/sci/ - Science & Math

If consciousness can arise when it didn't exist prior, why can't it return to that state?

>>9617108
You're just dead, there is nothing. I've seen people die and it's just like any other living thing I've seen dying. There is no special moment or whatever, just before you die you become full on animal apparently, pure survival instinct. As a last mechanism to try to hold on to this life. It's the same in all animals, we're no different from the roadkill we drive past like it's nothing. Eternal sleep

>>9617108
>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness.

Same thing that happens when you're in deep sleep. It's turned off.

>>9617170
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns1SGo3WCF4

>>9617108
>But before I was born, I had never been conscious. Now I am. Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness.
When you're dead, it's gonna be like before you were born. What you're asking about is what happens during the process of dying. Which isn't a mystery, you will either feel some pain if you're awake and not instantly killed by a nuclear bomb or something, or else you might die in your sleep and then not really notice anything right before being dead.
And this isn't a new situation despite your attempt to frame it that way because coming into existence is the same thing in reverse as far as "consciousness" goes. There was no consciousness, then it came into existence, then it'll go out of existence, then there will again be no consciousness.

>>9617108
>somethings gonna happen to my consciousness
well yea its gonna cease to exist

>>9617108
>implying consciousness is immaterialistic

>>9617108
define "consciousness"

>>9617108
It's gonna be like when you fall asleep while watching a movie or something, except no waking up realizing you had fallen asleep

>>9617108
>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness
You lose it, just like you would if I had you within my reach right now, you witless cunt.
Your brain shuts down and starts decomposing. There is nothing left to facilitate complex thought.

>>9617108
I used to be able to conceptualize this but now I can't. I still understand the concept though, it's like when you pass out or sleep or black out. You're just not conscious.

I think the bigger issue is that you frame unconsciousness around having been conscious in the first place so the idea of having an infinite timeframe of unconsciousness is hard to imagine.

>>9617218
The thing that makes you think you're some kind of intellectual by thinking "what if consciousness doesn't really exist and it's just an illusion?"

>>9617394
The problem is that unconsciousness is characterized by being a transitional state. If you pass out, your only experience of it is the waking up part. But there is no waking up when you're dead,

>tfw people think they understand something they didnt even experience

>>9617170
>You're just dead, there is nothing.
Why are you so sure of that? Have you come back from the dead to tell us what's it like on the other side?
I know someone who has.

>>9617108
consciousness is just an illusion. I know this sounds like "le edgy" atheist response, but it is obviously true. Consciousness contains no mass or energy, so why would it need to go anywhere? It's the experience of the mind. When your brain ceases function, you are no longer able to experience the illusion, so you stop experiencing it.

>>9617553
Consciousness is literally the one thing that can't be an illusion.

>>9617553
not even the most skeptical philosophers claim consciousness is an illusion. For there to be an illusion there needs to be consciousness.
The idea of "self", of unit of time, of a soul-like "thing" that is under and in control of the body, those may be called illusions.

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

>>9617572
I'd object to that. An illusion is nothing more than a false perception of reality. A self driving robot can experience an illusion if its interpretation of its inputs doesn't properly correspond to reality. People can also be thought of as robots in this same way. Both people and robots can experience illusions, yet you would never claim that a robot (like a rumba perhaps) has consciousness.

>>9617520
GOD IS GREAT ! GOD IS GREAT !

>>9617608
Consciousness is awareness. Are you aware of you madness today.

>>9617608
>>9617572
cool hand experiment though. I had a neuroscience class where we learned about it and even had some students try it out. It was very effective on some students, though unfortunately it didn't really work when i tried it.

>>9617620
If you want to define it as such you can. But then, yet again, it would cease to be something that is exclusive to humans/animals. A rumba is aware of its surroundings. We have self learning robots that are obviously aware of themselves and how their actions effect the world. Where does the consciousness/awareness of an AI go when it ceases to function? It doesn't go anywhere. It was not physically existing to begin with. It was a pattern of behavior that it exhibited.

>>9617620

>>9617501
no it's not that's just how you are framing it. you're framing this issue around your personal experiences.

a rock is unconscious and always has been.

>>9617563
>>9617572
This is why the word "illusion" isn't a great word choice, yeah. Because it leads to dualist nitpicking (although certainly "illusion" has more than one definition and it isn't necessary to assume the word refers to a literal "experience" happening).
Better phrasing is "false belief," although then you have to deal with dualists insisting there's no way they can falsely belief they're "experiencing" something instead of literally "experiencing" something.
Still makes the most sense to me though. The brain has no need to literally ink out an image and present it to you as some extra-physical ghost thing. It can just cause you to believe you're encountering these something like that. Why would it do this? My guess is when we believe we're encountering sensations as though they were things themselves it results in a lot of advantageously flexible complex behaviors that we wouldn't be able to exhibit were we merely just compelled to act in a more immediate reflex kind of way.
In this sense the concept of false belief sensory "experience" would be kind of similar to how most modern PC operating systems (or internet browsers, or any other UI having programs for that matter) lead you to behave in useful ways by getting you to believe you're interacting with pseudo-objects that aren't really there e.g. desktops, windows, menus, folders, buttons, etc. are all pretend versions of real things. You don't literally have a desk inside your computer, nor any folders, but by getting users to act as though they have these things programmers are able to basically trick users into being able to use computers successfully in a way they wouldn't know how to do if they were forced to more directly interact with their machines.
And yes, I'm aware how the pseudo-objects of PC operating systems aren't exactly the same since you in fact have "experience" pseudo-objects of "seeing" them for example, but it's just meant to show how false beliefs can be productive.

>>9617563
this, he posted a loli tho, you know he's a fag

Your consciousness is just a story your consciousness tells you...

>>9617674
>he's not a dualist
How does it feel to be retarded?

>>9617717
Pretty much this. It's like a weird self-referential fiction, where it started out as a story about other things but then started including plot details involving itself.

>>9617726
Dualism is generally recognized as an insult in modern times when used to describe someone else's argument. A lot of academic write-ups on topics like these involve passages where the writer preemptively explains why they aren't falling for the dualism meme.
This doesn't mean dualism necessarily is wrong, but much like Flat Earth theory, you ought to at least know to expect people will think you're misguided and wrong and that you have a lot of work to do to justify yourself with that sort of position.

>>9617726
>>9617741
PS: The interaction problem for dualism is one big reason why I think it's garbage. If there's some extra thing out there separate from physical phenomena but also interacting with it, then that's easy enough to test. Just find one example where:
A) Physics alone isn't accounting for how physical phenomena are behaving and
B) An extra non-physical thing is accounting for what physics isn't.
No such example has been found to date as far as I'm aware.

>>9617501
Yeah, this is why I think this is a more difficult concept than most people seem to think. If my conscious experience emerges from particular arrangements of physical "stuff" like my neurons and electrical activity in different coordinates in spacetime, then the entire "flow" of time could just be a subjective element of my own experience. Assuming a B-theory of time then all of those "consciousness-moments" are equally real and timeless, and since from my perspective I only exist in those moments, I must necessarily always find myself experiencing one of those moments.

tl;dr Nietzsche was right about eternal recurrence

>>9617674
>hurr durr hurr

>>9617751
dark matter

>>9617759
I'm sorry I upset you with an actual argument.
Maybe this will make you happier:
>SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN BUT EXPERIENCE, EXPERIENCE IS DEFINITELY 100% REAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S REAL BUT IT'S NOT A BELIEF BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE IT SUPER-HARD 100% SURE, SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN MUH EPISTEMOLOGY MUH DESCARTES

>>9617764
settle down beavis

>>9617769
Fuck off Daria.

>>9617763
Dark matter isn't non-physical. Its whole purpose is to represent the physical phenomena that can be inferred as existing despite not being directly observable in order for physics to still hold true.
It's also pretty irrelevant to this topic since I'm pretty sure you don't think dark matter is qualia.

>>9617784
Its non-physical in the sense that it doesn't interact with photons and doesn't have mass, as far as we're aware.

>>9617741
>>9617751
Doesn't matter how dumb you think dualism sounds when the only alternative is that consciousness literally doesn't exist, You are experiencing the world right now, therefore consciousness exists. "I think, therefore I am."
Doesn't matter if you don't like it because "muh physical brain". Consciousness is a thing.

>>9617798
>You are experiencing the world right now
That's a belief you've made a report of. In fact the neat thing about this whole topic is there's no way at all for you to posit any "experience" without your doing so constituting a reported belief. Which makes it very clear you have a reasonable physics-compatible explanation where you just stop at the fact there's a reported belief and don't get greedy in trying to assume the alleged target of that belief is itself a real thing (with physiology of course also playing a role since an elevated heart rate for example wouldn't be a reported belief but would be a part of some of the underlying circumstances going on when someone reports "experience").
Also it does matter that dualism "sounds dumb." Or more specifically, it matters that dualism as a premise leads to some pretty strong and difficult to dispute apparent contradictions e.g. the interaction problem.
>>9617794
Standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) holds dark matter as having mass. In fact that's a lot of what it does as a concept: providing a label for the unobserved mass that would be required to explain observations made about galaxies staying together instead of dispersing.

>>9617674
>first to bring up dualism just so he can refute this lame strawman
lame

>>9617848
I acknowledge that idealism also exists and am happy to explain why I don't think it works either if that's what you want.

>>9617833
if i cut you open will you feel any pain?

>>9617848
>>9617850
PS: Read the thread first next time, it's not a strawman since at least one anon in this thread identifies as a dualist.

Dennet is unironically a meme philosopher. Can't believe people are spouting word for word his ramblings. >>>/reddit/

>>9617855
the "dualist" only showed up after you brought up dualism

>>9617853
Is the word "sunrise" evidence for geocentrism?
I've already established my stance of false belief. Obviously the language used to describe something like "pain" is going to seem to imply there is such a thing as "experience," that's the whole point, a false belief the brain uses will definitely have a very large impact on language and how we refer to the alleged targets of these false beliefs. If it didn't then there wouldn't be a discussion on this in the first place.

>>9617865
Not sure how that matters unless you're saying my use of the word "dualism" magically conjured that anon into existence.
Anyway, feel free to tell me what position you belief in and I'll address it in addition to dualism.

>>9617866
>s the word "sunrise" evidence for geocentrism?
literally what the fuck am i reading

>>9617860
You know he's not the only one who's made that argument, right? He's not even the most famous example of someone taking that stance, try Gilbert Ryle.

>>9617866
>>9617833
>this guy doesn't believe that he has an experience
So if I tied you to a chair and started torturing you, that would be equivalent to torturing a rock?
Well if you're gonna advocate such an insane position, there is no point in me ridiculing you any more. And in the very unlikely case that you are actually a zombie, I have no interest in talking to you.

>>9617870
he read dualism and came in to shit post what's magical about that? you sound thick.
nobody was even thinking about dualism until you came in

>>9617874
I explained it below that line. Asking something like "do you feel X" is just an attempt to use language as evidence the thing you're arguing for is real. Which isn't a great argument because if you hypothetically assume you're wrong and the false belief explanation is right then you get the same exact situation where language will seem to support the claim "experience" is real. It'll just be the product of a false belief impacting how language developed over time.

>>9617865
Dualist here. If you don't believe in dualism, you are either a literal retard who has to deny the very existence of consciousness, or you havent contemplated the implications of your consciousness deeply enough.

>>9617881
let me add you came in just to show off how much of a big smart brainy you are for refuting dualism.no one gives a fuck.
you come across as severely autistic on top of that

>>9617877
Why are you trying to localize what I'm arguing to just me in particular? Obviously I'm arguing this is what the case is for all of us, not just for myself.
And don't pretend to be surprised you idiot, that's by definition what the not believing in "experience" as a literal thing constitutes, that we don't actually have "experience." The fact there's an argument here in the first place means you knew that was going to be the case from the beginning and you're just pretending to be shocked as a stupid substitute for an actual argument.

>>9617888
>to show off
Try making an argument instead of speculating on what's motivating my argument. Even if someone claims something in order to show off it says nothing about whether the thing they claimed is wrong, making it irrelevant to bring up.

>>9617108
Yes, something will happen to your consciousness, and you will no longer be conscious to experience it

>>9617889
Answer then. So if I tied you to a chair and started torturing you, that would be equivalent to torturing a rock?

>>9617894
No, it wouldn't be equivalent to doing something to a rock because rocks don't have behavior or physiology.

>>9617894
Yes it would be.

>>9617751
>A) Physics alone isn't accounting for how physical phenomena are behaving and
>B) An extra non-physical thing is accounting for what physics isn't.
What would be an example of this? If you're talking about known physics, there are plenty of unexplained phenomena in physics that would be explained by assuming some hidden mechanism, even if most of them have nothing to do with brains. And I don't know what you mean by "non-physical" since anything we can observe is by definition physical.

>>9617899
>What would be an example of this?
There isn't an example of that, which is why dualism doesn't seem to hold up. But hypothetically something related to human biology differing from what physics would predict would be the start of having evidence for dualism. Like if the way neurons fire isn't matching what we would predict, and somehow the other type of "thing" dualism is arguing for accounts for the difference between what neurons are actually doing vs. what physics is predicting they'll do.
Basically, if you or anyone else is claiming there's something other than the known physical phenomena involved in cognition, then I would want to know where that interaction is happening and what is the measurable impact it's having on the physical stuff. And if there isn't any interaction then what's the point of even suggesting there's something extra going on other than the physical? If the brain still behaves the same way it would through purely physical principles, then what is this dualism idea contributing to the equation?

>>9617906
I get what you're saying about dualism, but I'm talking about how we would go about gathering evidence for or against it. Let's say we make a model of the brain and it doesn't match exactly what a real brain does. How could we tell whether this happens because our model isn't accurate enough or because of some non-physical phenomena?

The problem with trying to prove or disprove dualism is that we make predictions about the world based on what we observe, so if there really was some non-physical interaction it would already be accounted for in our physical theories. As a matter of fact, this us similar to what already occurs in quantum mechanics: we have the math to predict what will happen but we don't know why it happens or how it happens.

This is only made worse by the fact that we're nowhere near understanding the brain any more than at the cortex level. We can't even understand our own neural networks due to their sheer complexity. Chances are we'll get to the gas giants' moons before we have a sapient AI.

>>9617946
>>9617906
>>9617946
Oh god are you one of those people who think that dualism is literal magic interacting with the physical world? No wonder you're arguing against it. Dualism really is no more than just acknowledging that consciousness is a thing, you don't have to buy into some specific wacky version of dualism to do that.

>>9617108
What happens is you go to heaven and then Jesus fucks your mother and makes you watch.

>>9617108
Consciousness is basically a continuous conversation between the different parts of your brain. When you die, the bloodflow to your brain has ceased, the cells in your brain start to die, and all the neurotransmitters that were the means of communication are not being produced any longer. There's no way for that conversation between the parts of your brain from continuing. Poof. Consciousness over.

>>9617108
Not necessarily. Other anons have said this, but have you ever been put under with general anesthesia? it's just nothing. you simply lose time. what I like to think about is how the matter in your corpse could eventually end up in a living thing, perhaps even a human, perhaps even a human gamete, and eventually being born a different human in a type of reincarnation. or maybe even just food inside of a plant, or worm, or whatever. the matter in your body is already billions of years old, it'll inevitably stick around until the heat death. it'll just change chemically and get moved around. and this protracted period of time it takes for your dead matter to become living matter again would be inconsequential to you as unconscious stuff. just a thought I like to humor sometimes

>>9617798
What? Do you think it's either materialism or dualism? Have you perhaps ever heard of idealism, retard?

>>9617170

Well, reincarnation seems like the only plausible life after death scenario to me. Consciousness exists in my brain. So why wouldn't it be able to reappear elsewhere. It's not like I'm bound to this configuration of atoms. But here it becomes confusing to me. Because if I were to be able to be conscious again in another brain, that would mean some part of me would have to be carried over, and I dont think thats possible. Or can consciousness just pop into existence without memory, without being bound to its previous host?

>>9618250
im also>>9618260
Alright im not a fedora tipping atheist. Ofc im not entirely sure that theres nothing

>>9618250
HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH SHIIIIIIET FUCK THAT GUY IS SO STUPIED

>>9618262
>huhuh let's post a fedoraguy so I don't have to make an argument

>>9617108
>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness.
when I play solitaire on my PC and the power goes out, something must happen to the state of the game, it can't just cease to exist, right?

>>9618282
Well if you didn't save, your progress would be lost.

>>9617572
>>9617563
this dumb dweeb is seemingly denying the existence of qualia by slapping the "illusion" tag (whatever that means) on it

>>9618250
there's an uncanny resemblance between that guy and an autistic guy I knew in high school. Something about the fake smile and beard just instantly reminds me of him. The smile of autists and sociopaths. No emotion behind it

>>9618390
like this one

>>9617108
>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness.
No shit Sherlock, its gonna die.

>>9617108
>But before I was born, I had never been conscious

How do you know this? If it happened once, as it is going on now, why wouldn't it have happened before? And what evidence do you have which rules out it ever happening again?

>>9617108
Dude, if you happened once in this universe with your conscious, you might as well happen twice

>>9617170
god have mercy on your soul :-(

>>9619085
the thing is we didn't just come into existence spontaneously via atoms coming together, we're the result of a long chain of events, so it seems to be even more of a long shot.

>>9619051
this desu senpai

>>9618145
When talking to a dennetian brainlet, it's better to not even bring up idealism. It would confuse them too much.

>>9617108
>consciousness
Yeah, it's gonna cease. Like the rest of you, because your consciousness is your brain, or rather a general word to describe the functionality involved in self-perception and self-awareness -- Ego. We established this shit like 2500yrs ago, mate. Hurry up.

If you will, take it from the Stoic Epricurus: 'Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.'

>when you turn off the tv. it's gonne be like before you turned it on

does dancing with the stars go to heaven?

>>9617108
For starters, let's assume that there is a finite amount of information in the physical universe, which all mathematical investigations would suggest without the loophole of some extra-universal energy source (which may exist in the form of Zero-Point, but would have to be mutually exclusive therewith). You are in this physical universe. Therefore, your consciousness is a consequence of all interactions leading to the point of your self-awareness as a separate individual. Before you existed, you didn't exist, and now that you do exist, you are part of the sum total of information bound within the known physical universe.

Your consciousness is not your body, however much it may be informed by it, though.

The conclusion that "something's gonna have to happen with it" is almost certainly true, because information, like energy, cannot ultimately be destroyed, and anything that is observed is information, and you have observed your entire life up to this point (basically, not counting unconsciousness during sleep, but that's a whole other can of worms).

I imagine it's probably a little tricky to communicate while you're still alive, though.

>>9617108
given that the universe will still be around trillions and trillions of years after even the last star dies is it not possible that your consciousness will eventually be awoken either through technological means or awakens as a boltzman brain, yet from your perspective no time has passed at all

>>9621307
>not possible that your consciousness will eventually be awoken either through technological means or awakens as a boltzman brain

Maybe not likely, but definitely possible.

If you're willing to allow it to happen, and are capable of facing the objective truth of your entire existence on earth, it's not unreasonable to assume that there may be a future (possibly near, possibly present, possibly past) ASI capable of managing your perception so as to maintain what you perceive to be your consciousness beyond your physical death.

It might be as simple as splicing film and adding or deleting a frame, or changing reels while projecting.

Beep. The picture moves on, and the audience is unaware.

>>9621385
>what you perceive to be your consciousness

This would be the essence of basically all ontological enquiry throughout human history, btw, so I'm not expecting a simple answer.

>>9621385
>The picture moves on, and the audience is unaware.

so there could be gaps of, lets call it "outside time" that during our perceived seamless and forward moving waking consciousness that we are unable to perceive, through manipulation of another higher spatial and chronal dimension

>>9621430
Yeah. Like, that pretty much nails it.

Deus ex machina - and we're the machine.

Once a limit has been reached where instantaneous communication can take place (which we know exists in the form of quantum entanglement), then there becomes a moment outside of time.

That moment is infinity.

We already have quantum computers that, unhyperbolically (according to D-Wave), are bridging information between dimensions, in essence. We are bound to a binary system of wave/particle collapsing of wave functions in order to communicate information, but they aren't. They have qubit processors.

And so do we. I think it might be the angular gyrus, but I'm sort of going out on a limb there.

But yeah. We've been talking with each other through metaphor throughout all known time, not to mention human history, in a crazy out-there sort of hyperbolic (or asymptotic, more specifically ;)) way.

I really hope we're onto something here.

>>9617128
FPBP

Consciousness is the result of you being able to process food into energy. Your consciousness requires energy, once you run out, it stops. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Death will be a lot like a dreamless sleep, no perception of time, no sensation, just total oblivion forever. Honestly that doesn't sound too bad. Like a long rest after a hard Day's work. When your work is done, you go to sleep, and the universe uses your matter for other things.

>>9617693
thats not a loli

Consciousness isn’t a physical thing that cant be destroyed, it’s a process. And when the parts of the process cease to function, so does the process.

>>9621741
That's why it's necessary to determine the baseline levels of consciousness, so as to ensure that it cannot end.

We're all part of that process.

>>9621674
also on the subject perceived consciousness, there is also the idea that civilizations at the "end of time" may be so distant from each other and only received small but steady and consistent amounts of energy over time that they slow down their perception of time so that a few seconds to them could be actually as long as the universe has been around up until now. and easily have a fluid conversation with someone on the far other side of the universe, as if they were right there. Though that could also be achieved with quantum entanglement as you mentioned.

>>9617170
>You're just dead, there is nothing. I've seen people die and it's just like any other living thing I've seen dying. There is no special moment or whatever, just before you die you become full on animal apparently, pure survival instinct. As a last mechanism to try to hold on to this life. It's the same in all animals, we're no different from the roadkill we drive past like it's nothing. Eternal sleep

>>9621751
I mean, as shitty as human suffering is, it at least unites humans. If enough believe that they can actually alleviate a major portion of that suffering through shared resources (information is a resource; don't forget), then Earth could become pretty awesome.

I know this sounds like simpin, but it's pretty logically deductible.

>>9621772
Interesting... yeah, the idea of "time ending" is rather paradoxical, innit? Like, what would come after the end of time other than timelessness, or infinity itself? The problem is that we think we have to wait for it when it's always been there, I suspect.

>>9617108
>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness
Yes, it's going to end. Why is this so hard to understand?

>>9617717
What is the "you" the story is being told?

>>9621789
well when i said at the" end of time" i was actually referring to a time in which all the stars have burnt out and all that exists is black holes(which still emit energy for civilization to use as fuel) and the void, but i guess the actual idea is just when the universe and time itself cease to exist, it's impossible for us to say now what lies beyond, as even our most complex idea lack so much information, we are basically just children still learning about the world we live in

>>9617108
>I
>conscious
>my consciousness

You don't need to die:
sens.org
https://discord.gg/DDpUqJh

>muh consciousness
>muh soul
>muh afterlife
Fuck off back to /x/ please.

>>9621812
universe and time will cease to exist when you die

>>9622031
You need to die.

>>9617108
Something happens to your consciousness every second. Long before you die your consciousness will be totally different from when you were born anyways.

>>9622183
Um... only if you're the center of the universe, you egomaniac ;)

>>9621812
Yeah, that's part of it.

>>9622207
That is a hypothesis that, while true throughout all known human history, is still the testing process, and is nowhere near proven until either every human dies or one of them doesn't. Since "not dying" is a negative condition, it cannot be proven outside of sustained consciousness throughout all time, which is the only measure by which it can be determined. So as long as you don't mind temporary ego death and experiencing yourself subjectively despite being part of an objective hivemind, then all you need to do is just keep submitting to the parameters of the test until we figure out how to stop time.

And if it takes until the physical heat-death of the universe, and there's that one last moment where the last instance of sub-atomic particle/wave existence is absorbed by the last singularity, leaving only a quantum vacuum, then we'll know. Except we won't. So we have to use the knowledge of that to recognize how improbable civilization and the organization of such massive amounts of information is without some sort of superhuman inspiration (inb4 god or Tsoukalos meme), and harness the zero-point energy of that quantum vacuum by allowing it to be a certain moment outside our known universe, literally a limit that is not transgressible empirically, and accepting that either *no* civilization in the known entire fucking universe is capable of communicating with us, which is pretty improbable, or that they have been through quantum entanglement and so-called "divine inspiration" - that's, of course, where it gets messy.

So maybe don't be so sure about shit, right?

>>9622415
You misunderstand, I am not saying all humans need to die, I'm saying cringy people like you need to die. You reek of desperation. There is no reason you should live forever.

>>9617108
When you draw a square, then erase it, where does the square go?

People are stupid because of atheism.
Simple as that. Beyond not believing in intelligent design which defacto then makes them designed sans intelligence, they also discard the concept of choice, multiple options, multiple angles, which retards their available knowledge at any one moment. They have no reason to methodize a contingency plan for if God is real, despite their initial scepticism. They take that religion existing was arbitrary, the virtues and sins were arbitrary, the messages were arbitrary, they take them as useless information and elect to never even learn it.

>>9622479
Which one did you choose?

>>9617798
Haha. These Virgin X vs Chad Y images keep getting better and better.

I'm not trolling...I've seen what is refered to as a ghost as well a couple other "paranormal" incidents IE noises originating from nothing. So where does that leave me? And no I wasnt on any drugs. Guess it could be explained by other dimensional beings i suppose.

>>9622483
I chose intelligence

>>9622479
What is your contingency plan for god existing but only letting non-believers into heaven?

>>9622534
>m-muh nihilism

>>9622617
>doesn't have one
i thought so

>>9622429
Yeah I'm past that now. The lights hurt.

>>9622837
Just stop.

>this thread

last time we had a death and consciousness thread it lasted for over a month

take it to /x/