One day, each of us will all die and cease to exist. No more thoughts or waking up. Just nothing forever...

One day, each of us will all die and cease to exist. No more thoughts or waking up. Just nothing forever. Can you fathom not existing or thinking?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.19263840404/abstract
youtube.com/watch?v=pirlP48EajI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's not that different than my current state, tbh.

yeah it is

When we go into deep enough sleep, we cease to exist that way anyway, much like the way an AI ceases to exist every time you reboot the computer.

The person I woke up as this morning has all the memories of the person I was last night, but that doesn't mean I'm the same consciousness. It's seems conveniently the case, because there's a continuity.

So ceasing to exist is like going to sleep, only not waking up.

Second

Nah

I wish I was aborted tbh

...

Since we perceive time as linear,
if there was an "end" to consciousness,
we would not currently have recollection of the events taking place right now.
because if we no longer exist, we no longer have the memories, so we skip to the end of the timeline, and there is nothing.

The fact that we are living in the present, and are conscious, proves that there will be life after death.

Comprehend that.

I wanna know what dying feels like. Does it slow down to a complete pause? Fade to black?

I'm high, so that explains this making no sense.

I'm not parsing how that follows. Elaborate, please.

Ceasing to exist is like going to sleep, only not waking up.

false


because ceasing to exist means the brain will be dead, and can no longer remain functioning while asleep..

Learn something

This is why you shouldn't take LSD

It's because you have a small human brain that can't understand things it does not know.

Frankly, everything that cannot be proven, it unknown.

When people say "There is no God, there is no life after death."

No side can give 100% solid facts to say one way or the other.

So people sound like literal dumbasses when they "think" they know what happens after death.

How is it different? You are not conscious of your autonomic functions, and during theta sleep that's pretty much all that's going on.

In fact, that is part of the point of sleep is to discontinue consciousness. Dream sleep or REM sleep is only part of the night.

You'll need to explain in more detail, otherwise, I won't learn anything, at least not from you.

I'd love it.

Oh, you are correct in that I'm not certain of what happens after death. But there is no evidence of afterlife activity. And in fact, cessation of existence is the only possibility compatible with an exclusively material world.

Souls have not been detected in any way, which means if they do exist, they are so ephemeral that they would dissolve to quantum mechanics.

This does not exclude non-material worlds, such as if the universe were a simulation.

one, you referred to consciousness as like rebooting an AI, and the AI losing it's memory.

First off, consciousness is..
con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

So, it's already described as a "state" and not the person you are.

When you sleep, you "still exist"
As long as you are "ALIVE" you exist

You cease to exist upon death.

But to say you are a different "consciousness" is just incorrect, do to the fact that "consciousness" doesnt hold any personal characteristics.

It is just the definition of knowing, you exist.

The time before I was born was pretty chill.

Just because something does not exist, does not mean it isn't there.

If you built a closed in environment, and had people born in it, and all they knew was that world, and someone said, "but there is a man that lives outside our world" people would say that you dont exist.. when you do..

OP are you familiar with any of these? you seem to be out of your element

Actually we are a state. In mechanics we'd call it a quasistable event.

This is really an extension of the transporter paradox.

Say we used a computer to destroy your body, convert it to energy, transmit that energy to a different location and then reconstruct it, would it be the same person? It sure would believe it was.

What if we used different energy? Since all its memories are biochemical, it would still believe it was.

So you are me? You're a solipsist? Or do you not believe that each consciousness is an independant entity?

If I was hypothetically able to copy my brain's data into a computer and upload it, would that still be "me"?

Think the Star Trek teleports. They copy your every atom, disintegrate you, then basically re-create you at another location. Would that still be the same consciousnesses? Or would being "A" die, and being "B" just *think* it was being "A"?

You think you are still you from when you were born? 100% of your cells are new cells, so basically same fucking concept as your transporter paradox.

You're right in that things might exist that we don't know about. But when it comes to the human being, we mapped ourselves out pretty extensively.

And there isn't anything we've detected to indicate a human soul, and we've looked. Hard.

We've also looked at other live to see what other properties might suggest that we are central to a greater purpose in this universe. And there's none.

As far as we can tell, we're fungus suspended in the film on the surface of a spec of dust. That's it.

You can suppose all you want that we mean something more, but then you're going to have to provide some evidence to that effect.

You can suppose all you want that there are worlds beyond our own (and String theory even suggests that might be the case) but any hints of the properties of these places, or whether they can support life, let alone who its inhabitants are, is pure speculation. We have no evidence.

Actually we live in a simulator, and like any game this game has certain rules far more limited than the rules outside where our developer is. We will just wake up in another simulation after death, it may reassemble something like heaven or hell but it'll still be part of the simulation. We aren't real

Not neurons.

user provides a good point. Please continue with this discussion of consciousness and the nature of existence. As far as I'm concerned, you're all automatons or different manifestations of myself, but still myself and experiencing myself in a different way.

Well, when the tech comes out that can download our brains.

And when they have computers powerful enough to triangulate the constantly moving "point a" to "point b" locations for transporting through moving space at what ever speed the earth is moving through space.

we'll talk then.

But all you have is theory's and paradox's

>do to the fact

No, it doesn't transport anything. It copy's data, destroys the body, and then a machine at another location re-creates the person from the downloaded data.

So it's not really transport.

you are doing it again
and again
and again

You cannot provide 100% proof there is no "soul"

just because we can't "detect" it only means we lack the technology to do so. NOT that it doesnt exist.

Remember when scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth? oh wait, then we got the technology to see other wise..

you are just a stupid ignorant person.
please.
kill yourself.

In fact I'm sure I'm not who I was when I was born. We are dependent on continuity for personal identity.

Hence who I am when I wake up is dependent on my biochemical cognitive processes.

Like the Ship of Theseus (or Washington's Axe) yes, we're all replacement parts that only share an identity with who we were before.

So what happens when we take the broken parts, restore them and make a new axe or ship?

What happens if we use the data from my last transport and reconstruct a separate copy? Which one is the more valid me?

No, and neither can anyone else, since you need a living brain to 'comprehend' anything.

/thread

We all do

its called going to sleep
you do it every night

Nobody's trying to prove a negative you fucking moron. The time to believe that something is true is when there's good evidence that it's true. Furthermore, people don't wait until they're 100% certain of something to act, they act on the information they have available.

If you have evidence that "souls" exist then do feel free to present it, but until then nobody has any more reason to believe they're real than they do to believe that things like leprechauns or fairies or law-abiding blacks or Santa Claus are real.

Not really, not if this is a simulator.

>the upanisads
>the up an i shads
>the up and he shats
>he up and shat

#pooinloo

if you don't know who pic related is then you need to close the thread and do some more reading immediately
this guy gets it

well, next time you see science making replacement brains?

call me bruh.

till then, the brain is mostly unmapped.
you think science truly knows how the brain works?
you must be smoking something.

How much evidence does pacman have that he's real? Assume for a moment we could give conscious awareness to a simulated game character, how would it know we, the God, exist using the limited tools programmed into its simulation?

I did it before i was born, im not afraid.

God you sound like a MORON!

"The world is flat"
"The earth is the center of the universe"

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED

Shut up Joe Rogan

It zips a bunch of electrical signals around an obscenely complex network. What's to understand?

Too bad rebirth exists

> I made a more obscure reference than you so I automagically win

klelk

Why do I need 100% proof of anything?

If you say there is a soul on the bases we can't disprove it, you're arguing from ignorance. You can argue we have twenty souls and three of them are purple. You can argue we have an inner penguin. It becomes meaningless.

But obviously I hit a nerve, as you're trying to discredit me.

But I'm not going to kill myself, and I won't hope the same on you. But I do expect you'll realize that all your desperate fantasies of greater glory under God are hollow, with no indications except your fellow parishioners patting you on the back and assuring you that OF COURSE Jesus will redeem your immortal soul, and that there is nothing in the universe that verifies that is a test of faith, because faith is important you know.

I'd have preferred if there was a greater construct, a purpose for my living, a benevolent deity. But I'd rather know the truth than live in accordance to comforting lies. And yes, it means having to find a point to everything without there being a point to anything.

Don't let your doubts kill you while you cling to faith.

He is not making an assertion. He is holding off on a belief until there is sufficent evidence.

Do you not see the difference?

You are the one making the assertion. He is the one saying "we don't know yet, let's not jump to conclusions"

Well, you are a moron, so done with you lol

that's not what this is about and you clearly missed something.. do you know who it was that was posted or are you just being a smart ass?
lack of piety will only get you so far I am afraid

No, he is saying "there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE there for, it DOES NOT EXIST

You too are a moron, cause you cant read english

Actually we didn't need any technology to learn the earth went around the sun. At all.

I wish i was a girl so i could fuck anyone i want and get whatever i want and die a miserable slut

Nah, civilization just believed otherwise for decades. -_-

Prove me wrong fuckwad. Each of some 15-30 billion neurons is connected to a couple thousand other ones, sending electrical impulses across axons.

You're not making much sense professor Charles Xavier, maybe you need to stop hanging out with those faggot meth heads

No he didn't. Holding off on a belief is not asserting a negative.

Let me argue on your level.

You may be wearing panties right now. Could be. May not.

I'll assume you aren't because of statistics and available evidence. That's not saying "YOU 100 PERCENT ABSOLUTELY AREN'T"

We calculated that stuff long before the Catholic Church became the dominant source of information.

Learn the history of astronomy.

We're making the most advancements not in neurology, but in robotics, where we're trying to create robots that behave in a way that is comforting to human beings. Our work with digital assistants such as SIRI or Cortana follow those lines.

So we may not soon be able to map your brain and simulate it, we will be able to map your behavior and simulate that with reasonable authenticity.

But that simulation would probably work differently than your brain does.

When it comes to directly (or near-directly) brain mapping, we'll probably see development in cybernetics. When people lose the ability to engage in certain cognitive functions (e.g. associating names with faces, or doing math) we'll be able to give them a cybernetic replacement that does it for them, much the way we're creating cybernetic eyes and ears that connect directly to the nervous system.

At some point we'll be able to cyber-replace enough of the brain that we'll have a strong idea of how it functions.

And then, yeah, your simulation WILL think the same way you do.

current science debunks these "beliefs"

it's one thing to assert this line of logic to something like God, but something that is proven by science and math?

gdi this is for

Schrodinger was...he was certain that consciousness was not a localized condition based on his proofs of quantum entanglement or spoopy action at distance.

>proofs of quantum entanglement
nice meme

The fact that you think science is about proving things says a lot.

I know of a philosophy major who was telling me things like this. I feel like it's just splitting hairs/semantics at that point when you want to get down to it.

ashes to ashes
dust to dust
faggots

thanks. no really
en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger

I never said that, but ok.

> but something that is proven by science

>wikipedia
>scientific reference
K

Scientific evidence that "proves" claims like the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe. Stop being so fixated on the word prove.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.19263840404/abstract

Galileo world out Heliocentricity from a 32x telescope by which he was able to distinctly see the moons of Jupiter.

It was from that that he developed the model by which other planets (from our perspective) would do these loops, where they slowed, stopped, backed up a bit, and then resumed, as Earth overtook them, (or vice versa, in the case of Mercury and Venus).

Then it was Kepler who took things to the next step and worked out the orbits were elliptical (rather than purely circular).

So, at least in Galileo's case, he used technology to figure out the operations of the orbs.

I don't know if someone else, say in the Hellenic epoch, or in China found other ways to make the same determinations.

Still, while we imagined that human beings were special (that we were unique for using tools, or having mores, both long since disproven) we did imagine that human beings had souls, and some people still cling to the notion.

My point is that we've not been able to detect souls through any side-channel attacks, and if they were resilient enough to hold together, we'd have been able to detect them with the scopes we have today.

So they don't exist as a material thing, and we have no other indicators that there's a supernatural element to the universe, id est, we are a simulation generated by a machine computing our natural processes in accordance to the mechanics of another manifold.

Yes, I've probably thought about this sort of thing way too much.

Did he tell you about gnostic / agnostism? It's mostly used in the context of a god, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with it.

Belief /= knowledge

You can believe something without having any knowledge, for example.

I don't follow. Are you saying there is scientific evidence for those things?

There never was.

I'm fixated on the word "proof" because it only exists in mathematics. We use it commonly in everyday usage, but mistakenly.

Could any of you answer this please?

Does the way we have evolved and think lean towards general 'good', 'bad', 'neutral' or 'other' in the grand scheme of the universe?

e.g I believe humans generally try to be 'good'. Whether that's behavior based on the way we are raised, the environment we are raised in I don't know but I believe there is an inclination for humans and animals to be 'good'?

This makes me believe that something more intelligent than us did design us and the universe, or has a hand in shaping it, if not I believe this inclination of goodness in and around us would be neutral

forgive me if this sounds retarded smart people itt

Ugh.

> Galileo FIGURED out Heliocentricity from a 32x telescope by which...

Sometimes I think faster than I type.

I was pretty depressed for a while and started self medicating with opiates in addition to my anti-depressant, mood stabilizer, and anxiolytic drugs.

It's fathomable.

>Can you fathom not existing or thinking?

I work in retail so yes it's a daily reality.

Yes easily. Just think of what it was like before your were born. It will be exactly the same.

>The person I woke up as this morning has all the memories of the person I was last night, but that doesn't mean I'm the same consciousness. It's seems conveniently the case, because there's a continuity.

Could you explain this a little more? If you're not necessarily in the same consciousness, what consciousness are you in, and what happened to the other consciousness?

You're going to have to define "good" and "bad" first.

Good for whom? Humanity? Seeing as there's nearly 8 billion of us, and that we haven't gone extinct yet, I'd say we're "good" if your standard is the prognosis of humanity.

Or, perhaps you were thinking more in terms of sympathy and empathy.

Those are not always "good" things.

A mother bear defending its cubs, with your head in its jaws, is motivated out of empathy, for example.

A solder in an airplane hitting the button to drop bombs on an enemy city is motivated by the love he has for his friends.

>yes, I've probably thought about this sort of thing way too much

>tipping intensifies

>One day, each of us will all die and cease to exist. No more thoughts or waking up. Just nothing forever.

No, just you.

I'm immortal.

...so far.

Right and wrong are exclusively human concepts which are part of our hypertrophic social brain. Other animals (all mammals!) have social instincts enough to cooperate with their kin, their pack or pride, and some predators are more sophisticated in that regard than herbivores.

Interestingly, when we look at "right" or "wrong" we tend to cling to those things defined by our basic instincts, e.g. loyalty, reciprocity, avoidance of harm, conformity, and so on.

At the point we start getting into modern forms of society (e.g. democracy, social equality, general welfare), we have to determine what is right or just based on the consequences we want to achieve, since traditional morality doesn't apply to outlaws, heretics, infidels or strangers.

>mentions quantum mechanics like he knows wtf he's talking about
Fuck me this faggot is hilarious

Remember what it was like before you were born? It'll be like that.

I get what you're saying I think, it's kind of relative to our concept of good and bad.
But say for example evolution if you will, is the fact life evolved to survive an indication of a 'non neutral bias' for lack of a better word in the universe?
Could you call that a neutral occurrence?

Lets see that in 60 years

But 100% of your cells are never new at the same time -- they're constantly dying and regenerating at different rates.

And most importantly, with the exception in the case of genetic mutation, the DNA in the nucleus of those 'new' cells is the same...

The previous consciousness ended when I (literally) lost consciousness to sleep.

When I wake again, the only reason I know who I am, where I am, what I've been doing, etc. is because I remember those things. And it's verified by my surroundings, my family, my stuff, all being familiar and consistent with my memories.

But the only way to assure that I'm the same being, is to stay conscious in perpetuity.

The webcomic Freefall by Mark Stanley gets into this, specifically with his robots who don't want to run any updates that require a reboot, and they don't want to have to restore a backup, on the basis that dying for them is dying, and being rebuilt entirely, or even rebooted in the same old chassis is still some other version of themselves, and not them.

It's the same thing for us, except that we get rebooted, essentially, with every solid night's sleep.

It really didn't evolve to survive, that's just natural selection. in other words life can ONLY evolve to survive, there is literally no other option.

If life evolved to "not survive" well, we wouldn't be here asking this question, because life wouldn't exist so it's moot point.

Define consciousness. ty.

If he could do that in detail he'd get a Nobel Prize

So, is our physical body the manifestation of that consciousness?

I'm not getting what you're saying.

Our ancestors show a chain of stronger social functions, but they really only got us as far as hunting-gathering tribes. We aren't evolved (very much) for the role-specialization that was brought upon by our development into agriculture (in which not everyone had to forage for food), and we are certainly not evolved for nations, modern markets, or industrialization.

I suspect it's why we go crazy every once in a while and decide that we now need to annihilate a large chunk of our society. Pluralism is learned, where racial, cultural and religious sectarianism is innate.

youtube.com/watch?v=pirlP48EajI

IUDHIUHDIUN

Same but I rather would like a family or at-least someone to love everyday