Death & Consciousness

File: death.jpg (70KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x413px

fuck I didnt mean to post that picture, sorry

>>8870832
>run your laptop over with your car
>act confused why it won't turn back on
philosophers, everybody

>>8870840
let's say the laptop has some form of consciousness

would the recreation of the ruined laptop with the same particles under the same exact conditions bring that same consciousness back?

You're making a lot of unnecessary assumptions, like the idea that "alive" is even a real state that can be assigned to anything.

>>8870845
From its perspective, yes.

From the smashed version's perspective, no.

>>8870850
if I stick my hand in a fire it i feel pain. that's real enough for me

>>8870853
so if my brain was given life again or simply perfectly recreated would I not be the one feeling the pain? What is it about death that made it so it's no longer me and just some sort of perfect clone instead?

>>8870832
This is an interesting question that deserves a good, well developed answer (albeit the question is ill defined desu).It is however, not a scientific question and science should not be expected to give it a proper answer.

>>8870853
>perspective
>>>/x/

>>8870832
The exact meaning of the word "death" isn't that clear. Most normal people (i.e. not medical professionals) think of death as final. Medical professionals have some weird technical definitions that allow for the possibility of dying and then coming back to life an arbitrary number of times.

>>8870874

listen to him

any discussion on the afterlife and the "soul" is essentially a philosophical one as of now. its something that has such loose assumptions behind it, we probably will never figure out how to get started on getting towards a definitive answer

atheists (or anyone who doesnt believe in an afterlife) look towards physicalism and mental correlation with manipulation of the brain to please themselves, while dualists (or anyone who believes in an afterlife) fall back on how much holes there are in physicalism and how the exact nature of consciousness is not known

>>8870930
>we probably will never figure out how to get started on getting towards a definitive answer
You only say that because you've only ever known a flawed way of looking at the question.

>>8870930
>atheists (or anyone who doesnt believe in an afterlife) look towards physicalism and mental correlation with manipulation of the brain to please themselves, while dualists (or anyone who believes in an afterlife) fall back on how much holes there are in physicalism and how the exact nature of consciousness is not known
good thing that empiricists can talk about the afterlife while not being philosophical

>>8870832
There is no such thing as consciousness.

Your brain is just a series of neurons firing; Creating thoughts, desires, and memories that gives yourself the illusion that you are a thing that exists.

>>8870874
>>8870902
>>8870930
>>8870956
I'm not a native english speaker so im having an even harder time articulating my thoughts on a subject that's already pretty abstract. Sorry

Basically what I'm getting at is trying to understand what is it about my own consciousness that makes it such a special unique phenomenon that cannot ever in under any circumstances reoccur once my brain stops working (unlike everything else about the universe(s) that seems to sort of endlessly cycle)

Please don't take this as just some sort of theoretical philosophical garbage that's interesting to think about but ultimately irrelevant, I'm just some guy who for the last few weeks have been suffering with severe anxiety to the point of vomiting over the prospect that death may not be this absolute final way out of (my) existence and there's absolutely no way of permanent termination of my own consciousness(creating the possibility of me being placed in endless scenarios that include all sorts of situations of excruciating suffering)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_oblivion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death
^ This are really comforting concepts, I was hoping you guys could hopefully reassure me they are truth

>>8870970
I dont care that it's an "illusion". The feeling I get if put my hand in a fire is real enough

>>8870970
You've just pushed back the problem to why there is an illusion in the first place.

>>8870970
Who is the one experiencing the illusion?

Going to bed now and trying my best to avoid these insidious thoughts before falling asleep. hopefully when I wake up this thread will still be alive and have replies that bash my current views and put my worries to rest

File: 1491259173751.png (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>>8870832
>giving me terrible anxiety that's seriously hindering my life
iktfb

>>8871055
Look up Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. It's supposed to be a motivator.

>>8870939

> You only say that because you've only ever known a flawed way of looking at the question.

So do tell, how would we start looking into such a thing as the afterlife? Do we have to listen to the Buddhists, Christians, Scientologists, etc. first?

>>8870956

> good thing that empiricists can talk about the afterlife while not being philosophical
> the ultimate fate of individuals can be approached non-philosophically

This whole "durr philospohy is gay" mentality is perhaps among the stupidest shit I've seen on this forum since the Da Vinci emotion stuff (reminds me of when a philosopher critiqued Lawrence Krauss for misinterpreting "nothingness" and he, being the autistically asshurt, blew up and bashed all of philosophy)

So what do they say then? So something that has such a strong impact on human existence and questions of it can be explained "non-philosophically"?

>>8871154
The question of the afterlife is incoherent unless souls exist. The existence of souls(as they are usually defined) is rendered impossible by the interaction paradox.

>>8871095
if anything it makes it worse because it reinforces my ideas rather than dismissing them. Now It would be fine if it's all some sort of closed loop where my life just perfectly repeats itself from birth to death since I happen to be a 1st world person in a relatively safe environment leading a happy life.

Now this is the disconcerting part:
>"In an infinite period of time, every possible combination would at some time be attained," has been cited to argue that Nietzsche dropped his plans to try to scientifically prove the theory because he realized that if he would have to eventually repeat life as it is, his presumption of infinite time means "he" would also have to "repeat" life differently, since every configuration of atoms and events will occur.
which again reinforces the thought of me being placed in endless scenarios that include all sorts of situations of excruciating suffering

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE OUT THERE DISPROVE THIS? it's literally driving me insane, im not kidding

File: 1482612864655.png (64KB, 658x901px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 658x901px

I'm seriously fucking worried that death might not be final. Shit drives me crazy. The problem with death is that the concept of fading out of existence is unthinkable by human intellect. For example, we can easily imagine being injured even when we're healthy, or ew can imagine being crazy when we're sane. But it's impossible to conjure an idea of not existing, the very act of conjuring up the idea implies existence. How can science justify the idea of phasing out forever. What stops 10000000000000000000000000000*10^n years from passing to recreate my exact state of mind as I'm typing this message, only this time in a world where planets are made of cubes?

>>8871942
Op here, not sure if I should be happy or worried that there's more people out there who share my viewpoint, except my imagination leads me to far darker places than planets being made of cubes.

again, CAN SOMEONE OUT THERE DISPROVE THIS PLEASE? this is ruining my life

>>8870832
Death is just a spectrum.

>>8870832
>Would me bring brought back to life(be it from lets say a scientific experiment or simply the universe reaching a point where some particles are arranged in the way I came to exist in the first place) still be me?
Yes. Why not?

>>8871957
No it's shit memes that are ruining your life. This is what you get for not caring about garbage in your head. Kick them out or they will bust your chest one day.

>>8872283
do you realize that pretty much renders everyone immortal and susceptible to every type of endless suffering you could ever imagine

>>8872315
If you're reassembled in deep space, suffering will be short.

>>8872381
irrelevant because you'll be reassembled over and over again in all sorts of different settings.

there's no way out, ever

>>8870832
Doesnt all your brain cells get replaced over a period of time like a decade so in your lifetime your brain is replaced a few times over?

>>8872400
how does that change anything that's being said?

>>8871899
I was thinking about this the other day when someone on /sci/ mentioned quantum suicide.

If life goes on forever and we're doomed to repeat our current lives, id be okay with that. What scares me is the thought that I'd come back as like some Mexican that ends up getting caught by the cartel or some shit for snitching.

>>8872743
But if you come back to life upon death, it confirms that consciousness is eternal, meaning that you can immediately kill yourself, and keep doing this until you get reborn as a cute anime girl

>being worried that death isn't final
>not wanting the chance to be born into an ayy lmao tech advanced society

>>8872779
a)
>death is final
- no more pain or pleasure ever. you wont even miss it

b)
>death isnt final
- scenarios of pure ectasy
+
- scenarios of endless unimaginable pain (picture some mix of Saw traps turned up to eleven mixed with Hellraiser and Event Horizon) that no amount of pleasure could ever offset

the urge to avoid pain trumps the seeking of pleasure

and the worst part is that you dont get to pick either a) or b). there's no choice. existence is terrifying

>>8870850
the atoms that organisms are made of don't differ from the ones that inanimate objects are made of, but that doesn't mean that life isn't a real thing.
the complex interplay of the atoms and molecules in an organism is what makes them alive. it is like the difference between a working machine and a random pile of scrap. there clearly is a difference there.

>>8873434
>there clearly is a difference there.
That implies you can say exactly when a working machine becomes a random pile of scrap.

Good luck with that; people have been trying to solve that for thousands of years.

>>8873448
well for an animal it doesn't seem to bee too difficult to tell when it stops working / dies. there is tons of processes that are at work in a living organism and are not at work in a dead organism.
on a large scale a living animal actively moves around and does stuff whereas a dead animal doesn't do anything actively.
on a smaller scale the organs stop doing what they do (heart stops pumping blood, gut stops breaking down food, lung stops exchanging gases,...).
on yet a smaller level metabolism of the cells stops working as usual (no cell respiration, no protein synthesis, no dna repair,...)
also, the structures of the animal start deteriorating on every level.
the thing that's probably most important philosophically and also legally is that your conscience vanishes, when the cells in your brain stop firing.
i don't see how it's hard to differ between a living and a dead organism.

>>8873509
>i don't see how it's hard to differ between a living and a dead organism.
Then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the problem. Even now, people have come back from being "legally dead".

>>8870832
To answer this, you would need to have a solid understanding of what death and consciousness even are. From what I understand about death, it is simply the consciousness in a sleep like state without a way to wake up do to the termination of the body.

If you could halt the decomposition of the part of your body that provides consciousness, could you theoretically transfer into a new body thereby making it the same consciousness in a different body?

>>8870832
I strongly believe that you exist forever, just in different forms, and that everything is made of consciousness.

>>8870988
>Basically what I'm getting at is trying to understand what is it about my own consciousness that makes it such a special unique phenomenon that cannot ever in under any circumstances reoccur once my brain stops working (unlike everything else about the universe(s) that seems to sort of endlessly cycle)

i don't think that anything in the universe ever comes back in exactly the same way. think about a bucket of sand for example. if you empty that bucket and put the same sand in again, you will have another bucket of sand, but it won't be exactly the same one. the individual grains of sand won't be arranged in exactly the same way and it is very probable that they never will be arranged in the exact same way ever again.
the same thing is true about your brain. when you die, your the cells in your brain fall apart and it is very unlikely that the exact same brain will ever form again.
the difference is only that you can't easily tell the difference betweem two buckets of sand, so they appear to be the same to you. you can tell two brains/persons apart though, which is why you realise that consciousness doesn't reocurr in exactly the same way.
but really nothing in the universe ever reoccurs in exactly the same way.

>>8871899
I think you misunderstood the anon's mention of eternal recurrence.

Nietzsche did not say that eternal recurrence actually happens. Rather he says that we should live our lives as if they were going to repeat forever. What this thought experiment is supposed to get at is that we should enjoy our lives and embrace everything that comes at us. You're philosophy is the opposite of Nietzsche's philosophy (I mean this discussion should be happening at >>>/lit/ right now but w.e.). You want death to happen, and are worried that consciosness won't go away. Instead you should learn to embrace life, even the parts of it that include suffering, because that is what living is all about.

>>8873557
so basically this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant

>>8873565
Are energy and consciousness one in the same?

>>8873571
Do you mean that theory where when you die, things continue on for you as if nothing happened? Thereby suggesting that the concept of death does not affect the continuity of consciousness from your perspective though you will appear dead in the eyes of others?

>>8873576
>Are energy and consciousness one in the same?
I believe that they are.

>>8871899
>PLEASE CAN SOMEONE OUT THERE DISPROVE THIS? it's literally driving me insane, im not kidding
you should talk to a psychiatrist, not to /sci/.

>>8873573
Not the whole head, but simply the part of the brain that provides consciousness. You could theoretically assemble the rest of your body exactly like it was with the same neural connections except with that one part of your brain being the only remaining part of your old body. I guess another way to put it would be physically turning your specific consciousness into an undying object which could be inserted into a body of your choice with memories of your choice.

>>8873579
I'd think that consciousness is a specific form of energy but if consciousness and energy were relatively the same, would it be possible to link your consciousness to the same spectrum as a all other energy thereby creating a state of omniconciousness?

>>8873576
Nope. Nietzsche's philosophy is neither about death nor consciousness. It is all about life and living. Personally I think that when you die your consciousness also disappears, becoming non-existent. So If I were you I would make the most out of my life, instead of worrying about being immortal.

>>8873567
>the individual grains of sand won't be arranged in exactly the same way and it is very probable that they never will be arranged in the exact same way ever again
>your the cells in your brain fall apart and it is very unlikely that the exact same brain will ever form again.
wrong. of course that given an infinite period of time every possibe combination will happen again

>>8873580
>>8871899
Why would you want that disprove? If you could find a way to manipulate the process or take control of it at will, you would theoretically be on god-mode in a sense that you could do anything and everything in the span of one unit of consciousness. Although It would cause one to wonder what would happen after you've lived out every possible scenario assuming there's a limit.

>>8873589
What exactly is existence though? Can you really verify your existence aside from your 5 senses. For all we know, we could be in both a perpetual state of existence and non-existence considering anything is possible. I suppose death and non existence go hand at hand, but can you really define existence outside of the form of 1 being existence and 0 being non existence? What would happen differently in existence that does not happen in non-existence?

>>8870832
Change your mentality. Enjoy the rollercoaster.

>>8873592
>given an infinite period of time
the universe might not exist for infinity. i think the evidence actually indicates the opposite.

>>8873598
Hasn't it been said that the universe is expanding though?

>>8870869
It's like sleeping and waking up. You could be a different you but you wouldn't know. And most certainly noone else would. What gets tricky is if you were duplicated. Both of you would feel that you were the real you but outside viewers would know which one is the duplicate.

>>8873596
We don't know, but you should probably go to
>>>/x/

>>8873600
If you could attribute an ID of sorts to consciousness, how would you be able to maintain that ID. That's seems like the best way to think about this situation.

>>8873598
this universe maybe. but what would lead you to think this is the only universe that ever was and ever will be? seems kind of arbitrary specially when you look at nature and see that everythings tends to cycle

>>8873601
Would /x/ really be able to better answer that question? At best I would most likely get an esoteric or religious speculation but I wouldn't really be closer to an answer. My theory here is that there is no difference between existence an non-existence considering we have nothing that can actually be attached to either state that cannot be in the other. Once it is imaginable, I suppose you could say it exists even if not physically.

>>8873579
>>Are energy and consciousness one in the same?
>I believe that they are.
Idk if it's true but it if I ever find out that it is and have proof, I will tell everyone so that no one has to worry about not existing when they die.

>>8873611
I think that existance is essentially presence of consciousness, and non-existance is absence of consciousness.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Max Planck, physicist

Second law of thermodynamics has your back, bro.

Even if some evil being can recreate you exactly the same, it will only be able to do so a finite number of times, since our very existence increases entropy.

>>8873619
Wouldn't you be getting behind consciousness if you could look at consciousness through an outside lens? If so, I suppose the presence of more than one consciousness would help you with that. Unless we all are truly connected at a subconscious level.

>>8873599
yes, and i would say this means that the universe won't stay the same forever. the universe is becoming less and less dense and changing in all sorts of ways,so i believe there will be a point, when life as we know it won't be possible anywhere anymore. maybe there won't be any consciousness at that point anymore.

>>8873607
well what would lead you to believe there are other universes?
the truth is that we just don't know. the universe might be infinite or it might not be. there might be infinite parallel universes or there might not be.
i think our best guess at the moment is that nothing is infinite, but i might be proven wrong.

>>8873589
the question is, what sort of physics law makes it so death is an absolute point of no return of ones consciousness when theoretically, in the future all the particles could again be arranged in the same way that made that same consciousness exist in the first place.

>>8873623
could you elaborate?

ITT: Nobody understands the definition of consciousness so they just use it as a shorthand for "soul".

>>8873631
What would be the difference between a full and empty universe? How do we know life can only exist under certain circumstances. How do we know that other forms of life don't exist that we can't simply verify?

>>8873638
From what i've heard, the source of consciousness is tangible so theoretically, if you could preserve that or convert it to a form that doesn't decay, you would be able to transfer your consciousness as you please.

>>8873646
>ITT: Nobody understands the definition of consciousness so they just use it as a shorthand for "soul".

>>8873648
If we look at it as an item, we may not know what it is, but we can figure out how to manipulate it or use it to our advantage.

>>8873637
Look up "heat death of the universe".

The basic point is that there are some places in the universe where it is warm enough to sustain life, your room for example. However most places in the universe are extremely cold and since heat has a tendency to dissipate over time and this process is not reversible there will be a time in the future, where the universe will have roughly the same temperature everywhere. This will only be slightly above almost zero and thus way to cold to sustain life as it is.

>>8873640
life as we know it is dependend on liquid water, so it can't be too hot or too cold. it also requires a lot of elements to be available in roughly the right concentrations. there are probably a lot of other parameters that need to be just right.
at some point in the future though, all the stars will be burned out and the universe will kind of freeze, making all this impossible.

>How do we know that other forms of life don't exist that we can't simply verify?
that's a fair point.

>>8873662
If we truly are sure that water is the reason we are alive, then the next question is, what is water? Or at least, what is is about water that gives us life? How do we know that there aren't other compounds that produce the same effect?

>>8873659
so where did heat come from in the first place? wouldnt the process start all over again when another universe is created?

>>8873654
>If we look at it as an item,
Why would we look at an ability as an item?

>>8873674
I'd say consciousness is more of an effect caused by something specific that has physical form. It's also fair to say that life is an effect of the presence of water. In both cases, an item can be attributed to both of these "abilities" being possible.

>>8873679
>an item can be attributed to both of these "abilities" being possible.
No it can't be because an "item" has no definite boundary.

>>8873686
What do you mean by "an item has no definite boundary"?

>>8873690
You cannot say when an item stops being an item; there is no definite structure of an item from which nothing can be deducted without the item ceasing to be. All boundaries between things are arbitrary.

>>8873698
I'm not saying that nothing can be deduced from these 2 things, but looking at the sources of those 2 things will most likely yield more answers as they are actually manipulable being in a form we can interact with.

kill yourself and find out?

>>8872766
I don't remember a previous consciousness so obviously it gets reset upon death, meaning I can't know to immediately kill myself.

OP should check out Tipler's "Physics of Immortality". Tipler, though a tenured full professor of physics, is something of a nut but his idea of bringing back ALL of the dead (and indeed everyone who would ever live) through computation is something else. His scheme requires forces and energy on a cosmic scale, and is predicated on the existence of the Higgs boson (not proven when the book came out).

This type of immortality is an odd, somewhat uncanny, thing to think about as it may be the type of simulation we are living in right now. It brings to mind the vision of Russian mystic Fyodorov, who was the spiritual father of Tranhumanism in a sense. Fyodorov also envisioned such a scientific salvation of the death, along with technical immortality.

>>8873633
The problem with that kind of immortality is that it's like a physical interpretation of Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence. Without postulating some type of soul that ensures continuity of existence, you will truly die at the end of each such iteration - a horror like that Nietzsche envisioned. Add some type of memory and identity that carries over, perhaps through Penrose's quantum basis for mind, and that situation looks much more attractive.

Why are you all just assuming the existence of the soul like it's a necessity? There are models of the mind that describe reality without needing unique inaccessible elements.

I think the lack of a "me" conscience is impossible because everything would technically stop existing
perhaps conscience is a form of matter, energy or something we don't know located on a 4th dimension, looking for a new host occasionally

however that topic is completely impossible to figure out in a foreseeable future, it requires knowledge of things we don't know yet

>>8874319
>I think the lack of a "me" conscience is impossible because everything would technically stop existing
So your observation is that this agent is necessary for the universe to existence. I too have have observed an agent that is necessary for the universe to existence. It seems reasonable to say that we are both observing the same thing.

>>8873509
>i don't see how it's hard to differ between a living and a dead organism

Is fire alive? It breathes, reproduces on its own, and actively maintains homeostasis. Are viruses alive? They contain genetic material and seek out survival and reproduction.

ITT: existing is terrifying

>>8874253
That sounds awful. When I'm dead the last thing I want is to be forced back to life.

this thread has honestly made me think about stuff that never crossed my mind and im kind of starting to see op's point. feeling a bit uneasy to be honest

>>8874343
i would say it makes sense to call all the things on earth that have arisen through biological evoltion organisms or forms of life. so a virus is a form of life, but a fire isn't.
i realise that viruses are not universally considered to be alive, because they don't have metabolism of their own. they are still vastly more complex than any non-biological thing in that all their parts are very carefully arranged to work together and fulfill some purpose. you can't say the same thing about a fire.

File: tommenlannister.jpg (144KB, 703x1024px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 703x1024px

>make a thread in hopes that /sci/ would put and end to my existencial dread
>turns out there's a chance of there being some validity to my way of thinking
>still dreading existence

okay here's the thing, I understand that at this point it seems that there's no way to reach a definitive answer so ill do my best to hold on to the hope that I may be wrong, so my question now is:
What's an effective way to push these thoughts away? They are still affecting my mental health and therefore my quality of life. How do I avoid thinking about this?

>inb4 get a therapist

>>8876030
anyone? I need help

>>8876489
There is nothing immaterial about consciousness. When you die your brain stops working and that's the end of your subjective experience.

If I'm wrong though you are right to be worried. Living forever is a terrifying prospect.

>>8876030
>inb4 get a therapist
seems like you answered your own question

>>8876627
So your consciousness simply disappears is that it? When you consciousness no longer has a vessel does it simply dissipate into nothingness? Or does it continue to exist without a vessel? Rather, whether it continued to exist or not, would your consciousness really be able to tell?

File: Shia-LaBeouf-Workout.jpg (28KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 630x420px

>There are people on this very board who fear eternal life

YOU FUCKING PUSSIES

WHEN WE ARE ALL IN GOD MODE I AM GOING TO REFERENCE THIS THREAD WHEN I AM FUCKING YOUR GOD GFS

I bet you faggots dont even into self-mummification lmao

>>8876030
>questioning the universe
>expecting comfort

Top kek

See you in the [hellish] next life anon

>>8876701
Where does the electricity in a circuit go when the circuit is smashed with a sledgehammer?

>>8876713
That's the question. Does the electricity still exist in some other form, or is it in a state of non-existence? Assuming there's even a difference.

I guess the real question is, what does non-existence entail? Some theorize religion or mythology fill the hole, others leave it at nothingness or emptiness. But who could really answer the question of what it's like not to exist? Would it be a dream? Or would it be singularity or wholeness?

>>8876705
having sex with your gf which is yourself to get revenge on yourself

wew god

>>8876705
yeah brainlet ill just terminatoresque bury you into a pool of molten lava and have you stay there billions of years. seems enjoyable.

>>8876705
The funny part about the fear people have about immortality is that they don't realize, you could simply erase your memory of gaining immortality and write a note to yourself saying that you will die after xx amount of time. You can't go crazy from omnipresent knowledge if you aren't aware of it.

File: stop-talking-to-yourself-jesus-fucking-christ_o_1695917.jpg (45KB, 461x626px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 461x626px

>>8876737
If you've ever read the old testament, god does WAY more retarded nonsensical autistic shit than that.

I'm starting to think God is a penguin

File: 1416733133429.jpg (22KB, 318x315px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 318x315px

How the fuck is living forever or having an afterlife even a remote 'worry'. If your assumption is this is your first life, from a conscious pov, then you enjoy it, right?

The idea that upon death our consciousness is lost, forever, like a spec of dust floating eternally through space is the most worrysome thought imaginable. You will never see your family again. Your friends. Your pets. You will never access your memories or undergo a thought or process forever. This process is continuous, without pause or change, for the remainder of eternity. Total darkness and pitch blackness. Forever, and ever, and ever.

>>8876863
>pitch blackness
lmao nigga you wish there was blackness after death. There isn't even that.

Most brainlets cite boredom as a reason for not wanting eternal life, which I scoff at. Imagine how retarded you'd have to be to become bored ever

>>8876874
Tell me what you did before you were born? You can't. It's is the same when you die, except this time there is no life to experience, so nothing to look forward to, if one so could. Instead, total darkness forever. Imagine the largest number, double it, then put it to the power of infinity. Time isn't even a concept. Only the void.

>>8876874
>Not erasing your memories every time you feel you've reached the end and adding in some sort of twist for twice the excitement.

>>8876030
doesnt the fact that consciousness is somewhat "material" furthers the notion that it can be brought back? all it takes is to perfectly "fix" or recreate the structure that was responsible for it in the first place

>>8876747
>>8876863
>>8876874
>>8876887
>>8876897
jesus christ you people are shortsighted as fuck. it's not about being a god with endless freedom, existing in an infinite period of time makes you susceptible to all imaginable manners of horrible suffering because every atomic configuration of events is gonna happen, endlessly.

>>8870853
Considering that all atoms in your body exchange with your environment, after a given time your whole body will not be the same it used to be. Still, you somehow are both the "smashed laptop" and the recreated one.

I think the most important question in this is wether the universe is eternal or at least kind of cyclic or wether it will one day truly end. If we assume that some physical state is the reason for consciousness, then if the universe is eternal or has cycles of big bang - destruction - big bang etc. then given enough time, the probability of that physical state being recreated would converge towards 1. Considering you don't experience the time in between, it would feel for you as if it happened directly after your death.

So if we assume that consciousness is a physical state and that the universe will never truly end or forever be changed as to not allow the existence of consciousness, then the conclusion would be that death is not the end, that you have probably lived before but can't remember since your memories aren't stored in your new brain.

If your consciousness is not caused by something physical but actually by something like a soul or some other idealistic entity, then death is probably not really something you have to worry about anyway.

The only way that death is really final would be that your consciousness is purely material and that the universe will one day actually end - forever.

But I do not believe that this is actually the case. Comologists still really don't know the answer and I don't suppose they will learn it in the near future. But personally I believe that beginning and end are very human concepts that exist, because of the environment we evolved in. Beginning of the day, end of the day, birth and death etc. I don't believe something this human in origin actually describes the universe

>>8877675
>doesnt the fact that consciousness is somewhat "material" furthers the notion that it can be brought back? all it takes is to perfectly "fix" or recreate the structure that was responsible for it in the first place
was meant for >>8876627

>>8877675
it also makes you susceptible to the most amazing of barely comprehendable levels of joy. and you will life through them again and again and again into infinity.
just appreciate the fact that you will lead lives in which you aren't a hopeless virgin faggot!

>>8877717
>given enough time, the probability of that physical state being recreated would converge towards 1.

this means that an exact copy of me with all my current thoughts and memories has probably materialised out of thin air somewhere in the universe, just by atoms randomly bumping into each other. in fact it would mean that an infinite ammount of copies of me have spontaneously sprung into existence at some point in the past and that an infinite ammount of copies will do the same in the future. an infinite ammount of me's forming and immediately dying in some dust cloud or on an uninhabited planet.
in fact it could even be that i myself have just sprung into existence 5 minutes ago and all my memories are fake. maybe if i turn around now i will find that i'm not actually in the room i remember. maybe i will find that i don't live with the people i remember and don't live in the city i remember and that i don't even look like i remember.
and even if i do find everything to be as i expect it to be, i know that in an infinite universe some copy of me will go through that exact experience at some point in time. actually it will happen an infinite ammount of times.

does this mean one day ill get to be in version of the universe with my waifu?

>>8877717
>cycles of big bang and destruction

How can the whole universe be destroyed?

>>8878356
0 = 1 + (-1)

>>8872315
Everyone would also be susceptible to every type of endless pleasure and happiness as well.
The Wheel of Time series, of all things, addressed this.

What even is consciousness? Serious question

>>8879019
No one has a solid answer. I think of it as more of an effect but others would disagree.

>>8873576
>>8873579
>>8873614
The fuck are you guys talking about. "Consciousness" is a social and cohesion layer that surfaces from various interconnected components of the brain. This functionality (which is a component in of itself) and those components are comprised of mass, mass is energy.

Does death actually happen or is it simply a concept we use as filler to explain what happens after your body decomposes?

>>8879145

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

>>8870832

You're assuming

1: there are conscious beings other than the consciousness that you are aware of at this moment.

2: conciousness will end.

>>8879176
not him but where did you get those assumptions from?

please elaborate what you mean

I think it boils down to understanding consciousness which right now, nobody does

>>8877717
That made sense all the way until the last paragraph.

Beginning and end are scientifically tangible concepts.

>>8874211
Perhaps. But the universe is still relatively young. Maybe this is the first cycle.

>>8870832
Since you posted this in science and math I'll answer it from a scientifical poin of view. Your brain and the neurones that it consist of is what defines you. You are what you are because of the inputs from your senses. The interesting thing about the brain which is most likely to give an answer to your question is how the brain uses time as a variable to form its signals. It's like this: lets say you have 3 neurones that fire one after another in a specific pattern. If you don't change the pattern but the time between the signals you will have a different content in your signal. That is most likely the reason why the brain is so much more efficient than our computers altough it is slower in some aspects. So to answer your question: You would not only have to perfectly recreate your brain from an atomic point of view, you would probably also need to perfectly recreate all the signals that where being fired by your neurons at the time of your death at exactly the same time and also all the molecules that are produced by all your brain cells would have to be recreated in the same state of your death in order to make YOU alive again. Because in the end if you would'nt do that then the person recreated would be in a different state at the moment of recreation and so make different experiences (after moment of recreation) than you would have. If there is no god and I sure hope there is none then it is most likely impossible for you to resurect as you ever again after you die.

8880984
And according to the uncertainty principle that would be impossible.

>>8880984
>>8881015

>>8878688
its much more likely the other way around. endless suffering.

>>8879019
you

test

>>8870832
It's best not to think about it, it will only hinder your enjoyment of life. Take something away from this experience, take away that you should seize every opportunity in your life and that you shouldn't worry, for worrying about life is more useless than living it. You were condemned to be here, try to enjoy it.

For that reason, I'm out.

Can I just say that this is the most interesting thread we've had on /sci/ in the last few months

physical manipulation of the brain affecting consciousness is such an easy thing for dualists to argue out. if thats the basis of your argument for materialism you are in trouble, get this. A dualist believes in some property of consciousness that exists apart from the body, but also accepts the material world, so one could argue the brain acts as a radio receiving a signal. Damage the radio, the sound is changed or even cut off.

>>8870832
>or is it just a matter of current technological limitations?
This, read about transhumanism if you're interested.

I don't give a fuck about all that philosophy shit,however, I do know that lobsters can live forever (not including the death of earth / universe) and that using genetic manipulation or some neuralink it is very possible to defeat death for a long while.

>>8870832
Watch this and tell me. I'm believing life a premeditated disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJGJICvcf4k

>>8873671
The Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? We don't know, at all. Here's a quora thread I just found: https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-Big-Bang-6

As you can see, there are many HYPOTHESES and no concrete theories (oxymoron but hopefully you get the point).

>>8876743
>brainlet can't comprehend that billions of years will feel like nothing when compared to infinity

>>8877884
M8, there's this thing called entropy and I'm surprised that more /sci/fags aren't bringing it up.

>>8881110
You mean if the universe and everything in it repeats in exactly the same way every time? Sure. No real reason to assume that though. In general in an infinite timeframe anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times. Pain and pleasure would both be unquantifiable.

Wear sunscreen.

>>8882803
>he thinks entropy is permanent and the cycle wont just restart all over again

>>8882448
I made an exact thread like this a few days ago fuck you

>>8884984
link to the archive please?

>>8882456
>but also accepts the material world,
Literally only because it's impossible to argue against the material.
Where are all the trinitists? Or quadrists? And beyond?
If there is something beyond the material, why are you only arguing there is only one dimension beyond?
>Implying the dichotomy is material and immaterial.
There are facets of existence your ignorant dualist mind hasn't even attempted to comprehend.

I mean at this point there's even multiverse theories that put in question the laws of physics as forms of absolute truth so if we cant even trust physics which we base all our knowledge around then who the fuck knows.

just enjoy the ride? that's what I try to do

>>8885219
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/8854921

Exact same "dudeweneverdielmao" consciousness mumbo jumbo came up

File: 1492010512277.jpg (83KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 384x313px

>>8876030
You could just kill yourself and find out for sure

fuck. the universe is scary

>>8886534
dont say mumbo jumbo like its something you can entirely disprove

Funny that this is being mentioned because this is exactly the same conclusion I got after taking mushrooms. People cant handle the truth.

>>8870832
The nature of reality is experiential. The universe is merely a dream and you and everyone you know is just one of the dreamers. There is no real end to the dream it will continue forever. It is eternity.

>>8871899
Look at it this way, you will suffer for all eternity but you will also feel immense joy the likes of which you could never imagine for all eternity as well. You will experience everything forever.

>>8886984
this is indeed a disturbing universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liuSbrghzmk

>>8890021
>The nature of reality is experiential. The universe is merely a dream and you and everyone you know is just one of the dreamers. There is no real end to the dream it will continue forever. It is eternity.
What do you base this on?
nothing scientific of course

>>8871899
>which again reinforces the thought of me being placed in endless scenarios that include all sorts of situations of excruciating suffering
>PLEASE CAN SOMEONE OUT THERE DISPROVE THIS? it's literally driving me insane, im not kidding
Why do you think you won't just die and everything will be over?

What evidence and proof do you have that your life will "continue forever"?

makes no sense

>>8890081
My accounts of reality. It's impossible to explain experience with science so reality is experiential. i ahve also realized that you can't explain birth so w must ad been around forever.

Here's a theory for you. Your consciousness is simply you reliving the memory of all of the information your sensory inputs collected less than a second ago without break. Although this still doesn't explain what the subconscious is which is said to make up the world you experience.

>>8871942
>What stops 10000000000000000000000000000*10^n years from passing to recreate my exact state of mind as I'm typing this message
it wouldn't be "you" though

you would be dead

it would be like a clone or twin of you.

Do twins have the same consciousness?
of course not

you're an idiot

>>8890086
>My accounts of reality.
You're insane, this isn't scientific or real at all.

>i ahve also realized that you can't explain birth so w must ad been around forever.
This also makes no sense
wtf

>>8890091
I mean that we cant ahve been born it doesnt add up how can you ente into existance it is not feasible so i say we are around forever.

>>8890088
What if clones shared the same consciousness but were not aware of the fact?

>>8890095
>I mean that we cant ahve been born it doesnt add up how can you ente into existance it is not feasible
A lot of these complex topics don't make sense to human beings with our current lack of knowledge

>so i say we are around forever.
You base this on nothing.
We could just die too. There's nothing saying we die or live forever.
Seeing all all life on earth inevitably dies. I'd say we die.

>>8890100
>What if clones shared the same consciousness
Why would that ever happen?

>>8890132
you're not OP

>>8891130
>>8891308

wait, wrong thread lmao

>>8890132
We're operating under the assumption that one's consciousness is exclusive. If you recreated a person with the exact same atomic structure as the original, wouldn't that consciousness be the same based on memories, habits, knowledge, experience, and instincts? The clone would only gain exclusivity when it begins having separate experiences from the original would it not? But if you kept the 2 consciousnesses separate under the same isolated circumstances, wouldn't they be the same in terms of actions and thoughts?

>>8891352
>If you recreated a person with the exact same atomic structure as the original, wouldn't that consciousness be the same based on memories, habits, knowledge, experience, and instincts?
No, it would be someone else entirely, a fucking clone.

Holy shit you're dumb.

>>8891359
Say you separated an original and a clone into 2 separate rooms that are exactly the same. If both had the same exact structure down to the atom, would their actions really be any different? Or would they be the same aside from the space they occupy?.

>>8891371
>would their actions really be any different?
No, but their consciousnesses would be.

>>8891390
I tend to think of consciousness as more of an effect, so that's why I don't think that their consciousness would be any different, but if consciousness was an object, then I could see why they would be exclusive.

>>8891408
>I tend to think of consciousness as more of an effect
You'd be horribly dead wrong.

>but if consciousness was an object,
It obviously is.
Why would you think it's anything else.
holy shit kid

>>8891424
What exactly is consciousness to you? I think of it as more of an effect of the information your 5 senses gather and the memories you allocate from said information. I get that a part of the brain creates consciousness, but consciousness in itself is not a physical phenomenon.

>>8891424
then if consciousness is an object what's stopping it from being regained after death? why is it that current me and 2 days ago me have the same conscious but if my body and mind shuts down (death) and later restored and put back to work it would just be a perfect clone instead?

>>8891590
I think your consciousness is contained in your brain and once that brain dies then you die forever

even if every single atom of you and your brain was recreated somewhere else in the universe it wouldn't be you

I don't know why you think it would be you.

>>8891646
why wouldnt it be, by your logic consciousness goes beyond material

as OP said, according to you what sort of physical law does death trigger that makes it so consciousness cannot in no way shape of form be regained even if the mind/body gets perfectly repaired on a subatomic level?

>>8870832
Imagine the motherboard in a computer was the conscious. What happens to a computer after being blown up by a bomb? Nothingness. What happens after death is nothingness which is the state of unawareness. A person can't experience unawareness. What people who don't want to accept death are clinging onto the fact that consciousness is the internet which can exist after death in a computer was destroyed in a bomb.

>>8891798
What happens after the bomb blows up the motherboard and among the destruction you pick up all the atoms that once composed the motherboard and arrange them back together in the same way as the pre destruction motherboard?

Now you would say that you would have a clone motherboard. But why is it a clone and not just a continuation of the old board if they have the same exact atoms arranged in the same exact way?
Lets say motherboards have the capacity for sensation. What makes it so that it's not the original motherboard feeling the new sensation but rather an entirely new identical being? Why did the destruction fundamentally changed matter in a way that it's no longer the old board experiencing the feeling?

Do dreams tie into this?

I just remembered a dream I had last night where I basically was in a completely different universe, but it felt so real.

>>8887990
>implying you can disprove the existence of god

this is what you sound like

>>8892731
>>>/x/

>>8892734
read the whole thread. there are some sensible arguments here for both sides

>>8891798
That's silly because if you recreated the same exact computer with the same exact motherboard and ran the same exact program there would be no measurable difference between the two(obviously you would account for environmental impacts). Also to call what you described as nothingness is false, the atoms have just been separated and dispersed. The problem is that your atoms are completely different from the atoms in your body 5 years ago. There is something about consciousness that is not connected to your atoms. You might compare it to a computer but the big problem with that is qualia.

Jesus christ this thread made me want to actually kill myself for a few seconds.

>>8894922
So you could see if God is real?

>>8894941
Not sure. I just had this really exciting impulse to die for a few seconds, like it's Christmas afterwards or something.

>>8893544
I have been reading the whole thread.

That still was a stupid statement that was made.

Kys? Best case scenario you'll just cease to exist. If you're right the outcome is the same regardless of what you do now

>>8896091
if he isn't right he will have lost some 3/4 or 2/3 of his only lifetime though.

>>8896105
which is something you cannot miss at all if your consciousness has permanently vanished

I find it hilarious that such a long and deep thread has a pic of the faggot king from got

Permanent death and non-existence seems much more terrifying than eternal existence.

Once your consciousness is gone, you lose all perception of everything that happens.
All of your thoughts and senses just disappear, never to return.

>>8897619
doesn't seem scary to me
just means everything you do in life matters

File: IMG_5115.gif (1MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x225px

>>8897337
He's kinda fitting considering the subject matter of the discussion desu

I think this is the longest I've seen a thread on 4chan stay up since 2008. Granted /sci/ is the second slowest board I browse, but bravo op, bravo.

>>8897619
sounds nice

>>8870939
My spiritual homie right here

File: IMG_5476.png (264KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 640x1136px

>>8871169

Entropy.

>What is it about death that makes it so final?

Nothing. It's not.

>>8898263
tell us more

>>8872407
Your brain replicates parts of itself, but is still considered the same brain with the same consciousness. How is your brain replicating parts of itself based on its model of what the part should be different from creating a new brain with those same instructions? Unless the conscience exists outside of cells themselves, they would theoretically have the same consciousness. If consciousness exists outside of cells themselves, where does it exist?

The process of death is simple: the chemistry and it's emergent properties that which allows a creature to think, feel and act decomposes into a state that cannot think, feel and act..

>>8876863
>Total darkness and pitch blackness
you are a fucking idiot

File: 8cb.png (299KB, 347x427px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 347x427px

>>8899198
>How is your brain replicating parts of itself based on its model of what the part should be different from creating a new brain with those same instructions?
>Unless the conscience exists outside of cells themselves

That's big fucking leap of logic.
First of all, your brain structure changes continuously, on ~/s basis.
I sure as fuck popped a few thousand cells reading through this thread.
Secondly, nothing is being replicated, the structure changes all the time and it will NEVER be the same after the fact, for better or worse, and if you think it's like building a lego set, just reading the manual left to right and it should click like on the pictures, then read a fucking book, because you are opining on shit that's way above your pay grade.
"YOU" isn't some kind of static set of numbers, frozen in time, waiting to be read like a software on a hard drive.
YOU are not the same person, you were five seconds ago.
You are a multicellular organism whose internal parts developed a way to gain, store and use information in a system so complex, certain people cant fucking help, but mystify it for no good reason.

It's not magic.
Casper isn't real.
You must deal with it.

File: binary.jpg (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

>>8897619
Here's a theory for you. The concept of existence is not an actuality per se but is simply a constant used to describe the change in matter. If this is the case, nothing actually disappears or can be in a permanent state of unrecoverable.

Which brings me to the theory that our consciousness is simply a specific combination of electrical signals. Suppose you could recreate this signal in an artificial body that mirrors the properties of an organic body, wouldn't you theoretically have the same exact person? Assuming you could transfer their specific electrical signal at will? We may already be theoretically immortal in a sense that there is no such thing as permanent deletion but the fact that we cannot replicate and store the data that indicates the specific electrical signals we harbor that makes it difficult to bring back the dead.

>>8899257
>YOU are not the same person, you were five seconds ago.
This argument is equivalent to solipsism. It is essentially saying your memories (which tell you that you are a continous being) are false. I could just say all of your senses are false and claim you are wrong just as easily you could say he is wrong by claiming his memories are false.

>>8870885
even a mundane individual like you should be able to recognize a need for perspective in practical application
I guess you just lack perspective

>>8899661
>YOU are not the same person, you were five seconds ago
>is essentially saying your memories (which tell you that you are a continous being) are false
no it's not are you fucking high?
your every experience shapes your being, you will never go back to being something you were in the past, even past five seconds, you would have to undo everything that happened to you and around you (you were aware of) in that specific stretch of time

and memories are false all the time BTW
you rarely remember shit as it really happened

>>8899661
Your memories aren't a proof you are a continuous being, though. Once could arrange a bunch of atoms into a perfect copy of you and that copy would think it existed for years even though it just came into existence.

>>8899713
>you will never go back to being something you were in the past
That doesn't prove me wrong, you are just a changed being but not totally different.

>and memories are false all the time BTW
So are your senses.

>>8899740
>Your memories aren't a proof you are a continuous being, though.
Just like your senses aren't proof of a physical world

>>8899764
what is this shit about senses?
our twisted macroscopic perception of reality is rectified by measuring methods we're using to get a better understanding

and if you're trying to get into some "you're a simulation Harry" or some other metaphysical bullshit, I'm not interested

I was trying to explain the guy, that while his being isn't anything akin to a computer program and it's something much more fluid and multifaceted, concepts of consciousness and identity don't need a special bubble esoteric dimension on their own, and while complex, and in some respects still unclear, they fit comfortably into what we know about the human body.

>>8870832
Consciousness is just a product of biology. When the brain no longer functions due to lack of oxygen and nutrients, its cells die that contain the memories of who you are and the memory of others you know.

Something could be said about the conservation of energy in consciousness, but what difference would it make?

>>8882710
7:44
>When a girl wants you to fuck her she doesn't want you to cum inside her, she wants you to kill her in sense, to stab her with your penis.

kek

>>8899962
I think the whole debate revolves around the following:
If you die and your body/mind is later perfectly replicated is it still you or just an exact clone? If it's not you then it brings the implication that consciousness is something beyond material.

>>8900181
It doesn't necessarily imply that consciousness is beyond material. Think of it like computers connecting to a server. If computer A is connected, then disconnects, and some time later an identical computer B connects, from the server's point of view, A reconnected. But clearly A and B are different computers.

Consider this, if you can replicate a dead person, why not a living one? If you have two identical people with identical minds, clearly only one is the original.

Trust in Jesus, or it's a rollercoaster ride to Hell. Not joking. Yes, we all live forever in one place or another. If Heaven, you get to travel to the New Earth and off to other places in the Universe.

There are things we never dreamed of, colors, smells, sights.

Hell sucks and you are stuck there, burning in darkness.

>>8899885
No actually, qualia is PROOF you are wrong.

>>8900278
So why is it that 1 year ago me and current me are still the same stream of consciousness but current me and "fixed after death" me with the same particle structure are entirely different?

>>8900181
>Consider this, if you can replicate a dead person, why not a living one? If you have two identical people with identical minds, clearly only one is the original.
If conciousness is indeed continuous, there should be some way of determining which one is the original, and which one is the copy, since otherwise they're identical. What test do you propose to determine that?

>>8900957
You aren't made of the same atoms as the "you" that existed 1 year ago. Your "stream of consciousness" is an illusion. Consciousness isn't really continuous, it is an emergent property of discrete quantum phenomena occurring in quick succession, much like the discrete binary operations responsible for the apparent continuity of a video game. You don't exist in a flawless continuity in any physical sense outside of subjective perception, so a "fixed after death" you would be conceptually the same as the version of you which will exist at an arbitrary point in the future without the hiatus of death.

>>8870832
Consciousness yes. Ego no

>>8900278
>If you have two identical people with identical minds, clearly only one is the original.
This is actually not clear.

>>8901063
How do you even know this? You have not proven that consciousness isn't continuous you just use arguments like, "do you feel like the same as you were 2 years ago" that is meaningless. Our experiences tells us that we are someone who is remaining in one body through time and that we are one person in that body. Your arguments are akin to solipsism, you can't prove it wrong but it doesn't mean it is true.

File: 1486659690642.jpg (40KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x375px

>>8902234
>You have not proven that consciousness isn't continuous
Except there is nothing to prove as the thing literally turns off between the point of you falling asleep and dreaming.
For fucking hours.

>>8902260
No it doesn't you are dreaming during that time.

>>8902263
you are dreaming 2-4 minutes in 8 hour sleep you fucking faggot

>>8902272
That's false. But regardless even if you aren't "dreaming" you could still have a low level of consciousness operating while you are asleep. You do not know that consciousness ever turns off. In fact consciousness turning off might be exactly what death is.

I think this thread took a detour and people are missing the original point. cool read though

Einstein:
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind that we experience
in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let
feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity
of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to

Mathematically, any of us is nearly impossible. Can you imagine all the possible genetic combinations that sperm and egg can provide? And of all possible combinations, you of all sperms won that lottery! To get a 'you', we need the universe to be exactly as it is and as its been. Your mom and dad would have to have met and fucked just the right way and moment. And their parents as well. And their parents. And the mechanics of the universe tells us it cant be any other way. But it also tells us it couldnt have happened in other form. The Big Bang is the result of a threshold of quantum fluctuations, a tiny ball with extreme energy, that set its own environment and future. It couldnt do it any other way. You will repeat yourself forever.

>>8904270
you're implying life after death has to start necessarily from scratch. you're not considering we could be brought back from where we left off through technology

>>8870832
I feel the same way op

you already 'came into existence' once before from nothing, so whaty's to stop it happening again?

we already know it's absolutely possible, not possible but DID happen to you. so why on earth would it not happen again?

you didn't 'stay dead' before your birth, so why would you 'stay dead' after your death? makes no sense

all evidence points to people coming into existence from non existence. so when we die, and we don't exist anymore, it seems very likely we will come to be again

which is really horrible I just want to stay dead life is hell fuck this shit

>>8878373
Excuse me?

File: IMG_1173.jpg (57KB, 250x392px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 250x392px

Man is eternal, for every action has a consequence. Every decision, every word, ripples from you unto the next. Your influence is felt long after you're gone, on family members, on friends, on everyone you meet. Your body and mind cease but nothinf ever really ends. What happens after you die doesn't really matter until it happens so stop worrying about it. Spend time cultivating yourself to make the world better and nourish the relationships you have.

>>8905628
relationships are memes, you hardly matter to people and people hardly matter to you
you just convince yourself otherwise
we're all hardwired for pure utilitarianism

>>8905634
Says the person whos never had a meaningful relationship. You're probably a virgin as well. It's never to late to change friend.

>>8905636
you're probably right

>>8905640
There's beauty in the world. There's beauty in everything. Even you. Don't he so dour.

>>8870834
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis

File: teleportation_0129.jpg (126KB, 1000x560px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1000x560px

>>8870832
We don't really know enough about how consciousness works to give a good answer (or have a good definition of it), but, just logically speaking, a copy of you, is not you. You can't be conscious control of two bodies after all, each would have its own.

Before we get into all the pseudo-philosophical shit regarding not being the same person from moment to moment and Ship of Theseus, keep in mind that all those new materials you take in are causally entangled with you, thus they can be traced as part of you, as can your identity as an individual being throughout time. If a copy is made of you from other materials, regardless of how exact, it isn't you, if the only chain connecting it is informational and not causal. Every buckyball-20 is identical, even at the atomic level, but they aren't all the same buckyball.

All that said, you can undergo extreme state changes and come back. You can die and be revived, medically speaking. The old Star Trek transporter conundrum, for instance, tends to assume a transporter that doesn't take into account the caveat Roddenberry deliberately built into it: namely that it is transforming your matter into energy, and turning it back to matter somewhere else. That's a state change, so it could be argued to still be you, even if you were not technically alive for a few moments.

The conundrum only really becomes a thing when a transporter disassembles you to form a data pattern, and then assembles a copy of you from that data elsewhere. Roddenberry actually found this disturbing and thus created the matter<->energy transfer beam, even if some of his writers often fudged that for the sake of plot devices.

So, unless some mystical mechanism turns out to be a thing - such as DNA being 'attena' receiving broadcasts from an over-soul, then you're in the clear. Materialistically speaking, nothing is eternal, with both "nothing" and "eternity" being man made concepts that don't seem to occur in nature.

>>8897624
It would actually mean that nothing you do in life matters

>>8905628
This is a good way to think about it. It's what you leave behind that counts.

>>8905662
>So, unless some mystical mechanism turns out to be a thing - such as DNA being 'attena' receiving broadcasts from an over-soul, then you're in the clear.
That would raise some odd questions about identical twins.

>Materialistically speaking, nothing is eternal, with both "nothing" and "eternity" being man made concepts that don't seem to occur in nature.
True enough, but materialistically speaking, the same can be said of consciousness.

>>8870832
Like unplugging a computer

the real question is: will this thread ever die?
and if it does die, will it be reborn again?

>>8883506
No I think he's saying entropy is the best refutation for the apparent paradox of there being more observers that are boltzman brains in a universe than lifeforms in an infinite system.

>>8906413
System ain't infinite yo. Limited amount of matter, limited amount of time in which it can exist. (Even if there are fuckloads of both.)

I really don't understand consciousness. How is it assigned? Why do I get to be me and not someone else?

>>8907701
The answer is that consciousness is a fundamental part of the Universe. Materialists are wrong because they think we are just made of a bunch of unconscious stuff and magically we become conscious. You can't make a subject out of a bunch of objects no matter how they interact.

>>8870832
It's just impressive how long this thread has stayed up, it is similar to consciousness, a struggle to stay up but will enter the archive in a book and then fade away by time, please die.

>>8907895
not him but explain more about this

why does my consciousness exist?

>>8907895
>You can't make a subject out of a bunch of objects no matter how they interact.
so you're basically saying I am the only thing that exists

and other people's consciousnesses are just a figment of my imagination?

>>8907701
Information collected from sensual outlets and memory continuity.

>>8909713
so if you put it like that.

if someone is recreated with the same memories is it the same consciousness

>>8900971
If they are identicle in every way but the time during which they exist then the earlier consciousness may be considered to be more "original" than the other.

However

I think it silly that anyone might worry that they may one day reemerge from death as someone in some horrific world. Each individual remains an individual without regard to the similarity between any two individuals.

Imagine 2 squares. The squares are identicle in dimension to a quantum level. Mathmaticly, they are exactly similar but this doesn't mean they spontaneously become one entity. They remain distinct individuals. So, too, with a mind.

>>8902292
>>8902272
You two are arguing definitions of consciousness. It might be more productive to call your competing notions "sapience" and "wakefulness".

Stop arguing just to argue. Do you want to get a two party system? 'Cause thats how you get a two party system.

>>8908248
Some would argue that what you just described is exactly whats happening. It is the inevitable conclusion one must reach if they insist only what they observe can be said to exist. Its the real punchline to the joke about the cat that is both alive and dead.

Reality and observed reality aren't, nessisarily, the same thing. Our flawed and heavily filtered awareness is too limited to really allow us to see true truths. Our experiences limit what we can experiance and what we know always colors what we learn. As a result, even if we do witness real truth, what we see and remember are only shadows or reflections of that truth.

Those that are arrogant enough to think that their observations are factual are ignoring, or ignorant, of how a human brain works. We don't/can't view ourselves as pure witnesses to the "truths" we perceive because our perceptive systems are too subjective.

In short, yes, everything is a figment of your imagination. As are you.

If consciousness by definition is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings, how can anyone honestly say consciousness doesn't exist or it's just an illusion? Obviously we are all aware of and responsive to our surroundings.

The only logical answer to consciousness is that the thing what makes you, you, is more than just your brain.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a religious or spiritual thing, just something we don't fully understand yet.

>>8872766
>you get reborn as a cute anime girl

Please. be true.

>>8872915
>- scenarios of endless unimaginable pain (picture some mix of Saw traps turned up to eleven mixed with Hellraiser and Event Horizon) that no amount of pleasure could ever offset

What about the other way around?
Unimaginable pleasure that no pain could ever offset?

Kind of creepy as well to be quite honest.

>>8890088
not who you were responding to but
the twins analogy is wrong because their experience and biological makeup is different

My reiteration of the theory is what would happen if in 10^10^10^10^n lightyears, eventually someone had the exact same experience as you and the world existed in the exact same way it does right now. This supposes that reality or the universe is infinite, but if these assumptions are deemed correct then you must assume that this will occur. Will this person be you?

Kill yourself, its like the ultimate science experiment

>>8911350
Happened somewhere else, so still not quantumly identical, so no, literally not you. I mean, god help you if you have to prove it in a court of law, but both scientifically and philosophically speaking, there's a fundamental difference.

There are countless molecularly identical objects in the universe, some of which have undergone identical processes, yet they are each separate objects.

Whether they share a consciousness is something else, but I suppose it's hard to imagine points of perspective as being anything but unique, so far as the individuals are aware of.

>>8910594
If they had the same memories and the same make up as the point in which they lost consciousness, then yes I would assume so.

>>8911350
>My reiteration of the theory is what would happen if in 10^10^10^10^n lightyears, eventually someone had the exact same experience as you and the world existed in the exact same way it does right now. This supposes that reality or the universe is infinite, but if these assumptions are deemed correct then you must assume that this will occur. Will this person be you?
no, just an exact copy of you

>>8870832
>tfw religious so never felt an existential crisis
get on my lvl

>>8913945
you're on the wrong board

let me direct you to somewhere more appropriate >>>/x/

>>8911350
>will this person be you?

no, it'd be a new person

Unless i recall having lived an infinite number of lives, it's not "me".

>>8915071
"you" is not your memory

"you" is the the who feels, as in, the one who experiences sensation

if if pinch your mom you dont feel it because she is someone else, she is not you. if i pinch you then you will feel it, that is you

so again, if the hypothetical future reiteration of you gets pinched, will you feel it? if the answer is no, why not?

>>8913945
you're probably just shallow then, even God's existence doesn't grant us inherent meaning, it just changes the nature of life and death

>>8913640
why are they a copy if no other other version of you exists? because they aren't the original? How can you even distinguish the copy from the original aside from it's origin?

File: Orochimaru's_experimentation.png (2MB, 1915x1070px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1915x1070px

>>8890100
It's possible for people for people to remain mostly functional with large sections of their brains removed and partial brain transplants have been successful in mice.

Let's say we remove half of a person's upper brain and attach to to the lower brain and brainstem of another person who had their upper brain removed. You could split a person's consciousness in two.
It'd be even more interest if the donor body was an identical twin or someone who had reconstructive surgery to look like the original.

Just imagine how fascinating watching them interact with each other would be.

>>8906402
Yes and yes.

>>8916269
Splitbrain patients have split conciousnesses, one can be atheist and the other a believer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

>>8915758
The answer is no, because I am not experiencing this pinch right now. That is a different person. I am now. Now is me.

>>8916601
so instead of just "you" lets say "future you".

will "future you" feel it?

>>8916604

Impossible to know.

I'd like to thank everyone who posted in this thread, it was a very good read.

I hope I get to be born again! Probably, right?

>>8916604
"Future you" is not me in this case, as there's no causal connection. It's just someone exactly like me. So he'll feel it, but it won't be part of my experience.

Unless there's some magical soul thing traveling around and just waiting throughout all of time and space to find someone exactly like me and plugging in when it finds it.

>>8917483
>there's no causal connection
what the hell does that even mean

literally everything is causally connected anyway

>>8917825
Maybe if you go back to the beginning of time, although even then, technically not.

Beyond that, there's no material connection between the two objects, no entanglement, no temporal contact, nothing to make them the same object in terms of identity, unlike say, what happens with me every seven years or so as an individual takes in food and replace the majority of their cells. You can't make the claim in state change or otherwise in any way connect the two objects. Like every hydrogen atom in the universe, they just happen to be atomically identical. The fact that they are happening at different times in different places, means there's a difference both philosophically speaking as well as in quantum states.

Can't really speak to how that affects consciousness for certain, but they are literally two different people, who just happening to be eerily similar.

>>8870832
I had your exact same anxiety, but then I considered the fact that if it was a problem, I'd be having it right now.

if this is true Buddhism proves once again to be the most accurate religion

>>8870832
The video of him jerking off with his cousin was both great and frustrating.

>>8911350
Not quite. He'll be more akin to a twin. There is only one genuine "you." Even if that shitty many worlds theory is true and reality does break off of a million directions, a "you" who exists on a world where the only difference is a guy in Malaysia adding slightly less sugar in his coffee than our universe with everything else being the same or some other inane horseshit is not the same person as you. He might have had the same life, have the same future, the same memories etc. But he is not you.

>>8904270
Oh please, the chances of all the sperm being compatible with the eggs is ludicrous and tells me more about how you don't understand reproductive biology

File: c175fe7e111366c6ee1e185b7bff6801-221x300.jpg (16KB, 221x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 221x300px

>>8870832
Death is not final. Reincarnation is real. Im absolutely serious. Find out for yourself when you die because in this lifetime you mist likely will not be able to surpass your beliefs in how the universe works. :(
Tom campbell ftw

>>8919701
could you elaborate?

>>8871957
haha no that shit makes too much sense

File: 1494804257598.jpg (42KB, 500x441px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x441px

>>8871942
i think about this daily, good summary

>>8890100
How would we not be?

If twins shared consciousness, we would have been using them for cross continent communication millennia before we had the telegraph. Imagine the Roman Empire in that alt-history.

>>8919196
That wasn't the point at all, the point was any sperm could have been chosen, and only one of those made a (You)

>>8921081
>any sperm could have been chosen

Wrong. But regardless, you like to pretend that somehow the universe is chaos and all that shit and it's so wonderful that all the impossibilities made you so you could shitpost on a Indonesian pottery site. Too bad. The universe isn't chaotic. Determinism rules everything.

>>8917483
this is the most unscientific thing i've read in the entire thread

>>8922523
If identical objects were the same object, science would be a whole lot weirder (and quite a bit more difficult).

>>8922552
it's not an identical object, it's the exact same disassembled and put back together

>>8923324
>My reiteration of the theory is what would happen if in 10^10^10^10^n lightyears, eventually someone had the exact same experience as you and the world existed in the exact same way it does right now. This supposes that reality or the universe is infinite, but if these assumptions are deemed correct then you must assume that this will occur. Will this person be you?
No, it's not.

It's an entirely separate object that happens to be just like you by chance. It ain't you. There's no causal connection.

If you mean like young me and old me share an identity, then yes, they do, as there is a causal connection. That's a state change. Otherwise, no.

Now that the thread is about to hit bump limit im wondering what happened to OP. Either gone crazy or killed himself, maybe both.

>>8924802
Well OP has at least one thing to be proud of. Never seen a thread stay up for almost a month before. /sci/ isn't even that slow.

rip thread. good thing you'll be recreated when the universe repeats itself