What happens after you die?

File: 24 KB, 460x276, death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What happens after you die? Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:27:39 2017 No.9219149 [Reply] [Original]

Do we reincarnate with no recollection of our previous life? Does the simulation end? Do we become ghosts? Do we ascend into godhood? Or does the heat death of the universe happen instantaneously?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:28:32 2017 No.9219152 >>9219149 You die, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:30:16 2017 No.9219155 >>9219152 He's after what happens AFTER you die.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:32:04 2017 No.9219161 It starts with having an actually coherent definition of "life" and "death". You don't actually care about this question.

>>	/psy/mon\|0-X's\|/sci/mon Sun Oct 8 00:32:57 2017 No.9219163 >>9219161 BR Ratio of 1 Welcome to Humanity. RAAAAAPTURE.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:34:41 2017 No.9219165 the world still spins and moves on without you. You don't come back as anything, or live as a spirit. You are dead forever and all eternity. And this is all going to happen eventually with 100% certainty, and it will happen to YOU.

>>	/psy/mon\|0-X's\|/sci/mon Sun Oct 8 00:35:30 2017 No.9219168 >>9219165 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uMEE7eaaUA

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:36:23 2017 No.9219170 >>9219165 Wrong.(Any answer to an incoherent question is a wrong answer.)

>>	/psy/mon\|0-X's\|/sci/mon Sun Oct 8 00:37:15 2017 No.9219172 File: 78 KB, 750x600, 407588_10151140965990967_441452921_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9219170

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 00:50:17 2017 No.9219195

>>9219165

> Thinking knowledge gained by inductive reasoning is 100% certain

The statement "if someone dies, it's not me" is equally supported by inductive reasoning as "everybody dies".

The statement "You are dead forever and for all eternity" is equally supported by induction as "People remain dead until the Last Judgement".

>>	/psy/mon\|0-X's\|/sci/mon Sun Oct 8 00:51:41 2017 No.9219201 >>9219195 I'm going to kill every fucking human I can identify, starting with me... (post-collection).

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 01:03:52 2017 No.9219212 >>9219149 jews sell your organs

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 01:11:35 2017 No.9219225 You just die, and the world goes on without you. It isn't so bad, you won't have to fear dying anymore.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 01:22:45 2017 No.9219241

Your experience ends, and since consciousness is a solipsism thing, from your perspective at that point nothing exists, ever has, or will. This is already occuring constantly in parallel universes, especially when its easy for you to die. Driving? every femptosecond, a version of you is veering off in every possible iteration you could, and getting in a terrible crash and dying. "you" experience that, except you don't because you died in those universes. However they are also still real. This means pretty much you could kill yourself at any point and it really doesn't matter, HOWEVER, to do so is the most fucking retarded thing anyone can do from the first person perspective. You only fuck yourself into nonexistence, and it isn't worth it. Existence IS pain, but it is the only way that joy can exist as well.

If you take LSD while you die its like free in game currency once you get to heaven, heaven is basically pure psychedelic wonderland. Hell is pure pain. Both are very real places despite what you might believe. You don't experience them after death, there is no afterlife, but you experience them on the way to death.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 01:30:23 2017 No.9219253 >>9219149 "We" are nothing more than a bunch of brain chemicals. When our brain dies, it stops secreting these chemicals, and thus we die as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 01:40:33 2017 No.9219264 >>9219241 what

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 01:58:44 2017 No.9219288
File: 6 KB, 1280x800, impossiblevis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9219264
existence is limited to consequences of interactions in reality. You have the experience you do because your brain is a complex object able to intelligently store information about what is happening and process it. The action of all this taking place means that you have events happening in your brain right now that are extremely precisely dependent on things that happened in the past, exactly the way they did. This in the setup it is, with memories and emotions and all that makes a mind, well, makes a mind.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 02:01:43 2017 No.9219292 Nah man, you shift to another potential reality where the only difference is that you survived w/e killed you in the previous incarnation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 02:25:31 2017 No.9219328 >>9219292 so why don't I just keep killing myself until I'm shifted into a reality where I'm a millionaire and have a qt gf???

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 02:26:56 2017 No.9219329 >>9219328 Better not do it with a gun, otherwise you'd have a fucked up face, tons of medical bills, and NO gf.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 04:08:45 2017 No.9219433 >>9219292 Hey thats what I did :D

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 05:28:05 2017 No.9219523 >>9219149 The training program ends and God assigns you to be the AI of one of his deathstars or something. Unless you're a shithead and end up burning in the recycling bin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 05:38:22 2017 No.9219534 >>9219149 You wake up.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 05:45:54 2017 No.9219544

Literally no one knows. People who have died (and I mean actual final biological death) have never been brought back to life as far as we know. There's obviously a thing we all seem to experience which is consciousness and no one can figure out what that means beyond we see and have experiences.

Even if you're a complete 100% atheist who is convinced there is no soul, no god, etc, you can't say it just goes 'all black' forever because experiencing a black void is still experiencing something.

Some suggest that reincarnation is possible because we can assume that, mathematically, at some point near-infinite after a certain amount of time of you dying, matter could naturally assemble you into 'your conscious' again after another big bang similar to the one we're in, but you wouldn't have to wait for this to happen because when you're dead I assume you don't experience time because you'd, again, be dead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 05:53:56 2017 No.9219548 >>9219544 Well, it's like when you get put into anasthesia before an operation, except you never wake up again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 05:58:52 2017 No.9219554 >>9219548 So a perpetual dream? Sounds pretty sweet mate. Time to finally master lucid dreaming.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 06:04:23 2017 No.9219559 File: 65 KB, 640x623, roy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9219149

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 06:13:51 2017 No.9219570 >>9219554 I didnt dream when I got operated.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 11:04:50 2017 No.9219919 >>9219155 you wake up later, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GCf29FPM4k..

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 11:24:16 2017 No.9219954 >>9219554 A dreamless sleep, ie a dirt-nap

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 11:27:40 2017 No.9219962 File: 20 KB, 283x370, Parmenides.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9219225 >and the world goes on What did he mean by this?

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 11:38:22 2017 No.9219987

>>9219149
>>9219155
What was you but is now effectively dead meat, decays. "You" cease to exist when you die (I mean the full death process, not to the small extent that you can be revived, i.e, your body is intact and has vestigial activity that can restart if prompted and very lucky). You literally die, by definition you are no-more and cannot experience or be anything once death has embraced you. You need to remedy your reasoning faculties, OP.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 11:39:24 2017 No.9219992 File: 753 KB, 629x754, 1427261547179.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Does the universe end if I die? That'd be a shame since it only just began.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 13:21:32 2017 No.9220137

>>9219544
>Some suggest that reincarnation is possible because we can assume that, mathematically, at some point near-infinite after a certain amount of time of you dying, matter could naturally assemble you into 'your conscious' again after another big bang similar to the one we're in
That's a nice thought to have, but it probably doesn't make sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 13:29:15 2017 No.9220154 File: 1.12 MB, 2536x1856, 1493420421942-0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 13:38:15 2017 No.9220175 >>9219992 You are the universe experiencing itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 13:40:25 2017 No.9220181 >>9220137 It makes perfect sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 13:42:47 2017 No.9220186 >>9220175 This is why ET never contacts us.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 14:01:27 2017 No.9220220

>>9220181
Would that be the same you? Your biological composition changes all the time, thinking of matter in these ways is pretty simplistic. Even supposing that the astronomically small chance of what you've described happens, we have no idea of confirming if that would just lead to you "waking up" or whatever.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 15:19:51 2017 No.9220349 >>9219165 Yawn

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 15:22:54 2017 No.9220357 >>9219292 Then wouldn't we see cases where people just age and age and age and never die?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 15:28:54 2017 No.9220371 >>9219149 black screen, sleeping with no dreams, the end stop pow

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 15:31:53 2017 No.9220379 >>9220154 I really like that dude. He was basically a naturalist 2000 years ago

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 20:30:46 2017 No.9221048 >>9219962 Time is always pushing forward, always continuing. And anything in the past is done, that's it. It happened. I think of time as a long string that's always growing near one end but the other end don't exactly disappear.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 20:46:46 2017 No.9221080
File: 855 KB, 1280x1623, 1505565605909.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9219149
You can't see, can't hear, can't touch, smell or taste. You are in the blackness of the void. You want to breath but can't. You want to feel your heart beat, but can't. You are all alone to yourself for just 20 minutes as you contemplate your entire life. After which then, your consciousness shuts down and everything will cease to exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:02:19 2017 No.9221098 >>9219544 >you can't say it just goes 'all black' forever because experiencing a black void is still experiencing something. It's probably identical to your personal experience of the year 1844.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:28:17 2017 No.9221133 >>9221098 That's probably the best way I've seen this argument get put.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:30:52 2017 No.9221136 >>9219149 Your body decompose.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:32:17 2017 No.9221138

Here is what scares me: that when we die, its just nothing but blackness for eternity. Blackness that we are AWARE of. So we're just BORED, endlessly, for all time, and there's nothing you can do about. It's just an eternity of staring at blackness and not being able to do anything else and being bored out of your mind with no escape. That's what I fear death is.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:33:00 2017 No.9221139

>>9221080
Sounds like a good answer but you are still implying that afterlife we feel something, we feel lonelyness in a vacuum; and i have to disagree on that. I think that afterlife you stop feeling and seeing, all of our senses work because of certain organs and parts of our brain make them a relativistic reality to us, but once you no longer have an active system, what is there to feel? Nothing... You don't feel anything... I like to think that it is imposible that our consciousness shuts down and so when we are dying time slows down so it never reaches the end, but that is more of a personal belief rather than an absolute reality for us... Thought, probably, everyone experiences a personal afterlife because all of our realities and minds are different, huh

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:34:15 2017 No.9221140 >>9221138 Boredom is being alone with your thoughts, can you tell we are able to think after we die?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:36:31 2017 No.9221142 >>9221138 Death will be like sleeping but not dreaming, you won't be aware. It'll be just fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 21:38:54 2017 No.9221145 >>9221138 >Blackness that we are AWARE of If you're dead there's no you left to be aware of anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 22:22:18 2017 No.9221191 File: 35 KB, 535x577, 1414414088687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw terrified at afterlife because it never ends >tfw terrified at lack of afterlife because it ends How do you deal with this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 22:37:20 2017 No.9221214 >>9219149 Basically Heat Death as time ceases to exist from ypur Frame Of Reference. For your FOR the entire universe only exists because you are here to observe me. Thank you for simultaneously being the most and least important speck in this universe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 22:52:15 2017 No.9221226 It always bugged me that people say there is nothingness. there is _no_ way to know what 100% happens without experiencing it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 22:54:13 2017 No.9221228

>>9221191

suck it up because either one or the other WILL happen. Your only hope is for some sort of god loophole that defies human logic or groundhogs day infinite memory wipe thing where you live infinitely but don't realize it. But for that to happen it would require everything you know to be wrong.

basically life is just spooky and all you can do is accept it

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:02:29 2017 No.9221235 I don't understand death. Is there a clear line between life and death?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:14:46 2017 No.9221252 >>9221228 > groundhogs day infinite memory wipe thing where you live infinitely but don't realize it even worse

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:34:19 2017 No.9221288 >>9219149 Everyone in this thread is just guessing. Humans don't know. If we did, that would be huge news. Really I'm just afraid of Hell or pain but those seem a bit irrational to worry about in my life.

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:41:37 2017 No.9221308
File: 167 KB, 1040x776, 3x5_JD_tshirt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9219149
there's no afterlife, everything just goes black

>>9219241
this is the gayest thing ever. OP if you really want some psychedelic bullshit trip to feed your imagination read the Bardol Thodol, its at least actually based in reality

>>9219288
wrong

>>9219292
wrong

>>9219544
wrong. People alive right now can consciously remember previous live. It's not reincarnation, its rebirth that's real.

Before now, thousands of people have remembered previous lives. If you want to read stories of the Buddha's previous lives, read the Jataka tales

>>9219987
gay

>>9221080
not true

>>9221138
this is how ignorance is created, why is why you were born in the first place

>>9221191
you don't have to be terrified of your next life if you're not a piece of shit right now

>>9221214
you've been reborn through countless universes that have been created, expanded, cooled, and died. This country, this planet, and this universe will die in time, you will live on unless you choose to lay down what needs to be laid down

>>9221288
kekworthy

Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:52:36 2017 No.9221330

>>9221139
>I like to think that it is imposible that our consciousness shuts down and so when we are dying time slows down so it never reaches the end
Jumping off of this, I've delved into the possibility of this experience being perpetual. Like in the last 10 to the 21st second the DMT gets released and we experience rebirth to the last moment. Basically right before you die you relive your entire life. Thats what the flash before our eyes phenomena is. That lasst actual moment could be our consciousness being trapped in an eternal loop from that moment on. The universe continues, but our experience gets capped at our death. Basically our personal lives are the sum of everything in our universes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:53:17 2017 No.9221333 >>9219149 "There is no afterlife, everything just goes black"

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 8 23:55:23 2017 No.9221338 >>9221330 I hate you for how much I wanna believe that now. Fuck. I could literally be a figment of my previous life's memory.

Anonymous Mon Oct 9 00:00:01 2017 No.9221348

According to The Bible, you cease to exist and that is it. There's a promise of resurrection and some instances of people going directly to the heavens, like Enoch and Jesus, but aside from that death is absolute.

And that's the most popular and iconic religious book, so go figure what /sci/entists have to say on the matter.

Anonymous Mon Oct 9 00:02:35 2017 No.9221352

>>9221330

your consciousness can't be trapped in an infinite loop, stop being retarded. It's literally impossible for the electric signals in your brain to fire off infinitely since they are bound by the laws of physics and the speed of light.

all of these shitty meme thoughts are just your brain trying to cope with the fact that it knows its going to die so you're throwing together whatever logic you can to try to deny it. It's sad. Just admit to yourself the chances of it being anything other than nothingness is extremely low and basically wishful thinking. The harsh reality is you are just going to not exist

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 02:32:26 2017 No.9221591 >>9221308 >People alive right now can consciously remember previous live. It's not reincarnation, its rebirth that's real. >Before now, thousands of people have remembered previous lives what

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 04:54:56 2017 No.9221742 >>9221352 but you're retarded. you can never experience the moment after you die, the nothingness as you put it. the last moment you'll experience from your perspective is forever. that's what he was going on about

>>	/psy/mon\|0-X's\|/sci/mon Mon Oct 9 04:56:51 2017 No.9221747 >>9221742 AKA Sleep

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 08:06:01 2017 No.9221909 >>9219149 >What happens after you die? ...a lot, but you miss all of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 13:58:18 2017 No.9222470 File: 183 KB, 1920x870, 8Icdpdk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9221591 http://zenstudiespodcast.com/buddhas-enlightenment/ under the section 'Siddartha's insight into past lives and karma'

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:08:47 2017 No.9223226 >>9219165 Wait but then...how did I even get born? I assume I never existed before being born correct? Then how can I have "started" to exist? It makes no real sense, something is missing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:10:11 2017 No.9223228 >>9220357 Sure, when you shift into the other reality that will be you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:14:54 2017 No.9223235 >>9221133 You have autism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:16:19 2017 No.9223240 >>9221308 Why do people like you always have to shit up threads with 500 fucking replies in one post

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:17:10 2017 No.9223242 >>9221747 >>9221742 dude you can never fall asleep because the last moment before you're awake lasts like, forever man takes a hit from joint

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:18:40 2017 No.9223245 >>9223240 this thread is already absolute dogshit >>>>/philosophy/ >>>>/lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:19:24 2017 No.9223247 >>9223245 Science is boring as fuck if you aren't asking big questions like OP though

Anonymous Mon Oct 9 20:20:48 2017 No.9223250

Personally I believe reality is some kind of dream and that when we die we merely enter into another dream. Like the mind is creating ideas and experiences endlessly for eternity. I know that may not sound scientific but I don't believe it is incompatible with science. I think you can believe that and simply view science as a description of the dream that you reside in for now. Maybe it sounds crazy to you but I base it on my own experiences which is where the entirety of my existence lies. You may think this will lead to irrational beliefs and well, it's true in some ways but human beings are irrational. Love is irrational even if you describe it with evolution as a mating mechanism or whatever the experience itself is irrational. Humans are far from purely rational creatures and I think a level of irrationality is necessary in your life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 00:25:10 2017 No.9223643 >>9223240 >shitting up threads >shitting up this thread >being able to shit up a shit thread nope

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 00:36:37 2017 No.9223659 >>9219987 what happens to your consciousness after you die? why do you take such a materialist approach? theres more to 'you' than your body

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 00:37:55 2017 No.9223664 >>9220186 you are ET

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 00:51:41 2017 No.9223684 >>9219149 Respawn in another reality where you are able to exist. You'll retain just enough memories for a continuous transition.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 00:55:09 2017 No.9223688

>>9219165
>I can guarantee with 100% certainty that in infinite time, infinite space, and infinite realities that you will never exist again.

Given that we existed in the first place, it's hardly convincing to claim that there will never be another instance in the realm of possibility where we can exist again. Even if it isn't in this universe, any physically realizable reality must have some possibility of existing. Otherwise, the probability of our universe existing approaches zero.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 01:02:53 2017 No.9223693
File: 33 KB, 600x600, infinitereflections.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9219149
You know when you're at the grocery store and you bend over to grab something in one of the open refrigerators but you turn to look sideways and you see your reflection over and over again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 01:52:55 2017 No.9223741 >>9223693 Can conciousness "close in" on itself? If that makes sense

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 02:09:48 2017 No.9223761

>>9223688
>Given that we existed in the first place, it's hardly convincing to claim that there will never be another instance in the realm of possibility where we can exist again.
It's extremely common for eggs to come into existence and for these eggs to break but nobody has ever seen a broken egg spontaneously put itself back together. These are three separate sorts of events and it doesn't make sense to conflate them with one another. There is plenty of reason for an egg to be produced by a chicken and plenty of reason for an egg to break, but no sensible reason why a broken egg should spontaneously put itself back together.
And no, infinite time doesn't make everything you can imagine happen. There are some simple physical scenarios you can suppose of where an infinite time passes and an initial configuration never recurs. Walter Kaufmann outlined a scenario like that to show why Nietzsche's eternal return concept was just a thought experiment for getting into the mindset of amor fati and not a literal reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 03:00:09 2017 No.9223830 >>9219152 fpbp

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 03:20:31 2017 No.9223848 >>9223761 false analogy, you can't guarantee shit nigger

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 03:35:27 2017 No.9223855 File: 63 KB, 600x398, Life-Facebook-Status-19221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] PHILOSOPHY MAJOR HERE! AWOO! SILLY BRAINLET! AWOOOOO! NOTHING IS HAPPENING WHILE YOU'RE ALIVE. fucks back off to /his/

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 03:51:12 2017 No.9223863

>>9223848
I don't need to "guarantee" anything, the burden is on you to show why there's any reason to believe your retarded fantasy would happen. Infinite time doesn't just magically make everything conceivable configuration of matter happen. You can have infinite time and still have plenty of events that never recur.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 04:11:37 2017 No.9223884 >>9223863 >i can't guarantee shit as you correctly stated

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 04:49:14 2017 No.9223920

>>9223884
I can guarantee your shit idea that infinite time will magically make you come back to life isn't based on any actual logic or evidence.
>Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur.
Also even if we say for the sake of argument to ignore the fact infinite time doesn't make every imaginable configuration happen, you still wouldn't have any continuity between your mind before you die and the mind of a second version of you that emerges in the future, which would make that second version of you not any different from all the billions of other non-yous that already exist today. It would be just another separate person you have no connection to beyond having similar bodies and similar thoughts.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 05:02:15 2017 No.9223937

Seems to me that there's a decent chsnce that your final moment of existence will, from your frame of reference, stretch on for an infinite amount of time. You're trapped, unable to think, just experiencing that final moment when that last crucial bit of brain activity ceased

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 05:05:06 2017 No.9223941

>>9223937
>Seems to me that there's a decent chance that your final moment of existence will, from your frame of reference, stretch on for an infinite amount of time.
How is there a decent chance of that? Or any chance of that? Where are you getting that idea from?

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 05:38:32 2017 No.9223971

>>9223920
It's that 3 wheels faggot again
>implying perfectly equal size is possible
>implying perfectly lined up points is possible
>implying perfectly twice as fast is possible
>implying 1/π is even a thing
>implying, given the impossible perfectly precise initial conditions, the wheels would rotate without a hitch for infinite time
>implying even a plank scale divergence from the precise conditions you described wouldn't accrete over infinite time so as to make no difference weather the initial conditions were off by a planck length or by a parsec

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 05:56:06 2017 No.9223988 >>9223920 >>I can guarantee >procedes notnot to do so >you still wouldn't have any continuity between your mind before you die and the mind of a second version of you that emerges in the future prove it

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 06:32:07 2017 No.9224023

>>9223971
Mathematical constants like pi and e are the most realistic numbers there are because they arise naturally (in the contexts of cyclic systems and growth respectively). Doubting the existence of pi in nature but believing in the possibility of you getting resurrected just because lots of time has elapsed since you died is inane as fuck.
Also it doesn't have any relevance whether or not wheels like that actually exist since the point of that example is just to show how even with an extremely small amount of material and an infinite amount of time there's no requirement that a given configuration will ever recur. The possibility wheels like that might not spin in that way forever doesn't make the possibility they will spin in that way forever go away. Your argument for magical spontaneous rebirth depends on the assumption everything must recur given an infinite amount of time, and all you need is one counterexample of an infinite time without recurrence of a given configuration to prove that argument wrong. The counterexample doesn't need to be likely, it just needs to show your assumption isn't a necessary feature of infinite time. There's no reason to believe that one counterexample is the only case where an infinite time passes and a past configuration doesn't recur either, it's just a simple specific situation where those conditions happen that's useful as a thought experiment to show why infinite time doesn't require eternal recurrence.
>>9223988
>prove it
Creating a clone doesn't make the source person's mind teleport into the clone's mind. You could have a clone made while you're still alive, so teleporting into another brain just because it's in the same physical configuration as your original brain doesn't make any sense. The burden of proof is really on you to show why that would happen, but there's why it wouldn't happen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 06:56:12 2017 No.9224039 >>9223941 Let's just say it's more likely than not

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 07:44:56 2017 No.9224085 >>9224039 Why would you believe that's more likely than not? There's no reason to believe that's even possible in the first place let alone likely.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 07:49:24 2017 No.9224090 >>9224085 We have reason to believe that this is now the case, more evidence points to it than of nothingness

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 07:59:53 2017 No.9224105

>>9224090
>We have reason to believe that this is now the case
No we don't.
>more evidence points to it than of nothingness
No it doesn't. There was already nothingness instead of your living awareness of reality as recent as a couple decades prior to today. All the evidence we have points to you not having awareness during time periods where your brain isn't alive and functioning. No evidence points to any situation where your perception of time will stretch infinitely rather than simply tracking at the normal rate. There have even been experiments done on sleeping subjects to confirm the alleged time dilation people sometimes claim happens with dreams doesn't really exist and that you can accurately predict the amount of content one of these subjects will write about their dream based on the real world duration they spent in the dreaming state.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 08:09:00 2017 No.9224126 >>9224023 I still see no guarantees. The man asked for a guarantee and you haven't delivered.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 08:12:31 2017 No.9224134 >>9224105 Everything literally popped into existence last Thursday.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 08:51:47 2017 No.9224173

>>9224126
You don't get to ask for a guarantee that a bullshit claim you made isn't true. You're the one who has to provide proof for your bullshit claim. I demonstrated why there's no reason to believe that claim is true, it's up to you or him to show why we should still believe it despite that.

>>	Carbon Tue Oct 10 08:56:40 2017 No.9224180 >>9219149 >>>/x/ Seriously There is no scientific discussion/debate that could be had about this, because noone has observed this

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 09:12:12 2017 No.9224193

>>9224023
>pi actually exists and is not a mathematician's creation
prove it

>Also it doesn't have any relevance whether or not wheels like that actually exist
a logical phantasy that's impossible doesn't apply to reality, it is relevant.

>Creating a clone doesn't make the source person's mind teleport into the clone's mind.
define mind. prove that's the case

>>9224173
>You don't get to ask for a guarantee that a bullshit claim you made isn't true.
You came into this guaranteeing with 100% certainty you're dead forever and you have it all figured out, but you failed to deliver.

>You're the one who has to provide proof for your bullshit claim.
Again you're the one who came into this with absolute truths.

>I demonstrated
saying you did doesn't mean you actually did

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 09:40:44 2017 No.9224230

>>9224193
Pi isn't a mathematician's creation because mathematicians didn't create the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. That ratio is discovered by measuring a circle. It can also be derived / discovered independently from a number of other circumstances.
>impossible
Either:
A) You believe the wheel example is possible, in which case you have no reason to believe magic resurrection will happen because infinite time can pass without anything needing to recur, or
B) You don't believe the wheel example is possible even given an infinite amount of time, in which case you've disproved your own argument by confirming there are events which won't happen even given an infinite amount of time, like broken eggs uncracking or people resurrecting.
And I never once said I guarantee with 100% certainty anything except that your claim was bullshit and there's no actual requirement that every imaginable configuration will come into being just because an infinite amount of time has passed. It's not my job to prove any random baseless idea someone comes up with is impossible. Burden of proof. Russell's Teapot. Look it up. And regardless you've done a good enough job disproving yourself.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 09:49:00 2017 No.9224240

>>9224230
>Pi isn't a mathematician's creation because mathematicians didn't create the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
Show me this ideal perfect circle

>And I never once said I guarantee with 100% certainty anything
that's what i said from the get-go. you can't guarantee shit nigger

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 09:53:49 2017 No.9224246

>>9224193
>define mind. prove that's the case
"Mind" is a word for higher level brain activity like the processes underlying a person's ability to plan future behavior or communicate through language, as opposed to lower level brain activity like the processes that regulate body temperature or blood sugar levels. You can have a copy of a biological organism alive at the same time as the source organism, separate them, give them two different sets of stimuli, and there's no mechanism for one of these organisms magically gaining access to the stimuli information of the other. Therefore just because an organism structured the same way as you comes into existence doesn't mean your mind transfers over to the new organism's mind. The new organism can have all your memories, but all of your memory information could just as easily be given to an already existing other person and their gaining that extra memory information wouldn't cause them to become you either.
And again, you're getting this all backwards because it's really your job to prove why any of this should be considered plausible, not someone else's job to prove why it can't be plausible.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 09:57:15 2017 No.9224251

>>9224240
>Show me this ideal perfect circle
Perfection was never required.
>that's what i said
You said:
>your claim was bullshit and there's no actual requirement that every imaginable configuration will come into being just because an infinite amount of time has passed
?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 10:02:41 2017 No.9224258 >>9221308 You sound like you listened to that one logic song with black science man and now act like an enlightened faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 10:03:47 2017 No.9224261 >>9224251 >Perfection was never required. then the ratio is not equal to pi you said >You are dead forever and all eternity. And this is all going to happen eventually with 100% certainty, and it will happen to YOU.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 10:28:08 2017 No.9224292

>>9224261
>then the ratio is not equal to pi
How do you know a circle isn't perfect or that pi is what to expect from the ratio of a perfect circle's circumference to its diameter? Are you trying to argue someone just decided one day to define perfection with a made up number?
>you said
No I didn't. That's not my post. My first post is here:
>>9223761

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 10:36:23 2017 No.9224304

>>9224261
>>9224292
Also the reason why perfection isn't required is because you can suppose a nearly identical situation where the objects are imperfect but the errors constantly cancel each other out. And another also to that is either perfectly consistent behavior is possible or it isn't. If it is then it disproves your argument by showing how some configurations won't come into being even given an infinite amount of time. And if it isn't then you still end up disproving your original argument by conceding that some configurations like consistently behaving wheels won't come into being even given an infinite amount of time. And if a simple consistently behaving couple of wheels can fail to ever come into being, then you have even less reason to expect something way more complicated like a multi-cellular biological organism reassembling spontaneously.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 13:39:24 2017 No.9224567 >>9224258 you sound like you were already a faggot

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:02:51 2017 No.9224794

>>9224173
I made no claims in this thread. I've been merely watching a debate between you and a few anons. You started off with a claim of something humans physically cannot and will never be able to confirm during their mortal life, with 100% certainty, which is a guarantee.

The burden of proof is on you here dude.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:03:33 2017 No.9224795 >>9219149 Not science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:04:35 2017 No.9224797 >>9219165 The molecules in your body don't just vanish into thin air. They'll eventually be a part of other people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:07:06 2017 No.9224803 >>9219149 There was a lady who fell into an ice lake for 4 hours and she was clinically dead for 4 hours. So, we have proof that atleast a temporary afterlife exists. After the soul leaves the body, it could come back if the body still works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:08:30 2017 No.9224806 >>9224794 No, I think you guys confused my posts with a different earlier post. See: >>9224292 Burden of proof is definitely on whoever wants to try to claim magic rebirth, not on me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:11:24 2017 No.9224815 >>9224304 Errors add up. They don't cancel out. Try again, idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:13:51 2017 No.9224819 >>9224815 They can do either. You're talking about the possibility of a spontaneously reassembling multi-cellular organism, you don't get to complain about what's unlikely here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:21:53 2017 No.9224837 >>9224819 DNA copying errors happen all the time. Nothing is cancelled out. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:24:40 2017 No.9224843 >>9224837 isn't it possible that an error undoes a previous error?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 16:45:57 2017 No.9224889 >>9223761 here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 17:05:45 2017 No.9224922 Your information stays in the universe until forever since it can't be destroyed. The final observer at the end of reality observes you and catalogs your information. The universe keeps a record of you permanently, that much is fact.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 17:47:32 2017 No.9225017

>>9224837
An example of errors not cancelling out doesn't disprove the possibility of errors cancelling out. I don't know why you would even think that. It's not necessarily very likely errors would cancel out, but you're trying to argue for the spontaneous reassembly of a previously living complex biological organism, so you've completely thrown out any basis for calling something improbable here relative to what you're suggesting. Cancelled out errors actually happens in real life and has been documented in formal settings, which certainly puts it ahead of your resurrection idea as far as plausibility goes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 19:06:58 2017 No.9225145 >>9224105 >There was already nothingness There can't 'be' nothingess. You're just using fancy language to avoid the question of what death is.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 19:50:59 2017 No.9225215

>>9225145
>There can't 'be' nothingess.
How did you like the year 1400?
You can't answer that question because of course there can be nothingness, you just need to be clear on what context the "nothing" is specific to. We're obviously not talking about perfect voids of atomless space in establishing nothing of you as in anything that could be even loosely considered a cognition having self existed before you were born. The only possible way you can argue against this fact is by trying to claim you had fantastical physics defying bodyless adventures for thousands of years before you were born, in which case here you go, have fun being a crystal rubbing new age flapdoodle lunatic: >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 10 20:38:39 2017 No.9225306 the notion of "1400" or even "past" is posterior to the very basic fact that something exists. you have to start from that notion in order to get at questions of your existence or non-existence, not assume 3rd person view whenever it seems convenient

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 20:40:33 2017 No.9225309

>>9225306
>something exists
Yeah, but not you.
>you have to start from that notion in order to get at questions of your existence or non-existence, not assume 3rd person view whenever it seems convenient
There isn't any first person point of view you can assume before you began existing because you didn't exist then. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this to you before you'll understand.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 21:33:26 2017 No.9225376

>>9225309
i wasn't claiming for the permanence of some sort of "you", i guess i wasn't clear about that.

>before you began existing
that notion is something made up after the fact, you can't give it ontological priority over the fact of existence itself

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 21:51:47 2017 No.9225399

people saying it just goes all black is just as retarded as saying it goes to a cloudy place where there are angels shit. it doesnt go black, it loses all property.

it goes into void. void has no colour. Void is wholly empty and not conceivable. hence when you die you conceive of the void, which is nothing. you ownt regocnize it as coloured black: thats just you going blind as your braincells expire from lack of oxygen and stimulus.

Anonymous Tue Oct 10 22:02:59 2017 No.9225410

so the main thesis of afterlife theory (infinite life theory) is thus:

conciousness is bound to the electic field properties and geometries of neuronal connections creating a metaphysical "soul" that really exists (somewhere). The brain is an interface tower for this inter dimensional aspect called a consiousness, where the physical world is broadcast to it via sense inputs and it correspondingly sends orders back in the form of decisions. it could be possible that all character traits exist in a logical space similar to how numbers could exist externally from a physical reality. this is from where we draw our unique "existence". This would in fact imply that there is no one self, and that we become forms as we experience them. that is when one experiences pleasure or pain, we are accessing the abstract concept of pleasure or pain via an interface with the metaphysical realm. meaning we are not selves, but as has been stated, a radio tower of input and output for logical reasoning to manifest.

as such death is the non interface with this space, and is void ipso facto an interface with the opposite of the meta-physical (the sub-physical)

the forms will remain eternal, but will not always be accessed and represented by the physical body you exist as.

>life goes on

So the theory:
recreating an exact copy of yourself at some point in the far future from your death will "resurrect" your character from death. ie the specific interface or feeling to be yourself (as expressed by the specific way you interact with the forms) will cause you to feel like you have experienced a rebirth.

so its a bunch of crap.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 03:05:46 2017 No.9225848 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nhy4Z_32kQo Debate this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 03:15:47 2017 No.9225854 Close your eyes and count to 7, when u wake up you will be in heaven.

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 03:43:31 2017 No.9225878

>>9225410
That's just a hypothesis, even if it is based on some science it is still unknow mostly of the arguments, just like science fiction.

I would say that we have a clear way to verify what death is, we can't say what happens on what people say as "souls" or "ego" or "consciousness", because we can't even sure if those are real or just a way to interpret a phenomenom that happens on our brain.

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 04:12:58 2017 No.9225916

this question is meaningless when you don't know how you got here in the first place

if you're 14 and think that "your mommy and daddy fucked and therefore you exist"-answer is satisfactory, then obviously afterlife isn't an option. but it may be the case that there's only one person in the universe, without sliding off into solipsism, as Daniel Kolak argues. limitless reincarnation I guess

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 10:54:00 2017 No.9226402 >>9223659 >theres more to 'you' than your body get the fuck out of here you dirty hippie

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 11:02:51 2017 No.9226413

>>9221191
a near death experience helps this. its an illusion. you cannot possibly feel anything because "you" (whatever that means) are not. its absolutely nothing. you werent "you" before, so why bother? your fear is completely egoistical. by seeing yourself from a broader perspective you will overcome your fear.

i had an epileptic fit once and experienced (or rather the absolute opposite of experiencing) of losing consciousness. you cannot possibly be afraid of absolute nothingness. the concept transcends your human mind, you fear the version of "nothingness" that you yourself have created instead of the real absolute nothingness, which you cannot possibly grasp.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 11:11:42 2017 No.9226428 >>9219165 I swear. Throughout my entire life, this is the thought that gives me most fear.

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 11:53:15 2017 No.9226539
File: 78 KB, 776x960, 1496823901365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you followed a good life full of virtue you are allowed into God's eternal kingdom. Otherwise you must pay for all your sins before entering.
But if you were wicked and fail to repent then eternal damnation awaits you

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 12:44:27 2017 No.9226643 >>9225916 >You're 14 unless you believe your life didn't begin when you born When are we going to get those brainlet filtering calculus captchas already?

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 13:18:20 2017 No.9226703

>>9225376
>that notion is something made up after the fact
It doesn't matter at all that your personal concept of the time before you were born didn't form until after you were born. That doesn't make the actual time before you were born not exist or have less substance to it than the events you've personally been alive to see. If anything your own belief in what you think you've personally experienced is less reliable than the historical records of the last decade before you were born for example because those records have been cross-validated by multiple independent parties. Putting special value on what you personally believe you've experienced overrates the reliability of your own mental faculties and underrates the reliability of independently corroborated history. You have a very limited bit of priviliged access to information your sensory organs take in, but this doesn't amount to greater reliability /accuracy. It just means you have a limited amount of quasi-private information that others would need diagnostic tools to get at because they aren't currently hooked up to your nervous system.

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 14:15:06 2017 No.9226857

>>9225878
the "ego" or sense of self, or sense of continuity/unity of experience, whatever you want to call it, is not "real" in a fundamental sense. you only need to take a high enough dose of LSD to see that firsthand. but there is a more basic reality, still embedded at the bottom of what we'd call "our subjective expeirnce", that i can only describe as "something exists". think of the anthropic principle, but instead of applying it to particular laws of physics as measured by intelligence, apply it to reality itself as "sensed" in a broad sense (not necessarily by something definable as an individual human). another way to approach the idea is panpsychism

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 17:21:46 2017 No.9227309 File: 13 KB, 225x225, happy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9219149 You will go to unicorn heaven and shit rainbows. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 17:39:56 2017 No.9227364 >>9221308 >mass post judgment passing wrong

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 17:51:32 2017 No.9227395
File: 7 KB, 236x139, DMTMolecularStructure.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9219149
I'm not entirely behind this theory, but I think it carries a lot of weight. Obviously it would depend on how you die, because if your brain is blown to pieces instantly there is really no way this can happen.
Within in the last decade, researchers have concretely found DMT in the brain, specifically within the pineal gland, of a mammal (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmc.2981/abstract;jsessionid=E06D7120585BD351E2E243404564DBBE.f03t02).). DMT is better known as a recreational drug that people take to have vivid hallucinations. I've never done it, but apparently while the hallucinations only last for 5 minutes in real time, people report that their perception of it is hours upon hours. There are hypotheses that with DMT being found in the pineal gland, the part of the brain in charge of sleep regulation, it is the chemical that allows for dreams to happen while you sleep. The DMT trip is similar to a dream, which are basically hallucinations that to you seem to last for hours but actually only last a few minutes during REM sleep.
SO, what does this have to do with death? Well, many people report seeing heaven, God, dead family members, when they have a near death experience. There's a theory out there that states when you're dying, your brain is firing with all hands on deck to deal with it. One of the things that possibly happens is the massive release of your DMT reserves from that gland. Depending on how much is released, there's a chance this draining results in your perception of time IRL slowing to near zero. The final seconds of your life are an everlasting trip/dream that never ends to you. That is your afterlife.
Again, I don't completely subscribe to it. We'll never know until it happens, and I know a lot of people will probably get pissed at seeing this theory because a lot of druggies like to use this as part of their retarded spaced out theories that justify their use of the drug.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 19:13:13 2017 No.9227667 Having had a concussion and my heart stop at the same time. Had a short out of body expereince. Looked at my body on the floor. Had a headache the next 2 days and threw up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 19:19:31 2017 No.9227690 >>9221330 What if I'm actually dying right now and just re-experiencing my life as I die. Why am I doing that on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 19:28:11 2017 No.9227712 >>9219149

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 19:28:58 2017 No.9227714

>>9227395
>apparently while the hallucinations only last for 5 minutes in real time, people report that their perception of it is hours upon hours.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001295
>Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event.
>Using a hand-held device to measure speed of visual perception, participants experienced free fall for 31 m before landing safely in a net. We found no evidence of increased temporal resolution, in apparent conflict with the fact that participants retrospectively estimated their own fall to last 36% longer than others' falls.
>Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/time-passes-dreams/
>Dream and sleep researcher William Dement conducted two studies that demonstrated that dream time was similar to real time. Because dreamers’ eyes move under their eyelids very rapidly while they are dreaming, Dement was able to monitor sleepers and record the length of their dreams by observing their rapid eye movement.
>After recording this information, Dement would wake dreamers and have them write down a description of their most recent dream. He assumed that longer dreams would take more words to describe than shorter ones.
>When he compared the number of words in each dream report with the number of minutes the dream had occurred, he found that the longer the dream, the more words the dreamer used to describe it.
>In another related experiment, Dement woke sleepers while they were dreaming and asked them how long they perceived their most recent dream had taken. Eighty-three percent of the time they perceived correctly whether their dreams had been going on for a long time or for a short time.
>With these experiments, Dement concluded that time in dreams is nearly identical to time in waking life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 19:32:50 2017 No.9227725 >>9219149 Well, I think of it this way. What was it like before you were alive?

Anonymous Wed Oct 11 19:37:26 2017 No.9227738

>>9221742
>you can never experience the moment after you die
Correct...
>the last moment you'll experience from your perspective is forever
No. The last moment you'll experience from your perspective will last a moment's worth of time, same as every other moment you experience. The future boundary of your existence is just a boundary, same as the past boundary of your existence. You didn't perceive the first moment after being born as lasting forever, why would you expect to perceive the last moment before you die as lasting forever? Your perception begins with birth and ends with death. There is no logical necessity that you always continue perceiving something after you're born, the world existed just fine without your perception before you were born and it can exist just fine without your perception after you die.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 20:26:11 2017 No.9227836 >>9221098 I've used this Example so many times, one of the best relations for all the "you experience" bullshittery

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 23:42:10 2017 No.9228144 >>9227738 >You didn't perceive the first moment after being born as lasting forever, how the fuck would you know? do you remember the first moment after being alive? or the first moment you were aware? no you don't

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 23:45:09 2017 No.9228153 >>9227738 >the world existed just fine without your perception before you were born not from your perspective, that's the point

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 23:47:36 2017 No.9228159 >>9227364 Joe Rogan pls go

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 11 23:53:19 2017 No.9228164 >>9227714 how the fuck can you tell someone they're not experiencing the subjective experience they're experiencing? are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 06:51:12 2017 No.9228695 >>9219241 no Hell feels like hopelessness AND pain t. went there when I was dying once

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 11:19:35 2017 No.9228975

>>9219149
>you die
>consciousness is interrupted (time stops from your point of view is stopped)
>universe goes through endless cycles of death/rebirth until sheer probability reassembles the same particles in the same energy states and continues your consciousness "flow"
>this goes on until the circumstances that killed you change enought (while your system stays the same) to let your consciousness continue
>from your point of view, you're immortal and invulnerable
brb killing myself

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 14:34:52 2017 No.9229284

>>9228144
If you perceived the first moment you were alive as lasting forever then you wouldn't be able to perceive the next moment after it since forever doesn't end. You perceiced moments after your first, therefore your first wasn't perceived as lasting forever.
>>9228153
Yes from your perspective because you have access right now to massive amounts of consistent evidence of a world that existed before you were born. There is no requirement that you personally take in sensory data of a given phenomenon in order for that phenomenon to exist. In fact your own sensory input on its own is considered relatively unreliable evidence which is why we have the scientific method and the concept of peer review.
>>9228164
Read the papers, brainlet. Nobody disputed that people can "feel" like time is dilated. What was debunked was the notion that this feeling is associated with an actual increase in how much you perceive in a given span of time. When people report time having slowed down while they're sky diving, we know it's just a feeling and they aren't actually perceiving at a different rate than normal because they don't perform differently at visual perception tests like identifying LED digits flashing at different rates on a hand-held perceptual chronometer. And when people report time lasting longer in dreams we know they aren't actually perceiving more information in smaller intervals of time because their written dream reports have the same predictable tight correlation between word count and elapsed real time.
So you can "feel" like time has slowed down, but all that means is you're under the influence of a false belief. You won't get to live forever in a moment just because you believe it "felt" that way.

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 14:43:18 2017 No.9229303

>>9228975
>universe goes through endless cycles of death/rebirth until sheer probability reassembles the same particles in the same energy states and continues your consciousness "flow"
You're assuming you being reassembled has a nonzero probability. You're also assuming there's a literal continuity from moment to moment that ties together different versions of you through time as opposed to identity just being an inferred narrative of convenience based mostly on similariy of memory content.

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 15:19:34 2017 No.9229353

>>9229284
>If you perceived the first moment you were alive as lasting forever then you wouldn't be able to perceive the next moment after it since forever doesn't end. You perceiced moments after your first, therefore your first wasn't perceived as lasting forever.
Indeed you don't perceive a first moment at all from your perspective. Do you remember your first moment? No. So why would you assume you would perceive a last moment?

>Yes from your perspective because you have access right now to massive amounts of consistent evidence of a world that existed before you were born.
The fact that something existed before is completely irrelevant to you. Your perception is all that exist from your perspective. What came before never existed from your perspective.

>Nobody disputed that people can "feel" like time is dilated.
That's all that matters.

>So you can "feel" like time has slowed down, but all that means is you're under the influence of a false belief.
False relative to what? Relative to LED lights? Certainly not false relative to my own perception, which is all that matters from my perspective. People felt time slowed down, whether LED lights disagree doesn't change that perception.

>You won't get to live forever in a moment just because you believe it "felt" that way.
On the contrary. If you feel it'll lasts forever, it is forever from your perspective.

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 15:50:54 2017 No.9229409

>>9229303
>nonzero probability
Why would it have zero probability in an universe with finite matter?

>based mostly on similariy of memory content
So you're saying the same thing. Memory and thought, being enabled by a system of particles, change through time at the speed of their fastest action, meaning they "flow". If you disrupt the flow at a point (the point being the last time the system performs the last of its fastest actions), why wouldn't you be able to continue it from the same point if you rearrange the system to the exact same state of the time of disruption.

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 17:47:30 2017 No.9229668

>>9229353
>Indeed you don't perceive a first moment at all from your perspective.
You perceive a first moment. If you perceive any moments at all then the first one in that set is your first.
>The fact that something existed before is completely irrelevant to you.
I disagree. You're constantly affected by consequences of the past. We know what it's like when only your perception dictates reality, they're called dreams and they generally don't work the same way existence in an objective world of non-self influences does.
>People felt time slowed down, whether LED lights disagree doesn't change that perception.
The LEDs are just tools that let us measure the rate of perception. Same thing with the dream reports. If you actually perceive more per interval of time than what's normal, that's something that can be verified by seeing if you perform any differently on tests like those. If you don't perceive more per interval then all you have is a false belief.
>If you feel it'll lasts forever, it is forever from your perspective.
No, rate of perception isn't just a feeling, it has an actual meaning and is either altered or isn't independent of belief. Your belief that you're perceiving time dilation is analagous to a camera reporting an increased frame rate. Just because a camera produces a report of X frame rate doesn't necessarily mean it's capturing that many frames in reality. "Perceive" is not by coincidence similar to the words "receive" and "transceive," -ceive as in capturing / getting. It's something you can verify objectively because you either did capture more or you didn't. The feeling / belief part is just reportability. What you report isn't necessarily true. The report being "true to itself" is meaningless, all reports are "true" by that standard, and a report not contradicting itself doesn't confer any sort of reality to its contents. Feeling / reporting that you're having a heart attack doesn't necessarily mean you're having a heart attack.

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:00:29 2017 No.9229709

>>9229409
>Why would it have zero probability in an universe with finite matter?
Because even with finite matter and infinite time the universe doesn't have to turn into every configuration of itself imaginable. We frequently observe events which are common in one direction of tie but which are never observed going backwards, like glass shattering vs. glass reassembling. It's not necessarily a nonzero proability that reverse / reassembly events will ever take place. The universe could just as easily spend an indefinite amount of time participating in events of the forward seeming variety. More robustly, the major argument against a probabilistic "anything goes" type of scenario is that if any conceivable configurations of matter were really possible in actuality then we would expect to be living in a boltzmann brain universe and we aren't.
>Perhaps our universe happened to have had a fluctuation of some kind in the past, in which things got somewhat separated, and now they are running back together again. This kind of theory is not unsymmetrical, because we can ask what the separated gas looks like either a little in the future or a little in the past. In either case, we see a grey smear at the interface, because the molecules are mixing again. No matter which way we run time, the gas mixes. So this theory would say the irreversibility is just one of the accidents of life.
>Suppose we do not look at the whole box at once, but only at a piece of the box. Then, at a certain moment, suppose we discover a certain amount of order. In this little piece, white and black are separate. What should we deduce about the condition in places where we have not yet looked? If our order were due to a fluctuation, we would not expect order anywhere but where we have just noticed it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:41:21 2017 No.9229811 >>9229709 >reverse / reassembly That's not the point since my existence is a realized probability already meaning it had a nonzero probability by default.

Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:43:00 2017 No.9229815

>>9229668
>You perceive a first moment.
You have no recollection of it.From your perspective you never had a first moment.

>You're constantly affected by consequences of the past.
Key word: consequences, not the past itself, but its consequences, ie things you are experiecing

>If you don't perceive more per interval then all you have is a false belief.
Again, if you perceive time slowing down you perceive time slowing down, you can't deny subjective experience, LEDs or not it doesn't change your experience. Having a thermometer measuring 26 degrees doesn't change or invalidates my subjective experience of feeling cold.

>It's something you can verify objectively
Objectively relative to what? There's no such thing as absolutely objective, much less in the case of SUBJECTIVE experiences

>The feeling / belief part is just reportability. What you report isn't necessarily true.
what do you mean by reportability and report? you used this word a lot and i'm not sure it means anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:43:57 2017 No.9229819 >>9229811 Your existence isn't the same event as your reassembly. Eggs break all the time, that doesn't mean you should expect to see eggs unbreak.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:46:54 2017 No.9229823 >>9229819 >reassembly You aren't getting "reassembled". It just repeats the process of your creation with the same particles after x amount of tries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:49:49 2017 No.9229834 >>9229709 >Because even with finite matter and infinite time the universe doesn't have to turn into every configuration of itself imaginable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 18:55:11 2017 No.9229847 >>9223761 >>9224230 >>9229819 Holy fuck this autist has been going on about his eggs for days.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 21:52:30 2017 No.9230145 What happens when you lose you eyes? You don’t see black, you just don’t “perceive” anything. Your brain is just another organ in your body. Once your brain dies, “you” don’t exist. You’re just in a complete state of unawareness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 22:14:01 2017 No.9230170 >>9229834 This isn't relevant; the proof requires all particles to be bound to a constant volume for the system, which is not the case in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 22:17:22 2017 No.9230172 I almost drowned when I was a kid, got revived. The closest I can describe is watch Enter the Void.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 12 22:44:38 2017 No.9230199 >>9219165 much edge very blunt

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 06:43:30 2017 No.9230732 >>9230170 You assume to know everything about the universe. You don't and literally can never do so from our human perspective.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 06:50:49 2017 No.9230743 >>9223247 >Science is boring as fuck Then what are you doing on /sci/ of all places, faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 07:17:16 2017 No.9230770 >>9219919 this. we simply recombine after almost an eternity. ab=ba

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 07:47:21 2017 No.9230802 >>9220154 can that faggot be any more vague?

Anonymous Fri Oct 13 07:50:23 2017 No.9230804

Soul disconnects from the body and goes somewhere. Somewhere on the edges of the field of the planet?

Reincarnation dictated by fields or something. Like attracts like. Different field of another planet, or same one.

Can learn to control it all consciously if you're good. If you can lucid dream consistently you're good. Maybe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 13:35:05 2017 No.9231302 >>9223659 >Implying consciousness exists. There is nothing more to you than your body. You die. Do you remember what happened to you before you were born?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 13:37:01 2017 No.9231309 >>9223226 Your daddy shot half of you into your mommy. It's not rocket science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 13:40:29 2017 No.9231318 >>9219241 If many-worlds exists (which I sincerely doubt) then there is no difference between universes since quantum phenomena does not affect our decision making. If it's true, then ALL universes are exactly the same as ours.

Anonymous Fri Oct 13 13:47:41 2017 No.9231339

>>9230732
Not an argument. If you start from the premise "we can't know nuffin" then you forfeit your ability to have an opinion. You can either choose to work with what we have and get to assert an opinion based on it or you can stop making arguments because you don't believe we know anything and therefore have no basis for making any sort of claim.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 13 16:32:57 2017 No.9231667 >>9219149 We don't fucking know. Now go to sleep, you need it.

Anonymous Fri Oct 13 22:46:26 2017 No.9232179

>>9220154
Norm Macdonald said the same thing on his show one time, I guess that's where he got it.

It doesn't make me feel any better though, because we're still cognizant of the inevitability of our deaths. That quote is more applicable to non-human animals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 03:42:09 2017 No.9232430 >>9231339 I haven't made any arguments this thread, just watch a chain of replies from one enlightened autist that can't understand how futile his opinions are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 03:56:51 2017 No.9232440 >reincarnate with no memory of past life our identity are our memories, so this is still the same as dying >ghosts and godhood this is a christian wet dream

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 04:00:17 2017 No.9232442 >all these endless void retards ITT if it was possible for you to exist once logic dictates it's possible for you to exist an infinite amount of times and given infinite time and space that will absolutely happen

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 10:28:27 2017 No.9232776 >>9232442 That's bullshit and even if that was true then that person would just be a clone of you, a copy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 11:43:53 2017 No.9232858 >>9231302 Well consciousness definitely exists dude. Cogito ergo sum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 11:45:37 2017 No.9232859 >>9232858 No it doesn't. It's an outdated pretentious belief. Everything in the animal kingdom with a brain thinks. Are they conscious?

Anonymous Sat Oct 14 14:15:56 2017 No.9233058

>>9221191

Dying is exactly the same thing as pre-life. From your perspective, the passage of time since the start of the universe to your birth passed instantaneously. It's going to happen again. You'll be conceived again, perhaps as a different animal, perhaps on a different planet, even a second or billions of years later. I know it's scary, I'm afraid of losing all that I have and hold dear, but you just need to learn to accept it, because it's an inevitability, and take solace in the fact that literally every living creature goes through the same cycle of life and death.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 14 16:42:46 2017 No.9233291 >>9233058 I suppose faggots like you shit up these threads with your godawful /x/ tier fantasies for the sole purpose of triggering my autism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 02:03:07 2017 No.9234120 >>9233058 good post >>9233291 seek help

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 02:16:38 2017 No.9234137 >>9232859 >No it doesn't Yes it does. It's the only thing you can be certain of, you moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 02:31:37 2017 No.9234152 >>9226428 Why? You won't be suffering for eternity or bored for eternity. You will not experience an eternity of nothingness. You just won't experience at all. It's fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 07:33:07 2017 No.9234387 >>9219149 don't know about you, but i enjoyed the fuckton of years that i wasn't born and i'll probably have a blast after i stop existing

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 08:02:05 2017 No.9234412 >>9232430 >how futile his opinions are You can't honestly claim to know any opinion is "futile" if you believe you can't know nuffin.

Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:13:13 2017 No.9234629
File: 60 KB, 451x630, 42e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9223250
>Personally I believe reality is some kind of dream and that when we die we merely enter into another dream.

Only, when you enter into 'another dream', as you said, you will have no recollection of what the previous dream was.

If your theory is true though, as we aimlessly try to explore theories of the afterlife, by the time we've done the practical (died), none of that research would matter because you simply would not remember your previous life.

In your theory, consciousness is eternal. However, the 'you' as you know it isn't.

Tbh the many world's theory, reincarnation theory, "it was all a dream" theory and the atheist black void of nonexistence theory- are all as terrifying as each other... because in all these theories, YOU won't exist anymore, other than a decaying corpse and sentimental memories within the minds of those you knew. Even in the theories that welcomes a continued consciousness, you would no longer be the you that you now know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:18:48 2017 No.9234645 >>9219149 I'm agree with Pythagoras

Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:28:50 2017 No.9234666

>>9224797
Atheists and religiousfags can pretty much agree on this one fact.

Matter does not vanish out of existence and will eventually be part of creation of something else. However, this is still not an argument for consciousness.

If "spirtual energy" (i.e the soul) is ever proven scientifically and unarguably to exist, then you could argue the "energy can neither be created or destroyed" argument for theories of an afterlife or reincarnation with the matter argument to accompany this theory.

However, science does not currently have any evidence that consciousness is product of a soul/spiritual energy that exists. That does not 100% mean there is no soul/spiritual energy, it just means there's no proof currently to support its existence for the above argument.

Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:41:11 2017 No.9234693

>>9227667
See I don't buy into the "I seen heaven and god and my great aunt Patsy" bullshit with NDE patients- because, as one anon already said, you could argue that it's your brain releasing DMT reserves from your pineal gland to cope with death.

HOWEVER, the out of body NDE is fascinating to me, as with these type of NDE patients, they're experiencing in great detail their own body and everything happening around it. Very interesting. Ultimately it could still be the DMT release but it still boggles my mind how a human can literally see his own body from a 3rd person perspective in real time whilst unconscious or even clinically dead for a couple minutes.

Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:45:01 2017 No.9234696

>>9234629
>the atheist black void of nonexistence theory
I don't think atheism leads to the conclusion that you get a black void of nothingness. If anything it leads to the conclusion your life ends when you die just like it began when you were born and there's no black void because that would mean you were still around after dying to experience it.
>>9224797
>The molecules in your body don't just vanish into thin air. They'll eventually be a part of other people.
The molecules in your body aren't you any more than the circuits in a computer are software. Your body gets recycled, but your mind is gone in the same way a spreadsheet you had saved on your computer wouldn't live on if you had your computer scrapped for parts and the parts were repurposed in some other computer. They're both abstractions that emerge from the platform of physical machinery but which aren't instances of physical machinery themselves.
>>9234666
>If "spirtual energy" (i.e the soul) is ever proven scientifically and unarguably to exist, then you could argue the "energy can neither be created or destroyed" argument for theories of an afterlife or reincarnation with the matter argument to accompany this theory.
I don't think "spiritual energy" could ever make any sense as a real thing because it would need to be a phenomenon that somehow sits on top of physical brain processes yet never changes what those physical brain processes are going to do (since these physical processes can be shown to operate in terms of ordinary cause and effect physics like any other physical phenomenon). And if it's something that just sits there and never has any sort of influence / interactions with the physical organ that's actually making everything work, then it raises the question of what the point is to supposing a thing like that is there in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:46:56 2017 No.9234703 >>9230172 Damn. That must've been trippy. Good film.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 11:53:00 2017 No.9234710 >>9234693 Well, they can't. That's why there are always holes in their stories.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 12:15:49 2017 No.9234753 >>9219149 you wake up dead

Anonymous Sun Oct 15 12:19:51 2017 No.9234762

>>9234710
Sorry, I didn't realise that you were someone that's interviewed and documented every NDE patient ever, plus dead people.

The fact is, it's all good and well theorising for and aging arguments of an afterlife or utter non-existence inconceivable to our imagination (as we wouldn't simply exist to experience it)- but ultimately, not a single person on this planet has 100% concrete evidence for any argument of after-death.

Until we actually die ourselves, it's all just theories.

Even with the reincarnation argument and many worlds argument, though consciousness would theoretically survive after ones death, all recollection of the previous life is lost (the fact we can't remember before we were born is testament to this argument). So "you" will always fail to exist at all in any sense of the word, as the consciousness of your previous life has lost all memory of that life.

Again... it's all theories because there is no scientific model to prove with a guarantee that ANY of our theories are 100% correct.

The whole thread is futile and ultimately does not matter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 21:40:28 2017 No.9235742 >>9234412 >implying you know anything >implying you exist and aren't just a figment of my mind

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 15 21:58:30 2017 No.9235776 >>9234753 metalicaa

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 03:46:44 2017 No.9236281 Same feeling as before you were born.

Anonymous Mon Oct 16 13:29:38 2017 No.9237029

There is no known answer.
The most certain answer is nothing. (based on what we know)
But since we still don't even know what consciousness IS, we have no idea so every route is valid.

1) nothing!!!11

2) direct reincarnation to some random new sentient being, no or little memory of past lives.
2.1) reincarnation in a karma-corrected process. Life: bug edition.
2.2) reincarnation outside of chronological order.
You could become Jesus, for example, or some Chinese ruler, or some peasant, or even an ayylmao in another galaxy 4 billion years ago.

3) quantum immortality, you never die with respect to you, just others see you die.
However, you, you just progressively get older and older, some magical thing happens (death cured, magic literally happens), you still don't die, eventually you become a literal god of your own universe
3.1) quantum immortality, you just instantly end up in another person, memories and all.
Continue on your magical adventurer friend.
Turns out you were God all this time. Every other person in existence was just you at some point on your adventure. That includes the quadrillions of potential aliens that exist right now, or the infinitely more than might exist at some point in the future, or the ones that have existed in the past.

4) LOLE HEAVEN
4.1) LOLE HELL
4.2) LOLE PURG

5) you merge with everything else and progressively become some hivemind of infinite consciousness as the universe progresses. I remember reading one theory that the supposed light people see after dying is in fact the Sun and you end up absorbed by its sheer gravity and trapped for the next several billion years until it explodes and you spread out in to new stars in another billion years after that.

I think that is all the major possibilities I can think of just now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 13:33:40 2017 No.9237039 >consciousness >identity These two terms confuse and enrage the /sci/fag

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 13:42:26 2017 No.9237059 I have read somewhere else that you inevitably wake up from death at one point because the molecules that were once part of your brain will be "recycled" through the ecosystem and will sooner or later be the molecules of another living being's brain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 13:48:17 2017 No.9237068 File: 57 KB, 2560x1440, blackness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] can i just be biologically immortal? fuck reincarnating, heaven, and an endless black void. i just want to live.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 13:48:19 2017 No.9237069 >>9226428 I can strongly relate to this, nowadays I just try to not think about it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 13:54:02 2017 No.9237083 >>9226428 You shouldn't cling to your ego like this. It's unhealthy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 15:02:31 2017 No.9237218 >>9226428 You need to think about it more. Think intensely about of the scary thoughts. Eventually you won't give a fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 15:05:35 2017 No.9237227 >>9219149 We might have an answer >>9230647

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 15:06:11 2017 No.9237229 You get stuck in an endless loop where youre eaten alive by bears for all eternity

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 22:08:39 2017 No.9237901 >>9237229 The bears, they can smell the menstruation

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 22:26:51 2017 No.9237937 >>9237029 Reincarnation and Quantum immortality are fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 22:35:40 2017 No.9237955 >>9219149 your perception of time stops. similar to how a person with colorvision loss because of brain damage, can't even "think" of color. they're memories have been de-colored.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 22:37:12 2017 No.9237958 End result of the universe is big crunch not heat death. You live over and over again forever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 16 23:03:05 2017 No.9238006 File: 124 KB, 382x491, 1502893129475.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9237958 Fools talk because they have to say something, the wise talk because they have something to say

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 02:08:19 2017 No.9238262 >>9237218 this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 08:57:11 2017 No.9238683 >implying consciousness is material You never die, nigga.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 13:09:12 2017 No.9239041 >>9238683 Prove it isn't. It's a natural product of a sufficiently advanced neural system.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 13:44:12 2017 No.9239093 >>9238683 Software isn't material either. That doesn't mean your program lives on in program heaven if you destroy the one computer it was running on.

Anonymous Tue Oct 17 15:23:17 2017 No.9239254

>>9219554
You don't dream when you get put under anaesthesia that's why it feels like waking up just seconds after.
And that's what dying will be like, you could have been put under for a day or a year you would still perceive time the same, even if you were put under it until the end of time you would still only feel like it was a second ago, and as such one can argue that from your perspective the entire universe ends when you do

Anonymous Tue Oct 17 15:32:44 2017 No.9239268

>>9234137
Your consciousness is something which is reliant on the existence and proper function of your physical brain. Once you die, and this state is effectively erased, what you call consciousness is gone as well, and wont be magically transferred into some kind of heavenly resurrection queue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 15:36:10 2017 No.9239275 >>9230802 u wot m8 that quote is pretty straightforward

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 15:47:01 2017 No.9239291 >>9226428 It's the downside of having a conscious. Just do things to distract yourself from the fact, get married, have kids, focus on your job, just like everyone else.

Anonymous Tue Oct 17 16:00:54 2017 No.9239322
File: 150 KB, 1052x1065, chad_worshiper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9239093
>>9239041

The Virgin Scientism
> Thinks the brain is a computer on which the mind is a pogram
>never happy always depressed have to do drugs and alcohol to be happy
>Catch an STD because you have sex with niggers
> Thinks everything can be explained though science

The Chad Alexmenos

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 16:02:57 2017 No.9239326 >>9239322 Get the fuck back to /x/ you god damn troglodyte.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 16:42:48 2017 No.9239409 >>9239268 where did i imply any of that you fucking idiot? fedora atheists are the worst, back to /reddit/ with you

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 16:47:14 2017 No.9239424 >>9239326 unironically comparing the human brain or the universe to the latest technological invention is retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 16:57:19 2017 No.9239457 >>9239424 How so? Both are in the end systems that are simply operating. Nothing more.

Anonymous Tue Oct 17 17:03:42 2017 No.9239471

>>9219149
1. It's a choice and sometimes.
2. Yes. Even atoms break down as protons decay over +- 10 to the 25th years.
3. No. Past, present and future all exist at the same time. Intense situations essentially burn a memory into the system. There are other beings that people confuse with ghosts however.
4. That will be the eventually of collective consciousness. Communication has advanced from grunts to language to writing to the stages of transmission to collective idea sharing (Internet) and eventually we will no longer need physical form and physical forms of communication. When that happens, all ideas will be shared instantaneously as a cloud of conscience until mastery of all principles of existence are achieved. Death won't exist. We'll get bored of existing forever with nothing left to achieve and decide to construct our own universe separating the collective conscious and starting over. We will have godhood for an instant as it was in the section of the multiverse that came before ours.
5. No.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 17 18:02:00 2017 No.9239567 >>9239424 >You shouldn't compare brains to machines built to do what brains do

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math