Would someone please explain to me how we still believe in reincarnation/life after death at this point in time after all we've discovered? Why is the idea not immediately shot down with a logical explanation?
My psychiatrist asked me if I believed in reincarnation and I explained to him that it's a stupid idea, impossible, and irrelevant to me. Surely, anyone who has thought about this for more than a few minutes would come to some of these basic conclusions that disprove, or at least, make the prospect of a conscious experience after death a pointless thing to imagine.
A) Reincarnation; is a stupid idea because what makes me ME is the combo of past experiences and current environmental stimulus interacting at the atomic lvl which govern how I perceive/react to my environment. So if I get reincarnated into a tiger, eagle, wolf whatever I'd be a fucking other animal-no-longer-me-. I wouldn't even be able to know what 'me' is at that point. The perspective, and overall conscious experience would be different. I wouldn't have any memories or anything human related because the neurological structures that grew in my brain as a developing human wouldn't be there. Over all, It would be inaccurate to call it still "me".
cont 1/2
>>8002188
This same logic can be applied to life after death. Where would your memories/dna with all the info on how you as Anon specifically interacts with your environment go? If the system is changed, so are you. This leads to one conclusion thatI think supports the many worlds theory of QM. Basically, you can only be you experiencing this life right here from your perspective/way you are perceived by your environment because the perspective is what makes you - you. Even if another universe existed. Even if an infinite amount of universes existed you would never be able to live through either one but the one you are now because even though the other bunch of atoms that make 'you' in the other QM collapsed universes LOOK like you, act like you, ect. They can't be you and you can't be them because by nature of you existing, there can't be another. Imagine to conscious experiences, experiencing the EXACT same thing...you wouldn't be able to tell if you where 1 "you" or 100000 potential "you's" experiencing the same thing, only to separate when things go different for one system than another.
cont 2/2
>tfw no /sci/entist wants to speak to me...please don't make me go back to r9k
*tips fedora*
kys
>>8002250
how was this a fedora post?
>>8002188
You were you from the moment you were born. Your parents knew you even before that event, and they even gave you a name then.
>>8002191
I would've signed these points a few years ago. Not so sure now.
The continuity of your consciousness, what makes you "you", is already constantly interrupted. Sleep, memories, cell division and death. You are not even physically the same creature you were many years ago, you're a copy. While your subjective experiences have carried across, we already know that your memories are prone to be forgotten, change, and generally get corrupted over time. But because this happens slowly over time, and you really have nothing purer, more uncorrupted to compare it to, you don't perceive this change at all.
Furthermore, would you consider someone who's suffered amnesia is no longer the person they were? What about life a great trauma, an experience that permanently shifted their personality? Where do you really draw the line between what is you, and what is no longer you? It can be argued, that the present you really is a different person from who you were when you went to sleep last night. How would you tell the difference?
Assuming it's possible for your essence to be born in the form of other creatures, and that it would take a hundred thousand lifetimes for you to eventually remember your past life... then is that not, in a sense, comparable to an amnesia recovery and a trauma. Basically, you are again you, except that you have had new experiences and memories before recovering from that amnesia that lasted lifetimes, which of course may have changed you as a person.
I'm not saying I support this. To me this sounds quite outlandish. But it is a somewhat logical, possible interpretation of the many worlds theory. In simplest terms, the idea goes like this: (cont)
>>8002292
>... cont
I will assume you know of the several problems with our reality, of the many minutia that needed to be just right for reality at all to be possible? Mathematically speaking, if the birth of our universe could happen only once, and would then have to be exactly right as it is now for the first and last time ever, then we would not exist. Period.
So whichever model of universe you believe in, the only logical explanation is that this state - no matter how unlikely - is a norm. That realities have always been spawning, without a beginning, without an end. And that no matter how unlikely, some of them will develop physical laws, matter and energy in just the right way so as to allow life. That indeed, every single thing that ever could happen, has, does, and will continue to happen for an infinite number of times.
Now while having a few very simple variables merge together, propagate and ultimately produce the emergent properties necessary to create our current reality is infinitely more likely than having another similar reality spontaneously recreate the memories, experiences, personality etc. of a single creature from another reality... if you truly have an infinite amount of repetitions with an infinite number of different laws and physics, over an infinite amount of time. Well. It will eventually happen.
Why do we not experience past memories now? Because this life, the first iteration so to speak, would be so much more likely, that it's only logical for us to ponder this now. Also, if reincarnation were possible, it would be far more likely to happen in a different kind of universe with laws that were generally far more supportive of it. Ours, it would appear, are not.
Considering you don't experience time when you're unconscious - or I imagine - dead, it could really be that from our subjective viewpoint, the very moment we die, we awaken in another reality with new experiences, just then remembering this past life of ours.
>>8002301
I'm with you up until the point of remembering past experiences after being "reborn".
Where would the memories come from, if not from a neurological brain structure that is the same as mine? And even if it was the exact same as mine atom for atom, if at any moment in that environment things go differently, the environment/being would not share my conscious experience, just one similar to it. Like twins. Look the same, think the same. Not the same.
It also implies we have potentially been living this life for eternity on repeat. Unable to have any contrasting experience because it would break the conscious experience.
Drugs can be another example of how a lack of contrast and similar environment can lead to the same conscious experience. Dmt, lsd, salvia, on high doses ALL have characteristics of their own that are shared with everyone who takes a high enough dose. Point being - if the environment and perspective viewed are the same, the conscious being behind the eyes will always be the same thing stuck in that loop of time because it can't experience any other perspective than its own.
Disappearing and becoming non-existent is always a plausible answer. But so is reincarnation. Trees lose their leaves and they come back in the Spring, flowers bloom, new babies are born etc. Life is a cycle and this is important to remember. Do you remember what it was like before you were born? No. Will you remember what it's like after you die? No. It's hard to get the right words out when speaking about this. The best thing we can do is pray that the afterlife has fusion reactors and IQ tests.
the answer to life and death is so simple and mindblowing, its right in front of you, come on
>>8002255
Lol someone isn't self aware
>>8002448
This. Kill self and post results.
>>8002188
>conclusions that disprove
Not possible.
>make the prospect of a conscious experience after death a pointless thing to imagine.
Lots of things in life is pointless.
If your subjective experience shifts to another person with memory and personality wipe after death, then you have a reason to keep the world a tidy and happy place. If not, then fuck everything. So it's not entirely without point even though it's almost purely mental masturbation.
>>8002485
you're a fucking retard who didn't even understand what you read
>>8002188
>what makes me ME is the combo of past experiences and current environmental stimulus
so whenever you gain experience you stop being yourself? whenever other stimuli arise, you become another person? people who forget past experiences stop being themselves, too?
Then there literally is no YOU. And if there is no you, it cannot die.
>>8002188
Crackpot theories belong in /x/ among the other astral projection spirit science bullshit.
Please read the rules.
>>8002497
Use some common sense. Of course you are ever changing matter.
>people who forget past experiences stop being themselves, too?
yes, depending on how much they forget. They become a shell of their former self. I personally know people with dementia and alzhimerz and I can attest to them being nothing like their healthy self. The more they forget, the more confused and angry they become. Kind of like babies.
There is no you to begin with. (inb4 some smart ass brochan comment) like >>8002250 You are constantly changing every second. Even a simpleton can understand that. And by die I mean the self perpetuating pattern that is "you" stops its continuation. That doesn't mean it can't repeat over and over.
>>8002502
This isn't a crackpot theory though bud. If you actually think about it, what is being said is pretty logical. Just needs physical proofs. Go back to making your IQ threads
>>8002519
>Use some common sense. Of course you are ever changing matter.
and then you change into a corpse? are you still you? why not? if you are the brain, what happens to people with a split brain? if you're only part of the brain, where are you in the brain?
>be op
>live over 20 years of life
>not having discovered what you are
>go on image board
>talking about death when you don't know what you are
>make shameful display of naivety
>>8002188
Two things here.
First you seem to me to be saying you are your body which if true does make reincarnation or experience after death impossible. That would be looking at the brain or whole body as the generator of everything you are. There is another way to view the body/brain as a receiver like a radio where the signal does not stop after a radio is broken that particular radio just does not receive the signal any longer.
Second the truth of experience after death/reincarnation is not the only thing to consider.
Regardless of the truth it may be a useful belief/model of the world. Useful in the sense that if you believe you will reincarnate on earth you are more invested in making this a nice place to be or if you believe there is experience after death without reincarnation you may be more concerned with I guess the word is karma where as if you think when your body dies you are done then you can escape any bad karma as long as you make it to death without paying for any of your actions.
>>8002839
You got the first part right. Accept I'm saying the body/mind is both a receiver and an emitter with respect to it's environment. This changes both over time.
I've also considered the second paragraph. I can understand the fear of having nothing after death. But if someone needs the fear/reward of karma to be a good person, they aren't a good person. I'm a good person because I wish to limit the amount of suffering on this planet because I've seen a small glimps of it and there is clearly more bad than good.
Even if there existed a creator/karma system, I'd hate it. For it to have created a universe so fucked up, so full of confusion, fear, death, suffering. It would be better if it just wasn't here if you look at it morally. Life itself revolves around a system that requires a creature to eat another living creature. That system is fucked if you look at it. It's clear there is far more suffering going on than good/calm/peace.
>>8002900
by emitter I mean photons, atoms interacting between body and enviornment
If nothing lasts forever then why should death?
>>8002188
Is that rubiks solvable?
>>8002926
ur mum lasts forever in bed lmoa
>>8002900
>But if someone needs the fear/reward of karma to be a good person, they aren't a good person.
Yeah I can see that perspective. Similar to saying a certain religion says be nice to people it doesn't mean we need that religion.
One perspective that makes after death experience fit would be the idea that our world is a simulation and similar to a video game like the sims the avatar that runs around is not the person playing and the person playing can both walk away from the computer or play a different character. In this scenario the player is accumulating the experiences in different animals or worlds so when this body dies you are out there sitting at the computer with the experience of playing this body/character for a bit and then moving on to another character or game.
The way I see it there is no way to get evidence for or against our world being simulated so maybe that disqualifies the idea from some peoples consideration.
>>8002188
You're most likely right, for the most part.
The problem is that we literally have no idea what happens after we die, and in this universe of infinite possibility, anything is possible.
Also, anyone claiming to know what happens after death is full of shite.
At least you aren't definitively stating that you know that experience (in the way that we perceive it) after death is impossible.
If you were to say that, you would be full of shite as well.
As full of as much shite as a bible bumper eating shite out of a baby boomers asshole.
Thank you,
Niggercunt.
>>8002956
I understand that and I agree, there's no actual way to know what happens. I was just trying to use some logic and basic knowledge to come to some kind of postulation.
>>8002978
I'm of the opinion that we become biomass after death, like when a leave falls off of a tree.
Or at least I think that's what happens to our bodies after death.
As for the 'spirit', I think that the concept has some merit.
I don't have any proof that the concept is a reality, but I just have an innate or inherent feeling that after death will be another thing entirely, and that it will be okay, if not good. I'm not scared to die, and when it comes I will accept it.
I don't necessarily want to die even during the times that I do. Some part of me knows that there will still be good experience if I stay alive. It's simple cost-benefit analysis.
Whatever happens will happen and has likely already happened, so to take offense at other's stupidity would be downright stupid. Not to mention a waste of time and thought.
That's a wrap(rant)
>>8002996
+(rap)
>>8002188
>Why does no one just give a logical explanation to disprove an afterlife?
Because logical conclusion points to the contrary. Your "logic" is just philosophy, not implied physics and theoretical metaphysics.
In ten years, the cells that made up your body will have been entirely replaced. Not a single original, given a couple exceptions where a cell dies and can't be pushed out.
This proves something: the base of the essence of life (not what makes you alive, but your soul for a lack of better words) is not based in simple biochemistry. It goes a bit deeper than that.
The you part of you, the you that makes you you and not you me or someone else, is based on your memories and subconscious interactions. However, the cells responsible for these are eventually replaced; and yet they stay the same or similar, and it's still you. Whatever it is that makes you you is housed in this collection of experiences and perceptions, and is solely based on the existence of them. A structure that hosts your conscience must be present, and when it is not existant or is dead, you are no longer in that host. So where are you?
Have you considered the possibility of ones conscious wing recreated? Albeit on accident or on purpose, given that time is infinite, your conscience will be recreated. The odds are minuscule, being over a number incalculable for the human mind; but the number on top is infinite. Thus, it is a full number, or a solid one. Guarenteed.
Your afterlife isn't an afterlife of reincarnation or some out of body experience or some life in some place out of this dimension; it's you "waking up" into your conscience being recreated, almost as if you never died and are just continuing life. Maybe not life as the you your once were, but life nonetheless.
But now that this present death is clarified, what about the end of the cycle? Certainly it must come to an end. That is the mystery.
>>8003274
>quantum fluctuations recreate your consciousness as you lie choking in the vacuum of space.
Great
>>8003274
Don't forget that when the cells get replaced over time, it takes years, and they more or less copy themselves. So it makes sense that as time goes on you change depending on neural structures being constantly grown in your brain. My end theory is that it just repeats over and over. That is to say, you can't live in the universe where you're a billionair, or even in the universe where you randomly get spawned in a vaccum because both the r and the mind needs to have followed the same pattern it did from when you where born in this current universe.
It doesn't make sense to think I'd be spawned in a vaccum given an infinite amount of time because I simply was not spawned in a vacuum. So the biomass of arranged atoms that gets randomly spawned in a vacuum may look like me almost atom for atom. But the moment my environment -body feedback is cut I won't be the same conscious experience. Keep in mind I'm talking local environments for the most part, (everything within our immediate universe that effects the human body during our lifetime.)
Think of your consciousness as a set program that adapts to updates in the OS over it's lifespan. If I was to run that program in the same OS environment from creation until termination, it would always make the same corrections, same updates and edits ect. But if I changed the OS environment from the first test run the program will have to make different edits and adapt differently to it's new environment, thus, it's no longer the same program even though it shares similarities. So what ever program you are, it's because you can only exist as that program because that's what you are. Destine to keep repeating the same life and nothing more because YOU aren't the you from the universe where you win the lotto.
>>8003274
>time is infinite
AHAHAHAHAHA
What you mouthbreathing retards mixing philosophy with science miss is that these cells which house your memories aren't completely new all at once, they're just replacements. Consciousness is all about consistency. If someone cloned you, with your exact everything, would you be conscious of your clone too? No, that's fucking stupid. We've cloned things already. You would still only be conscious of yourself, i.e. the meatbag that houses your particular combination of brain matter and experiences which YOU are stuck in right now. Consciousness is a perspective, and we have NO evidence to suggest you don't only get one, which is the default skeptical position; on the contrary, the lack of spiritual bullshit in the universe suggests that it's just an optimistic and retarded fantasy, a dream of human nature to help console idiots with oblivion and protect them from their reality: they don't objectively matter to the universe, they're not special snowflakes, and they will die eventually. Getting people to accept these things is like pulling teeth because of their attachment to their consciousness.
So, to recap, you have no magical fairy soul, you have one temporary perspective, one consciousness, and that is your "soul." Run with it or kill yourself, you don't matter either way and you never did.
>>8002292
>The continuity of your consciousness, what makes you "you", is already constantly interrupted. Sleep, memories, cell division and death.
There is no reason to believe that. Only physical disconnection of your brain would be an interruption of your consciousness. Sleep doesn't disconnect your consciousness, just lowers it activity.
>>8004081
what he said
>>8004129
exactly
>>8002497
This.
>>8002188
lol, these threads are the reason I put /sci/ content in the same folder where /x/ content is put.
You're so different, but overlap way too much.
>>8004129
This is where the lack of a formal definition of consciousness becomes a serious problem.
>>8002900
>But if someone needs the fear/reward of karma to be a good person, they aren't a good person. I'm a good person because I wish to limit the amount of suffering on this planet because I've seen a small glimps of it and there is clearly more bad than good
And why do you want to limit the amount of suffering? Why do you care that there is more bad than good?
>>8004697
because im human
>>8004081
2
Oblivion, merging with the universe, and eternal recurrence all are equally terrible IMHO, I'm convinced the only constant is creating the conditions for suffering that feeds the mastermind
Why are we only conscious of one life a time?
Why does it take mind altering drugs for us to realize the illusion of a singular ego?
We're being played, it's a game
>>8004081
>you
who is this you? just a bunch of neurons assembled from 'randomly' scrambled RNA?
we understand the medium, but that doesn't explain the origin
All matter in the universe composes a spacially infinite computer running the AIXI algorithm. Time is an emergent property, with every possible object defined in terms of one or more variables, and every event being encoded in a deterministic script.
A wavefunction is used to define, for example, a particle's movement through space in terms of X, Y and Z coordinates. A wavefunction of photons can be composed of many different waves, and by turning each wave's length up and down, information can be encoded because each increase or decrease has definite differences in how they effect the external universe. When these photon waves are collimated and shot at something, some of the photons carry more energy and melt different amounts of matter. If you shot this at a spinning disk, a near-perfect copy could be burned into it. Later, this disk can be read by a machine that adjusts the power of the laser to replicate the wavefunction.
The shapes you see around you are macroscopic repetitions of microscopic patterns. DNA really does encode your body, and it even uses photons for communication.
Quantum entanglement relates to this, in the sense that any two particles are differentiated by virtue of the fact that they're *not* entangled. All the information needed to replicate the universe could be stored in a laser beam.
If you shoot two lasers at each other in a vacuum, particles can be produced. The particles produced can be controlled by scripting for energy and wavelength changes.
Your body is replicated through time by maintaining the wavefunction. Aging is a feature, not a bug. You came out of the Universal Wave Function, and you will return to it. And in the future, more instances of you will occur - random fluctuation will assurdly produce an infinite number of big bangs.
Finally, Occam's razor demands we hold the axiom that there's only one mind. You're this one mind in an infinite number of bodies.
>>8005202
non-answer. hopefully you're avoiding the answer because you see the path i'm leading you down and realize you are a hypocritical fraud who is at the intellectual development of a teenager
>>8005309
i don't get it, are you agreeing with op or not?
>>8005558
doesn't understand freewill doesn't exist.
>>8006297
I'm disagreeing with him.
