What happens when you die, /r9k/?
Are you resurrected? Is there an afterlife? Or is there just nothing? Are we wasting the limited amount of time we get on this plane of existence?
Well usually, you evacuate your bowels. Then you start decomposing. Or you get cooked in an oven.
I don't know, but I imagine it's pretty comfy.
Eternal life cycle. Honestly kinda scarier than nothingness.
>>24372062
there's nothing man. we just want there to be something because that would make us feel better.
you reincarnate but have no recollection of your pervious life
a lot of people say you go back to nothingness like before you were born, but think about it. in order to get to that state you would have had to die (not existed) in the first place. so what's to say you don't come back again?
Same thing that happens when you observe something else dying. The world continues and the organic matter is recycled into food for organisms while the individual soul is recorded and passed down between humans as a meme.
>>24372062
I'd imagine it's something like going to sleep, but without dreams.
>>24372062
the only people who know are dead
>>24372062
Re-born again with no memories of a past life.
>mfw when i get reincarnated as a leech
Nothing happens you retards. Your brain decomposes and all your thoughts and memories disappear forever. God damn you people will think of the stupidest shit "oh I will be reborn but not remember my past life" Bull. Shit.
Sure it sounds all pretty and magical, but get real people, that sounds pretty gay.
>>24372062
You don't move anymore.
>>24372790
How are we alive now then idiot
>>24372790
Is this euphoria?
>>24372790
this desu
dogs will gnaw on our bones as chew toys
>>24372801
We came out of our mother's vaginas you twat. Are you mentally challenged?
>>24372805
Outdated meme. Seriously every time I talk with facts about religion and magic, there's gotta be this faggot posting fedora memes. It's like your only defense is to try and turn a serious discussion into a sad joke.
>>24372829
I'm talking metaphysically. What caused sentience and why can't it happen again. If we're conscious once why couldn't it happen again.
>>24372062
The self is but an illusion.
it's hard to comprehend being nothing forever. Also kinda scary knowing I'm gonna die someday. Hopefully Jesus comes before I die.
I guess I believe in Jesus so I'll be going to heaven apparently
I guess I believe in Jesus so I'll be going to heaven and chilling with the dead homies in my mansion and shit
>>24372829
>about religion and magic
>a serious discussion
shaking my head to be honest
>>24372890
>>24372902
You can spend your whole life believing that, but it doesn't make it true. But as they say, "Ignorance is bliss"
I hope that it's reincarnation so I can live another life as a girl.
>>24372927
What don't you understand?
Why would you live one very short period then be dead forever? Just like water cycles through various forms so does life. Once you remove the "you" from the equation it becomes easier to understand.
>>24372062
After I killed myself, my life got better.
Yesss keep donating to the church, then we'll let you go to heaven.
You're probably already dead, the dream you are currently experiencing is just happening ehile your brain shuts down. As there is no realtime for reference it could feel like years before it ends, at which point you may enter another life long dream state or it will simply end without you noticing
>>24372829
but if we can exist a a conscious being once, it must be scientifically feasible that sometime and somewhere in the infinite universe that our consciousness could come back into existence?
>>24373181
It'd go against established rules of existence for that not to be the case.
>>24373181
First you need to understand what consciousness is before you start making things up off the top of your head.
It's just chemicals and shit in our head. Memories are stored in neurons in our brain and if your brain dies, everything else loses energy and shuts down.
Where it comes from is called evolution. Humans evolved better than other apes because we were lucky to have opposable thumbs, and many other key differences.
Our brains evolved and adapted over millions of years and have gotten better at storing lots of memories.
TL;DR our brains got smarter because of evolution
>>24373307
He doesn't mean this specific occurence of consciousness. He means conciousness, LIFE in general. It's overwhemingly plausible in my eyes.
The key isn't to worry about death, it's to go after what you want in life so you will feel like you've made it to heaven.
>>24373307
Our brains got smarter due to genetic manipulation.
>>24373331
What are you talking about? What's plausible? this "theory" that we all just trade bodies when we die?
>>24373307
>First you need to understand what consciousness is
I love this /sci/ meme.
>our brains got smarter because of evolution
Thanks to women's rights, sexual selection currently favors dumb, brutal, tall men. The neolithic anti-intellectualism of the female gender directs evolution towards a collectively lower average IQ. Some people (including me) are literally too intelligent to ever have a chance to procreate.
Probably nothing. Nothing at all. You cease to exist. The people in this thread talking about resurrection are attempting to rationalize their own lethargy. They don't want to feel wasted. They want to believe their soul will carry on because their current lives are boring. They are waiting for their "real" lives to begin. There is no next life. This life is all you have.
>>24373385
Some people will just never be able to accept that. very well said.
>>24373384
I don't see why this is directed at me. I'm not arguing how hard it is to get a girlfriend, I'm only trying to explain how humans developed consciousness in the simplest possible way.
I do hope this reincarnation bullshit doesn't exist, i don't wanna come back to this shitty ass existence again, unless i go back rich as fuck and as a delicious girls with bhig tits and immune to HIV and pregnancy.
>>24373369
Have you ever looked into metaphysics? There are two states of being, dead and alive. "I" get to live this life once and when I did there will be nothing after. But in the next life whether it be in this universe, the next one, or a co existing one, I will assume a different instance of life. This isn't me looking for another chance at life or something to look forward to, I won't even be involved. It's hard to explain because there are no proper pronouns for it.
Well I'm killing myself sometime this month so I guess I'll find out. I'm thinking (hoping) it's nothingness.
>>24373532
make sure to livestream it senpai
>>24373532
livestream it
i always wanted to see a live suicide
>>24373532
Definitely stream it, you can make history, make sure to do a 3 hour Q&A beforehand so you can laff at all the normies telling you how much you have to live for.
>>24373553
>>24373556
>>24373569
I wouldn't mind but I may not have internet then, I just lost my job and I've convinced my ex to come over the day I do it.
I'm debating whether or not I should do it in front of her. Honestly it seems like a pretty shitty thing to do so I'll probably wait until she walks out the door.
I'll post her nudes before I do it though. She's not much to look at to be honest family.
I don't know, I'd imagine the only way we have to know is to die first. Personally I believe in reincarnation to some extent.
>>24372222
Quads confirm eternal life cycle.
>>24372863
This is my thought on the matter.
The fact that we're conscious right now is such a miracle that I'm sure crazier things could happen.
I don't believe in this but it's a thought that crossed my mind that everyone we've interacted with and gotten close to is the same person as well from a previous life.
>>24372062
the universe is a box of building bricks.
They can neither be created nor destroyed.
There is no soul, all that you are is this particular arangement and configuration you're build of.
Since the multiverse is infinitely large, there is an infinite number of you being build and configurated right now. It's like the teleportation technology in Star Trek. Captain Kirks parts are desinegrated and then rebuild somewhere else with his memories and configuration of consciousness. It's still the same Captain Kirk, because what else would he be?!
>>24373748
So eternal reoccurence?
>>24373748
I don't believe that either but it's certainly an interesting thought. It would make for a good movie, where, say, two lovers meet each other in different time periods throughout history but don't know they've met in a past life before.
I like the American Dad version where you go into a door where everything that you ever wanted happens to you.
If there was only one instance of your existence, then it would have necessarily already passed. Does anybody else understand this idea?
It isnt possible that you could have come into existence for the first time a given number of years ago, so it is obvious that an individuals consciousness is a recurring thing. Which brings us to the eternal return.
What about reincarnation under monism though? That makes more sense to me. Imagine another persons viewpoint, their consciousness. Is that not the same as yours? How could multiple conscious experiences exist at the same time? Each one feels like "you."
>>24373873
I agree with the idea that their is only one mind. At any given instance there is one now, and yet because the universe is timeless, multiple worldlines appear to overlap, but in reality they dont.
Thats a crazy and scary though, that each of us is literally collectively one consciousness. At any given moment when you are able to remark on your consciousness, it is you who is conscious. The eternal you, the only you in existence.
In which case I (we) are Hitler, all the jews in the holocaust, George Bush, Justin Bieber, slaves, Justin Bieber, Oneitis. It is all in all
>>24373873
I was just thinking about this. Consciousness is just the universe experiencing itself. We all come from the same singular point and are made up of the same materials. We are the universe. There are no single instances of life or consciousness. It's a shared experience.
>>24373945
Not even shared, there is no multiplicity for sharing to take place in, there is only one mind. Each of us is that mind, not even existing simultaneously.
I mean that in the most literal sense, everything you experience and your general state of awareness is the exact same as everyone elses. It is only an illusion that they are separate. Think of your body as a puppet of the one mind, it is a unique experience, but the same mind all the same. But the finer points are a mystery. What decides the flow of the mind? Which person will it become next?
>>24373936
consciousness is a pretty muddy word. We don't even know what it means. It's made up voodoo.
>>24372062
I really hope there is just nothing...But there is something that tells me otherwise.
>>24374023
yah gonna burrrrn buddy :^)
>>24374000
Nice trips. I get the sense that this is the right direction in the conversation of death. The "you end and nothing else happens" seems contrived and is only partially true.
>>24374020
"Made up"
It is just the word used to describe the state of awareness, although it is hard to describe since it is fundamental. It exists by itself, you cant explain it like you can explain sound or light.
>>24374046
>>24374020
>>24373945
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
Erwin Schrodinger has written about all this, read these quotes from his booms he is way more articulate than me
>>24372222
Underrated post he got quads guys
>tfw your existence is possible
I want to be immortal
I want there to be an afterlife, where possible you can remember your life
I don't wanna die and just disappear
tinky winky
po
laa-laa
dipsy
diseased penis
>>24372790
Exactly.
That's it, that's all that happens. No one is a special snowflake that gets to live forever or gets reborn to have a second shot. Humans aren't that important
I question existence way too much
It's incredibly egotistical to think that the rules of the universe will bend just so you can escape death.
You're no more special than every other thing in this universe, and you will suffer a fate no different.
Sure, maybe you're wasting time but it doesn't matter anyway.
>>24372863
what's this 'we' shit? everyone but you is an automaton.
>>24372790
how is my theory of afterlife magic bullshit?
It's entirely logical and sound; look:
>>24373779
>>24375182
>entirely logical
>LITERALLY no evidence
That's the problem with afterlife theories, they hinge on being vague and impossible to disprove
>>24375243
we still have to prove how fast the universe is.
If we find out that there are an infinite number of universes, then it's illogical to deny that there are infinite versions of you in infinite varyations.
>What happens when you die, /r9k/?
define "you"
>>24372062
Actually good analogy coming through.
Imagine that your brain slowly loses its parts, reducing your IQ by, say, 10, to the level of your dumber work colleague. And then some, to the level of your senile grandpa. And then the connectivity and interpretation faculties degenerate some more, leaving you about as sentient as a dog. And then, as your cerebral matter chemically disintegrates, you become about as sensitive as a reptilian. Eventually you reach the level when your reactivity to stimuli is no better than those of cellular organisms. You essentially become non-living matter.
This is it. There is no consciousness that 'goes' anywhere, your consciousness *is* sufficiently complex arrangement of matter. As this arrangement's chaos/entrophy/whatever increases, you become less and less of a person. There is no point of death which could construably signify some neat, binary transition. You literally slowly become trash.
>>24375307
Those are some fucking massive if's though
>>24372062
>Is there an afterlife
Yes, you'll reborn in one of infinite number of dimensions. I wish I'll reborn in mass effect or something related for example.
>>24372638
>a lot of people say you go back to nothingness like before you were born, but think about it. in order to get to that state you would have had to die (not existed) in the first place. so what's to say you don't come back again?
You wouldn't have to have died to get to that state. You could have just never existed before you were born.
>he doesn't believe in Jesus
You know death actually makes me feel better about life. Everyone will die, no exceptions. Just give it time.
>>24372062
People are afraid to admit that there is nothing after you die. Thinking about nothingness from the viewpoint of a being that has never truly experienced nothingness(you don't experience it), it's hard to comprehend in a way that doesn't make you feel like you're going to consciously lay in an empty pit of blackness for all eternity.
What people don't realize is that it wouldn't be bad, good, or anything in between. You wouldn't even be aware of anything. You'd just be gone. Honestly, that sounds more comforting to me than the idea of living on as a spirit in some otherworldly realm.
>>24373945
>>24374000
>We are the universe. There are no single instances of life or consciousness. It's a shared experience.
>consciousness exists
>consciousness exists all around the place
>???
>our souls can jump from place to place and death isn't permanent
>profit!
One hardly sees a pseudoargument as hamfisted.
>>24375318
But if I was JUST my brain then I wouldnt even be aware of existing, like a computer. But I AM. I fucking am.
>inb4 just a process of your brain processing information
Thats a circular argument, as your proof is being questioned in the original topic.
Fucking atheists btfo
If you were born once you be borned again somewhere down the line
>>24375422
You make it sound like its a miracle, too good to be true. But you have a life now and you dont consider it too good to be true. It is the same idea.
YOU still die, but there are an infinite number of bodies. If you aren't them, then who is?
>>24375422
In other words, it's no wonder you idiots call consciousness a 'mystery' and place potential for the afterlife in said purported 'mystery' of it ('we don't yet understand everything!'). You insist on relevance of a vague concept of 'consciousness', depriving it for any potential of meaningful discussion (i.e., refusing to relate it to the brain), only so to be able to say that 'it is something that pervades the whole universe', and then, consequently, 'if something pervades the universe, it might provide ambiguous "clue" or "room" for the object of my wishful thinking (life after death)'. You create black boxes.
I think there has to be one simple reason why we were put here. It's doesn't have to be nothing. Let's work with what we can fathom. There are a lot of logical arguments that can be made about our existence. There should be a reason. What will it change if we become too self-aware?
>>24372062
You remember why you made yourself forget.
>>24375012
How do you not see the irony here? You are sounding like the universe is i herently against us.
In reality, it just is, but whe dont know how it is exactly yet, so we arent saying that the rules are being bent, its just that perhaps thats how it has always worked. We dont know
>>24375470
>YOU still die, but there are an infinite number of bodies. If you aren't them, then who is?
This question literally makes no sense.
'I' is a pronoun that (in the majority of contexts) denotes the physical body which issued the utterance. (The rest of contexts denotes equally physical senses such as legal or social entities.)
The word 'I' operates exactly the same way as the word 'a cat' or 'a book'.
>A BOOK still burns, but there are an infinite number of books. If a book aren't those books, then what is?
Gibberish.
>>24375514
>If a book aren't those books
*isn't
>>24375514
Right, but here we are dealing with something that can't be rigidly defined as consisting of a physical thing.
If you assume that there is one mind, there is no longer any difference between me and another person as far as this topic is concerned.
In day to day life you're right obviously
>>24375556
>we are dealing with something that can't be rigidly defined as consisting of a physical thing
Translation:
'Upon scrutiny, I deny the physical reality/relevance of my pet belief, even thoguh I implied it through posting in this thread ('what happens after death'); this is not going to privately stop me from drawing comfort from it, however.'
Again, Sagan's dragon. 'The afterlife exists, it just can't really be described in or related to physical terms, only in terms of the relationship between the subjective expriencer and the totality of them.'
If so, then it's useless and you're just comforting yourself using a language game, an empty rhetorical husk which just happens to contain the key words 'consciousness' and 'survives'. It's like comforting yourself with the word 'good' in 'this violent, rape- and torture-filled war is good because it teaches people to survive in the harshest of environments'. You just redefine 'good' so as to have the word around, in spite of reality.
>>24375514
it's not "a cat". It's this cat.
The i is just gibberish.
There is no i or you. There is just things.
>we're all immortal souls
>there is literal divinity and an order to life (reality is fucking mathematically perfectly geometric and infinite for starters, not "chaotic" as scientists see it)
>we reincarnate back to earth, or ascend to a higher or lower density depending on our overall karma from the lessons we've learnt and how we've applied them
>we've all lived thousands, if not millions or more lives each
>consciousness is the fabric of the universe
>we're simply consciousness having a subjective experience in a human vessel
>we're all actually one entity experiencing the illusion of separation
Also
>"nothingness" isn't possible, it's an empty concept, just thinking about it adds a property to it, yet the concept is property-less
Therefore we are always conscious on some level, no matter where or who we are.
>>24375658
Stop spouting irrelevant Buddhist crap.
>>24375487
Elaborate pls m8
>>24375630
No, actually I just haven't gotten around to telling you my ideas and ideas I borrowed from others. I believe it for reasons
>>24375674
if i build a doll that is EXACTLY the same as another doll. Particle for particle. Does that mean these two dolls are one doll?
the reality is. All is one.
>>24375699
>religious people ask 'why?'
>scientists ask 'why'? too
>therefore, religion and science have equal merit
Literally that pic's logic.
>>24375724
That pic was just him stating his experiences man... no logic involved. Also that is Werner Heisenberg. Of course, you know who he is from breaking bad.
>>24375722
Stop spouting irrelevant Buddhist crappy language games.
Yes, the term 'same' can be defined through identity (containing the same arrangement of particles) or through continuity (being characterized by the same history of particles). There is slight ambiguity. So much for the famed teleportation (non-)problem.
And yes, there are other banal (non-)problems such as ambiguity and arbitrariness of definitions, etc. etc. etc. which Buddhists use to proclaim that 'ALL IS ONE AND ALSO THAT ONE DOESN'T REALLY EXIST'.
This is strictly irrelevant to the (non-)question of the afterlife.
>>24375724
scientists don't ask "why". They just ask "how".
>>24375758
Fair point, 'how' is indeed a slighly more challenging pronoun, less yielding to sweeping pseudoprofound God/consciousness 'answers'.
>>24375756
>>24375724
>>24375479
>>24375422
>>24375406
Its funny because all these people probably want to believe in an afterlife more than anyone else they just dont want to get their hopes up.
>>24375756
Not that guy (I'm >>24375661), but I'm so sick of you militant atheist sciencefags.
Honestly, all you need to get you started is a bit of common sense. You know everyone and everything is made of subatomic particles, and even deeper, waves of vibrating energy. EVERYTHING we can see is made of it. If you're going to identify every human each as one seperate thing, then we're either:
A) One single subatomic particle (or whatever the deepest level is)
B) Every single subatomic particle as a conglomerate
And if you say "we're just each bi-products of our own separate conglomerations!", you're talking horseshit, because there is no "you". Every cell in your body is regenerated every few years, and you literally become a different "person" every day. Cut out parts of your brain and "you" "change".
Now that we're getting there, all YOU are is a certain level of conscious awareness, as in you're aware of a certain level of information at any given time, embedded in an existence of the metaphysical.
>>24372062
Panic attacking like mad here.
>>24375856
I think you forgot to make a point to fail to explain.
>>24375856
Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it. - David Bohm, a physicist
Its incredible how many physicists regard science as just a tool, as opposed to a religion. Of course its more important to prioritize than this sort of metaphysical stuff but nobody cares about what some random anons talk about, its just for fun.
>>24375861
Why? There's nothing to fear, my friend. You are everything. You've just forgotten it. Fear is being unable to let go of attachment, yet attachments (aside from love, which isn't actually an attachment) are temporary. But you'll be fine in the end, no matter happens.
>>24375816
my thaoughts exactly. Even tough i think that there ore infinite versions of me, it wouldn't bother me really if death would be really final.
Life is more scary than death, death would be like eternal peace if it really existed.
Who gives a shit, it wont really matter once you die anyway
>>24375856
>>24375905
Let me (>>24375896) elaborate.
Literally all you're partaking is stringing claims about 'being' and 'being made' and 'levels'. As I say, when there is no falsification criteria, a claim becomes just a curio which one may just as well accept for true because why not. 'There is no you.' Okay? 'We (don't) exist as a conglomerate/bi-product/whatever.' Okay? 'We're same/different/whatever from...'. Okay?
And what does 'embedded' or 'of the metaphysical' even mean?
This is all neat (for schizotypal personalities) phrasings to have, but they are off-topic. Cf. >>24375630.
>>24375965
Yea you're right man, I'm not interested in dogma.
I already said, I didnt go into as much detail yet, I only said what I believe is true.
>>24375905
>Its incredible how many physicists regard science as just a tool, as opposed to a religion. Of course its more important to prioritize than this sort of metaphysical stuff but nobody cares about what some random anons talk about, its just for fun.
These physicists and scientists aren't nearly as intelligent as they seem. I mean fucking Einstein even said "the measure of intelligence is the ability to change", yet science is always stuck on thinking it has or nearly has the final answer, stuck in the same old ways of "measuring" things. God damn, save us from science.
The most intelligent person is one who has transcended from atheist to a believer in God through their own free will and introspection, separate from any religious texts. Being narrow-minded like science is literally the meaning of the word "stupid".
>>24375914
That's the most relieving thing I've ever heard I've feared death ever since I fell out of religion when I was 12. Thank you, you've revitalized my hope. Best wishes and blessings upon you and the ones you love.
>>24376007
I think you might get a hundred of Facebook likes for that post.
>>24375756
maybe all is one is the wrong definition. But i'm saying that even if there are two of the same that doesn't mean they are "differen' from another. They are equal or something.
>>24376007
Relax my man I was simply saying that many physicists have come to the conclusion that science is only for matters that are within the system we live in, but in a more broad sense, so many of these guys believed that there was a deeper pattern beneath it all, so basically the same thing as you said.
I agree with you man.. I used to be one of these hardcore atheists but I've since realized that the universe is stranger than we can ever know.
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Physicists
For anyone interested
>>24376007
>God damn, save us from science
yet you are typing this on a computer which wouldn't be possible without science.
>>24376077
I think he just meant the narrow mindedness of the redditor type atheists. The ones who wear Nasa tshirts because
>imma nerd >o<
Because yea science is pretty important man everyone should know that
>>24376045
>>24376007
But at the end of the day, there are always going to be people who fail to see that the intellectual endgame is *discriminating* senses and not *unifying* them. Religious people, such as yourself >>24376007, will always insist on relevance of claims such as 'not being locked in dogma' or 'always finding new realms to investigate', but their actual mental current is backwards. Rather than learning new individual scientific and physical and mathematical concepts, they are attracted to sweeping reproaches about 'accepting novel ideas' -- while failing to see that the 'novel ideas' they're calling for openness to are the same age-old religious bullshit about self-realization and determination and understanding and truth and all-encopmassing consciousness and the fabric of the universe being this and that, except redressed in ever novel words. That what they're crying to pay attention to is just figurative, vacuous phrasings. They'll never spearhead a new field of study; they will just cry about the nature of spearheading fields of study. This is the essence of religion.
>>24375965
What's your fucking point? I'm arguing and explaining that we're all one. What are you asking me?
>And what does 'embedded' or 'of the metaphysical' even mean?
Consciousness co-exists with properties of the metaphysical. Everything you can be aware of is metaphysical. The term isn't well explained as much as it is to be understood (for obvious reasons), but simply put, it's how "hollow, meaningless" particles create rich, experiences incomparable from each other. For a good example, imagine the taste of the tastiest thing possible and focus all your attention on it. That's a strong use of the metaphysical, a really rich experience that can't be scientifically observed (the catalyst being "neurons firing" can't be compared to the experience), but only experienced.
I would go as far to say that consciousness and life in its entirety IS metaphysical. Thinking that everything is just black and white empty hollow meaningless particles that "do some weird shit when you piece them together in certain ways" is very naive and a primitive way of thinking.
>>24376033
I'm very glad, anon. Blessings to you as well. Make sure to read some of my "deep" posts I'm filling this thread in with, knowledge is wisdom
You start over where you left off
This will continue until the end of the universe, where we all settle in and succumb to heat death, calm and comfy for the rest of forever
We are simply attempting to find our homes in this grand cosmic scheme
>>24376120
My man I know what youre trying to say, I really do.
You made your point m8t.
I am not religious anyways, I just have some ideas that are not necessarily mainstream.
You're thinking I'm some caricature of a college student who understands science and all but wont let it take precedence over his faith.
Its not black and white like that
>>24373569
don't do this
some white knight will call the cops to your house to "rescue" you
>>24376107
>redditor type atheists
these redditor type atheists will never get a serious doctorate.
They won't get funds or peer citations if they don't deliver results.
>mfw the science is full of based /k/fags, because the military is the biggest funder of science and engineering and the redditor fags are just regressive pussys
>>24376120
That's the thing you'll never understand until you connect the dots and believe it. You'll know it so strongly that it's beyond fact, much more so than your atheist beliefs - talking from experience. Wise people have known all the answers to the most important questions for thousands of years. It doesn't need to change or evolve, because the answers are already there. Science is simply playing catchup in a public, "objective" sense. Thing is, science is extremely limited and can't touch on many many things experience can (e.g. can't take a thought and put it on a petridish). Experience is the big one.
You know whats crazy? Theres a definitive answer to this, either its something, or its nothing forever.
Either one of those is daunting
>>24376247
Pretty much, except I'd say that science is not even claiming to work towards any of these things. Science shouldn't even be involved in these discussions.
I wish I could just talk woth a group of people without having to cram a bunch of ideas under a few black and white titles and then argue over things that arent necessary.
>>24372790
your fedora reeks of dogshit and is embarrassing
>>24376277
Bingo.
Metaphorically speaking, science (while it definitely has huge merits in a practical sense) is - when it comes to discussing the meaning of life - like willingly putting on a blindfold in a conscious attempt to solve a rubix cube in front of an audience.
>>24376247
>>24376277
>>24376329
>connect the dots
There is a medical term for connecting dots that aren't there.
>I want to discuss things
>but I don't want to be held intellectually responsible for those things, I just want to produce noises
>I can't talk about science, because science requires falsifiability
>I know, I'll talk about safe, shapeless crap such as the meaning of life and truth and reality and planes of intersection of consciousness and physicality and individuality and incommunicability of everyone's perception and of wisdom of the ancients who've known and told the importance of the spiritual paths for personal realization for millenia and whom those hubristic scientists don't want to give credit to
Literally the motivation of religious people.
Face it.
Depends on what your conscience is, if it's integrated in your brain there will be nothingness, if it is something more we might experience a different kind of living seperated from the material world.
>>24376496
In other words, you're creating fictional, delusional non-subjects to not-discuss, which the 'meaning of life' cliche epitomizes but hardly encompasses, where there is literally no way to be wrong, which you then call 'parallel to science' and 'a different realm of discussion', only to have an pseudointellectual hugbox.
It's cowardly and a parasite on culture. It's cravenly.
I don't think we will ever know.
>>24376524
consciousness*
>>24376594
Yes, it's pretty ironic for religious people and druggies to misspell 'consciousness' in a dozen of different ways in YouTube videos on DMT or whatever. Perhaps they should just stick to awire... I mean, awareness.
>>24376594
Thanks senpai (^_-)-
>>24372062
Asking this is like getting an apple and trying to find a label. Just be, nothing more nothing less.
>>24373458
thisis just a theory and not a proven fact
There is residual energy from the neurons from your brain that remain for a time after your death that can manifest itself to others if u concentrate
>>24376669
Translation:
'Please don't think about things, as being in the copmany of idiots makes me fit in.'
(Incidentally, that's the real meaning behind every smug Buddhist reproach to 'focus on the finger and not on the Moon' and 'focus on the moment and not on delusional products of the mind' ever. Somebody begins to question something? 'Oy', quoth the Buddhist pseudotacher, 'don't fall into the trap of the conceptualizing mind, remember that the true reality is in the here and now'. And so the victim stops thinking.)
If religious people were at least honest about their desire to drag people down to their level, rather than dressing it as well-intended advice.
>>24372062
To you as an individual, it will be the end. Having individuality is a living manifestation of the universe, but it conditions you to think that you're something different than that, because you're having a first person experience of being part of all.
But you are finite. You'll be the first and last anon of your kind.
After that, the universe will manifestate again through another individuality, countless times... eternally. That's why we have much in common with other sentient beings, we can perceive ourselves conditioned by our bodies, species, etc.
Enjoy the ride.
>>24376540
Like I said here (>>24376247), you won't understand it by simply analysing these things I'm saying with a rational black-and-white-science mind. Literally all it really requires is an open mind. You use spiritual terms in a mocking way, yet you've never given yourself the chance to open your mind and start to wonder if these things are in fact true, so of course they're going to sound ridiculous to you. They sounded ridiculous to me before I started to open-mindedly understand and believe them.
>In other words, you're creating fictional, delusional non-subjects[...]
How would you know if you never opened your mind to the possibility of these being truths?
>[...] to not-discuss
They can be discussed, but only through a mutual understanding. They can actually be rationalised too, but only with an open mind.
>[...] which the 'meaning of life' cliche epitomizes but hardly encompasses
Meaningless jiggerish
>[...] where there is literally no way to be wrong
I really love this one, you sciencefags never fail to bring it up. "I-it can't be true...... m-my rational science can't disprove it and th-that would mean that A PINK ELEPHANT WIZARD GHOST COULD EXIST TOO!!!!!!!"
Absolutely ridiculously stupid.
>[...] which you then call 'parallel to science' and 'a different realm of discussion'
Well it is a different realm of discussion. It's an entirely different approach to science.
>[...] only to have an pseudointellectual hugbox.
No argument here
>>24376701
there is nothing higher in science than theories moron.
>>24372714
this guy has the right idea, but only you DO dream. and that dream is what we know as Heaven or Hell. we percieve it was an eternity because of the cocktail of chemicals released during death. most prominent is DMT. reading this druggies? this is the right answer OP. on the outside, regular old death. on the inside, the product of what we spend our life preparing for. not well known but proven neuroscience.
>>24376780
>Like I said here (>>24376247), you won't understand it by simply analysing these things I'm saying with a rational black-and-white-science mind. Literally all it really requires is an open mind. You use spiritual terms in a mocking way, yet you've never given yourself the chance to open your mind and start to wonder if these things are in fact true, so of course they're going to sound ridiculous to you. They sounded ridiculous to me before I started to open-mindedly understand and believe them.
Translation:
'You won't understand unless you downgrade your definition of understanding down to mine, which entails forgoing the principles of falsifiability, materialism, predictive value, unambiguity, and so on. Please, do it. Please, please, pretty please. We'll stop mocking you as narrow-minded if you do!'
You'd no better than an abusive boyfriend who'd want his victim girlfriend to redefine true love to mean 'sticking together regardless of any difficulties and errors we might commit', meaning just getting her to forgive him his violence.
Scum.
Those that seek redemption through Jesus Christ and believe in him will have eternal life. If you disagree tell me why.
>>24376822
I don't give a fuck about how you label my belief system. Of course you'd do that, because that's all science can do, grab things and slap a label on them. Everything has to fit into a neat snug little wrapped up box of fucking rational science.
My open-mindedness and subjective experiences are infinitely greater than your "rational mind". Too bad you won't experience this blissfulness in this lifetime.
>>24376905
Translation:
'Stop criticizing!'
Criticizing is narrow-minded, having standards is narrow-minded, pointing out scummy overapplication of the term 'narrow-mindedness' is narrow-minded.
How convenient.
I know you're a bad baiter, but still.
>>24372062
nothing , we are not alive in a first place ,we are just chemical reactions after chemicals reactions
just kill yourself , faggot
>>24376930
Criticising IS narrow-minded when it's done in this case with a child-like, fixated, black-or-white mentality on the subject of supreme intelligence.
It's like a fucking 3-year-old criticising The Matrix movie.
>>24376930
All you two are doing right now is arguing about how to argue jesus waterskiing christ senpai.
>>24376250
Makes me wonder if there's "something" other than something and nothing
Or if things and nonthings are really all there "is"
Like what if something totally foreign that is nothing like existence or nonexistence happens next
Wouldn't even be able to imagine it because it's so far out of our scope
I kind of hope not, though
I want to get to the root of the matter of all of this
>>24376930
>>24376905
I mean, your 'truths' and 'wisdoms' are literally worthless unless they make it in SOME WAY into the lens of science.
'Thoughts are different than experience.'
Okay. And then you need science to actually analyze the material substrate of those.
'The supreme component of reality is consciousness.'
Okay. Same as above.
'Nothing is separate and everything affects everything else via infinite factors.'
Okay. Now guess what's the term for rigorous detection and description of those factors.
The worst thing is that bullshitters like you will use your platitudes to insist that religion (spirituality, whatever) is a 'necessary companion of science' or something like that.
>>24372790
Sounds comfy as fuck.
Like sleeping but without nightmares.
Can't wait.
>>24377001
As I said, people like you are cultural parasites. You overabstract scientific principles into worhtlessness, shit on them, and proclaim yourselves superior. 'Science is inherently limited in its endeavours.' As a poster above implied, without it and the advancements that it brought, you wouldn't even know what said endeavours have been, nor the lone fucking word 'science'. At most you'll throw a contemptous bone, 'yes, well, it has its uses, but the most profound questions will never be answered in the materialistic paradigm.' Bullshit. 'What is the nature of subjective experience?' is not a question at all, it is just an artifact of a malfunctioning brain.
>>24377001
>your 'truths' and 'wisdoms' are literally worthless unless they make it in SOME WAY into the lens of science.
Says you. What if science can't possibly verify these things AND they're true (see: God)? This is rationally plausible.
>'Thoughts are different than experience.'
>Okay. And then you need science to actually analyze the material substrate of those.
>'The supreme component of reality is consciousness.'
>Okay. Same as above.
See >>24376121 on "rich experiences"
>'Nothing is separate and everything affects everything else via infinite factors.'
>Okay. Now guess what's the term for rigorous detection and description of those factors.
Says you. What if there are higher dimensions (and I truly believe there are) that give rise to metaphysical experiences, that we can only understand if our level of consciousness resides within these higher dimensions? What if, it's simply the nature of reality (like how your thoughts are simply a reality), and you can't do anything "rational" to prove it? As I said earlier:
>Thing is, science is extremely limited and can't touch on many many things experience can (e.g. can't take a thought and put it on a petridish). Experience is the big one.
A catalyst (e.g. neurons firing) is utterly entirely different and completely incomparable to a metaphysical experience such as a thought or a rich sense of flavour coming off your taste buds.
>>24377153
'La la la la la something something qualia qualia higher realities -- reply!!'
You're doing it wrong, Euler Jr.
>>24377060
>You overabstract scientific principles into worhtlessness, shit on them, and proclaim yourselves superior
replace "scientific principles" with "spriritual principles" and take a good look in the mirror. The irony is WE UNDERSTAND what you're saying. We understand entirely where you're coming from and how you've drawn your conclusions. Although also floored, it seems to make sense if you entirely reject highly open-minded ideas. The irony is that we've been on your side of the grass and totally get it, yet you haven't step over to the other side, you only ever look at it and say "HA! Look at that fucking stupid grass on the other side, why would I go on that when I've got THIS?"
>>24373658
Give us an ETA
>>24377207
Great contribution, asshole. Perfect example of your narrow-mindedness.
who else /believeinheaven/ here?
There has to be something, and we won't know until we die. If you don't believe in that, believe that everything happens for a reason. There's definitely something else at work here, something going on back stage. We're the audience, we'll never know what's back there but sometimes the crew slips up. Everything happens for a reason, everything. You're on a one way road, and while you can do whatever you want on the way there, the destination is the same. There's no turning back, maybe you didn't mean to go on this road, but that's all behind you. You can pull over, your car could break down, anything could happen and you can do anything, but the road pulls you down it. It's not forceful, but you dong feel that you can resist or refuse. What's at the end of the road, you keep asking yourself. You won't know until you get there, and you're constantly being pushed towards it. You know you'll see it eventually, but when is a mystery. It's beyond your comprehension, but you will know one day
>>24377247
>*I pick up a sandwich*
>'I have an understanding.'
>'No dude, it's a sandwich. You're holding a sandwich.'
>'Nope dude, it's an understanding. You're just too narrow-minded to get it.'
It's okay, we understand. You're 18, you realized for the first time, only somewhat late, that words can be arbitrarily redefined, your first idea was to redefine true understanding as holding in high regard the 'what if there's something science cannot detect' cliche, you're just having fun. It's fine.
>>24377317
I'm talking on a much deeper level than that. For example, I believe in divine order and that there are morals that the universe understands and that they have an effect on your karma. I believe the metaphysical feeling the heart creates when we know "within our hearts" that what we're doing is without debate the "right" thing to do. No rational thinking comes into it, it's simply a feeling.
You can't simultaneously beat the shit out of an innocent homless person and feel like you're "doing right" at the same time. You just can't (unless in a very isolated case you're very mentally ill). Even if you knew you could get away with it, it wouldn't change that feeling.
This is one metaphysical experience I'm talking about that science not only can't understand, it doesn't even have a right to poke its nose into, because it's beyond the realm of rational thinking, it's in the realm of divinity.
And no, I'm nearly 25. I became spiritual in my early 20's after being someone just like you.
>>24377448
>unless in a very isolated case you're very mentally ill
Shit, even these people know deep down that it's wrong. They're simply overwhelmed by "the devil ordering them to do it". It's out of fear, which is the opposite of love and happiness.
Also.
>>24377247
>The irony is WE UNDERSTAND what you're saying.
This is not irony, it is piggy-backing, civilizational fare evasion. You're taking from the society (its advancements and principles of problem-solving such as logic, definition of terms, mathematical modelling of gains and losses, literalness, algorithmization, parametrization, countless more) while giving nothing in return except anti-intellectual cliches how every single thing you have *taken* and *benefited from* is subpar to realizing the 'ultimate experiential reality' and how 'thoughts and reason and concepts everything'. It is the epitome of unfairness, safely biting the hand that's been feeding you knowing that it won't smite you in return.
Which is why you are scum.
>>24377477
>and how 'thoughts and reason and concepts everything'
*ARE NOT
>>24377448
You literally said nothing except 'some people have deep ethical convictions'.
Except your mental disorder made you throw in divinity, the universe, karma, metaphysics, unstated implication of pertinence of the cardiac metaphor of the heart, rationality, understanding, and the kitchen sink.
>>24377477
Speak for yourself nigger. I don't dislike science. Of course it has many uses and is fascinating. What I do dislike is when science arrogantly, narrow-mindedly delves into the realm of the big questions and ASSERTS that is has or will have the answers while ridiculing perfectly credible open-minded things which actually even make rational sense.
Science isn't a person, I don't have to give it anything. I give to people, and that's all that matters.
>>24377616
>my questions are big
>says me
>>24377616
>I give to people, and that's all that matters.
You're derailing their intellectual efforts and standards into ambiguous rambling about universal values and meanings and existences, while only giving the marginal mandatory disclaimer, 'you gotta still love science tho bro'. If you don't see how this impairs the society even in the most literal sense of preventing people from teaching themselves to avoid emotional and physical pain (how to treat injuries, how to approach legal situations, how to program), you are hopeless. Well, I knew you are hopeless for the last dozen of posts.
>>24377585
I'm explaining that I believe the universe is a product of God, and that it is structured in a way that free will allows us to choose to either embrace or ignore this feeling around our heart (or heart chakra, whichever it is) we get, and that the way we choose is what directly effects the balance of the world and inevitably where we go after we die.
Now, tell me why we would get this feeling in the case of the homeless man (or even just a defenceless animal). After all, it's only for biological/evolutionary reasons, right, Science Guy?
>>24377724
Hope is an emotion in humans designed to keep them stable in times of great distress
>Oh no guys we ran out of food
>Its ok I have faith that Zumalu will return with food from the hunt
>Oh no guys Shanor fucked Mazuku
>Its ok I have faith that Shanor didnt fuck her
Hope is the origin of all religious beliefs towards thinking some supreme being controls your actions since most humans are not stable enough to realise this is bullshit.
It takes until a certain threshold of intelligence for a human to completely not feel hope at all, most smart people are depressed because they are not stupid they dont see hope they only see the logical rational truth of their lives and not some bullshit like:
THERES SOMEONE OUT THERE FOR YOU
EVERYONE HAS A SOULMATE
IT ALL GETS BETTER
JUST HAVE FAITH
JUST HAVE HOPE
>>24377724
>free will
Oh, that thing belief in which has since the dawn of mankind caused blame, attribution of ill will, hatred (including self-hatred), and violent retaliation, and kept people from investigating material causes of behaviour, such as aggression or mental illnessess ('there's nothing to understand here, he behaves that way because he chooses to!'), to the effect of preventing discovery of (pharmacological and other) treatments for those?
Tell me more about it.
>effects the balance
Lucky bastard, can't tell here if you misspelt it like religious idiots usually do.
>>24377708
>You're derailing their intellectual efforts and standards into ambiguous rambling about universal values and meanings and existences, while only giving the marginal mandatory disclaimer, 'you gotta still love science tho bro'
No I'm not. I'm simply angrily debating that science has no place in this department. When did I say things like treating injuries are useless? Science has its merits in certain places, whereas in others it doesn't, and can actually cause more suffering than it intends to reduce. See Western "medicine" - supported and created by science, yet it tackles only symptoms of a complex systemic issue, rather than the root cause, whereas a good diet addresses nearly all these issues (as supported by science...). Also, doctors are one of the leading causes of death in the western world.
>>24377836
>doctors are one of the leading causes of death in the western world
You're, like, unintentional bait incarnate.
You must be fun at parties, literally.
>>24377831
>free will
The existence of emotions debunks the free will argument since you emotions control your mental state and are AUTOMATIC reactions.
>>24377808
Wow, something you said I can actually agree with. Too bad you missed my point. The homeless guy/defenceless animal scenario - where does hope come into that? Tell me WHY it produces an instant, non-thought, innate feeling of knowing that it's wrong, among humans? There's no language to describe why that arises from the situation or what it is, it's a feeling, but we innately give it universal meaning.
Go ahead sciencefag, I'm waiting.
>>24377883
>https://www.google.com/search?q=doctors%20leading%20cause%20of%20death&rct=j
>>24377808
>It takes until a certain threshold of intelligence for a human to completely not feel hope at all, most smart people are depressed because they are not stupid
Yeah, it's also why dumber races are more religious.
>>24377926
I am not >>24377808.
At any rate, what did you even ask in >>24377724? Why does one feel the impression of free will, or the impression that one's actions affect the future, or what? I don't know (I never claimed to know), but yes, obviously it has to do with the fact that animals who do it tend to fuck more effectively than the ones who don't.
>WHY [hurting someone] produces an instant, non-thought, innate feeling of knowing that it's wrong, among humans?
Because, yes, evolution apparently didn't develop a particularly fine moral compass. Apparently it was more effective reproduction-wise (via the proxy of ensuring survival of the tribe) to react as soon as a human is in visible danger, rather than stop and ask, 'did you/will you deserve that'. The best solution was just to hardwire the 'blood & guts = no-no' instinct into us.
You are (or rather, you would, were you not bait) seeing too much into it. Typical schizophrenic delusion of there being a 'greater scheme', a 'grander plan' to mundane, boring explanations.
>>24377944
And we should avoid hospitals, too, because they're one of the most lethal places of all.
>>24377926
Neurochemicals, also morality is caused by the neurochemical called oxytocin.
>>24378166
>The best solution was just to hardwire the 'blood & guts = no-no' instinct into us.
Note that the depressed evolutionary selection with respect to violence (no longer really needing to butcher animals or stab people daily) might have increased the numbers of empathetic males recently.
>>24378251
>(no longer really needing to butcher animals or stab people daily)
...in order to win a living and find a mate
In other words, civilizational progress is directly and significantly altering our evolutionary course.
>>24378277
Men raped women in the past, there was never any fucking need to try to impress human females back then, the empathy laden beta faggots is what caused the female gender to get the power it has in society.
>>24378166
If that were the case, why does it ALWAYS apply to things we consider intelligent? Example - dogs/cats/ducks, things that could never really do anything for us, yet we'd feel morally wrong hurting them, even without seeing blood or guts.
Going further, why does it entail everything we do? If you're a conman fucking over people, why does it always feel bad doing the deed? Why does it always feel bad (deep down) treating other living things like shit?
>>24378194
Bullshit, citation needed.
>>24378340
http://www.livescience.com/25587-greed-empathy-oxytocin.html
Oh whats the matter you religious retard you cant handle the idea that every aspect of you is caused by microscopic chemical bonds passed in your dad's cum and your mom's ovum.
>>24378340
Similarly, why does it always feel good to do the opposite?
Why does it feel good to plant trees, feed animals, see other living things happy?
>>24378340
It feels bad because empathy, most conman are also psychopaths so they dont feel empathy and hence dont give a shit. Humans feel empathy as a way for us to unite together into a stronger social group than random small warring tribes back in Africa. The Ice age required for us to learn how to give a shit about humans that were not our parents or family just to survive.
>>24378396
Same reason it feels good beating up a person, its an uncontrollable animal instinct designed to help you survive.
>>24378340
>why does it ALWAYS apply to things we consider intelligent?
1. Wrong, not always.
2. As I said, because there was no evolutionary factor to make it otherwise. Consider fire. When an animal develops an instinct to avoid it, evolution doesn't care whether it's this or that flammable gas or solid or liquid that's burning; the exact discrimination isn't needed because the factor relevant to survival is heat in general, which is shared by all flammable materials. As long as there's no need for evolution to develop insight into its chemical nature, it isn't done, even if certain flames were, say, cold/optical illusions and in reality totally safe. If there were a benefit to *detecting* 'safe' flames, it might've developed separately, but apparently there wasn't any. Similarly with repulsion by violence: it doesn't harm reproduction to feel it indiscriminately.
>why am I talking at a religious moron
>>24378377
Of course you're going to treat people differently depending on your mood. See r9k, full of depressed, broken virgins. Where would they find it in themselves to do good to others? That doesn't hinder the moral compass however. They feel like shit about the whole thing.
If I'm feeling like shit I don't want to help others. I know I should do, but I don't. However, if it was a bad situation where say a loved one was in danger, my heart would override my mood and I'd kick in to moral action.
So yeh, chemicals can block the feeling through free will conditioning (which is basically a signal), but you will ALWAYS know if you're doing good or bad when it comes to morals.
>>24373658
Do it when shes with you. Please.
>>24378512
>morality is pretty much shared between people
>SURELY THIS MEANS THAT IT WAS GOD-GIVEN (or UNIVERSE-GIVEN, or whatever term you find for the supreme being/force/whatever)
Go back to whatever century you came from. Pretty sure it was no sooner than the 17th though.
>>24378512
Yes because thats the oxytocin in your frontal lobes, you dont get it do you? Morals are just illogical constructs caused by oxytocin. Psychopaths have low levels of oxytocin so they dont feel morals at all, the only time a psycho will feel bad is when they are embarassed but on the otherhand they dont give a shit about how the things they do affect people.
Hey guys, if I kill myself and it turns out theres an afterlife but I can still use r9k will you guys buy me a pizza?
>>24378599
What kind of pizza do you want?
>>24378441
>feeding and making a cat purr helps you survive
>>24378418
>most conman are also psychopaths so they dont feel empathy and hence dont give a shit
If a conman is capable of loving himself (greed), he's capable of loving others. If someone beat the living shit out of him for no reason, he knows it's morally wrong. Similarly if someone gave him lots of money because he's poor, he knows it's morally right. The conman knows what he's doing is morally wrong, he just doesn't know what real effect it's having on other people due to his bad ability to empathise. So really he thinks he's not doing that much wrong. If he understood exactly what effect it was having, he'd want to actively stop his behaviour.
>>24378633
>>feeding and making a cat purr helps you survive
Way to ignore >>24378443 in which I explained this fallacy of yours.
Religious people, not even once.
>>24378566
You don't get it. The moral compass is always there, unchanging. The relativity is in the extent of understanding how badly you're effecting others. If you can't understand it, then you're not really doing much wrong. Bear in mind though, that this is often conditioning brought on through free will.
>>24378628
I would have a ham and pineapple pizza from cpk please and also a medium coke
>>24378671
>The moral compass is always there, unchanging.
This is dogmatism, absolutization and objectivication of your impressions.
>>24378680
Pineapple and ham pizza? Sounds kind of gross desu senpai, but OK, I'll try.
>>24378633
>If a conman is capable of loving himself (greed), he's capable of loving others
Egoism is primal instinct that goes back to before the fucking Ordovician period, of courses psycho would love themselves. However a psycho cant love others, a human loving themself is not greed you fucking retard its egoism.
>If someone beat the living shit out of him for no reason, he knows it's morally wrong
No he gets mad and plots on getting back at the shit that beat them
>Similarly if someone gave him lots of money because he's poor, he knows it's morally right.
No he thinks that person is a sucker
>The conman knows what he's doing is morally wrong
Conman doesnt give a shit
>>24378671
>The moral compass is always there, unchanging
Psychos have no moral compass.
>>24378633
Not really,the psychopath has skewed amygdaloids which give evoke his pleasure circuits through power,greed,money,manipulation etc,not about him being able to love each other because he can enjoy his hedonistic deeds its just how hes wired,he does know what happens he just doesnt care because his negative emotions arent evoked
>>24378443
(In other words, the 'evolutionary workload' of developing an instinct to avoid hurting *people* and help *people*, as opposed to, say, pets, is redundant, because it is easier to just develop the instinct of causing dismembered corpses, and it achieves the same thing. Empathy for animals is just a side effect.)
>>24372062
I don't know, the uncertainty and fear surrounding it is the only thing keeping me from an hero
>>24378775
>causing dismembered corpses
*avoiding, sorry
(sage)
>>24378701
Pineapple and ham is the best type of pizza anon
>>24378651
Forgot to reply to that post.
Fairly good points, but instinctual fear of fire is a threat to life, that's entirely different, fire isn't alive. Inanimate threats provoke a very obvious, simple reaction involving no use of morals because it's inanimate.
You're right, it doesn't harm reproduction to feel love indiscriminately, so why don't all of us want to fuck chickens? Why don't we get turned on by shark titties? The visual difference between a human and a duck is massive, there's very little resemblance. It's just the knowing that it's sentient that your moral compass becomes sensitive.
Too much scientific talk in this thread for much dumbass brain, I'm out
>>24378833
Humans hate beastiality because its disturbing not because its immoral
>Oh my you monster abusing that poor dog!
No its really
>What the fuck is wrong with you dude you are fucking a dog I mean its not human what the hell man
>>24375406
>Honestly, that sounds more comforting to me than the idea of living on as a spirit in some otherworldly realm.
This.
It would be fucking horrifying to be stuck as the same person I am for all eternity.
The other possibility I like to think about though is that that last flicker of consciousness before death feels like eternity, and pretty much anything you can imagine feels real there. So it's like heaven, but it only depends on your consciousness so it can accommodate every different religion's idea of an afterlife.
>>24378876
Actually alot of people hate beastiality because of what the animal has to go through cunt fuck
>>24378724
Hmmm.... interesting points, anon
>>24378833
Well, yes?
That supports our point and disproves yours. Morality is not universal, it varies with respect to its object. We dislike harming women more than men, cute animals such as cats more than bugs, children more than adults. Those have a whole range of causes, incl. preservation of family, avoidance of disease, preservation of complex animals that might be of personal utility (e.g. cats as vermin-catchers), again transposing one's concern for young humans onto other young mammals (a case of an instinct 'catching too much'), and so on. Morality is utilitarian and context-dependent.
>>24378931
Also this, we obviously don't fuck small animals because it'd tear them apart.
>>24378974
Also e.g. in case of women the fact that we frown upon hating/hurting the innocent (a woman) presumably serves to motivate us to challenge ourselves (find ever worthier opponents = again increase our reproductive fitness). And so on, and so on.
>>24375965
>, when there is no falsification criteria
...you do realize that falsification is only relevant when demarcating SCIENTIFIC claims, right? It's not relevant in determining how logically coherent some set of metaphysical claims are. Thinking that empirical claims are all that matters is pure scienticism.
Of course this is just speculation, that's all philosophy.
>>24378931
Morals are for stupid people who cant moderate their animal instincts.
>Why shouldnt I kill people?
>Because its bad
>No because it reduces the number of humans in a country that could be useful and lowers the human population number slightly
>Why shouldnt I lie
>because its bad
>No because it leads to other humans doubting anything you say and makes trying to get accurate statements from you a pain in the ass
>Why shouldnt I steal
>Because its wrong
>No because stealing breaks the system where you get a job and get your paper to buy your shit
>Why shouldnt I rape?
>Because its bad
>No you should not rape as it would lead to overpopulation and a huge amount of single mothers raising dysfunctional humans.
>Why cant I fuck children?
>Because children are precious angels
>No because a human child is no sexually mature thus there is no reason to have sex with them
>>24378876
But it doesn't harm reproduction to feel it indiscriminately, you said :^)
>>24379006
(a && b) || (c xor !d)
I assure you that it is 100% true for the variables I have in mind.
Enjoy the logical coherence of this claim.
>>24378974
>preservation of complex animals that might be of personal utility (e.g. cats as vermin-catchers)
My cat doesn't catch me shit but I still love and care for it.
But I guess I love it only because it has a furry warm body, right? :^(
>>24379008
I like how all of your claims reduce to basic moral assumptions.
>No because it reduces the number of humans in a country that could be useful and lowers the human population number slightly
>No you should not rape as it would lead to overpopulation and a huge amount of single mothers raising dysfunctional humans.
Who gives a shit about the population?
>No because it leads to other humans doubting anything you say and makes trying to get accurate statements from you a pain in the ass
>No because stealing breaks the system where you get a job and get your paper to buy your shit
What if I can get away with it?
>No because a human child is no sexually mature thus there is no reason to have sex with them
What if it makes you feel good?
>>24379070
>be talking about factors on the level of populations
>NO BECAUSE EXCEPTION
You.
You get reincarnated as another robot and live for another 30 years as a useless NEET until you kill yourself again in your mother's basement.
It never ends, anon. Once vermin, always vermin.
>>24379010
No buts its a sign of mental illness as a human should not be attracted to non humanoid things obviously.
Also dont try argue back because your justification is literally MUH DIK OR MUH DOG IS PRECIOUS OR MUH SPECIAL ANIMAL LOVER OR MUH ANIMALS LOVE FUCKING.
>>24379093
In fact, your bait has long worn thin.
You did a decent impression of a religious person, but you're still tedious.
>>24379101
>he uses muh
So you're that type of anon, hun?
>>24379087
Population is important as it determines the economy of a country and overall sucess.
>get away with it
Dont steal at at all
>makes you feel good
This is monkey level reasoning.
>>24379101
>human should not be attracted to non humanoid things
So similarly to that logic, humans should not care for non humans as that's a sign of mental illness. But we do. What now?
>>24379045
That would be nice if those symbols had any particular meaning and relevance to our life and were a part of an entire other system of claims, some of which refute others if true.
If you don't actually want to speculate I encourage to leave the thread.
>>24379008
Sociopath much?
Anyways, agree with you.
>>24379131
It was just a bit of bantz m8, take a joke m8
Nah, I still believe the things I initially said.
>>24379162
Yes you should stop caring about non humans are that is not logical at all, why would you care about something that isnt you species?
>>24379147
>Population is important as it determines the economy of a country and overall sucess.
Why should I care?
>Dont steal at at all
>This is monkey level reasoning.
Say who? Why should I give a shit if it benefits me and I can get away with it?
Face it bro, your morals are showing.
>>24379008
You just unintentionally demonstrated that you're a sociopath
>>24379162
What are you talking about again?
There is no 'should'. It's you who insist on necessity of some magical consistency, 'hey, we should objectively treat animals equally in terms of behaviour A and in terms of behaviour B'. Behaviour is what it is. Evolution has found it desirable to fashion our behaviour with respect to them in some ways in some contexts and differently in others, that's all.
>>24379176
THAT WAS MY FUCKING POINT. It's you who preposterously suggested sufficiency of logical coherence separate from empirical validity as a criterion of claims' merit.
>>24379234
it isn't more of sociopathy than him realizing morality is relative and subjective,im not a sociopath but have a similar mindset
>>24379209
>why would you care about something that isnt you species
Empathy.
>>24379234
He's not even a sociopath. He just wants to pretend he's above morality when the basic foundations of his thought are rooted in ideas of success forced on him from birth.
>>24379221
>why should I care?
Ensuring your nation survives is the most important priority.
>say who
Saying it makes me feel good is animal level reasoning that can be used to justified any nonsense or insanity. I dont care about your crazy feelings towards fucking dogs I just want you to know I would kill you to weed out nutjobs like you out of our genepool.
>Why should I give a shit if it benefits me
The country being successful will benefit you as well it seems as though your an impulsive gibsmedat type psychopath that tend to be the murderers.
>>24379254
Well empathy is logical if its not towards your own species.
>>24379259
Le edgelord maymay
>>24379147
Overpopulation has made a lot of countries shitty though.
In which case murder would actually help things.
>>24379244
>It's you who preposterously suggested sufficiency of logical coherence separate from empirical validity as a criterion of claims' merit.
...When did I say that? Are you retarded? The fact that you can't determine the empirical validity of a claim doesn't mean it's meaningless.
I strongly encourage you to actually read Popper before you go spouting about concepts you don't understand.
>>24379312
*illogical
>>24379313
Yes killng lots of humans limits genetic diversity in a population so we need to preserve as much unique genes as possible so dont kill anyone.
>>24372940
Thats not ignorance faggot
>>24379244
You said (and implied both were mental illnesses since you said it doesn't harm reproduction to feel it indiscriminately):
>a human should not be attracted to non humanoid things
We aren't
>humans should not care for non humans
Yet we do
Why is the universal caring desirable but universal sexual attraction isn't? Animals come in all shapes, sizes and colours. There's no way evolution can map all of those and say "OK CARE FOR THIS, AND THIS, AND THIS". I mean fuck, you could get some little alien shit from Titan and still would feel bad stepping on his weird looking face.
>>24379097
I'd rather be reborn as a neet than someone who has to work tbqhfam
>>24379286
>Ensuring your nation survives is the most important priority.
SAYS
WHO
That's a moral claim, bro.
>The country being successful will benefit you as well it seems as though your an impulsive gibsmedat type psychopath that tend to be the murderers.
One again, if I get away with it while everyone else plays by the rules and keeps the country together, why should I care?
I like how can't even tell these are hypothetical questions, by the way. You just desperately want to believe you're a rational enlightened patrician when all your claims rest on just as questionable moral assumptions than the average moralist.
>>24379377
>Yet we do
So humans are partially insane
>We arent
A dog is not humanoid, but if you were attracted to say a human child or anthropomorphic animal then you would be sane since the shape is still humanoid.
Because we are meant to fuck only humans
FUCK ONLY HUMANS
ONLY HUMANS
ONLY HUMANS
ONLY HUMANS
HUMANS
ONLY
or alien lifeforms that look exactly like humans
