/lit/ - Literature

presumptuous*

>>22786185
Any book which deals with death beyond the most basic biological or emotional level will be presumptuous.

>>22786185
>with no proof that the thinking ends after death.
There's enough proof for that alright

>>22786218
Brain activity is not the same as thinking, at least we can not demonstrate them to be the same. But OP obviously was referring to consciousness/soul/etc. It is weird living in a world where OP is not the biggest retard in any given thread.

>>22786225
No such thing as soul, idiot. Consciousness dies with your brain, unless you have proof that says otherwise which, of course, you don't.

>>22786244
Fairly confident that you can not provide proof that souls do not exist, not that I said they do exist.

>>22786225
Lol

OP book is good. OP is just seething because it's absolutely brootal.

>>22786244
is soul/consciousness is product of brain how can it control it? A byproduct cant control its source

>>22786414
Maybe brain/soul/consciousness are all the same.

>>22786244
reddit atheist moment

>>22786414 #
But who says that consciouness is a full complete control of the brain? It isn't.
>>22786669#
I'm all for metaphysical silliness, but let's not pretend that these things are real when engaging in debates like these. If you believe that after the death of your brain, you can still "think" or be "conscious," you are either stupid or very afraid of death to the point of laughable coping. Feel free to use your buzzwords that add nothing to the discussion, though, if that makes you feel happy.

>>22786244
>doesn't know about the explanatory gap

>>22786185
Don't know about the book but imagine "thinking" when your brain is half eaten by maggots and half rotting.

>>22786711
Are maggots all that different from spirochetes?

Best intro to analytic philosophy I ever read. Very easy to read despite complex topic. 10/10.

I believe in God and all that but cmon. Smash someone over the head with a hammer. You’ll find out how connected the brain is to thought .
No, you don’t probably don’t go to heaven or get reincarnated. Only in a metaphorical sense: your body decomposes and provides nutrients to a new tree. Well you aren’t reincarnated as a tree in any way other than a poetic, metaphorical sense.
I’m sure this is all there is to any of it. It’s pretty fucking lame, I agree. I still can’t figure out why god would bother creating the universe

Life alone is not worth it

>>22787640
>I’m sure this is all there is to any of it.

>Common sense cannot grasp how what has immediate certainty for it, can at the same time be nothing to philosophy.

>>22787654
He's worm food like the rest of us

>>22786185
>rosenberg
Yeah, no thanks.

>>22787722
*his flesh not his spirit

>>22787640
Reincarnation is real

ROSENBERG WAS A KANTIAN

>>22786225
>being this smug while having this opinion
What do you think the brain is for? Does it take up space and burn calories just for the sake of it? Why does it shut down when you're sleeping?
There's plenty of correlation between cognitive decline and parts of the brain shutting down. The mind can be toyed with simply by inserting chemicals into our bodies. Even malnutrition can make people stupid. Why do you think your "soul" needs food?
>>22786669
>dude reddit fedora neckbeard lmao
Not an argument

>>22787751
>Why does it shut down when you're sleeping?
ngmi

>>22786693
It doesn't necessarily follow that perhaps consciousness continues after death implies a fear of death. It CAN, yes, but the metaphysical quandry of mind and body still hasn't been overcome and never will.

Is it likely? Probably not. Is it definitively so? No.

>>22787795
Nothing is definitively so. If it’s unlikely that consciousness continues after death it’s stupid to believe it

>>22787751
How old are you?

>>22787863
If consciousness is metaphysically fundamental (which is quite plausible) that’s not unlikely at all

>>22787863
>Nothing is definitively so
NECESSARY TRUTHS

>>22787878
I now see how I might be "missing the point" in your eyes but please elaborate.

When you're sleeping or heavily intoxicated or retarded, do you have coherent trains of thought that just go unexpressed?

>>22787936
>do you have coherent trains of thought that just go unexpressed?
yes

>>22787900
If it’s metaphysically fundamental, like say panpsychism is true for example, I can’t see the parts of consciousness that people tend to care about persisting after death. It would just be consciousness shorn of pretty much every property we take for granted, no identity, no memory, and so on. “You” die with death either way even if consciousness in its most rudimentary form possible persists

>>22787949
You’ve never been highly intoxicated

>>22787751
How is any of that not consistent with souls being immortal and simply plugged into a simulation where effects from the simulated body affect cognition.

I mean, you're asking me to believe the universe began uncaused and just happens to have over 200 parameters fine tuned to allow for the emergence of life by accident? Just the entropy of the early universe being what it is would be like flipping a fair coin 2,000 times and getting heads on every one.

Nah, this shit is definitely simulated, and if it's simulated to contain souls, then that seems to be something to do with the point of the sim.

Probably, it's trying to sus out if you're going to sin or not. Big G looking out for who will seek It no matter how pointless and miserable shit seems.

>>22787994
dude

>>22786225
>brain activity is not the same as thinking
That's like saying "muscle contractions aren't the same as running". Therefore "you can just keep running after you die".

>>22787936
I have been in the same place as you. I was a staunch atheist and thought I had it all figured out. I can't remember the exact verse, but in the bible (I'm not a Christian, by the way), there is a very apt statement made by Jesus when some degenerates ask him for proof of all he says, and the reply is something along the lines of
>Says the degenerate who is not even willing to have to eyes to see

My point is, that you do not know the answer to any of the things you are talking about. I have coherent thoughts when I am sleeping, and the more I become aware that the dream state is something completely different than what we are led to believe, the more I am able to do so. Consciousness is not something that science has figured out. If you think you have figured it out and that it is dependent on the brain, then you ought to write some papers on your findings, because there is not a single person on this Earth who has proven that consciousness is absolutely the product of the brain.
Getting back to my original point about your age: I'm not saying to you need to believe this or that about things that cannot possibly be knowable according to mainstream science, but you should maintain and open mind and the capacity to entertain the ideas. If you want my own opinion, the body is merely a vessel and the soul does exist. But it's not that we *have* souls because we are not comprised of the body it occupies, but rather we ourselves *are* the souls which occupy those bodies. In order to entertain this idea, however, you have to be open to the idea that there are forces at work in our universe that simply cannot be describes my materialism-based mainstream science. A good place to start, if you're interested, would be Rudolph Steiner.
I was OK with the concept of death being the end when I was an atheist, but I am 100% confident *we* didn't begin at birth and absolutely do not end with the death of our physical bodies in this life. Sure, you can say I have no proof of that, but that's why I brought up the Jesus quote, because if that's your answer after the position I have presented, then you aren't even doing to legwork needed to see why so many people could come to similar conclusions about the nature of who we are.

>>22787970
> It would just be consciousness shorn of pretty much every property we take for granted, no identity, no memory, and so on.
If the real you is that pure consciousness then the fact of it continuing on without adventitious defilements isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

>>22787994
Sin is not bad because the Creator wants to rain on your parade. Sin is bad because is it essentially anything that is not conducive of creation or genesis. Degenerate is not just a word we use to describe something icky; it is literal description of sin itself, which is something conducive of degeneration. I'm with you on the impossibility of a universe that isn't the product of intentional intelligent design. There is too much perfection and order present in the universe for this to all have been the product of...what? Even the Big Bang(TM) would have needed a catalyst. The question of who created the Creator is not a valid argument against intelligent design because whether the Creator itself was created has no bearing on the matter of His creation alone.

>>22788067
It does carry on, though. Children have memories of events preceding their birth. There are studies on this and I have heard such stories first-hand from my own children.

>>22788031
>Consciousness is not something that science has figured out.
Doesn't matter. The connection between brain activity and consciousness is undeniable. You don't need to have a full understanding to see how it behaves in a consistent manner. You can experience first hand how your consciousness can just disappear or change temporarily. Why wouldn't it disappear after death?

Schizos have a talent for seeing all sorts of connections except the obvious ones.

>>22788083
> It does carry on, though.
It can in some circumstances, but it’s not guaranteed.

In Vedanta they say that the subtle body (which is non-Self) transmigrates from life to life, and that its personality is reset each time but that there can be the possibility of subtle psychic/mental residues or traces that can pass on to the subtle bodies next state in spite of this.

>>22788093
> You can experience first hand how your consciousness can just disappear
The dumbest thing Ive read all day

>>22788100
Why

>>22788155
There is no experience possible without consciousness being present, so you can’t directly experience the absence or ending or interruption of your consciousness, because that would require your consciousness to be fully present for the duration of that event in order that it be even known at all, but if consciousness is fully present then it hasn’t really been stopped or interrupted. The truth is that it’s impossible to experience the end of your own consciousness and this can only be postulated as a hypothetical possibility from the vantage point of constant consciousness.

>>22788076
>There is too much perfection and order present in the universe
Subjective. Also why would there be "much" perfection and order? What does the creator have against total perfection and order? Is god a lo-fi musician?

>>22788093
>Schizos have a talent for seeing all sorts of connections except the obvious ones.
Interesting that we feel the same way about those who would be inclined to think that science has all the answers. Are you deliberately being dismissive to stifle the conversation? You completely ignored my point about being able to entertain ideas you do not necessarily prescribe to, and you still haven't told me your age, probably because its relevance to this discussion is the only thing that is actually "undeniable" here.

>>22788097
Point taken. I do hesitate to profess that I know it would be guaranteed. You bring up interesting points worth pondering.

>>22788194
You make this argument as if you are the first person to do so and as if proponents wouldn't have heard the argument before. Total perfection would destroy balance. There is no balance when something exists 100% on on side of a spectrum. At least, that's what I believe. I don't know if what we call God and what we call the Creator are the same thing. I know in my heart that there is a force which governs all things (which people personify) and which itself is governed by nothing above it. That's what I call God. Whether that force itself is also responsible for the creation of the world around us is not something I can unequivocally say I know is a fact. Anyways, you are being deliberately competitive by asking questions you don't want actual answers to, so I'm going to exit the discussion here. If you are doing all of this unintentionally, then consider some introspection. It's more advice than I got when I needed it the most. A lot of us learn the hard way so take advantage of the advice you've been given before you have to as well.

>>22788254
>competitive
Autocorrect. I meant to say combative.

>>22788186
You can't experience it as it happens but you can remember what it's like. It's like negative space, you can think about it even though it's literally nothing.

>>22788254
>those who would be inclined to think that science has all the answers
Why do people keep using this strawman? It just seems like projection. I don't even say things with 100% conviction, I just think the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor and the burden of proof is on you when you claim there can be a consciousness without a brain.
I'm 28

>You make this argument as if you are the first person to do so
I'll keep making it until I get a satisfactory answer. Balance can exist within perfection and order. Some forms of balance however do not need to exist. There doesn't need to be a balance between good and evil. The world would simply be better if evil didn't exist.

>>22786711
Depends on what "thinking" is

>>22788287
> You can't experience it as it happens but you can remember what it's like.
Both a common sense analysis of one’s own experiences AND all scientific research to date which has examined the manner both affirm that you can only remember what you conscious of experiencing. If you can remember deep sleep that was only because you were conscious in deep sleep, enabling memories to form of the experience.

>>22788391
Pedantic, besides the point, taken out of context, just semantics.

My original point was that it shouldn't be so hard to imagine that your consciousness can disappear (death), because it disappears regularly (sleep).

>>22788428
> Pedantic, besides the point, taken out of context, just semantics.
It was none of those things, because when taken at face value your post was affirming something that is patently absurd.

> My original point was that it shouldn't be so hard to imagine that your consciousness can disappear (death), because it disappears regularly (sleep).
If you are imaginative it’s not hard to imagine anything, however there is no actual evidence that consciousness disappears during sleep though, since its absence cannot be either experienced or shown empirically.

>>22788428
>consciousness can disappear (death), because it disappears regularly (sleep).
nta but he just btfo'd so hard no you are coping. It doesn't dissapear during sleep retard (as the anon showed you but you refuse to see) it merely becomes more abstract, it merely redirects it's attention away from the sensory impressions. That anon is not being pedantic, (you) lack subtlety.

>>22786185
(((Rosenberg)))

>>22788451
I reckon it's the goyslop's doing.

>>22788458
The problem with Jews, is that books like this a means to an end, with the end being getting the reader to disregard the existence of God, which they obviously don't disbelieve themselves by virtue of considering themselves to be Jewish, an ethnicity who's entire existence is predicated on being chosen by the very force (whether or not the force in Judaism is the luciferic force, is a different discussion) that they are trying to get you to reject in the first place. Imagine being told to take your meds by someone so obviously schizo themselves.

>>22786185
Is this a jew trying to blackpill me book?

>>22786185
The heights to which men will go to cope with the truth about death and eternal abyss. Keep on believing that somehow your thinking mind will carry on after the reaper takes his toll. That your sense of self, thoughts, experiences and memories will preserve forever.

The best part is there would be no "you" left to be disappointed afterwards

>>22788458
Rosenberg is a German name retard. A famous Nazi ideologue was named Rosenberg dipshit.

>>22788503
>That your sense of self, thoughts, experiences and memories will preserve forever.
*laughs in ἀνάμνησις*
nothing personel kid

>>22788510
(((German)))

>>22788554
>Alfred Ernst Rosenberg (12 January [O.S. 31 December 1892] 1893 – 16 October 1946) was a Baltic German Nazi theorist and ideologue. Rosenberg was first introduced to Adolf Hitler by Dietrich Eckart and he held several important posts in the Nazi government. He was the head of the NSDAP Office of Foreign Affairs during the entire rule of Nazi Germany (1933–1945), and led Amt Rosenberg ("Rosenberg's bureau"), an official Nazi body for cultural policy and surveillance, between 1934 and 1945. During World War II, Rosenberg was the head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (1941–1945). After the war, he was convicted of crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war crimes; and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials in 1946. He was sentenced to death by hanging and executed on 16 October 1946.

>The author of a seminal work of Nazi ideology, The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), Rosenberg is considered one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds, including its racial theory, persecution of the Jews, Lebensraum, abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, and opposition to what was considered "degenerate" modern art. He is known for his opposition to Christianity, having played an important role in the development of German nationalist Positive Christianity.
kys faggot

>>22788443
>when taken at face value
In other words: out of context
>however there is no actual evidence that consciousness disappears during sleep though
Are you implying that we might be conscious the entire time and then forget about it when we wake up? I guess that's possible.
>>22788451
>It doesn't dissapear during sleep retard, it merely redirects it's attention away from the sensory impressions
Are you talking about dreaming or the deep sleep phase?

>>22788583
>Are you talking about dreaming or the deep sleep phase?
both

>>22788480
take your meds

>>22788586
How can you be so sure it doesn't disappear? (Oops, I meant to say dissapear)

>>22788604
It is now time to summon that one OBE anon

>>22787994
You are a real, serious idiot who thinks he's very smart. This is like listening to a middle schooler who thinks he's being deep. "Dude, this is definitely a simulation bro." Lol wow, you really have no idea how dumb you sound. You just get off a Matrix marathon dude? Did all those deep conversations, like, really expand your mind, dude? This is like watching another dimwit saying "we're in the zombie apocalypse..... because our phones have made us brainless." This is about that level of unoriginal, unintelligent blabber from someone so stupid that they think they are a genius, and you could never convince them to see how ridiculous they sound.

>>22788674
ironic and dunning-kruger-tier reply

bump