough of the brain that we'll have a strong idea of how it functions.
And then, yeah, your simulation WILL think the same way you do.
Galileo world out Heliocentricity from a 32x telescope by which he was able to distinctly see the moons of Jupiter.
It was from that that he developed the model by which other planets (from our perspective) would do these loops, where they slowed, stopped, backed up a bit, and then resumed, as Earth overtook them, (or vice versa, in the case of Mercury and Venus).
Then it was Kepler who took things to the next step and worked out the orbits were elliptical (rather than purely circular).
So, at least in Galileo's case, he used technology to figure out the operations of the orbs.
I don't know if someone else, say in the Hellenic epoch, or in China found other ways to make the same determinations.
Still, while we imagined that human beings were special (that we were unique for using tools, or having mores, both long since disproven) we did imagine that human beings had souls, and some people still cling to the notion.
My point is that we've not been able to detect souls through any side-channel attacks, and if they were resilient enough to hold together, we'd have been able to detect them with the scopes we have today.
So they don't exist as a material thing, and we have no other indicators that there's a supernatural element to the universe, id est, we are a simulation generated by a machine computing our natural processes in accordance to the mechanics of another manifold.
Yes, I've probably thought about this sort of thing way too much.
Does the way we have evolved and think lean towards general 'good', 'bad', 'neutral' or 'other' in the grand scheme of the universe?
e.g I believe humans generally try to be 'good'. Whether that's behavior based on the way we are raised, the environment we are raised in I don't know but I believe there is an inclination for humans and animals to be 'good'?
This makes me believe that something more intelligent than us did design us and the universe, or has a hand in shaping it, if not I believe this inclination of goodness in and around us would be neutral
forgive me if this sounds retarded smart people itt
>>726901826 >The person I woke up as this morning has all the memories of the person I was last night, but that doesn't mean I'm the same consciousness. It's seems conveniently the case, because there's a continuity.
Could you explain this a little more? If you're not necessarily in the same consciousness, what consciousness are you in, and what happened to the other consciousness?
Right and wrong are exclusively human concepts which are part of our hypertrophic social brain. Other animals (all mammals!) have social instincts enough to cooperate with their kin, their pack or pride, and some predators are more sophisticated in that regard than herbivores.
Interestingly, when we look at "right" or "wrong" we tend to cling to those things defined by our basic instincts, e.g. loyalty, reciprocity, avoidance of harm, conformity, and so on.
At the point we start getting into modern forms of society (e.g. democracy, social equality, general welfare), we have to determine what is right or just based on the consequences we want to achieve, since traditional morality doesn't apply to outlaws, heretics, infidels or strangers.
I get what you're saying I think, it's kind of relative to our concept of good and bad. But say for example evolution if you will, is the fact life evolved to survive an indication of a 'non neutral bias' for lack of a better word in the universe? Could you call that a neutral occurrence?
The previous consciousness ended when I (literally) lost consciousness to sleep.
When I wake again, the only reason I know who I am, where I am, what I've been doing, etc. is because I remember those things. And it's verified by my surroundings, my family, my stuff, all being familiar and consistent with my memories.
But the only way to assure that I'm the same being, is to stay conscious in perpetuity.
The webcomic Freefall by Mark Stanley gets into this, specifically with his robots who don't want to run any updates that require a reboot, and they don't want to have to restore a backup, on the basis that dying for them is dying, and being rebuilt entirely, or even rebooted in the same old chassis is still some other version of themselves, and not them.
It's the same thing for us, except that we get rebooted, essentially, with every solid night's sleep.
Our ancestors show a chain of stronger social functions, but they really only got us as far as hunting-gathering tribes. We aren't evolved (very much) for the role-specialization that was brought upon by our development into agriculture (in which not everyone had to forage for food), and we are certainly not evolved for nations, modern markets, or industrialization.
I suspect it's why we go crazy every once in a while and decide that we now need to annihilate a large chunk of our society. Pluralism is learned, where racial, cultural and religious sectarianism is innate.
I'm not talking about consciousness as an identity (developments in robotics continue to show there's no difference in self-awareness or consciousness between humans and robots). I'm talking about the state of being awake versus the state of being unconscious.
>>726904916 The gold-digger career (if you can call it that) is a lot of work, and feels gross, not because you're just mooching off some guy -- you're not -- but since part of your job is making it look like it's all effortless, your target thinks you're mooching off him.
And then he dumps you for the younger model, and you have to sue him for all you can, especially if you ruined your body squeezing out puppies for him.
Look at Melania Trump. She's NOT the first wife, and she looks totally miserable being Trump's plaything.
>>726909071 >When I wake again, the only reason I know who I am, where I am, what I've been doing, etc. is because I remember those things. And it's verified by my surroundings, my family, my stuff, all being familiar and consistent with my memories.
But If we awake to a new consciousness every day, we need to physical world to verify the memory from our previous consciousness.
What if I fall asleep for 3 hours, then wake up to a stimuli, then fall back asleep for 4 hours? Am I'm burning through multiple consciousnesses?
I don't think the language means much. It's pretty casual how we can interchange gaining vs. regaining. I can see just as easily someone gaining consciousness from a nights sleep, vs. regaining consciousness after having been stunned with a taser.
Still, consciousness remains a state of activity, not a state of personhood. But we think of the continuing state as "ourselves", and it's easy to think of it as ongoing so long as interruptions are short.
But imagine we stowed all your knowledge and memories and inclination away, then two thousand years later, constructed a new body based on a digital storage of your DNA and uploaded to it the mental data we stowed before, would that still be "you"?
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.