Guys did you know that death is scientifically bullshit!? C

It is a creative theory but still flawed.

When you smash a computer, it doesnt keep computing. This is death in a nutshell.

>>8732525
I'm so glad you bumped this thread anon.

>>8731351
>people unironically think they are more than advanced ai's who got cut off from the GOD network

>>8732525

I think the argument is that the computer is just a vessel for the computing and its results. Even now, you can store all of your meaningful data outside of your computer and it can survive its destruction.

If I destroy this computer right now, your comment will survive because it's not even stored on it, let alone generated by it.

>>8733416

So? You can write down everything I say but when I'm dead, I'll be dead.

>>8733422
What if I store your neural activity in a computer that can continue processing that neural activity for all time, just like your physical brain? What if I achieve this by replacing your brain one neuron at a time?

>>8733426

Then it's a completely different analogy. Then all you're doing is preventing me from dying.

File: 1404803310983.jpg (27KB, 450x495px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 450x495px

>>8732525
>>8732931
>>8733416
>taking this retarded video seriously
although I suppose you were talking about what they were kind of trying to say but were too retarded to understand themselves

On a much more interesting note:
>browse through youtube comments
>half of them are unironical variations of really makes you think

>>8731351
Respiratory Student with an interest in physics hoping I can provide the flaw you seek:
This argumentation is bullshit, regardless of how thought-provoking it may be, it's based on the equivocation of two different ideas of energy...
Energy's a physical property which molecules may hold and not a stand-alone entity.
To equate conservation of life with conservation of energy is to misunderstand the role of energy in the physical properties that create life and allow it to function.
Creation of ATP (organic molecule with high chemical potential) requires respiration (CO2 production from O2) and reaction with another source of chemical potential (carbs, protein, or fat). This is metabolism.
When we die, we have the exact same amount of chemical potential as a moment earlier when we were alive. We just lack the O2 supply for metabolism to take place.

Eg: Myocardial Infarction (heart attack)
Blood supply is cut off to heart --> O2 supply cut off from heart --> heart muscle metabolism stops.
No metabolism = no energy for muscle movement = no heart pumping = no O2 supply to any organ = no metabolism = shock
Shock is what actually killed everyone who has ever died. Decapitation > heart can't pump > no O2 > no metabolism. Shock is why some organs don't continue to live after we die. (Transplantation is only possible by preventing localized shock)

It's like putting a candle out by covering it- the candle still has the chemical potential to burn but doesn't have the fuel supply to continue. The energy stays in the candle.

TL;DR:
We're all just talking candles. No oxygen, no fire- but the chemical potential [energy] of the candle doesn't change because it isn't burning anymore- in fact it stops changing.

I'd say, as far as that video is concerned, we're more like books. If you burn a book matter and energy remain constant, but the information is destroyed.

Unlike matter and energy, information is quite fragile.

>>8731351
Tell me more about the definition of scientific bullshit.

>>8734035
>Tell me more about the definition of scientific bullshit.
If you insist...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11108455

>>8731351
Really disturbing.

But beyond that I'm really confused how she arrives at time travel after all that.

I know you made this thread to make me cringe. Please don't do that.

I couldn't make it through this video

>fucking BULLshit fucking fucking fucking
brilliant theory

>>8733892
here's the part where i autistically argue that by using a sufficiently advanced sensor array you can determine where ink was placed on a page simply by analyzing the smoke

and with sufficiently advanced computer technology you can program a machine which reads books by burning them

I call it Computer Enabled Non-Stationery Organizational Reading

By applying CENSOR to all books we can quickly build a vast library of all human knowledge

>>8731351
Conflating metaphysics with objective physics.
>/thread

>>8731351
dont really care to watch the video, but yes death is not a concept that really means anything. Science hasn't even defined life properly, which isn't to say anything about science but to say that the nature of how things really are is fuzzy and we define things based on their utility to the whatever field of science it is in reference to. life is also very vaguely defined.

Putting that aside, the best argument against the fact that you as a seat of consciousness can actually die is best argued by the conclusion you can draw when you perform the thought experiment asking yourself "what was it like before I was born?" people will use this to conclude that there is no afterlife and think that this means you get some sort of eternal sleep. but I think they are missing the a step. You already know what is happens when you die its fuzzy for a bit and then you start to form memories and experiences and you identify with you as "you" and naturally you think you are experiencing life for the first time, Which you are. This cycle rinses and repeats. When you realize that the you you have identified with is only a part of you and you are part of everything around you and everything that has existed for however long it has existed, you realize death is an illusion.