You've just died. Everything is black, but your still sentient. What would you do next (math, introspection, studying your predicament?)

File: 44 KB, 392x400, y5v4K.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:26:06 2011 No.3751168 [Reply] [Original]

You've just died. Everything is black, but your still sentient. What would you do next (math, introspection, studying your predicament?)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:28:06 2011 No.3751176 haunt my friends. try to watch them in the shower. communicate badly through board games. make their walls bleed. the usual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:31:06 2011 No.3751179 >>3751176 >>Everything is black you missed the point

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:31:06 2011 No.3751182 File: 148 KB, 550x550, dont_understand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] wtf is this nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:32:06 2011 No.3751183 Hover around SpaceX, haunt the ISS

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:32:06 2011 No.3751186 >>3751176 >everything is black, what do you do >oh ya go watch my friends fullretard.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:34:06 2011 No.3751194 >>3751168 I would try to develop my senses like Daredevil and do what the usual ghosts in the movies do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:35:06 2011 No.3751198 >>3751179 I understood the point, but it was retarded so I chose to ignore it. if you're still sentient you aren't dead. If everything's black it may be night time or you may be blind. Or perhaps neither. maybe /x/ will play by your stupid rules.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:36:06 2011 No.3751202 If can teleport, go straight to sorority girls bathroom. Ponder universe. If still black in bathroom, go to niagra falls and listen to rapids. Ponder universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:37:06 2011 No.3751203 >>3751198 >if you're still sentient you aren't dead. Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:38:06 2011 No.3751209 >>3751203 I think, hence i am. I am hence i live.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:39:06 2011 No.3751213 Actually, sentience doesnt necessarily have to require all of the characteristics of life (or life as we know it).

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:40:06 2011 No.3751215 OP is saying that you're dead, but your concsciousness is still capable of independant though. You can't do anything considering your body is rotting somewhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:40:06 2011 No.3751220 >>3751203 >thinks anything can be proven

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:40:06 2011 No.3751221 >>3751209 Even if that qualifies, all it does is show "you are" how does that imply that "you aren't" when you're dead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:41:06 2011 No.3751222 >>3751209 You existing =/= you living.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:42:06 2011 No.3751224 >>3751220 >Accepts any claim without evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:43:06 2011 No.3751225 OP states that you are still sentient, therefore you are. Its OP's rules, and you can't disprove him, because no one knows what happens when we die. Therefore following that logic, OP has just as likely chance of being right as you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:43:06 2011 No.3751226 >>3751224 >conflates evidence with proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:44:06 2011 No.3751228 >>3751226 >Can't provide either for claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:45:06 2011 No.3751229 >>3751225 >you can't disprove him >Therefore following that logic, OP has just as likely chance of being right as you. 8th grade logic up in here.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:45:06 2011 No.3751230

>>3751224
Thanks for ignoring the point I made.

You're "proof" was 100% irrelevant!
Like I said, even if we pretend it isn't bullshit
it is ONLY talking about you being alive.

So again.... HOW does that show that you aren't conscious when you are dead?

get a better argument or gtfo

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:45:06 2011 No.3751231 >>3751228 of course not. Evidence of consciousness doesn't exist, and proof of anything doesn't exist.

>>	becomeDEATH !8BODMTaozA Sat Sep 17 02:47:06 2011 No.3751234 sleep. thats why they put bags overthe heads of feral animals; to sedate them

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:47:06 2011 No.3751235 >>3751230 a priori proof. one of the defining characteristics of 'dead' is unconscious. All dead are unconscious by definition, therefore any conscious are not dead.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:47:06 2011 No.3751236

Trying to prove something is wrong that is beyond our current scope of study is a waste of time (eg religion). Either believe it or ignore it. If they try to say gravity doesnt exist, or say valence electrons repel each other at a strength based on the alignments of mars and venus, then we can correct them. Until then... OP = LAW.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:47:06 2011 No.3751238

>>3751221

I have evidence that when "I am" that i am alive.
Do you have evidence that "You still are" when you are dead?
No, you havent.
For further discussion visit /x/.

>>3751222

Then who wrote this reply to you?
Your psyche?
For Solipsism visit /x/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:49:06 2011 No.3751243 >>3751231 >proof of anything doesn't exist >Gives me shit for asking for proof instead of evidence >Doesn't know what proof is

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:50:06 2011 No.3751247

>>3751235
You just went back to square 1

They are unconscious by definition?

You don't understand, consciousness is NOT something we can define.. so that claim of yours requires evidence, it requires observation, it is a claim about something, not an abstract definition.

So no... dead are not defined as unconscious. Their consciousness is undefined because we have no evidence.

If you think otherwise please provide us with a study

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:51:06 2011 No.3751252 >>3751238 I never said you are conscious when you're dead. Although claiming you can't be conscious when you're dead is a statement with no backing. Unless you can show that every dead person has no consciousness, then that claim isn't valid.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:52:06 2011 No.3751257

>>3751235
Actually that is entirely wrong. The scientific definition of death is the permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.

Looking at it in terms of entropy, equilibrium, metabolism, w/e you want. Death has nothing to do with your "concious" state.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:55:06 2011 No.3751265 >>3751231 You idiot, there is more evidence for consciousness than for anything else, since all evidence for anything else is mediated through CONSCIOUSNESS! Seriously, how fucking stupid can you get?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:56:06 2011 No.3751266 >>3751252 >I never said you are conscious when you're dead. Straw Man There is no mention of consciousness in my post.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:58:06 2011 No.3751268

You have to look at this in terms of the entire universe. Our physiology is rather simple. We are a relatively new species. We havent been evolving for that long. Think about the other species, and what kinds of mutations were possible with them. Think about how much more efficient and resilient their cells must be.

You know some of the longest living people in the world (100+) just have one enzyme that works more efficiently than the rest of us.

Try to imagine if we were a million years more advanced than we already are. I highly doubt death is even a process for superior beings.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:58:06 2011 No.3751271

>>3751265
Lol, you completely missed the point too!

We aren't talking about evidence OF consciousness period...

So what if there is evidence of consciousness?
That doesn't mean there is evidence that there is no consciousness after death, or if there is.

I bet you feel embarrassed..
(if not then you should)

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:59:06 2011 No.3751272

>>3751266
lol, so weak and defensive...

Okay. I never said you are when you're dead.

Although claiming you can't be when you're dead is a statement with no backing.

Unless you can show that every dead person is not, then that claim isn't valid.

Feel better, now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 02:59:06 2011 No.3751274 >>3751265 Silly man. That doesnt mean we understand it. All evidence for life is meadiated through living, yet we barely understand it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:00:06 2011 No.3751278 >>3751271 >Evidence of consciousness doesn't exist >We aren't talking about evidence OF consciousness Ok, you just showed you're too stupid to talk to anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:04:06 2011 No.3751284 Conciousness is more for philosophers to discuess. Scientists dont really care becuase they have nothing to prove, because there is no way as of yet to prove it.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:04:06 2011 No.3751285

>>3751278
ya lol..
>Evidence of consciousness doesn't exist
>We aren't talking about evidence OF consciousness

Where is the contradiction?

I swear, some people just think they can put words together that sound good and think they are arguing.

You said there was evidence of consciousness. I still think there isn't. (Hence the first quote)
HOWEVER, that is irrelevant!!!! because.... wait for it....
we aren't talking about evidence of consciousness period!

get it?
So if I humor you and consider that your BS is right.. my point was that you are STILL wrong because you are talking about consciousness and not consciousness after death which is the WHOLE POINT of this discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:04:06 2011 No.3751286 >>3751274 Irrelevant. That was not the issue at hand. Jesus fuck, can't any of you people keep a thought in your head for five minutes?

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:05:06 2011 No.3751289

>>3751272

>lol, so weak and defensive...

Yes you committing fallacies to defend your previous fallacies is indeed pathetic

>Although claiming you can't be when you're dead is a statement with no backing Unless you can show that every dead person is not, then that claim isn't valid.

Again Straw Man.
I never attested that you cant be when you are dead.
I attested that i have evidence that i am when i am alive, thats it.

Maybe you should read this before you continue embarrassing yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:07:06 2011 No.3751296 ITT - undiagnosed fallacies

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:07:06 2011 No.3751297 >>3751285 You're really good at moving the goal posts during a discussion. Unfortunately since it's intellectually dishonest behavior, it's a bad thing to be really good at.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:07:06 2011 No.3751299

>>3751274
I think I see what was confusing you.

When I said "we aren't talking about evidence of consciousness period"
I did NOT mean "we aren't talking about evidence of consciousness"

what I mean is that we aren't talking about GENERAL evidence of consciousness. (hence consciousness period [the period referring to generality])

This discussion is about SPECIFICLY consciousness after death.

So I guess that was partly my fault. But I think we are all in understanding now

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:09:06 2011 No.3751303

Right now, to a scientist (like myself), the brain is just made up of different molecules and the interactions between parts of the brain are made possible by the interaction between these molecules. That is it. Therefore if the brain is gone, so is what we know as "conciousness". Molecules + Interactions = Conciousness. Take away Molecules you get no Conciousness.

However this is merely at the microscopic to nanoscopic level. Looking further there is the whole string shit, which may open up some possibilities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:10:06 2011 No.3751308 >>3751299 >This discussion is about SPECIFICLY breathing after death. >This discussion is about SPECIFICLY heartbeat after death. >This discussion is about SPECIFICLY knitting after death.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:10:06 2011 No.3751310

>>3751289
I know what a straw man is, you idiot. I was simply saying that you're making a big deal out of a small difference that I hardly care about and any 5 year old could figure out, instead of just yelling straw man like a fool.

I was and have been responding to >>3751198
>if you're still sentient you aren't dead.

That is a claim with no evidence or backing and that's what I've been saying. If you have nothing to say regarding that then don't bother replying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:12:06 2011 No.3751314 >>3751202 >>3751213 >>3751225 >>3751236 >>3751257 >>3751268 >>3751284 >>3751303 My posts

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:12:06 2011 No.3751315 >>3751308 so in your mind breathing+hearbeat+knitting = consciousness? lol. sad

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:13:06 2011 No.3751319

>>3751310
pretend consciousness can be observed via intersubjectivity.

now note that all conscious things we have observed are alive.

all dead things we have observed display no consciousness.

that isn't PROOF, but it most certainly qualifies as evidence upon acceptance of the given prior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:13:06 2011 No.3751321 >>3751314 You have a very solid, conservatively scientific outlook on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:13:06 2011 No.3751322 >>3751274 oops, missed this one too. Also mine

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:15:06 2011 No.3751325 >>3751315 do you often mistake analogy for equality?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:16:06 2011 No.3751328 >>3751319 Problem is, proof requires absolute evidence. Without absolute evidence there can't be proof. Its best to stay away from hard terms like proof and evidence for subjects that can't be proven at this time.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:16:06 2011 No.3751329
File: 82 KB, 486x409, 1315233622488.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

If you are dead (and so have no senses), but can still think to yourself, and everything is black and there is nothing, forever and ever:

well, it wouldn't really matter, your mind would go insane after a while and then you'd just be on some perpetual and infinite insane mental rollercoaster in your mind, for eternity.

could be fun

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:16:06 2011 No.3751330 >>3751319 >now note that all conscious things we have observed are alive. Nope. But I can see where you're coming from.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:17:06 2011 No.3751332 >>3751329 consciousness in the absence of a neurological foundation may well not have that problem.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:17:06 2011 No.3751335

>>3751319
Yes, when people die there is no observed consciousness, but then to assert that that translates to no consciousness at all is a leap you can't make.

For all you know your consciousness could go somewhere else. In some way we can't observe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and we can never truly know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:18:06 2011 No.3751336 >>3751328 I'm not the one bringing up proof. I don't believe proof is possible outside mathematics and deduction, neither of which necessarily says anything about reality.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:18:06 2011 No.3751337

>>3751325
I see no analogy there..
what analogy?

why is this a difficult subject?
There either is evidence of consciousness AFTER DEATH or there isn't.
I have never seen any..
If you have please share it.

If not, then I really don't see how you can say anything at all on the matter.

Perhaps you think I am making the claim that there is consciousness after death.
If that is what you think than you are horribly wrong. Only a fool would claim that either side is true, I am simply saying that we don't know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:19:06 2011 No.3751339 >>3751335 absence of evidence most certainly is evidence of absence given a search for evidence.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:20:06 2011 No.3751341

>>3751310

>I was and have been responding to 3751198

All of your replies were directed towards me.

And your resort to insults only reflects your own insecurity and incompetence to hold a rational discussion and your pathetic attempt to salvage your shattered ego after being exposed for repeatedly committing fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:20:06 2011 No.3751344 recreate a world using my mind duh

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:21:06 2011 No.3751345

>>3751319
The real problem I have with this is the question presented was along the lines of "You're still conscious, but surrounded by black and nothingness, what do you do"

Then the response was basically "I can still think, so I'm not dead". Which isn't a valid connection.

You could be dead and experiencing what death is like. Being conscious in black and nothingness could mean anything, but is definitely out of the ordinary.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:22:06 2011 No.3751350
File: 136 KB, 550x413, a9115_Sloth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3751337
>>3751337
no, I think a fool would claim there is.

we had no conciousness before we were born, why would some physical and primal thing such as human birth allow us to have an inifinite conciousness? that makes no sense. conciousness is a product of being alive.

and if you say "well maybe we did have a conciousness before birth but we just don't remember" then im fukken out

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:23:06 2011 No.3751352

>>3751339
But what he was saying is that living people don't observe that the dead retain their consciousness.

There is neither evidence, nor an absence of direct evidence that there is no consciousness. So your argument doesn't apply because consciousness is not something that can ever be observed by anyone but the person experiencing it

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:23:06 2011 No.3751353

>>3751341
>Makes a big deal about semantics to call it a fallacy to make himself feel important.

>Gets upset that he gets called an idiot for arguing semantics.

>Insults me to make himself feel better, while criticizing me for insulting him.

Nice job. Like I said, don't bother replying.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:23:06 2011 No.3751354

>>3751329
Perhaps though, when you reach that state, you no longer need what we call "senses." For instance, if you could say... "feel" the molecular interactions of the universe, you would be able to see, hear, touch, etc, without actually needing any kind of specialized structure to do so.

Who knows though, maybe we lose what we consider a conciousness, and reach an entirely different level. We no longer have a brain, so we are unlimited in our potential to store information, yet what processes that information?

If you arent going by absolute proof or evidence, the general opinion of a scientist is that there is no life after death, simply because what we know as "death" requires none of the characteristics of life, yet you are still "living," which requires all of the characteristics of life, which is in itself is a paradox.

Think of living after death like being a zombie, it'l never happen unless there is some new law or subatomic something discovered, which links your "mind" to the universe in some way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:25:06 2011 No.3751359 >>3751168 >You've just died Everything is black but your still sentient Thats idiotic, to be "Sentient" you need your body to be functional. If you died, your body isnt functional. Hence your scenario is invalid. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:26:06 2011 No.3751368 >>3751359 holy shit you're so fucking stupid it's not a question about whether or not it happens it's a question about what you do if it happens god you must suck ass at experiment design, given that you have no imagination at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:28:06 2011 No.3751375 >>3751350 >and if you say "well maybe we did have a conciousness before birth but we just don't remember" then im fukken out I bet you always ignore previous research when you write your papers, too. fuck off then, you're useless.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:28:06 2011 No.3751377

>>3751337
agnostic dualism doesn't fit any percieved evidence, e.g. altered states of consciousness induced by injury or drugs, or the memory of unconsciousness.

ultimately the number of things you can believe because you don't know the answer to approaches the infinite and is only restricted by your imagination.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:30:06 2011 No.3751383

3751359
It's called an implied theoretical situation it doesn't have to be completely grounded by what we know to be true the idea isn't to make a claim the idea is to explore, now stop wasting time with realism because reality is about one of the most unrealistic things that exists

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:31:06 2011 No.3751389 >>3751387 nothingness doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:31:40 2011 No.3751387 File: 24 KB, 444x322, bridge186.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >OP clearly states you are conscious in a void of nothingness >Mfw the responses are "HURRR IMA GHOST LET ME HAUNT PEOPLE AND BE INVISIBLE GOST GOST GOST!!!"

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:32:06 2011 No.3751391

>>3751359
We dont know enough about sentience to make any sort of claims. The only sentient beings we know of are ourselves, so really, sentience might not mean anything at all.

It may come to pass that all animals are sentient to some degree, and our definition of sentience will change.

What about artificial life? Say you killed some cyborg that had a level of sentience that was equal to our own, and its "sentience" was downloaded to another robot before it died.

Or what about artificial life, say you had your brain transplanted into another body or a machine, or somehow in the near future, your brain was somehow cloned using an artificial brain, etc. Your sentience would be transferred would it not?

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:32:06 2011 No.3751394

>>3751350
likewise only a fool would say that there isn't

just like only a fool would claim to know with 100% certainty that there was no consciousness before you were born.

read your own post again:
>>we had no conciousness before we were born
and tell me 1 shred of logic to support this.
Don't even do it for me, just yourself, I bet if you actually think about where this "information" came from the only honest answer is that you really just made it up right now.

Why do people like you always assume things like this?
My point is MAYBE there is a 99.9999% chance you are right all things considered..
but even if there is a 0.00001% chance that you are wrong... then you cannot say for sure that you are right!!
and you are WRONG to think that you know the answer without any doubt.

That is my point, and I love calling people like you out on that 0.0001% chance that you could be wrong, because you always just seem to round it off and say "yep I'm 100% right".

But I repeat.. only an absolute FOOL would think they know something with 100% accuracy given that there is some finite chance that they could be wrong.

So given everything I said above.. can you honestly tell me that you KNOW beyond a shred of doubt that reality in this regard works EXACTLY 100% the way you see it in your mind? that there is no consciousness of ANY FORM before you were born or after you are dead?
You KNOW this? Is it impossible for reality to behave differently from how your intuition tells you it does?

and if you say yes to any of that... than I genuinely feel sorry for you and your puny closed mind.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:32:06 2011 No.3751395

>>3751368

Okay then answer me this:
What is the Color of the wind?
What is the Temperature of the wave?
Note: In this scenario the Wind has Color, and the Wave has Temperature.
Note: You must provide evidence for your answer.
Note: If you resist to answer then you have no imagination.

Now you realize how idiotic this thread is, because you demand answers to fantasy scenarios and you demand physical evidence for such answers.

Seriously just leave /Sci/.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:33:06 2011 No.3751397
File: 22 KB, 269x261, herp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3751375
>>3751375
alright if you were about to make that claim (lol) and still think only a fool would argue against conciousness after death, here's what I have to say:

fuck off with your pseudo-science bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:33:06 2011 No.3751405 >>3751395 OP wasn't demanding evidence for the OPINIONS he was asking for YOU FUCKING IGNORANT CUNTRAG WHORE. Learn to read before you visit /sci/ again. Maybe even graduate high school.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:35:06 2011 No.3751409 >>3751405 might should stick a comma in that sentence somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:36:06 2011 No.3751413 >>3751397 How about you fuck off with YOUR pseudoscience bullshit, since you've devolved to arguing against things I haven't said yet, as if you believed you were psychic or something

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:36:06 2011 No.3751415

I would focus my mind and meditate so but so hard tothe point where I could imagine and actually imagine everything it becomes a new reality for me and play god and erase my memories about not being sentient and relive multiple lifs of agony, happiness, dispair and lust and reset my mind every time I wake up (die in that new world I created) to "sleep" and be reborn in another one in order to avoid boredom.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:37:06 2011 No.3751424 >>3751168 How about flip my fucking shit and become depressed as hell for all eternity

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:37:06 2011 No.3751425

>>3751395
The wind is minutely blue due to the chemical interactions and light refraction (assuming ground level), and the wave is slightly hotter than the surrounding water water =D

Wind = moving air. air = minutely blue for scientific reasons (assuming position is ground level)
Wave = moving water. therefore wave is temperature

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:38:06 2011 No.3751432 >OP: pretend you're a dualist for a minute. >/sci/: but I'm not you fucking whore!

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:38:06 2011 No.3751433
File: 58 KB, 450x315, pack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3751394
>>3751394
>>3751394

Similarly, only a fool would claim there is no universe where everything is made out of unicorn semen.

MAYBE there is a 99.9999% chance there is not,
but even if there is a 0.00001% chance that you there is... then you cannot say for sure that you are right!!
and you are WRONG to think that you know the answer without any doubt.

But I repeat.. only an absolute FOOL would think they know something with 100% accuracy given that there is some finite chance that they could be wrong.

can you honestly tell me that you KNOW beyond a shred of doubt that there is NOT a universe made of unicorn semen?

no, you fucking can't.

That is my point, and I love calling people like you out on that 0.0001% chance that you could be wrong, because you always just seem to round it off and say "yep I'm 100% right".

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:39:06 2011 No.3751435

>>3751389
Okay
Not OP here
But what he asked is a very interesting question to think about
But it needs rephrasing
Say you have died
Your brain is dead
You now no longer exist
Let's say you can exist within nonexistence itself (stay with me for a sec)
What would one do in this realm of nonexistence?
How would one deal with the endless boredom of this realm of emptiness?

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:40:06 2011 No.3751442

>>3751391

>We dont know enough about sentience to make any sort of claims.

And how do you know that?

And how do you explain this?

>Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences

How can you feel of perceive if your body isnt functional?

If you are sentient then you can feel and perceive.
If you arent functional then you cant feel and perceive.
If you cant feel and perceive then you arent sentient.

If you cant feel or perceive then how can you attest that you can be sentient after death?

OP !W48S2eY4nU Sat Sep 17 03:41:06 2011 No.3751446
File: 69 KB, 822x556, CcS91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Hi... my second post other than the thread starter. I just wanted to know the immediate reactions of /sci/entists if put in that situation. I do not believe it to be an actual possibility of what death entails. I simply wanted to understand how a rational person would deal with such an irrational situation.

I just find the idea.. frightening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:42:06 2011 No.3751449 >>3751446 So now we've learned that /sci/ can't handle unexpected situations.

>>	GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg Sat Sep 17 03:42:06 2011 No.3751450 Start making my own language. Shi bawa shi bawa

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:42:06 2011 No.3751451 >>3751435 >say you can exist within nonexistence >exist within nonexistence >exist >nonexistence hey guiz, let's pretend white is black for a second, what do?

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:49:06 2011 No.3751490

>>3751433
What's your point?

That is right we cannot say with 100% accuracy that there isn't.

Of course if we had a mechanism by which to do the math we'd probably find it to be something like 10^-100000000 odds that such a thing exists.

But seriously? Just tell me, what logic are you using to dismiss that unicorn semen universe?
It's "common sense" and your "intuition" isn't it? isn't it?!

Well then you clearly don't know shit about modern physics because we are learning more and more that our "common sense" and "intuition" isn't worth a damn thing anymore, reality is so much different than any of us can possibly imagine.

In order to do good science these days we have to train our minds to do away with out human preconceived notions of reality.
I see you are having trouble letting go.

answer me this:
Do you think that because a unicorn semen universe sounds ridiculous to you, that it implies in any way that it doesn't exist?

Don't tell me again about how ridiculous it is, that's not what I'm asking, don't tell me that I'm a fool for arguing in favor of it,(because I'm actually not if you read carefully).

All I'm asking is for you to tell me if you think that the fact that you find something ridiculous is a measure of somethings possibility of existing or not.
Do you think that? Please, I'm curious

Also, I love how you dodged my question at the bottom of my last post that you quoted.

Just like I have a feeling you will dodge the question I just asked you in this one.
It's just what people like you do.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:50:06 2011 No.3751502

>>3751446
Either depressing, or exciting depending on the scenario for me :D.

>>3751442
Just my post for the first quote, someone else wrote that second one.
I know that we dont know enough about sentience to make that claim because we are the only sentient beings, so we have nothing to compare our sentience with. Its like only having an apple, and without prior knowledge, trying to imagine all of the other fruits that exist down to their exact chemical structure.

For example, following what i said before. Take this question. For this, a fruit = an apple only.

Our fruits on earth are the only, and best tasting fruits in the universe. We know everything there is to know about fruits, and we love their unique taste and quality.

Say, one day you die, and you wake up in a beautiful fruit farm, yet the fruits on the tree do not look like our fruits, in fact, they are quite different. Are these fruits better than our fruits, or are they fruits at all? What classifies these fruits as fruits? Which fruit do you try first? Which fruit looks the best? Which looks the tastiest? Which fruit looks like it is a natural impossibility, and breaks all current laws of existance?

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:52:06 2011 No.3751513
File: 9 KB, 194x160, friend314.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3751451
Dear god can you just give a fucking answer?
With shit like the sun in a collision with earth and trying to hide ON EARTH is one thing to ridicule
But can you look beyond the rational for a split second to think about it?
Can this be worded in a way that won't have /sci/ screaming "NOPENOPENOPE I CAN'T INTO IMAGINARY SITUATIONS"?

Fuck, you are somehow, some way in a realm of pitch blackness with absolutely nothing around you but yourself
WHAT FUCKING DO?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:52:06 2011 No.3751514 >>3751490 huh, our agnostic dualist is also a quantum mystic. what a surprise.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 03:55:06 2011 No.3751525

>>3751513
I can easily imagine it. my dad is blind. I'd probably do things very similar to the things he does.

but by dead you imply blind and deaf and paralyzed (and not sentient). but if I was blind and deaf and paralyzed and whatever else I'd do nothing, there's nothing to do. I'd think but mostly-
"JUST FUCKING KILL ME!!!!!!111!ONE"

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:01:06 2011 No.3751542

>>3751514
Quantum mystic?

The only things I know of quantum mechanics I've learned at a university and from textbooks:
griffiths, gasiorowics
heard of them? I didn't think so.

I can almost guarantee both of you that you misunderstand me.
You can never know anything with 100% certainty.

Think about it. If you think you can then you are lying to yourselves.

It is not a belief, it is a statement of fact.
If you disagree, than instead of telling me about ridiculous things to try and make me look silly how about you tell me a single thing that you think you know with 100% certainty.

Because guess what? Last time I checked there hasn't even been a conclusive proof that we exist.

Think about what it means to know something with 100% certainty and you'll realize just how ridiculous that claim is.
Honestly, the idea of anyone knowing something with such certainty that it is absolutely impossible for the universe to behave any other way than exactly the way it works in your mind, is far more ridiculous than that unicorn semen universe you proposed.

Just keep in mind that our arguments are very subtle. Almost to the point of being arguments about semantics.

I do not think there is a unicorn semen universe.
I do think that it is completely idiotic to live your life as if you can't know anything without certainty. It is also very inefficient and we would get nowhere scientifically if we assumed that.

But if you think about it you'd realize that you are the ones with the crazy beliefs. I am the one without any. I am claiming no knowledge of anything, only probabilities of what we can know. We can know things with high certainty, but we can never know anything with 100% certainty.

You are the ones with the beliefs that you can know things without any doubt whatsoever, get over it.
Just accept that there is always some error and margin for deviation in what you think you know.
That is ALL I am saying. jesus fucking christ.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:02:06 2011 No.3751545

>>3751502
Following what i said before, under the assumption that the only fruit we know is an apple.

What classifies these fruits as fruits? If they have the same, or similar genetic makeup as the apple, as well as the same or similar chemical structure, and physiological functions (as the apple). Therefore many fruits we know of today would be excluded as what our alternat earth knows fruits.

This may be a bad anaolgy, but the point i am trying to make is, our definition of sentience is only based on ourselves. We have no other case of sentience to compare it to, therefore we cannot possibly even hope to understand what sentience entails.

Consider this. What if we had a fruit and an orange. Now we have something to compare. We note the similarities, and the differences, and come to a middleground understanding of what a fruit is. What about if we add grapes? Our knowledge and confidence of what a fruit is increases even further, because we can triangulate the differences and similarities, and come to an almost concrete definition of what a fruit is.

See what i am trying to say? With just us, we have no similarities, and no differences. We cant compare sentience to what we consider non-sentient being because we dont have any actual other sentient beings to even figure out what sentience is in the first place.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:03:06 2011 No.3751546
File: 39 KB, 600x600, 816223-gentlemen_bender_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3751490
>>3751490
>>3751490

wow, you're such a free thinker. I wish my mind was as open and enlightened as yours.

ha ha ha, no. you are just regurgitating the same arguments used in "how to convert your friends to christians" books.

do I think there is a correlation between probability and realization? absolutely I do. only a fool would not.

I never outright said "this is the way it is, I am 100% correct", but it's people like you that constantly froth at the mouth with "herpderpD but YOU CANT PROOF IT hA!@ YOUR RONG!@2" that just grind my gears. And then you come back with shit like "I pity you" and "you're having trouble letting go".

Seriously, I can tell you've never studied a hard science at university from the way you talk and the manner in which you form your arguments. Holding on to "you can't prove it doesn't exist" is such a circular argument and a complete waste of time responding to.

But go ahead, keep your dreams of unicorn semen alive whilst I will continue to live in the world we know, using logic and my experiences to make decisions, and not fairytales and science fiction books that "might exist".

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:05:06 2011 No.3751552

Here is a reason why you cant compare sentients with what we perceive as non-sentients. Say you stumble across a stuttering genius with a severe speech impediment and poorly controlled motor functions. You try to have a conversation with this genius, and he/she has great difficult effectively communicating with you. You consider this person to be "retarded," and you now have another person to guague your own intelligence. You compare what you percieve to be their intelligence with yours. You conclude that you are smarter than them. In reality they are smarter than you.

We dont know what constitutes sentience, intelligence, or anything like that. We have some good ideas, but no actual conctrete proof. This is the problem.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:11:06 2011 No.3751567

>>3751513
Any of your heard that if you run into a wall over and over you can actually tunnel through it?

Of course the probability of that happening is such that if you did it 100 times a second you would be doing it for several times the duration of the entire universe before you even have an appreciable chance of success.

I bet all you heard from that is "durr, I can go through wall? no, you're wrong because that sounds crazy"

It is a statistical impossibility, but a physical POSSIBILITY.

That is my point.
Perhaps my error here is arguing statistics and probability with 10 year olds.

Make no mistake, that is not "quantum mysticism" whatever the hall that is,
it is full blown quantum motherfuckingmechanics.
I actually do know quantum mechanics, I will be getting a PhD in theoretical particle physics hopefully in a few years.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:11:06 2011 No.3751569 >>3751552 >actual conctrete proof so long as we insist on believing such a thing exists we most certainly are retards.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:11:06 2011 No.3751571

>>3751545
>>3751502

These are the definitions.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience")

2. sentience - the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing"
sensory faculty, sentiency, sense, sensation
faculty, mental faculty, module - one of the inherent cognitive or perceptual powers of the mind
sense modality, sensory system, modality - a particular sense
sensitivity, sensitiveness, sensibility - (physiology) responsiveness to external stimuli; the faculty of sensation; "sensitivity to pain"
3. sentience - the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart
animateness, liveness, aliveness - the property of being animated; having animal life as distinguished from plant life
insentience - lacking consciousness or ability to perceive sensations

Your ridiculous argument (Which is actually False Analogy) that a definition is invalid because it hasnt accounted that which may not even fit in it is beyond moronic.
Sentience cannot exist in death.
Deal with it.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:12:06 2011 No.3751577

I've wondered if I'm going to be aware in the last few moments of consciousness that I'm probably going to die. I'm going to use these last moments to think of my wife and family, and just concentrate on how much I love them.

Then my consciousness will be obliterated, and I won't have to suffer the fear of ultimate loss any longer. I'll decompose and the matter of my body will be reabsorbed into the environment, along with my family.

Maybe if we're lucky, the many worlds theory is real, or that time does actually repeat itself. Of course, if it does, we're not aware of it so it doesn't matter. But it's still a nice thought to kick around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:13:06 2011 No.3751580 >>3751567 our agnostic dualist and quantum mystic is also a physicist. what a surprise. physicists can't into biology, any biologist know this. >inb4 retarded physicist claims consciousness isn't biological.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:14:06 2011 No.3751587

>>3751546
>I never outright said "this is the way it is, I am 100% correct"

So let's end this here and now.
DO you or do you NOT think that?

If you say no, then we are in agreement because that is all I have been saying.
I don't think you will say yes because I can see that you now realize how stupid that would be.

So I can already predict your reaction. You are going to avoid answering because if you do it will mean this argument comes to an end at the realization that you were arguing against me for no reason because you really did agree with me but just couldn't bring yourself to say it.

So what is it?
Do you or do you not? or just ignore me whatever, but pleeeeeeeeeeaaaase don't change the subject, people like you do that all the time and it's just so annoying..

just answer the damn question and this will all be over@!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:15:06 2011 No.3751592 File: 22 KB, 389x388, thunder829.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3751580 >mentioning biology Oh god watch the trolls run in now

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:16:06 2011 No.3751595 >>3751567 >I actually do know quantum mechanics, I will be getting a PhD in theoretical particle physics hopefully in a few years. hopefully in your native language, because if it's in english no one will take it seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:17:06 2011 No.3751601 >>3751168 You create the Cosmos again. turn into another Big Bang mother fucker!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:18:06 2011 No.3751606 ponder my existence for a while (most likely using a lot of profanity) but eventually the lack of stimuli causes my consciousness to fade out, I start hallucinating, and my self-identity fragments. But that's his problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:20:06 2011 No.3751613 >>3751595 Nice :) nothing important left to contribute to this conversation? result to personal attacks. and on 4chan.. insulting grammar and spelling :p ya man... you reeeeaally got me

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:20:06 2011 No.3751614

Well physics, chemistry, biology are all really the same, just at different levels of magnification.

Physics pretty much encompasses everything, but really only cares about chemistry.

Chemistry encompasses biology but really only cares about physics.

Biology requires chemistry, but doesnt really care about physics at all.

But conciousness really isnt a topic for any kind of scientist, as it doesnt really have any place in science (not yet anyways).

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:20:06 2011 No.3751618 >>3751606 >that's his problem. 10/10 and a tip of the hat

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:22:06 2011 No.3751628 >>3751618 >Implying thats me you are talking to

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:23:06 2011 No.3751635 >>3751613 >result to personal attacks. oh the irony, it burns! it itches!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:30:06 2011 No.3751662 >>3751635 Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? If not then you have no morals.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:31:06 2011 No.3751666

>>3751635
lol, is that you? the same guy I've been arguing with this whole time?

Did my prediction actually come true? Behold!! I said you would avoid my question and you did!
>>3751587
It's been a bout 10 mins..

Wow... so this is what it feels like to work a troll into a corner so bad that they can't even make up some bs to get out of it?
feels pretty damn good :)

Of course according to your logic that would mean that I am absolutely right doesn't it? :p because you can know things without any doubt? lol
But I am a bigger man than that, and in the spirit of everything I have been saying thus far I will simply concede that I am only 99% sure that you have realized that you are wrong.

and I am content with that victory.
Oh and by the way, you are welcome for setting you straight. No need to thank me

I shall be going to bed now.
good night 4chan!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:33:06 2011 No.3751678 >>3751666 no, I'm not the anon you're arguing with. if it makes you feel like a winner you can pretend I am though. whatever gets you through the day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:33:06 2011 No.3751680 >>3751666 >Using emotes Not the person your fightan with but you're trying alittle to hard bro

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:49:06 2011 No.3751742 >>3751680 >Not the person your fightan >fightan Allmymolotovcocktails.jpg

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 04:53:06 2011 No.3751762
File: 22 KB, 299x381, 131443653283.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3751587
>>3751587
hello, I was eating lunch.

here is what I have been saying the entire time:

It does not make you a fool to argue that there is no conciousness after death. I never said what my opinions were, you assumed them.

The biggest fool of all is the one who argues against neither, and both, because it's a waste of everyone's time.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math