/sci/ - Science & Math

Decomposition.

I'm basing all my hopes for an afterlife on NDEs. Otherwise, we live in a meaningless universe and there is only an eternity of nothingness after death.

ndes?

When you die you decompose and then your consciousness is stuck in what is essentially a deep sleep until, somewhere down the line, after the universe is kill and create again some number of times, your mind happens to be created again just as it was when you died.

Assuming the destruction and creation of universes is in an infinite loop, this could happen at some point.

>>7570863

Near-death experiences.

>>7570853
Whatever it was that happened before. We're composed of matter, so back to a simpler form of matter we will go (2dust2dust4me,m8)

So like>>7570865 said, it'll be like sleep. A state of unconsciousness that will last until it comes back, if at all.

You go get judged and either Feast with Jesus or burn in hell for $1000 years.

Why would repeat everything that happens in the universe again and again?

>>7570865
>When you die you decompose and then your consciousness is stuck in what is essentially a deep sleep

What an utter crock of shit
Your consciousness is a product of the brain in your head. the brain rots. Dead is dead. There is no reincarnation, no coming back.

>>7570853
The complexity of a human is not sufficient to justify eternal life. Even if it were possible, there would be no reason to code for such an event.

Then there are things like the desire to reproduce, and related notions such as being attracted to the opposite sex. There would be no reason for these if people lived forever, yet they are fundamentally part of being human.

There are much greater things that can be created than humans. There is no sense in dwelling on the desire for humans to be immortal.

Although, if you cling to the notion of eternity, then you're better off making it a reality in this life. Yet, you will fail in your endeavors. All the observable evidence indicates a bias against eternity. Everything dies. Everything gets replaced.

It would take the collective will of mankind to make man eternal. Yet, people choose to over eat, take drugs, and engage in other reckless behavior that threatens their lives. Therefore, mankind will not be immortal because it is the will of mankind to die.

Note, studying the very small i.e everything between the quantum and cellular scales would be required to prolong human life. Yet, not enough people are studying this to even allow anyone alive today to live a mere 200 years.

>>7570853

After death your soul and consciousness remains on 4chan and you're forced to shitpost for all eternity. I know, since I'm dead.

>>7570893

Every piece of our body, brain included, is composed of energy and matter that has existed forever. Our skin, cells, and organs are just constructions of this same energy created through years of evolution and the conditions of our Earth.

In our physical world, as science understands it, there can be no amount of mass created or destroyed. It simply changes its composition. Our bodies will of course rot, as decomposition is the inevitable end to all life. But death is not an end to the molecules and bonds that have created and sustained us. They merely propagate elsewhere.

His argument isn't preaching a rebirth into the world. What he's saying is that this universe will also come to an end, but there is a chance that we are living in a continuous cycle of universes. A universal birth and rebirth, if you will. And it's a plausible theory to put forth. The stars of outer space burn out eventually, but new ones will be made. The universe is merely a conglomerate of all this free energy condensing and stabilizing itself over time. Eventually the process will begin anew, perhaps exactly the same as it did billions of years ago. It is not far fetched to believe that our conscious minds will be restored by exactly the same blueprints. There are laws that govern our world, and it wouldn't make sense for them to change any of their behaviors.

>>7570853
>an hero
>do a jesus
>tell about what happened
>???
>profit

>>7570926

>>7570926
>It is not far fetched to believe that our conscious minds will be restored by exactly the same blueprints
What?

>>7570926
I wanna be a fucking star some day

The thought of nothingness is fucking depressing. I want to live for a very long time.

If something as relatively simple as the human body has consciousness, what's to say a galaxy or galactic supercluster doesn't? Maybe we are part of our own "alien lifeforms," like the cells of our body have their own lives but are part of a bigger lifeforms, and our consciousness is a fragment of our galactic supercluster's consciousness that is reintegrated as our bodies are subducted and devoured by the magma, then swallowed by the sun and ultimately the supermassive black hole.

>>7570975
>something as relatively simple as the human body

>>7570958

>The universe will end
>Will condense, and eventually, explode again
>It will seek the exact same, or comparable, order from a thermodynamic perspective
>You're living in a time loop
>Pass the blunt

>>7570982

>Stops reading
>Humans are to the universe what cells are to humans
>Don't be dense

>>7570985
>assumptions
>conjecture
>retarded eastern philosophy crap
>Don't be dense

>>7570922
Nice eternal get m8

>>7570993
Why are you even in this thread?. Go tip your fedora in /b/

>>7570993

>implying accepted scientific facts aren't just assumptions and conjecture with high probability.
>Absolutely nothing is 100% certain

They teach ya this eastern philosophy crap in college, kiddo.

>>7571006
>kiddo

>>7570926
Couldn't this happen in alternate universes as well?

do people on sci think they are composed of matter that is some how different than other matter? does sci think its electrons are special electrons? does sci believe in emergent properties that just poof into existence? like enough of the right sub atomic particles in the exact right formation and BANG a soul!

seriously now I am curious, does /sci/ think that given an equal mass of water and human, that the mass of human is in some way more complex at a sub atomic level? like the human has more or special electrons. protons ect?

>>7571240
A radio transmitter is composed of the same protons and electrons in water, but it seems to do something that water doesn't. The brain itself may be similar, perhaps it's an antenna for the soul or a broadcaster of the soul. Or maybe it's not. Either way, it's certainly more "complex" (which isn't a particularly well defined term here) on a molecular level than other matter -- it's at least a very sophisticated data storage and processing device.

The point in these ideas that perhaps there's something more to human life (like a soul or what have you) doesn't revolve around the concept that the matter itself is special. Rather, it's the arrangement and interaction of the matter that's special. This isn't an entirely hokey idea either -- strange "things" can't be stopped from happening, in a mathematical sense, in many large enough sets with underlying order, no matter how unorganized they may be (this is called Ramsey theory and includes a lot of famously incalculable problems). The brain is certainly large and incredibly complex -- what substructures may then result, and what effects they may have, leaves room for much possibility (however speculative it might be).

>>7570865
>>7570926
That would be ANOTHER conciouscess, maybe exactly as yours, but it wouldn't be you. You're nothing at that point. So, enjoy while it last dudes.

>>7571775
And how exactly wouldn't it be me, if it happens to be made of the exact same material I am made of right now, in the exact same order?

>>7571802
If you copied your ingredients and instructions into a 'teleporter' , got deconstructed and it recreated you atom for atom exactly the same at your destination, your original would be dead and a copy would continue in your place. Its more or less the same concept.

>>7571775
>Look through window which somehow magically follows you about, but in the past
>Not you?

>>7570926
>/sci/

>>7570893
>Your consciousness is a product of the brain in your head.
possibly.
This is a metaphysical stance called physicalism, but as it is metaphysical, we can't really know this and there are arguments against it.
Stating this as a fact is pretty wrong, imo. It has the same value as some religous nut saying "What an utter crock of shit. The brain is a byproduct of your soul, which goes to heaven after death".
It's a metaphysical believe, nothing more.

The only thing that survives death is kamma.

>>7571813
Could you explain why this is for me, please? Excuse me if I sound ignorant, but I always see claims like this being made speculatively and I don't understand the reasoning behind them.

If you believe in a purely materialistic consciousness, that mind is what the brain does, why would this reassembly cause me to lose my consciousness?

This seems to imply something special about consciousness, that it is an emergent property but that it somehow emeges from continuity, not the aerangement or interaction of parts, which just baffles me.

If you have some type of dualist view or a belief that consciousness is some type of fundamental property then fine, I can accept why you might "lose" your consciousness; but if you hold those views youre probably less concerned about what happens at death, regardless.

I don't mean to sound biased, I'm no neuroscientist and despite how much I've tried to look into this, I still can't make a stong judgement call as to my own theories of consciousness. However, I just don't see the justification for a perfect simulation, recreation, or in this case relocation of the mind being an end of "me" if you hold that my mind is purely a product of my brain.

Anubis, weighs the persons heart on a scale against the feather of Ma’at. If the heart weighed more than the feather, then the heart would be devoured by Ammut.

>>7572882
I don't thing this will ever be provable by definition of the question. If our consciousness was merely a physical property, a certain combination of molecules, then why do I only feel as if I have existed since birth? In the vastness of space and time surely the combination of particles that make up my brain and consciousness isn't that unique, otherwise the argument that this arrangement could happen again is also unlikely.

>>7572562
ya you are full of shit.

>>7570853
Remember what it was like before your parents were born?

>>7571260
no a radio transmitter does not operate differently from a bucket of water, go smaller and it's all the same, go larger and again it's all the same. everything in the universe follows the same laws, if you believe in free will (another question of consciousness) then you think brains represent small bits of matter that can disobey the laws of the universe, laws that every other particle in the universe must follow. Hunan perspectives do not define the universe.

you all know that your consciousness is dependent on the brain, and only the brain (not to include development). I have suffered a defuse axonal injury, quite severe. I am not the same person, despite having the same memories as the old version of myself I do not always associate with the originals memories. likewise you know that if I poke you in the brain with a stick, your no longer you. your consciousness does not exist outside of the physical you, it may turn out to be a complex thing like wave/particle duality but not alone.

what if everything is the same, it is after all made of the same stuff, if you go small enough, might everything be made of exactly the same thing? because if you go large enough, it all certainly looks the same.

>>7570893
Ever thought your brain is like trees in fall? they rot away for awhile then they repair themselves.

>>7573325
Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read on /sci/
Trees don't rot in the fall you idiot.
And your analogy is bullshit, a brain doesn't repair itself after brain death.

absolutely impossible to explain because your "thoughts" will be completely different if they continue to exist at all

its just a big paradox, the great mystery of life, people have tried answering the question since the beginning of human thought

no one knows for certain

the people who think they do are classified as having mental illness, i.e. schizophrenics

>>7572882
Okay, well the way I see it (pure speculation as every understands in this thread) is this: Imagine the same scenrio about teleportation HOWEVER the original doesnt get decomposed, the perfect copy just ends up being a clone. You - the original, will remain inside your current self, and the clone will simply think its lived its whole entire life as you, since its brain is encoded with the very same memories as yours. The clone will literally feel like it was standing wherever you are seconds prior to being created, but this is not you, its not a continuation of your inherent consciousness, its its own individual entity.

Your reality wont be split between the two perspectives, it will simply continue on as if you simply got scanned for your composition and went home. A new entity ( your clone) will feel almost exactly the same, despite only being brought into existence seconds prior. You simply can't exist as both entities in this scenario.

I feel like this thought experiment is reasonable enough to suggest that the teleporter scenario would cause the original consciousness to simply die.

The new horror game SOMA actually explores this topic in massive detail (albeit from a digital conciousness perspective) and its interesting as fuck, so check that out if you want a very satisfying philosophical experience, its only a tiny bit scary.

>>7573460
as an afterthought: we may get some serious answers in regards to these questions if we can actually (and do) create a properly conscious AI, but simply copying it around and running it multiple times simultaneously.

I actually wholly be live in the bible.
Call me an idiot, but you probably would come across as Bill nye the bachelors in improvisational humor.

>>7570853
You'll become permanently unconscious and after 100 years have passed no one will know that you ever existed. :^)

>>7570853
Think of it this way, you didn't exist before you were born, it's the same after death. We can't grasp nothingness because we're conscious now, but it'll come.

>>7573828
You don't even remember anything from when you were 1 year old, you can't say you know about anything before you were born with certainty.

>>7573843
At least you're an optimist, I still believe in my theory though. I guess I won't know till I'm dead, or will I know?

When the information flow in the brain stops, you will dissolve into many smaller, less conscious pieces. There never really was a you, you were just the result of these small pieces working together.

You have always existed in a way, since your pieces existed, its just that haven't realized it because you cannot remember.

>>7570853
Can't you morons just accept the fact that when you die, that's it? There is no afterlife. You are an animal and will die just like any other animal that has ever walked, flown, and swam on this planet. The atoms that make you will essentially live forever but your consciousness that makes you, you will be gone as soon as your brain ceases function. You and every thing you ever known will disappear from your mind and you will experience nothingness.

>>7570853

Maybe you'll be in control of another consciousness somewhere down the track. And by you I don't mean "you", I mean someone else.

>>7573882
Maybe "you" need to lay off the pots.

>>7570926
You make too many assumptions about the scale of the universe.
For all we know it's a one shot thing time wise, no idea about the size.
Relativity means from our perspective anything outside of the observable universe does not exist, no space no time.
There's just not enough space or time for another 'you' to form spontaneously and functionally.

>>7570926
this is literally Dr. Aganagarmi

>>7570893
>Your consciousness is a product of the brain in your head.

But, is it?

>>7573967
fuck off with your mystical bullshit you nigger.

>>7573985
No racism on/sci/