/lit/ - Literature

You aren't dead prior to existing, you're yet to be. Death is postmortem.

Why don't you kill yourself then, fag?

>>4320028
>>be dead for 14.3 billion years

no. you were born on your conception in what we could call the context of our universe, maybe its all just a game, we can never understand such concepts in which you were alive before your conception in this here reference frame, but for now you are not eternal and never will be in our perception of reality.

>>4320042
>>4320039
Don't be nitpicky here. OP clearly means being 'dead' as not being alive.

Chronologically superior means fuck-all. Old people are chronologically superior to the youth but being old isn't more desirable.

Death is the end of life, which is why many people think of it as the end, because what else is there but life? Not being alive is not a desirable state because it's not a state for you at all, you're just gone.

>>4320045

no. he stated that the nothingness before beeing born is the same as after having died. its not the same.

>>4320049

what is the difference between those two states of nothingness.

nothingness prior to birth
nothingness after death

>Be dead.

You can't Be dead. As if death is a legitimate state of existence.

We live for a few decades.

And then nothing.

So more like "non existence is chronologically superior"

>>4320058

death = non-existence

the end of your perspective is death and nothingness.

probably because they didn't exist until they were born

>>4320055

like i said, it depends on the frame of reference, in our here perception he came into being with his birth. he ceases to be after his death, but there was no "be" before his birth in our understanding of reality.

>>4320060
OK


Why do people think death is the end? Because it is the end of their life. And in their viewpoint life is all that has happened. We really are fucked in terms of transcending anything like that cause life and death stuff is really weird and we are only organisms.

>>4320055
well there are an infinite number of people who could potentially exist but a finite number of people who will no longer exist
meaning the select few who have lived at all are infinitely luckier and have gained more than those who won't ever live

not existing doesn't mean dead

>>4320065

>life
>lucky

>>4320079
Life is actually not lucky at all. You can't come into conscious existence at a sun.

If you are conscious you had a 100 % chance of becoming a human.

>>4320028
The real question is, since life is so rare, why don't people embrace it? Self-mortifying religions like Buddhism waste one of the most precious substances in the universe, sentience.

>>4320079
wrong post m8
I can now see how you decided to be edgy first and then tried to find justification for your edginess

>>4320088

because life is horrible, religion offers a reprieve from many of the horrible parts

>>4320065
>in our here perception he came into being with his birth.

I'm talking about the person's perspective, not your 3rd party perspective.

His pain, pleasure, life, death are all very different from your 3rd person perspective.

>>4320087
>If you are conscious you had a 100 % chance of becoming a human.

There is something it is like to be a dog and live a dog's life. So your idea is wrong.

If something has a potential perspective, you can adopt it in a future life.

You guys are all wrong, sounds like /lit/ needs to brush up on it's Plato.

If consciousness is just synapses firing and chemical reactions happening collectively, than what is the difference between before and after it existed (in regards to everyone saying 'but you haven't existed yet'). Can somebody explain what that changes exactly?

>>4320028
>implying this was a one and only timeframe.

>>4320028
Why is it that you think we have never been conscious before, and will never be so after? What evidence is there which suggests this? (Just asking.)

>>4320153
Okay it seems you are assuming that 'we' is something more than a human. What is this 'we'?

>>4320157

I don't think I'm saying we're more than human. What I am saying is that, since every single part of us existed in some form in the big bang, and will continue on after we are dead, consciousness, to seems like it could be a repeating phenomenon. I'm just asking what may be wrong with the idea, though.

>>4320170

>>Consiousness -to me- seems like it could be repeating phenomenon

>>4320170
not your consciousness though.

>>4320170
You are treating consciousness as some kind of magical thing that transcends our dimension or something. Your consciousness is just a bunch of synapses firing and chemical reactions occurring (or so we believe), but the main point is that our brains are physical objects. This matter that came into existence assembled in such a way as to form that brain, unless it's assembled in that very specific way, no consciousness.

>>4320175

What I'm saying is that, since consciousness may very well be an epiphenomenon of interacting parts, what says that process will never take place again?

>>4320178

No, I'm not treating consciousness as magic. I just don't see the evidence that a process that is going on now has never happened before, or never will happen in the future. If you such evidence, please show it to me. I'm not accusing you of being wrong.

>>4320181
It can, but why the fuck would it reform what you understand to be YOUR consciousness, once your brain dies everything that makes up YOUR consciousness (which you consider to be your 1st person experience) is gone.

>>4320028
dem thighs

>>4320187

I'm not saying that my 'form' would have some sort of reincarnation, I'm saying that the base experiencer of our identities that will die, may survive. The experiencing part of ourselves, not our personalities.

>>4320207
I know what you're saying, and you don't seem to understand that this "base experiencer" is just your fucking brain man.

>>4320211


I do know that are just our fucking brains. What I'm saying is that every part of them existed before, and will exist after, our death. We don't know what causes consciousness, so what evidence is there to say consciousness cannot occur again in some way?

>>4320227
>consiousness
>ability to respond to stimuli
>requires firing neurons in brain


If our universe is infinite consciousness will happen an infinite number of times.

If not, who can say? But I'm sure if it arose once it can arise again in the future.

>>4320227
What the fuck, obviously the burden of proof would be on you since you are the one asserting it. While were at it, I bet in that next life you'll shit rainbows, can you prove me wrong?

>>4320231

Consciousness isn't the ability to respond to stimuli, it is simply the perception of it. And what evidence is there that the firing of neurons is the only way to produce it?

>>4320227
You are not a constant in the universe. When conscious arises again it won't be you experiencing it.

Other than that, yes it is possible for consciousness to arise again. Maybe it even exists right now in other parts of the unvierse.

>>4320243
Deepak Chopra argues that everything has consciousness, even atoms, for this reason. Are you taking his side here?

>>4320227
And how exactly is this consciousness you speak of stored in physical form?

>>4320244

In the end, our brains and bodies are just energy. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is reasonable as far as I can tell that we ourselves cannot be created or destroyed. We very much are constants. Changing, yes, but constantly there.

>>4320247
Nope. I have no opinion really on the matter, and I don't really know about that guy.

>>4320249
I have no idea. I'm just asking if there is any evidence that so-and-so is impossible.

>>4320256

So what you are saying is a single consciousness is constant in the universe? Because perception of yourself, or "you" equates to consciousness.

>>4320069
>hurrrr people are defined by some magical pixy dust and not lived experience

I bet you give money to poor people and write poetry and gay shit like that.

>>4320099
>There is something it is like to be a dog and live a dog's life. So your idea is wrong
A dog can't oserve reality in the same way people can, nor can a dog through any circumstances come to think and act in the same way the person your replying to can. Thus its impossible to "be" a dog.

>>4320137
Nothing, people on /lit/ are morons.

>>4320263

I'm saying the mechanism that create consciousness are constant, not that consciousness itself is constant.

>>4320261
You are asking for evidence that consciousness ends after death... gee I fucking wonder if there is any. Hey bob, you know the question humanity has been trying to answer since the dawn of man, do we have an answer yet? No? I guess no, we don't have any fucking evidence.

>>4320270
Then my point is that the fucking op has no evidence either and that this whole thread is stupid.

>>4320256
This depends totally on what you are using 'we' to define.

>>4320274

I know.

>>4320269
but the mechanisms that create consciousness do not create consciousness if they simply exist. You implied yourself in that post that consciousness and the mechanisms of consciousness are separate things.

If you do not say that consciousness itself is constant, there is no point saying "we" are constant. Because the concept of "we" requires a self awareness.

>>4320275
So define it...

One can read and know Plato without actually believing everything Plato believed. I'd even venture to say that if you did agree with everything he and Socrates said, you totally missed their points.

>>4320276

I disagree that the 'we' requires self awareness. That depends on the mechanism which produces perception. Could you be a bit more clear on what you yourself mean by 'we'? I'm obviously a bit retarded.


>>4320283

By 'we', I mean all the 'me's in the universe.
By 'me', I mean that which separates me and my experiences from you and your experiences. Not our bodies, not our consciousness.

>>4320261
you're trying to start an honest, malice-free discussion on /lit/ and i like it! I agree about the infinite nature of time and the possibility for infinite configurations of matter to result in the same exact brain being formed again, but the universe is expanding and im not sure that entropy on a universe-wide scale can be counteracted. i think that the universe will end up in a uniform state of thinly spread particles rather than that big crunch/big bang cycle that would give what you're talking about. but, you know, i have no idea what is really out there, so i couldn't say for certain. if all we are is a configuration of electrical pulses though, we could become part of some singular, grandiose amalgam of consciousness once we die because of random electrical discharges in the universe - and we would even percieve a smooth continuity too! but whether or not we are the hardware or the software is a good question.

>They think consciousness exists

>>4320292
To use the term "we" or "me" requires consciousness. It requires awareness of self, ei yourself, you. Without awareness of yourself, you could not use the term "me" or "we" meaningfully. Lizards for example, cannot recognize themselves in a mirror. They think they see another lizard. There is no "me" for them.

>>4320297
>>They think consciousness exists

>he thinks there is a "they"

>>4320297
consciousness exists more than anything else you fuck, especially more than 'existence'

>>4320297
Consciousness is the only thing we can known exists for sure

>>4320295
Thanks, man.

>>4320298


I think you're confusing a 'me' with sense of self and personal identity. I do not think they are required for distinguishing between things which can experience consciousness. I think there are objective 'me's objective 'we's, despite their level of awareness, if they have any at all.

(sorry that I took a while to respond)

>>4320307
>>4320305

This is false. Consciousness is simply an illusion parts of the brain generates to trick other parts into following along, for pragmatic reasons.

But I have to produce at least a legion of offspring around the world, record a climb K2 with one other person, overthrow a nation (the bigger/stronger, the better), kill at least a few hundred soldiers with small arms, achieve Herculean strength, kill a god, and become an even stronger god. How am I going to do all that if I'm dead?

>>4320314
This is false. The fact that you are aware that consciousness is an illusion parts of the brain generates to trick other parts into following along, for pragmatic reasons proves that consciousness exists.

>>4320318

yes the illusion exists.

>>4320321
This is a horrible response

>>4320314

Wikipedia says that "Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself."


Are you saying that there is no such thing as awareness or perception?

>>4320314
This is a checkmate, if what you are saying is true than you are displaying self-awareness which proves consciousness. If what you are saying is false, than the original premise stands and consciousness exists.

>>4320311
Sense of self and personal identity is "me", though, I think.


Unless you mean "me" solely in terms if your own physical body, when you say "me" you are speaking about your personal identity, and personal identity requires a sense of self.

Earlier you said you mean "you" by that which separates me and my experiences from you and your experiences.

But you cannot place a "my" in front of "experiences" without consciousness. So that which separates these experiences is consciousness in itself.


RIGHT TAO LIN?

>>4320326
>Are you saying that there is no such thing as awareness or perception?

Awareness is just information processing.
Even a camera does it.

Humans are hard-wired to have various illusions for survival and reproductive purposes.

>>4320331
Since when did the term "awareness" be dumbed down to "the ability to process information"? And you need to define "process" as well.

What do you mean by "process"?

>>4320328

What I mean by a 'me' is a thing which can be distinguished from the rest of the universe that can have perception. If there were no 'me's we would all be conscious of all our other perceptions and consider ourselves the same person.

>>4320336
>What do you mean by "process"

the act of changing the arrangement of a given number of elements or structures.

>>4320343
And that is awareness?

Or is there a differentiation between awareness and self awareness here?

>>4320331
Thats right little guy! One day when you take a science class you'll learn those are called 'instincts'! Oops! Silly me, I spoiled the surprise!

>>4320342
>If there were no 'me's we would all be conscious of all our other perceptions and consider ourselves the same person.

So by "me" you mean personal identity and SELF awareness? Because the SELF is a "me", only one person.

>>4320349
He's talking about the collective working functions of a human brain but he doesn't realize it yet.

>>4320349

I mean neither. I mean that which is somehow is attached to your specific awareness which apparently 'dies'. It doesn't need personal identity or awareness of itself.

To go back to what you said earlier, I would think a lizard is conscious even if it does not know how mirrors work.

>>4320380

Jesus its four in the morning now, here.

I'm going to bed. If you disagreed with me, you win.

>>4320028
size=/=importance
size=/=truth value

Some people like to point out how tiny the earth is in order to insinuate that it is insignificant, but 10000 Balls of Hydrogen and Helium are no more significant than one.
You are saying that the timespan of our lives is insignificant when compared with the time where we won't be alive, but 10000 years of nothing are no different from one.