/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.57547034]

>thinking what happens after death is somehow different from what happened before birth
NGMI

death is no mystery at all, the whole "well, no one really knows what happens after hehe" is the dumbest bullshit scam ever. You've already been dead for a very long time and you know precisely how it is.
Everything else is copium

[Anonymous No.57547062]

>>57547034
Bro I don't remember shit until I was at least 5

[Anonymous No.57547113]

>>57547034
OMG. 2/8/24, some random anon figured out the thing everyone was wondering about for hundreds of thousands of years by just, like, thinking about it, man!

[Anonymous No.57547114]

>>57547062
cool beans, where were you in the 16th century? the world was there, you weren't. Simple as that

[Anonymous No.57547132]

>>57547113
yeah i don't know how anyone could fall for different bullshit stories. Desperation and copium i guess. There is actually a practical experiment than anyone can do to literally prove it (it doesn't involve dying)

[Anonymous No.57547149]

>>57547132
God created you at conception and you will await resurrection after dying

[Anonymous No.57547183]

>>57547149
made up bullshit

[Anonymous No.57547194]

>>57547149
lol what if i dont have to listen to what u tell me cuz im 4chan chad i do whatever the heck i want lol and 4chan is an alt-right echochamber thats literally like neo nazis so dont try to tell me what to say you bigot

[Anonymous No.57547197]

>>57547034
You were memory wiped before you came here, and you will be memory wiped again because you’re a weak soul who will fall victim to the light.

[Anonymous No.57547201]

>>57547034
>Having an existential crisis on /biz/

[Anonymous No.57547212]

>>57547034
Were you one of those autists who remembers his time in the womb? Was it the ultimate comfy experience?

[Anonymous No.57547221]

>>57547197
You think you found the way out this time huh?

[Anonymous No.57547228]

>>57547149
This does seem most likely to be correct.

[Anonymous No.57547239]

>>57547197
false, and you can experience an equivalent thing now on earth.

>take a stopwatch, start it
>find a way to faint
>regain consciousness
>try to guess how much time passed

you can't. You immediately "wake up", there's nothing in between. What happened in the middle is the equivalent of death. It doesn't need to involve any memory wiping, it's just what happens when consciousness is turned off.
We've already been dead for billion of years, it's not a mystery of any sort. You are not there and that's it

[Anonymous No.57547253]

>>57547034
>In an influential paper that laid out the theory, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom showed that at least one of three possibilities is true: 1) All human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before they develop the technological capacity to create simulated realities; 2) if any civilizations do reach this phase of technological maturity, none of them will bother to run simulations; or 3) advanced civilizations would have the ability to create many, many simulations, and that means there are far more simulated worlds than non-simulated ones

I know you’re too low IQ to reason from this to the obvious conclusion, but maybe some other anons will get there.

[Anonymous No.57547278]

>>57547253
the simulation theory doesn't change anything in relation to our own world and death. Where do you think the programs "go" when you stop them?
Yeah. Exactly where they were before you run them

[Anonymous No.57547281]

>>57547239
It’s better to be prepare and ask yourself what you’re about to do in case you do become conscious, rather than go your whole life telling yourself there will be nothing. Don’t be a cuck. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.57547288]

>>57547183
What has non-belief earned you?

[Anonymous No.57547291]

>>57547278
It means there’s nothing stopping “you” from waking up somewhere else when you “die” and living another 5 billion years.

[Anonymous No.57547308]

>>57547291
there's not a single reason to think that a different instance of the program would still be "you", in the same way my grandfather (or anyone else) is not me. Doesn't make sense. Another running instance of the program, even with the same code, would be someone else

[Anonymous No.57547314]

>>57547253
Christians agree

[Anonymous No.57547317]

>>57547183
Kek.
Heil hamas

[Anonymous No.57547336]

>>57547288
i don't choose what to believe in based on how good the consequences of believing it are, and neither should you. Otherwise we should all be muslism to fuck our 72 virgins i guess, or create a religion with even cooler heavens. If you recognize that's just a dumb fantasy, it's because it is

[Anonymous No.57547345]

>>57547336
You're more than a computer program anon

[Anonymous No.57547363]

>>57547281
the exact opposite is true, if it influences your living life in any way. Again, where were you in the 16th century? You have proofs that the universe was there, why weren't you? For what reason should being born change that?

[Anonymous No.57547419]

>>57547345
if you lose your eyes, you can't see anymore. I don't understand why the same concept is so hard to grasp when applied to the brain and the consciousness.
Let me know when you learn to see without eyes, since you are more than a program. Try this >>57547239 and tell me how much time passed

[Anonymous No.57547444]

>>57547034
>gay zoomer has figured out humanities oldest riddle
Wow you're so smart you should write a book

[Anonymous No.57547462]

>>57547444
countless of people have said this before me, obviously

[Anonymous No.57547553]

>>57547419
You'll need to prove that the brain is what produces consciousness

[Anonymous No.57547573]

>>57547419
if you have a minds eye you can still see in your mind. without eyes.

[Anonymous No.57547590]

>>57547553
well yes i'll give you that, it's not clear, but we can manipulate it pretty well with things like anesthesia (and passing out)

[Anonymous No.57547595]

>>57547573
>>57547590
Do our eyes see or do we see through our eyes. Who is the receiver of the image, you or your eyes?

[Anonymous No.57547601]

>>57547573
come on, you understood what i meant. I mean that if i hold up X fingers in front of your face you are not able to tell me how many they are. Good luck doing that with the minds eye

[Anonymous No.57547602]

>>57547034
The real mystery is birth. Why was I born when I was born? Why not millenia earlier or later? Why am I conscious in this specific body?

[Anonymous No.57547640]

>>57547602
>new age spiritual growth
>placedian star seed
>loosh farm
>saturns computer
>gods creation
>a rick and morty plot
>etc
pick your poison.

[Anonymous No.57547662]

>>57547601
in theory..

[Anonymous No.57547677]

>>57547595
the second one (we see through our eyes), i get what you mean (i think). So, the brain like the eyes is just an organ that passes information to some substrate/subject (that should be ""you"") that you are implying (i guess) could survive after death. But then, where is it when we pass out/faint? i would expect it to be there in the time that passes in this experiment >>57547239
but there isn't - without the tools provided by the brain, there's no experience whatsoever (let alone consciousness)

[Anonymous No.57547716]

>>57547602
that has to be a result of what mechanically happened since the beginning of time - it feels to me like an anthropic-principle kind of problem. Basically, the only reason you are able to ask this questions is because it happened, so you are already "biased" because it happened, but there's nothing "special" about it (if it didn't happen, simply no one would have been there to ask those questions)

[Anonymous No.57547763]

>>57547034
I dont need to think in what will happen after im dead, i need to think how to stay alive for long enough until machines make us inmortal (60 years max), that's why i only invest in pure tech-only projects, AGRS, ONT, INJ, im investing in both my economy and my lifespan. The rest is bullshit

[Anonymous No.57547795]

>>57547716
this is a concept that's very clear to me but i always find hard to explain, the wiki page of the anthropic principle can maybe help. But basically for a question like
>Why not millenia earlier or later? Why am I conscious in this specific body?
it can help thinking that anyone in the world and in history also asked themselves these question. No one of them is "special", there's no particular reason. You can imagine it like tossing a fist of sand thru a very small net, and only a few grains pass to the other side. At that point, each of the grains that passed asks itself "omg! Why me? Why am i on the other side?", failing to consider that the only reason they can ask that question is because they are on the other side (and forgetting about all the other grains that didn't pass, which are not able to ask that because they are not)

[Anonymous No.57547822]

>>57547795
So, things just... happen because? There is no reason, no purpose, no intrinsic value at all, its all a product of pure chance?

[Anonymous No.57547840]

>>57547034
as soon as we die we instantly come back to life to suffer again, it may be trillions of years in the future, perhaps in a new universe but as we are dead we have no consciousness so it would be instant.

[Anonymous No.57547857]

>>57547716
Okay, but then why am I me and not someone else? What constitutes the consciousness residing this body? Humans are all so so closely related that our composition is almost identical except for minor changes in dna and yet every person is different, if consciousness is purely arbirtrary and starts at the moment the brain is developed then shouldn't more people be completely identical?

[Anonymous No.57547862]

why posting sad stuff today

[Anonymous No.57547869]

>>57547239
I try this everyday and i have wacky dreams, dreams where i still am myself, maybe while my corporeal body is turned off the mind just wanders off to come back again into the body when it wakes up.

[Anonymous No.57547870]

>>57547716
It's fascinating but also terrifying to me. The scale of time is massive and we live such relatively short lives.
>>57547822
Pretty much

[Anonymous No.57547880]

>>57547034
haha anon you believe that we are just created at birth ? we come here and back often

[Anonymous No.57547884]

>>57547870
More reason to think of one's life as a miracle. I am the only me that will ever exist, i get to do everything for the first time forever and i will be able to experience constant miracles each day, every new experience, every bit of knowledge i take, every emotion and taste they're all miracles happening every single day. If we only get one life then it makes more sense to value it and try to make the most of it rather than giving up and waiting for death to solve everything.
I am a miracle walking

[Anonymous No.57547897]

>>57547149
this

[Anonymous No.57547941]

>>57547822
simply, if it didn't happpen, you couldn't ask it. You are able to ask it only because of the "privileged" (or cursed?) position you are in. This is a classical problem, for Heidegger it was THE most important question, the most radical of them all: why there has to be something in the first place (instead of nothing at all)?
Well, because if there were nothing at all, we wouldn't be here to ask this question. You can imagine an infinite number of parallel universes (ALL the possible combinations of everything if you want, every possible configuration) in which there's nothing, no intelligent life (or no matter at all), and in those universes there's no one who is asking these questions. Only in the universes in which there's intelligent life this question is possible, but we can imagine countless of other universes that don't have this problem.
So, the "other scenario" happened billions of times, and this one happened as well; there's no reason why this one in particular happened simply because the others happened as well (but no one was there to ask themselves this).

This can obviously be applied to the bullshit you hear religious people say sometimes, like "you see? the earth is at the exact correct distance from the sun so we don't burn. It's a miracle! God made it like this!" - no, it's the other way around. If the earth was too close to the sun, then it would have burned, so no human could have been there to make this observation, just like on the other planets. If we consider all the planets in the universe, then it's clear that only the ones at the correct distance could give birth to life intelligent enough to observe and ask that question.
I don't know if it's clear, i always find it hard to explain this

[Anonymous No.57547978]

>>57547228
>>57547897
lol i still find it amusing tho, because
>God created you at conception
this implies that you DO recognize and perfectly understand a state before conception, in which you simply weren't there. You just refute to apply the exact same thing to the afterdeath, for no particular reason whatsoever (this is a joke, the reason is obviously the fear of dying)

>>57547862
i don't really find it sad... quite reassuring actually. Did you feel bad in 1650? No? Exactly.

[Anonymous No.57548036]

>>57547884
What about people who are born with horrible genetic conditions or die in infancy? Are they miracles too?

[Anonymous No.57548044]

>>57547941
Your assumption relies completely in the assumption that the brain is what creates consciousness, which we can't prove in any way despite the fact that by our current understandings of the human being, the brain is the only organ that should create consciousness, and yet, we still cant figure out how is our consciousness created. Maybe in the future we will know how our brain functions precisely and it will finally show us what makes "us", us

But I believe we never will, because it is something that exists apart of our bodies, we inhabit it, but its not "us".

You make perfect logical sense tho, good reasoning

[Anonymous No.57548051]

>>57548036
Yes, in a sense. They got to experience being themselves which no one will ever experience except for them.
Maybe not all miracles are good.

[Anonymous No.57548073]

>>57547857
>Okay, but then why am I me and not someone else?
because all the other someone elses also ask themselves the same thing. There's nothing "special" about this particular combination (you in that body), because all the other possible combinations also ask themselves the same thing and feel equally "special"
>What constitutes the consciousness residing this body?
That really is a million dollar question, i don't have an answer
>Humans are all so so closely related that our composition is almost identical except for minor changes in dna and yet every person is different, if consciousness is purely arbirtrary and starts at the moment the brain is developed then shouldn't more people be completely identical?
Maybe i lost you here for one second here, not sure - are you considering that animals have consciousness as well? There is your difference. You and me are more similar to each other than we are to a cow or a dog, and our form of consciousness is more similar as well. If you consider every possible animal i think it's more than enough (but obviously consciousness is "local", so even identical twins each have their own one - but again i'm not sure if i understood the question)

[Anonymous No.57548075]

>>57547677
>that should be ""you""
>that you are implying could survive after death
Yes theoretically.
There are out of body experiences, NDE's and such. Lucid dreaming. People visiting astro realms. What ever happens when you take psychedelic's. I don't know the true answer but I've explored a few incorrect corridors.

[Anonymous No.57548099]

>>57547862
You are a creation of love itself

[Anonymous No.57548151]

>>57548073
You said that being dead is the same as the moment before our birth because we cant remember anything before it and cited being asleep as an example because our brain is "turned off" therefore "we" don't exist if our brain is not operating. That means our brains is what makes us sentient. The twins example is perfect to illustrate what im asking: same brains, exact copy, different consciousness. Shouldn't they be exactly the same? Or is our consciousness a product of something else?
I guess its a question nobody knows for sure, so its unfair to ask you to answer it. I don't know it. Maybe twins are exactly the same and we have no way to know it, maybe the fact that they are influenced by each other is what makes them differ from each other as they age. Maybe there have been exact copies of the same consciousness and we also have no way to prove it or know it.
Too many questions

[Anonymous No.57548204]

>>57548044
yes you are correct, i do believe that (that consciousness is closely related to the brain). But the thing is that if we remove that, then we have to ask ourselves what's the "us" we are talking about. Because this "us" wouldn't have access to anything that we know instead to be in the brain for sure, like language, thinking of any kind, memory, ability to recognize faces and so on. We can surgically remove (or mess with) specific parts of the brain and we know there are consequences on the personality, the ability to experience, and a lot of other stuff. So when we remove all the things that we know are in the brain, what's left? Nothing, that thing wouldn't be "us" anymore, that's for sure.
I always find it funny when we see ghosts in movies, for example. Without a physical body, how exactly can the ghost still see? The only reason we see is because of the light physically touching stuff in our eyes. But that's easy to understand for eyes, the real question is: how can the ghost THINK? Thinking is about electrical impulses that travel in the brain (we know it), there's no thinking and experiencing of any kind without it. And we can go on with a very long and serious list of things that we take for granted (because we are used to have a brain), but they are not. So, if we remove all of this, what's left of "us" exactly? If there's still consciousness of any kind, well then it's something veeery different to what we are used to, it's basically not "us" at all. No thinking, no memory, no ability to form or understand words and concept, no "inner monologue", no experiences at all.
To me, it's the same "us" that's still there when we pass out, which is... nothing, nothing that we can define as something (which is a concept that we only have thanks to the brain)

[Anonymous No.57548215]

>... he who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may have studied, is, as it were, in a state of innocence ; that is to say, he remains in the grasp of that natural and childish realism in which we are all born, and which fits us for everything possible, with the single exception of philosophy. Such a man then stands to the man who knows the Kantian philosophy as a minor to a man of full age.

[Anonymous No.57548232]

>>57548204
The "us" is the culmination of all the different parts of the brain working together. We can see this with brain diseases like alzheimers where parts of the brain lose function.

[Anonymous No.57548270]

>>57548151
>because we cant remember anything before it
not really... it's a way to understand the nothingness (and the fact that is not a bad thing at all - in 1650, did you want to be alive? did you feel bad about not being alive?).
We have pictures of 1890, we know the world was there - we simply weren't. It's not that we can't remember, we didn't exist at all
>Shouldn't they be exactly the same? Or is our consciousness a product of something else?
Yeah, as you said, i do believe that consciousness is closely related to the brain, and it's also "local" - so, since twins have separate brains, they have 2 separate consciousness. About how they are, yes they are physically identical, which doesn't imply that they'll behave in the same exact way all the time. There are several differences simply because their body are physically separated, they don't overlap: one of them, for example, has to exit the vagina before the other, which means seeing the light some seconds before the other, and so on.

This has several consequences, for example on memory. Since they can't overlap, they will never be able to see exactly the same things all the time. To make a stupid example, let's say you keep them always together, side by side. Still, they can't occupy for example the same chair; so, one of the twin will see something in front of them (let's say a wall), the other one will see something else (let's see a television), or from a slightly different angle anyway. Fast forward 20 years, for the butterfly effect one of the twin is a murderer, because of something he's seen on television when he was a child that messed him up, while the one that looked at the wall is perfectly fine.
So, even if they are identical, you still have differences due to the fact that they have different bodies. If it was possible to "overlap" them tridimensionally (and keep them like that all their life) then yes, i believe they would be the exact same person.
Don't know if this answers it for you

[Anonymous No.57548300]

>>57548151
>and cited being asleep as an example because our brain is "turned off" therefore "we" don't exist if our brain is not operating
just a quick note, not asleep, but passed out (fainted); when we are sleeping we actually still have some form of consciousness (like in dreams), which is so strong that when we wake up we also kinda have an idea of how much time passed. Instead, when we faint, we wake up "immediately"; we have no way of telling if a minute or a day passed, the waking up is just istantaneous to us (there's literally "nothing" in between). That's a deeper status of absence of consciousness, which i believe is pretty much close to what death is like

[Anonymous No.57548323]

>>57547553
mind / body problem.
then the concomitant time / space problem and then the Humean necessary connection type problems.

o.p.
some of the smartest minds ever have spent decades pondering these things, building on the works of those before them who had done the same.

>>if you want to make a new thread about something you've been thinking perhaps it's best to check there aren't already some threads up about the exact same topic made by smart people before you

[sage No.57548329]

>Biz

Nice megalomania and teenager jargon, retard.

[Anonymous No.57548344]

>>57548329
thanks

[Anonymous No.57548374]

>>57548323
well yes of course, these are some of the most fascinating things out there, and i believe anyone should think and read about them
>>57548329
>Biz
yeah i forgot to add that this is all very important to understand financially speaking (i did write NGMI tho)

(i'm still op, posting from mobile gives me a different id)

[Anonymous No.57548479]

>>57547034
The worst thing about death is that you technically don't ever experience relief from leaving this gay earth.

[Anonymous No.57548491]

>>57548329
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

[Anonymous No.57549657]

>>57547253
big assumption in number 3. If one “reality” was somehow separated from another such that no information could move between them (actually distinct realities) there would be no way to know of it or index them- meaning they cannot be counted. How do you know there are not infinite realities?

[Anonymous No.57549736]

>>57547677
How do you know the perceiver (soul) ceases when you are unconscious? Because you have no memory of it? The soul needs no memory- only a human with a brain that indexes the impressions of the soul.

[Anonymous No.57549796]

Having type 1 diabetes probably helped me realize this inexorable truth. When you get dangerously low blood sugar your body starts digging for sugar everywhere and your brain starts to feel all sorts of emotions. I have had multiple instances where I solved all the world's problems in my head, or where I could feel heaven in my room. After you munch on a cookie or something then your head gets back to normal and you realize that it was all chemicals bouncing around. My mom has blood sugar issues but not bad enough for an actual diagnosis of diabetes. It makes me sad because she will have a low attack then think it actually happened the next day. She is convinced that aliens are communicating with her on a regular basis. It is seeping into her day to day life. I tried to explain that low blood sugar is the culprit but she gets really offended. Anywho. I believe that when I die I shall rot and nothing of my ego will survive. And that is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.57549862]

>>57549796
The most you could assume from this intuition is that certain chemicals accompany the miracle of perception memory, at least in the human context as I know it

aka you can’t assume anything from it

[Anonymous No.57549943]

>>57549862
Yup. The closest we can get to knowledge is to have justified true beliefs, but even that has problems. I chose to live in the here and now

[Anonymous No.57549976]

>>57549943
amen anon. the compulsive desire to “know” can be transcended. Faith is an irremovable aspect of living.

[Anonymous No.57549990]

Ma’am, this is a stock exchange.

[Anonymous No.57549998]

>>57547034
>Makes up metaphysics despite having limited experience of the world and unreliable memory
>Acts like it's somehow better than all the other made up metaphysics
Anon you're a naive fool.

[Anonymous No.57550009]

ITT: people who need Jesus. Badly. Also B vitamins.

[Anonymous No.57550013]

>>57549976
Faith is inherently a detrimental aspect of humanity. The notion of being rewarded for not knowing something is retardation. I would recommend fighting against living for creeds or maxims of faith. Instead live well within your own realm of influence.

[Anonymous No.57550020]

what you are experiencing is not reality, but a simulation
you are experiencing an interpretation of stimuli based on woefully limited sensory organs, backed overwhelmingly by predictive modeling to fill in the void of what you experience to the point of utter delusion

we call it hallucinating when chatgpt invents it's own sources and goes off the rails using predictive modeling
that is actually you, you are hallucinating every single thing and thought of every day of experience
you are the hallucinating ai in the form of a biological automaton, derived from billions of years of mistakes in the replication of genetic code
you have been off the rails for billions of years

[Anonymous No.57550057]

>>57550013
“the closest we can get to knowledge is justified belief”

And what occupies that final distance we cannot bridge? Faith, anon. Whatever human nonsense that has sullied it’s name is irrelevant. No external promise or reward is necessary. Faith is only in your dialogue with the godhead.

[Anonymous No.57550064]

>>57550057
I would add, at bottom, ALL action is a product of faith.

[Anonymous No.57550127]

>>57550020
damn anon you seem to know base reality really intimately… quite impressive for a hallucinating automaton

[Anonymous No.57550134]

>>57550009
These questions are part of the journey to finding Christ

[Anonymous No.57550660]

>>57547114
>where were you
I was a peasant working on a farm in rural France. It wasn't particularly interesting and in fact quite difficult at times

[Anonymous No.57551285]

>>57550127
>base reality
no
my simulation is just has more layers and isn't as smooth

[Anonymous No.57551307]

>>57547034
Congratulations, you are enlightened. Anyone who disagrees simply does because they don't like it is so, and cope with some bullshit fantasy.

[Anonymous No.57551308]

>>57549736
>Because you have no memory of it?
well yes basically, i find out to believe that some sort of memory wiping happens when you wake up; it's much easier to simply think that when we are turned off we are turned off. My problem with the "soul" is the one i wrote here >>57548204
so not only it doesn't "need" memory as you say, but it doesn't have it at all, alongside with basically everything else that makes you you. If you remove all the tools of the brain one by one, there's basically nothing left - this soul has nothing that you recognize as you, no experience of any kind, no thinking of any kind, in other words no being of any kind. You would be the equivalent of a rock

[Anonymous No.57551316]

>>57550127
>base reality
no
my simulation just has more layers and folds back on itself

[Anonymous No.57551315]

>>57551308
*hard to believe

[Anonymous No.57551326]

Orthodox Christianity has the most sound explanation.

[Anonymous No.57551330]

>>57551316
i swear i've seen this post some time ago, before posting this >>57551308
tell me it was erased somehow and you reposted it, or i'm completely mental

[Anonymous No.57551340]

>>57547978
>this implies that you DO recognize and perfectly understand a state before conception, in which you simply weren't there
Of course. Why is this even news to you? We were not there. We were dead. When we die we will rot and turn to dust. We will not be conscious. However, God will then resurreect us and give us new bodies at some point and it will be as it was before.

[Anonymous No.57551344]

>>57547978
Why would you fear death though? Its nothing.

[Anonymous No.57551363]

>>57551340
>>57551344
yes this sounds completely logical. Or, you know, exactly this
>We were not there.
happens again, just like you recognize happened before, and there's no real reason to think it wouldn't happen again, other than fantasies made up to cope with the fear of dying
>>57551344
survival instinct, obviously. It's better for the species that you fear death, so you don't kill yourself before reproducing. The ones that didn't fear death or had no survival instinct simply died without reproducing, so we didn't get their genes.

[Anonymous No.57551364]

>>57547308
so what constitutes "you" rn? "the program" have another instance every millisecond. there is no "you". no now, not ever.

[Anonymous No.57551382]

>>57551364
this, i suppose

[Anonymous No.57551390]

>>57551363
But we are conscious and able to reflect on death, so that it loses its fear. There would be no harm in a death where nothing happens. We know this, we rationally and calmly accept it. You suggest religion is nothing more than a comfort blanket, but if so its an unnecessary one because we've grown up. That means the existence of religion is, for you, irrational. You are on the correct path; but you've made a leap in logic. Consider the other reasons why religion might continue to exist (at least the Christian faith); it is because it is; it is real, and the suggestion of afterlife, and a duty for us to solemnly perform in it, is perhaps something which frightens you? You long for rest. You will not get it whether you want to believe it or not.

[Anonymous No.57551602]

>>57547034
So threads about dating are banned instantly and this shit stays? The most irrelevant topic stays…

FuckingJANNIeS!!!

Heres all u need to know
>” Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. ”

[Anonymous No.57551612]

I hate these threads. Everyone overthinks this shit for some reason. Dying is the least complicated thing.

[Anonymous No.57551900]

>>57551390
>But we are conscious and able to reflect on death, so that it loses its fear.
Not really (it would be super cool tho). The example i make is that rationally you can perfectly understand the reasons behind hunger: you can say "yeah it's just so my body takes the nutrients, but it's stupid because i know a human go on even 3-7 days without food, i know that it's just my cells asking for the chemicals because they have to reproduce, my organs have to work and so on, but it's so stupid to fell hungry", but still you are hungry anyway. Having a perfect and logical understanding of the reasons behind your instincts does not magically delete them.
Of course your mind can be stronger than them, for example you can commit suicide, but the feeling it's still there anyway. You can ignore them, but not get rid of them just because you understand them.
So no, it would be super cool but sadly this is fake:
>but if so its an unnecessary one because we've grown up

>That means the existence of religion is, for you, irrational.
Nope, it's perfectly rational, just like it's rational to tell a kid with cancer that he'll be fine even if it's not true.

>(at least the Christian faith); it is because it is; it is real,
Nope, it's not. The reason why i know this is that ancient greeks tought the same things when Christ wasn't even born yet. There isn't a particular reason why they were wrong and Christ is right, it's completely mental to think so. The time and space in which you are born are completely random, if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a muslim and that's a truth so evident that if you don't understand it i can't help you further. You are a christian because in the place and time you are born that's the story that you've heard first, which sounds way too dumb to me.

>is perhaps something which frightens you? You long for rest.
Yes i recognize that's true, i do find the idea of nothingness very reassuring.

[Anonymous No.57551915]

>>57551602
you are correct and Epicurus is pretty based.
>The most irrelevant topic stays…
There are a lot of thread about legacy and stuff like that. Knowing what happens after death can have consequences on your financial decision. It's also a IQ test (that many in this thread are failing)
>>57551612
that may be because your brain is too small for philosophy
>Dying is the least complicated thing.
this is true tho

[Anonymous No.57551969]

>>57551390
i've run out of characters
>You will not get it whether you want to believe it or not.
Yeah but you see, i can already know it and experience it (or not-experience anything, to be precise), with that very simple and practical experiment: >>57547239
Not only that, but also the past (ex. year 1650). So i know such a state exists, i have no reason to think life is a permanent thing because i already know for sure that it's not. I won't get it? Then how and why did i already get it for billions of years? It's nothing new, it's not a mystery. There's no reason why, once my brain goes kaboom, i shouldn't get there again.

1650 -> did i have a functioning brain? no? ok
now -> do i have a functioning brain? yes? ok, i experience things and i'm alive
2300 -> will i have a functioning brain? no? then it's like step 1

literally no logical reason to think otherwise

[Anonymous No.57552442]

>>57547034
I realized this when I was like 9

[Anonymous No.57552497]

>>57552442
it's amazing because half of the thread is like "yeah duh, that's the most obvious thing in the world" and the other half is "how dare you, this is a mystery that kept philosophers and brilliant minds awake at night for millennia"
as i said i also find it pretty simple and trivial at the end of the day, but maybe someone needed to hear it

[Anonymous No.57552677]

>>57550660
Bonjour fellow frankia serfbro
The winters were tough in the 16th century.

[Anonymous No.57552745]

>>57550660
reincarnation then, well that's pretty cool but doesn't sit well with me because the total number of "souls" is not the same at any given time. So it looks like some souls are created and destroyed (or just left idle for a while)?
For example, we could create a potentially very large number of new humans, just by rearranging some atoms in order to assemble new eggs and sperm. The simple fact that we can potentially physically do it i believe generates some issues, but of course also other religions are probably not very ok with that idea. I don't know if christians would say that humans artificially created like that would be "soulless" or some other degenerate gibberish along those lines. In any case it would look like God has no direct control on how many souls are created or what they are like (but i suppose it's already like that because we can already fuck around and create how many babies we want with standard sex), which is pretty funny since we'll need a loooot of real estate for the resurrection thing

[Anonymous No.57552773]

>>57547034
I've been musing on this theory that we were demons in Hell and then we got selected for parole on Earth, and when we were born our memories were erased.

[Anonymous No.57552806]

>>57547034
Embrace our Lord Jesus Christ and fear nothing, death is just another stage just as birth was, I have had this talk a thousand times on beoble and twitter

Death is your most faithful bride and you must treat her with respect

[Anonymous No.57552808]

>>57547194
This is the same bot that was spamming pepe with sloths a week or two ago.

[Anonymous No.57552835]

>>57552773
>and when we were born our memories were erased.
yeah this is common to many theories but sounds so cheap to me lol
why bother with those extra steps? it's much more economically convenient to just die
and, same as resurrection >>57552745, there's also the "total number of souls" issue, the number of living things is not the same at any given time, it seems to change greatly over time. A man could impregnate 1 girl or 2 or 20 and he appears to be free in doing so, and at the same time, some billions of years ago there was (supposedly) no soul at all. So, if souls can be created and destroyed, just remove the rest of the useless framework and accept that that's what happens when we die

[Anonymous No.57552901]

>>57548329
This kek. Entire board is nothing but jeetcoins for weeks and then this thread appears

[Anonymous No.57552906]

>>57552806
>death is just another stage just as birth was
yes exactly, but you are forgetting one stage before that. You can look at a photograph from 1890 (or just ask your mother assuming you trust her), we know the world was there. So what stage was that for you?
Exactly. That stage is equivalent to death. There's nothing else, no reason to think the afterlife should be different than the before-birth. More details here >>57551969
So yeah, i'm sorry but in 2300 you will be in the exact state in which you were in 1650. Which is not a bad thing tho, quite the contrary. You asbolutely won't feel bad about it, just like in 1650 you didn't feel bad about not existing

[Anonymous No.57552938]

>>57547034
Midwits have been getting filtered for 2,000 years, most people will go to hell, you are in the majority

[Anonymous No.57552956]

>>57552835
>sounds so cheap to me lol
Yeah I'm not crazy about it. It just seems to maybe be a better explanation for why god would allow people like Albert Fish and Marc Dutroux to do what they do than "god works in mysterious ways."

As far as resurrection goes, I've mused that, scientifically, given enough time and chaos, the conditions that created your consciousness very well may occur again.

The number of souls thing doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The celestial officer in charge of the number of souls can increase or decrease the number of souls like the Fed increases and decreases the money supply. Maybe some souls are transferred to other realms or destroyed outright. Maybe some new souls are instantiated as some kind of stimulus.

[Anonymous No.57553006]

>>57552956
>The celestial officer in charge of the number of souls can increase or decrease the number of souls
yeah exactly, so if new souls can be created from scratch, reincarnation is not a thing. There are new souls that just pop up from thin air, without reincarnating from anything. That's the point.
>the conditions that created your consciousness very well may occur again.
Sure thing, but they won't be you again, just like you are not your brother or your child and you weren't your grandfather

[Anonymous No.57553013]

>>57552906
Another theory is that the world/universe/reality didn't exist until one minute ago, and we were all implanted with false memories when we were created. Therefore Holocaust denial should be a religious belief and not treated as a crime.

[Anonymous No.57553019]

>>57552938
sure thing midwit, you won't go to valhalla unless you die in a glorius battle
good luck with that

[Anonymous No.57553025]

>>57551915
It has nothing to do with the volume of my brain. I'm just smarter than you. You're masturbating to low-tier philosophical bullshit.

[Anonymous No.57553041]

>>57553025
yeah it's not the volume, it's something else
> I'm just smarter than you
well i don't know about that, if you think at some challenge to verify it i won't back down
>You're masturbating to low-tier philosophical bullshit.
you are not, which makes me think that i am smarter than you - see how it works?

[Anonymous No.57553068]

>>57553041
If you're not stupid then don't say stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.57553070]

If time really is infinite, then it is a certainty that my exact being will be re-materialized in the exact same universal context, meaning reincarnation is real. I will have simply lost my memory.

[Anonymous No.57553077]

>>57553068
and yet you just did, so you must be stupid
See how it works?

[Anonymous No.57553079]

>>57553006
>if new souls can be created from scratch, reincarnation is not a thing. There are new souls that just pop up from thin air, without reincarnating from anything.
Doesn't follow logically. Just because new souls can be created doesn't mean they and old souls can't / won't be recycled.

[Anonymous No.57553098]

>>57553077
Nope.

[Anonymous No.57553111]

>>57553079
well yes it's just occam's razor (which i agree is not great). The thing is that if you accept that possibility, then there's no reason to add additional steps. You need a lot more uselessy complex additions like the memory wiping. Just why? Since it already works anyway without them, why adding reincarnation and memory wiping, it just sounds unneccesary and made up

[Anonymous No.57553117]

existentialism is gay
go outside or something

[Anonymous No.57553127]

>>57553098
Exacly, you don't because you are stupid. You just said another stupid thing
See how it works now? Or do we have to keep going?

[Anonymous No.57553230]

>>57553111
Checked.
Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle. Occam's Razor doesn't have a 100% track record. Sometimes the most convoluted explanation is the correct one.

[Anonymous No.57553250]

>>57553070
based eternal return, can't really argue with that. I just wouldn't call it reincarnation, because everything will be exactly the same, so you'll live this exact life again

[Anonymous No.57553290]

>>57553127
You're by yourself on this. The rest of us are witnessing your stupidity.

[sage No.57553310]

Holy shit jannies, this thread is still up

>>57553250
>based eternal return, can't really argue with that
straigth up false, you make up logical conclusion, just because there is infinite time it doesn't mean something is going to happen more than once.

[Anonymous No.57553319]

>>57553230
i actually 100% agree with that, occam's razor is bullshit. For example, applying it to atomism at the time of Democritus would have discarded it for sure ("what do you mean there are a lot of tiny little things, nerd? it's simpler to think about platonic ideas")

but here the problem for me is that explaining birth and death is exactly the only reason we think at reincarnation. We only bring reincarnation to the table to justify the fact that we are born and we die and we don't like the idea of souls being created from scratch, but if at the end of the day even reincarnation needs that idea, well, then it's useless to bring it up in the first place.
For example, any theory which adds even more steps ("souls do a backflip before reincarnatin", then no, "souls do TWO backflips before reincarnation", then no, "souls do THREE backflips before reincarnation", then no, "souls do FOUR backflips before reincarnation then sing a song") is just as good as that one, and we have absolutely 0 tools to discard them or find them stupid

[Anonymous No.57553339]

>>57553310

It is a law of infinity, retard. Unless matter can be permanently destroyed or created, which would imply the existence of God/a creator.

[Anonymous No.57553351]

>>57553290
no, you are by yourself on this, the rest of us are witnessing your stupidity instead
now just fuck off and let grown ups use this thread?

[sage No.57553373]

>>57553339
If there were only two corpses in a box, one meter apart, what would happen to them with infinite time passing?
They would drift closer until the meet, correct?
When are they going to get back to 1 meter apart, "retard"?
You made up the law of infinity, "retard".

Shit jannies, shit thread, go back to /his/

[Anonymous No.57553402]

>>57553373

I don't think you understand just how long "infinity" is. Things dematerialize, reorient, shift and move about, endlessly, like a bottle being shaken. Eventually the exact same conditions that created Earth, the sun, and you, in the same exact context, will re-occur. That is how long infinity is. I didn't make up anything, this is math, the hardest and most rigorous subject we have.

[Anonymous No.57553494]

>>57553373
don't engage with the thread then, you can hide it. Go back to shill shitcoins, why are you even here

[Anonymous No.57553617]

>>57547034
Elaborate on how you were dead before you even existed in the first place?
How do you view time?

Also religion is a human cope, which is fine by itself. What was logically before God? Believers will answer with more 'God' of course lmfao
Today we have more even more available copes, all the entertainment bullshit etc.

Plus there won't be a way to differentiate a machine from human in the future.

tldr life is too short to think about this shit, so do what fulfills you while you have the ability and im a hypocrite

[Anonymous No.57553632]

>>57553402
>proof? You just need to wait, that's how infinity works
Wow science is awesome

[Anonymous No.57553735]

>>57551308
countless dreams that occurred to you, that you have no conscious recollection of, happened to you, are real, and now are part of you and work on and influence you every second of every day. If you cannot break your identification with your memory- fine, that is a practical way to view the self, but I would call it a limited one. You could recall a past life at any moment.

I also believe in the eternal return, but pi keeps me up at night sometimes…

[Anonymous No.57553896]

Why do humans have to sleep?
In kabbalah it is said that 59 parts of the soul out of 60 leave the body during sleep.
Humans create whole cosmos in their head each time they sleep, some seeming more real then our reality. To the materialists, where are the atoms that make up the dream world?
they say sleep is the cousin of death. Humans are dual beings embodying mind and flesh.
The dream world is not physical, it is the subconscious world of perfect forms

[Anonymous No.57553959]

Here is what happens when you die
>The Myth of Er
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er?wprov=sfla1

[Anonymous No.57554100]

>>57547197
This
/thread

[Anonymous No.57554154]

ITT: Made up stories, either by anons or people from the past that they still believe today for some reason.

[Anonymous No.57554309]

>>57547897
>>57547228
>>57547149

[Anonymous No.57554353]

>>57552773
Pretty cool fanfic but the much more reasonable story is that you are the culmination of your single life, and when you die your mind decomposes into the earth like everything else does. The soul is just a word to describe the greater concept of self, which we have difficulty reasoning about.

[Anonymous No.57554653]

>>57553735
>countless dreams that occurred to you, that you have no conscious recollection of, happened to you, are real, and now are part of you and work on and influence you every second of every day.
this is very very true, you are right - i just don't think the same applies to the passing out experiment (or death) tho, mailny because we can see the activity in the brain relative to that while we dream. I don't think the issue is limited to memory: without all the others tools provided by the brain, there's nothing left that can be defined as "you" in any sort of form.
Once you remove all the brain activities and functions one by one, what's left is... nothing, nothing that we would define as something, surely not as "living" or "being conscious"
>>57553896
>Why do humans have to sleep?
not clear, i think the most accreditated theories say that it's some sort of garbage disposal process, when we store useful information in the long term memory and discard what the brain thinks to be useless
>Humans create whole cosmos in their head each time they sleep, some seeming more real then our reality. To the materialists, where are the atoms that make up the dream world?
Absolutely true, we don't need matter to experience things, in fact we never do; we never have a "direct" experience of matter, we only have experience of its effects (if we want to call it like that) on the brain. I can totally picture a cow (or a unicorn) in my mind without the need of them actually existing. We see and dream in colors, but there's nothing in the atoms that says something is red or green, that's a completely subjective property.
Still, without the brain or another equivalent hardware, i don't think it's possible to do any of that, in the same way a rock can't dream or think anything. Any form of "being" that we can imagine, once you remove the tools provided by the brain, would be so radically different from what we are used to that's basically nothingness

[Anonymous No.57554849]

>>57553617
>Elaborate on how you were dead before you even existed in the first place?
well that just "syntactic sugar", a metaphor to have an idea about not-being; the idea is that's the same thing, in the sense that we could ask your same question for the afterlife ("how ""are"" you dead if you are not there? you can't be a thing, it's not like there's still a you that has the property of being dead")

[Anonymous No.57555642]

>>57554653
There is a suspicious discrepancy in human history, the fact that all ancient cultures for all of human history believed in souls and afterlife, besides a few sects of Greek materialists, and only during recent tknes has there been a systematic agenda in introducing athiesim, it originated around the 18th century with freemason French jacobins, later on with communists and charles darwin scientism.
Atheists explanation of the "big bang" is no different to spiritualists explanation of god creating existence.
Looking at it through a lense of Mathematics and probability, the fact that we are alive and exist at this very moment despite a potentially infinite time having passed before, is mathematically extremely improbable and hints to existence being the default state of the universe, and rationally nonexistence cannot somehow coexist with existence in the same way a vacuum can't just exist within a space, the vacuum would suck up all the space.
Everything in nature has a purpose, without a soul and afterlife there would be no purpose to life
>inb4 materialist view of human as a mechanical automaton led by chemicals for the purpose of procreation.
The material genetic aspect is not everything, as evidenced by the glaring diversity in human individuality and personality, if genetics controlled everything then two siblings with the exact same genetic makeup and upbringing wouldn't have dramatically different personalities and tendencies, these are things which are influenced by the soul and are already present within the individual since birth.

I take solice in the fact that all the smartest people in all of human history believed in God and the soul

[Anonymous No.57555912]

>>57555642
>Looking at it through a lense of Mathematics and probability, the fact that we are alive and exist at this very moment despite a potentially infinite time having passed before, is mathematically extremely improbable and hints to existence being the default state of the universe,
Asbolutely wrong, you should read about the anthropic principle. I tried to explain it here:
>>57547795
and read this in particular >>57547941

>I take solice in the fact that all the smartest people in all of human history believed in God and the soul
Absolutely fake, just some of them

[Anonymous No.57555975]

>>57555642
>if genetics controlled everything then two siblings with the exact same genetic makeup and upbringing wouldn't have dramatically different personalities and tendencies
False, as i've already explained here, with that exact example coincidentally: >>57548270
Since they can't physically occupy the same space at the same time, their experiences will inevitably be radically different. They have TWO bodies. One of them will enter a room before the other. One of them will receive their food before the other, will go to the bathroom before the other, and so on. If you could "overlap" then yes, they would be the same person 100%

[Anonymous No.57556061]

>>57547034
this implies that existence is infinite

[Anonymous No.57556120]

>>57556061
How?

[Anonymous No.57556190]

>>57556120
because existence is the only thing that you feel and therefore is real. once you die billions of years could pass and then maybe another universe or dimension randomly pulls you back from the void into a new lifeform or whatever it would feel like an instant because you cannot perceive death or before birth or non existence.

but who am i to say anyways

[Anonymous No.57556249]

>>57553250
>so you'll live this exact life again
oh no anything but that

[Anonymous No.57556270]

>>57556190
basically a form of eternal return yes, as this anon said >>57553070
see my answer >>57553250 but i can't really argue with that. Read Nietzsche if you are interested in the topic, he's the one who formulated it (and also read the possible interpretations, because he was pretty cryptic about it, but i also tend towards the mathematical/physical one more than the moral one)

[Anonymous No.57556343]

>>57555642
>all the smartest people in all of human history believed in God and the soul
Just a quick additional note about this abomination since you are talking about ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, i'd like to remind that religious people have this little, funny, historically documentated tendency to literally torture and kill whoever publicly declared to not share their beliefs to the letter, so it's just something that i think the SMARTEST people carefully took in consideration. Cheers

[Anonymous No.57556693]

The dead literally can't envy the living. Not only poeticalically or metaphorically, they literally can't. Only the living can envy the living, so you are envying yourself right now. When you are dead, this is not a problem anymore. You are not losing the possibility to feel pleasure and other good things, you are losing the very NEED of them.

We can assume the dung beetle feels some kind of pleasure or sense of accomplishment when he goes around with hit little ball of shit, but we don't envy that. We are not interested in it because we can't even imagine how that pleasure is, we couldn't care less about it.

We feel some kind of intellectual pleasure when reading a good book. A dog that observes us doing it doesn't envy us for it. He doesn't have access to such a thing, so he literally couldn't care less. In relation to that need/pleasure couple, he's perfectly perfectly fine.

An heroin addict that takes heroin after 10-12 days of not doing it has access to a kind of pleasure most of us can't even imagine. If you never did heroin, you simply can't imagine how good he would feel for him, there's no other way to put it. We know this for a fact and still we (or at least most of us...) don't start to take heroine just to be able to feel that. It would be pretty insane. We don't envy that kind of pleasure, or at least not enough to accept all the downsides of it.

If you are currently not an heroine addict, then your need for heroine is 100% satisfied at the moment. Because you don't have it, you don't ever miss the pleasure of fullfilling it. In relation to heroin addicition, you are currently in the best possible state ever. Death is the same, but applied to the general need of pleasure itself. Every kind of it. You won't miss it at all.
The dead can't envy the living.

[Anonymous No.57556830]

>>57555642
I disagree.
Case in point >>57556343

Most people in the past would kill and torture your mother for disagreeing, so you would have been "forced" to adopt the popular religion/theory at the time.

Galileo for example was in prison for stating the world was round.

I subscribe to the belief that death functions similarly to the states of water. It doesn't go away but transforms into a new state, with particles being added and removed.

Still, though the after-effects of death have been documented and heavily recorded "hauntings, visions, talking to the dead.etc"

Anyways I think even though we can build robots, we have an elementary view on this subject.

[Anonymous No.57557091]

>>57554653
It's a respectable view, and a very practical one. One born of pure materialism. Very scientific and rational. I would counter by saying that rationality is entirely a human concept. A tool that is good enough for survival and our psychological processes.

We diverge because I do not assume that what we can detect, no matter how sophisticated the method used, is the whole picture. I do not think that the material world is all there is, or even that a material view of the world generating subjective space is accurate.

Brain as a generator of consciousness vs. Brain as the gateway consciousness pours through into the material world

It is a very old division through the discourse of mankind, and not one we will rectify here. I would argue it is impossible to rectify in principle.

I identify with perception itself- the fact that qualia can color experience is a miracle, one that will never cease. Death will never touch me! I will eternally return to this form or the next. Death is a vacuous concept full of contradiction. The only separation is memory.

[Anonymous No.57557209]

>>57555642
Religion in all instances throughout history has just been a way of controlling people. "you can't prove there isn't a god and I literally talk to him so you have to do what I tell you". Then you also need to remember that smart people like Aristotle didn't use the word god like we use it, for him god is just the first cause of everything

[Anonymous No.57557217]

>>57557091
I understand it (i hope at least).

On a mostly unrelated note, i wanted to share with you some sort of ephiphany (or good idea i think at least) that i had today, since you talked about dreams.
You probably won't agree since you talked about past lives, since it starts from science, but i'll share it anyway.
Basically, some time ago i had this theory that dreams were test-scenario in which the brain put you in hypothetical made up scenario, so that if you ever had to face a similar situation, you would then have an idea of how to behave. This explains nightmares for example (even very absurd ones, because the brain doesn't exactly know if reality could change sometimes): if in your dream you hide in your closed and got butchered, then you now know that it's not a good idea to do it.
The same goes for "positive" dreams, to maximize profits if you win the lottery for example, of if your crush finally says that she loves you. So basically they are little tests that the brain prepares for you.

But today i've basically changed the theory, involving what we know about sleep, which is not very much. If you didn't know, the exact function of sleep is not enterly clear, but it has nothing to do with energy (in theory, we could continue to take energy from food by eating all the time, without needing to rest, just as our computers do with electricity). The best current theories are that the brain uses that time in order to save some information in the long term memory, and discard some other information that it considers to be useless. Basically we empty the cache, discarding most of the useless information from the day (or maybe even from days before that were near their "expiration date") and deciding what to keep.

So, what i think it's actually happening, which is the reason we dream during sleep, it's that [1/2]

[Anonymous No.57557277]

>>57557091 [2/2]
So, what i think it's actually happening, which is the reason we dream during sleep, it's that (maybe in particular about information which maybe it's not sure about), it goes like "OK, i don't think i need this information RIGHT NOW, but WHAT IF...?" and then proceedes to create a hypothetical scenario to somehow test if that information is useful or not.
Clearly i don't know exacly how it determines it, but it presents a scenario to you, see how you react to it, what you do and how it goes, and based on some factors he then decides if some information could be worth keeping or not. And that's why you dream about maybe things that happened to you that day, things you recently thought about, old things that maybe you hadn't thought about in a while (which are there to "expire" or have been there for a while and the brain has to decide whether to discard them permanently). Moreover, the test could be "soubtle", meaning that if it's testing something like "Napoleon was born 1769", the dream doesn't have to be in France in 1769, maybe it will be something like you dreaming about a history highschool test and failing it, to see how bad it would be for you (the test doesn't have to be about Napoleon, it could be testing if the "history trivia" category is still useful for you)

[Anonymous No.57557369]

Except that when you remember something, you aren't going back in time, you're experiencing it in the present due to your brains ability to store information about the past, which it does extremely selectively anyway.

OPs argument falls apart when you realize it implies that you aren't conscious during any time period for which you have no memory .

I dont remember what it was like before I was born... but I also don't remember eating breakfast on a given Thursday 10 months ago. I experienced it, it just wasn't recorded. Pre-birth and post-death could still be some kind of experience, just one that can't be put into memory because the brain isn't there to do it.

Positive claims are still the ones that have to furnish evidence but this is a bad argument.

[Anonymous No.57557504]

>>57557277
Checked. Anon, you might be surprised to know that this isn't the first time I have heard this angle on the utility of dreams. For what it's worth, I find it credible.

Something I find fascinating though- given the theory is accurate, is why the brain would need to rely on subjective experience to sort these things out. Could it not just compute? Why must quality come with the computation? What unknown significance might it have?

I muse in similar ways when pondering free will.

[Anonymous No.57557514]

>>57557504
Why must qualia*

[Anonymous No.57557515]

>>57552745
>>57552773
>>57552835
My understanding from reading various NDEs that all seem to report the same things, it's all quite a bit simpler than we think. Our true form is unfathomable to our material world as we know it, we are formless, infinite, ancient, energy that never runs out. We choose to spend our time in various tests that may only feel like a blink of an eye when we die and find our way out of it. Who's to say one entity isn't in control of multiple people here on earth? You and your group of friends and family are intimately related and could even be the same being outside of this world, as some NDEs explain it, you go through multiple lifetimes with the same group. That solves the number of souls issue. Think of it like a VR video game that is so detailed it is our reality, but when you exit the game it's like a dream or losing consciousness where you don't have reference for the passing of time.
Now with that established, it could also be a prison sentence.

[Anonymous No.57557530]

>>57547034
Human beings think too highly of themselves.

[Anonymous No.57557622]

>>57547677
>>57548075
The body actually is more likely a limiter of our senses. A conduit that can only receive certain signals while keeping us completely oblivious to the rest. While your brain is turned off, "unconscious" and not dreaming, there's nothing, but when you're dead there's everything. Looking at the way AI is going it's increasingly likely that we're self-replicating, pilotable bio-conduits in a very insignificant test. At best something to pass the time during an infinite life. At worst we're trapped.

[Anonymous No.57557632]

>>57557504
>Something I find fascinating though- given the theory is accurate, is why the brain would need to rely on subjective experience to sort these things out. Could it not just compute? Why must quality come with the computation? What unknown significance might it have?
this seems to be like it doesn't have all the information, which is the same reason why we are conscious at all, instead of basically automated robots that materially do the exact same things as we do, but without "someone" to "experience" it).

Buckle up, we are in for a ride.

Basically, our DNA is finite, so it can't code ALL possible scenarios one by one. Exactly like a turing machine, that doesn't have to be infinite in order to compute every possible program ever.
Imagine some sort of insect that evolved for centuries in some forest, and its DNA follows a series of precise instruction. Sunlight? Good! Do this! Food? Good! To this! and so on, for basically almost everything it could possible experience in that environment. Like, a single gene (line of code) for every possible food, one for every possible shape of a leaf, and so on.

Then, one day, a fucking giant meteor just come crashing from the sky and burn the whole forest. Rip. So, basically, what happened is that instead of giving us one line for EVERY possible thing (which is unpredictable and would require infinite atoms for the dna), they (natural selection) just gave us the CPU. They gave us a turing-complete machine and organs to collect input, and then they went "ok you have the tools, now you are on your own, just figure out stuff lol". By doing so, we evolved to face potentially every possible problem, even and most importantly the totally new ones, the ones that couldn't be coded beforehand because they didn't ever happen.
[1/2]

[Anonymous No.57557644]

>>57547034
Your puny human brain doesn't know shit about the universe.

[Anonymous No.57557657]

>>57557504
[2/2]
This process somehow requires a subject, someone that actually experience stuff and computes them originally. Probably, it also has to have an interest in doing so, meaning it shouldn't turn hiself off immediately as first thing.

Yes, in theory, there could still be a machine that doesn't have the subject, but maybe this is just the most efficient way to do it, or it just happened this way. There surely seems to be a "collaboration" between different parts of some sort, some of them conscious, some of them not. About this last thing, promise me you'll watch this video if you haven't https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8&t=1s

[Anonymous No.57557673]

>>57547034
I think about this exact thought on a weekly basis. It's impossible to ever be aware of being in an unconscious state. If you look deeper into it you'll realize that we are all God. God is the only thing that truly exists. The universe is therefore a manifestation of God's mind. We are living inside a simulation

[Anonymous No.57557746]

>>57557673
Close, but I lean towards us being different beings in the "real world" with godlike powers, all employing our own scenarios and testing our virtue. There is not one God, but if humans encountered one's true form they would describe it as God.
A far darker idea from the prison planet theory is we are these powerful beings as described, but we were caught and trapped in a cycle on this planet while the captors somehow harvest something from us. That would explain the suffering on earth and "people" who commit absolutely inhuman atrocities and enslave the populace.

[Anonymous No.57557857]

Faith is neither a replacement of reason, nor a contradiction to it. In fact, reason and rationality and therefore the sciences flow from faith.

Question: what is the scientific basis for forgiveness if someone has wronged you? Why should I forgive someone who has wronged me scientifically?

[Anonymous No.57557862]

>>57557644
Checked. In a sentence, this is close to my view.

>>57557657
I haven't watched it, but I can determine the subject matter, concepts, and the experiments likely referenced by Gray. I bet he doesn't take the idea far enough. I'll watch it though, in good spirit.

[Anonymous No.57557895]

>>57557504
actually sorry, a [3/2] is needed, the most important part was missing.

The reason why i think that's related to what i wrote is that we can look at WHEN and WHY the subject is involved. It's not always involved, it's only involved sometimes.
Your body has to do a lot of things, but it doesn't constantly asks you if you want your hearth to continue beating, or if you should blink. He just does it on autopilot (probably because the animals that had that as an option decided to stop or forgot to LOL).
So for very basic stuff it doesn't involve the conscious subject, it doesn't bother him. The subject is only involved in the most, "modern", complext, unpredictable kind of problems, which are the ones that somehow it's not able to resolve itself.

Sometimes, a scientist that's working on something evolutionary, could be so obsessed with their work to forgot to eat. Clearly, it's important to eat. So, your brain goes "HUNGRY", but with the will of the subject you can overcome that (for a couple of days) and achieve maybe great things. So, it doesn't "force" you to eat, it just gives you its strong opinion on the matter, but then respects your decision (for a while) because you are temporarly dealing with stuff too complex for it (i.e. to be coded a-priori into the dna)

[Anonymous No.57557920]

>>57557857
Based Faith anon. I agree. But I have to give the devil his due, here; predictive modeling, anticipation of future reciprocal gain. It is wasteful to burn a potential resource... you might make a mistake in the future that needs forgiving. Good thing you have established rapport as a forgiving person. All this is a strategy

which of course means there is an element of faith to it, but it is not without a rationale, either.

[Anonymous No.57557939]

>>57547212
Not that guy, but yes, I think I remember a dark and safe place, where certain dull sounds could be heard.

[Anonymous No.57557948]

>>57557920
Peace be with you anon. May I counter though that scientifically speaking, if someone wrongs me, there is a mathematical probability they will wrong me again the future, and therefore, rationally speaking, should I not kill them to eliminate that possibility entirely?

[Anonymous No.57557966]

>>57557862
don't worry, it's about split-brain people and how different part of "ourselves" cooperate
this is an article in italian but you can easely translate it

http://www.lescienze.it/news/2012/03/17/news/storia_di_due_met-911302/

(it's impressive how much things change as soon as you mess with the brain btw)

[Anonymous No.57558016]

Another question, if we are only a collection of cells and hormones, and only that, and pleasure is the only reason to live, then would it not be rational and correct for me to sexually violate your female family members? If there is no divine punishment, and we do not have souls, and we should only seek what feels good, then rationally speaking this is the right choice in that scenario, is it not?

[Anonymous No.57558020]

>>57557948
Due to our nature, we must gather and form tribes. Are you not inviting the wrath of those related to the murdered? Complex calculation, but one our intuitions have honed in on through natural selection

I would elevate faith above the rationale, but understand the utility in comprehending the rationale so that I may relate to and be peaceful with the faithless

[Anonymous No.57558036]

>>57558020
Of course, so I will build power networks and fortifications to fight off the offended friends and family and kill any of them as well. If we don't have souls, then no one unconnected should be offended. Eventually everyone with a connection in the matter will have been killed, and I will mathematically speaking live with less enemies. Is this not rational?

[Anonymous No.57558046]

>>57557857
obviously it was advantageous for the species to include that, which is the reason why you feel good in doing it. For example, someone that wrongs you could actually carry better genes than yours, so it would be bad if you killed them (maybe you are the weak one and he's "evolutionary correct" to wrong you, steal your resources and so on, whatever it means).
But most importantly, we can't refute something because we don't like the consequences. That's not a strong reason, it's nothing. The truth could potentially be terrible, morally terrible (AND maybe it's in the interest of the species as a whole for us to refute the things that sound morally terrible - have you ever noticed how christians don't like masturbation, condoms and gays? the stuff they preach looks pretty similar to the species's interests, i don't think it's a coincidence - it's the mechanical reason why you feel good to follow them, and at the same time the reason why stuff like that is so popular)

[Anonymous No.57558055]

>>57558036
I would argue that the allocation of resources and exposure to potential future danger is quite the bad trade for the utility gained in the original murder. A bad rationale, if you will

[Anonymous No.57558076]

>>57558046
But someone with better genes makes me feel bad about myself. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to kill them? Rationally speaking, I feel bad, which is bad, and this hypothetical person is making me feel bad, so therefore if they were no longer alive, I would feel better.

Interesting you would bring up morals. What morals? If there is no God then my morals are whatever I choose them to be. Who are you to choose my morals for me?

[Anonymous No.57558086]

>>57558055
You could argue that, but many, many past kings of history would disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.57558089]

>>57558016
rape happened in the past yes, and also violence. The current status (even if we still have wars and so on) is something like that if you are a violent person, then everyone has to be on their toes around you, so they have less resources/energies to dedicate to (potentially) more important things. This was considered a problem and was ruled out, expecially in this complex era, where we don't have to deal with hunting anymore, but instead with pollution and shit, and maybe you are raping the next einstein (which will kill herself for the trauma or be killed by you). There are plenty of perfectly rational reasons to have the current laws that we do, and also the tools to teach everyone about ethics and morals.
Next question

[Anonymous No.57558116]

kek at the jew scrambling to dispel god. Good bread.

[Anonymous No.57558129]

>>57558086
No one escapes psychological/cosmic justice, anon. Least of all murderous kings.

[Anonymous No.57558136]

>>57558076
"we" are the community basically, whoever controls the police at the end of the day. In a democracy, it's the government. It's what people (or should be at least KEK) think it's rational/good or in their best collective interest.

On the other hand, if you need anything external to yourself to understand this, maybe behind thr threat of eternal damnation, you are probably a psyco piece of shit. Just look at Kant for example, there are plenty of possible systems that don't involve anything else that a bunch of people and their brain

[Anonymous No.57558152]

>>57558086
Also, kings are few and the -incredibly rare- exception in power and circumstance. Just because a risky trade pans out does not mean the rationale was sound.

[Anonymous No.57558176]

>>57558129
Cosmic justice? I should fear cosmic justice? Is this a rational reason not to act in a certain manner? How is it scientifically provable.

[Anonymous No.57558191]

>>57558136
I haven't once said that I actually am the person who would commit these vile things, but you have yet to give me a single rational reason for why I shouldn't if I reasoned that I wanted to.

[Anonymous No.57558207]

>>57558176
>Is this a rational reason not to act in a certain manner? How is it scientifically provable.
Well we can make theories of course, meaning that being keen to believe something false like that may be positive for the species. The exact same thing happens with kids, which are external individual that we dedicate resources to, which is insane if you think about. So, natural selection had to code the maternal and paternal instinct (other than the obvious and very strong pleasure associated with sex), otherwise we would probably have eaten our own babies.
Probably some animals did, but they got extinct because, well, they ate their babies. So yeah that's the current state, the species will make you believe any crap in order for you to function (eat, survive, fuck), just look as how strongly you are trying to refute the point not based on the point, but on consequences of it that you don't like (very common phallacy)

[Anonymous No.57558222]

>>57558207
You have not provided a single rational reason for why I should not commit the vile acts I have mentioned if I have come to the rational conclusion that I should.

[Anonymous No.57558225]

>>57547034
pre-existence by definition does not equal post-existence due to the whole existing part of it you utter brainlet.

[Anonymous No.57558234]

>>57558176
I know if I commit evil my conscience will torture me. I would say the conscience is a dialogue with God, but you don't need to go that far to see the rationale.

Nothing is provable, scientifically speaking... just guesses close enough to the truth to work for living. You can craft a rationale from that.

Again, anon- I see your point and agree with you! I just see the utility in understanding those who think differently.

[Anonymous No.57558241]

>>57558234
God bless you.

[Anonymous No.57558279]

>>57558191
>but you have yet to give me a single rational reason for why I shouldn't if I reasoned that I wanted to.
i gave you to you multiple times, you just don't understand them.
The tendency to do so was ruled out, assumingly because it's not a great idea to kill people that could deal with complex problems in the current age, because your gene (tendency to violence, inability to understand Kant or the law) is currently considered worst than others (like, maybe you are killing a genius - his intelligence stat is considered more important than your strenght stat).
This applies to you like everyone else, so this
>I haven't once said that I actually am the person who would commit these vile thing
is a completely pointless observation.

So, the reason is that you'll feel bad about it (hopefully, if everything kinda "worked", and i think it did because you are, in fact, a christian, so you won't kill or rape anybody). It also worked on me for totally different reasons, clearly, but still.
Your tendency to believe in god and religious crap was carefully given you by evolution. Christians are also trying to push other things on you, like maybe have a family and making babies (and creampies kek), hating gays and abortions (the baby is alwasy better than the old mother, which already did what she needed to) and a bunch of other stuff the species likes very very much
so it worked like a charm, you are the living reason why you (nor me) won't kill or rape anybody. You are witnessing it in action

[Anonymous No.57558310]

>>57558225
>pre-existence by definition does not equal post-existence due to the whole existing part of it you utter brainlet.
yeah it's a total coincence that stuff like anesthesia and messing with the brain seems to act on consciousness, and when we are dead the brain is also dead.
i'm sure that

(off) (on for some years) (permanently on)

sounds way more logical than

(off for a gigabillion of years) (on for some years) (off forever)

and my preference between the two as a living human is totally unbiased, it has asbolutely nothing to do with my instrinsic fear of dying (that natural selection carefully instilled in us)

[Anonymous No.57558314]

>>57558279
Interesting that you have also given the reason that I should not kill someone because I would be eliminating their gene from the gene pool.

I don't rationally understand why I as an individual should care about the gene pool. If someone has better genes than me, that makes me feel inferior, and bad, and therefore I should rationally speaking kill them so that I feel better about myself.

It's what I answered in your thread here>>57558076

The classic Cain and Abel story!

Good for you anon, questioning faith is a blessed act, I enjoyed this conversation. Peace be with you and God bless you, I take my leave.

[Anonymous No.57558340]

>>57558314
>I don't rationally understand why I as an individual should care about the gene pool. If someone has better genes than me, that makes me feel inferior, and bad, and therefore I should rationally speaking kill them so that I feel better about myself.
yes you perfectly do, otherwise you would be out there doing it right now instead of being on 4chan, probably stimulated by this conversation (you are gathering useful information, enjoy the discussion, and probably leave it with an even stronger conviction in your irrational - but useful - belifs)
you'll probably have a kid and you will teach them all this kind stuff as well, and so on and so on
that is exactly how this thing works, for millions and millions of years

[Anonymous No.57558487]

Didn’t read a single reply here.
You all have zero proof and authority to talk about this topic.

[Anonymous No.57558513]

>>57558487
philosophy is never about authority. Just for starting, anyone could argue that you don't have the authority to establish
1) that proofs are needed
2) that authority is needed
3) that we don't have it
or you can't provide solid proofs about how we shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.57558532]

>>57558487
tl;dr get a life

[Anonymous No.57558747]

>>57558310
>drugs affect consciousness therefore there is no god
Peak brainlet. Stop having anal sex with men. It is vile.

[Anonymous No.57558765]

>>57558747
lol no, there are plenty of other different reasons why there's no god
you can start with this >>57551900 and this >>57547941 or just do yourself a favor and read all the thread

[Anonymous No.57558826]

>>57553402
You are a retarded faggot even from a mathematical perspective
>1111... has infinite number of digits
> therefore it will contain every possible number

[Anonymous No.57558874]

>>57558826
the process underlying the eternal return logic is that it happened once. If we had an infinite sequence of 1:

>1111...

when "1" represents not-existing (or at least, not existing in this life and this form), then you would be right: it will never ever happen, because it's an infinite sequence of not-that.
But in our case, something different happened (our life) AT LEAST once. We know for sure that "this" belongs the the sequence at least one time. Meaning there's no reason to think that the exact same conditions that made it happen (at least) once shouldn't happen again - event starting from total nothingness (big bang).
If the atoms managed to arranged themselves like this one time, given infinite time, even if the return to the starting conditions (total void) it would probably happen again.

The other interpretation is the moral one, which is also pretty interesting, but not what that anon was talking about (which goes like "ACT (live your life) AS everything you do you will do again in the same exact way, for all eternity").

[Anonymous No.57558958]

>>57558747
ok kid, let's see why drugs were just an example (and a strawman basically).
We don't know what consciousness is exactly, and how it works. Really no one is capable to explain or replicate the exact mechanics of it as of today. So, all we can do is observe it.

If you lose both your eyes, you won't be able to see anymore. Sure, you can still dream, remember, but you won't be able to tell how many fingers i'm holding up. That's very easy and accepted by everyone.

But when you touch the brain, something magical happens. Suddently, it doesn't matter much that
- we see areas of the brain activating and changing everytime consciousness is involved, for example when consciously recalling a memory, do logical thinking, recognize a face;
- we see brain activity change when a change of consciousness are involved. For example, awake brain activity is different from sleeping activity, which is different from a coma. It must be a coincidence that these times also corresponds to major change in your consciousness , just like we see activity coming from the eyes nerve when seeing is involved, right?
- we can totally mess up with the brain and change radical things about our functions, like memories, thinking, understanding words, recalling memories, recognizing faces, and so on, basically aaall the things that make you you. Remove them one by one, and what's left? Nothing. There's nothing else. Any form of consciousness without a brain hardware couldn't THINK, couldn't process, couldn't feel, couldn't understand language or concept, exactly like you can't see without your eyes.

But no, there must be something else somewhere else. It can't be the brain. A ghost like the ones in the movies could totally see things even if he doesn't have any eye that physically intercept the light signals, which is the very definition of seeing. That makes total, perfect sense. Also sounds like a form of consciousness that's really worth longing for! I'm looking forward to it KEK

[Anonymous No.57559255]

>>57558958
oh, did i forget to mention that coincidentally the good old times in which we didn't have a brain suspiciously felt like when we pass out? I'm sure some memory wiping must be involved (in BOTH cases), because why not adding unnecessary extra steps (what about memory wiping, but right before that, the souls do a backflip and sing a song?) that coincidentally are the only things that would save my point (the cool one! the one that makes me feel good and reassures me).
It's a total coincidence that passing out looks and feels exactly like it was in the year of the lord 1650, meaning when some specific areas of the brain were offline or didn't exist yet.
So, we already know perfectly that this status existed before we had a brain (just look at a photograph from 1880 if you dont "remember" what it was like and is some kind of mystery, unknown thing to you), but somehow we have to add a totally new and made-up new state, because we don't like recycling in this house.
We won't return to the state because no, we won't ok? The fact that everything that defines "me" or any kind of conscious subject can be turned off or on by physically acting on the brain is a total coincidence (memory wipe probably happens every single time we do that, damn) and has nothing to do with how consciousness works or it's even defined

[Anonymous No.57559268]

>>57547114
No I wasn't as a result I don't care about it, I care about being conscious and alive. Your reasoning is "you're gonna die lol" as if that's an acceptable end. What people want is to live forever because not-existing is as cringe as you edgelord.

[Anonymous No.57559329]

>>57559268
no it's asbolutely not.
Learn this and reach illumination anon, being dead is awesome: >>57556693
The only reason every cell in you is making you refute is that the species is interested in this, so it inprinted this fake news in your DNA very very deeply and carefully.
Why? Because the smart ones (the ones that understood that dying is cool) simply died without reproducing, so you didn't get their genes, like you didn't get the genes of the ones that felt horrible when orgasming.

Did you know that a lot of the salmons that swim against the current (to have sex) literally die for the effort?
Have you ever tought about how the male of the praying mantis feels like? For the species, the male being decapitaded after sex is perfecly fine, there's no a single issue with that. The interests of the species do NOT align with the interests of the individual, quite the contrary (because the people that were already pretty happy/fulfilled as default didn't bother reproducing).
The species has all the interests in keeping you here (at least until you reproduce, then you can rot and die, google for example Hauntintong chorea) and that's the only reason you are refuting what i'm saying (survival instinct basically, the idea of being alive MUST be good otherwise people kill themselves too early!).
Itì's a scam, you are a slave of the species, having no needs is a constant state of bliss

[Anonymous No.57559962]

Look guys we were brought to existence by
-insert your deity or non deity of choice here- to buy the shitcoin I'm shilling which is Luna Inu (Tucker:Linu) so we can all become rich and in turn self enlightened.
Get to it boys

[Anonymous No.57559980]

>>57559962
the odds are stacked against you but it's still your best bet you should put your life's savings in it

[Anonymous No.57560269]

>>57547291
See the problem is that you are thinking with an evidenced based mind and arguing with theory based individuals. And that isn’t an insult to you at all. Evidence based individuals tend to be high IQ. I also have a bias towards evidence based thinking coming from many years spent earning my doctorate in microbiology and doing cancer research.

This is my, perhaps flawed, argument to your point. I will never know that anything existed before the moment I was born, nor will I know anything exists after the moment I die. All that I will know in this life is my experiences. I can read about history and try to predict the future, but before my movie screen of a life began, I can’t prove anything. I can’t even prove that you exist. Nothing beyond the fact that I am some form of consciousness is known.

I tend to be spiritual. If you fall and hit your head and get amnesia and never regain your memories, did you die? Certainly the “you” that you previously identified is gone, but you continue on in your body, perhaps with certain tendencies, and begin anew. And that’s just it. Even if you are religious and believe in an afterlife, you are going to still die. The “you” that is here is going to die. People tend to have this notion that heaven is just “you” as you are now, continuing on and partying with Jesus. No where in any religious text is that explained as the afterlife.

The bottom line is two things: 1) a purely evidence based logical mind can’t agree with a purely spiritual conceptual mind. We will never know which one is wrong. 2) You are going to die. Whether there is an afterlife, whether you are reincarnated, or if you hit your head and lose your “self”, the “you” that is here now, it is going to die one day. I heard it explained beautifully one time: imagine you are a cloud. Were you not something before you were a cloud. Will you still be something after you are a cloud?

[Anonymous No.57560302]

>>57547363
You don’t have proof the universe was there. What even is the universe? What is matter? What is reality? Define them for me. Why do they exist? What is their purpose?

[Anonymous No.57560404]

>>57547884
Whether or not your thoughts of an afterlife or lack thereof are true, your outlook on life is spot on.

[Anonymous No.57560461]

>not being Catholic
Kek. I already figured this out a while ago.

[Anonymous No.57560540]

>>57551390
Actually most of the Bible explains death for the non-believer as eternal rest. Only when we come to the New Testament is death for the nonbeliever explained as a fiery pit. But a fiery pit can also be a twist on what it would be like to not experience eternal life with Jesus.

[Anonymous No.57560558]

>>57560302
yes you are technically right, that has to be some conspiracy theory in which you mother is lying to you tho.
If you believe at what your mother is saying to you (at least if we accept the "other self", recognizing that your mother is another human being that presumibly works like you), the you know the unvierse was there before you were.
Anyway i agree with most of the stuff you wrote here >>57560269 so maybe i dnd't explain myself correctly.

>Why do they exist? What is their purpose?
The answer to your questions is the anthropic principle. You can read about it here

>>57547795
>>57547941

there's no particular reason why, because the other possibilities happened as well. In a universe in which you toss a coin and you get tails, you would never ask why you got heads. The question has no meaning: you are only able to ask "why tail?" because you got tail. There's no reason why because in the other universe, somelse will get heads and will be asking himself "why heads??".
The question itself is biased, you can only ask it because you are here as an observator in the first place. In all the universes in which there's no intelligent life, there's no one asking these questions

[Anonymous No.57560651]

>>57557673
I got really high on accident one time and fucking tripped into another dimension where my mind opened up to this exact conclusion. I don’t think it’s what I believe, but it does really make sense.

[Anonymous No.57560686]

>>57547034
whoa... this is so deep. Thanks OP. My life is changed!

[Anonymous No.57560769]

>>57555642
neither you nor anyone else are experiencing reality, you are experiencing a simulation computed by rogue predictive modeling
see >>57550020

[Anonymous No.57561150]

>>57557217
I reread your post because effort posting is so rare on biz these days. I have some more thoughts about it.

I think we dream because it is the best (only?) way for us to access the subconscious domain. I believe ancestral memories lurk in the unfashionable depths of our generic code, both archetypal and of one’s personal lineage. These deep archives store ancient wisdom and support our intuition.

We dream when we sleep because obviously it is detrimental to in-the-moment threat detection, and laying still at night probably has survival benefits.

[Anonymous No.57561152]

>>57561150
unfathomable*

this is what i get for phoneposting

[Anonymous No.57561302]

>>57547034
this board really has the best doomer threads despite the fact that most of you are like 22

[Anonymous No.57561317]

>>57561302
you sound like a total faggot and no one really knows what happens after death i wouldn't listen to that crap you need to lift weights eat meat and have a lot of sex with women with big boobs not a single thing you have said is relevant to making money so you are a loser and wrong

[Anonymous No.57561320]

>>57561150
we dream because dreams are beneficial for survival, if they were detrimental the ability to dream would have been breeded out of us a billion years ago
it could be literally as simple as training physical reflexes (see how dogs are reacting to rabbits they see in their dreams)

[Anonymous No.57561329]

>>57561317
no and shut up

[Anonymous No.57561330]

>>57547197
The catch is we all chose to come down to live a mortal life because of the challenge. Some have lived thousands of lives like bragging rights.

[Anonymous No.57561342]

>>57561320
i can tell you are a turbo autist larping as a biz user what i will say is that dreams are a result of unconscious brain functions in the sleep state and are probably evolutionary advantageous to survival so dreams themselves are a way for the brain to prepare itself for different scenarios your ancestors were hunting mammoths and fighting predators now you are hunting the elusive coochie and fighting autism that's why my cock is so thick and girthy

[Anonymous No.57561344]

>>57560461
>worshipping priests when you could read the bible and speak to the lord better than any of them on your own
lel what is this the 14th century

[Anonymous No.57561350]

>>57561342
thanks for agreeing with me retard

[Anonymous No.57561362]

>>57547034
My other theory is that we are all part of one being. Every thought, every action from 100s of billions of lives lived and all life forms will be merged for the ultimate knowledge. We could each be a tiny fraction of god that will one day merge. Just think, someone might actually guess the secrets of the universe just by shitposting one day

[Anonymous No.57562763]

>>57557530
Certainly true in OP's case, though I'm not sure he would agree "think" and "himself" are terms that properly apply in this case, and round the wheel the hamster goes

[Anonymous No.57562779]

>>57547149
got any evidence to back up that bullshit?

[Anonymous No.57562786]

>>57547288
irrelevant. choosing what to believe based on what you get out of it is narcissism dressed up as piety

[Anonymous No.57562960]

>>57560686
glad i could help anon

[Anonymous No.57563004]

You're on a good path, anon, but the next step is to realize that there's no self at all. Just as twins have separate consciousness because consciousness is the software, not the hardware (brain), so does your software change over time (and it's not a single program, but many different systems in the first place). Therefore, the 'you' that started reading this message is long dead and gone, and the 'you' that will finish reading it will be a completely different 'you' again. If the 'self' doesn't stay the same over time, then you can never change or improve your own situation, only someone else's, and you are only playing a mind trick on yourself pretending that that someone else is also you.

[Anonymous No.57564911]

>>57547034
You haven't been dead that time you just didn't exist yet
When people get blackout drunk does that mean they stopped existing?
We were created by God and brought to life with our conception
When you die God will sort you out based on whether or not you were a follower of the bible (being a good person is not enough)