Death can't seriously be the end.. can it?
There's just no way. There has to be some sort of reincarnation, as reusing our consciousness is far more parsimonious than discarding it completely.
>>415761
Do you remember what your life was like before you were born?
Death is like that
>>415761
Oh, experiences will continue, as to what you think you are, it never existed to begin with
You're misunderstanding what consciousness is.
>>415761
Why? Because feelings?
Why is it so hard to comprehend what happens to us when we die.
>>415761
death is the end... of YOU
reincarnation is a sham. you can't "be" other people, they are themselves and you are you
>Muh "energy can never be destroyed".
Consciousness isn't contingent upon energy alone, but a specific form of it. We've all experienced sleep without dreams, you can't really conceive it but you can derive a basic idea of what death is like from that. Shit, even just damaging your own brain can destroy your conscious senses while alive, your sight doesn't get replaced by some mystic spiritual back-up if you ruin your occipital lobe.
>reusing our consciousness is far more parsimonious than discarding it completely
Why do you act like the universe is frugal with consciousness? Out of all the planets in our solar system, one has life, and only one of the species on that life-bearing planet is intelligent. That's a lot of waste, homie.
>>415880
fear
Reminder that if you treat "death" as anything more than a shortcut term with no formal meaning, that you are just as bad as OP. If you do not fully remove any significance from the concept of death, you undeniably believe in souls.
>>415910
how is bad to believe in a soul?
because "there's no way a mini-you lives inside your body" as conceived by the people in old ages?
>>415880
also because nobody actually knows
>>415824
So death is like floating around in your momma's womb?
>>415929
no cuz my dick isnt dead lol
>>415895
>and only one of the species on that life-bearing planet is intelligent.
Only one? No.
>>415938
just scratch the old definition and use the new one based on what we know about neurobiology
soul: the sum of the conscious experience, the virtual realm where that information is gathered in the form of images, sounds, smells and feelings. the non-thinking mind
body = hardware, soul = software
the hardware dies, the software is gone
the software dies, the hardware is useless
>>415824
I don't even know when you could say I was born, seems to me like there's nowhere to point. Isn't that just what I've been told? When in my experience can you say I was born, except for the moment I realised I was here and alive and understood the word "born"?
>>415917
>how is bad to believe in a soul?
It's pretty bad to believe in random unjustified shit desu senpai
>>415959
>soul: the sum of the conscious experience, the virtual realm where that information is gathered in the form of images, sounds, smells and feelings. the non-thinking mind
There is no reason to have a special label for this group of things.
>>415976
why you think so?
Accept Jesus in your life and the end will be a good end my friend.
>>415980
Because nobody ever tried to apply a label to it. What you did was take a word, and cobbled together a definition.
all going to hell desu
>>415959
>just scratch the old definition and use the new one based on what we know about neurobiology
I wish that were possible. A lot of scientists are romantics and have tried to give things meaningful and aesthetic names like this, the problem is that liars and hippies will ruin it. They've already ruined the word "energy", for example.
If scientists used the word "soul" to mean what you describe, hippies would take that as validation of their bullshit.
You are organic
It is unfathomable for us to imagine what happens after death. It is impossible to perceive.
Anything we imagine would be human concepts, entirely incomparable with the realities of death. That is simply how far beyond us it is, and speculation will hardly lead to anything.
The most likely answer is that our human brains, akin to that of a complex wired robotic machine, shuts off and we forever disappear, together with any artificial "consciousness" that we had. (Yes, I believe that given enough time, humans will easily be able to replicate the human brain into machines).
Reincarnation is not the most unlikely of events, considering that we could be recreated into another person (unbeknownst to our former selves of course), however, that would be an endless cycle of the misery that is life, without any end to it all. Truly a horrible truth if so.
As for all the religious crap, could be real I suppose, but rather unlikely. If god is real he is a human, just like us, because he's certainly as incompetent as one.
I don't know what to think of the afterlife. It's curious. I'd love to know, it's simply not possible until I'm already dead.
>>416010
>nobody ever tried to apply a label to it
>>416336
Functionalism and epiphenomenalism are most parsimonious within material monism.
Identity, cognitive and higher order don't really deserve to be considered separately.
>>415761
Death is just the absence of depolarization, which releases neurotransmitters that intervals nerves, thus allowing your body to function in the first place.
The (You) is a construct made up of billions of Nuerons working together. If they stop working, than (You) ceases to function as an entity.
Once our telomeres erode, death becomes inevitable. We are biological inclinded to die out after a certain period of time. This is probably evolutionary, as a way to limit the amount of competition for resources, thus improving our species chances for survival.
Do you think your individual death is at all important? You don't even have the capacity to feel despair once you do die. Death is the cessation of neural activity. In that sense, it's truly an eternal sleep.
>>415761
I'm pretty agnostic nowadays.
But I feel like resurrection must be real. Maybe in a religious way, maybe not. I mean, logic says when you die you will be nothing but in a way that nothingness is an infinity in its own way. deep shit desu also not /his/
>>416463
>If they stop working, than (You) ceases to function as an entity.
How many need to stop working for this to happen? If two are still working am "I" still around?
>>415761
Examine existence, as we know it, and you will find it is rife with repetition.
Clouds of hydrogen are formed and create stars that die and create new stars and matter that creates planets that create life that are consumed by stars when they die that create new stars and matter that creates planets that create life...
Why should consciousness be any different?
>>415761
There's is a new game+ where you are reborn as a coal black quadriplegic lesbian with add adhd, dyslexia and math dyslexia.
>>416610
tell me more
>>416336
That image is extremely inaccurate
>>416610
Sounds like a fun game to play, looking forward to it
>>416535
>How many need to stop working for this to happen?
The brain has about 100 Billion nuerons, each with 1000 or so synapses, meaning there are 100 trillion synapses that make up your brain structure.
Narrowing it down to the exact amount needed to survive is difficult, but the (You) depends mostely on the functioning of your cerebral cortex.
The cerebral cortex itself contains 21-26 billion Nuerons, and so has 21-26 trillion synapses.
The lose of even a fraction of that severely hampers your cognitive functioning, which can be observed in people with dementia.
Without that part of the brain, you have no memory, no perception, no cognition, no thought, no attention, no awareness etc. Those 21 billion nuerons are what makes up (You).
That said, you can technically still be alive if you lose those functions. As long as you have the ability to breath, pump blood, and digest, you are "alive", though you'd be classified as in a vegetative state.
If you only had two Nuerons functioning in you cerebral cortex, they would be unable to perform any meaningful tasks and would be told to prune their synapses according to their DNA programming.
We can postulate that the (You) needs to have at least more than half of 21 Billion, or around 12-14 Billion, to exist in an even trivial capacity.
>>416704
So it follows that some people are at any moment more "themselves" than other people given natural flux in neural activity.
It also seems to follow that people with brain damage, dementia, or developmental disorders are less "you" or "human" compared to other healthier individuals who are possessed of a greater neural efficiency. It could be argued from this that involuntary euthanasia of these afflicted individuals is morally acceptable given the fact that they are essentially brain dead compared to a fully functional person.
What about the guy with 12 Billion minus one? Does he not "exist"?
>>415761
The last enemy to be defeated is death
>>416792
>The last enemy to be defeated is death
Death is not an enemy.
>>415880
Because comprehension is based on experience. You understand things in relation to what you know and what you sense.
Death is literally beyond our senses.
>>416800
In the face of resurrection he pretty much is
>>416741
>>416741
>At any moment people are more themselves than another person given natural flux in Nueral structure.
Essentially, if you think of it that way. Though changes in the structure of Nuerons are inevitable throughout ones life time. You're constantly forming and pruning new synapses, while the Nuerons count in you brain gets lower and lower. The structure of Nueral synapses are the most important part of determining (You).
>What about the guy with 12 Billion minus one? Does he not "exist"?
Minus one causes a reaction that triggers Synaptic pruning, which eliminates the rest of them.
That said, the guy would lost conciousness, memory and perception long before that occurs. He would barely have a personality beyond basic functioning. By that point, his body just can't maintain those functions, and so it decides to shut them down.
>It also seems to follow that people with brain damage, dementia, or developmental disorders are less "you" or "human" compared to other healthier individuals who are possessed of a greater neural efficiency. It could be argued from this that involuntary euthanasia of these afflicted individuals is morally acceptable
That's what Euthanasia entails politically. As long as a family member or person designated to kill them is given the go ahead. Brain dead individuals are allowed to be taken off life support because there is no reason to keep them alive. Theyre essentially reduced to a piece of meat dedicated to providing nutrients in order to keep its tissues alive, as terrible as that may sound.
>>416813
He'd be more of an ally in that case.
>>416806
>muh positivism
please tell me you're smarter than that.
>>416593
upboated good gentlesir
>muh neurons
>>417051
>State what we know about how the brain functions.
>MUH POSITIVISM
Plato please go
>>416303
>It is unfathomable for us to imagine what happens after death.
If you say this type of thing, then you are a hippie.
>>416806
>>417012
>>417051
>If I don't understand it, that means it's wrong.
Brilliant, just brilliant
>>417098
How can you imagine a state of not being when all you know both consciously and subconsciously is a state of perpetual being? I try to imagine reality after death but it doesn't make sense, it seems utterly incomprehensible.
>>417262
Being is not created by the body. It is only measured by the body.
>>415949
>what is a frontal lobe
>what is the difference between sentience and sapience
>what is self awareness
Yeah, we're the only ones.
>>417284
Why wouldn't your state of being as a human be dictated by the creation or destruction of your brain and consciousness? Clearly it can be broken down to "were all just chemicals man" but if not combined they aren't a conscious fleshy machine such as the brain, they're just scattered chemicals.
>>417309
Because being is something that has influence over the body. There is no reason why the body would create an arbitrary extra so that it looks like
Body -> Being -> Body
Instead of just
Being -> Body
>>417322
Just for clarifications sake, what do you mean with being?
You don't exist until an egg is seeded, at which point the first thing that develops is a crude form of the consciousness of the brain, instigating a state of being, with the fleshy envelope surrounding it coming in later.
>>417405
The force that makes things move.
it's 2 0 1 5 CURRENT YEAR and people still (S T I L L) subscribe to materialism
>>415761
Yes OP that's correct.
Your own ignorance is more powerful than death. You'll probably live forever as a beautiful butterfly.
Happy now?
if mysticism and the ndes that support it are right, you are an eternal soul that chose to incarnate as the person you are to evolve as a spiritual being. you have billions of years of conscious life behind you that you don't know about because the human brain can only hold so much information. when you die you are reuinited with your higher self
>>415936
>lol
>>415883
we're all made out of carbon, and God queefs out carbon pixy dust, and we turn into human beans. its easy. we are all one of the mighty God
No one knows, 100% of the people above me acting like they know - don't know, in fact they are likely overcompensating for how pissed scared they are deep down of death.
There is nothing you or I can do to stop it, delay it, or change what ultimately happens to all of us. Live life knowing everyone else is just as powerless as you over their fate and find what makes you happy. Life is for living, not always planning.
>>419112
Do you think "no one knows" is a neutral statement? The universe is not centered around humans. Death is just a shortcut term that doesn't have any real definition. By saying "no one knows", you are already presupposing spiritualism.
