What is consciousness and what is death? We spent an eternity

File: xOr2nfr.png (311KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 960x720px

>>8391985

It's absurd to compare before birth and after death.

>>8391990

I'm not comparing them, I'm asking what the likelihood of a "reincarnation" like resumption of existence after death is. We crossed from non-existence into existence once before, why would this not be possible again?

>>8391985
>>8391994
You did not exist before you existed (duh) so you never "crossed from nonexistence into existence". It's not like your soul is floating around, then goes into a baby, and then goes out when you die. So there is no reincarnation. Once you die, you're dead.

>>8392004
>You did not exist before you existed
Says you.

I have always remembered since I was a kid pre birth memories of me having a meeting with some kind of heavenly judges and I guess I was fit to go to hell and I guess I went to a hellish place before and I literally begged not to go back there and they agreed they would send me to earth and I would not have a good life and even when I was young I would remember this I would be in the shower at 8 years old saying my life is not going to be good and I'm 26 years old and my life has not been good at all I'm not going to get into all the details of my life but I had a bad childhood bad teenage years and so far a bad adulthood not being able to find a job and not being able to work and being lonely and not having anybody. even when I was young I knew my life wasn't going to be good.

>>8392004

>You did not exist before you existed

So then by what process did I become conscious of my own existence, and why won't this happen again after I cease to exist?

>>8391994
50%, it either happens or it doesn't.

>>8392014
By the process of your body being created in your mother's womb, and your brain developing. Once this body dies, you are dead. Even if I made a copy of your body it still wouldn't be you and you wouldn't be reincarnated, because it's a separate body.

>>8392127

>Even if I made a copy of your body it still wouldn't be you and you wouldn't be reincarnated, because it's a separate body.

The real epiphany is realizing even if "you" have most of the same atoms and memories of "you" from an hour ago, it still isn't "you" because continuity of identity is a convenient fiction with no real world equivalent. "You" can't make a copy be "you," but there's also absolutely nothing "you" ever could come up with that would carry over "you" that a perfect copy doesn't already have. The closest real world equivalent to continuity of identity is just memories and the external circumstances around you (neighbors, co-workers, family, government and business identification, credit history, etc.) playing along with that idea of continued identity. A copy can't gain it only because the thing in question never really existed to begin with.

They're both just memes. You don't really have consciousness and you don't really die.

>>8392127

I'm not talking about my physical body being recreated, I'm talking about my consciousness or perception of "self" re-emerging from non-existence

>>8391985
you assume there is something trascendent that you can call yourself. But what you consider to be yourself is just a collection of your memories.

If you do resurrect, who is gonna be the 'you' resurrecting? The 'you' right now, the 'you' when you were a kid or the 'you' when you are an old man? Is there a 'you' who is independent of your own body and can trascend time/space and resume existence? Are you even the same person you were 10 yeard ago, a year ago or 5 minutes ago?

>>8392320
Your consciousness is a product of your physical body. It can't re-emerge because your body can't be resuscitated. Imagine if I created a perfect clone of you with all of your memories. Would you think this clone is you if it was walking right next to you? Then why would you think that if I did the same thing when you were dead you would be "reincarnated"? Ultimately it is impossible to define "you" in a non-arbitrary manner, because our conception of self has nothing to do with reality.

>>8392320
Well, the information that constitutes your self is enclosed somewhere within the infinite, non-repeating decimals of Pi, so...

No.

Get over it, "no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." Your question has been answered 2500 years ago.

>>8392009
You sound like you need some Seroquel.