/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12676255]

>2021
>scientists still haven't discovered what happens after we die
The fuck am I paying you cunts taxes for?

[Anonymous No.12676278]

You go to sleep until a new universe is born and a brain exactly as yours is generated.

[Anonymous No.12676300]

>>12676255
The scientific method is strictly materialist. Any answer that isn't "you cease to exist" can't be answered by by that method.

[Anonymous No.12676315]

>>12676255
Why do need scientists to tell you things before you believe them?

[Anonymous No.12677034]

>>12676278
sounds more like a copy

[Anonymous No.12677041]

>implying you pay taxes

[Anonymous No.12677047]

>>12677041
>implying taxes go to scientists

[Anonymous No.12677058]

>>12677034
A copy is you.
You currently are a copy, using the cut and paste option

[Anonymous No.12677063]

>>12677047
>implying

[Anonymous No.12677105]

>>12676255
>haven't discovered
lol, everyone knows
you just don't like the answer

[Anonymous No.12677489]

>>12677058
that sounds pretty pseudo-intellectual

[Anonymous No.12677508]

Why should they? You can always just die if that bothers you so much

[Anonymous No.12677510]

>>12676255
What happens after you kill a mouse? Life continues, while the mouse doesn't. That's it.

[Anonymous No.12677533]

>>12676300
>The scientific method is strictly materialist
Wrong. A lot of scientists have materialist leanings, but there's nothing about the scientific method that's materialist.
Materialism is a form of essentialism, which is antiscientific.
I would bet a significant portion of quantum scientists are not materialist.

[Anonymous No.12677539]

>>12676255
There is nothing. You literally stop living, and that's it. Why is there supposed to be anything in store for you afterwards?
The "life after death" people like to talk about is a fictional story created by the people still living after your death.
That's why it makes a lot of sense to instill into your children that there is a "life after death", so you will have one.

[Anonymous No.12677545]

>>12676255
>The fuck am I paying you cunts taxes for?
To find cool properties in funny shapes like ellipsis

[Anonymous No.12677550]

>>12677545
Based

[Anonymous No.12677578]

>>12676255
Please OP on behalf of /sci/, go and have a look for us.

[Anonymous No.12677617]

>>12676255
Everyone knows the answer. You just want to pretend death isn't real.

[Anonymous No.12677619]

>>12677539
>There is nothing. You literally stop living, and that's it.
And your reasoning for this is??

[Anonymous No.12677699]

>>12677533
>muh quantum woo
The investigatory methods of science are entirely material. The religious and philosophical opinions of scientists are not science.

[Anonymous No.12677713]

>>12677619
You brain cease to function therefore you cease to exist. Life after death is nothing more then meme to control people by saying if you don't live like this you will be punished after you die.

[Anonymous No.12677731]

>>12677699
>The investigatory methods of science are entirely material
Not true. Among the investigatory methods of science are rationality and mathematics, which are not material things.
>The religious and philosophical opinions of scientists are not science.
Unless subjected to scientific reasoning. For example, many peoples' religious and philosophical opinion of human beings and animals being created by god was changed through the scientific method in darwinian evolution.
With relativity theory, science changed the philosophical conception of space and time.
Although I'm not sure why I'm bothering to reply to you, as
>>muh quantum woo
strongly indicates that you are just a troll.

[Anonymous No.12677734]

>>12677713
>You brain cease to function therefore you cease to exist
Why would my brain ceasing to function mean that I cease to exist?
>Life after death is nothing more then meme to control people by saying if you don't live like this you will be punished after you die.
A ton of people who believe in life after death don't believe in hell and are irreligious. So what you're claiming is simply false.

[Anonymous No.12677788]

>>12677734
>Why would my brain ceasing to function mean that I cease to exist?
You obviously exist for all eternity (and even outside time), but as a living being only in the time range that you actually walked this world.
Your posts are forever (they exist regardless of you currently typing them out), but your function as a living being stops. And there is nothing "before" or "after" that, that could be called "you" without stretching the meaning of that term.
For fuck's sake, it's assured that somewhere in space particles will assemble to form your exact current self all the fucking time. Are those heaps of particles "you"?

[Anonymous No.12677818]

But scientists have had an answer for this for hundreds of years - if you want to know what happens after you die go talk to your local priest.

[Anonymous No.12677825]

>>12677734
If I would shoot you in the head would you who typed this response still exist? I mean your body would still exist but that would decay way rather quickly. And after your body has decayed away what remains? Some form of energy/soul? I understand most people don't like the idea that life is finite but I think its like this. But hope brings life they say. So maybe I am wrong and you are right. Or its the opposite.

People have told many tales about life after death in the many years our species has existed and was capable of forming these thoughts. So which version is right? Egyptians? The Greeks? Hindu's? Christians? Its all a form of cope to give our existence some kind of value some kind of reason. To be born in a cold universe without any reason to exist only to perish by random chance is a sad and tortured existence indeed so I understand why people would fill it with tales that after you die you go to a better place or something. But in my eyes its still a form of cope nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.12677830]

there is nothing so therefore there is everything and everything is. it simply just is. just like that, you will be nothing when you die, which isn't any different from you being in the first place.
thank you, i do lectures every day at this hour in this thread

[Anonymous No.12677839]

>>12677731
>Among the investigatory methods of science are rationality and mathematics
Applied to material things.

>Unless subjected to scientific reasoning. For example, many peoples' religious and philosophical opinion of human beings and animals being created by god was changed through the scientific method in darwinian evolution.
This doesn't respond to what you're replying to. Religious and philosophical opinions of scientists are not science.

[Anonymous No.12677874]

>>12677788
>You obviously exist for all eternity
That's not obvious to me. Why do you think so?
>but as a living being only in the time range that you actually walked this world
My body does, sure. However, there is a question of whether or not that which is I is confined to my physical body. Do you think it is? Why?
>And there is nothing "before" or "after" that, that could be called "you" without stretching the meaning of that term.
Why not? What about a faithful computer encoding and a simulation of me?
>For fuck's sake, it's assured that somewhere in space particles will assemble to form your exact current self all the fucking time.
I don't know what kind of popsci garbage you've seen this claimed in but I'm 99% sure this is absolutely not true.
>>12677825
>If I would shoot you in the head would you who typed this response still exist?
That is the question at hand.
>Some form of energy/soul?
Perhaps.
>I understand most people don't like the idea that life is finite but I think its like this.
To me it seems more likely that I end after death, but I'm not entirely convinced yet.
>People have told many tales about life after death in the many years our species has existed and was capable of forming these thoughts
Given that they have been wrong on so many other things I find it hard to take their claims about life after death as evidence of anything.
After all, it's more attractive for people to think afterlife exists.
>Its all a form of cope to give our existence some kind of value some kind of reason
It's comforting to believe that the afterlife exists. That doesn't say anything about whether or not it's true. It's comforting to think that the twin prime problem is decidable, but that doesn't mean it's less likely to be decidable by the fact.
Your whole post seems like a jumbled mess of poor reasoning and little actual ideas.

[Anonymous No.12677890]

>>12677839
>Applied to material things.
You can only say this if you define "material" in such broad strokes that the term becomes meaningless. This type of essentialist thinking is antithetical to science. Science studies whatever the fuck it can get its hands on, and do rational investigation about. Do you consider Schrodinger equation a material thing? How about entropy? It's not a particle, and yet physics studies it. What about space and time? In the past these were considered highly philosophical concepts and not of interest to science, until Einstein came along and did good work in the area.
>This doesn't respond to what you're replying to.
Read the response again to see that it does.

[Anonymous No.12677953]

>>12677874
you exist for all eternity because all of time is encompassed in the universe, before the universe there was only nothing. so every moment is eternally eternal

[Anonymous No.12677963]

>>12677953
Your post makes no sense. Try getting some sleep.

[Anonymous No.12677987]

>>12676255
You go to Gensokyo.


>>12676278
As a Boltzmann brain?

[Anonymous No.12677988]

>>12677963
that's your fault, not mine. read some philosophy

[Anonymous No.12677998]

>>12677890
>You can only say this if you define "material" in such broad strokes that the term becomes meaningless.
How so?

>This type of essentialist thinking
It has nothing to do with essentialism.

>Do you consider Schrodinger equation a material thing?
As used in science, it describes material things. You're confusing the map for the territory over and over again. Reason, math, equations, etc. are not what science studies.

>How about entropy? It's not a particle, and yet physics studies it.
It's a description of particles. Entropy has no meaning outside of a material context.

>What about space and time?
What about them?

>Read the response again to see that it does.
I did and it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.12678018]

>>12676300
> materialist
Light is not material

[Anonymous No.12678044]

>>12677998
>How so?
Well, give your definition of what is material.
>It has nothing to do with essentialism.
It does, it's a form of dogmatic thinking in terms of what is or isn't material to define what can and cannot be studied by science instead of doing science itself. What you're practicing right now is a form of theology.
>As used in science, it describes material things.
How do you know? What's your definition of material?
>Reason, math, equations, etc. are not what science studies.
The Schrodinger equation and its consequences is absolutely a part of what science studies.
>It's a description of particles
Entropy itself is not material though, and yet science studies it.
>Entropy has no meaning outside of a material context.
It does, for example in information theory. You seriously need to look things up before you make such claims.
>What about them?
Before Einstein people did not think of space and time as material things that could be studied by science. Euclidean space was intuitively obvious and a given.
>I did and it doesn't.
Do it again.

[Anonymous No.12678055]

Modern neuroscience has more than proved that consciousness is the result of a living, functional brain.

Your consciousness can be impaired by chemicals, disease or injury, and the more damaged a brain is the more effect is has. Destroy the brain and you destroy the person.

Science has proved what happens after death. It's death fearing people such as yourself who hold onto wishful think as a mental block against unwelcome thoughts of annihilation.

[Anonymous No.12678071]

>>12678055
>Destroy the brain and you destroy the person.
Destroy the antenna but you are never destroying the source of the transmission ;)

[Anonymous No.12678113]

>>12678071
Cope all you want, personally I think that nothingness sounds pretty comfy.
Sure I'll still avoid it as best I can, because what happens in the world still matters to my primitive meatbody, but I understand that it's inevitable, so I see no reason to fear it.
Remember how it was before you were born?
It wasn't that bad, was it?

[Anonymous No.12678118]

>>12677619
>>12677533
>>12677731
>every other object in the known universe follows physical laws, except for my brain because I'm super special

[Anonymous No.12678154]

>>12677874
Replying to the upper block:
You are a biological computer, and once that stops, it is no more, but your configuration "obviously" exists outside time.
As does any other configuration of you.
"I" is an emergent property of the body as far as we can tell. If you have any reason to suggest otherwise, please provide that reason.
You would be equivalent to a "faithful" simulation of yourself in my eyes, but you apparently don't think so.

[Anonymous No.12678188]

>>12676255
We (you) came into existence from non-existence one time, who is to say it won't happen again? I am not religious and don't believe in a soul but I find this logic quite irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.12678285]

>>12678118
>I have no argument so I'll just accuse the other person of holding a position he doesn't hold!

[Anonymous No.12678309]

>>12678154
>You are a biological computer
Explain what you mean by this without any pseudoscientific woo.

[Anonymous No.12678324]

>>12676255
Scientists know what happens to the human body after we die, they don't know what happens to your consciousness though. It's pretty impossible to find out, because to know what it's like, someone would have to describe it, which is impossible, since they're dead.

[Anonymous No.12678352]

>>12678324
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

[Anonymous No.12678491]

We know in great detail what happens after you die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFJrow7yaec

[Anonymous No.12678495]

>>12678352
>Near

[Anonymous No.12678504]

>>12676278
Actually, that's make some sense in way, at least the logic is sounding.

[Anonymous No.12678510]

wats cool is that ur dead right now and you dont exist its all just semantics

[Anonymous No.12678518]

>>12676255
Well, a lot of things happen, just none of them involve you

[Anonymous No.12678547]

>>12676278
Bruh so if I NEET away my life, I’ll be stuck as a NEET forever on repeat?!?

[Anonymous No.12678599]

>>12678071
>Hehe I'm retarded!!
I know, I wish it was legal to euthanize the religious or otherwise idiotic

[Anonymous No.12678908]

>>12676255
It's pretty new discovery, but after you die, you end up dead.

[Anonymous No.12678912]

>>12676255
To do this, you'd have to kill on the industrial scale.

Just to be sure.

[Anonymous No.12678995]

>>12678113
>Remember how it was before you were born
No, I completely forgot. I even forgot how it was when I was a baby. Do you remember?

[Anonymous No.12678999]

>>12678995
Exactly.
It'll be like how you remember it

[Anonymous No.12679086]

>>12678309
In the end, the human is exactly Turing complete.
There is nothing a human can calculate that a computer cannot, and there is nothing a computer can calculate that a human cannot.
Obviously disregarding infinite tape length there - much like we already do for regular computers.

[Anonymous No.12679121]

>>12679086
>the human is exactly Turing complete.
We are Turing complete in that we are able to simulate any Turing machine (since we understand what a Turing machine is and what it does). This is not controversial.
>There is nothing a human can calculate that a computer cannot
Calculation implies some sort of algorithm, a systematic procedure, so this is trivially true. However, the question is whether all the things that humans do amount to algorithmic calculations. This is not at all obvious.
>and there is nothing a computer can calculate that a human cannot.
In the ideal sense this is true, in the practical sense this is obviously false.

[Anonymous No.12679177]

>>12679121
>This is not at all obvious.
I don't see anything humanly possible that could not ultimately be reduced to an algorithmic problem.
If you have any counter-example, name it. Anything I have been told so far was stuff that indicated the other guy hadn't even understood the problem.
Usually objectioneers flee into quantum theory at that point, and the whole thing derails into a discussion about non-determinism.
>In the ideal sense this is true
It's only true for computers in an "ideal sense" as well, so that's not really an argument.

[Anonymous No.12679195]

>>12679177
>I don't see anything humanly possible that could not ultimately be reduced to an algorithmic problem.
Let's take an extremely simple problem: why do you think having an intelligent conversation with a fellow human being can be reduced to an algorithmic problem?
So far many bots have been developed to try to do this and none of them are convincing in the slightest. Why do you think it will ever be done?
>It's only true for computers in an "ideal sense" as well, so that's not really an argument.
I said an an ideal sense as a response to
>>and there is nothing a computer can calculate that a human cannot.
In practice there is obviously a ton of problems that computers can solve that humans can't: that's why we use computers.

[Anonymous No.12679218]

>>12679086
Unretard yourself.

Humans doesn't have stamina to clusters.

[Anonymous No.12679256]

>>12679195
>>12679218
>In practice there is obviously a ton of problems that computers can solve that humans can't: that's why we use computers.
>Humans doesn't have stamina to clusters.
Give a human a sufficient amount of time and space, and he will do it as well.
He CAN do it. You would never use a human to do it, though.
>why do you think having an intelligent conversation with a fellow human being can be reduced to an algorithmic problem?
>So far many bots have been developed to try to do this and none of them are convincing in the slightest. Why do you think it will ever be done?
That's like trying to ride a horse, and starting by spurring it instead of getting on first.
I have had short, reasonably convincing discussions with computers. Obviously nothing longer, though, we aren't that far, yet. Yes.
Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised, if I had already talked to humans, thinking they were computers.
I think it can be done, because there is nothing non-physical, magical in the brain as far as we can tell.
Also, Journalists aren't exactly a gold standard, but GAN-2/3 generated texts can already fool you.

[Anonymous No.12679326]

>>12679256
Yes, with sufficient amount of time and space, you'll have to build computer to solve same kind of problem.

[Anonymous No.12679382]

>>12676255
>scientists still haven't discovered what happens after we die

Your current self as it pertains to interacting with the material world cease to exist. What exactly do YOU think should happen when the electrochemical reactions in your brain that kept you moving about stops?

If the YOU that exist currently, somehow survives death then you are either no longer interacting with the material world. Thus bypassing all current laws of physics and math or you awaken to some form of a simulation. Which means all of the current laws of physics and math is trash.

[Anonymous No.12679383]

>>12677825
The stories may diverge, but there is an odd convergence between what mystics around the world say and across history say. Basically, what we call our "self" is not real, but unconditioned awareness is and never ceases to be.

[Anonymous No.12679387]

>>12678018
They call it physicalism these days, due to more than matter being physical.

[Anonymous No.12679391]

>>12678055
No it hasn't, modern neuroscience can't even show brains are conscious, that is, have a phenomenology, we literally just assume that due to our own experience of being.

What we call the "person", is the false self, the aggregation of thoughts, memories, sensory inputs, and behavior patterns. All of that is transient and is gone upon death, but awareness/sentience, the thing that can't even be observed might survive the destruction of the body.

[Anonymous No.12679415]

>>12679177
Sentience. We don't know what it is, we don't even know that it is, we can't observe it.

[Anonymous No.12679420]

>>12676255
>2021
>Still not able to accept death

[Anonymous No.12679469]

>>12679415
You demand from a machine what we don't even know about ourselves.
What if what we perceive as being sentient, is ultimately an illusion?

[Anonymous No.12679747]

>>12679256
>reasonably convincing discussions with computers
If you could tell it was a computer then it wasn't "reasonably convincing".
>Obviously nothing longer, though, we aren't that far, yet.
There is an implicit implication in what you're saying is that this is somewhat of a linear progress and we're somewhere in the beginning, and I see no fucking reason whatsoever to think this is true. We have absolutely no fucking clue how to make anything even close to an intelligent AI chatbot, not even the beginning.
>Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised, if I had already talked to humans, thinking they were computers.
This is irrelevant.
>I think it can be done, because there is nothing non-physical, magical in the brain as far as we can tell.
Holy shit you're being extremely disingenuous here. You're one of the people who makes an extremely bold statement like human brain being reducible to algorithms and then pretending like the only way you could oppose it is if you had an equally outlandish dumbfuck position. Nobody's talking about anything non-physical or magical in the brain. Obviously there's nothing magical, it's part of the natural world. The discussion is not about whether there's something magical in the brain, but whether the brains functions can be reduced to algorithms, at least in the ideal sense. So far you have presented 0 evidence to think it could.
>GAN-2/3 generated texts can already fool you.
Irrelevant. Obviously a computer will be able to generate some clever shit, like cool art or texts.
They cannot talk to you, and there's absolutely 0 reason to believe they ever will be convincing at talking.

[Anonymous No.12679750]

>>12679382
>Thus bypassing all current laws of physics and math
What laws and how would that mean that you would bypass them?
You sound like you're a low IQ retard with no idea what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.12679752]

>>12679387
Physicalism is essentialist nonsense and is antithetical to science.

[Anonymous No.12680068]

I just want to be 100% sure that when I die, I will stay dead and non-existent FOREVER! Why is that too fucking much to ask of the universe?

[Anonymous No.12680077]

>>12679391
Okay retard, if we have a "soul" then at what point did we evolve one? You're clinging desperately to theology because you're a idealistic pussy.

[Anonymous No.12680144]

>>12680077
Not him but at what point did he even mention a soul?

[Anonymous No.12680154]

>>12680068
The only thing worse than eternal oblivion is reincarnation and eternal recurrence, so i get your point, would not surprise me if the Universe is a cynical bastard and is keeping the worst scenario to be the true one

[Anonymous No.12680171]

>>12680144
misreplied sorry bout that but soulniggers piss me off. open/empty individualism I consider legitimate.

[Anonymous No.12680200]

>>12680154
eternal recurrence would be truly horrific in my circumstances (and for some others.) With reincarnation you at least get to experience differently so that doesn't scare me nearly as much.

Imagine Junko Furuta experiencing what she had for all eternity! Sure, her life before she was kidnapped was likely good but god damn her last weeks on earth were hell. Even if I had a good life I still wouldn't want eternal recurrence, people who want it are solipsistic assholes.

[Anonymous No.12680304]

>>12679750
>What laws and how would that mean that you would bypass them?

Classical mechanics would be bypass and since there is no testable way to affilate the mind at the quantum level the "current" view of quantum mechanics would also be bypassed.

>You sound like you're a low IQ retard with no idea what he's talking about.

And you sound like a smoothbrain who doesn't understand the limitations of the scientific method. If you believe existence after death can be explained with our current knowledge of physics then by all means explain away anon.

[Anonymous No.12680473]

>>12678044
>Well, give your definition of what is material.
Physical stuff.

>It does, it's a form of dogmatic thinking in terms of what is or isn't material to define what can and cannot be studied by science instead of doing science itself.
No, it's not. Just give evidence for your bullshit and it will be accepted. Your failure to do so is not the fault of science.

>How do you know?
Because I'm fails with it. It characterizes an isolated physical system.

>The Schrodinger equation and its consequences is absolutely a part of what science studies.
Only insofar as they relate to physical systems. Math is not science regardless of whether scientists use math. What is the point of this dishonest equivocation?

>Entropy itself
No such thing, and science certainly doesn't study such nonsense.

>It does, for example in information theory.
Information theory isn't science. You're conflating two different things with the same name. Is this your only trick?

>Before Einstein people did not think of space and time as material things that could be studied by science.
And?

>Do it again.
No. Explain how what you wrote makes religious or philosophical opinions science.

[Anonymous No.12680480]

>>12679752
OK schizo

[Anonymous No.12680507]

>>12676255
>consciousness is manifestation of brain activity
>brain is composed of atoms
>when you die those atoms disperse and are no longer able to form a conscious organism
Convince me that it's anything more than this?
>no rly, there is this magical spirit thing never observed by any experiment that is actually firing the neurons when you are alive and flies away when you die in a happily-ever-after land.
Cool story bro. Not sure I really believe it.

[Anonymous No.12680607]

>>12677058
>A copy is you.
>You currently are a copy, using the cut and paste option
>>12677489
>that sounds pretty pseudo-intellectual
I don't think it does. It's a very good analogy, imhotbqh. The only question is if it's really the case. It's possible that even in principle, cuts may always have higher fidelity than copies for reasons we can't begin to conceive of yet (without having to invoke any non-materialistic woo-woo)

[Anonymous No.12680612]

>>12680507
>>consciousness is manifestation of brain activity
>>brain is composed of atoms
>>when you die those atoms disperse and are no longer able to form a conscious organism
>Convince me that it's anything more than this?
>>no rly, there is this magical spirit thing never observed by any experiment that is actually firing the neurons when you are alive and flies away when you die in a happily-ever-after land.
>Cool story bro. Not sure I really believe it.
You're obviously right, but ignoring OP, the real question is to what extent it can be prevented through technological means or even transferred and/or copied to a different substrate.

[Anonymous No.12680735]

>>12679747
>If you could tell it was a computer then it wasn't "reasonably convincing".
I was made aware in advance that it was a computer.
>a linear progress
I'm implying that at no point. Stop reading shit into what I write that isn't there.
>We have absolutely no fucking clue how to make anything even close to an intelligent AI chatbot
You are continuing your "No True Scotsman" there.
>This is irrelevant.
Because you have no idea how to respond to the argument. Are you one of those chatbots yourself? Have you reached the limits of your programming?
>Holy shit you're being extremely disingenuous here.
I'm claiming there is nothing in the brain that cannot not be calculated by a computer, and give an argument to that effect. If you don't want to understand that, then we may as well stop the discussion here.

I have no idea, if humans will ever reach the point of producing an AI as shitty as themselves, I'm merely saying it is possible.
Probably not with the current RNN-approaches. That probably won't produce anything to that effect on its own, no matter how much data and computing power we throw at it

[Anonymous No.12682163]

bump

[Anonymous No.12682911]

>>12676255
Why does no one acknowledge that resurrection is the most likely answer on two accounts. Religiously, end of time God revives you, scientifically somewhere down the line an intelligent species resurrects you be it by atomic reconstruction or time travel.

[Anonymous No.12683034]

>>12682911
>God
>time travel

>Thinking that some alien with the capacity to accurately trace back an obscene amount of atoms would care about reconstituting you

Very epic post, got me to reply

[Anonymous No.12683045]

>>12678188
This only speaks of biological matter. What really makes you you is memory. Even if a physical copy of me existed somewhere sometime, and even my consciousness, that doesn't matter to me, as I remember none of it. It's the continuity of experience that makes me alive. And yes, by that token I would consider a total memory wipe aj equivalent to personal death.

[Anonymous No.12683060]

>>12683034
There's something to be learned from even the dumbest, everyone has a story and if you have the resources to track history, it only gives you more data.

[Anonymous No.12683084]

>>12683060
I see you're not following out your own concept fully.

There is still absolutely no reason for them to revive you, as they'd also be able to predict exactly everything you've ever done in your life, your every thought, and, any response you'd have to anything they could come up with.

[Anonymous No.12683093]

>>12683084
Fair point. The next question would be would they revive your consciousness in a storage system or just leave you atomic structure in an obscure database?

[Anonymous No.12683501]

>>12678071
based

[Anonymous No.12683580]

>>12676278
I came to this same conclusion

[Anonymous No.12683722]

>>12676255
You go to heaven or hell. Or purgatory, then heaven.

[Anonymous No.12683739]

>>12676278
Agreed. It will be like no time has passed, but your life will start over exactly as it did when you were first born.

[Anonymous No.12683764]

>>12677063
that looks like my nephew!