/lit/ - Literature

>>17310875
Embarrassing. If you have no argument, just admit it. There's no shame in that.
>>17310895
Go on, share your wisdom with us.

>>16542412
For me the main problem I perceive about afterlife is the close observed connection of consciousness to the brain. Taking drugs or having a brain injury can significantly alter my consciousness and intelligence. Given that we know brain decays after death, that seems to be a good reason to think that even if consciousness remains, it will be very significantly altered, way more so than taking any amount of drugs or having brain damage. And sometimes when I drink a lot I can have a hard time recognizing myself in that state. This makes me think that if any consciousness survives after death, it will no longer be me.

>>15213488
1. You can't rewind time so why is any of this relevant.
2. Would your argument work if instead of rewinding time you said if you recorded a movie and played it back everything would happen the same way each time you played it? I think we both agree that the fact that in the movie recording everything happens the same way each time doesn't tell us anything interesting about free will. So how is actually going back in time important for your argument?
>>15213475
That's very interesting, I didn't know about this. Thanks for sharing. But still, on the macroscopic scale that our decisions and actions happen in, does that really contradict what I said? I don't think so.
>>15213513
To select