non-existence

If you die and lose consciousness you obviously won't be aware of it. Nothing really to discuss about it. Consciousness isn't nothing though, and it's not a function of the brain. I'm not going to act like I have all the answers, but I know that much. And sometimes wish that wasn't the case.

I know that feel, Anon.

>>18071135

> If you die and lose consciousness you obviously won't be aware of it.

How so? What I am saying is that I >think< that it is impossible to not be aware. At what point do you say "well I'm not part of the universe, peace" and just vanish?

And it wouldn't be like, say if you were in surgery and knocked out, because after that period in which you were unconscious, you woke up to "exist again", while if it was eternal, you'd be in some void that you would be "experiencing while not experiencing" at the same time

>>18071146

Yep, I'm in the middle of an existential crisis. I'm just hoping that some sort of advancement in technology happens. If materialists are right, then I'm hoping that me and my loved ones can get into ALCOR and hopefully be revived. Even if I turned out to be retarded or something, I wouldn't care, I just want some closure of existence

Or, in some physical phenomenon that we don't know if, and never will possibly, we move on to another dimension or universe. I just want to keep my memories and be with my loved ones, no matter the circumstance in which I'm allowed to exist as.

It's the loneliness that I am afraid of.

>>18071109
I actually had this existential crisis for a good month, constantly thinking about it. The way I see it, everything is energy of some form, and energy cannot be destroyed. So though our human bodies may turn to fuel(energy) for other organisms, our consciousness, what we are, that will continue to exist. Perhaps we join a consciousness of all human thought, perhaps we are reincarnated. The answers and possibilities are numerous, but eternal oblivion isn't something that I'd try contemplating too much. You may end up having suicidal thoughts just to get the answer.

when you die, youre dead. All you are is your brain and your nervous system; that is the only way you think, feel, experience anything. when you die, its like a sleep.. but without dreaming. youd never even know you used to exist. you would never feel again

>>18071109
>how would we know if we lost our consciousness
You can't know. Our consciousness is how we perceive the universe. When that dies,(when the ego dies), you go back to being the universe. Do you think the hydrogen in the sun cares that is isn't alive?

>>18071109
Think about how we have an infinite, fractal universe. In this paradigm, doesn't it seem odd that something which exists within the infinite universe such as one's consciousness wouldn't reappear somewhere along the size or time scales?

Remember how you felt before you were born?

Well, there you go.

>>18071174

I don't see myself thinking about suicide to get answers

>>18071185

Again, you would have to be aware that you are no longer aware. I'm not telling you to subscribe to my views, but I just don't see how it makes sense to not exist or be aware. How would I never feel again?

You can't say at the present that "oh, but if you feel happy, you can't be feeling sad, so therefore it is possible to not be feeling something" because while I am not feeling sad, I am feeling something; happiness.

>>18071191

What does it mean to go back to being part of the universe? Aren't I part of it already? Everything I do, all the energy in me, it is part of the universe. I don't turn into energy, I already am energy. The same with atoms and molecules.

>>18071195

I suppose so. I'm not trying to present myself as all-knowing, but I personally think that it makes more sense to still exist afterwards. For me, it makes no sense to experience a state in which there are no experiences

>>18071216

My issue with that is that I did not exist before that period of nothingness before my birth. But before my death, I did exist. I did experience and think and feel, while my birth was transition from literally nothingness, as I could not experience or perceive anything before me.

I hate to use analogies, especially if at first they seem shitty, but think of food. Before you taste a new food, you have no idea of what it could be like. Nothing, before the kitchen, it did not exist. But you cook it and eat it, and even though it may not be there, it did exist, it was reality, you know how it tastes even though it is no longer in front of you

>>18071246
>What does it mean to go back to being part of the universe?
Currently your ego (consciousness) is perceiving itself as separate from the universe. It perceives this because it is limited to what matter makes it up. When that perception halts, IE death, your atoms and everything that was "you" goes back to being just matter. You return to being just bits of the universe.

>>18071267

But what makes the universe want to perceive itself as a separate being? And what makes up "independence" from the universe, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm still bound to the physical laws.

Did the universe make me just to "feel" what's it like to be inside of it? Because, first off, we are part of the universe already. Second, wouldn't that imply that either/both:

1) The universe itself is conscious enough to want to perceive itself
2) There can exist multiple "non-universe" entities

And what makes that separate relationship? Why can I perceive other things like thoughts, emotion, imagination, etc.?

>>18071297

Also to add on, if I am just an experiment of the universe, why do others exist? Does that imply there are other realities or universes for each individual?

And what makes up the ego? If we are perceiving things separate from the matter of the universe, and we go back to becoming part of the universe, wouldn't our ego continue to exist? If ego was part of matter, then everything would have an ego (rocks, shoes, etc.), thus it would make no sense to be separate from the universe since everything would be separate

In other words, everything perceives itself as separate from the universe assuming that consciousness is solely physical

>>18071297
>But what makes the universe want to perceive itself as a separate being?
It's not about want. It's about the limits of the ego and what it can perceive.
>we are part of the universe already
Correct, but individual consciousness doesn't perceive itself as part of the universe(one usually doesn't think hydrogen in the sun as an extension of the self). What I said earlier was just to contextualize things from our perspective of being "alive".
>And what makes that separate relationship?
The only separation that exists is perceived separate due to the existence of the ego.

>>18071329

> It's not about want. It's about the limits of the ego and what it can perceive.

But what would constitute the limits of the ego? If we have limits of perception, then what is the point of perception if it will just be deleted? Shouldn't some sort of information continue to existence, in that sense the ego, from a state of energy?

>Correct, but individual consciousness doesn't perceive itself as part of the universe(one usually doesn't think hydrogen in the sun as an extension of the self). What I said earlier was just to contextualize things from our perspective of being "alive".

I do see your point, but my focus is on what happens after we are "alive". I don't dismiss anything you say, so I don't mean to come across as it, since it is important to define the current state as it is the future state, but I argue for the continuation of the observations we make, and the others around us, whether it be heaven or some sort of permanent dream.

>The only separation that exists is perceived separate due to the existence of the ego.

But again, what happens to the ego? Everything would have to have an ego if it is physical in nature, and thus the universe would act as something separate all the time because it is made up of things that perceive things as so, thus eliminating the transition from "individual" to whole

In other words, the universe would always be separate, there is no universe.

>>18071352
>what would constitute the limits of the ego?
I suppose physics and chemistry. Its not a good answer but its all I have. An interesting thought would be all matter in the universe wired together was a brain/computer.

>what is the point of perception?
I don't believe there is a "point", perception is just a byproduct of physics, chemistry, and entropy. Each consciousness must figure out what a lack of predefined meaning means to it. I personally identify with hedonism while respecting others.

>what happens to the ego?
In my mind the ego and consciousness is/are just the result of complex chemical reactions. Reactions so complex that they sustain themselves by bring in fuel and components from it around itself, and over generations evolve into more complex reactions via entropy. When the body/brain dies the reactions die, thus so does the ego and its perception of separation.

>>18071109

If, after your death you are in the same situation of so-called non-existance as before your death, then the absolute truth is that you will be reborn again.
Why?
Because you were born out of that no-thingness already. Here you are, you're alive. Out of the same no-thing you will go into, you have come out of, for no reason at all. Therefore, that implies you will live forever as one form or another, or as pure consciousness.

>>18071109
it is like fainting. Have you never fainted? Or remember taking anesthesia at dentist? Of course you only remember taking anesthesia and waking up. Do you remember anything in-between? No, right? Because there's nothing experience. At one point you are alive and at another point you are dead. There;s nothing else.

>>18072112
Something I want to add on.

Nothingness in its truest sense can't exist.

If you're nothing, you can't experience what nothing is. If you could experience nothing then it would be something, therefore nothingness (before our birth, after our death) doesn't exist, only reality.

>>18072116

But the key term is "in-between". I existed before fainting, and I existed after fainting. Therefore, I still existed during that period too, just in a deep sleep for a finite amount of time, while death would be infinite

File: ep.jpg (40KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x400px

>>18071109
don't worry

>>18072174

The same argument has been said a few times already, how can we experience a state of non-existence? It isn't possible, you'd have to say that you are experiencing a "non-experience"

>>18072235
You will not experience any state. It's just the end of experience.

>>18072280

But how can experience end?

I don't think that experience can end.

Consider that observations and thoughts are independent. If I think about myself doing something completely impossible (ex. meeting a historical figure that is dead, drinking a gallon of snake venom), it is a thought that I wil remember (based on how strong it is), but I didn't actually observe it in this universe. It did happen in my mind, and that's all that there is to it, it was a non-physical event. I experienced something that didn't happen, but it /was/ something, it existed in my mind.

Nothingness is the opposite of that: something that doesn't exist. Even in it's definition, it is something. You always experience something and nothing at the same time, as paradoxical as it sounds. I may experience happiness at one minute, but I don't experience sadness at that moment, but something exists, which is happiness

There is no way to ever experience nothing. You didn't "experience nothing" before you were born because your mind didn't exist. When I die, my mind existed. It was created before death, and it existed as part of the universe (as I am energy).

There are physical forces beyond our understanding. I don't come with answers. If you think that experience and consciousness ends, then that's what you think, but I personally see it otherwise. It just makes no sense for the mind to end. You can break the mind down into interactions between neurons, but what makes it so that we are as complex as we are? What is "awareness"? Why is it hard to replicate in, say, a toy or computer?

>>18072174
This is foolish. It sounds nice but where are the people believing this that aren't avoiding their death? All this does is redefine "death" as the state after existence, while "death" should really be defined as "the event that ends existence." So death is very much here if we exist. It is an inevitable, hovering end. And death ONLY comes if we exist. Death does not come to the dead.

There is no fear to BEING dead, but death does and should still terrify you very much.

>>18071167
I think the physical body acts as a vessel which allows our consciousness to function. Without the body I think the consciousness would change.

>>18073649

So when you say that death doesn't come for the dead, do you mean that the dead are still conscious?

The argument in this thread is that existence doesn't end. You can't ever experience nothingness, or not exist. It would contradict itself

>>18073779
I said that merely to refute "when death comes, we are not here." I don't believe the body is conscious after death, but I personally believe the body does not cause consciousness.

>The argument in this thread is that existence doesn't end.

What do you mean by existence? The specific existence of a conscious entity? The existence of consciousness? The existence of matter?

For instance, if I flick a lighter, fire is produced. Release the lever and the fire stops. I can easily show you that specific fire's existence starting and ending. Existence can clearly end. But the chemical process, the potential for fire, that will continue to exist until atoms no longer interact. So in that sense you could say the existence of fire will never end.

>You can't ever experience nothingness, or not exist.

While I agree, my reasons are religious. Can you sum up the argument? I don't see how this is a reasonable conclusion.

>>18073888

Fair enough

My argument, summed up, is that you can't experience nothingness. Nothing is the lack of reality, and reality always exist.

If I feel that I can no longer, isn't that still a feeling? I can't experience a state in which I can't experience anything. Whether we die and fall into an endless sleep or something, we still experience that

We have experienced things that never occured. Taje a wild imagination: imagine yourself having a Pokemon battle with Trump. That never happened or will happen, but it is registered in your mind as something. Your mind experienced something that has not occured, but it is "reality" because its in your mind. I'm using "reality" in a loose term, not in the "physically real" sense, but in the "it exists in the head" sense

There can't be a point where you shut down, as you have to be aware of what follows.

Another analogy that you can see, even though it may not make sense at first, is a computer. Take a laptop, smash it into a thousand pieces. The motherboard may be smashed, but you can recover the data. It still exists, it didn't disappear. I know that a computer is less complex than a human mind, but I'm arguing that information, including the information that makes up your consciousness, doesn't vanish. It still exists, as it cannot be non-existent.

Everything can exist and not exist at the same time. I exist in my desk, but don't exist in say Hawaii or the White House. But I feel that I exist in my desk. I can't vanish, as mt consciousness must be somewhere, while it can not exist at another place simultaneously, but it feels only its state of existence on where it is

>>18074038

Clarification: when I mean something cannot not-exist, I mean that it mist be somewhere while absent from somewhere else. Your consciousness cannot experience non-existence solely, it must exist somewhere, so there is no pure "non-existence".

There is a book out there written by an atheist called "The Atheist Afterlife" where he argues that survival of consciousness after death is compatible with the law of the conservation of energy. He goes to explain how the survival of consciousness post-death is consistent with physical laws, thus arguing for dualism (between mind and body)

In a nutshell, the death state is a long, long dream, where anything new presented to you is a result of imagination

>>18074038
>My argument, summed up, is that you can't experience nothingness. Nothing is the lack of reality, and reality always exist.

Alright. I accept that an observer, by nature, cannot stop observing. And if it is observing, it must observe something. How does this lead to an observer not having a beginning or end? Even if you accept that the observed must be eternal, observers can be temporary.

If I think back, there is a temporal wall to my observations. Actually, the temporal wall is NOW, as I am not "accessing the past," but accessing impressions in my neural network created by past AND PRESENT influences, but nevermind. The point is I must accept that what I observe of my impressions (i.e. what I remember) is that my state of observing had a beginning. If beginning necessitates ending (which I believe), then it appears observation will also end.

I can also recall apparent lapses of observation. Dreamless sleep, for instance, where not even the sensation of "sleep" occurs. I have laid on my bed, blinked, and been surprised to find an hour had past - that kind of thing. The point being we can circumstantially know that our observation can stop while the observed world continues.

So if the observed world apparently continues without our observation, and our observation can apparently be seen to begin - why should we think observation cannot end? That the world would continue (though potentially changed) with or without observation?

>information, including the information that makes up your consciousness, doesn't vanish. It still exists, as it cannot be non-existent.

Ahh, this is different. So if we look at the analogy, a destroyed computer's info can be recovered because it has actual, physical storage. The electromagnetic ordering of the physical parts of the drives.

Analogies are just that, so I am not critiquing here, but I wonder if you see any parallel. Is there a (non-)physical place this consciousness info is stored?

>>18074461

I believe an observer has no end, as you can't observe what a "non-observation" is. If nothing exists, then there can be no observations, but how can an observer see that? As far as I see it, they can't. It's like drinking a liquid; you can only drink liquids, not solids.

In order for a state of observation to cease, it makes sense to assume that the observer didn't even exist.

What dreamless sleep occurs, you still wake up. Whatever that period may be, existence or not, you still exist afterwards. In other word, that period of dreamless sleep is finite, while it is said that death is infinite.

Observation is the uptake of information, and at all moments present, physically, there is some sort of information. Information is theorized to even be able to escape black holes, the "endgame" of physics, something that light can't even do.

I argue that observation can't cease to exist because there is always information. There is no such thing as "no information", as far as I can see.

I don't know if I accept dualism in either comfort or sense, but I do suppose there is a non-physical consciousness.

You can argue that our mind is a product of neurons, just pure energy, but energy is not destroyed.

And I don't necessarily accept consciousness as a physical thing, as everything with enough energy would be conscious (for all you know, even the lightening in a storm has a personality).

>>18074498

And one thing to consider is that our consciousness, our mind is not "natural".

Nature dictates that organisms follow the ideas of evolution.

But think of emotion and thoughts as outside of the natural; in other words, "supernatural".

We strive for our own individual propagation and survival, so why are we charitable species? Suppose we learn of the plight of someone sterile, and we give them our food. What do we gain from it? There is no evolutionary sense to do, and it's not the "chemistry of feeling good", because if you want to feel good, to hell with the homeless; watch a movie, eat some ice cream, play your favorite game. There are easier ways to feel happy.

The opposite for abuse is true; what do we gain from it? Nature does not call for things such as charity, abuse, etc. Religion I suppose wouldn't be "natural" either, because although it gives us a sense of security, it doesn't give us complete security. It wouldn't protect me in a fire if I was religious, but what evolutionary, natural reasoning is there for "feelings"?

If a devout believer was told to prove they love God by sleeping in the cold, they contradict their natural instinct to seek safety by seeking the SENSE of safety, rather than the actual thing

I don't think there is anything natural about our consciousness. People willingly go against their expected nature thanks to their consciousness.

>>18074498
>I believe an observer has no end, as you can't observe what a "non-observation" is.
>an observer cannot observe "not-observing"
>therefore an observer always exists

>a flame cannot be in a state of not-fire
>therefore a fire always exists

Do you see how one point does not follow the next?

> In order for a state of observation to cease, it makes sense to assume that the observer didn't even exist.
Why? What do we observe that has a beginning that does not have an end; do we think all those temporary items do not exist?

>Observation is the uptake of information
It's more than that. Water dripping on a rock is providing information, but what part of that is observation?

>I argue that observation can't cease to exist because there is always information.
I urge you to find the path that links the constant availability of information to the necessity of an informed.

>You can argue that our mind is a product of neurons, just pure energy, but energy is not destroyed.
>And I don't necessarily accept consciousness as a physical thing, as everything with enough energy would be conscious (for all you know, even the lightening in a storm has a personality).

If I were a material empiricist (there is nothing but the physical workings of matter, and the mind is a product of the meaty brain), I would posit that the phenomenon we call the mind - self-awareness - is a self-ordering property of complex sensory systems.

Self-ordering properties cannot be found "encoded" in any single unit of a system, nor do they arise in static situations. But when a dynamic system reaches a certain threshold, these properties can "magically" appear.

Hydro-funnels (tornados, whirlpools, etc.), the movements of bird flocks and fish schools, the formation of organs from a blastula of identical cells, and so on. Like these self-emerging characteristics, I would put forward that any persisting, sufficiently complex system of senses would have consciousness begin and end with it.

>>18074515
There are responses to this, especially the altruism part. I urge you to look into naturalistic explanations for altruism. Something about genetics and evolving for the the continuation of the species, not the individual. I would get into it but it is late.

Wonderful talk. I hope you keep pondering.

>>18071109
From a non optimistic standpoint, consciousness probably is nothing

>>18071167
What the actual fuck are you talking about? To be conscious is to be aware. If you lost the ability to be aware then you wouldn't know you're dead, would you? No. Again, consciousness is not a function of the brain. When you die, you will be conscious still. But nobody alive knows anything more than that.

This entire OP is pure bullshit.
Lives have relevance. Lives have significance in the grand scheme.
You will go on. It just can't be any other way.

>>18074899
>it just can't be any other way
That's where you're wrong papi.

>>18071109
i'm so confused by all of this
after you die, there is nothing
your mind, your thoughts, your consciousness, are all chemical reactions in your brain that are switched into electrical impulses and back again. before you were born, your mind existed in your brain in the same way data and programs on a computer exist before you turn it on, and before you were developed, you had nothing. after you die, your mind stops, like when a computer is turned off. it's as simple as that.

I'm not convinced that I can die. I guess my feeling is that if the many-worlds thing is true, it's conceivable that my consciousness resides in a universe in which it never ceases, likely requiring it to leave this body eventually. I also *seem* to be alive in an age where I might be around to see us manipulate our consciousness or otherwise find ways to preserve our consciousness without needing our physical bodies.

Consciousness is baffling in general. There's all kinds of thought experiments I could ponder regarding how consciousness functions.

Braindead concept. To know is to exist. What is the inverse

According to my opinion, which is not scientifically proved, when you die your consciousness is "rebooted" and you are sent into another thing that is just beginning to exist IE a baby which is being born.

It just makes sense to me that that happens.

In Binary its only a 0 and a 1
Before birth is 0
After death is 1
They are both absolute and they are both the same.
Life is the change from one to
another.
You didnt exist before birth and you wont after death. You only exist in this time alotted to you to live. However long it takes your 0 to go to a 1.

>>18074899

where was it said life had no relevance? everyones talking about the afterlife, i think youre in the wrong thread

File: .jpg (73KB, 619x480px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 619x480px

>>18071109
>How do we know that we have become nothing?

"nothing" cannot exist, to speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists. Since we can speak of a thing in the past, this thing must still exist (in some sense) now, and from this we conclude that there is no such thing as change. As a corollary, there can be no such things as coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being, or not-being.

File: image.jpg (108KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x628px

>>18071109
Open your computer while it is switched on.
See all those lights and wirring fans? that is the computer's brain.
Now switch off the computer.
Now try and see any sign that the computer is aware of it's fate, or otherwise functioning without the physical ability to function.

You won't be unaware or aware, you will be nothing. It's a tree falling deep in the forrest kinda issue, you have no further ways to provide or accept feedback, as all of "you" is inscribed on a small grey dead thing, inside a big pink dead thing.

You cease to be, the same as the operating system of your computer. You leave behind the shell, and all of the evidence of yourself, and with more power you would come back just about fine (barring corruption etc), but until then, you are simply off.
You can't think about your situation because you no longer have a proccessor.


Shit's scary and calming at the same time desu.

File: image.jpg (47KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x372px

>>18075522
To add to this, I am more interested in what the view is on clones on this board.

Imagine if in your final moments a perfect clone was made, and that clone becomes concious just as "you" pass on.
Now, does your conciousness move to the clone, or is that clone simply a perfect copy that is still just different enough to not be under your control?

I am not so interested in the whole life=soul thing, but the whole brain=consiousness, that is a whole can of worms to fuck around with. Same as identical twins being very close (mental linking and such shit), often drifting away as they develope differently later in life. Is this due to brain similarity to the extent that their conciousness' can interact?

I simply can't wrap my head around why I am in this brain, and not an identical one somewhere else around the world. What has drawn my awareness to this vessel, and could that awareness shift?

>>18074583

1/2

> Do you see how one point does not follow the next?

The difference is that fire isn't aware of being fire. Fire cannot observe anything. And a flame can be in a state of "non-existence", it just has to be simultaneously existent somewhere else; I exist physically in one point while I don't exist in another. Now, I'm only referring to something individual, since I'm addressing the relationship between existence and nonexistence, not literally the fire itself

> Why? What do we observe that has a beginning that does not have an end; do we think all those temporary items do not exist?

Why? Because observation doesn't end, as far as I know. In order for there not be an observation, there must not be an observer in the first place, that's the only way there can be a lack of observation, assuming that the consciousness continues after death, to make observations.

We observe events, which last a finite amount of time, and look at inanimate objects which do have an end, I suppose. You are right that what we CURRENTLY observe has an ending, but what happens after our death has not been observed to have an ending.

Those temporary items do exist, we observe them. Everything around you is real, and exists. But the question is whether we will exist after death, which I do think will happen.

> It's more than that. Water dripping on a rock is providing information, but what part of that is observation?
> I urge you to find the path that links the constant availability of information to the necessity of an informed.

I'll address both

Whatever consciousness around there will observe it. I might not have been that clear, but I believe (based on how it makes sense) that observation is dependent on information, while information isn't dependent on observation. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, it still happens. We observe some other information that occurs elsewhere, where ever we are at the moment. "No information" cannot occur

File: 15564692-red-haired-girl-facing-a-choice-isolated-on-a-white-holding-a-questions-marks-at-her-hands.jpg (218KB, 1350x1350px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1350x1350px

>>18075540
How do you think?

Children get treated badly

>>18074583

2/2

> If I were a material empiricist (there is nothing but the physical workings of matter, and the mind is a product of the meaty brain), I would posit that the phenomenon we call the mind - self-awareness - is a self-ordering property of complex sensory systems.

Well, everything is some sort of physical working of matter. Even energy itself is matter (energy is matter on the move, matter is "frozen energy" according to the definition of energy given by Einstein; E = mc^2).

However, it goes back to consciousness and the essence of a person; if our consciousness is a collection of energy, it cannot be destroyed according to the laws of physics. It still receives information. Our state of observation, a collection of energy, cannot end physically. Nothing can destroy energy. Even the expansion of the universe cannot destroy energy. And as energy can be neither destroyer nor created, perhaps things don't even have a beginning. And I don't think that the argument of "well, our consciousness was created out of something, violating the laws of physics, therefore it must have an end" works, since our consciousness is still energy; our birth was the catalyst to building it. We had no information before birth, but we have information after it.

Information cannot even be held back by black holes, so why would it be destroyed by death?

I can't give a complete answer to your example of tornadoes and bird flocks, but what I can say is that those things are either events or have no individual characteristics. With that logic, then every human in a crowded bus stop would be the same consciousness. And as for natural phenomenon, like storms, those are just movements. If something moves, it doesn't mean its conscious. And it isn't self-emerging, it is built by something. We know the origin of blastulas and fish schools.

This scenario only works if you think consciousness exists within the material world. I believe the material world is within the consciousness. Consciousness is already outside the body.

>>18074588

I understand. But there are cases where there is absolutely no advantage for the actor or the species. What I forgot to mention about giving food to the sterile person is that you know that the person will never be able to make a child. They will not continue the species. The same with terminal disease patients; they will not continue the species. By giving resources to them, you know that it is a waste for you, and it does not guarantee in the slightest that humanity will continue. It is not natural to violate our instincts, but we do it all the time

> I hope you keep pondering.

Likewise

>>18074671

But that would mean everything is nothing, it would be a paradox. Information, as I said earlier, isn't dependent on observers, but if observers aren't actually real, does that mean that the information we take in isn't real? It may sound like I contradicted myself, but I didn't. Our observations are something. We are something.

>>18074890

I'm talking about how consciousness has no end. And would we know that we aren't aware? No, because we'd have to be aware of the point in which we aren't aware. And should that happen, then we aren't not-aware. It would be an eternal game of "OK, now this time, for real I swear, you aren't aware".

>>18074899

At no point did I even imply that life isn't significant. And you are just repeating what I've been saying, that you do go on after death, since you can't be aware of a state in which there is no information. If you die and whatever environment you go to constantly tells you "there's nothing here", then there is something, as you receive some sort of information

>>18075371

Before I was born, my mind didn't exist. It exists now, the information, feelings and observations I have. They happened.

>>18075402

> I might be around to see us manipulate our consciousness

I mean, you can. When you imagine yourself throwing yourself out of a plane, you create your own observations, they remain in your mind

Remember that your consciousness is just the collective of active thoughts and background sensory information and memories you've got at any given time.

It's an abstract concept, not a tangible thing unless if you want to consider it the electrical impulses and brain mass that definitely eventually stops existing.

The existence of souls and afterlives are an entirely different series of conversations though.

>>18075404

You will always know because there is always information

>>18075438

I guess that makes some sense. The energy that makes up your consciousness is conserved in your opinion.

>>18075446

But in that instance, 0 and 1 are different states. What happens to the 1? What's the point of going from 0 to 1 if you end up in the same state? Intermediates occur as you go from one state to a different one.

>>18075464

Interesting theory

>>18075477

> "nothing" cannot exist, to speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists

Exactly, couldn't have said it better.

> Since we can speak of a thing in the past, this thing must still exist (in some sense) now, and from this we conclude that there is no such thing as change.

Perhaps so. Our very being is energy, and we can't convert energy into something else (perhaps matter, but our minds can't be made into some gel), so I can see what you are getting at

> As a corollary, there can be no such things as coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being, or not-being.

Well said.

>>18075779
When I said 'stops existing' I should have specified that they stop existing in the form that allows you to retain active thought, memories, sensory information and the like. It seems unlikely that what you consider to be yourself also continues to exist in a form that allows you to be aware of the fact that you're not experiencing anything.

It's basically like turning a computer off and leaving to rot in a junkyard, even if the hard drive is sitting there with all the information and the processor still exists it's not capable of doing work of accessing that information without power as it degrades and rusts away.

>implying reincarnation isn't what happens

>>18071109
Your comparison with how it felt before birth is accurate, though.
Knowing and feeling are both functions of a living thing. Once you lose your life, there is no instance for feeling and knowing anything, thus it is like you'd never had lived in the first place.
It's kinda like asking how a color you can't see looks like. You can't comprehend it, as you don't have any experiences that would compare.

This is also why I think most people who talk about near death experiences are bullshitting. You can experience the process of dieing, but you can not experience death itself. Because death, by definition is a state of non-being.

If you've ever experienced complete anaesthesia, you know that you actually don't experience it at all. You fade and then you come back. What happens in-between is apart from your existence.

>>18073649
This is a linguistic problem, not a philosophical over. Death isn't what actively end your life, dieing is. Death follows. Because all things that have died or have never lived are dead.

>>18071352
The problem here is that you're just assuming we exist for a reason. That our consciousness is part of something greater than just a tool for our bodies and species to survive and reproduce on earth.
When we die, everything in our individual life end. The universe might as well implode the second your brain stops, it wouldn't make difference. There is no perception, sensing, experiencing after death. It is the complete opposite of all those, it's pure non-existence.
It seems more like you are searching for a greater meaning in the universe than what happens with us after we die. The hard truth is that there's nothing we humans know of that tells us we should expect anything other than complete nothing.
Try reading Schopenhauers dialogues and essays on what happens after death, seems like it might be interesting for you.

>>18072347
your brain stops. The "machine" that enables you to experience is no longer a buzzing network of electrons, it is completely still and will no longer produce impressions that the body experiences.

File: 20_d.jpg (75KB, 960x932px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 960x932px

You know what happens when we die?
Our bodies rot in the ground, then the worms and rats eat it, then the birds eat them, then the birds get eaten by the foxes and a the wolves and the big cats, then they take a shit, then that shit becomes fertilizer, and plants and trees grow and those trees are used to build things and provide oxygen and other humans breath it in and live in those trees and you are all and everything and the essence of life

>>18075724
I am not really sure how to respond to this... what are you trying to say?

>>18076800

I mean, our consciousness seems to be more than a simple tool for survival and reproduction.

I've stated charity as an example, and someone gave me a source for it (evolutionary aspect of altruism), however, there are acts of charity in which you gain absolutely zero, it's a total waste. What good does it for me if I give a billion dollars to people who can't sexually reproduce, and on top of that, make it an anonymous donation?

I don't know if there is a greater meaning to the universe. I don't believe in "nothing", because nothing defines itself in a way that "something" can. "Something" is something, whatever it may be. But "nothing" itself is "nothing"; you must assume there is something for there to be nothing.

And I will look over Schopenhauer's stuff, thank you for that

>>18076434

But my problem with all of that, with deep sleep and anaesthesia, is that you exist afterwards, so you did not stop existing. In someways, you can say that the state of unconsciousness was still a state of being, as you existed afterwards as before.

I don't know what to make of near death experiences, some could be what people actually saw, others can be bullshit said to land a book deal.

Perhaps the reincarnation people are right, it's a long sleep until our consciousness reaches something else, whether in "our realm" or another, maintaining our memories and perception. Maybe not.

I can't see fading into nothingness as something that can actually happen, because even nothing is "something".

File: 1472437278571.jpg (223KB, 1920x1095px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1920x1095px

>>18076826
Underrated post

>>18076826

What if I was cremated ;^)

File: 1472429847639.jpg (91KB, 562x364px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 562x364px

>>18077402
Underrated post about an underrated post

>>18077405
You'll be around ;)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

File: 1471936302371.jpg (132KB, 959x643px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 959x643px

>>18076826
Under regarded nose

>>18075719
>The difference is that fire isn't aware of being fire. Fire cannot observe anything.

You miss the point of the analogy. A fire cannot remove its essential nature of burning, just as an observer cannot remove its essential nature of awareness. But neither burning nor awareness have eternal-existence as part of their essential nature - or at least I do not see and do not feel I have been shown this. How does the quality of awareness negate the possibility of non-existence?

>it just has to be simultaneously existent somewhere else
Why? Why does there HAVE to be fire? What makes you think there CAN NOT be fire for some span of time?

>In order for there not be an observation, there must not be an observer in the first place
Or there WAS an observer, and that observer no longer is. You haven't given a single reason to discount this. That's fine - as I said I believe this, but realize that this belief that I - and you - hold is irrational.

>I believe (based on how it makes sense) that observation is dependent on information, while information isn't dependent on observation.

This directly contradicts what you have said. This belief would lead to the conclusion that you can have information WITH ZERO observation. In other words - observation can end. Consciousness can end.

>if our consciousness is a collection of energy, it cannot be destroyed according to the laws of physics.
>Our state of observation, a collection of energy, cannot end physically. Nothing can destroy energy.
NO.

Double NO.

This is NOT what the physical laws say. The idea of material consciousness is an ARRANGEMENT of energy. The energy may be eternal, but the ARRANGEMENT is temporary.

Like the lost settlement of Roanoke. It was an arrangement of land and people. The land still exists. People still exist. But the settlement that was made up of them no longer exists.

>>18075757
>I can't give a complete answer to your example of tornadoes and bird flocks, but what I can say is that those things are either events or have no individual characteristics.

Not true. Each of these self-emerging properties would be unique. No two flocks of birds fly the same; they are simply created the same way.

In a similar fashion, all the people at the bus stop would have a unique consciousness, though each one was made the same way.

>And as for natural phenomenon, like storms, those are just movements.
Movement is energy. They are dynamic systems, exactly like the idea of a material consciousness.

>If something moves, it doesn't mean its conscious.
I never said movement is consciousness. I said consciousness is a self-emerging property.

>And it isn't self-emerging, it is built by something.
Do you understand the concept of a self-emerging property? This statement indicates you do not.

>>18077470

1/2

> You miss the point of the analogy. A fire cannot remove its essential nature of burning, just as an observer cannot remove its essential nature of awareness. But neither burning nor awareness have eternal-existence as part of their essential nature - or at least I do not see and do not feel I have been shown this. How does the quality of awareness negate the possibility of non-existence?

I was addressing how it relates directly to being aware. I saw your analogy, but the difference is that burning is a natural process. Our consciousness is a long process that we cannot explain with 100% confidence, at most maybe 99%. Our consciousness does not follow the assumed nature: a basic tool meant to survive and procreate, because you personally know that your life doesn't revolve around solely on those two (maybe not even on procreation, since some people voluntarily don't want kids).

To be aware is to know that you exist. I don't speak for rocks, and as dumb as it sounds, a rock doesn't know it is aware. And it's not because it has the same quality of consciousness that we have when we are dead, but because a rock had no consciousness to begin with, the energy in a brain isn't the same as one in a rock.

> Why? Why does there HAVE to be fire? What makes you think there CAN NOT be fire for some span of time?

I am a bit confused by your first question there, I don't know if you are talking about why did the fire exist, or why does it have to exist and not exist at the same time, so I'll answer the latter, if that is what you mean.

If I see a fire in a candle, it exists. But does that same flame exist somewhere else? Does it exist in the candle next to it? It doesn't, it has a position in the universe where it exists. It exists in one place, but not in another. I don't know if that answers the question, I admittedly don't quite understand that point

>>18075777
>there are cases where there is absolutely no advantage for the actor or the species.
Altruism is not aware. The fact that it sometimes "misfires" is irrelevant in the long run, as the average result of altruistic interactions over time improves a species' survival and propagation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=10b_1454864819
Here's a vid of a horse gored by a bull (graphic, careful). The horse, grievously wounded, does exactly what its instinct tells it to: run. Here, running is the absolute WORST thing the horse can do. It kills itself by running (well, it quickens its death). But the behavior is there because on average running is the best and preferred means of survival for a horse.

>Information, as I said earlier, isn't dependent on observers, but if observers aren't actually real, does that mean that the information we take in isn't real?
You keep saying info is independent, but your arguments show you don't accept that. If consciousness isn't real why would information - INDEPENDENT of observation - then be called into question?

>>18077390
>But my problem with all of that is that you exist afterwards, so you did not stop existing.
But the observer DOES stop observing. So if you take an observer as eternal, you MUST accept that an observer can STOP OBSERVING. And since it can happen for any amount of time, it's possible it could happen for an indeterminate amount of time - i.e the observer could NEVER observe again.

> I can't see fading into nothingness as something that can actually happen, because even nothing is "something".
I would recommend you find someone to put you under general anesthesia to experience the loss of observation, but doing so requires a licensed expert, as it can kill you. I was put under when I had my wisdom teeth out, and I can assure you, you aren't "aware of nothing." You simply stop being aware. I was under for 2 hours. I have no "2 hours of nothing" memory; I simply faded then was aware again later.

>>18077470

2/2

> Or there WAS an observer, and that observer no longer is. You haven't given a single reason to discount this. That's fine - as I said I believe this, but realize that this belief that I - and you - hold is irrational.

Observations aren't the same thing as information. Observations are the actions that the observer makes. An observer cannot stop making observations as there is always information. Like I said earlier, non-existence wouldn't be a game of "OK this time for real, this is your last observation" because non-existence, the state of not receiving information, cannot exist. Maybe we are information ourselves for all I know, I'm stating what I say with a near 99% confidence because it makes sense, but its toward uncertainty. I can't see the logic of observation and awareness ending when literally everything is information.

It may be irrational, or not. I assume that although we have different approaches to details, we do so because it makes sense. We shouldn't see our views as irrational, but rather some explanation based on what we know and can know, on the lines of logic

> This directly contradicts what you have said. This belief would lead to the conclusion that you can have information WITH ZERO observation. In other words - observation can end. Consciousness can end.

How so? I mean, if observation is ALWAYS dependent on information, and information cannot end, then how can observation end? It doesn't imply that there is a mutual relationship between the two, because as there is information going on in, say China, my observations exist because I am observing some other information, different than the information in China.

>>18077470

3/2


> This is NOT what the physical laws say. The idea of material consciousness is an ARRANGEMENT of energy. The energy may be eternal, but the ARRANGEMENT is temporary.

I do have to say that you were right there, that I tried to downgrade consciousness as solely a material thing. Whether or not that is the case, I don't see any argument to what you say is the existence of an arrangement of energy.

> Not true. Each of these self-emerging properties would be unique. No two flocks of birds fly the same; they are simply created the same way.

But flocks are collections of something. They have self-emerging properties, but it can't be aware. A flock isn't something that we can assign individuality to, but we can give it to the birds that make it up. A crowd isn't aware that "it" is a crowd, but the people are aware that they make up the crowd

> Movement is energy. They are dynamic systems, exactly like the idea of a material consciousness.

Yes, nothing that I can go against there, at least as far as I understood it

> I never said movement is consciousness. I said consciousness is a self-emerging property.

I know you didn't say that, I was just addressing the difference between a storm and a system of senses, as a storm only moves, it has no senses of anything.

> Do you understand the concept of a self-emerging property? This statement indicates you do not.

I do understand what a self-emerging property is. But the examples you gave me weren't self-emerging, they were caused by something that we know of; fish forming a school of fish isn't as questionable as how the consciousness forms.

>>18071109
The one thing you under any circumstances NEVER experience is non-existence. You can count on it.

If you wish to take the materialistic view, that your experience of reality is the sum of physical vibrations taking place in your neurons, very well then. Still, the energy signals between the places that occupied your neurons do not vanish upon the conversion of your living body into a corpse. They may become chaotic, scrambled, non-coherent as your corpse is misshapen and scattered ad dust into the rest of the universe throughout eternity. But they do not tend to zero.

It's entirely possible that within such a framework of scattered signals exists a more limited perspective that may resemble something of a life as you know it. Or, you can choose to define your existence as more than the sum of physical vibrations taking place in certain regions in this universe, and take your focus away from this universe, and towards something else.

But this is a point of contention among materialists, who do not believe they are capable of moving their focus between universes, because by definition, the act of changing focus between universes is not a physical quantity which can be measured within the confines of the universe whose focus is to be changed, from the perspective of those who perceive it, except through the acts of the consciousness which perceives it as such.

Either way, you can spend an eternity staring at nothing, have no recollection of the passage of time in doing so, since time is measured by change in the first place. Without an existence to note the passage of time, there is no experience of non-existence to focus your consciousness upon. The difference between an eternity and an instant is zero, from the perspective of that which does not exist.

File: image.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>this thread
>have to check "I am not a robot" on the captcha

Idk anymore...

>>18077539
>I was addressing how it relates directly to being aware.
You ignored the "nature of the item" point and said it doesn't count because fire isn't aware.

>the difference is that burning is a natural process
You given no reason to think consciousness isn't a natural process.

>Our consciousness is a long process that we cannot explain with 100% confidence, at most maybe 99%.
The fact that we can't totally explain something does not mean it's supernatural. It wasn't until 2011 that we actually understood how we balance on a bike. Does that mean bikes have always and will always exist, or that bike riding is supernatural?

>Our consciousness does not follow the assumed nature: a basic tool meant to survive and procreate
That's because it is a SELF-EMERGING PROPERTY. Seriously. Read up on that.

>I am a bit confused by your first question there
Full quote of what I was responding to:
>a flame can be in a state of "non-existence", it just has to be simultaneously existent somewhere else
So you did NOT mean that there is always a fire "somewhere?" Because that is what this sentence says. If fire is not existing here, it MUST be existing somewhere else. I was asking why you thought that.

>>18077564
>An observer cannot stop making observations as there is always information.

This is demonstrably not true.

>non-existence, the state of not receiving information
Like I said, information can be received without any observation of it. A rock receives information without observation. You yourself said observation is different than information, so just because there is information does NOT require there to be observation.

>I can't see the logic of observation and awareness ending when literally everything is information.
>Observations aren't the same thing as information.

>We shouldn't see our views as irrational, but rather some explanation based on what we know and can know, on the lines of logic
I'm trying to show you how you are NOT following logic.

>>18077552

4/2

> Altruism is not aware. The fact that it sometimes "misfires" is irrelevant in the long run, as the average result of altruistic interactions over time improves a species' survival and propagation.

I'm not trying to say that altruism is awareness itself, but rather a product of awareness. I go against my nature to do something that I know will not do anything but waste my resources. And it goes for anything that doesn't follow my "purpose" as a human; spending the day watching TV, masturbating, abuse, etc. Now, I'm not saying that masturbation and TV is all that there is to life, but it shows that our consciousness as capable of going against our "nature".

As for the horse, it does follow its instinct, but solely because it believes it has a chance. If I fell off a plane and landed on a highway, I have an actual choice: move out of the highway before I get run over BUT I'll probably mess up my back or something (as in physical accidents, its recommended not to move people, thats why they use stretchers) or stay on the highway and hope I don't get crushed. I can or cannot act on instinct because my consciousness allows me to.

I'm not saying that animals don't have a consciousness, that isn't my mind point, my main point is to show that consciousness can lead to decisions that we take, where we can pick an option that we know might damage us. A horse runs away because that's what it should do, but it doesn't have the knowledge that we have, that its organs will plop out on the floor if it runs and that the bull isn't chasing it anymore.

> You keep saying info is independent, but your arguments show you don't accept that. If consciousness isn't real why would information - INDEPENDENT of observation - then be called into question?

I wasn't clear on it, I addressed it in >>18077564 in that our consciousness and observations are dependent on information. We always uptake information, there can't be a state in which there is 0 information

>>18077552

>>18077552

5/2

> But the observer DOES stop observing. So if you take an observer as eternal, you MUST accept that an observer can STOP OBSERVING. And since it can happen for any amount of time, it's possible it could happen for an indeterminate amount of time - i.e the observer could NEVER observe again.

I don't see how if something is for eternity, it has an end. Observation is the uptake of information, and information is always around. It could be (or could not be) seen as if observation is a leech on information. Our awareness exists solely because information exists. No information = no us. Nothing to think of, or feel, or experience.

> I would recommend you find someone to put you under general anesthesia to experience the loss of observation, but doing so requires a licensed expert, as it can kill you. I was put under when I had my wisdom teeth out, and I can assure you, you aren't "aware of nothing." You simply stop being aware. I was under for 2 hours. I have no "2 hours of nothing" memory; I simply faded then was aware again later.

I might have to go for surgery soon, and I think that might give me more understanding of the period "between" existence. My fear is that I have a blood disorder (I bleed out easily), so for all I know, I could have my final answer (but for myself) instead of the answer of the period between existence, so I guess that's why I'm more focused on this topic than usual. Maybe what I am saying is all BS in the long run, but it makes some sort of sense

Anyways, I haven't updated the thread as of the last two posts so I don't know if you wrote more, but I'll respond in the morning, apologies for going off around when you came back.

>>18077564
>if observation is ALWAYS dependent on information, and information cannot end, then how can observation end?

Because dependence doesn't mean "if the former automatically the latter." Snapping your fingers is dependent on you having fingers. But just because you have fingers doesn't mean you are snapping your fingers.

What you are describing is CO-DEPENDENCE: one cannot be without the other. If information is independent, then it can be whether there are observations or not.

>They have self-emerging properties, but it can't be aware.
What about an ant colony? An individual ant is pretty useless. A colony of ants can kill elephants, create highways, farm aphids, build structures thousands of times their size, can relocate millions of individuals. In other words - an ant colony shows every sign of being a single, aware organism. The only difference is that the individual parts of a colony are physically separate.

http://www.sciencealert.com/ants-respond-as-a-collective-superorganism-when-they-sense-a-predator

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

>I was just addressing the difference between a storm and a system of senses
Yes, a storm only moves, and thus the emergent properties are higher order weather movements: tornadoes. A sensory system only observes, thus its emergent properties are higher order observations: self awareness.

>But the examples you gave me weren't self-emerging, they were caused by something that we know of
This again shows me you do not understand self-emerging properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties_and_processes
>An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective.

>>18071167
You've never had surgery, have you?

>>18077624
>I go against my nature
ALTRUISM IS NOT AGAINST YOUR NATURE.

>spending the day watching TV, masturbating, abuse, etc.
All of this is in your nature. The fact that higher-order activity is seemingly disparate from things like eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, it does not mean that the behavior isn't based in these natures.

>As for the horse, it does follow its instinct, but solely because it believes it has a chance.
And now relate the analogy back to the "nature" of humans. Why do you give money uselessly? Why do you perform what you consider "unnatural" acts? Because you believe there is a chance. Just like the horse.

>our consciousness and observations are dependent on information
And I have repeatedly told just because observation is dependent on information, there is ZERO reason to think the existence of information necessitates the existence of observations.

>there can't be a state in which there is 0 information
THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS.

>Observation is the uptake of information, and information is always around.
THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS.

I feel like I'm getting cranky. Let me give an internet disclaimer - I am enjoying this discussion, and do not think you are a faggot beyond the essential nature of OP.

>>18071109
Our brains are like advanced computers. What happens when you unplug a computer? It turns off.

>>18071109
>we didn't exist before birth, but we exist before death
but we dont exist after death, just like we didnt exist before birth.
I honestly cant understand what is so confusing about this. It might be the most mundane and sad answer to this, but it is also the one with the least amount of assumptions

>>18071246
Nigga you're dead. It will be like you were never born TO YOU. You may HAVE existed but you're dead. You have no though and no awareness. The fact you existed is irrelevant. Yea you ate that food but now you have no memory. Nigga you dead as shit

>>18077668
>And I have repeatedly told just because observation is dependent on information, there is ZERO reason to think the existence of information necessitates the existence of observations.

Some very intelligent physicists would beg to differ.

>>18077711
I'd be interested in a link.

Consciousness and thoughts are not necessarily confined to the brain.

Watch some of this guys videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVUEdj-OIMA

It explains basically how it works. A little esoteric but so is this whole discussion.

Open you eyes or don't. But this will help you live a better life.

>>18077691
What makes you think you exist right now?

Personally I have had dreams of other lives, both before I was born, and far into the future. I have been without a body many times as a mind viewing what I wished. I had created life within the seas, and giving light to plants as they track the sun. I have seen the lives of small spiders and ants. Sort of watching them arise in consciousness as I view from a formless awareness seeking nature. There are techniques to cast ones mind far from the body and view as if one is seeing directly through their clear awareness.

>>18077716
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

Our current understanding of quantum mechanics imply that the observer is essential to the existence of information.

>>18077711
everybody who isnt a solipsist would agree, that thing exist regardles of observation

>>18077737
Call me what you will, but you still lack the information to prove me wrong.

>>18077731
>http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

This article cites an experiment showing that electrons can exist in multiple places at the same time, and ponders the implications of this toward a Many Worlds Multiverse.

What part did you think implied information necessitates the existence of an observer?

>>18077749
The discernment of either state requires a conscious mind capable of recognizing and processing it.

>>18077746
what information exactly? This boils down to a philosophical viewpoint. If you believe that things only exist while you can observe them, that makes you pretty much a solipsist. There is no way to prove a solipsist wrong.

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

>>18077765
That is not shown in the link, nor do I believe it is relevant.

>discernment
Which is just another word for "observation." I agree in order to observe something, there must be observation. But you haven't proven that the observation is required.

Also, the experiment explicitly showed that it is not different states. It is one state: a single electron in multiple places at the same time.

>>18071109
You cant be consciously aware that your consciousness has ceased. Death is the end of your consciousness. There is nothing. Its like switching off a camera.

>>18077765
>requires a conscious mind
not at all.
The term "observer" is used differently in this context than in everyday english.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics
>In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that affects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process

>>18077786

You caught me trying to rationalize my faith.

>>18077749
Even if we do live in multiple dimensions at once, you'll never see them,so who gives a shit?

>>18077792
>so who gives a shit?
people who want to interpret the implications of quantum mechanics

>>18077792
Have you even tried following the thread? Absolutely no one is talking about multiverse theories. The only reason I mentioned it is to show that I read the article, and to say that the article doesn't mention observers necessarily existing where there is information.

>>18077797
This thread has been fairly straightforward. We don't need derailment and hijacking while OP is asleep.

>>18077799
>We don't need derailment and hijacking while OP is asleep
What are you on about? I just answered anons question.

>>18077789
Why don't you just have faith in god instead and stop trying to rationalize your fear of death in scientific idealization of the future?

>>18077749
Strange dreams I have had I saw the realignment of electrons inside my atoms and started viewing parallel realities. I sort of asked god to do it for me and it just happened. It it seemed like all the astral realms were in the same place, just small slivers of a broadband signal. Evolution in spirit leads to seeing the whole signal rather than the sliver.

>>18077823
God is the observer. Were you even paying attention?

>>18077810
>What are you on about?

I'm on about exactly what I said.

>Absolutely no one is talking about multiverse theories. The only reason I mentioned it is to show that I read the article, and to say that the article doesn't mention observers necessarily existing where there is information.

This isn't a thread about multiverses or dimensions or quantum mechanics. It's about the persistence of consciousness. Talking about those things - answering questions on them - without relation to the thread's topic is exactly what hijacking a thread describes.

>>18077829
Fucking hell. /x/ really can't help themselves. I'm off until either OP comes back or someone can stay on topic.

>>18077835
I can't individually manipulate electrons into the right places to make my body better than it is now. Theres a lot of weird mental shit you can do, that won't make it better than it is now. Its faith/love/will and a whole lot of patience that makes this occur.

Being an atheist sounds depressing lmao xD

>>18077839
>I'm on about exactly what I said.
Yeah I dont know why you are so pedantic about my short post answering a little question that came up while discussing OPs topic. Im not the faggot one who brought up QM in the first place. You also shouldnt be so whiny about ""off-topic"" post while making completely non-contributing posts, that just bitch about /x/. what a hypocrit you are

>>18077829
>>18077729
please go back to the dream general.

>>18077799
>Absolutely no one is talking about multiverse theories
>>18077731
>>18077749
>>18077792

>>18077691
this
It is that simple

>>18071109
>how would we know if we lost our consciousness?
you can't be this stupid

>>18077964
What if you wake up one day only to realise, that you are dead?

>>18077970
yer killing me

>>18072167
>But the key term is "in-between". I existed before fainting, and I existed after fainting
But that's only because the battery in your brain was running. The only reason you feel alive is because your brain produces electrical charge. There's nothing that defines you aside from your brain. Once you die, the brain stops so you go to eternal state of fainting

>>18077970
I would still be alive because I would need consciousness to deduce that I was dead.

File: hqdefault.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>18077970
Man, how you gunna wake up dead?

>>18077981
10/10 post

>>18071109
It would be the same as the part of the sleep which is in between being awake and in a dream where you don't have any conscious thought or any memory.

>>18077980
>I would still be
well, you are obviously some kind of robot that didnt got its humor software yet

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I believe something.

I think, therefore I am. Every moment is a memory. And I must be alive to remember. If I die, I do not exist and cannot remember. Ergo, I never die.

>>18078179
>18078179
>>18078179

Nope.

I think, therefore I am. Every moment is a memory. And I must be alive to remember. If I die, I do not exist and cannot remember. Ergo, I cannot think, memories disappear, I am dead.

ftfy

Is there any evidence that shows that the brain on a minimal wavelength still senses pain after death? In particular would an autopsy be an excruciating experience for a dead person internally but externally the rigor prevents any response?

>>18078238
no.
If something is biologically dead, it shows no signs of life. Even everything braindead stops sensing pain or literally anything else for that matter.

File: where are you.png (5KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 1280x720px

Why would the universe gain sentience and consciousness only to lose it to the ether after a few years?

The soul is eternal, every life is a new lesson, eventually we will become complete and return to the source.

>>18078390
Because it is a self-emerging property of a sufficiently complex sensory system.

Like my fire analogy, the process and potential for a system to become conscious would always be there, but the actual manifestation is temporary.

>>18071109
>how would we know if we lost our consciousness? How do we know that we have become nothing?

Is that hard to understand that you simply wouldn't know shit?

Let's say you die and 300 years in the future you get resurrected, the moment you wake up it would feel like you just died a couple od seconds ago.

Now imagine that but without being resurrected.

>>18077668

> THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS

i think he means that observations exist if information exists, and that information will exist if observations dont

in other words, we dont stop observing because we dont stop getting info

i think

I'm back, I didn't really expect a huge discussion to occur while I left, sorry about the lateness. I have no idea whose addressing who, so I'll respond to the points that I find to be the biggest, but if you want, just tell me what you think is important to address too

> Quantum physics
> Multiverse

I mean, those things do make some sort of sense, but I am observing where I am right now, I'm experiencing only one world. The big question in the thread is where will our consciousness go after we die?

The only few times where I think quantum physics can be used with confidence is that we shouldn't be too quick to assume that materialists are correct because deducing consciousness to a "basic" physical phenomenon implies that we know all that there is to the biophysics of the mind. Perhaps, if you feel really bold, you can say that the experiment that shows electrons can exist in multiple places at the same time CAN be applied into our minds and how we work imagination and thought. I remembered when I was in New York, but I was (am) in Florida when I thought of that, so although I wouldn't personally say I was in two places at the same time, I can see an argument coming from that. But remember, that's not what I'm trying to imply myself

> THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS.

>>18079520 wrote it in a way that makes sense according to what my views are. Observations exist if information exists. Information can exist where there is no observation, but that doesn't mean that there is no observation at all

If you imagine a dozen or so cups, and I mark only one single cup with a marker. There are multiple cups all over the place, that have no mark; the mark doesn't exist in those cups, but it exists solely in one cup.

If I destroy the marked cup, the mark no longer exists, but in this analogy, the cup is information; I cannot destroy the cup. The mark exists on only one cup, but the other cups don't care and still exist

>>18071167
>At what point do you say "well I'm not part of the universe, peace" and just vanish?
you never did drugs right. Me neither. But I imagine the moment after it, having no memories to what happened. That first second where you don't know what happened, that very first moment is what I imagine to feel vanished for some time.

>>18079567

However, in my analogy, we assume that the mark will always exist, and the mark is consciousness. That is the entire argument of the thread, the very existence of consciousness, so I have to point out not to take the marked cup analogy as an absolute truth. It only makes sense on the basis that information doesn't end, but my guess is as good as anyone else's, I can only try to explain why some make more sense than others.

>>18079577

I haven't taken drugs (other than anesthesia of course), but I would assume that even on drugs, your consciousness is still in your brain, your brain is still very much alive in physiological terms. But brain death is the total shut down. Unless some weird idea like electrifying your brain comes up in the future, the brain isn't on, compared to drugs.

>>18079520
>observations exist if information exists

Everyone keeps saying this but nowhere does anyone even attempt to explain it.

Observations REQUIRE information. Information does NOT REQUIRE observations.

>we dont stop observing because we dont stop getting info
Yes we DO. It's called unconsciousness.

>>18079567
>Information can exist where there is no observation
And thus the fact that information always exists is no reason to think that observation will always exist.

>that doesn't mean that there is no observation at all
Wait...have you been equating a single being's conscious experience with any being's experience anywhere at any time?

That would be a completely separate talk.

>in my analogy, we assume that the mark will always exist
>If I destroy the marked cup, the mark no longer exists

Which is it?

>>18079615

> Everyone keeps saying this but nowhere does anyone even attempt to explain it.
> Observations REQUIRE information. Information does NOT REQUIRE observations.

You answered your own question; observations require information, and it is always there. Information cannot cease to exist.

> Yes we DO. It's called unconsciousness.

That is the only point so far that I am shaky of, things like anesthesia and amnesia. All of our knowledge on unconsciousness is made when the said person still exists. You can knock me out with a rock, and I won't be conscious for an amount of time, but I still wake up later to, as paradoxical as it sounds, remember that I don't remember. I didn't die, I came back from a state of certain unconsciousness

> And thus the fact that information always exists is no reason to think that observation will always exist.

It isn't, admittedly, reason to think that it will not always exist. I base off my argument on how observation exists because information exists.

> Wait...have you been equating a single being's conscious experience with any being's experience anywhere at any time?

I am straying off into that field, now that I re-read my wording, implying that a single conscious is "assigned" a single, monogamous piece of information.

> Which is it?

Remember in my analogy, I say that the cup cannot be destroyed, but if it were able to be destroyed, the mark would be destroyed too.

>>18079638
>You answered your own question; observations require information, and it is always there. Information cannot cease to exist.

Now I feel you're being deliberately obtuse. You completely ignored the second part, even though you quoted it.

>Information does NOT REQUIRE observations.

>remember that I don't remember

But you DON'T. It's like someone cut 50 frames from a movie and spliced the ends together. There's no gap. To the observer, it's like the world jumped seamlessly ahead for some amount of time. There's no memory of not remembering.

>I base off my argument on how observation exists because information exists.

But your argument is that observation always exists. You haven't shown that information would...

>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS.

It is exceedingly frustrating to keep having to repeat myself. Address this.

>>18073238
u never were drunk in your life?

>>18079668

> Now I feel you're being deliberately obtuse. You completely ignored the second part, even though you quoted it.

I didn't ignore it, you answered yourself. Observation exists because information exists. No observations means there is no information to be observed.

> But you DON'T. It's like someone cut 50 frames from a movie and spliced the ends together. There's no gap. To the observer, it's like the world jumped seamlessly ahead for some amount of time. There's no memory of not remembering.

I did say that the whole "remembering that I don't remember" thing wouldn't make much sense, because there is no other way I can put it, from what I can think of at the moment. The movie is still going, and we know it has a definite ending, and the cut-out part has no significance to the movie's existence. It's the ending that counts.

> But your argument is that observation always exists. You haven't shown that information would...

That is my argument. I suppose information is literally everything. It is something weird to define, you might be able to say that information encompasses the universe and everything outside of it and might get away with it, so I don't know how to properly define information. Information is just "something". It's always is there.

> It is exceedingly frustrating to keep having to repeat myself. Address this.

I did though (?). My whole argument is that observation latches onto info. I'm not too sure what exactly are you not getting from my post, please clarify your question if possible. Information may or may not have an observer, but there is always an observer because there is always some sort of information

I mean, we might be heading to a conversation on whether or not information itself ever ends, but I'm not sure if you see it that way, so I just want to address whatever you want to, I'm OK with that

>>18079822
>Observation exists because information exists.

This has not been explained, and is not backed up by anything agreed upon so far. I'm not going further until you actually attempt to explain this.

> THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS.

>Information may or may not have an observer
>there is always an observer because there is always some sort of information

Do you REALLY not see that these statements contradict?

Alright, maybe yet another analogy to muddle things up will somehow help. Think of TV and EM waves.

We'll assume for the analogy that EM waves are eternal. So they have always and will always exist.
EM waves are independent of TV.
TV is dependent on EM waves.

To be analogous to what I hear, the conclusion from this is that TVs must always exist because EM waves have always existed and TV comes from EM waves.

It's simple https://youtu.be/sm6uf2ul43c

>>18079829
>>18079852

Well, I really don't know what my explanation is lacking, so I'll try to be even more clear

Information doesn't need observation to exist.

Observation needs information to exist.

As information is all over, and there cannot be a lack of information

As information will always exist, so will observation

Observation will rely on information to exist

I can't figure out how to better explain it without trying to imply that observation is some material thing stuck onto information, another material thing.

>>18079888

That is to what I'm getting at, the analogy sounds about right

>>18071167
>It's the loneliness that I am afraid of.
In any case, you shouldn't worry about this.

Let's say your consciousness just terminates after you die. You don't think anymore, no capability to even feel loneliness.
On the other side, if after death comes afterlife, then rest assured, your soul has walked the path countless others have trod, and you won't be alone. In the end your soul will dissolve (fast path: heaven, slow and detox path: hell) and become one with the universe. So in the very end you won't be lonely.

tl;dr: don't worry about being lonely after death. It is being lonely in life you should look out for.

>>18074515
Nah, it's still natural. People kept thinking that evolution is a certain process, that would result in a 'better' creature; while in reality it's just a simple elimination process. As long as a thing doesn't hinder our survival or passing on of our genes, it'll stay in our genes until it starts being a hindrance in our survival.

For example, let's say that a frog develops a blue coloration on its back. Said frog's survival isn't endangered by this coloration, and it gains no benefit as well. Evolution doesn't give a fuck until, say, a heron develops a preference for the blue-backed frogs. Then the population of frogs dropped, and the blue-back gene gets eaten off the gene pool.
But then again, say some of these frogs live in another place where blue foliage are plentiful. The blue-backs can hide better when their non-blue-back brethren got easily seen and eaten by local predators. In this place the blue-back gene gets reinforced and thrives.
Yet in another place, no predators, no trouble, and the blue-back gene doesn't disappear.

So yeah, evolution doesn't work how people usually think they would. Instead of an improving process it's more of a selective process. We humans became the 'superior' species because the environment currently allows us to. When the situation shifts, we could be evolving into dumb animals once again.

>>18077590
Well, good news is, you're not a robot, and thus can bypass captcha and post on 4chan.
The bad news is, we don't know if we are P-zombies.

>>18080373
But NOWHERE in this can you conclude that observation will not end, or that observation will ALWAYS arise from information.

>>18081257
>As information will always exist, so will observation

>>18081911
That's not a conclusion. It's a baseless assertion that OP has contradicted.

>>18079822
>Information may or may not have an observer

>>18071109
Assuming death is truly the end of consciousness;

If you were to die slowly enough while awake and alert you would probably notice you mental faculties degrade and the neural connections start to decouple for the seconds leading to death.

Basically you would have enough time to glipse the Nothing on the other side of the veil and think "Oh shi...." right as you are snuffed out.

If you read the book "Carrie" there is a very relevant scene that sums it up.

>>18081924
>That's not a conclusion. It's a baseless assertion that OP has contradicted
what? how? are you trolling?

>>18071109
You cease to exist. You aren't there anymore to question all those things. It's hard for people to imagine this as even if you say that there is nothing after death you kinda imagine that yourself is still here to witness this nothingness. But you are not. Just like everything that was before your birth is nothing for you personally as well. You don't witness the black in the image you posted.

>>18081986
>what? how?
No established points lead to that statement. It can not be concluded from this:

>Information doesn't need observation to exist.
>Observation needs information to exist.
>As information is all over, and there cannot be a lack of information

Since these stipulations can be true in situations where your statement is not:

State 1: Observation never exists
>information is still ever-present
>observation is still dependent on information, but never comes to be since information doesn't need observation to exist

State 2: Observation exists for a brief period
>information is still ever-present
>observation of the information is non-existent, then for some span of time becomes existent, then is non-existent forevermore

Both of these situations satisfy the above statements. Thus you CANNOT conclude that where there is information, there is observation. You CANNOT conclude that observation has always existed.

>>18082046
>Information doesn't need observation to exist.
>Observation needs information to exist.
>As information is all over, and there cannot be a lack of information
>As information will always exist, so will observation
>Observation will rely on information to exist
You forgot some points. Clearly there is always information to be observed

>>18082075
I want you to try and explain my own argument to me. I honestly do not think you understand what I am arguing against.

>Clearly there is always information to be observed
This is not the problem.

>As information will always exist, so will observation
This is the problem.

>>18071109
>Clearly there is always information to be observed
That doesn't automaticly mean that since theres info there's an observer
Let me put it this way: there might be a paralel universe, and let's say that there's an info in it
Although there's info, we aren't capable to observe it, bear in mind there're really obscure places in the universe,ones that haven't and won't be observed, they still have info, they are info
But they aren't observed

Just aswell some infos are observed for a short time, the info gets destroyed and turned into another info
The very moment that info stopped being that certian info the observation tagged to that info has stopped and a new observetion tagged to new info has formed

>>18082083
> I honestly do not think you understand what I am arguing against
>wants to be snarky all of sudden
Well, maybe you dont explain it very well. But maybe me neither. As I said, I dont know how to explain it better.

If there clearly is always information TO BE OBSERVED, then there clearly is an observer

>>18082099
Of course not every observer will observe all the information. And of course not every information must be eternal in its present form.
Unless we are talking about end of the universe scenarios however, there will always be some kind of information

>>18082101
>all of sudden
I've contended the same damn point a dozen times in as many different ways. YES I'm getting impatient with anons who can't seem to understand what's missing from their reasoning.

Should I go back to quoting myself?

> THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS.

>If there clearly is always information TO BE OBSERVED, then there clearly is an observer

I DISAGREE!!!! You need to do more than just say this is true. I've said it's wrong. I've given examples where it's wrong. I've given reasoning as to why it's wrong.

THIS ANON GETS IT >>18082099

Argue the assertion, or drop it.

>>18082112
>there will always be some kind of information

THIS

IS

NOT

THE

PROBLEM

>there clearly is an observer

THIS

IS

I honestly don't understand OP's point of view.

When you die, you completely lose the ability to perceive any stimuli. You can not see. You can not feel. You can not think. End of story.

>>18082121
No need to shout man. So if you agree, that there will always be some kind information to be observed, you cant magically disagree with the notion that this means that there has to be an observer. Thats not how it works.
You can't observe nothingness. Nothing is the lack of reality, and reality always exist.

>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS
see
>>18082112

>>18082128
Anon is going through a rough existencial crisis since he is uncappable to take peace with the fact he will die and he can't possibly stop it
Once the calender hits 10^100 years it's all over, every molecule, atom,quark gluon will turn into dust the size of a planck's constant, heck maybe even that will dissapear and turn completely into energy

The problem is once the energy reaches void it cannot come back, energy doesn't take effect made by entropy since energy is the cause of entropy, there might be another bang and after 10^1000 years it'll all be back to normal just as it is now, but since the information of that will cease to exist and no observers observed it it makes it irrelevant


Than and also our brains are "wired" as such to be incapable to feel and imagine death and complete everlasting unconciousness

Because trying to understand nothing is harder than anything else in our puny little lives

Look, OP or whatever anon isn't getting this. I'll try to help you out by giving some seeds to reasoning that might fill the gap.

>info always exists, everywhere
>THE PRESENCE OF INFO MAKES AN OBSERVER GUARUNTEED [this will require an explanation of how info inevitably leads to an observer]
>if info necessitates observation, and info is eternal, then the "original" process to start observation began infinitely long ago
>thus observation has always existed

or

>info is eternal, ever-present
>INFO CONTAINS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF OBSERVERS
>since info is eternal and everywhere, and since the presence of info makes the presence of observation a nonzero possibility, observation will inevitably arise
[This line of reasoning would mean only the potential for observation is eternal and ever-present, while manifest observers would be limited in location and duration.]

>>18082143
>you cant magically disagree with the notion that this means that there has to be an observer
Yes I can, because nothing you've stated backs it up. The fukyeahcapslock portions are what you are missing - do you agree with either of the above?

>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS

>>18082112
>Of course not every observer will observe all the information
My statement does not say this, it doesn't address what I said.

>of course not every information must be eternal in its present form.
My statement doesn't say this, this doesn't address what I said.

>there will always be some kind of information
My statement doesn't say this, this doesn't address what I said.

Do you even have a stance on my assertion? Can you give a simple yes or no as to the veracity of this statement:
>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS

>>18082143
Who says you cannot observe nothingness?
If you were to observe void that has absolutely nothing in itself (no matter, no energy, no light, radiation...
. whatsoever) you'd litteraly be observing nothingness
If there is nothing to observe you are observing nothing as a thing
There are two types of info; an info that exists and you can or cannot observe it
And an info that only exists just because you observe it otherwise there would be nothing

There'd be an info about this place that it contains nothing, but when talking strictly about inside of that place there's litteraly be nothing in it, not even information
The only info there exist is the fact that there is no information, and that is the only time information demands an observation to exist

Gee anons
You made me think about life
I hate thinking about life
Makes me suicidial
Thanks a bunch anons

What the fuck are you guys smoking?

Are you seriously discussing how it feels to be unconcious?

>>18082178
Currently we are discussing wether or not there can be a situation with observation yet no information, information without observation and wether or not both info and observation are eternal and cannot be non-existant as such

Tl;dr: we've been smoking dry paint of the walls, thanks for asking

>>18071109
>we lose our consciousness
>the end
>"before birth we didn't exist"
>our existence is entirely material unless you believe in souls
>we existed before birth as an unborn baby
>before that we existed as a fetus
>then as an embryo
>then as stem cells
>then we existed as a sperm and egg
>before that we existed as unprocessed DNA, vitamins, minerals, and other particles
>tfw before we existed we were just fucking atoms
Consciousness IS nothing. We get closer and closer every day to mapping the human brain--inevitably, we will at some point be able to take "snapshots" of human consciousnesses. Anyone we record we can then copy, upload, or edit for the hell of it through various substrates. Electrochemical signals and impulses basically determine the bulk of what makes us "us." Even if you want to include the memories that other people have of us as part of what "we" are, that's still bio-electricity and neurotransmitters.

So the day will come when we can exist as a fucking template and get uploaded into a digital reality, installed into a robot body, or possibly downloaded into a new living body. What will consciousness be worth when you can literally store and sell "souls" like programs?

Before we were born, our atoms were not arranged into a configuration that results in our consciousness. After we die, our atoms will not be arranged into a configuration that results in our consciousness. The state of pre-birth is exactly the same as the state of post-death (we'll call this state non-life).

Regardless of this fact, your awareness came to experience the consciousness of your brain through some sort of mechanism. Logically, this has to mean that there is some sort of mechanism within the non-life state that causes awareness to experience life. There is no telling what this mechanism is or what the non-life state entails--whether or not we are "conscious" in the everyday sense that we are used to in this state--but it is a logical certainty that there is a continuation in the non-life state in some form.

>>18082156
>INFO CONTAINS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF OBSERVERS
Sure. I mean, matter and energy can clearly be seen as information.

>Yes I can
Oh, of course you can. I meant, that it doesnt really makes sense.

>Do you even have a stance on my assertion?
Yes?
the post I referenced was my stance on this
>>18082112

>My statement doesn't say this
Of course not. I didnt try to parrot your statement.

Again: You can't observe what a "non-observation" is. If nothing exists, then there can be no observations.

You already agreed, that there clearly is always information TO BE OBSERVED. Then there has to be an observer

>>18082169
Nothingness doesnt exist. It contains no information. Nothing is by definition not a thing

>>18082227
>Then there has to be an observer

No there doesn't. That is EXACTLY what the statement I've been screaming means.

>Of course not. I didnt try to parrot your statement.
What you said was completely irrelevant to my statement and didn't address it at all.

>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS

>>18082234
How was it irrelevant? Maybe actually read it and think how it applies?

>>18082234
There cannot be a state with information and zero observations.

Information is made up of the interaction of matter. When information is made, it is because something within reality interacted relative to something else. The 1 in a computer cannot exist unless it is existing relative to the 0.

Therefore, the 1 observes the 0 and vice-versa. This is an EXTREMELY primitive observation, but an observation nonetheless. It is information interacting relative to other information. You can then climb up the ladder of complexity and find subatomic particles interacting with each other, creating information such as "X particle exists in X state at X velocity relative to Y particle". Further up the ladder of complexity, you find molecules arranged into neurons, and those neurons arranged into a brain, and you find that brain observing the other matter in the universe.

Information cannot exist without an observer.

>>18082246
>How was it irrelevant?

I took every line of that post and showed it neither mentioned what my statement says, nor does it address anything mentioned in my statement.
>>18082163


At this point I think you're trolling.
>>18082163

>>18082232
And by observing and coming to a conclusion there is not a thing you formed an information that there is not a thing

>>18082250
SEE?!? THIS anon can at least try to address what I'm saying. If it's the same person why did this take A DAY AND A HALF to get to!?

>Information is made up of the interaction of matter.
This doesn't fit with what OP said. If info is dependent on matter, then it isn't eternal because we know matter began with the BB, but moving on.

>something within reality interacted relative to something else. The 1 in a computer cannot exist unless it is existing relative to the 0.
>Therefore, the 1 observes the 0 and vice-versa.

So with this, we are no longer talking about a self-aware being. We are saying that the interactions between subatomic particles is a form of observation, and with THIS understanding of observation, we can say observation always exists.

Am I understanding you?

>>18082252
I know that you said that. And you said it again. I asked you why.
I thought it makes a point about your statement, but maybe you take with issue with that it was adressed to another anon or something.
Anyway, to summarize and expand:

Any information is not observed by every observer.
An Information might not get observed.
There is always some kind of information to be observed.
An Observer is always observing.

>>18082262
>An Observer is always observing.
And this STILL can not be concluded from the previous statements.

Any fuel is not burned by every fire
A fuel might not get burned
There is always fuel to burn
There is always a fire - THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED, AND WRONG

Okay I can't follow which is which so I'm nust gonna spit it here without replying to anyone

One guy said that there cannot be information without observation since relativity and shit

Let's just set this once and for all, let's say that the world is ending and all matter has disintegrated to the point even the strings stopped existing, all energy is dicipated, practicly gonne..
All for one particle, it has enough energy to be forced to move through void, it has to due to physics (now we we won't talk why this wouldn't happen since in order for strings to stop existing as a matter every other higher form of matter would need to stop existing, just for example purpouses we are setting this a bit unrealistic situation)
So anyway, the atom.is moving through space, all by itself, it emits no photons
How do we know he is moving? Physics! Laws of physics determine since the atom has energy it has to move (absolute zero and other shit)
But there is absolutely no particle,no matter and no energy to be compared to, yet there still is information although there is no observations because of laws of physics that can't break

>>18082270
This anon gets it

>>18082256
The only way to observe nothing is to not observe at all.

>>18082265
It was part of a list of 4 statements, to adresse your statement as you desired. The list wasnt meant to be in an order where one statement is concluded by the previous one.

>>18082270

>>18075719

>>18082291
>a list of 4 statements
So we're back to "I disagree with this statement, and it needs to be supported if you don't want it rejected out of hand."

You can say observation is always observing as many times as I can say midiclorians cause consciousness but without support no-one has to accept it.

On the contrary, examples of direct experience has been given where an observer stopped observing (anesthesia, blackouts, unconsciousness). So until you refute these, your assertion is more than just baseless, it is WRONG.

And no, saying the observer began observing again does not refute the fact that AN OBSERVER STOPPED OBSERVING.

>>18082293

>>18077470

>>18071109
>How do we know that we have become nothing.
We won't. Nothing doesn't know anything. You won't know or feel anything ever again. It's not a tough concept. I see that you're still holding onto some shreds of hope about the afterlife.

>>18082291
Are you braindead?
The only way to observe nothing is not to observe at all?

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking for real kidding me?

Let me put it simple: if you put a camera in dead space where there is no light and no sound the camera is still going to film and MAKE OBSERVATION THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION

>>18082314
As far as it's known no brain is capable to imagine "nothingness" to it's true form
And since they cannot do that most of them make an automatic assumption that there can be nothing, that there always has to be a stream of conciousness that never ends


Fact is: everything that has a beginning has an end
Anything that existed forever and doesn't have a beginning to start with has no end

Conciousness is one of those things, it's pretty obvious which one if you ask me

>>18082322
What? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I read all the thread and honestly, it makes me angry. People are making terrible logical assumptions. For example, the fact people are saying that "you cant experience nothingness, therefore it doesnt exist"... Thats incorrect.

>>18082329
I'm just saying why is it that op cannot coprehend the fact he'll die
I just wanted to fill the gaps other anon left empty

>>18082332
Look, I agree that's retarded
But atleast they give their reasoning for it
You just saying: "that is incorrect", doesn't help the argument, you're no better than those who claim that since nothingness cannot be felt therefore it doesn't exist, even more so you are worser than them, since they give their reasoning, opinions and ideas to back them up (bad backups, but still backups) and you gave nothing

And yeah, I know, I'm contradicting myself by not giving a reason why are they incorrect, but then again I posted reasons multiple times in the thread and I'm simply sick of it in genneral
Also the main target of the argument is you, not them

>>18082275
True. It's like that saying about the sound a fallinh tree makes in a forest if no one is there to hear.
So, your point is...?

>>18082344
Logic doesnt need explanation. Thats a fact. I'm stating that the logical assumptions are wrong.

>>18082349
One guy stated that there is no info without observers
He then mixed up observers as something that is capable to receive information with something that it is relative to (he mentioned about about atom X has a certain mass and goes to a certain speed relative to atom Y, and he said it as if information can only exist if there is a relative point to it which he calls an observer)

My only point is that even when he changes the rules and turns a thing capable to perceive, store and/or process information into a relative point; even then there can be a situation with information yet no observation (or in his case relative points)

>>18082367
Agreed.
Whos op anyway? Man... It was an interesting read. Too bad Im late to participate

>>18082304
I dont know what you are on about with your star wars stuff, but an observer is indeed observing. Thats not even debatable, thats just saying the obvious. An observer is observing by definition. Thats like saying a bachelor isnt married.

That list of statements was something you asked for(>>18082234)
, so I dont know why you are so upset about it.

People with blackouts clearly dont stop existing.

>>18082318
>The only way to observe nothing is not to observe at all?
Yes. Exactly. If you observe nothing you dont observe anything.

>if you put a camera in dead space where there is no light
a camera needs light to hit its sensors. If there isnt any, it doesnt observe anything.
Technical stuff aside, empty space is not nothing

>>18082362
That show me the facts!
Don't just stand there saying: "it's a fact", people that thought earth was flat held that as a fact although other logic assumptions claimed earth is a sphere, guess who turned out right

I'm just saying stop standing behind the facta you aren't even giving, how the fuck am I supposed to know your facts are even valid for this argument

Question everything and don't just stand behind the "facts" as if they are intirely true and tgere is no bigger picture


Also, what the fuck does your argument have to do with mine you replied to?
I read yours, then mine, then yours again and so on for good three times and honestly I see no proper correlation to your post and my post before it

>>18082332
Well, nothing doesnt exist. Whats your point here? You want to claim that the opposite of something is something?

>>18082380
Techincly speaking dead space is nothing

If the the camera is on, yet the sensors on light sensitivity and sound sensitivity pickup nothing since there is nothing yet the camera keeps filming until stopped, and once the filming is done and video is seen it's just a dark screen with no sound yet the film is going

I can't compete with your stubborness, I honestly tried to think about your ideas and wether or bot they are plausible, but as far as I can see you don't care for other's opinions, logic, facts, ideas.... YOU DON'T CARE
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I OR ANY OTHER ANON SAY SINCE YOU WON'T CARE TO THINK THROUGH IT AND YOU'LL JUST REPLY WITH SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL THE FUCKING THREAD 404S OR YOU DIE BEFORE IT

>>18082380
This is my last response. I've given this a day and a half and I can't even get you to understand one simple point.

>an observer is indeed observing
That's not what you said.

>An Observer is always observing.
Always.

ALWAYS

YOU SAID ALWAYS YOU DUMB SHIT.

Of course an observer is observing, but that doesn't mean ALWAYS. Observers only observe WHILE THEY EXIST. And they can even stop observing during their existence.

YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY REASON TO THINK THEY ALWAYS EXIST. IDIOT.

>People with blackouts clearly dont stop existing.
You STUPID child. I said they STOP OBSERVING, I never said they stop existing.

You said an observer cannot stop observing. Those are EXAMPLES OF AN OBSERVER THAT HAS STOPPED OBSERVING.

Get this through your thick fucking skull.

>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS
>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS
>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS

>>18082386
You dont understand logic apparently. Logical assumptions are not facts because are just that! Assumptions! That earth example you gave is silly because of this.
Point is, if upon dying you cant experience anything, that doesnt make the logical assumption "therefore you cannot not experience anything" a fact, as many people has already stated.

>>18082388
>Claiming that nothing doesn't exist

The only way this would be true if the whole universe is filled with dark matter particles size smaller than planck's constant and fill the whole universe like a water and everythibg swims through it

If that is the truth then you are right about the: "there is no nothing"

But if not I have harsh reality for you: everything around us is atleast 99.9% nothing (not matter, not photons, not radiation, energy or matter in any form) and that nothing isn't just empty space surroundedd by energy and matter; that nothing is the real nothing, and it is very real

>>18082401
>Techincly speaking dead space is nothing
not it is not. You could still theoretically detect quantum fluctuations or fields from places in the universe that arent empty. I know this sounds counterintuitive since in every day usage "nothing" would be fair describtion of a cosmic void, but empty space isnt nothing. Even space itself is something.

>yet the film is going
But the film in your scenario didnt detect anything. No single photon hit the sensor. You can conclude things from the fact that you didnt observe anything, but well, you didnt observe anything.

>stubborness
Yes, everybody who doesnt agree with you is just stubborn. Whatever helps you sleep at night.


And if you dont believe my statements about dead space, maybe you believe those people:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.03982

>>18082412
see>>18082415

>>18082415
If you found something in dead space, it wasnt dead space to begin with. Hes talking about a space with NOTHING in it, so it is in itself nothing

>>18082408
Here is the deal: facts are supported by evidence; those people had something to reffer as evidence that the earth is flat
That evidence backed them up since they had no other evidence to prove otherwise
Here is where you are wrong, the flat earth theory wasn't a logical assumption, it was a fact backe up by lack of evidence that proved otherwise

The same goes with this argument, you claim that those facts are undoubtly true, yet you have no evidence to back it up
You have no evidence that nothingness does in fact exist
Your "facts" are in just logical assumptions backed up with certain evidence

>>18082424
Then thats is literally not a fact. Facts leave no room for possibilities, even if you cant know for certainly at that moment. Hence the concept of logic in its core.

>>18082424
Also Im not criticizing the nothingness concept... Im stating that the usage of logic for those arguments are wrong.

>>18082412
>If that is the truth then you are right about the: "there is no nothing"

That's about the only thing OP gets right.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

>>18082415
Holy. Fucking. Shit.


I'm done


I'm so fucking done with this shit

Great, the reflux is back


I'm gonna go now, I'm tired, if you want think of this as a victory since you tired the fuck out of me, I can no longer fight, I see no point in it

It's as if you go on a horse into a battle to fight infantry, canons, balistas and even a hwacha
You don't k ow which side is the good side and which is wrong, you just know that the guy on the horse is going to get his ass rekt since he can only block the army to a certain point where he just says: "fuck it! I don't want to fight for something so valuebless as this!"

That being said; enjoy your victory, have a good sleep
Bye

>>18082407
>That's not what you said
Well, no need to be pedantic.

>Of course an observer is observing
thanks for your agreement.

>Observers only observe WHILE THEY EXIST
Yeah, mr. capslock. So they always observe.
There is always information to be observed (which you already also agreed with)

>I never said they stop existing.
We are arguing nonexistence after all. If they dont stop existing, then it doesnt really adress my original statement. And they clearly didnt stop observing. I was in a coma once and am still observing.

>THERE CAN BE A STATE WITH INFORMATION AND ZERO OBSERVATIONS
I adressed this here
>>18082262
Without getting a real response btw,

>DUMB SHIT.
>IDIOT
>STUPID child
>Get this through your thick fucking skull.
What is it with people who run out of arguments and namecalling? I thought you were a smart guy. Dont get all childish. People can have different worlviews. No need to be upset about it.

>>18082435
You were just trying to get some supportive answers to feel better and not a legitimate debate about a serious topic with diverse and strong points of view. Thats sad.

>>18082435
Well, thats just a mental breakdown. Literally no argument.

>>18082422
And I am saying, space with nothing in it, isnt nothing. In fact, that is not what I am saying, thats what most cosmologists say. Nothing is just nothing. It doesnt exist by definition.

>>18082450
Youre implying that "nothing" exists. But "nothing" is a concept. A 1 meter radius sphere with absolutely nothing in it is simply nothing... Not "a unit of nothing".

>>18082465
>Youre implying that "nothing" exists
I am not. I am outright saying that it doesnt exist.

>A 1 meter radius sphere with absolutely nothing in it is simply nothing
It is like you dont read what I'm saying. You are wrong. A cosmic void isnt nothing

>>18082477
It gets funnier and funnier how you try your best to counterargument everything. You even contradict yourself in the same sentence. Youre as stubborn as it gets.
Also, youre extremely wrong, its sad

>>18071135
>Consciousness <is> not a function of the brain

[citation needed]

>>18082503
>your best to counterargument everything
Thats how arguments work. You should try it. You know, actually making points instead of namecalling

>>18082518
Namecalling? Sigh Im done. Cant deal with immature responses. You ruined it, good job

>>18077657
This. Pass out one moment and several hours later you wake up feeling as if seconds have passed. Your consciousness didn't exist during this time, there was no "you" there. Very different from sleep.

Death is no different, except you don't wake up. It's kinda peaceful once you've experienced the mini-death of general anesthesia, it just isn't a big deal. The thing I fear is the pain before death, I'd like to die in my sleep.

>>18077731
>Quantum fucktard woo.

When will this meme bullshit end? No quantum mechanics says nothing about God, parallell universes, magickckckc, or anything else that remotely interests you. Observer just means INTERACTION you flaming mong.

>>18082526
Well, feel free to come back if you want to adress where I contradict myself and how I'm "extremely wrong" here:
>>18082477

>>18080373

Just for the record, this was the last thing I (OP) wrote, so I don't know who is quitting the thread and who is addressing who, nor do I know who to even respond to anymore

And I have stuff to do too, I don't see why I'm expected to be here all the time.

>>18083124

For the record, I didn't insult anyone, so either someones pretending to be me or somebody else is referring to their own arguments (miscommunication)

I guess the thread is reaching an end, so I just will reiterate myself

We will never experience nothingness because for something to be nothing, there must be no information; which cannot happen

The best theory I've ever heard is that as we die, we lose our perception of time, thus putting us into an "infinite" afterlife

But who knows. I think our being doesn't end. We can't stop existing. Self-awareness can't end because we are always aware, as we exist and experience information

Hopefully, you guys got something out of this thread.

>>18082150

> Than and also our brains are "wired" as such to be incapable to feel and imagine death and complete everlasting unconciousness

what

>>18082333

People do comprehend that they'll die. People actually kill themselves for various reasons, one of which is due to an existential crisis. Doesn't that mean people do comprehend they'll die? Especially if you are nihilistic.

File: eyeofgod.jpg (2MB, 2655x1577px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2655x1577px

Does nothing actually exist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2krXq8fw90

9 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

File: XmYWqjy.jpg (80KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1600x1200px

>>18071185
>>18077754
>>18083269

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5J_kao6mwA

I am, I am.

>>18082441
fucking BTFO
well done

materialismfags on suicide watch

>>18082150
this

>>18084485
How many seconds of experiencing oblivion does it take, before the lack of you becomes unable to experience oblivion?

>>18084594
you dont experience anything. thats the point

>>18084599
For how long do you not experience anything?

>>18084602
forever
you stop experiencing anything.

>>18084607
Okay. And can you sleep through this forever amount of time, so that it seems to pass in an instant?

Sometimes I fall asleep during an airplane trip, and when I wake up, it *seems* like the trip was already over, even though in physical reality the trip took the amount of time that it did.

Can dead people sleep, or do they have to be consciously aware for their eternity of non-existence?

>>18084611
>so that it seems to pass in an instant?
nope. Thats the thing. You dont wake up. You are fucking dead. You are not aware of anything and never will be again.

If think this 4-dimensionally, our existance is infinite. We don't exist after death, and neither before birth, but we do exist between birth and death, and we always do. We have a static position in space-time, that starts from point A which is our birth to point B which is our death. The line in between is our life. Our brain processes this line from point A to B in linear fashion. Our brain doesn't have capability to experience our life at every moment from birth to death, infinitely at same time. Instead it has to go it through "piece by piece". This is why we experience time flowing forward, while nothing like that actually happens in universe. The flow of time doesn't exist. What happened in past, is still happening and what will happen in future is already happened.

This means that death is pretty much just the other end of our length in space-time. Our brain doesn't function after it, but it still functions before it. We can die, but our life between birth and death cannot be erased.

What might happen when we die, is that brain simply process the line between birth and death as infinite loop. Once you die, you are born. Considering there is infinite lengths of time before and after death, what would be the changes that you are experiencing this life just once? What are change that you are experiencing your existance RIGHT NOW, if you experience it just once? One out of infinity. Changes that our life is infinite loop are very much greater.

>>18085005
>>18084737

So wouldn't that mean that changes in the universe are reversed when we are reborn?

Also, shouldnt people from the BC era also be alive right now then? Are they in their own multiverse?

>>18082407
>maybe if I repeat myself long enough it will actually become a good point

>>18085148
>So wouldn't that mean that changes in the universe are reversed when we are reborn?
Think universe as an shape of onion. Every moment is slice of that onion. Four-dimensional onion, consisting of three-dimensional slices. Smaller slices at top starting from Big Bang, when universe was smaller. Each slice becoming wider towards center of the onion as universe has expanded at every moment until we reach the bottom of the onion. Each time we observe those slices, they look same, because they are same slices we are observing. Same slice-logic can be applied to our lives. Our lives will be 100% same at every time we processing through it, because it is the one and same life we are experiencing infinitely. We experience same three-dimensional slices of universe from our point of view.

Of course, according to string theory, the universe has more dimensions than 4, but I use 4 in this example, because 4 dimensional onion is easier to describe and imagine. Also we don't need the rest of dimensions in this speculation.

>Also, shouldnt people from the BC era also be alive right now then? Are they in their own multiverse?
They exist alive at their own position in space-time in same universe as us.

>>18071109

>How would we know if we lost our consciousness?

>How do we know that we have become nothing?

We don't. That's the point. Transition to non-being is a state, whereas being and life are a process that occurs within that state.

We can't form epistemology for a state of being that is not self-referential.

>>18072347

By the act of non-experience. When the self loses the capacity for self-reflection, experience loses shaded meaning.

Thread theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0AKJMGxwpE

It also has a lot of interesting lyrics that relate to this topic.

>>18085383

what if you are sterile or have twins ;^)

>think about what its like to die
>"So you just like... stop existing"
>realize you can't notice your own unexistance since your brain has ceased to function
>get a headache

File: 1469477827224.jpg (130KB, 800x611px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x611px

>>18085421
spoopy

>>18071109
anon sit down because i have some mind wrenching shit to lovingly slather across your brain.

as far as science knows, you might not be alive right now. your conciousness makes absolutely no logical sense.
you are essentailly a group of walking talking particles, and nobody knows why, or how.

this means either everything is alive, or nothing is really alive. where does the "you" come from when everything is made of the same basic parts.
where does time fit in, when electrons can quantum-fuckin-pop across the galaxy and back like physics don't exist.

the fun part of this is, that either way, you never REALLY die, you just get converted to a new form of matter.

>>18071109
People become unconscious all the time due to injury or drugs for surgeries. You're there one minute, then you wake up and you're back.

Dying is like that, but you don't come back. There is no 'how do you know' because that is thought caused by our consciousness, which is what is being eliminated.

>>18086038
How long do you "don't come back" for?

>>18086059
He doesn't. He's just presuming too much.

>>18086059
sorry, misread (tired).
Most say it's about a generation that you don't come back. Some say 33 years more or less.

>>18086094
Now rarely know no owls are long gone all along.

>Say this five times fast, to jog your memory of the past.

>>18086059
>how long do you 'don't come back' for?
Death lasts forever anon.

>>18086538
Are you saying that you "don't come back" forever?

Put it this way:

"How can we talk about Pegasus? To what does the word 'Pegasus' refer? If our answer is, 'Something,' then we seem to believe in mystical entities; if our answer is, 'nothing', then we seem to talk about nothing and what sense can be made of this? Certainly when we said that Pegasus was a mythological winged horse we make sense, and moreover we speak the truth! If we speak the truth, this must be truth about something. So we cannot be speaking of nothing."

Said by Willard Van Orman Quine

>>18071185
Spirit is real bruh u better believe it.

>>18071109
Your death that captures all; you too, are the source of all that is to be born.

>>18086831
At the very least, experiencing an eternity of nothing seems like a contradiction. Time is measured by change. Nothing is measured by lack of change. An eternity of nothing would be measured by an infinite amount of not changing? To me, that just sounds like a silly way to say "never happens." You never experience nothing. Even if you die.

>>18085187
Can you refute it? Can you even understand it? Because OP can't.

File: diagram.png (30KB, 1474x516px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1474x516px

>>18086884

I have no clue what's been going on recently, but I think this is what the whole "observation exists because info exists" thing is in a picture (sorry for shitty quality, and I'm not implying any of the two are actual physical objects)

>>18086979
So no, you don't have a refutation of the point.

Are you OP? I'm not going to waste my time on OP again, but if you're not I can try this ONE MORE TIME.

>>18086995

Why aren't you going to "waste time"? He got off for a few hours, someone started talking shit for some reason, and a thread on existence that turned out good fell to shit, don't see why anyone should be blamed for it

And I'm not >>18085187 by the way.

If an observer stops observing a certain piece of info, like the one in my shitty drawing, then the observer is observing some other piece. An observer won't be floating around in a period without info, waiting to observe something, because there's always something to observe

>>18087008
>Why aren't you going to "waste time"?

Because this is me:

>>18073888

I've been talking to OP for over four days. And this is where I bring up the single point I can't get through his skull - literally my next post

>>18074461
>I accept that an observer, by nature, cannot stop observing. And if it is observing, it must observe something. How does this lead to an observer not having a beginning or end? Even if you accept that the observed must be eternal, observers can be temporary.

I have spent four days and dozens of examples trying to get either acceptance of this, or a reason to deny it. It hasn't happened.

I asked OP to explain to me what my argument was, just to verify that OP understood. That didn't happen.

I gave OP possible starting points for his own justification for why observation is eternal. This was ignored.

THAT is why I say talking to OP is a waste of time. I've said everything I can think of. If anon can't even understand the point by now, I am wasting my time.

>>18074583
>>18077470
>>18077495
>>18077552
>>18077607
>>18077651
>>18077668 (this is where I start to - as I acknowledge - get impatient)
>>18077716
>>18077749
>>18077781
>>18077799
>>18077839
>>18077981 (heh, here's where the thread got slow)
>>18078708
>>18079615
>>18079829
>>18079852
>>18079888
>>18081257
>>18081924
>>18082046
>>18082083
>>18082121
>>18082156 (here's my potential solutions)
>>18082163
>>18082234
>>18082252
>>18082261
>>18082265
>>18082270
>>18082304
>>18082305
>>18082407

This was all me. I've been on this thread since almost the beginning. Heck, my posts ARE this thread.

So maybe

JUST MAYBE

You can address this point. Up to the challenge? I'm at char limit so I'll respond to your post in my next.

>>18087008
>If an observer stops observing a certain piece of info, like the one in my shitty drawing, then the observer is observing some other piece. An observer won't be floating around in a period without info, waiting to observe something, because there's always something to observe


Even if you accept that an observer is observing at every moment -

Note that not all do. The examples of fainting, blackouts, and being under anesthesia all point to an observer being in a state where they stop observing (NOT "observing nothing", but performing no act of observation).

But even if you accept that at all moments an observer is observing, this doesn't lead to a conclusion that an observer is eternal. An observer can come into being, and go out of being. During that temporary span of existence, however, the observer will never stop observing.

So - what reason do you have for thinking the observer is eternal?

>>18087064
Because every instance of fainting, blackouts, and being under anesthesia are observed as memories of the past.

Hence, in order to experience "being out," you have to first exist as that which noticed a discontinuity in time. Thus, the observer is eternal, from within the observers' own perspective.

>>18087074
>Because every instance of fainting, blackouts, and being under anesthesia are observed as memories of the past.

No they are not. The span of time is not observed at all. The blackout or surgery is circumstantially "remembered" by remembering being sleepy, and remembering being awake in the hospital bed.

I know, as I said here >>18077552
>I have no "2 hours of nothing" memory; I simply faded then was aware again later.

>in order to experience "being out,"
You don't experience "being out" you experience the time before and the time after, and your brain fills in the gap either with reasoning (I must have fainted/blacked out) or with foreknowledge (I was in surgery).

>you have to first exist as that which noticed a discontinuity in time
Unless an observer is created, in which case it will suddenly be aware, yet have no observations about "before."
And since we have experience of this gap-with no-"before"-side (birth), it is not unlikely that we can and will experience a gap-with-no-"after"-side (death).

>from within the observers' own perspective
We are not talking about what the observer is actually observing, though. We are talking about the objective existence of the observer, and the information being observed.

Now, having addressed your post. I am going to try and very calmly remind you to address my main point. The point that OP either wouldn't or couldn't understand. I am going to give you one more chance to do this.

We are not talking about "from the perspective of the observer." Because the observer having a perspective necessitates that the observer exist. So naturally to the observer, the observer has always existed.

We are talking about the objective existence of the observer, and whether it is possible for it to be temporary, eternal, both, or neither, given that the information it observes exists eternally, yet is independent of observation.

>>18087109

I think OP has addressed that actually

He says the observer is eternal because observation is eternal because information is eternal

That is it. I feel like he wants to say "we go to another dimension where info can be found" but won't because he either doesn't believe in the multiverse or because he doesn't want to come off as strange(r).

I feel like this whole "observer exists because of info" is some kind of complex way to simply say "we move on to another existence/universe"

Also, about being knocked out in surgery, the brain is still alive, in terms of physiology and biochemistry of course. So we aren't actually "dead" in the sense as permanent death. In fact, some people are still aware in it:

http://www.asahq.org/lifeline/anesthesia%20topics/7%20things%20to%20know%20about%20anesthesia%20awareness

File: almost-dead-snowman.jpg (20KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x196px

>>18087154
>observer is eternal because observation is eternal because information is eternal

And this is either circular logic, or saying that information and observation HAVE to exist at the same time.

But wait, OP gave us this

>>18082262
>An Information might not get observed.

This among other statements show OP believed that information was independent of observation, and "may or may not be observed."

So information doesn't HAVE to be observed, thus there has been no explanation as to why OP believes observation always exists.

>about being knocked out in surgery
It was about the person being alive. That's actually vital to my point. That the observer still exists, yet is no longer observing is the point of the example.

>some people are still aware
Wouldn't matter even if that was the norm. The fact that at any time an observer stopped observing is enough to refute the statement "an observer cannot stop observing."

So that's it. I gave another hour or two to this and we haven't gotten any further. I'm done for the night. Thanks for trying and if it's here tomorrow I'll bash my head some more.

>>18087175

I don't think that was OP, hes been away since forever now. at least, it Doesn't sound like him (OP doesn't write like that, as far as I see)

t. linguist

It's just us and a couple of others it seems

>>18087175
You still need to adress my last statement to you:
>>18082441

You get all high and mighty about you being right and other people just not getting it through their skulls, while you throw around insults and just stop responding when running out of arguments

>>18087223
This is also just a cheap way to avoid the discussion

File: 1471616388155.jpg (252KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 800x800px

>>18086884
Refute that stubbornly repeating your original stance in a debate is a good argument? No, you got me there

>>18082503
Well he isn't wrong, nothingness in its truest sense can't exist if you can't physically/mentally experience it.

If, after your death you are in the same situation of so-called non-existance as before your birth, then the very real possibility is that you will be reborn again. Why? Because you were born out of that no-thingness already. Here you are, out of the same no-thing you will go into, you have come out of, for no reason at all.

Therefore, that implies you will live forever as one form or another, or as pure consciousness.

>>18071109
>>18071167
You just forget who you were, all your memories pass through your fingers like water. And you forget what it is to be alive, and become one with everything, there is no time. It is both a moment and an eternity.

>>18087651
>Refute that stubbornly repeating your original stance in a debate is a good argument? No, you got me there

If the point is never invalidated, then yes - I will repeat it until observations stop. I see you haven't even tried yet - do go on.

>>18087523
Ok...

>>18082441
>no need to be pedantic
When the word changes the meaning of the sentence, yes there is.

>So they always observe.
No. There is a difference between "observing at every moment of existence", and "eternally existing and observing."

>We are arguing nonexistence after all.
Except THIS is in reference to the example that an observer can stop observing while still existing.

>I adressed this here
>>18082262

I did respond, and you responded to that response. I just did not highlight that specific post.

Once again, the problem is with the assertion
"an observer is always observing"

A - an observer that still exists can stop observing: blackouts, fainting, surgery, etc.

B - just because an observer will perform observations while is exists, there is zero reason to suspect the observer has no beginning or end

So now I've said it three hundred and one times.

Do you understand?

>>18087930

> A - an observer that still exists can stop observing: blackouts, fainting, surgery, etc.

That still exists, though. And it is temporary. You know how mathematicians may say that there is an infinite amount of decimal numbers between two whole numbers, thus infinity is finite in that case? It could be possible that we experience the same thing in permanent loss of consciousness, opposed to temporary.

> B - just because an observer will perform observations while is exists, there is zero reason to suspect the observer has no beginning or end

I think a majority of people here agree that observers have a beginning, but people are arguing whether or not we can reverse our entry into existence, whether we are able to reverse our coming into reality

I understand your arguments and (perhaps) your frustrations, but it makes no sense to turn a good argument into a fight. Everyone here needs to relax

>>18088075
>thus infinity is finite in that case?
That is not what that means. It means the finite can contain the infinite, and it only works on a mathematical level. In reality there are limits.

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


>It could be possible that we experience the same thing in permanent loss of consciousness, opposed to temporary.
But just because one observer is experiencing some Zeno's Paradox of existence doesn't mean that objectively they exist eternally. An infinite number of divisions between 1 and 2 will never get you to 3.

And there MUST be an objective reality with what OP has set up - are you changing this setup? That info is eternal and independent of an observer?

>people are arguing whether or not we can reverse our entry into existence

And the argument is?

>information always exists
But we've agreed info is independent, and we've agreed observers begin. So we can conclude that info always existing is not a reason to expect observers to not end because info existed without observers before they began.

>observations always exist
We've agreed observers begin, so we cannot then say observations have always existed.

Was there something I missed?

>>18071109
you just answered your own question, retard

File: image_original.jpg (196KB, 1106x1731px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1106x1731px

>>18071109
quantum immortality

The theory is that no one has ever died. Each individual perpetually survives death from their point of view, and death only exists for other Objects in the world, never ourselves as the Subject, so to speak.

This means time is an illusion because there's no real "history" to the people who serve as objects to your subjective self. The bones we dig out of the ground as archaeological evidence of death are merely phenomena. Those "people" are only dead in your POV, but from their own they survived whatever created those bones you're looking at. They're still alive in their world, and always will be.

>>18087930
>When the word changes the meaning of the sentence, yes there is.
But it didnt change the meaning

>Once again, the problem is with the assertion
"an observer is always observing"
But thats just how an observer is defined. If he isnt observing, he also isnt an observer. So it is always observing. An observer is always observing, because thats what something defined as an observer does.

>blackouts
Observer doesnt really stop to observe. There are just certain informations he didnt observe, as pointed out before. And again, not every observer is connected with any information. Just the ones within its lightcone. I had something like that and I'm still observing.
This is also just besides the point, since this is not death

>>18088376
Back to calling you an idiot. You haven't changed a word and my responses haven't changed either.

See you tonight.

Alright, I'll see if I can address the whole observation thing

I think that OP is saying that an observer has a beginning but no end. We can never stop observing

Like a violation of that whole "everything that has a beginning has an end" saying.