/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9863556]

Reminder your conscious experience escapes your synapses upon death, proceeding to subconsciously float around the universe in limbo untill it reasserts itself in a new host.

[Anonymous No.9863579]

>>9863556
...

[Anonymous No.9863595]

>>9863556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsjrA87Cno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za_b9UQoz6E

[Anonymous No.9863612]

>>9863595
Quantum immortality and any other parallel worlds crap is lode of shit based on a million different assumptions ifs and buts

[Anonymous No.9863615]

I hope im reborn as a sexy girl desu

[Anonymous No.9863619]

>escape your synapses

you obviously don't know how synapses work. when you die your neurons decay, meaning all synapses are lost with them. why do you think people become vegetables?

[Anonymous No.9863624]

>>9863612
It's just further proof that you can give bullshit mystical shit some credence if you cover it up in scientific sounding lingo

[Anonymous No.9863635]

>>9863612
THIS

Also:
>>9863595
>Worldline of my consciousness
If there really were anything to your mystic mumbo-jumbo, what the holy fuck do you mean by "my consciousness"???
Are the other futures populated by versions of you without consciousness?
What makes you think "your" consciousness isn't the first one to die?

[Anonymous No.9863636]

>>9863635
I think the point is that consciousness is an illusion

[Anonymous No.9863863]

>>9863636
Its the most real thing there is. The only thing you know truly exists as it is.

[Anonymous No.9863865]

>>9863863
>Its the most real thing there is. The only thing you know truly exists as it is.
I always hated this platitude
It's like saying that this illusion is the most real thing because it can move
You know nothing about it, just that "you" are the outcome

[Anonymous No.9863866]

>>9863863
He means that it's a manifestation of your brain, a hallucination, not a actual real substance that goes somewhere.

[Anonymous No.9863877]

>>9863865
>>9863866
You retards don't even understand that you have to assume that your perceptions are correct to know that it is just an illusion that stems from the brain. The entire confirmation of reality itself requires this "illusion".

[Anonymous No.9863879]

>>9863877
>The entire confirmation of reality itself requires this "illusion".
Not sure why you quoted "illusion" there, but yes
The fact that you can type out the correct answer and still be wrong baffles me

[Anonymous No.9863884]

>>9863879
I was highlighing how you refere to it as a mere illusion. Your first defense was an absurd comparison and now you just say im wrong.

[Anonymous No.9863888]

>>9863635
>what the holy fuck do you mean by "my consciousness"???
If you're not a philosophical zombie, you should be able to tell the difference between "you", meaning the entity containing all of your qualia, as opposed to other conscious entities that are "not you".

>>9863636
t. Philosophical zombie

[Anonymous No.9863893]

>>9863888
This place is infested with STEMfags who can't grasp any outside of what their humanist atheist professor tells them.

[Anonymous No.9863896]

>>9863619
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Penrose_and_Hameroff
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2170020/

[Anonymous No.9863900]

>>9863884
Oh I had assumed you understood my metaphor but apparently not
I was saying that you looking at the picture and seeing it move would be the illusion. Your brain processes information which causes it to move and yet it never actually moves. Much like this you perceive a self while it's actually more of a semi-static state (the now)
And if you are honestly trying to argue against this because "dur you can't understand metaphors if the thing you understand it with is an illusion" then t.

[Anonymous No.9863902]

>>9863893
>Stem fags
>Gay for being apparently converted by professors
>Christfags
>Totally straight for being raised religious
Not sure where you're going there, buddy

[Anonymous No.9863913]

>>9863877
People who have brain damage their consciousness and perception of the world changes. People with schizophrenia can have full conversations with people that other people don't see because their neurotransmitters aren't working correctly. Your brain creates the world, if we can't trust our brains or our sences then the whole question about what is real or what is reality is a bad question, even this statement shouldn't be trusted.

[Anonymous No.9863923]

>>9863900
First of all you assume that you can know that your consiousness correctly percieves the world, instead of it being misinterpreted by this illusion. You assume that this illusion can objectively know that it is an illusion, being an illusion this is unlikely. Second, lets assume that this so called illusion can accurately see its own basis, how does information processing and receving negate its existence? It would be the same as claiming that information on a computer does not exist. Thirdly if these are simply information receivers, why does it think? Why am I aware of my thinking and not simply processing it.

I'd advise you to go read up on the hard problem of consiousness, but you're too busy sucking Dennett's cock.

[Anonymous No.9863927]

>>9863902
Not a Christian, you fags just fail to understand anything out of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.9863930]

>>9863612
>>9863624
Guess Everett was just a Deepak Chopra-tier brainlet then.

[Anonymous No.9863935]

>>9863913
More assumptions, but lets assume that assumption is true. In what way is a consiousness using a mechanism to exist if damaged or interfered may alter the outcome of the consiouness, prove it doesn't and never existed?

[Anonymous No.9863936]

>>9863923
>First of all you assume that you can know that your consiousness correctly percieves the world, instead of it being misinterpreted by this illusion.
I assumed no such thing. See: >>9863913
>You assume that this illusion can objectively know that it is an illusion
Objectively is a strong word. Not everything has to be a certainty. Unless you're religious of course
>being an illusion this is unlikely
Elaborate. Because you can't know something objectively therefor it is unlikely?
>Second, lets assume that this so called illusion can accurately see its own basis, how does information processing and receving negate its existence?
It exists in the same way the the picture is moving. In your brain and as a product of it.
>It would be the same as claiming that information on a computer does not exist.
No because we don't ascribe consciousness to a computer in the first place. On that note however, do you believe computers theoretically capable of consciousness?
>Thirdly if these are simply information receivers, why does it think? Why am I aware of my thinking and not simply processing it.
"Why" is a philosophers question. We can speculate on what hypothetical evolutionarily benefits it has, but I don't think that's the discussion you're trying to have.
>I'd advise you to go read up on the hard problem of consiousness, but you're too busy sucking Dennett's cock.
If you are trying to have the "why" conversation then by all means >>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.9863944]

>>9863935
> In what way is a consiousness using a mechanism to exist if damaged or interfered may alter the outcome of the consiouness, prove it doesn't and never existed?
Nobody said it doesn't exist
Only that it exists as an illusion
Is that really stressing your brain so hard to imagine?

[Anonymous No.9863950]

>>9863936
You just broke down a valid discussion into greentexing you absolute moron and most of the replies are dodging and palming another question onto me. Discussion over, learn to talk like an intelligent person and not an autist.

[Anonymous No.9863955]

>>9863950
>Phew thank god he answered every single point in a way I could dodge easily

[Anonymous No.9863960]

>>9863935
Like I said it doesn't pay to speculate if we can't trust our senses. But how the world seems to appear, if we allow some level of trust, is that consciousness is generated by the brain like a puzzle and when all the puzzle pieces fit together the world is generated to be perceived by our senses, and if a puzzle piece is removed or damaged the generated product (consciousness) is altered.

[Anonymous No.9863964]

>>9863960
Doth the radio giveth birth to the radio waveth?

[Anonymous No.9863973]

>>9863964
It receives the wave from a transmitter.

[Anonymous No.9863976]

>>9863964
You sound like such a faggot.

[Anonymous No.9864007]

>>9863973
And if one was to breaketh thy radio, what becometh of the radio waveth?

>>9863976
I bite my thumb at thee, queer pig.

[Anonymous No.9864011]

>>9863612
this

there is only ONE GOD (YHWH) and you reach him through Christ

[Anonymous No.9864023]

>>9864007
Nothing. You use a radio to receive the wave. You think because you break your radio everyone else stops hearing music?