Nothingness

Interesting although I think you misunderstand the 'nothingness'. They mean when you die, there is nothing from your perspective because you don't exist anymore. Of course the world is still there and all the other humans but from your point of view there is nothing, because there is no observer(you) once you're dead.

>At least thats my interpretation of the idea of 'nothing' after death

We probably shouldn't discuss our beliefs and ideas but rather search for truth.

>>18688661
But to think that you can no longer perceive because you're no longer strictly you, that's kind of silly, isn't it? Energy doesn't just dissappear, and if your soul just escapes your body, there's no reason to believe it doesn't have a different system to perceive information. If anything, being free of physical constraints, you could perceive on a whole different level. I think OP is on to something.

>>18688661
I disagree with this. For the sake of philosophical argument I believe there is only one real consciousness.

It exists forever through every possible lifetime.

As far as after death is concerned, nothingness assumes you were nothing before you existed.

You already became something from nothing when you were born. By that logic you must inevitably become something from nothing again, no matter how long it takes.

File: blindspot.jpg (9KB, 532x390px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 532x390px

>>18688361
Let me explain nothingness to you. Close one eye, and look at the alternate shape. Keep your nose perpendicular to the center of the sheet. Move your face in and out till your blind spot throws the other symbol into nothingness. This is how "nothingness" exists. When you die, everything disappears, no perception, no blackness, nothing.

File: astral_butterfly_poster-r4a8c13b3f68b455dbdcc6dfc566024b6_aez5_8byvr_512.jpg (33KB, 400x368px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x368px

gay sex tape for money
wait tell he see's whats laying beside him
moot

File: lol.jpg (9KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 284x177px

thoughtlulz

>>18688661
>>18688767
But you're exactly making my point.

Your desciption still requires a "you". You're still talking about an observer _after death_.

If you truly held the consciousness agnostic position that most people think they have when they talk about "nothingness after death" then you would never even use the concept of "nothingness" to begin with.
Your position would simply be:
>That particular form of matter and energy simply ceases to exist, and the universe continues
Where is the concept of "nothingness" unless you are talking about a conscious observer?

In fact what you have in mind without realizing it is some sort of unique observer who continues to be a localized entity that "observes nothing" after death.

That's EXACTLY the same concept of "you"/"I" that people are talking about when they talk about reincarnation type theories, literally no different.

Most people I've talked to who believe the "nothingness after death" try to reject the concept of any kind of reincarnation because they reject the concept of a "you"/"I" after death.
The point I'm trying to make is that their own position still requires those exact same concepts.

>>18690187
Adding to what I wrote because I'm not sure if it came out right.
At the top I'm referring to the fact that you >>18688661 had to use phrases like
>from your perspective because you don't exist anymore.
So your idea implies that although you no longer exist there is still a "your perspective".
Those are your own words.

That "your perspective" is exactly the same thing reincarnation ideas use.

consciousness is just a series of chemical reactions and experiences. When you die, or more accurately, when you body stops behaving normally for these reactions to take place and for your body to undergo cellular respiration, one simply ceases to exist. you don't under go these reactions any longer, so your consciousness is no longer existent. Therefore, you simple just stop existing.

First of all, let me be clear. I'm agnostic, not atheist, so my entire stance is "I don't pretend to know". However, you're confusing the continuing existence of the universe with the continuing existence of a single consciousness perceiving said universe. When you sleep at night, there is no "you" perceiving the world, yet it continues to turn in your absence, does it not?

>>18690225
No that was just something I used to try and trick people into realizing that a true description of "nothingness after death" acrually requires them to talk about some continued observer.

Read this, I think I summed it up pretty good here >>18690222

>>18690245
Except that you, whether intentionally or not, are strawmanning the concept of nonexistence. Atheists don't believe in a consiousness that persists after death in some afterlife-like void. As I said it is the same as when you sleep, or before you were born: "You" no longer exist in any capacity beyond the raw materials left behind and others memory of you.

File: 1486284423706.png (175KB, 548x484px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 548x484px

>>18688722
This assumes that there indeed is a measurable thing we could call a soul. Until that can be proven, the default stance would be to assume no such thing exists. Also, even if we could prove the existence of a soul, what's there to prevent it from degrading upon death, just like anything else? i.e. you stop being you, and the "after death there is nothing" viewpoint remains true.

>>18690492
>and the "after death there is nothing" viewpoint remains true.
What do you mean? After someone dies nothing has disappeared. All the same matter and energy is still here.

So what is the "nothingness" you are referring to?

>>18688361

It isn't so farfetched to think that you'll come back out of the nothingness that you will be going into after your death, assuming the nothingness preceding your birth is the same as after you die, which I assume it is.

What it all comes down to is this. In a world of meaning, we can invent a word to suggest non-meaning, but if the only way that we can infer non-meaning, is through the use of meaning, then we are just playing a trick on ourselves. The use of meaning, cannot give meaning to non-meaning.

In other words, given that there is meaning, then all there is, and ever will be, and ever could be, is meaning. There is no alternative. All there is, and ever could be, is existence. The question being asked, how did something come from non-existence, is not a meaningful question. It is just an erroneous thought pattern in our heads that eventually we will erase as we realize being is the default without any alternative.

Nonexistence cannot be. It cannot exist. It cannot even be meant. And that predicament, that total paradox, is very different from the real nothing that exists and can be talked about. And the fact that we confuse these two concepts is the very reason we don't yet clearly understand why we exist. We exist because there is no alternative. There never was a non-existence in the past and there never will be a non-existence. Existence is the default setting of reality. Existence belongs here. It has always been.

>>18691550
Assuming consciousness is based on chemical reactions in your brain, then actually, one could say something has "disappeared," which in this case is the energy driving said reactions. Yes, your brain is still there until it decomposes, but it won't be doing any thinking anymore.

So based on that, I would say a dead person's consciousness has ceased to exist. Where there once was energy driving the chemical reactions, there's now nothing. Of course, I suppose you could ask whether this satisfies the definition of "nothing," to which I would answer yes, at least for the purposes of this conversation. Because nothingness is a really weird concept if you want to take it to the logical conclusion the word implies.

"Can there be absolute nothingness" is really 2 separate questions I would think, as follows:

1- First, can there ever have been absolute nothingness, i.e. if there had never been a universe the way we know it to begin with, and
2- Given that something now exists, or equivalently has existed at some point, can it ever be that full nothingness can re-establish itself at some point.

Tackling question number 2 first - There is no credible mechanism for full dissipation of what is (at any arbitrary point in time when something happens to be).
The only way to reach full nothingness would be to dilute everything to a fully vanishing point, but then because of infinitesimal residuals all the conditions extant to create at least one element term of the Heisenberg equation would be there - thus immediately giving rise to quantum foam, which would by definition not be pure nothingness. It's too late for pure nothingness to ever exist

Which leads us to the first question: Could there ever have been full nothingness.

Pure abstract mathematics however demonstrates that the Heisenberg relationship is inescapable in any universe, including a void universe (its ensemble of conjugate attributes being a perhaps infinite collection of 2-element sets). Heisenberg will however always give rise to 'quantum foam' - i.e., to something.

Therefore the question can be equivalently reformulated as : Can it be that abstract mathematics cannot exist independently of some material support.
Or equivalently: Can it be that abstract mathematics is not fully abstract. This seems to be a logical inconsistency, and therefore it must be answered in the negative.
Therefore, going back up the chain, we can safely conclude that pure nothingness cannot possibly exist.

Our Universe may be regarded as experimental proof.

what do you remember from before you were born? Nothing. Because you werent yet conscious.

when you die, its the exact same thing. You're just a fucking moron who think "nothingness" means something it doesnt.

>>18693057
The only morons are the ones claiming to know what happens after death or before birth. The best we can do is speculate and believe

I'm pretty sure I died, and life continued on and my consciousness was transferred into a plain of existence where I didn't.

I think this because about 3 years ago, I was given the task of putting down a chicken that had it's leg broke. I didn't want to waist a .22 bullet so I used the stock of the gun. Me, being the dumbass I am, didn't have safety on. I slammed the stock of the gun onto the chicken neck to break it instantly, but the angle I was doing it had the tip of the barrel pointed directly to my chin at an angle that would lead to my skull. As I slammed the gun down, I heard a loud pop followed by a puff of smoke from the 22. and a shell popping out. I got up, and for a solid 30 minutes, thought that I was a dead man. Weirdest thing to ever happen to me.

>>18688361
0
1
3

>>18688722
Energy doesn't dissappear, it is lost through heat and decomposition.
I'm not sure you understand what energy and matter and perception are. This is a huge question so it's hard to find a starting point. 'You' is essentially a collection of chemicals generating energy in brain matter. When one dies that energy stops being propigated. No electrical impulses, no brain function. No brain function no perception. No perception + no conciousness = nothingness. The universe churns on, but you will be unaware. And you will be unaware you are unaware because the 'you' in this equation is gone

Take organic chemistry followed by anatomy and physiology. Humans have a pretty solid handle on how it all works together.

>>18692048
Nothinness isn't non meaning. It has very explicit meaning.

Nothingness after death is scary only because of our ego. Yes, there is nothing for (you) after death, but universe still is. Universe will go on without any of us. Detach from your ego, and there is nothing scary in death anymore. Detach from your ego and there is no more reason for fantasizing about eternal life for (you).

I had to confront the thought of death myself. I always found the idea of an afterlife of eternal good things to be a kind of childish fantasy. A lie that comforts you when you need to face death. Even I tried to make myself to believe into this lie to comfort myself, when in reality I just needed to face the reality of death. And when I faced it, I actually found the true comfort and stopped the fearing.

Nothingness after death seems now incredibly warm, kind and most importantly a real thing. Beign free of all your fears, needs, pains, longings, memories and your whole mind and ego. Beign finally nothing and beign in nowhere. Our ego is our prison. Death is the true freedom. And we all get this gift. It's beautiful.

File: 1486756830930.gif (554KB, 733x700px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 733x700px

Hi guys im the guy from this post
>>18688661

I just want to share my belief so everyone can profit from a great range of ideas and beliefs.

I belive in something like 'global' consciousness although you might call it 'universal' consciousness.
I believe that everything that exists is conscious and always will be. Because of that you, your body and all the 'dead' matter around you is conscious. I don't mean a rock thows that he is a rock because that would be ridiculous. But I believe that a rock is conscious even when he doesn't have the capabilities to think 'i am conscious' or 'I exist', he simply does.
And so all the atoms in your body are exchanged every 5 years or so and you aren't even aware of it, how could you be?
But my beliefs go even further.

>If you were god, what would you do?
The answer is 'create a world of myself with complex structures(humans) that can be aware of themselves'
This created universe is reality, we are all a part of god. Reality is god.
But todays society has ruined the word 'God' entirely.
Energy can't be created or destroyed, therefore god cannot be created or destroyed. He simply is, you simply are.

And when the universe collapses, the energy will return to its original state, God, the original state of all energy, simply existing.

Pls keep sharing your views to help all of us to educate ourselves.

Pic related, i had an existential crisis a few months ago which led to this belief. I will continue to criticise it and you should do too.