/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7068051
>what happens in life after death?
Life ends with death, hence nothing happens in a person's life after she died.

> What do we know about after life?
That there is none.

>>7068051

Your consciousness dissolves. Your body decomposes. That's it.

Next question?

>>7068055
>>7068059
Take DMT mates. You'll thank me later.

>>7068051

OP, is this a science question?

because the scientific definition of life is that it is exclusive in every characteristic to death

the question 'in life after death' proposes that life is not bounded to the definitions scientists have laid out for it, yet you ask the question on a science board?

It's not that it's not a good question, it's just that the way you're posing it is fallacious to the scope of this board.

what happens to CONSCIOUSNESS after death? ask that.

the truth is, even barring every possible metaphysical concept such as afterlife and limbo, the question is really interesting in itself. what -happens- in the moments your mind fails to compose consciousness during death?

now that's an interesting discussion, to me anyways.

>does time perception slow down during death so that you may ponder your thoughts more 'quickly' as you die, giving you a non-relevant sense of time?
>how much energy does this take, calorie wise, and how long could you theoretically think in this state?

ontology: it's not a science yet because neurology is poorly understood in regards to consciousness.

>>7068070
>Take a state of mind altering drug to witness some kind of 'other' reality
this is what drug doofuses really believe

>>7068098
but m8 parallel universes in your head

stop using your blind logic

>>7068107
good argument ty

>>7068070
This

You'll get a good long sleep and after that you'll imagine a fresh new universe for yourself.

>>7068077
>does time perception slow down during death so that you may ponder your thoughts more 'quickly' as you die, giving you a non-relevant sense of time?
There have been studies done regarding this
The only reason 'time slows down' is because your brain is trying to take in as much as possible which is why a 3 second fall will feel like a 15 second one if it's potentionally deathly

>time slows down
lack of consciousness accelerates the subjective experience of time.

>>7068112
>your brain is trying to take in as much as possible

explain pls

do you mean oxygen/blood?

he is an other thread about this topic

>>7065942

>>7068117
whenever you make a mistake, your brain tries to soak in the experience (aka the failure or mistake) to make sure to never ever make the same mistake again

no one knows

timeline:
death ---- day you were born --- life ---- day you die --- death

>>7068134
no, that is false, non existance isn't being death

>>7068070
The human brain is a machine that has evolved to draw workable conclusions from its environment. Throwing a spanner inside its works and temporarily breaking that doesn't lead to deep insights (other than the fact that thought and consciousness is really based on physical phenomena, and thus physically disruptible). If anything, mind-altering drugs should convince you that dualism and related ideas are a farce.

"Life after death" is a contradiction. Death means the end of life.

>>7068110
solipsist detected

>>7068117
Not the guy, but what I have read is this: In life-threatening situations, the sensory filter for memories is turned off. Time passes just as quickly for you, but you memorize much more. In retrospect, the memories of these moments are thus denser in information and feels longer to your internal clocks.

>>7068134
Timeline?
Time is not made out of "lines".
It is made of circles, that is why clocks are round.

>>7068146
Unless, you view upon the subject from a dualist's perspective.

>Learn how to philosophy you pleb

>>7068167
>philosophy

This is a science and math board. Go back to /x/ or /lit/.

Oh man, I sure love to read these posts about death being the end of us.

First, it's not a fact, second, you can't prove it, third, many theories have been created around this, but that's what they are, theories, you can't take them seriously until proven otherwise.

Stop being such tools and open your mind to new ideas instead of repeating what others say.

>>7068051
>What's the most recent consensus about what happens in life after death?

The same thing that happened before life: NOTHING

>>7068169
what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
you fucking loonies spouting "U CANNTTT DISPROOOVE ITTT"

each of us becomes an eternal loli

>>7068169
It is a fact and it is easily proven. After your death there is no activity in your brain anymore. Thus your neural oscillations cannot interact with quantum mechanical wave functions anymore. A dead body cannot collapse a wave function and therefore cannot experience consciousness.

>>7068169
I'd rather not "open my mind" to evidence-less garbage ideas. How goes the quote again - "the sign of an intelligent mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them"?
Guess and think about that stuff by all means, but if guesses and thoughts are all you have, then default to a neutral position. The evidence points towards death being in fact - and as the definition suggests - the end of life.

>>7068183
>Here let me quote something to prove I'm intelligent.
Good job dipshit.

>>7068169
>open your mind

I'm glad I saved the right reaction image from atheistmemebase for this fallacy.

>>7068186
Kindly remove yourself.

Depends on what consciousness is. Right now, we have several ideas. One of them is panpsychism, where pretty much anything is conscious, but to varying degrees. This could mean death is not real, but your consciousness will enter a more simple state upon the death of your body.

>>7068175
>>7068177
>>7068182
>>7068183
>>7068188
>>7068195
always a pleasure

>>7068199
Panpsychism is easily disproved. If it were true, Schrödinger's cat experiment wouldn't work because the cat would be an observer. But it isn't. It cannot collapse the wave function because it is only an animal and not a human.

>>7068162
So this is why whenever I take around 1300mg of caffeine in about 1 hour everything becomes super fucking slow and I can read and understand most things easier... It works great on vidya too... My chest hurts.

>>7068203
always a pleasure to meme with you to! ^~^ :D top fedora

>>7068205
>It cannot collapse the wave function because it is only an animal and not a human
wat

>>7068205
The observer is the radiation detector.

>>7068229
Animals' brains are too primitive to have consciousness.

>>7068256
The observer is the human opening the box. Experiments like the quantum eraser prove that a non-human device alone is not enough to collapse a wave function.

>>7068262
I think you need to refresh your knowledge, mate.

>>7068070
This. People who are disregarding DMT are the same ones who haven't tried it.

>>7068203

pic related

>>7068070
you're an idiot for thinking the new ideas you had came from anything other than new ways of sodium ions moving around in your brain

>>7068203
xD

>>7068318
And this says what exactly..?

>>7068412
probably that it makes you addicted

>>7068051

I don't even want to be alive right now.

Such a shitty period to live in.

Nothing to do or explore.

Born to late to explore the planet.
Born to early to explore the galaxy.

Fuck this gay earth

>>7068550
There is a lot to explore. For example the mystery of consciousness is still unsolved.

>>7068551

fuck that pussy shit

I want to walk on the surface of untouched worlds and feel the warmth of alien stars on my skin.

>>7068557
I prefer to feel the warmth of another human being lying next to me in bed.

>>7068558
>/sci/
>human intimacy

bait harder

>>7068558

>>7068560
Happy Valentine's day!

Was under the influence of some schedule one drugs and started wondering about what happened after death. I dont adknowledge any type of after life. But my question is what is nothing? How can you experience nothing; no thought, no pain, no fear, nothing. Most yal will pass this post by without thinking about it. But what is it like to think nothing at all. Please try for a second to not have any concious thought. You cant can you. That idea bothers me.

>>7068051
What if I had the superpower to manipulate atoms and molecules? If someone died one for week from a heart attack and brought them back to life, does that prove that consciousness isn't forever gone after death?

I thought the most recent consensus was that there was no consensus?

>>7068562
why? when nothing happens you wont be there to experience it. its like wondering how a dog feels about our current political system; it doesnt, and thinking about it is pointless.

>>7068666
I'm sorry, that doesn't conform to my worldview

I'm going to have to call you a name and insist you leave

>>7068169
I once tried opening my mind and my brain nearly fell out. I guess I got off lucky compared to some people.

>>7068262
>Animals' brains are too primitive to have consciousness.
[citation needed]

>>7068660
If you break spatial continuity (eg you are dissolved and reassembled in another place) and temporal continuity (eg you die and decompose and someone reassemble an entity equal to you 1000 years into the future) of consciousness, even if you're resurrected, you're not longer "you", but another, separate person who has nothing to do with your current self.

So nope, your superpower would be useless to prove that.

>>7068262
>consciousness
take this metaphysical shit to >>>/x/ , this is a science board

>>7068205
>If it were true, Schrödinger's cat experiment wouldn't work
it's not supposed to work you fucking retard

>>7068831
Consciousness is a topic of neuroscience and quantum mechanics. Nothing paranormal.

>>7068137

>>7068840
no, it's a fabrication of philosophy to make humans feel special. this thread goes even further and tries to attribute a necessity of it to quantum mechanics. this is /x/ tier bullshit and does not belong here. again,
>>>/x/

>>7068847
Humans ARE special. We evolved to be special. No philosophy needed, just simple biology.

>>7068840
>Consciousness is a topic of neuroscience and quantum mechanics.
>and quantum mechanics.

No. Consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics. Nothing.

>>7068853
Every species evolved to be special.

>>7068853
>We evolved to be special
in the sense that every snowflake is special because it is different from most others. not really special in a significant way though.
>just simple biology
right, so stop bringing metaphysical bullshit like consciousness into the board.

>>7068854
Except that it's directly involved in collapsing the wave function.

>>7068855
Other species are not special. What's special about an insect? Or a dog? Fucking nothing. Humans on the other hand evolved to be superior.

>>7068858
There is nothing metaphysical about consciousness. It arises from physical phenomena.

>>7068854
Consciousness is what collapsed the wavefunction. Prove me wrong.

>>7068860
Your definition of special is scientifically meaningless.

>>7068859
>directly involved in collapsing the wave function
simply asserting random shit without evidence only works in programming. no consciousness is needed in collapsing the wave function. you don't even seem to have a grasp on QM. collapsing the wave function is not an act or event, it's just semantics.

>>7068861
Not the anon you're replying to, but what you said is not quite right. Consciousness is not a separate entity causing collapse. Consciousness rather IS the collapse of the wave function. It consists of the information shift during the collapse.

>>7068866
Collapsing the wave function is a very distinct event. You'd know this if you were familiar with the mathematical formalism of QM. And experiments show that this event depends upon the presence of a human observer.

>>7068860
>There is nothing metaphysical about consciousness
you're adding an unnecessary (and unjustified) layer of complexity to physical processes. it's metaphysical.
>it arises from physical phenomena
so you claim. ghost also arise from residual energy of dramatic events. bigfoots arise from other bigfoots. please discuss the specifics of such things over here >>>/x/

>>7068872
Are you denying that consciousness is caused by physical processes? That would imply you're a dualist and claiming consciousness is magic. Then it's you who belongs on /x/.

>>7068871
>You'd know this if you were familiar with the mathematical formalism of QM
saying shit like this only makes you look like a retard to people who actually understand the stuff you claim to. also, mathematical formulations aren't necessarily representative of what's actually happening in general, so using one as proof shows not only your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics but science in general.
>and experiments show that this event depends upon the presence of a human observer
which experiments? must be your own personal experiments because no known experiment shows this. please tell me about your at-home studies so i can reward you with this nobel prize already.

>>7068880
>people who actually understand the stuff
You already told us you don't understand what the collapse of the wave function is. So you obviously don't know the mathematical formalism.

>which experiments?
quantum eraser

>>7068876
no, i'm denying that the physical processes you speak of cause any kind of metaphysical nonsense, especially one that magically interacts with quantum processes.
>claiming consciousness is magic
only in the sense that neither exist.

>>7068885
There is nothing metaphysical about consciousness. It is caused physically.

We are ideas and feelings trapped in bodies. You may die, the idea may survive. You are nothing

>>7068881
>So you obviously don't know the mathematical formalism.
if you say so. any kind of credential i give would just be waved off so i'm not going to try to convince you.
>quantum eraser
in no way does this experiment imply necessity of consciousness for wave function collapse, much less human "consciousness".

>>7068888
>i'll just keep repeating it, that'll make it true

>>7068891
>if you say so. any kind of credential i give would just be waved off so i'm not going to try to convince you.
Appeal to resignation is a fallacy.

>in no way does this experiment imply necessity of consciousness for wave function collapse, much less human "consciousness".
It proves that the wave function is not being collapsed if no information is shifted towards a human observer inbetween. If it was collapsed, it couldn't be restored anymore in the end.

>>7068894
The good thing about science is that it's true irregardless of whether you believe in it or not.

>>7068899
the good thing about being a retard is that you can believe anything whether it is metaphysical nonsense or not. enjoy your ignorance retard.
>>7068898
>Appeal to resignation is a fallacy
not a formal one. but i guess i shouldnt expect any better from someone who likes to make shit up to make himself feel special.
either way, don't try playing the fallacy throwing game because you're already showing you're shit at it. if anything you're committing an ad hominem since my credentials have nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.
>It proves that the wave function is not being collapsed if no information is shifted towards a human observer inbetween
no, it really doesn't. but with all the make-shit-uppening you're doing i guess we're in fairytale land now and you're allowed to do this.
but again, in the real world randomly asserting shit without evidence or reasoning does not make it true.

There was no life to start as you're all nerds

>>7068881
>quantum eraser
Doesn't show anything about consciousness whatsoever. Literally nothing.

Just because you believe some new age shit and desperately want your whacky ideas to be supported by the best confirmed scientific theory humanity has thus far produced doesn't meant it actually does.

It really bothers me how the quacky pseudo science retards try tacking themselves onto QM.

>>7068915
>enjoy your ignorance retard.
Ad hominem is a fallacy.

>because you're already showing you're shit at it.
Ad hominem is a fallacy.

>you're committing an ad hominem since my credentials have nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.
You did not post any arguments and your credentials are essential to your arguments because you cannot argue about something you don't understand. You cannot argue about quantum mechanics if you don't even know what a wave function is.

>no, it really doesn't
I just explained why it does. Please learn the math of QM first. Then we can talk. I feel like wasting my time talking to someone who thinks he can "argue" about a subject he never studied formally. Almost as if you're a chatbot copypasting some generic answers without any substance.

>>7068922
The quantum eraser experiment shows that a human observer is needed to collapse the wave function. Without a human observer the wave function can be perfectly restored at the end of the quantum eraser experiment, which means it was not collapsed inbetween despite the theoretical implication that the "which path" information should have been resolved. The only conclusion is that a mere non-human device cannot collapse the wave function. This is additionally underlined by the fact that the presence of a human observer makes the restoring of the wave function (and thus the quantum eraser) impossible.

>>7068925
>I just explained why it does
no you didnt. you just asserted it.
>You did not post any arguments
burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your metaphysical bullshit. you've done nothing but make unsupported assertions.
>Ad hominem is a fallacy
yes, retard, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, retard. i'm allowed to insult you for being a retard, retard. that is not a fallacy, retard. an ad hominem is not simply an insult, retard. what is an ad hominem is this retarded thing right here
>your credentials are essential to your arguments because you cannot argue about something you don't understand
an ad hominem is attacking a position by attacking the credentials of the person taking that position instead of that position itself, retard.

>>7068943
I did not make any metaphysical assertions. Quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics. I explained the experiment and its implications at least twice. Of course you cannot understand the explanation if you don't know what a wave function is, so please learn the math first.

>>7068937
no it doesn't. all the experiment showed is that causality does not exist in QM processes in the same way it does in macro processes. stop reading into shit that isn't there to feel special, you sound like an arts major.

>>7068947
>Quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics
but consciousness is metaphysics.
> I explained the experiment and its implications at least twice
no. as i have said countless times, you only asserted random unsupported shit.

>>7068948
What part of my post do you disagree with?

>>7068950
Consciousness is caused physically and does not imply metaphysics.

>>7068070
>advocating drug use
but this is an 18+ site???

>>7068051


No such a thing as life. Just self propagating carbon based nano machines acting in concert, some of which sometimes displaying odd software malfunctions.

>>7068947
It's like saying that someone needs to hear the tree falling or the tree doesn't exists. Or that's what I'm understanding from what you say.
The opinion that /sci/ has told to you it's the one you can see in those threads below, and it's basically that you don't need a consciusness, you need an observer.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/consciousness-causes-collapse.525812/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-consciousness-involved-in-wave-function-collapse.507154/

>>7068205
>thought experiment
>proving anything

Nice.

>>7068937
Sigh.

Go on, cite legit papers.

>>7068959
all of it. the experiment in no way leads to the conclusion that human consciousness is required for wave function collapse. i don't know how you came to this conclusion. you don't even try to justify it, you just say it sort of matter of factly. like "my tv turned off by itself, therefore ron paul will be the next president". i hope you're involved in academia.

>>7068961
>Consciousness is caused physically
seriously, your autism must be off the charts. you just keep asserting shit. like... you're not even arguing, you're just talking and the worst part is you can't even recognize the error you're making despite having it pointed out so many times. your mind is not suited for science.

>>7068966
You misunderstood my post. I'm not saying consciousness creates reality or anything philosophical. I'm talking about the role of human observers in quantum mechanics and how the quantum eraser shows that they interact differently with wave functions than non-human devices do.

Btw physics forums is a horribly site with lots of uneducated people. It's basically a high school and freshman circlejerk on par with reddit.

>>7068974
>this post
The irony levels are off the charts

>>7068971
Experimental fact: If no human observer interfered with the wave function, it was able to restore the initial wave function despite the split of the "which path" information.
Experimental fact: If a human observer observed the "which path" information, the wave function could not be restored anymore

Do you disagree with the results of the quantum eraser experiment? Do you even understand the experiment?

>>7068974
>hurr durr consciousness is magic

Go back to >>>/x/, dualist. You don't belong on a science board.

>>7068947
>so please learn the math first.
please give the path integral of a free particle moving in two dimensions from one point to another. use any constants as needed.

>>7068979
shit like this is what happens when scientist try to dumb down science to high school levels. it doesn't have to be a human observer. something simply has to interact with the wave function that would force it to collapse. for example a quantum computer solving a cryptographic problem would experience wave function collapse when a solution is found. the only thing i can think of to redeem your reasoning is if you're saying "well we can't know it collapsed until a human observes it" which is still pretty dumb.

>>7068983
I can't be arsed to TeX that. If you need it for homework, just search on google and you'll find it easily.

>>7068993
What separates a device capable of causing collapse from a device which cannot do it?

>>7068982
>i'll repeat the same argument i made an hour ago, he probably forgot hehe
again, it's only magic in the sense that neither exist.

>>7068999
If consciousness doesn't exist, then why do neuroscientists research it?

>>7068995
you've spent 8 hours arguing with random people but suddenly when your knowledge is questioned you can't be arsed to take a few minutes? /sci/ is such shit. bunch of apes without opposable thumbs laughing at the other ape who can't hold a straw.

>>7069006
>you've spent 8 hours arguing with random people

Nah, stop projecting. I'd never waste that much time on 4chan.

>>7068998
depends on which version of QM mechanics you are using. Hell, we're not even sure if wave function collapse is an objective thing or simply a product of the math that just seems to work. if i truly knew i suspect i'd win a nobel prize for bridging QM and relativity.

>>7068968
Still waiting. Strangely enough, I cannot find anon's stunning "HURR DURR CONSCIOUSNESS MAKES THE WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE" thesis in the reputable literature.

Who would have thought?

>>7069001
Neurophilosophy =/= neuroscience

>>7069020
It's cutting-edge research and not fully published yet. I'm working on a unified theory solving the hard problem of consciousness and the quantum mechanical measurement problem.

>>7068809
According to this logic, you're no longer 'you' one second after this post either, because change has occured in the space-time continuum. Such logic is retarded

>>7068051
>What do we know about after life?

Nothing. We know nothing. And we don't know nothing. We can't know nothing. Nothing cannot be known.

>>7068318
>>7068070
I take DMT regularly and am an atheist who thinks life ends at death. I also think DMT is incredibly over rated, and I only smoke it as frequently as I do because I happen to live in a part of the world where it's botanical sources are easily obtained. The crap thats spewed about this simple molecule blows my mind sometimes.

Is the human consciousness just an evolutionary accident?

>>7069105
What are the botanical sources of it in abundance in your region?

..for scientific reasons obviously..

>>7069112
>accident
Who are you to judge evolution?

google quantum existence

>>7069117
Nice hypocrisy.

>>7069122
Though, it's not really is it.

>>7068979

dude, you're not entitled to call the collapse of a wave function a physical event, as a wave function is just a state vector, that corresponds to some physical system, in hilbert space --the mathematical setting in which these collapses might be said to occur, but which we can't say is real in the physical sense.

so, you need to define "measurement" and "knowledge" in the context of quantum theory. then, explain how and why knowledge of a measurement causes ripples in human consciousness that are able to propagate in an abstract space, and act as operators on infinite dimensional mathematical objects. (note that even though the question of "why" is a matter of philosophy, you need to address it in order to lend some merit to your claim that any consciousness that collapses a wave function is necessarily a human one.)

>>7069113
Acacia obtusifolia. Like shit tons of it.

>>7069214
You an Aussie? I'm in Northern Europe so we can only grow that in greenhouses.

>>7068055>>7068059>>7068070>>7068077>>7068098>>7068107>>7068108>>7068109>>7068110>>7068112>>7068116>>768117>>7068122>>7068124>>7068129>>7068134>>7068137>>7068145>>7068146>>7068151>>7068159>>7068162>>706815>>7068167>>7068168>>7068169>>7068175>>7068177>>7068178>>7068182>>7068183>>7068186>>7068188>>7068195>>7068199>>7068203>>7068205>>7068207>>7068208>>7068229>>7068256>>7068262>>7068269>>7068318>>7068333>>7068346>>7068400>>7068412>>7068537>>7068550>>7068551>>7068557>>7068558>>7068559>>7068560>>7068561>>7068562>>7068660>>7068666>>7068677>>7068685>>7068808>>7068809>>7068831>>7068833>>7068840>>7068842>>7068847>>7068853>>7068854>>7068855>>7068858>>7068859>>7068860>>7068861>>7068864>>7068867>>7068871>>7068872>>7068876>>7068880>>7068881>>7068885>>7068888>>7068889>>7068891>>7068894>>7068898>>7068899>>7068915>>7068920>>7068922>>7068925>>7068937>>7068943>>7068947>>7068948>>7068950>>7068959>>7068961>>7068962>>7068963>>7068966>>7068967>>7068968>>7068971>>7068974>>7068976>>7068977>>7068979>>7068982>>7068983>>7068993>>7068995>>7068998>>7068999>>7069001>>7069006>>7069014>>7069017>>7069020>>7069021>>7069023>>7069027>>7069056>>7069105>>7069112>>7069113>>7069117>>7069118>>7069122>>7069123>>7069174>>7069214>>7069221
all me :)

>>7069221
Yeah Aussie.

>>7069484
>IndexOutOfBoundsException

>>7069027

You actually are, since time is not quantized in 1 second units, you know

>>7068070

I've taken DMT and I still don't believe there's anything after death.

>what happens after death
>what happens after things cease to happen

>>7068051
Lots of life happens after you die. Just not YOUR life. What're you, a solipsist?

>>7068205
Nice bait

>>7068871
Stop this bait bus, I want off!

Brain activity ceases, everything that identified that particular lump of matter as a person is no more.

Your brain dumps everything into your system so you hallucinate memories or whatever, then you black out forever once the bloodflow stops to the brain and your organs shut off.

So, anon who thinks consciuosness makes th wave function collapse,

what happens if humanity were to go extinct? How could the universe cope with eternally non-collapsing wavefunctions? Do the fundamental physics of the universe a million light years change because faggots on earth no longer exist?

>>7070315
The universe will evolve deterministically, just like everything follows the laws of physics when nobody is looking. You seem to be confused what wave function collapse means. Consciousness does not "create" reality, but a human observer can cause some miniscule probabilistic change by collapsing a wave funciton. In the absence of a human observer wave functions just interact without randomness and their time evolution is guided by the Hamiltonian.

>>7070315
>How could the universe cope with eternally non-collapsing wavefunctions?
:^) I guess the same way it has for the billions of years humanity had not existed.

>>7068051
Google Fu NDEs (Near Death Experiences)

feels good to know that i will experimentally determine the answer to this question in a few hours

>>7071388
> suiciding
> feels good
at least make a public statement or manifesto, don't waste your life's emotional selling value

>>7068860
>Other species are not special. What's special about an insect? Or a dog? Fucking nothing. Humans on the other hand evolved to be superior.
Superior in what way? We'll most probably kill ourselves and the rest of all land-based species via nuclear war sooner than later.

The superior species are the immortal lobsters and turtles.

>>7068860

Can you feel half of earth lifeforms laughing at your stupidity?

>>7068899
>irregardless
You're retarded

>>7068051
>philosophical question
>science and math board

This is why we need a philosophy board moot

>>7068051
There is no such thing as "life after death". Death is, by definition, the cessation of biological function. No biological function, no consciousness. No consciousness, no experience.

One can take a looser view and realize that all of the constituent atoms and molecules of a given biological system will be broken down and re-used by other biological systems. Combined with the knowledge that one's cells are completely replaced every so-and-so years, one realizes that living beings have the same sort of existence as a whirlpool - molecules of water move freely through a whirlpool, and it is never made out of the exact same group of molecules, yet it persists all the same as a recognizable phenomena. Humans and all other biological forms are just this same way - we are persistent patterns in the arrangements of materials.

>>7071772
Not >>7068899 but http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless..

Dealwithit.jpg

>>7071572
Superior in that we've literally evolved beyond natural selection.

In any other species, excluding those domesticated by humans, a serious heritable illness is a death sentence, but in humans, not only are those with serious genetic disorders able to live normal lives and thrive they are often able to reproduce.

We've evolved beyond the mechanism of evolution, and all other species are still subject to its whims, considering evolution is what created us and is the only process that can be said to give life a 'purpose' of some sort that pretty obviously makes us superior.

>>7069105
Why do you feel DMT is incredibly over rated?

>>7071814
>we've literally evolved beyond natural selection
False. Microbial pathogens are still a selective pressure on human beings. We have managed to minimize their effect with antibiotics, but the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbial strains shows that evolution marches on.

>>7071814
>Superior in that we've literally evolved beyond natural selection.
We haven't evolved past that, and you still haven't explained WHY that would make us superior (if it were true).

>In any other species, excluding those domesticated by humans, a serious heritable illness is a death sentence, but in humans, not only are those with serious genetic disorders able to live normal lives and thrive they are often able to reproduce.
So what?

>We've evolved beyond the mechanism of evolution, and all other species are still subject to its whims
Wrong. We are just as at it's whims as any other animal on this planet.

>considering evolution is what created us and is the only process that can be said to give life a 'purpose' of some sort that pretty obviously makes us superior.
Evolution doesn't include purpose. Survival is not purpose.

>>7071814
>we've literally evolved beyond natural selection
False.

What you call illness is actually just genetic variation. Selective pressures are only so in an environment that selects. Humans live in an environment where there is no selective pressure pushing an allelic frequency to an extreme.

However, humans are currently experiencing behaviors that might cause sympatric speciation because women who breed young sire offspring that also breed young and women who breed later sire offspring who breed later. We are also a part of the nature in natural selection, homie.

>>7071838
But microbial pathogens and all other such selective processes that prevent reproduction are insignificant to the point of being meaningless noise in the face of human reproduction as a whole. The genetic average of the human race continues on unaffected.

>>7071847
>So what?
So...that's exactly what overcoming natural selection means.

Natural selection kills off genetically unfit individuals before they are allowed to reproduce.

Humans take care of individuals regardless of genetic fitness allowing them to reproduce.

Therefore humans are not affected by natural selection.

>Wrong. We are just as at it's whims as any other animal on this planet.
False.

>Evolution doesn't include purpose. Survival is not purpose.
Reproduction is purpose. And evolution is no more than a name for the process by which natural selection limits reproduction.

>>7071853
>What you call illness is actually just genetic variation.
Yes but it's also the mechanism natural selection works on. By removing such selective pressures we overcome evolution.

>However, humans are currently experiencing behaviors that might cause sympatric speciation because women who breed young sire offspring that also breed young and women who breed later sire offspring who breed later.
I seriously question whether this is truly leading to sympatric speciation. Merely applying pressure in some direction does not mean evolution will occur, if it's not significant enough pressure to overcome the noise of billions of unpredictable reproductive selection decisions around the world.

>>7071873
>Therefore humans are not affected by natural selection.
I think you are greatly underestimating the complexity of evolution. You are still part of it, whether you want it or not. It should not be surprising that you are not consciously aware that you are playing by the rules of nature, but you still are. Sure it's gotten slower and more abstract, but it's the same thing. There is no such thing as the end of nature.

>>7071873
>applying pressure in some direction does not mean evolution will occur

That's exactly what it means. Stop confusing evolution with speciation. Gene flow is a process of evolution regardless of whether or not it causes speciation.

>Natural selection kills off
No, it doesn't.

>regardless of genetic fitness allowing them to reproduce
I don't think you know what the word fitness means.

>what happens when die
The simulation stops, obviously only you have a working brain. Everyone else was programmed to simulate life as a test.
And you probably failed

>>7071873
>But microbial pathogens and all other such selective processes that prevent reproduction are insignificant to the point of being meaningless noise in the face of human reproduction as a whole.

If that were true, we wouldn't put billions upon billions of dollars into medical research every year.

>>7071873
Just another /sci/ traveler disagreing with you. We can maybe can afect some parts of the evolution process, but you ain't "evolving past evolution"

>>7071875
We've turned off the mechanism of natural selection, of course arbitrary sexual selection occurs but rather than natural forces having anything to do with it, it's chaotic social processes.

>>7071907
>No, it doesn't.
It prevents from reproducing. Which we have overcome. Mothers with mitochondrial defects can now have healthy children, while there are still natural barriers we can't overcome we've turned off the vast majority. What remains is drowned out by noise.

>I don't think you know what the word fitness means.
You clearly don't know what it means.

>>7072237
Don't be retarded anon, we put billions upon billions of dollars into medical research because old rich people don't want to die, by the time they even start pouring money into it they are already well past their reproductive years. Overcoming death is not the same as overcoming evolution.

>>7072392
We aren't just affecting some parts of the process, though, we're turning off the critical mechanism almost entirely. Because, ultimately, it comes down to natural selection and that just no longer applies outside of extreme cases, and without natural selection occurring any meaningful trend in evolutionary progress is drowned out by the chaos of social selection.

>>7072408
Don't be retarded anon.

Oh wait.

Too late.

>>7068169
hahahahahhahahaha faggot

>>7068051
Its as likely as Russles Teapot. You can't disprove it, but since it could be proven and has not been, and everything we know about anything pointing to no conciousness without a live brain:
There is no afterlife, like there is no teapot in orbit behind mars.

Not

>>7072578
>You can't disprove it
But you can.

>>7072648
Uh, you can't, by definition of the teapot thing. Because its "in orbit somewhere", so wherever you look and don't find it, I could say "well you've clearly looked in the wrong place".
The analogy is about credibility of unfalsifiable but unproven claims.
Like "Life after Death".

Also just dawned on me you're probably trolling since you didn't even attempt to justify your insightful oppinion there.

>>7072661
I meant you can disprove an afterlife. You just have to define what life is first. But since nobody will, because defining it would make it clear how stupid they are for having this argument, this will go nowhere ever.

>>7072674
Well I assume the popular notion of afterlife, where conciousness survives to be something/somewhere else where you can't look into from THIS reality because there be forces we dont understand and shit.

>>7072685
Define "consciousness".

>>7072689
How about whatever can have an expirience.
It won't get any clearer than this because noone understands it yet fully, so drawing superstrict lines around the term is not really possible.

>>7072711
>How about whatever can have an expirience.
How do you quantify that?

>>7072732
>How do you quantify that?
Dude.
>It won't get any clearer than this because noone understands it yet fully, so drawing superstrict lines around the term is not really possible.

>>7072739
You used the word "experience", which means you MUST have a definition for it, but now you are saying you cannot define it. So this is just an issue of semantics.

>>7072748
What is? What issue?

>>7072748
Also, I can use the word health, and there is no clear definition. Doesn't mean its a useless term.

>>7072769
>Doesn't mean its a useless term.
Yes it does. Words without definition are meaningless noise.

>>7072775
So health is a useless concept, because it can't be defined clearly?
You kinda got yourself in a bind here, and I don't even understand why you took it here in the first place. Completely irrelevant to OP.

>>7072784
Words become defined by the way you use them. If you use them in a way where they mean nothing, they are useless. And it IS relevant to OP, because OP is nothing but undefined terms.

>>7072795
>defined by the way you use them
What? So, the definition you want from me is not me using other words to make the meaning unambiguous, you want me to define it by using it?
The fuck you on about?

>>7072795
>And it IS relevant to OP, because OP is nothing but undefined terms.
Are you implying 'recent', 'consensus', 'happens', 'life', 'death', or 'real' is an undefined term? Or are you not familiar with basic grammar? They all seem quite well defined to me, there is some ambiguity in 'life' but none meaningful to the OP's question.

>>7072809
Words get their meaning from their usage. I think it's a thought by Wittgenstein or something. I.e. the word "red" is not rigorously defined to be a certain kind of color composition. Red is what people call red. It works the same with all words outside of scientific context.

>>7068847
You might be the biggest fedora I've ever seen.

>>7071572
>immortal turtles

>>7072809
OP's real question is.
>What happens to the soul after the loosely defined "body" construct no longer fits within the loosely defined "life" parameters.
He is presupposing the existence of a soul. There is no reason to believe a soul exists, so OP's question is by definition loaded.

>>7072848
So then you should have no problem addressing the questions of the OP and the other people discussing the topic ITT. Because all the words are getting meaning from their usage. That, or any discussion of anything outside of a purely scientific context is meaningless, and you're not autistic enough to actually believe all discussion outside of a scientific context is meaningless, right?

Let's hope they don't think that, because then you'd run into an analogous problem that the Halting Problem has presented in Computer Science: just like a program can never be used to determine if a program will every halt, the Scientific Method cannot be used to prove that it can be used to verify truth.

>>7072887
Verifying truth doesn't matter. If it works, that is all that matters.

Also Wittgenstein's theory about words obtaining their meaning from usage has some validity, but its basic tenant has its own problems (and kind of sabotages itself).

pragmatism also has internal, logical problems.

>>7068051
>Let's get real. What do we know about after life?
Nothing at all.

>>7072900
And none of them matter. It's thus perfect and anything else is mental masturbation.

Um, we know a bit more about the after-life if we get out of our sterile, boring, artificial commercialized lives and 'go down the rabbit hole,' so to speak. There's a crap-ton of things happening in this world you'll never see because the most reality anybody sees is the inside of a Starbucks.

>>7072909
Shut the fuck up and get your tinfoil-hat shit outta here. This is mysticism voodo garbage the way you phrazed that. "Wheres things that you dont even KNOW MAAAN".
Fuck off.

That all you got? Just yell at me? If I tell any story you won't believe a word I say, because you 'already know how the world works.' I say, do some hard lifting, and actually chase down some bona-fide claims (while, like in any search (e.g. Google search) wading through all of the crap).

>>7072989
Its not on me to research "a crap-ton of things happening in this world you'll never see" you unintelligeable twat. Make some concrete claims and get demolished for your ignorance, or better yet, stop spouting that weak wooly-brained mysticism shit. FUCK yeah I will yell at you for takin that crap in here. What else do you expect? Praise?

>>7072989
You've never even used telepathy. You're a fraud.

Have you ever done real field research, or do you spend your life pontificating from your mom's basement?

>>7073015
>pontificating
I could pontificate if I was a brain in a tank somewhere, the fuck would that matter against your "uuh, theres mysteries, deeeep myteries wWOoOHOOhhhhhoooo" fuckfest there.

All of that 'weak wooly-brained mysticism' is a challenge for you to get off of your lazy, comfortable ass and to do some real work out where you can actually get seriously messed up, not to sit down in your comfortable suburban home and remind yourself how smart you are by telling other people how dumb they are, without doing any real work to find out how the world works.

I mean, sure I could cut-and paste articles from Wikipedia or the top 3 Google search results form an athiest and a religious website back and forth for hours, but that would be actually pointless (and guess what? Nobody's convinced of anything). Here's a way to think about it: actually being in the experience is quite a bit different sitting there and jacking yourself off (but, of course you already knew that).

>>7073041
By "real work", do you mean get SOO HIGH on some halucinogens and see the song that tastes like the world? And then slowly come to terms with the fact that your glimpsed revelations were hallucinations by talkin about "a crap-ton of things happening in this world you'll never see" on the internets?
Swell story there. Just riveting. You're not a guru. Theres another board for this kind of woo-woo mental diarrhea.

No I mean get your lazy ass out there in the ball-freezing cold, and start talking to people, and see if anybody's seen weird shit. It may actually happen where actually no public wi-fi box for you to be a self-proclaimed doctorate on 4chan. Try being an Empiricist (like, I dunno, some guy called Aristotle) and try chasing down reality however it wants to act. Or just keep bracketing everything I say as a weed joke and go watch some porn and jack-off to animae cartoons, so you can validate whatever least-effort lifestyle you've adopted.

>>7073081
>start talking to people, and see if anybody's seen weird shit
You might be retarded, I don't even know anymore.

It's called: getting out of your social circle, genius -> because your friends just might have not seen the entire world.

>>7073058
You know, just by the way to decline these ideas, I just know that you are way too close-minded to become a half-decent scientist. I'm not saying he's right, but damn, just relax a little.

Furthermore, a large portion of them will have your own political and social views, and won't challenge you to think outside of the box, really at all.

What qualifies as a "half-decent scientist?" You mean I can't follow a script and use the right solvent when I put crap into the NMR machine? Well, crap, I'd better quit then.

I mean those Fourier Transform peaks really confuse the shit out of me. They're like, demons screaming at me and not hydrogen splitting peaks or anything (and that benzene ring is really, like, wow shit, totally wild, when it like explodes man).

>>7073102
A half-decent scientist doesn't live in a box. Get out more, talk to other people and just consider other ideas. Take other opinions seriously. You know, get your head out of your ass.

I mean, please tell me how I'll rationalize the Copenhagen interpretation (which is the majority opinion) of the Particle-In-The-Box experiment from Quantum Physics.

I've talked to many, many people (many new people every day) in a city of millions of people. Many people who don't share my views, many who do. This is how I've arrived at the position I have now (I've also read a ton of philosophy and psychology so I can recognize large currents of thought, so I can actually analyze patterns of ideas). In the end, it's always been easier to call somebody's bluff and tell them to go and find reality not behaving in a sanitary, neat, and tidy way for them to learn something from it. This is how I approach the world.

>>7073124
You've talked to the average scientifically illiterate citizen and you're building your worldview on those anecdotes? Cool.

Whenever I ask this question on 4chan the kind of response I get is - 'you are your brain, so nothing happens after you die'.
But nobody ever follows that through with the assumption that you must live again because it takes life to appreciate anything.
If you become 'nothing' when you die, that 'nothing' stage won't last very long. It won't last any length of time, actually, because you won't perceive any of it.
If you are anything, you must be alive (excluding mere matter). It takes life to appreciate anything.
Given that, why don't we assume another we live again eventually as something because we can't exist in any other way, shape, or form.
Jesus, I guess I'm touching on the question 'does the universe exist without life to experience it'?

There is no connection whatsoever between lives, and no period of time perceived between lives. But to be anything significant, you must be alive.
I suppose I just want to combat the idea that is often alluded to here; 'death is a stage of relaxation, sleep, peacefulness, where I can just be some dirt and chill.'

DOES ANYONE REALIZE HOW ABSURD IT IS THAT WE EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE?

This is why I am open to the possibility that life may exist beyond death.

>>7073907
A crazy situation doesn't equal to the increaselike hood of life beyond death.

Really, the very concept of "new life/existence" burns down to the concept of "self".

How do you really know you are, well, YOU? And not the guy next to you? How do you know you are still the same person when you wake up? How do you know you are still the same person you were 10 years ago?

In a nutshell — that's just a funny function (to assert a concept of self) our software has by default. It has no actual meaning beyond this assertion, you can persuade some child that he is a re-incarnation of some other person and — viola — you just proved that re-incarnation is a thing.

I mean, really, the whole idea of life-after-death relies on a rather flimsy assumption that there is some true "self" to begin with. Memories and ideas unique to you die with you. Memories and ideas you share with others live on in them. Buddhists got it right — the candles burns out, yet the flame lives on in other candles.
Asking weather or not there is live after death is like asking if the true essense of a flame of a candle exists the candle has been extinguished.

>>7068860
Look at our superior evolving. We sure play on another league.

>>7068124
Source? Or are you just spitting out random bullshit that you have theorized?

>>7074058
>How do you really know you are, well, YOU? And not the guy next to you?
The answer to this is simple, but unbelievable.

People think the "self" is a gestalt of the mind, memories, and body, and they view it as something that remains constant in the world. This is technically correct, but it's also more than that. It's not just a gestalt of everything within an arbitrary boundary, it's a gestalt of the entirety of reality.

So "self awareness" is actually a sense that extends infinitely outward. It's very weak most of the time, but can be briefly elevated through concentration to see distant places, see through other minds, or even see the future.

>>7068550
>not exploring dank memes.

>>7068134
You can't die before existing.

So there's a lot of facebooking going on here. I personally don't know. I think the hardest part of reality is it does not have to make sense. Fiction (a lot of my life, I.e. My daydreams , thoughts , plans etc.) has to make sense. So I don't know, I'm scared of it either way .

>>7074902
he is just a bad explorer

>>7068151
Fun fact about the fedora.
This word comes from a 19th century play by Victorien Sardou titled "Fédora". The heroine, Fédora Romanoff, wore a center-creased, soft brimmed hat. The name comes from the Russian Фeдopa (Fedóra), feminine form of Фёдop (Fjód), from Ancient Greek Θεόδωρος (Theodoros, “gift of god”), derived from θεός (theos, “god”) and δῶρον (doron, “gift”).
So the fedora means, a gift of God.
Checkmate atheists.

>>7074070

At least that guy didn't die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI3u7g8PPEA