/sci/ - Science & Math

When you die, you're eaten by worms, fungi, and bacteria.
>>>/x/

you brain will not work when you die, therefor you won't experience anything.

Well, when someone dies, his atoms get much less organized and dissipate. I don't think there's any good reason to think that the former atomic arrangement's personality took a 90-degree sidestep into a hitherto-inaccessible parallel dimension.

there's a bit of relief involved. no more worrying about loss of income, illness, starvation, getting hit by a meteorite... but given the possibilities of what is on the other side, i'm in no rush.

Yeah but what if there's nothing. Then everything you made in your whole life is disappeared forever. All of your family is gone and you'll never see them again and they will never see you again. Feels bad man.

So no I'm not excited to die.

Sooner the Better.

Not suicide however,
everything says it hurts you after death.

>>3502955
>>3502954
What if we're synched up with another parallel universe.

>>3502956

Yeah, but if there IS nothing, then you won't feel sympathy or regret. You won't "feel" anything.

>>3502965
What if a whole bunch of unpredictable, supernatural things? Just, what if??

The possibilities truly are endless if anything goes.

Read:
>>3502963

>>3502965
then you will not experience anything on this parrallel universe too (you don't have a functional brain for fuck sake!).

>>3502974

What if there is a connection in a higher dimension between neurons that transfer over before the event of death?

We don't fully understand the abilities of a human brain to the fullest extent.

>>3502963
Ah but we still dont know what consciousness is. It probably has something to do with quantum mechanics so it can still exist in 2 places at once. It doesn't necessarily disappear completely.

>>3502966
And that makes it any better now? But yeah I do see your point. It's only when you think about it from the perspective of here and now that it seems horrible. I guess this is why people believe in jeebus cause they want ultimate justice to everything. The cold hard truth might just be that there is no ultimate justice. Are we owed justice? No.

When you think about it we are literally made up of the universe, so maybe the universe itself is aware in some way, through the brains of us. Yeah I know that sounds retarded.

I find it interesting that death is the one thing that welcomes us all with open arms.

Sounds like a nice guy to me.

>>3502956

i used to think like u, but now i really dont give a f*
unless you are a very passionate about stuff, the disapearing of whatever you made in life is not a big deal.

>>3502988
Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we can throw around the term "quantum mechanics" and make fantastic assumptions for which there is no evidence.

We should do a mass /sci/ suicide, Jim Jones styles.

>>3502986
You say that to be tough but in reality you would reduce to a blubbering mess if you had to say goodbye to your family forever.

Hey look, a pointless discussion. For every one of these threads, an Indian takes 10 American jobs.

One who factually claims the understanding of the death is foolishly ignorant.

>>3503000
And look! A pointless comment!

>>3503000
>an Indian takes 10 American jobs.
If he can actually perform 10 American jobs, that Indian deserves the money.

>>3503000
India is going to run out of American jobs pretty quickly then.

>>3502968
>>3502983
what if not? nothing points to this scenario you describe.
it is too random to state stuff like this. look, im not saying you should not try to solve these puzzles. but to base your nowadays decisions in a hypothetical post-mortem scneario for me is hard to understand.

>>3502999

Yes, but what if it were an instantaneous death, retaining you from contemplating the consequences?

>>3502948
Actually I do know. When you die the electrochemical processes in your brain cease to occur...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
No thats it.

I regard death an impossibility.

Consider that you're alive... what are the odds, in a universe that could mostly likely not support intelligent life for the majority of its existence, and where it still takes so long to evolve, what are the sheer odds you should find yourself where you are?

As I see it, you had no choice. Reality can only exist through a conscious observer, so your lifespan is functionally infinite, even though it only spans a small section of "objective" time. Most would think it silly to think what happens with respect to your mind before you are born; it's much the same after you "die".

An alternative explanation I sometimes regard more favourably is that the continuity of the self is entirely a function of matter in the present organizing to create an illusion. You die no more when you "die" than you do from each moment to the next, each moment you go to sleep and then awaken. Every such time you are replaced by another "self", also entirely a function of matter in the present, that holds the illusion it existed in the past by virtue of physical memory it holds (in the present). Even if physical reality persists, the self does not.

You don't worry that you mightn't wake up when you go to sleep (or at least you shouldn't) - because if "you" don't wake up "you" will never know it. So why worry when you die?

>>3502996
lol what assumptions? I know you want to be all militant and scientific about everything but the truth is that nobody understands where consciousness resides, so you just can't assume that consciousness disappears completely along with the brain.

>>3503010

Carefully re-read:
>>3502968

>>3503029
It is a more extravagant assumption to claim that consciousness continues to exist.

In case you haven't noticed, this is the "Science & Math" board. It would be stupid to come onto here and reject the scientific approach, no matter if you think it's "militant."

I don't even why we get to live max 126 years so far in order to be death for an infinite time.

>>3503038
>>3503029
>>3503023
>>3503019
>>3503012
>>3503010
>>3503007
>>3503006
>>3503004
>>3503000
>>3502999
>>3502997
>>3502996
>>3502989
>>3502988
>>3502986
>>3502983
>>3502974
>>3502968
>>3502966
>>3502965
>>3502963
>>3502961
>>3502958
>>3502956
>>3502955
>>3502954
>>3502948

Go die.

>>3502999

all my parents are dead now. sure it is painful in the first years, but you manage to live and forget and even make jokes. of course i would cry as a baby if i saw all my life passing, all moments and so... but it is just because youre human, not because there is some hidden meaning.
you should see some corpses photos from the cops, this will bring reality to you. life is simply not a big deal (for me).
peace

>>3503029
Brain on: consciousness on. Brain off: consciousness off. All evidence points to it being in the brain. And of course no one KNOWS, it's not about KNOWLEDGE it's about the most plausible explanation with the most explanatory power.

>>3503052
Someone's butt is achy.

>>3503055
It's not brain on and brain off because brain is on the entire time. You would have to die to go brain off, and once you do that there's no going brain on. As such near death experiences are meaningless because the brain is alive the entire time.

> What is your take on death?
Three possibilities from my point of view(not listed in order of likelyhood):
1. You stop existing because the mechanism that is your brain stops functioning.
2. If MWI is true (I assume it is very likely to be), dieing would be the same as experiencing minor memory loss and continuing off another branch where you didn't die, of course there is no "death" experience in such a situation. The worst that can happen is your brain slowly deteriorating, up to the point where there is nothing that your mind actually represents: experiencing continuity as anything else would be possible (such as a baby), in which case it would be "reincarnation" as buddists call it, however that may very well be pointless as I don't think continuity of consciousness even exists: what you experience is a random observer moment selected from the (likely infinite) set of observer moments. You can take 2 positions here:RSSA and ASSA there if you want to talk about continuity, observer moments and observers.

>>3503076
There are varying degrees of "brain on".

Being knocked unconcious, in a coma, or under sedation is pretty "off". Being frozen/dead would be fully off. Being asleep is more awake, REM sleep is more conscious still, etc.

Point is that the brain/mind correlation is as strong as anything we've got.

>>3503087
> continued
3. If computationalism is true and at the same time, Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is true (which I both think are true and can't wait until they become testable from the first-person perspective), then a lot of interesting thing become likely (MWI is true within MUH anyway, but I'll leave it aside for this case). In MUH, the universe is just a mathematical structure which contains a substructure such as yourself, this all exists in the "platonic" realm of all consistent mathematical possibilities. Now imagine you design a self-contained, consistent mathematical object (such as cellular automata), which contains your uploaded mind (or some AGI), now this AGI's goals is to search for the universe containing all humans (let's say within MWI worlds), and once found, extract each mind state and run them within its VR, in this VR it could very well give you growing computing power, so you could essentially replicate this entire search yourself if you wanted. This essentially means immortality similar to "Heaven" of popular religions, but a lot more concrete and a lot more interesting as far as what you can do than any of those.

>>3503089
> continued
The question is which you will experience? It's a bit similar to the question of what will you experience next in a MWI world: all possible observer moments will be experienced, but it's less likely to find yourself in a world line where you die, it's impossible to experience the moment after death. From your perspective, you will keep on living forever, either until your mind is gone. Now if you consider case 3, someone could construct a continuity after the moment of death in which case all subjective continuities would contain infinite time (aleph null length), but in practice you would change so much every given amount of subjective time that "you" that is now will never be immortal, except in its own unique observer moment. I'm not even considering the case where there are very many, if not infinite number of such possible future continuities (why assume only one exists? or that only one generally intelligent being in the whole multiverse found out how to place himself in such a self-contained mathematical object?)

In the end, it doesn't matter, just live and enjoy the illusion of continuity and first-person indeterminism.

>>3503084
>Point is that the brain/mind correlation is as strong as anything we've got.

But we don't even know what the mind is. It exists somewhere but where is it? It's like it's in a different dimension that we can't touch.

>>3503087
>>3503089
>>3503092
>pretentious hipster word salad

>implying we don't live in a fictional world created by an architect
>implying I'm not Neo
>implying there is no Matrix
>mfw

>>3503097
Sure, cars exist, but where is the motion? It's like the motion is in some other dimension that we can't touch.

Also, if computationalism and MUH is true, Marchal has shown through his Movie Graph Argument (read the full one), that mechanism and materialism are essentially incompatible, and one simple way to solve this is assume computationalism and that consciousness is merely what mathematical/computational possibility feels from the inside. In which case, if you do assume MUH, you should also assume that your consciousness is contained within the whole list of possible mathematical objects. If you want a more restricted version (only assuming computationalism and functionalism), you can assume that it can be found within the Universal Dovetailer (UD).

Oh, and I never included the usual "heaven" of popular religions as the best way for that to happen is if (3) is true and someone decides to create it (once within scenario 3), however let's hope that whoever that person is, he isn't a crazy whacko who decides that creating Hell is also a good idea (thus he'd be responsible for creation of an neverending torture observer moment set). Of course, you could merely try and search for such cases and assure that they are provided an 'escape' (indeterminism from first person) from said First Person view. Or just reducing the "Hell" measure compared to the full set to 0, however the same can be said about "Heaven" scenario, in which case one may ask themselves wether naturally caused observer moments wouldn't just be all that more common as opposed to less likely continuations as those (UD argument claims this as well, also as a solution to the 'white rabbit' problem).

>>3503097
7/10, had excellent further potential but came on too hard.

Shit thread.

Death means brain doesn't work, you mind ceases to exist.

>>3503110
> new concepts too hard for me to understand
> not familiar with the fact that there are books, papers and mailing lists that write/discuss these subjects in perfectly civil matter using perfectly fine scientific, mathematical and philosophical tools (math, physics, comp sci)

>>3503114
That's right, because motion cannot be touched, it's intangible (kinetic energy). Except consciousness is completely different to kinetic energy in that it is "aware" and can actually validate that it exists somewhere other than the tangible dimensions.

Focus on your consciousness right now. Where is it? Are you in your head or somewhere else?

I believe the energy we have when we die that may be unknown to us (no one has proven the theory of everything yet.) could sort of linger in the cosmos and could explain phenomena such as "ectoplasmic occurrences" or ghosts more plainly put.

In an infinite universe there are an infinite number of places where I am respawned the moment I die.
There are also an infinite number of those places where I am spawned in a place where I die instantly.
I don't believe the universe is infinite,
but the size of the observable universe gives me hope.
If wrong, I shut down, doesn't matter to a dead robot anyway.

Being excited for something you will not experience is irrational.

/thread

>>3503153
>could explain phenomena such as "ectoplasmic occurrences" or ghosts more plainly put.

>>3503168
Poetry nice approach. I've been meddling round with a theory in my head about the universe and how it could comprise of a giant spiral and within that spiral are more spirals and as we see in our solar system orbits which spiral into each other. Along with vortex theory which you may or may not know about. It trips me out to the point where I have no qualms about its fact. Also I can safely say that there is no matter and there is only energy that is created in a star or matter as we see it is created out of something else into energy states that are adherent to everything else in a spirally cyclic system. Take the milky way it's a massive spiral now there are other galaxies that may have a different shape to our observations but would probably be similar. Then we are all on a another giant arm of the spiral that is a massive galaxy but matter or energy is never larger or more intense yet in harmony. This is my theory and I posted this >>3503153 before hand.

If the universe is truly infinite (or even if it's just infinitely cyclic) then there will eventually be a time where you come back into the universe exactly the same as you are now, since it has already happened once. You'll be dead in between those periods and won't experience anything, so it won't even feel like it took a long time. Who knows, you might have already lived and died an infinite amount of lives before in different circumstances.

>>3503203
tell me, what's it like to be schizophrenic?

>>3503201
Look it may be psychology I know that. But many people have experienced it. It also could be electromagnetic disturbances but this could also be the energy left over. I'm not sure but this is just a theory. I recently experienced a haunting after my Grandmother died and It got me thinking. I know it could all be in my head but certain things didnt add up.

>>3503224
Contrary to your blatant lack of open mindedness, I'm not schizophrenic I just have a different thought pattern to most people. Call me a savant or an autist or label me with a mental illness. I have been thinking like this and it makes perfect sense.

>>3503220
No you have failed to take time scale and the 3 dimensional aspect of space. Now what if another dimension was the cyclic nature of the universe and that is comprised of time mass, space and energy amongst other things (maybe) like quantifiable things as we so often use maths to solve in equations.

>>3503235
Though I was being mostly facetious I hope you realize that the connections you're making are borderline irrational. You seem very creative but you must harness this creativity in a rational way if you want to come to valuable conclusions about reality.

Otherwise just become an artist where logic doesn't matter.

>>3503263
he's better off being irrational if he wants to understand reality. logic is good for man made models. reality is not one of those.

I wouldn't say I'm excited. I might be if I felt prepared, but I don't feel quite ready for it yet.

>>3503288
I understand that logic may not be ineffable but I will assert with great confidence that rationality trumps irrationality. A new system of logic which does some combination of:
(i) extended logic where it falls short
(ii) changes logic where it is faulty

would be arguably superior but just bare irrationality is structureless and meaningless. Without logic there is nothing

>>3503263
I'd like to refer you to this. >>3503263 Please realise this is a text board and I'm not arguing with you merely keeping it in discussion. This is something that must be discussed upon as I was so sure I had come to a eureka moment today. The things im trying to build on this theory first are the non quantifiable things the things that stay stationary in limbo perhaps within space. Energy is created in a star, but we know that within that star things are working to create matter, the matter we see in our universe. This matter (the stuff we actually see) in front of us is the most real as light has a speed and we perceive it with the best precision (as we are organisms adaptated to this earth). Now we take time scales and the time it takes for light to get to things we can never truly fathom the shape of the universe so therefore we must think clearly and look to things that we can observe and quantify. Spirals and vortexes are all around us there are water ripples which are waves but if you look closely are in fact a vortex in the scheme that we are travelling through space as it expands. but in that moment we see it as a wave. Waves are vortexes, in the ocean we see them roll down the water as we are spinning on axis in a solar system that is moving through time and space. Now we can look at a true vortex you can generate this with a vortex generator. It all works there is no atom there is jus energy this is just my opinion and I stand by it.

>>3503259
I meant this.

>>3503313
Fair point, to be more precise it's better to be transrational than simply rational. Best yet to always grow, never getting bogged down in some particular way of thinking.

Problem is, how do distinguish between what is useless irrationality and what is enlightened transrationality?

My take on death is that your mom is a whore.

s'dat nxt step i guess

>>3503203
Can you tell me, do you think aliens inhabit people's bodies?
Rastafarian?

op should try to expierience ego death
mfw i had experienced one