What comes after death /sci/? I, personally, believe it's

>>8941721
You wake up and it turns out you're living in a dyson sphere orbiting a black hole. You're entire life was nothing more than an hour of play.

>>8941721
The skeptical part of my brain says what you said but the part that likes consciousness says there's something more to it. But then where does everybody else's conscious go and if we lack the physical means to communicate (mouth eyes etc) then would we just exist forever alone? That sounds terrifying. But the conscious mind cannot experience nonexistence; that's a fallacy. Maybe your conscious just loops itself forever or something. The patrician answer is to wake up frozen people and interview them, as only they would have been physically dead long enough to settle that question once and for all (at least until people in Christianity argue that they were revived before the end times and thus would not have experienced the resurrection yet.)

Which is why cryonics and life extension are good memes. We get an answer and a (slight) workaround if the results are unfavorable.

>>8941773
I don't believe logical fallacies can be put on death.

The conscious mind stops being conscious. It stops being a mind entirely.

I don't know why people over-complicate it.

We're not different from trees or rocks, etc.

>>8941779
>>8941773
I like to look at the mentally retarded to understand how fragile brains really are.

>>8941782
What's retarded about either of those ideas? Neither advocates an afterlife; they just posit that the mind doesn't progress without the body. Unless that's retarded?

>>8941787
I didn't say any idea in this thread was stupid.
If you look at the retarded in real life, you can see how our brains comprise all that we are.

One faulty wiring and you're drooling. It's the closest thing to death we can observe in daily life.

This is why I believe the most obvious answer is the right answer.

It's obvious someday we'll no longer exist.

>>8941795
>>8941787
It's brain failure in motion.

You need to see how a retarded man twists a valve.

>>8941721
After I die I'll find out.

>>8941810
There won't be a you.

>>8941779
this, "you" just stop existing you go to sleep one last time and dont wake up

>>8941721
Define "death".

Protip: You can't.

>>8942021
death
deTH/Submit
noun
the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
"I don't believe in life after death"
synonyms: demise, dying, end, passing, loss of life; More
the state of being dead.
"even in death, she was beautiful"
the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.

I'm sure google had lots of trouble producing that
definitions are literally social constructs and thus the above really is, by definition, the definition of death

>>8942053
Those definitions don't fit this context, or if they do, the question doesn't provide enough information to make sense.

>>8941782
>>8941773
only materialists care or talk about the brain

Explain exactly why this is a question in the first place.

>>8942059
Has materialism been shown to be anything but the only truth of the universe

>>8942055
do not use your feelings for refuting something

>>8942240
I'm not the one who abandons logic in order to believe that humans are special and mysterious. Anyone who asks this question has an unstated belief in the supernatural, because the question makes no sense in a purely natural context.

>>8942250
If you were duplicated, would you experience being your duplicate? No. Therefore, a soul exists.

>>8941721
I don't know. I thought of a few possibilities:
*Infinite nothing, perception ends - fuuuuck.
*Infinite something, but it's random as fuck, like really weird static TV noise. also fuuuuck
*Go back to the nothing of birth, then reincarnate in some other conscious form, perhaps something beyond we can imagine.
*Repeat your entire life/perceptions as a cycle. Basically reliving your shitty life all over again forever. Hope you got laid.
*Perceive life from the perspective of all "conscious" forms, past and future. The "one day you will perceive life as me" idea. This one is fun to bring up in an ethics rant.

I believe even if heaven exists, your life as an angel or god is still not guaranteed to be immortal. And then someday it too will come to an end. I like to believe perception is immortal and that if it perceives a conscious experience again, death will always follow.

>>8941721
>>8942347
I also want to add: have fun watching videos of people who've tripped on DMT give their own theories about what life and reality is. I find they're more likely to talk about this subject than a scientist or philosopher even would, surprisingly.

>>8942350
Philosophers are 99% meme tier, just like the rest of lefty sociologists barring geniuses like Neitzsche and Jared Diamond .

Almost as bad as physics majors.

>>8942127
Materialism can't actually win arguments against its opponents though so for the sake of arguing it is useless. If you accept it, well it's your religion.

The dualist response to brain damage->personality damage is that consciousness interacts through our meat, so when you mess up the receiver the output from the signal changes.

>>8941721
I agree with OP.
I consider going to sleep the same as dying essentially.
You die every night and come back alive every morning
So I presume death is the same.

>>8942358
It is not this or that it is both.
Conscious evokes and universe from nothing
just as the universe evokes consciousness from
"nothing"

>>8942322
What? That's either an awful argument or I don't understand the implication.

Even from moment to moment, you are dead. Identity itself is just a belief. If you get hit on the head and don't remember who you are are you still you? You are just as much you as the current you would be if you weren't hit on the head, because the only you that you are is the one that is in the present. If you were still the you from five minutes ago that would mean you had control of that you but you don't. That you only existed that moment and now he's dead and gone forever.

We spend our whole lives compiling who 'we' are and it quickly forces our present selves into shells of our current potential. Some people never go off script even in dreams. Others can't remember who they're supposed to be for the life of them. It's why people cheat for example. Yeah the former me and future me are 'with' you but the present me is having a good time and forgetting about everything else.

When you die there are no future you's. The only reason people have near death experiences is because their brains are still functioning.

>>8942322
If what exactly was duplicated?

4chan, with no GR15.

>>8941721
you remain conscious in your decaying body forever

>What comes after death /sci/?
This really should not be a question anyone has to ask

>>8941779
Rocks aren't alive, you know...

>>8941773
>Maybe your conscious just loops itself forever or something.
But the conscious mind cannot experience nonexistence; that's a fallacy
So which is it? Do you see the contradiction? You're right in saying once you're cerebrally dead your brain is inactive, you are all dead cells; there's nothing to construct any form of conciousness.

>>8941757
That would be pretty nice desu

File: IMG_1847.jpg (191KB, 640x320px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 640x320px

>>8941819
What are "you?" You can live without an arm. You're still just you without an arm.

I don't wish to overcomplicate things, but there is not enough satisfaction in believing that death is just something as simple as losing a conscious mind. Religions have been made, societies built around beliefs, all to bolster another view which satisfies the thoughts of death with an after-image. An afterlife. But humans have yet to figure out what we are even losing when we die or pass on. How much of yourself can you live without and still, technically, be you?

These are one of the grand ponderables which will yield an insight deeper within the mechanics of our universe which is intrinsically complex. So the answer will most likely be more complicated than we can imagine so far.

As for what I think. I think we are just experiencing a single time frame. Bounded by the waves of light and time, which may perhaps bear the elements of consciousness, life, and evolution all within them. Each of us, individually on our own single wavelength. 2 pi rads. In a circle of time which will repeat over and over.

>>8944389
>But humans have yet to figure out what we are even losing when we die or pass on.
Nothing.

There is no real reason to think humans are special and have "souls" or whatever. Anything you think is a reason can easily be explained away.

A departure from this arbitrary silo of consciousness

And back into the fold of the all-encompassing panpsychic world

>>8944408
I don't believe in souls. But you cannot say with absolute certainty that you know there is nothing special about us. in terms of ingredients, yes, you are right.

>>8944422
Why SHOULD there be anything special about us

Answer: because you would prefer to feel special

>>8944422
If you can even ask OP's question, then you believe in souls. There is no way to formally state OP's question without using a term equivalent to soul. Every thread, people put forward these bullshit questions and, when inquired for definitions, they just respond "pfft, isn't it obvious?" People have deeply deluded themselves into thinking it makes sense just because it's asked so often.

>>8944424
I guess that's true. But can you name another aspect of the known universe which can do what we do?

>>8944464
>another aspect of the known universe which can do what we do?
What is that suppose to mean?

>>8942059
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

-Friedrich Nietzsche

>>8944466
What else, in this universe, can think better than us and communicate better than us and ponder stupid shit better than us? Nothing else we know, so that does make us special to a certain degree. By definition, we are unique.

>>8944481
You could define special that way, but then it has nothing to do with the topic.

Nobody in any of these threads have provided any examples of a human quality that necessitates there being something more than the physics that we know of. I can think of an example, so I know that such examples exist, but never once have I seen somebody else mention them. They always just dodge the question.

>>8943443
>If you get hit on the head and don't remember who you are are you still you?
Yes, you're still experiencing the same thing sans some memory. The same way a baby is the same person as his grown up self.

Our experiences are continuous, not fixed cycles of becoming the next experienced person.
>>8943490
The body and the brain.

>>8944492
The thing is we have an answer with no disproof that as animals with survival instincts we tend not to like/comprehend and an answer with no proof that we love. Those being "something" and "jack shit" respectively.

Now both of those are incomprehensible. Try as you might, you can't really imagine being dead because the conscious cannot emulate nonexistence. In same manner, it cannot emulate transcending itself of the body either.

In a perfect world the universe would have black and white holes that keep it stable infinitely, or a god of some sort would come sort this out.

I remember some big near death experience study that had poor to inconclusive results that definitely seemed biased.

The skeptic in me says no, but the human in me says hopefully there's something. Neither voice is providing scientific input, though. I kind of hope we get longevity/life extension though, since (at least in Christianity) Christ is supposed to return to Earth and judge the living and dead, and that can pretty easily be dis/proven if the world is engulfed by the Sun without him ever coming.

>>8944833
>>8944833
I put "something" and "Jack shit" in the wrong order but you get what I mean. I've met some diehard religious people though that posit Christianity is the best long-running explanation for things like our affinity for arbitrary non-surival things like art and music, but a skeptic would theorize we like those things was side-effects of a pattern-seeking intelligence

>>8941721
You die, you decompose and you return to the environment. Nothing more. When you die you will never know. It is just like falling asleep. You can't tell the exact moment. And being dead is like a permanent dreamless sleep.

You wake up from your dream.

>>8945151
BID MY THOUGHT TO RISE

>>8941773
Everybody knows what'll happen with Cryonics if we manage to kill someone and resurrect them.

It'll be like they went to sleep and woke up, and we'll only be forced to stare at what we always knew.

>>8941721
the time chamber breaks and I can now go super sayain god III

>>8941820
It has nothing to do with sleeping, because even when unconscious and sleeping your brain is still 'on'. Better simple explanation would be, that you will just be like rock (or other unliving object). Rock doesn't acknowledge itself, it has never acknowledged anything and it doesn't perceive time. Rock doesn't have 'self', which separates it from universe and creates the experience of consciousness and illusion of time flowing forward. So yes, when you die, you don't go to "sleep forever", because it would implicate that you were awoke before sleep. When you die, you were never even existed from your perspective. When you die you don't acknowledge yourself, you have never acknowledged anything and you don't experience time, because there is no you. No more self that separates "you" from everything. I find this though incredibly comforting. You don't exist anywhere, but everything will exist everywhere, and has always existed. And that what was once you will be part of everything like it always was outside experience that our brains perceive.

>>8944354
Not dead ones, no

>>8946395
No we don't.
Also Christians would argue that Revelations states the dead don't actually go to Heaven until the final judgement at the end of the world so there's that.I suppose you could argue that sustained colonization off Earth debunks Revelations entirely since we're supposed to all still be on one planet when Christ returns.