/lit/ - Literature

>>20404860
I've read it in context multiple times. Its about 300-400 pages in either direction roughly expressing the same sentiment.

>>20404821
The best you'll get is >>20404834
or something like it. Therefore, no refutation. That's the whole issue. Pessimists come with facts and fight off greeting card aphorisms.

The older I get, the more death confounds me.

I think the strangest idea is that once my lights go out, all of eternity continues forward without so much as peep from my conscious experience. Seems almost counter-intuitive.

This tiny slice of forever in both directions is all I ever experience? Something doesn't add up.

Too many unknowables concerning process, time, identity, conscious awareness, and ego. Is some form of multi-world/big-world/quantum immortality possible? Maaaaybe, afa our crude understanding of physical laws permits, but the brain, oh man, the brain. It really throws a wrench into our predictive powers.

It would be easy if "you" really were an algorithm on a machine, but you're not; You're a shitload of algorithms on a big sophisticated network of machines that is reflexively interacting at all times with the environment. This is presuming a purely physicalist model.

So, maybe. But like I said, "you" is really hard to pin down.

>>13772477
Help me here, I fail to see how non-d would be the cope. Doesn't that imply that physical is the stone cold end? Wouldn't dualism be the more escapist or cope option?

Should I stick with philosophy for a hobby? I feel a little uncertain.