Is there an afterlife?
>>1269403
Yes.
Are there mods?
>>1269410
Proofs?
>>1269410
Why would there be life after our physical bodies died? If "souls" were capable of producing any affect on us at all then we would be able to detect them. And we havent. On the other hand, if souls indeed don't affect our bodies or actions in any way then they aren't even "me" to begin with.
>>1269435
Consciousness is energy. energy is recycled
>>1269403
If there is, what goes there? Only humans? Only mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians? Does bacteria go there? Do self-replicating ribozymes go there? Do viruses go there?
And how is an afterlife possible? How is it possible to see if one has no eyes, to move around if one has no muscles? Where is the afterlife? Just here on Earth? Somewhere else in the universe?
>>1269447
>Consciousness is energy.
It's not though. Not in any measurable way. It simply doesn't match the definition of energy.
t. physicsfag
>>1269459
>electrical impulses in the brain aren't energu
>>1269410
>are there mods
I have seen no evidence of their existence.
>>1269403
No, but regardless of the truth, you have to ask yourself why you want or don't want there to be one.
I don't want there to be one because it diminishes the value of life. It reduces life to a waiting room. But life is so much more than that, great and vast and beautiful, and you are a small piece of it. By valuing the afterlife you undervalue yourself and everything in the universe.
>>1269462
It's not an "electric impulse" it's actually an electrochemical gradient WITHIN the brain only capable of affecting things within the brain. "Electric impulse" is the made up bullshit middle and high schoolers are taught because the reality is too complicated.
It turns out whatever Wikipedia article you read to convince you of the fact that electric brain impulses even exist isn't correct.
>>1269432
Proof would be a mod b8 this thread.
>>1269403
I think Humans can be compared to robots on many levels, even when it comes to consciousness. If you agree with that, do robots keep running their algorithms after being dismantled?
>>1269448
>self-replicating ribozymes
>viruses
Hm doesn't "afterLIFE" implies there's been a life before?
>>1269463
Top kek
>>1269715
dumb kekposter
>>1269403
I don't know. I cannot verify whether or not I exist in an advanced computer simulation.
I cannot verify the existence of nested realities in which there is a greater reality containing this one.
I cannot verify whether my matter and energy will rearrange themselves into a different sentient entity in the future.
I cannot argue whether or not a discontinuity in a stream of consciousness counts as "death" or not.
All I know is from within a very limited frame of reference.
I have a hunch and it's "No."
I have a desire and its "Yes."
>>1269403
Why do people want an afterlife? It's so much comforting knowing nothing comes afterwards.
Your sadness at dying will simply vanish, as will all your regrets, bad memories, and desires, and it is my experience that most people are never really happy with their lives, because even those that appear to be are merely 'settling' because what they truly wanted is something they never could obtain.
It will be like before you were born: think of all the pain and suffering that occurred, but did it bother you? Oblivion sounds cozy as fuck.
>>1269816
Edgy
Basically i've come to the conclusion that the afterlife, the astral sphere and the great collective uncoscious/non-physical ether are all one and the same thing
This becomes more than obvious when you consider the fact that like 90% of the universe is made of dark matter, and this supposedly "invisible force" (hence the term *dark* matter) even leaves a gravitational footprint even though from a physical standpoint it should not
Then there's the fact that RNG-based studies and experiments like the double slit setup have proven with near-certainty that our thoughts are not only directly linked with the physical makeup of the world as we perceive it, but that said thoughts can also influence it directly
Synchronicity and various assorted quantum phenomena also play a pretty huge role in this of course
And all of this of course implies that consciousness (or life itself) permeates everything, meaning that as a rational observer one has to assume that what one might call "the human soul" is inherently linked to the makeup of the universe itself on an intrinsic etheric level
Or to answer the OP as a tl;dr = Yes, there is indeed
>>1269403
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5z-jjWyAJQ
>>1270403
>If I word my bullshit succinctly enough, I can make it sound legit: the post
>>1270403
>Then there's the fact that RNG-based studies and experiments like the double slit setup have proven with near-certainty that our thoughts are not only directly linked with the physical makeup of the world as we perceive it, but that said thoughts can also influence it directly
That's not what that means at all!
Double slit isn't based upon the consciousness of the observer, its based upon the observer because to observe it, it necessitates light and when you observe you can only see one instance.
It's like the right glove left glove box theory.
It has nothing to do with metaphysics...
I'm not a reductionist btw
>>1269403
A CLUE!!!
Take out your Handy Dandy Notebook and write down the letter >>>/x/.
