How can a person who believes they are going to stop existing be psychologically stable?
As far as I can see, people who believe they are going to stop existing don't have the sort of eternal grounding to really care about anything. Everything, to them, should be an infinitely trivial issue.
How can I explain this new wave of materialists who say they aren't bothered by this? Is it just bravado? Lack of thought? Or are their minds different to mine?
>>1314253
How can you say shit like that while simultaneously posting a picture of Camus? Did you just desperately need a picture for your thread?
>>1314253
The secret lies in the works of that man and a few others.
>>1314253
>How can a person who believes they are going to stop existing be psychologically stable?
How can a person who believes they are going to continue existing be psychologically stable.
People keep wondering if the mind exists after death, and I don't think it sticks around after lunch.
>>1314264
>How can you say shit like that while simultaneously posting a picture of Camus?
Because it seems to me that he is one of the more honest people struck by this problem. He explains the problem in such clarity, that it's obvious he can never solve it.
In the end I believe he only stayed alive for a while due to animal instincts and bravado. His initial analysis of the absurd is all that needs to be said.
>materialists say "you only live once, so get out there and have fun!"
How does this make any sense? It's the opposite of the truth. The truth is that if you only live once, that's a perfect reason to not do anything at all.
>>1314253
perhaps because they ground themselves in something other than hope of an afterlife
>>1314292
See, I keep saying if you believe this, that's the perfect reason to live an absolutely moral life.
>>1314304
But in what? There is nothing in the material world that can ground meaning. That's just a sort of category error.
Either meaning comes from "outside", or there is no meaning.
Even if a materialist spends his life as a mathematician or something, seeking after eternal truths and writing them down, all of the paper will eventually be destroyed, and the universe will grind to a halt. Who cares? There are no witnesses, in the end.
>>1314312
How is it? We judge moral harm relatively. If people are going to just stop existing after a while, all harm is trivial compared to the absolute harm that awaits everyone.
Is it worse to stop existing, or to be raped then stop existing? There's no difference. Nothing could be worse than either.
>>1314314
It's a shitty fate but one that people accept in their daily lives. Also, the emotional impact this fact has or doesn't have on you is a good measurement of your mental health in general: The more depressed/anxious, the worse it is for you to handle.
Today I don't give a shit about the fact that I will be dead because I lead a healthy lifestyle. Before when I haven't it would keep me up at night. My psychologist said it was normal, and that I was merely projecting my shit onto the question, or "problem".
>>1314367
>Today I don't give a shit about the fact that I will be dead because I lead a healthy lifestyle. Before when I haven't it would keep me up at night.
I know what you mean. But you shouldn't confuse the medical profession with how you "should" feel. The medical profession assumes that happiness is a sensible thing. But we can't make that assumption.
I think you were right when it kept you up at night, and now you're distracting yourself from it by leading a healthy, happy life.
The problem is that your beliefs will always be waiting for you. You never know when you might accidentally think about what they really mean.
>>1314253
it is easy to accept the inevitable, you evolved emotions like anger to motivate you to do things you (think) have a chance of success at, if there was zero chance there would be no point evolving such emotions
>>1314428
>evolving such emotions
You're just pushing the absurdity back a step. Once I think of my own emotions as the product of blind forces, why should I act on them no matter how strong they are?
>>1314253
It's just lack of thought imo. Many people don't think about what happens after death/don't care because what is important to them is the present.
>>1314380
so you cant understand why someone could be mentally healthy while not believing in an afterlife, because anyone that does seem mentally healthy while not believing is just fooling himself?
r u a commie because thats some false consciousness shit right there
>>1314253
Isn't the experience of experience itself worth experiencing?
I've been pretty suicidal as of late but the idea of the total implausibility and absurdity of what existence actually is makes it all the more fascinating to be a part of it. It's hard to give something like that up just because there's no reason for it.
>>1314482
I've been crawling out of a rut lately. Luckily I'm just genetically prone to depressive states instead of being full on acutely/chronically depressed. It's more that the sadness has a certain momentum to it, an inertia, if that is understandable. Though both run in both sides of my family alongside anxiety.
After reading a bit through steppenwulf (which was suggested while I was venting to a family friend) I sorta came to agree with the book on something: Even the worst of ruts give life more meaning and vividity than meaningless days with no sensation or emotion.
I've come to, what I think is a similar conclusion to yours, that even my worst feelings is meaningful and that I am at the very least still reacting to the insanity that is life.
I throttle myself with guilt over the emptiness to feel something other than emptiness. Even if that's what I know suits me (playing nothing but shitty grand strategy to pass the time while feeling literally nothing) Even the guilt over nothing is better than nothing, and it proves some agency that I can force it.
What exactly is it about life that is so implausible and absurd to you? Why is it so striking?
>>1314458
Well I wouldn't want to say "mentally healthy", because that implies a medical perspective and according to the medical perspective, it's not mentally healthy to have morbid thoughts.
I guess I just mean "authentic", or "honest", or something. For example, I can't help but feel that a lot of theists-turned-atheist still have the worldview that was built on their theism, and it's just sort of hanging there. They have a few slogans propping it up, but the structure doesn't make any sense.
>>1314253
Read: Nihilism vs Existentialism
The idea is that you are unshackled and achieve true freedom through the realisation of there being no inherent meaning, but one self created instead
>>1314558
well wasn't a big part of Camus and Sartre's work centered around authenticity?
im sure they wrote a lot of shit about that actually
>>1314570
Yes but it was a technical definition. Basically to them, "authentic" means "being true to what you have decided to be".
I think an honest reader has to see that there is nothing authentic about this. Because if you're free to change your mind, then you're free to change the definition of "authentic".
In the end, you can't live thoughtfully and not believe that meaning comes from somewhere beyond you. The way people actually talk about meaning makes it clear.
I'm the universe. When "I" die, I simply change form
Enjoy the ride, nerd
I am baffled by your argument OP. The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife is why every moment is so important to me, and why I spend every minute that my children are awake and not in school making sure they don't turn into degenerate tools.
>>1314616
>The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife is why every moment is so important to me
But that doesn't make sense. It seems like you're saying "I don't want to look back and think I could have done more".
But according to your beliefs, there will be a position in your own future from which it will be clear that nothing you did made any difference to you.
>>1314292
>The truth is that if you only live once, that's a perfect reason to not do anything at all.
If there is an eternal life waiting for you after death, anything that occurs in this life other than getting into said eternal life is completely irrelevant. What is the point, for example, of enjoying a good book if the books in the next life will be infinitely better, and you will have infinite time to enjoy them. In fact, reading a good book might be a terrible mistake, because you are wasting time you could be using to improve your chances of entering that eternal life.
Meanwhile, if this life is all that there is, you only get one chance to do anything. So if you enjoy reading, go enjoy it. Sure, it's hedonistic, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
>>1314630
>What is the point, for example, of enjoying a good book if the books in the next life will be infinitely better
I didn't mention specifics of what you might want to do in this life if you believe in an afterlife. Personally I think you have good reason to do what God wants you to do. So if God wants me to read a book, I have good reason to read a book.
But it's even more absurd on your view, since you'll put the book into your brain and then your brain will be destroyed. And then some time later, the book will be destroyed.
>>1314639
>But it's even more absurd on your view, since you'll put the book into your brain and then your brain will be destroyed. And then some time later, the book will be destroyed.
Yes, it's not permanent. So you have an extremely limited time frame to enjoy anything. That eventually it will be meaningless doesn't mean that it's pointless within the time frame of a single human life.
>>1314580
>In the end, you can't live thoughtfully and not believe that meaning comes from somewhere beyond you. The way people actually talk about meaning makes it clear.
This is such circular bullshit. You are inventing dilemmas with this post; unfortunately, just because something sounds clever doesn't make it true. In no way does discussing the nature of "meaning" attribute metaphysical properties to it, you fucking undergrad faggot.
What the fuck was the meaning of the hundred million years of dinosaurs you fucking retard? Was god running a test run? That's a long test run. By those standards humanity is barely pre-alpha.
You hollow egotist shitlord. I hate you and hope you fucking die kid.
>>1314649
>So you have an extremely limited time frame to enjoy anything.
This suggests a metaphor to me of a game show where contestants have a limited time to earn money.
But the difference is, no matter how well the contestants in your game do, the money has no value to them after the game is over.
Seems to me that trying to grab the money would just be a result of peer pressure, not clear thinking.
>>1314659
>But the difference is, no matter how well the contestants in your game do, the money has no value to them after the game is over.
In this case, however, nothing exists for the player when the game is over, and the time between the current moment and the end of the game is potentially long. So they ought to enjoy themselves in the mean time, and since the money is valuable within the context of the game (not outside, just like you pointed out) this is possible.
>>1314629
>But that doesn't make sense. It seems like you're saying "I don't want to look back and think I could have done more".
I'm not saying that. What I am talking about is altruism. Because of my culture it is important to me to ensure the well being of those around me. It makes me brain go "yay" and triggers the release of dopamine. Being aware of that doesn't make it any less real or important.
If you are just pointing out that after I die, none of it will matter since I won't experience it, well yeah, no shit. I'm over it. I'm not going to just mope about it when I know the chemical formula to transcending it through happiness.
>>1314669
>the money is valuable within the context of the game
Well yes, but it can only be exchanged for items that only serve a purpose within the game.
This metaphor is getting confusing since there is now enjoyment within the game, and the game was supposed to be a metaphor for enjoyment.
In the end, I just can't attach great value to "enjoyment". It seems like chasing your own tail. I mean we have a word "hedonist" which usually has negative connotations. I don't see the difference.
Seeking anything finite, to me, is avoiding the main question on the exam.
>>1314678
>Being aware of that doesn't make it any less real or important.
But of course it does! If I somehow became convinced that my emotional states were being controlled by mindless robots, I would stop paying attention to them.
>>1314693
>It seems like chasing your own tail.
It essentially is. Dogs do it when they're bored, humans also do more elaborate versions. Dogs chase their own tails despite (presumably) lacking eternal life, so do humans. It passes the time.
>>1314659
Does your point basically come down to the existential terror of death to an atheist?
Yeah it's pretty scary. No sense denying that. But you're here now ain't ya? Just because I don't keep the money after the show doesn't mean it wasn't cool being on TV.
>>1314703
>Yeah it's pretty scary.
Well, I would actually say that it's infinitely scary. It's so scary that I don't think you can ever not be slightly in denial about it, because it won't fit into the human mind. It's like staring at the sun, you'll go blind before you really understand what it means.
>Just because I don't keep the money after the show doesn't mean it wasn't cool being on TV.
Yes it does. What's cool about it? Seems more like making a fool of yourself.
>>1314693
>But of course it does! If I somehow became convinced that my emotional states were being controlled by mindless robots, I would stop paying attention to them.
Sounds boring.
>>1314712
>Yes it does. What's cool about it? Seems more like making a fool of yourself.
Meh, take it or leave it. I just don't believe there is anything after this. It's not the most uplifting view but it is the one that I hold. I just try to take it a day at a time and travel as much as I can in the meantime.
>>1314614
This
Think less of Being and more of Becoming
Dynamite boy is a good place to start
>>1314253
>Or are their minds different to mine?
Are you the kind of person who likes to think about "what ifs" in relation to some past events from your life?
I simply avoid thinking about it. It fucking sucks, but worrying about that shit will get me nowhere.
Something doesn't have to last forever in order for it to be worthwhile.
>posting Camus
>Everything, to them, should be an infinitely trivial issue.
It's not trivial because you have to give meaning to it by yourself rather than finding an inherent natural meaning. You have to care because being alive assigns you that task, rather than letting you submit to it. It's a burden, not a relief.
I dont really think I get an afterlife or that there are personal angels and a god but i am a petty materialist who worrys greatly about his society and muh heritage muh nation stuff even though it gives me a disadvantage because I dont have to worry like that.
Lets say I hatecseeing the efforts of my perceived ingroup going to waste which I value because the perceived ingroup was good to me and caught my interest and attachment.
>>1314340
>Is it worse to stop existing, or to be raped then stop existing? There's no difference.
Of course there is.
>How is it? We judge moral harm relatively. If people are going to just stop existing after a while, all harm is trivial compared to the absolute harm that awaits everyone.
That's a ridiculous moral logic even granting everyone eternal life. Do you think if I went out and shot 200 people, Anders Breivik would be a better person?
>>1316962
>You have to care because being alive assigns you that task
Sounds like an inherent natural meaning, to me.
>>1314314
>There is nothing in the material world that can ground meaning. That's just a sort of category error.
>Either meaning comes from "outside", or there is no meaning.
Meaning is constructed.
I set goals then I try to accomplish. When I accomplish them, and while I try to accomplish them, I set new goals and sometimes revise the old. And it just keeps going. Death just puts a time limit.
>>1314614
that pic really reminds me of how lsd feels
>>1314253
>new wave of materialists
Top kek.
Epicurians already thought about the issue.
>>1314253
>Lack of thought
Bingo, just don't think too much about it, it just works man.
>>1314271
>>1314264
>>1314253
OP, Camus, from La chute, doesn't seem to gather that people who commit suicide are "psychologically unstable". In fact, all he concludes, apparently, is that they choose the one option they see fit to put an end to the nausea that their existence brings them continuously.
As to your final question: materialists, as far as I'm concerned, don't really tend to these matters seriously. They just seem to focus on the natural world on its own, regardless of anything else. Pretty boring if you ask me. It takes balls to face the absurd. Glad you're dedicating time and thought to that, it's only for the brave.
>>1314253
Generally we put people who think they are immortal away, for good reason.
Maybe if you believe in reincarnation, you can at least live your life knowing that you may come back to this world, having failed to make it a better place - but if this life is just some brief pit stop on the way to an immortal afterlife, what's the point? Why even have kids? There's just this relative blink-of-an-eye test, and you're done. No motivation to invest in this world at all. Particularly if you believe that some god is just going to wipe out humanity any day now, as so many of that insane ilk do, or that salvation is by faith alone and not through works.
If you believe this is your one shot at life, and there is no hereafter for you, as all evidence points, then you at least have motivation to make your mark on this world. The only immortality you are going to get is through that mark and through your offspring and the marks they leave in turn, so you have every motivation to fully invest in that contribution and said offspring. You have every motivation to better yourself and the world, as it is the only world there is, and the only chance you will get.
Forever is a human construct, a fiction by which it is unfair to hold up against a reality that, in itself, isn't immortal, unless humanity somehow answers The Last Question and makes it so.
How could ever one not question the sanity of someone who believes this material world means nothing, rather than being all there is? How could one ever trust or depend on such a person in any situation? Surely the sane believe in the value of this reality, over some intangible one for which they have no evidence, beyond their own haphazard belief. If there is to be a heaven, or a hell, surely it will be made here, by the hands of man.
hedonism works for me
>>1314253
>aloha snackbars are more psychologically stable for their belief in an afterlife
>>1314253
It is a chance for my ideals to conquer even death. If I can live by morals and find purpose in life despite its lack of meaning then I have triumphed. The knowledge I will die is my cross to bear and by doing so I have achieved the ultimate in my truths. Death is simply an opportunity for me to live a life that is the ultimate in hope, strength, and righteousness.
>>1314516
Im tired as fuck and don't know how to articulate my answer to your question at the moment but I just wanted to post to say that I am actively thinking about it and do plan to post eventually.
Free bump for the thread I guess.
>>1314659
What if they enjoy the game though?
>>1314253
>people who don't agree with me must be emotionally unstable
Daily reminder that 4chan christfags literally all suffer from fatal autism
>>1318258
>If you believe this is your one shot at life, and there is no hereafter for you, as all evidence points, then you at least have motivation to make your mark on this world.
But the paradox is, you also believe that the mark will be destroyed. There is no mark that will last forever.
If you believe that you will keep existing after this world, then you might at least have motivation to do something that will help you after this world. And that might be a very involving task.
But if you believe you're going to stop existing, I don't see how you have a good reason to do anything at all.
>>1319278
Not him, but didn't he already explain that "forever" is basically a moot point? Can this ephemeral species truly grasp what is the eternal? Why bother? Why not just live fulfilling glandular impulses and, gasp, enjoying life, and if there is an afterlife, hell, that's just a nice bonus.
>>1319324
>Why bother?
You seem to be under the illusion that people don't have good reasons to believe that it's TRUE that they won't stop existing.
I think I have perfectly good reasons to think so. It's not wishful thinking on my part, because I stumbled on the conclusion out of nowhere.
And the eternal isn't at all hard to grasp. Can you understand that there are infinitely many natural numbers? Of course you can.
In fact I'd say that the human condition cries out for eternity, in many aspects. People are disappointed with the world being finite, as if they already expected it to be something else.
>>1314253
> Everything, to them, should be an infinitely trivial issue.
You can say the same for people who would exist no matter what. In both cases you play the game, where outcome is already decided.
>>1321407
>In both cases you play the game, where outcome is already decided.
Not if you also believe that you have free will.
I think that believing that you have free will, and believing that you live forever, are the bare minimum for having a livable life. Notice how children react if you tell them that either is false.
>>1316962
Camus said though, that because of the absurd everything has the same value, importance.
>>1319278
Nothing lasts forever, not even the universe itself. "As long as mankind lasts" and perpetuates said mark is the best you can hope for (barring, again, that whole Last Question thing.) Even with that possibility, you have every motivation to ensure mankind survives and thrives to ensure the survival of that contribution. As opposed to the fantasy approach, where this world and the fate of mankind mean nothing at all, holding zero value when set against an imagined eternity.
Holding reality up to a fantasy standard is simply a childish thing to do. It renders the whole of creation moot, against your impossible fantasy world, so long as you believe said world actually exists, rather than is something to strive to create.
And as most of these fantasies orbit around avoiding sin, if anything, one not only has no reason to contribute to the world, but a strong motivation to avoid contact with it entirely, simply to avoid the temptation of sin. This fantasy mindset is the primary why so few people bother looking beyond their own.
>>1321428
>Notice how children react if you tell them that either is false.
Notice how children react when you tell them their parent's are going to die, or that Santa Claus isn't real.
It's only that some children never grow up, and in many societies, we not only allow, but encourage it.
>>1314253
They've been convinced that they're animals, so they live like animals.
>>1321428
> Not if you also believe that you have free will.
It doesn't matter if you can made a choice if game would end in a Game Over despite what you would choose.
> the bare minimum for having a livable life
I disagree on the principle that delusion could be only a route to madness, instead of livable life, if you can understand what I am saying here.
>>1321730
>Notice how children react when you tell them their parent's are going to die, or that Santa Claus isn't real.
Nobody cares about Santa, dude. He has no ultimate importance. Now as for parents ceasing to exist, I agree. This is another example of an unacceptable thought.
The crazy thing is that I honestly believe that all these unacceptable things are false. Which leaves me in the odd position of being a child in a world full of adults, but where it's the adults who are wrong.
>It doesn't matter if you can made a choice if game would end in a Game Over despite what you would choose.
It's not game over, on my view. There is an infinite lifespan, this is only a finite portion of it.
>I disagree on the principle that delusion could be only a route to madness, instead of livable life, if you can understand what I am saying here.
But a delusion is a false belief. You're just smuggling in the idea that it's false.
ITT: Plebs conflating impermanence with fatalism.
All three I'd say. There's a bunch of different mindsets on the problem. Personally I reason that the eventual loss of my own existence is nothing to fret about, as fretting about the time I'll miss after I'm dead would be as foolish as fretting about the time I've missed before I was born.
That's not to say I was never bothered by it, I just had the fortune of going through this kind of thinking fairly early in my life (it started in my early teens, and I had made peace with it in my early 20s, so roughly 10 years of being bothered by this).
>>1314292
>How does this make any sense? It's the opposite of the truth. The truth is that if you only live once, that's a perfect reason to not do anything at all.
Huh? You didn't put much thought into this, did you? Doing nothing is not a comfortable state for humans, they will do something even if they suspect or know it's pointless out of pure hedonism. Case in point -> sand mandalas
>>1314314
So what? You are not really talking about meaning here but rather an ultimate reason for existence of the sort of the unmoved mover. You also don't avoid this problem by assuming there is an afterlife. Ok, you live eternally now. Where's the "meaning“?
Humans can set goals for themselves. Why should they be interested if they have any relevance in the greater scheme of the cosmos?
>>1321975
>Humans can set goals for themselves. Why should they be interested if they have any relevance in the greater scheme of the cosmos?
I guess I just can't think that way.
On materialism, setting a goal for myself and then achieving it seems to be exactly as meaningful as picking my nose.
>You also don't avoid this problem by assuming there is an afterlife. Ok, you live eternally now. Where's the "meaning“?
It's not just the afterlife. It's the combination of three factors
>eternal life
>free will
>the concept of what you ought to do
This is the foundation of not being insane. I really think that materialists must be insane on some level. Doing almost anything is hard, I don't know why they bother. It's just momentum from when they used to have a sane framework, I guess.
Maybe they just have easy lives and they haven't figured out how deep the problems with the world go.
>>1322626
Well, if you require a fantasy to remain sane, what works for ya I guess... I'd be much more comfortable relying on someone whose goals were grounded in this world, and not in some imaginary next world, myself.
You only need to believe in things that are not true insomuch is required to make them so. It's all well and good to believe in justice, mercy, that sorta thing, but belief in an eternal afterlife, doesn't encourage participation in this one.
>>1314253
What was life like before you were born?
>>1314253
Huh. I'm a materialist and I belief in quantum immortality.
I was born at a time that it might be possible to eventually be immortal through all time.
I could be horribly wrong about it and its possible that eventually you exist again after a very long time as the universe has very long time frames.
But yeah... From my perspective once you have consciousness you will always be conscious.
>>1314253
>As far as I can see, people who believe they are going to stop existing don't have the sort of eternal grounding to really care about anything. Everything, to them, should be an infinitely trivial issue.
Its quite the opposite, you only have one chance not to fuck things up.
>>1322626
>setting a goal for myself and then achieving it seems to be exactly as meaningful as picking my nose.
I think you have something distinctly wrong with your ability to enjoy life, or you're distinctly lazy and unable admit to it. Ad homenim yes but, your perception of enjoyment is warped or distinctly different that most.
>>1322626
>free will
... is a poorly thought out concetp, what do you even man by free will?
>the concept of what you ought to do
How do you derive this ought-to-be from what is?
>>1322626
>This is the foundation of not being insane. I really think that materialists must be insane on some level. Doing almost anything is hard, I don't know why they bother. It's just momentum from when they used to have a sane framework, I guess.
>Maybe they just have easy lives and they haven't figured out how deep the problems with the world go.
What a disgusting, self-righteous ad hominem, do you have any arguments or are you too close-minded to accept that your tale of everlasting consciousness is very implausible?
>>1321399
Such a conclusion is something that you yourself can only have reached. Anyone who has not reached this conclusion simply has not.
There is no way to be correct, because there are too many people with different opinions on the matter with equally well-founded reasoning. Thus, in my opinion, it is best to simply be patient, and wait for an answer until I die.
>>1314253
I think imaginary friends at the age of 10+ indicates some form of psychological instability
this thread is pretty much what i think about it seven times out of ten when i get in bed.
1) ultimately, i will die, cease to exist, mind gone (so i won't know it)
2) i sometimes get abrasive panic attacks that last for a few seconds if i think about this for too long, i tend to diffuse the anxiety by thinking of no. 1
3) 'life' is a big distraction from death, we make meaning or put purpose to it by doing things like: college, work, family, etc.
4) ultimately i wonder if i or anyone would want to live in another life for eternity...i can't help but wonder, wouldn't it get boring?
...slight panic attack felt just now. calming down...
okay, but yeah those 4 things are what i think about when this topic comes up.
>>1321399
>Can you understand that there are infinitely many natural numbers? Of course you can.
Sure, but the natural numbers aren't physical objects unlike humans.
>>1314253
Thinking about it in a strictly material sense, when you die, the parts necessary for you to be aware are separated. You stop being aware, and you can not experience unawareness, since it is the lack of experience. You're already dead in a way.
>>1323558
>I think you have something distinctly wrong with your ability to enjoy life
I mean, it's possible. But I do enjoy some things. Even the things I genuinely enjoy, I am aware that the enjoyment isn't significant in any way.
I don't find it at all hard to believe that enjoyment could be created artificially sometime in the near future. But I would find that to be sickening. I don't understand how people can just go through life being greedy enjoyment-maximisers. It's like being aware that you are just slime.
>>1324274
>There is no way to be correct, because there are too many people with different opinions on the matter with equally well-founded reasoning.
No there aren't. Materialism has deep flaws.
>>1323847
>How do you derive this ought-to-be from what is?
You don't. There is a source of "ought", just like there is a source of "is". They are two disconnected parts of reality, but they both have the same source: God.
>>1326424
Just slime is what we are, nothing wrong with realizing that my man.
>>1326447
Literally could not be more wrong.
>>1326447
But I know I'm not just slime! The most mysterious part of the world is still the part that I knew before I learned any science.
It's the fact that I experience qualia and make choices. That is the central mystery of my life, because it's my basic knowledge, and yet science doesn't interact with it.
>>1326459
You'd be onto something, if not for the fact that the condition of your brain directly affects your consciousness.
>>1326472
>the condition of your brain directly affects your consciousness.
Well of course, my consciousness is (as far as I know) perfectly correlated with my brain. Memories are stored physically, etc.
Which is very strange, but it must just be some sort of synchronisation trick. Because it doesn't affect what I am at all. I am quite obviously not a brain.
It's as if, in order to insert me into a material world, I was correlated with a material object so that the world would be self-consistent.
>>1326490
>Because it doesn't affect what I am at all.
If your thoughts, feelings, memory, and personality, coupled with your physical form and history there of aren't what you are, then what is?
If I replace your body and brain with another's, and thus replace all of the above with an entirely different configuration, are you still you? Or are you that other?
>>1326528
>If your thoughts, feelings, memory, and personality, coupled with your physical form and history there of aren't what you are, then what is?
I don't know a good word for it. But I can't be identical with what you just said. Because I can easily conceive of that apparatus existing in my absence. In fact that world would make MORE sense to me. But that's not the world I live in.
>>1326528
>If I replace your body and brain with another's
What does that mean? How would you know that the new body and brain would connect to me?
>>1326556
Exactly... There's nothing left to connect.
>>1326593
But why wouldn't there be? I mean, if I'm not identical with the apparatus, and the apparatus gets destroyed, why would I get destroyed?
>>1326606
>I mean, if I'm not identical with the apparatus
You are the apparatus. Thus why in the scenario there is nothing of you left to connect or replace.
>>1326623
>You are the apparatus.
Okay, we're back to that then. That really is the crucial issue.
So, here is my argument:
>I can conceive of the apparatus existing in my absence
>I cannot conceive of myself existing in my absence
>So, the apparatus has a property that I don't have (the property of me being able to conceive of it existing in my absence)
>So, I am not the apparatus.
>>1326630
Save in the memory of others, you cannot exist without the apparatus. Your consciousness and existence is irrecoverably formed by that apparatus and its nature determined by its configuration.
Simply because you can conceive at something, be it eternity or unicorns, does not make it anymore real.
>>1326652
Those are just statements. What's wrong with my argument? As far as I can see, from your perspective, the only thing that could possibly be wrong with my argument is that you think I'm lying about premise 1.
>>1314253
Care about shit that matters, while it matters.
>>1326908
Something that stops mattering, and then continues to not matter for an infinite amount of time, doesn't matter at all.
It's the same reason people don't care the pain associated with ripping off a band-aid. Yes, it hurts, but it will pass, so it doesn't matter.
According to materialists, life is just like that on a slightly larger timescale (sometimes). It doesn't matter.
>>1326903
You haven't demonstrated the existence of any part of your consciousness that isn't dependent on your material body's existence and can't be altered by its state and condition.
>>1326942
The argument is valid, isn't it? If so, you must think that one of the two premises is? Here are the two premises:
>I can conceive of the apparatus existing in my absence
>I can conceive of the apparatus existing in my absence
Of course I can't prove either one to you. I just know them. And the conclusion follows.
>>1326952
should be
>you must think that one of the two premises is false?
>>1326952
second premise should be
>I cannot conceive of myself existing in my absence
Actually this one is probably clear even if you're not me.
>>1326915
There is no infinite amount of time, eternity is a manufactured fantasy, that doesn't exist within the scope of the universe, lest mankind finds some way to make it so. And only mankind can make things "matter". If anything, things are more precious for the fact that they are temporary.
>>1326965
Those sure are a lot of sentences.
Have you fallen into the trap of thinking we can know nothing about this topic, and we need to resort to just having hot opinions? I used to think that.
>>1326952
I'm sure you can conceive of unicorns and smurfs, that doesn't make them real.
You can conceive of your non-existence, just as tangentially, such as the time before you were born.
You can believe in an afterlife or a soul, but you can't know it, and cannot demonstrate it, while altering your consciousness by altering your material brain and body, remain readily demonstrable.
>>1326980
But what's wrong with the argument? Are the premises false? Does the conclusion not follow from the premises?
A single sound argument breaks through an infinity of plausible statements.
>>1326980
Just to remind you, the argument goes like this.
P1: I can conceive of my body existing without me.
>This is clear to me. I can conceive that my body could exist perfectly fine even if I didn't exist. It is just a physical object.
P2: I cannot conceive of myself existing without me.
>This is totally obvious. I can't conceive of a situation where two contradictory things are true at once. (I exist and I don't exist.)
3 (from 1 and 2): My body has a property that I don't.
>There surely can't be a problem here. Something is true of my body that isn't true of me: its conceivable-by-me existence in my absence.
4 (from 3): I am not my body.
Two things can't be the same unless they share all the same properties.
>>1327039
The "logical" premise is flawed because you cannot logically build a situation in which you exist, and your material body does not. You can only imagine it.
You can imagine your body being made of solid steel and still able to move and think, it doesn't follow that it can actually be the case. An imagined property doesn't equate to a real one.
>>1314253
I think our minds are just different. Sure, I'll be gone someday, and my actions won't matter, but I'm here, now, and right now, my actions and the world around me matter to me. There's this Japanese proverb about smoke coming off of Mount Fuji or some shit that the beauty of beautiful moments is in how rare they are and how quickly they go. The only thing that gives my life meaning is that it'll pretty quickly become meaningless, so I only have this short time span to experience it.
>>1327066
It seems like you're saying that you distrust the whole idea of conceivability-by-me as a property of possible worlds. In that case I guess we just have totally different assumptions about how logic can be used.
>>1327092
I r saying "conceivably" doesn't equal reality, or reality would be a whole lot stranger than it already is. To bridge that contradiction you'd have to demonstrate a logical situation in which your consciousness could exist without your body.
...Though we could delve into sci-fi and the whole AI transfer thing, but then we get into the argument as to whether a simulation of you is you.
>>1327152
>I r saying "conceivably" doesn't equal reality
Oh I know that. Maybe you didn't understand the argument. It never says that just because something is conceivable, it must be true.
It just says that if something is conceivable-by-me of X but not Y, then X isn't Y.
>>1327174
It doesn't follow that it is the case in reality. You can manufacture all the imaginary divisions among a single subject that you want, it doesn't follow that the differences actually exist.
>>1327220
>it doesn't follow that the differences actually exist.
But of course it does! The difference is to do with a property which contains the concept of "conceive". But the difference itself is in the real world!
The property of "being able for me to conceive of it existing in my absence" is a real world property. It's just that in order for me to check whether an object has this real-world property, I have to do some conceiving.
You're getting the layers confused.
>>1327226
I can conceive that apples have cores of plutonium. That doesn't mean they do. Simply because you can conceive of your consciousness without a body, doesn't mean it is possible.
>if something isn't permanent it's worthless
What a fucking retarded viewpoint.
>>1326437
>No, because no.
Excellent reasoning. Please understand that there might be other people on this planet who have reached a level of enlightenment comparable to your own.
That is to say, none. To be open-minded is to accept any eventuality as being just that: possible. You have failed to reason.
