/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11837425
No.

/thread

>>11837425
Yes

>>11837425
You're uploading your current state to the astral plane when you dream. This is done so you can restore from a back up when you die

>>11837443
>so you can restore from a back up when you die
For some...

>>11837425
Maybe.

>>11837425
Yes, like Socrates said. The instrument is broken but the music still exists.

>>11837425
If they could build a circuit to replicate your brain exactly, sure. That'd be your new mind.

>>11837431
Here, let me help you with that.
/thread

>>11837425
>Can consciousness survive death?
On a 4d scale, everything survives everything because the past doesn't stop being the past.

>>11837425
If the brain is purely material and your consciousness can be reduced to computations, then you might as well emulate your own existence using a wooden computer made of blocks that are moved around (people have implemented Turing machines into minecraft). You could even do the necessary computations in slow motion, or much faster than your brain does them. Does that look reasonable?

Penrose has tried to argue in this direction (Penrose-Lucas argument), but the truth is that it is hard to prove statements about ourselves because they involve self-reference. In any case, if we accept that we are non-computable beings, where does that leave us? I don't have an answer, but I personally believe that we do have souls, that these souls cannot be destroyed and that materialism is false.

Everytime you sleep you "die". your consciousness is completely shut out and when you're not dreaming, its as though your mind isnt there.

Going under anasthesia is a more extreme version of this. Or getting choked out in a grappling contest or knocked out in a fight, as even more extreme examples.

That's what death is like but there is no wake up part. Notice though that it isn't uncomfortable so there is no reason to fear it.

Take the Epicurus pill. It's all matter, we're just matter, delighted to be in this form, the matter is ORGANIZED into us, we are organized matter, we organize the matter that is ourselves and the matter organized us, it is One, we will return to the matter and be absorbed into it as we have absorbed the matter throughout our lives.

The matter is one, the matter is all. God may or may not exist and may or may not have created the Universe, we can not tell. But the matter is there, that we know for sure and can tell.

And based on the idea of MATTER, no consciousness does NOT survive death, it is fallen apart and rejoins into the material.

I've paid to cryopreserved with Alcor. Will report the answer to your dependents.

>>11837425
Nah

But we all secretly think yes because it's what gets us through the day

>>11837425
Yes, open individualism

>>11837852
I second this

Of course it can. Why even bother asking? This is like the first law of consciousness.

>>11838293
Open Individualism is bullshit

https://qualiacomputing.com/2019/12/27/one-for-all-and-all-for-one/

>My view?
>My ethical sympathies lie with open individualism; but as it stands, I don’t see how a monopsychist theory of identity can be true. Open or closed individualism might (tenuously) be defensible if we were electrons (cf. One-electron universe – Wikipedia). However, sentient beings are qualitatively and numerically different. For example, the half-life of a typical protein in the brain is an estimated 12–14 days. Identity over time is a genetically adaptive fiction for the fleetingly unified subjects of experience generated by the CNS of animals evolved under pressure of natural selection (cf. Was Parfit correct we’re not the same person that we were when we were born?). Even memory is a mode of present experience. Both open and closed individualism are false.

>>11837425
What have you tried?

>>11837425
"Death" doesn't actually exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g

>>11837431
fpbp

>>11840064
Please tell me that there is a viXra preprint for this idea. I like it.

>>11840064
/x/ is for schizo shit like this.

No. However, the Laws of Thermodynamics dictate energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form. So those memories about sitting at the DMV for 3 hours or your drunk uncle bithing about the Steelers during Thanksgiving, those will go away forever when your brain shuts down. Thankfully.

>>11838278
Based if true

Something something infinite universe or Poincaré recurrence

>>11837425
Why not?

>>11837534
LOL OH MAN SUBTLE

Yes - even assuming something as flawed as materialism it does given enough time

>>11837425
your consciousness cant even survive a brain injury, how will it survive death

>>11841121
rent free

>>11841025
Why could it? What possible mechanism of action could there be? >>11841378 sums it up.

The default assumption is that it's overwhelmingly likely that it doesn't and can't ever. You'd need some very strong evidence to the contrary.

Otherwise, the only thing is basically to hope that everything we know is an illusion and we're in some sort of reality managed by other conscious beings - though even if that is the case, it's extremely likely death still results in the permanent destruction of one's consciousness/self/soul/whatever. It's just a necessary condition, even if it's insufficient.

The default assumption there is that the conscious beings set up the initial conditions for the universe and then let everything play out naturally, with no interference or influence; it might even be set up in a way, perhaps intentionally, that makes it extremely hard or possible for them to influence it in any way. If there were a conscious creator, the most likely explanation for the universe is that it's just a petri dish.

I think this is kind of an interesting thing to think about, since I rarely see it discussed. Hypothetically assume that one or more conscious beings are responsible for the creation of our universe to at least some degree - given this, what are the odds that consciousness after death is possible? I'd put it at like 0.01%, which is still extremely high compared to the odds if you assume the evolution developed purely naturally and without any consciousness or will/intention.

>>11841025
Why could it? What possible mechanism of action could there be? >>11841378 sums it up.

The default assumption is that it's overwhelmingly likely that it doesn't and can't ever. You'd need some very strong evidence to the contrary.

Otherwise, the only thing is basically to hope that everything we know is an illusion and we're in some sort of reality managed by other conscious beings - though even if that is the case, it's highly likely death still results in the permanent destruction of one's consciousness/self/soul/whatever. It's just a necessary condition, even if it's insufficient.

The default assumption there is that the conscious beings set up the initial conditions for the universe and then let everything play out naturally, with no interference or influence; it might even be set up in a way, perhaps intentionally, that makes it extremely hard or impossible for them to influence it in any way. If there were a conscious creator, the most likely explanation for the universe is that it's just a petri dish.

I think this is kind of an interesting thing to think about, since I rarely see it discussed. Hypothetically assume that one or more conscious beings are responsible for the creation of our universe to at least some degree - given this, what are the odds that consciousness after death is possible? I'd put it at like 0.01%, which is still extremely high compared to the odds if you assume the evolution developed purely naturally and without any consciousness or will/intention.

>>11841121
Bots cling to the reddit buzzword.

>>11837425
Consciousness is merely a byproduct of the brain's processes. You are not in control, although it seems like it. You are merely observing your brain making all the decisions.

>>11841433
>reddit spacing
>fedora posting

you have to go back and never return

>>11841378
Infinite realities + infinite chances for your consciousness to be reincarnated means that it almost certainly eventually will.

>>11841440
w0t

>>11840052
This guy is a redditor, opinion ignored.
Also, EI is the same as OI

>>11841512
also infinite chance that it wont

>>11841477
so does the observer survive after death

>>11841433
>>11841477
Look at these idiots arguing about their own non-existence without realizing the contradiction. Read some Descartes and come back, midwits

>>11840269
this is the only thing that makes death welcome

>>11837425
You're asking if life can survive death, it's a non sequitur

Shut up. My consciousness my rules. :)

>>11837425
Yes. I know it for a fact because I astral projected last month. Science says no because it is not capable of recording the type of proof that exists for it, aside from verified reincarnation cases which are generally filed away under 'more research is needed'. Read 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation to see what sort of things have been found regarding consciousness surviving death.

>>11837425
Consciousness clearly cannot survive birth.

>>11840064
This, also since the universe is infinite you can technically be reborn infinite times just on a different time scale. Reincarnation has the most scientific evidence after all.

Soul is a cope for people who can't deal with the truth.
just like before we were born, we will no longer exist after we die.
our self preservation instinct comes into conflict with our inevitable death, we have to find a way to make it more tolerable so we convince ourselves that death isn't really our end.
>>11840064
>matter can't be destroyed
clearly written by a retard.

>>11837425
If you go trough astral traveling then you already know answer yes it does. Your body and ego are not what you are in reality they are just your programs.

It's problematic what is happening next.
After you died you going to lose memories,body so only your base will stay and that is pure consciousness. Or that's what i was tought at least since i was digging more into this matter it's retarded because yes everything is wipe but not your experience with things it's like forgotten until you try it... then you find out "Oh i have talent" it's not talent this is work from your previous lifes.

What's big shitter is that you can't leave. Most peoples think that after you die it's over like everything go away and it's finally over. It's bullshit no matter how hard you try how many times you die you will forget everything and be thrown here into this shit, this cell made from gold. There is no escape,you can't die and run you will be here till this bullshit will not end somehow... some psychopaths think that you are here to undo something bad in your previous life (karma) but that's bullshit you are wiped and send back. You are fucking battery cell like in matrix they push you to the edge take all your energy away until you are exhausted and then let you be few days and then again shitter is like this 24/7 until you die and after BANG ASSHOLE you are here again ! Hahaha you want to run ? No you will be here you are nothing else just battery.

>>11844379
you can literally tell this post was written by a schizo, take your fucking pills nutjob

We're just complicated organic computers. Consciousness is just electrical signals and chemical stimuli running on the hardware that is our body. There's nothing supernatural about it, unfortunately. As much as that fills me with existential despair, what can be done? We can only pray to our false gods that everything will be alright or accept our fates.

We have emotions because they provided an evolutionary advantage. Emotions evolved from instinct; as our minds grew self-aware and rational, they way they perceived instinctual urges changed. Positive emotions like empathy and love come from our pack/tribal instincts; they allowed more humans to survive and thrive, and being kind became a virtue, even in a shitty world.

The darker emotions are holdovers of our bestial past. Jealousy is how our rational minds make sense of possessive instincts and reproductive competition. Fear stems from our survival instinct. Anger is about territoriality and/or having one's authority/opinion challenged. Hate is an extension of the rest, an emotion arising from memory (past experiences, prejudice, etc.) rather than spontaneously like the others.

>>11837962
so why am I experiencing me rather than say your grandmother 80 years ago?

>>11837962
i would even say every time you lose ur train of thought or lose focus u die alittle.

>>11844379
>two

>>11844351
>Reincarnation has the most scientific evidence after all.
Source?

What if reincarnation could be proved through quantum mechanics?

>>11837425
If you're clinically dead, and after that reanimated, sure.
>>11837497
What a retard your socrates. Consciousness will exist, but not yours.

>>11837425
why would you want live forever?

>>11844298
>Yes. I know it for a fact because I astral projected last month. Science says no because it is not capable of recording the type of proof that exists for it, aside from verified reincarnation cases which are generally filed away under 'more research is needed'. Read 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation to see what sort of things have been found regarding consciousness surviving death.
There are no verified reincarnation or astral projection cases. They aren't possible.

>>11844351
>This, also since the universe is infinite you can technically be reborn infinite times just on a different time scale. Reincarnation has the most scientific evidence after all.
There is no evidence for reincarnation, it's not yet known if the universe is infinite or not, and even if it were infinite, it doesn't mean there would be any reincarnation. That's not how infinity works. The other "Yous" would be more like clones of you who you have zero connection or tie to.

>>11845078
Life is fun, unless you're a sucker.

>>11845078
Why wouldn't you?

I agree with what Ben Goertzel said in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSmCKe27WE.. The goal is to let people choose when they want to die. If you want to die at 100, you should have that option. If you want to die at 3000, you should also have that option.

Let people determine their own lives. Most longevity researchers support the legalization of suicide.

>>11845095
> four hours of a kike-retards blabbing
How is he even an expert in this question? Haven't you mistaken him for Ray Kurtzweil?

>>11845109
He actually researches longevity. Kurzweil spouts marketing shit. Also, I'm a kike, too, so maybe their conversation just goes over your poor gentile-retard head.

>>11845113
So explain to me why does he present his doll as if it's some near-AGI and yet sometimes people chat with you from behind the curtain when you think you speak to his ai? He calls people who believe that it's a true ai STUPID (even though they're not always specialized in the field) and that he fools them, because they WANT TO BE FOOLED.
What an ultimate kike and a disgrace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YsO_RNzjJU

>>11837962
Jesus say matter one more time

>>11845057
Do the notes remain even after the instrument is destroyed, yes or no?

>>11837425

Kill yourself and find out.

>>11845582
Are you sure you belong to this board, kid? You cannot even create a proper metaphor. Notes have nothing to do with the instrument, Just as words remain after you die. Even words written by you on paper or tape, and other people's living words too.

existence precedes essence, our consciousness is generated by our material environment; if the environment did not exist the consciousness would not exist. you could then assume the environment is merely a fragmented and disordered form of a consciousness that could exist but without a conduit (eg a brain) it can only exist within a shattered, disorganised form that remains static and "unconscious". a consciousness can only form via an actor interacting with their environment which generates the necessary relationship to sustain that consciousness and simultaneously improving that environment which would in turn enhance the potential of a greater consciousness. theoretically an identical consciousness could form if the experience is duplicated in every single minute event that one may experience. consciousness could be interpreted simply as a behavioural emanation of a survival instinct that is as primitive as the atoms that generate the consciousness itself.
tl;dr the consciousness is generated through a material framework and cannot exist without the necessary components that allow for it exist in the first place. it is purely material.

>>11846174
>it is material because I say so, despite the obvious contradictions that this leads to

>>11846186
an ego is a direct result of the materially generated consciousness, there are no contradictions. the identity of self bares no significance on the metaphysical nature of consciousness, a consciousness aware of itself does not alter its material origins.

>>11837425
Consciousness doesn't "survive", because consciousness is not life, consciousness is an emergent property of (at least) human life, therefore if death happens there is no life, therefore no consciousness, not really hard to understand.