What happens

what happens

Better question, why the fuck does Non Non Biyori of all fucking anime make existentialist problems?

You return to the oblivion from whence you came.

Remember what it was like before you were born? Of course you don't. It's gonna be like that.

but that's scary, don't you at least get to remember something from this current life?

>tips fedora

Well the underlying plot is about how they are trapped in purgatory.

This.

People can lose their memories from simple brain injuries. How do you expect to maintain any of yours after your brain has completely decomposed?

Pretty much this.

Our consciousness stems from memory engrams, which are simply paths electrical signals take throughout the brain. When a human dies and neurons start decaying, those paths decay and all conscious thought collapses.

There is nothing after death, because there is no thought, no electrical signals, no neurons and no brain activity.

but what about a soul? that has to persist right? Not everything can be explained with our brains you know

...

YOU REPEAT YOUR SAME USELESS LIFE AGAIN FOR ETERNITY.

But I want to he a girl in the next.

You go to hell because you're not Christian

All memories are created from sensory data. Sight, sound, taste, feel and smell. Once you lose your senses you lose the ability to create memories from that data.

Consider this, imagine a child is born without any senses. No sight, no hearing, no feeling, no ability to smell or taste. How would they develop? Would they be able to communicate? Would they even form thoughts or create memories?

The answer is the child would be no more conscious than someone who was brain dead.

Similarly, does a child born without a brain have any consciousness? I would say not, because although the sensory organs are there, the ability to create a memory from them is not.

The soul, or the human essence, has no brain and no senses. There is nothing to gather data or form it into memories. It fails on two fronts.

Until we find evidence for the contrary, we can only deduce that death means a cessation of existence.


Trivia. Babies only start forming memories at around 18 months, so technically, before then, they aren't really conscious yet.

This.

You're reincarnated into a fantasy MMO. Also, God is most likely a Korean game designer.

you travel down a long, winding tunnel, and then you land in heaven

>browsing while laying on my side like pic
>see this thread
>feel like I'm being stared at
Weird

So, tell me how you could see/smell/touch in your dreams in an unconscious state?

Because dreams are the result of cortical impulses being interpreted as they randomly fire into the various regions of your brain. Frankly, the firing patterns match those of when you are awake and comparing stage 5 of sleep to being awake you would be hard pressed to tell the difference based on neuronal firing patterns. The brain only ever interprets all sensory data as electrical impulses.

That still implies the existence of a soul, because you are still implying that "something" goes "somewhere".

It's impossible to answer this question because it's a loaded question. It presumes something that is not true.

But if the difference is so tiny, could you also consider this reality as a dream, and the death as a wake-up?

>That still implies the existence of a soul, because you are still implying that "something" goes "somewhere".

You're assigning attributes to oblivion that don't exist. It's not a place. Nothing goes anywhere. It's null.

So then you agree that "death" is a term that doesn't actually mean anything and that an exact copy of a human is the same.

Unconscious is a misnomer, it would be better to describe sleep as sub-conscious.

As explained, these are electrical signals firing in your brain. They use pre-gathered information from your conscious state.

Like visualisation, if you try hard enough you can experience visual information by just concentrating with your eyes closed.

But if your brain was switched off, you wouldn't experience anything.

However, I recently read an article that explained how neurons don't actually degrade after death, only the surrounding tissue like axons dies. It would theoretically be possible to store a brain that has yet to decompose in formaldehyde, and with enough technology reconstruct a person.

Which opens up incredible opportunities for storing consciousness in virtual or artificial systems like computers.

It's not everyday you could learn actual science on Sup Forums, I'm glad to witness this

So riddle me this user:

Under your premise, consciousness is not actually a physical thing. It's an abstraction of a physical phenomenon occuring within the brain, a simulation of senses paired with mental processes. If consciousness is not a real thing, but rather a nonentity, then can it ever really end? The only things that have an end or a beginning are things that exist, whereas that which does not exist cannot begin or end by default.

I don't understand much about what's being said in this thread but I do understand I really want to impregnate her.

that is wrong user. Non Nons are pure.

DO NOT

That which does not exist may very well have a beginning and an end because it does not have to obey the laws of existence.

It is impossible to form coherent laws that apply to the nonexistent because of the fact that we know nothing about it, and the fact that it is unknowable. Ironically, the only way that we might come to know it is by dying, and ourselves becoming nonexistent. But then, there is no way for us to return and tell the world of what we've learned.

You get to a Sup Forums without low quality pictures

You misunderstand, consciousness is a real physical thing. It's not an abstraction.

Consciousness is literally a flow chart of memories, which are complex logic circuits using data from senses.

Flip the switch, and consciousness is gone.

Then would you say that mathematics that we draw on a board is real and not an abstraction?

What point are you trying to prove by needlessly complicating things and making absurd comparisons? Just say it outright and stop this retardation.

This thread is full of people using the word "consciousness" to mean soul in an effort to hide the fact that they are full of shit.

You're not a special snowflake.

>Like visualisation, if you try hard enough you can experience visual information by just concentrating with your eyes closed.

tulpas.jpg spoiler: It works

Mathematics itself is an abstraction, applied mathematics is not.

2 + 2 = 4 is an abstraction, placing two stones next to two stones and counting them is not. Making sense?

This is an interesting point.

The mind itself relies on external stimulus (senses) to create new memories, but that information can be manipulated internally to create new composite memories.

In the same way this process can be reversed to trick the senses into believing an imaginary thing in the brain is actually a real thing in the world.

Though a Tulpa can be a dangerous undertaking. I wouldn't recommend it unless the creator had a solid understanding of psychology.

You accuse me of misunderstanding, but I think you've forgotten some pretty crucial facts about how brains work. The processes that occur to produce a single thought or memory are not literally creating thoughts or memories. Neurons are firing, chemical receptors are bonding with enzymes, etc. etc. but none of these are actually the thing they 'create' in the conscious mind.

A few neurons making contact is not literally 2 + 2 because 2 + 2 itself is an abstracted process that the human mind creates through the memorization of a huge number of smaller concepts, such as the concept of two, the concept of plus, and of course the concept of all neighboring numbers to give the number two a relative value, all coming together to form a more complex idea.

The same is true of memories. We are not actually experiencing our memories when we access them. They are abstractions of the experience we had, stored in the brain yes, this is demonstrably evident, but they are not real. The idea of an 'experience' itself is not a physical, hard thing. Everything we experience is abstracted into ways that allow our consciousness to comprehend the raw data our senses take in; colors are an abstraction of interpreting the wavelength of visible light; we masturbate to cartoon women because it is the abstraction of sexuality that we are attracted to, not the actual woman; etc. etc.

Under your premise, if all of consciousness is a hard algorithm of memories, consciousness is therefore completely abstract. It is, itself, an idea held by the mind, rather than a real, physical thing.

Semantically speaking, the words are too deeply related to be removed from each other cleanly.

>consciousness is therefore completely abstract

How does this logically follow at all?

Consciousness emerges from an interaction between neurons. If the neurons did not exist consciousness would not exist either. It isn't an abstraction.

>Consciousness emerges from an interaction between neurons. If the neurons did not exist consciousness would not exist either.

The interaction between neurons can only produce abstract information because they are not storing sulfur, they store the scent of sulfur. They are not storing the pain of having a broken limb, they are storing the memory of the pain of having a broken limb.

Also, there is no direct interaction between the mind and the real world; the body takes in information through the senses, that information is analyzed and presented to the consciousness through our neurons, the consciousness makes a decision based on that information, which is relayed by neurons through the nervous system which allows the body to then interact with the outside world based on that information. Even the information our senses provide to us is abstracted because what the consciousness perceives is only what has been processed by those neurons. When we see the color red, we are not actually seeing that color as it is in front of us, we are seeing that color as our mind generates the image within our consciousness.

Both how we actively perceive our environments and the memories and knowledge that we store in our brains is abstracted, active experience less so than our memories which are notoriously flimsy on the best of days because so much information is lost due to the nature of its storage.

What said.

Either your logical circuits aren't connecting or you have a superficial understanding of the words you are using.

Neurons connecting literally create consciousness. Albeit that is a over simplified explanation.

2 + 2 is an abstraction. Pushing two and two rocks together is not. Mathematics is an abstract idea of a physical reality. The application is not abstract, but very real. Humans created the rules for mathematics so we can understand what is happening, though mathematical principles are a natural force of the universe.

We don't access memories, as much as follow the electrical paths that they follow. Memories aren't abstract, they are real - though we it is difficult to access them the same way every time because of how engrams work. Colours are real. The way we interpret them is abstract.

Consciousness is a collection of relationships based on data sorted into logical circuits. It's as real as it gets.

There are quite a lot of interesting tulpa stories. Last I read was about a guy that lost control and started mass hallucinations. He was later diagnosed with schizophrenia. I'd doubt the mental sanity of anyone that can undertake it easily.

On the other hand, some guys have their tulpas for 5+ years without problems.

The body-mind duality is strong here. We both know this is just a point of view.

What matters is that idiots ask this question because they think humans are oh so special and unique and that each has its own little universe. And they never provide any justification because they think their beliefs are just so obviously right.

>On the other hand, some guys have their tulpas for 5+ years without problems.
Based on not very reflective self-reports, one has to assume.

So in summary, memories stored by the brain are not actual events. Memories are not exactly what they are trying to store, no fucking shit. That doesn't change the fact that memories are real, tangible things in themselves. The memory of the scent of sulfur exists as a real thing inside your brain and with modern science we can pinpoint their exact location.

So what are you trying to prove? That because light does not directly inscribe itself into our brain and instead has to go through our eyes and the experience of it has to be encoded into a format our brains can understand that consciousness doesn't exist? That it is a mere idea? That's just fucking absurd.

You ever heard of a learning experience process?

Humans are different because of the DNA (biological strenghts and weaknesses they inherit from their parents) and the experiences that they get throughout their lives (the very early stages (pre and while hitting puberty) being pretty crucial as it's the "development stage").

Cats look different and if you ever had more then one at the same time (or observed 2+ cats) you can tell that they have different "characters", go ahead and tell me that cat have a soul and it's not just simply how they developed in the envirement they faced.

Stop being a scared disavowing pussy user.

>still having dreams

you fucking normies disgust me

No, I think you're missing the point.

You cannot call the product of neurons firing - memories being recalled, or synthesis of new information - real. My thoughts are no more real than Superman. I am capable of thinking of the idea of Superman, even though Superman himself is not a possibility inherent to the real world. In other words, even though I think of Superman, he is not real. Nor is the concept of him that I hold in my head of him - it is a false concept, a fiction that is only possible in the abstract entity known as consciousness.

When one dreams, one often recalls memories jumbled and garbled from throughout the day, but those memories are not real. The things you smell, feel, and see in dreams are not real. You can even experience things you've never experienced before, like sex, and the pain of a cigarette burn, even though those are not things that ever even happened to you, because consciousness is only an abstraction.

>The application is not abstract, but very real. Humans created the rules for mathematics so we can understand what is happening, though mathematical principles are a natural force of the universe.

My point is that consciousness is the math in this relationship. There is a current hypothesis that consciousness can be explained solely through the interaction of neurons and chemicals in the brain, but when one thinks about it a little harder, it's really not so simple as that.

>We don't access memories, as much as follow the electrical paths that they follow.

That's literally accessing a memory.

Actually, AFAIK, all humans dream. The difference just lies in who manages to remember it.

Do you think that in the future humankind can attain immortality?

>Memories aren't abstract, they are real - though we it is difficult to access them the same way every time because of how engrams work.

The way they are stored is a physical thing that can be destroyed, yes, but the memories themselves only hold meaning within the context of consciousness itself. Just because neurons are real things does not mean that the products of their processes are not abstract. That is the critical failure in your line of thinking.

>Colours are real. The way we interpret them is abstract.

That's exactly what I'm arguing.

>Consciousness is a collection of relationships based on data sorted into logical circuits. It's as real as it gets.

Those relationships based on data sorted into logical circuits produce an abstraction. Do you understand?

Depends on your definition of immortality. Eventually, even the universe itself will die.

Let me get this straight. You both believe in body-mind duality, yet are arguing this much on the technicality of what is the domain of body and what is mind? Because that's all it amounts to.

Maybe you'll get somewhere after defining what is an abstraction.

>So in summary, memories stored by the brain are not actual events.

Yes, thank you for finally understanding my point.

>The memory of the scent of sulfur exists as a real thing inside your brain and with modern science we can pinpoint their exact location.

You can pinpoint the location of the neurons that fire in order to recall that memory. The memory itself is only what one experiences through the consciousness when accessing that memory.

>So what are you trying to prove?

That the human mind is not a physical entity as some modern trends in neuroscience are attempting to prove.

>That because light does not directly inscribe itself into our brain and instead has to go through our eyes and the experience of it has to be encoded into a format our brains can understand that consciousness doesn't exist? That it is a mere idea?

That consciousness is so far removed from reality is precisely my point. To call it real is at best misleading, and at worst a total fib.

>That's just fucking absurd.

You haven't studied much skepticism, have you?

Abstraction is pretty well defined with a simple Google search, buddy.

FWIW, I don't think there is any sort of "duality". The mind and body are one.

>People ever defining terms for argument in 2016

Never ever, otherwise the vast majority of arguments would never happen.

Reincarnation makes the most sense to me.

>That consciousness is so far removed from reality is precisely my point.

How can you possibly make such a claim? Every though you think, every emotion you feel, every thing you sense - every one of these can be directly observed in the brain. There is nothing you can ever think, feel or do that cannot be observed in the brain. Where does your confidence that consciousness somehow exists outside of the brain come from? Consciousness is a real, tangible thing and can be observed.

>Sup Forums - Anime and Philosphy

>debating philosophy while watching anime

Truly, this is what is best in life.

You can see it in his other answer. Consciousness for him is a non-definable stream. If you think, was it when the neuron fired? When the first letter spaced your mouth? When the electrical signal traveled across the network of your brain? At a basic level, you can't define it. Because you don't (can't?) define it in a plausible material way, it must exist beyond a mere material way.

Frankly I consider it a very defeatist approach.

Your body start to decompose sweetie
.

wtf I hate death now

That means I get to watch NNB for the first time again.

>How can you possibly make such a claim?

Are we going in circles now?

>Every though you think, every emotion you feel, every thing you sense - every one of these can be directly observed in the brain.

You can observe the processes that produce those thoughts and emotions and sensations, you cannot observe those things themselves.

> There is nothing you can ever think, feel or do that cannot be observed in the brain.

On the contrary, nothing that is physically observed can be the actual product of the brain's processes. One cannot observe the thoughts, feelings, or sensations of another. You cannot take a set of neurons flaring up during a scan and, with those, create the abstract form of the event that they produce the memory of in the consciousness of the scanned individual.

>Where does your confidence that consciousness somehow exists outside of the brain come from?

I never claimed such a thing. It is plainly evident that the brain is fundamental to the processes of the mind, but a mass of neurons is not the sum of those processes, it is the mechanical end that produces the abstraction of calculations, memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. that all make up consciousness.

> Consciousness is a real, tangible thing and can be observed.

Frankly, no. And it never will be, not for skeptics. You would probably have better luck attempting to find a system of logic that is based on a single self-evident axiom.

>Consciousness for him is a non-definable stream.

It's quite definable, I have never once argued that the firing of neurons does not produce thoughts and etc. I merely argue that all those products are, themselves, abstractions, not tangible things.

How can it be the first time in an infinite loop since you died? Practically, were you even alive if this life is a repeat?

Mathematics in this case can be considered as an actual physical thing. Once every men will be dead and their knowledge removed by time, mathematic will cease to exist as they will be no observator left. (except if there is other intelligent lifeform out there).

So, what happens after you die?

Fucked if I know.

kill yourself and then come back and tell us your findings dont worry bro ill toss you a rope so you can find your way home.

I like you, user. I'm going to watch some anime, enjoy your night.

Because it's a show about children growing up and all children ask that question. The episode where ren makes a friend and the friend goes back home killed me more.

You go to heaven duh

You marry nii-chan.

>However, I recently read an article that explained how neurons don't actually degrade after death, only the surrounding tissue like axons dies. It would theoretically be possible to store a brain that has yet to decompose in formaldehyde, and with enough technology reconstruct a person.

Considering even just one essential aspect of a person: Memory, I think that "reconstruction" of a person from a preserved brain of that kind would not be possible. One of the primary structures involved in the phenomenon of memory would be the Hippocampus. Specifically, within the hippocampus there are networks of neurons linked together. These nuerons form 'contextual maps'.

Whenever you recall a specific memory of an event, it is impossible to not recall the contextual details associated with said memory. That is because when a memory trace is active, all the neurons associated with that memory in the hippocampus (and other brain regions that are relevant) are activated. The entire index of reference material is pulled at once, and each 'set' of neurons can overlap with different memories. Most notably is the finding that there are specific protein markers that will be distributed amongst the relevant nuerons as well as the neurotransmitters for said neurons that essentially 'tag' specific memories and help identify them. Also relevant is the fact that recall of a memory will inevitable alter how it is remembered.

1/2

I'm a christian so that answers what I think. If i'm wrong and atheism is the way nothing will have actually mattered in the end so who gives a fuck. Just ask my main man Pascal.

At the cellular level, when an action potential travels down an axon and triggers a cascade of genetic markers, enzyme production, and protein formation/degradation, many processes relevant to the stability and what could be considered the 'perception' of the memory are changed. I'd imagine you're familiar with how one's memories can be colored more positively or negatively depending on how you feel when you remember them. At the level of the cell for example, in order for the connection between one dendrite and the synapse of another neuron to transmit properly, when the AP is triggered the protein (Actin) fibers that quite literally hold the dendrite in its specific position aligned with a nearby synapse have to be broken down by an enzyme and then reformed by another. During this process, one could argue that memory is malleable and is being altered. New connections are made with other synapses, new branches are grown, old unused connections are pruned, etc. The surrounding neural tissue is essential to the production and maintenance of these cell bodies that produce these different proteins and enzymes that contribute to the continued experience of memory. Even just the decomposition of the axons would affect electrical potential within a neuron causing a complete loss of function and arguably destroying a pathway of memory in the process.

2/2

Just another day at Sup Forums

>That the human mind is not a physical entity as some modern trends in neuroscience are attempting to prove.

>You can observe the processes that produce those thoughts and emotions and sensations, you cannot observe those things themselves.

Is there not a reasonable belief in the law of cause and effect in play here?

>You cannot take a set of neurons flaring up during a scan and, with those, create the abstract form of the event that they produce the memory of in the consciousness of the scanned individual.

Are you familiar with the experiments in which a microchip designed as an artificial neuron was used to replace lesioned or dead tissue that was pinpointed as critical to the successful navigation of a maze in rats? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

I'm actually somewhat disappointed. You have a strong grasp of logic and debate. I only wish you were not a believer of Descarte.

>It's quite definable, I have never once argued that the firing of neurons does not produce thoughts and etc. I merely argue that all those products are, themselves, abstractions, not tangible things.

Not really. What I see from your posts is that, independently from the physical phenomena, consciousness itself is an abstraction, because it cannot be explained solely through the material world. What cannot be explained (not by lack of knowledge, but by being impossible to explain) is poorly defined.

How can death be real if our lives aren't real?

Why do our noses run but our feet smell?

>What cannot be explained (not by lack of knowledge, but by being impossible to explain) is poorly defined.

And you've hit the crux of the matter. This is what separates it from science. Taking a viewpoint that something is impossible to explain or know by virtue of non-material existence is tantamount to giving up, after all why bother?

I'm more interested in learning about the world, or at least whatever evidence best constitutes it with what I can perceive along with the majority consensus of other human beings. Better than just sitting on my haunches and saying it's impossible to understand.

>>Everyone missing the point completely.

It's all right there in front of you.

Energy moves, transforms, is engulfed by the energy surrounding and merges with all other energy.You are connected with all other energy.

We acknowledge that when life leaves the body, something is actually gone. This does not mean that someone's consciousness "leaves", per say, but ceases to function when the brain activity ceases. However, there is still that energy leaving the body, and it is when the energy merges with the rest of the energy you have an effect on that energy, subconsciously or otherwise. The energy you've created exists as well, and what was "you" is just an extremely small vortex of energy in flux.

In order for you to comprehend your moments after death, you will be presented with something that you can interpret and understand; friends and parents, Jesus, Haibane Renmei, whatever it takes for you to realize what is happening.

But remember that is just an expression of your desires; to feel loved and safe and secure and happy. It is still a desire, and thus a force continuing to move and have an effect on the rest of the energy as it infinitely expresses itself.

Just watch it happen and enjoy the ride, whatever it may be. Relax and experience.

The real truth about this world is that there is no absolute truth

/philosophy

Perfect answer.

Okay it sounds better in my native language

>wtf i hate english now

Well it's clear which camp you're in.

I don't think anyone is arguing for absolute truth. Everyone here is no longer a freshman in high school.

It's just the nuances and details now.

...

Every quote sounds better in original language desu.

Your consciousness leaves your body and becomes diffuse with universal consciousness that exists in all things.

Go home Hegel.

I can see it now. White shores, free of all utermensch. Green fields filled with white nuclear families like america is supposed to be. And on the shore awaiting to greet me is the hero's of the white race. Hitler, Mussolini, Ben garrison, George Lincoln Rockwell, Dr. Pierce, and Theodore Roosevelt.

Oh, Sup Forums, you so crazy.

>3.9mb for a 5 second gif

I fucking hate gifs

>streaming
lurk for 2 years before posting