Discussion Another stupid afterlife thread, because I like them :)

[Alex6216]

I agree there would be many more suicides and deaths as a result of cheap, legal and accessible N. There'd be fewer failed attempts for one and many murders using N.

If the N that D sells is the N that's legal and cheap, almost nobody will be murdered. I never bought/drank D's N since its too expensive but everyone says it tastes really disgusting, I doubt you can poison someones drink without them knowing. Overall I agree with what you said, I was replying to @lostmyacc claim that the illuminati/all 800 billionaires want to murder people.

 

[Deleted member 847]

We're getting a little bit off topic here
There are other threads to discuss suicide methods, lethal substances and their acquisitions
This is a thread for consciousness, physics, the meaning of life (and death) and theories on the afterlife

 

[Smart No More]

If the N that D sells is the N that's legal and cheap, almost nobody will be murdered. I never bought/drank D's N since its too expensive but everyone says it tastes really disgusting, I doubt you can poison someones drink without them knowing. Overall I agree with what you said, I was replying to @lostmyacc claim that the illuminati/all 800 billionaires want to murder people.

Yeah, no, I got it. I was just kind of agreeing with you.


As far as legal N. If it were the ideal scenario legal, cheap and easy to access it wouldn't be that vetinary stuff lol. It would be powder, tablets or IV solution.

Regarding the murders I was speculating on. I wasn't suggesting it would be done roofi style. More force fed but I guess with pills or powder it would be disguisable. Not that any of this hypothetical stuff matters haha.

We're getting a little bit off topic here
There are other threads to discuss suicide methods, lethal substances and their acquisitions
This is a thread for consciousness, physics, the meaning of life (and death) and theories on the afterlife

I nearly replied to your previous posting regarding that but didn't want to be further disagreeable on the topic. I get the impression you're trying to make a theory work and it doesn't matter if you have to break reality/physics etc to do I. Whilst I encourage questioning commonly understood beliefs on a scientific level I think some objectivity is necessary.

Regarding your theory - lets say for example someone with a mental degenerative condition or say an amputee is the subject. If they die after their peoblem occurs do they 'wake' in their danaged state or fixed and in a previous healthy ideal state. If so how is this governed.

Also on a question you asked me but I forgot to answer....'are you a different person now than when you were 10yrs old? ' I think the answer is a yes. Absolutely. I would argue we all have the same 'conciousness' (the kind of third person self awareness) and the rest of us is made up of our experiences and nurturing alongside our physiological reaction to that. As we all have different physiology we handle things somewhat differently.

To be honest that's a rhetorical question I'm putting to you to get you thinking a certain way on the matter. I won't be offended if you don't reply or even take it onboard. Just bringing us back on topic.

 

[Deleted member 847]

I'll reply to what you said later, maybe tomorrow. Maybe I'll spend an hour or two writing an essay on why I think linear time makes sense, without breaking the laws of physics anymore. Or maybe I won't.

By the way don't worry about being disagreeable,
It really doesn't hurt my feelings,
and you shouldn't care about not hurting them anyway

PLEASE guys be disagreeable.
What's the point of a discussion if everyone just says the same things.
Conflict is fun.

It's a nice day
Agreed
Yes, indeed. a very nice day

what the hell is that.
where is the fun?

Makes me wonder if the other guy agreed to the "the same consciousness can happen twice in the universe" just not to hurt my feelings
My feelings can't be hurt, they're all protected by a shield made of many invisible nokia3310

Anyway, good night (it's night where I live)

 

[may13]

I knew that space and time were related (if you go to another galaxy, when you return to earth the earth is gone)
I know my knowledge of physics is basically nonexistent compared to Einstein's, I'm just going with my common sense
but if what you say is true, and time isn't linear, it only looks "linear"
then shouldn't we all be dead right now since everything has already happened. How can that future that
has already happened be separated from the present that I'm feeling right now with my senses

I'm going to make one last attempt to prove my point that time could be linear, but I have to break the laws
of physics again with it (Sorry)

Andromeda is 2,500,000+ light years away from Earth, correct? that means we see it how it looked 2 million and half years ago
But what if we had a camera there, that communicated with us by the use of some magical "bridge" that we've built between the galaxies. It takes
the bandwidth less than a second to give us pictures of Andromeda. So we would actually be able to see Andromeda
the way it looks in the present (take away a second maybe).

If time has already happened then why am I writing this. Corpses shouldn't be able to write anything. If the guy on the Andromeda writes something
on his computer, when we look at the camera we both wrote at the same time, didn't we?

So correct, Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away. But the reason we're seeing it as it was 2.5 million years ago is because that's how long it takes light to traverse that distance (ergo "light year", the distance that light travels in a year or roughly 7 trillion miles). Much like if we look at the sun we're seeing it as it was roughly 8 minutes ago, because the light we're observing took 8 minutes to travel here.

And yes, if someone sent you a message carried on light waves (say like a radio broadcast) from Andromeda, that being (and most likely their entire civilization) would be long gone before you ever received it. But say you both had some imaginary super advanced quantum computers that were connected via an entanglement network, you could communicate in "real time", much like we are.

I think the disconnect is that we want to apply the properties of spacial dimensions to temporal dimensionality, coupled with some really poor wording on my part.

You kind of touched on something known as the "twin paradox" yourself when you mentioned traveling to another galaxy and returning to find that the earth was gone. Special relativity, or in this case the relativistic effects of time dilation, are more easily observed as you approach the speed of light, as would be assumed for intergalactic travel. So in this case while the stationary subject's (the earth) travel through spacetime could be considered to be primarily through time, the traveling subject's (the spaceship) travels through spacetime were primarily through space and therefore it's progress through time was less than that of the stationary subject. The properties of time dilation can be seen "in reverse" as well, through the phenomena of "length contraction", in which space (or distance) appear to decrease as relative velocities increase. Two sides of the same coin, as it were.

For me this is next to impossible to explain without invoking the math. I'm not good at analogues. I don't have that teacher gene. So I apologize.

 

[Deleted member 847]

....

@Smart No More

I hope this answers your questions. The picture is kinda "draftey" and a little confusing, but
I'm too lazy to edit it out, sorry. I spent a shit load of time writing this, you know
not being able to speak proper English (I'm eastern european, not gonna
say the country for privacy). I understand you're an educated person and
I'm just a jackass that had a hanging attempt and think he's figured out what consciousness could be,
so if you think it's not worth
reading and responding to, I won't be offended either. I just like being
able to share my ideas on this forum, with the limited knowledge that I have from
my personal experiences and maybe some youtube videos (I've never took
any philosophy courses).

Amputee? Consciousness isn't in the arms in my hypothesis, it's not even in the brain.
If I cut any part of my body I don't suddenly lose my identity and become some other consciousness.
It's in a specific part of the brain. It may have access to the whole activity of the
brain, but only a limited amount of neurons and synapses are responsible
for the first thought, the first qualia, and that's you.

There may be some other factor
that leads to the emergence of the effect that's called you, in that case
consciousness has a set of causes made out of the brain + some other unknown factor-cause.
The point is really simple actually: If the causes that created the effect called "you",
and "you" is an effect that has a different identity from "me" (I don't believe we're the same consciousness),
are set in motion again after the disruption of the effect that's called "you" (the disruption is your death),
then the effect "you" should reappear in reality/universe.

Of course you wake up if you reappear, because you are you.
And of course you must have a cause, something that made you happen. And there's no reason to believe
it can't happen again. Do we have all the facts about reality to make that judgement? Of course we don't.
Honestly, I feel as if I spent two hours arguing that two plus two equals four.
Boltzmann brains, Schrodinger's cat and all of that doesn't matter. These are just some examples of how the effect "you" might
be recreated. Even if the examples don't work, I still believe a way to recreate your consciousness
may still exist. It could be that "you" is an event with 0% probability of happening again even after
infinite time, only then life after death would be completely impossible.

I think you believe there are infinite universes with infinite atomically identical brains, and they
are all having a continuous personal sense of self,
and/or you believe that two or more atomically identical brains could exist at the same time
in the same universe. If that's true, then obviously consciousness can't
just be the configuration of atoms in the brain. Yes, you have a point. But
my "I am" feeling that has a different indentity from yours still needs a cause for its existence,
it can't be magic. Do you believe that that cause can't happen again? We're just
moving the cause from the brain to something else. We're not denying its existence,
or the possibility of its reappearance.

You believe that consciousness' set of qualias
aren't genereted merely by brain function, correct?
But we both still agree those qualias do have a cause, correct?
It doesn't matter what the cause is. I'm only arguing that the cause
may happen again, I don't care what it is.

Anyways, let's assume for the sake of the argument
that you believed (I know you don't believe that, but let's just assume it) that
consciousness IS just the configuration of atoms of a certain specific area of
the brain ( what I call the basic brain function in the picture) that would be
responsible for us "being aware instead of being unconscious", and if you try to reduce that configuration,
even the smallest change will lead to the "not conscious" state.

Then you would agree that it doesn't matter what atoms made that
configuration, any atoms would be just as good, as long as the pattern is the same.
If you agree with this premise, then let's move on to what you actually seem to believe.
You said if I remember correctly that: "consciousness is the configuration of atoms
plus the interactions it had with the environment".
Let's simplify "interactions with the environment" to
the whole universe the consciousness has lived in.

So we agree that consciousness is (at least partially) a configuration of atoms in the brain, and
we agree that it doesn't matter what atoms make that configuration, only the structure - pattern
(The body changes most of its atoms every 10 year, and you probably believe
you are not an imposter in a body that's not yours).

We agree, for the sake of the argument, that consciousness is also the "interactions it had with the environment",
if there are infinite universes or if two identical brains can coexist in the same universe, and
the identical brains have different "I am" feelings, different sets of qualias.
We agree that interactions with the environment = the whole universe, for simplification.
And let's say we also agree that it doesn't matter which atoms make up that universe,
it only matters that the configuration of that universe is the same every time.
The conclusion is that if after your death this universe with this exact
configuration will spawn again out of quantum fluctuation, or
some other force that we aren't aware of, then you must wake up in it.
If "you" is recreated, then you have to be you.
So if the odds of this whole universe being recreated after your death are
higher than 0%, then the afterlife could be a real possibility.

Anyways let's swtich to what consciousness is when it comes to qualia.
You seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you can't separate
consciousness from its memories, or that acquiring new memories/qualities
will change the identity of the consciousness. And also that we're all the same
consciousness? Can you elaborate on that? I'm clearly not you. And
there is a reason/cause that makes that "separation of identities" happen in the universe.

So, you think
that when you were 10 you were a different consciousness, is that true?
If you really believe that, then I'm not even sure that we agree on what the word "
consciousness " means.
Do you believe that when you were 10 you had a different mind (mind=memories+qualities, personality)
that's different from the mind that you have now, or do you actually
believe that you're an imposter in a body that's not yours? That you killed the 10y
and replaced him?

In my hypothesis consciousness is
a basic "being aware" state, as opposed to the "not aware" state.
That state is defined as a set of thoughts/qualias that emerge out of
a set of causes in the universe, and the causes and effects
are irreducible, that means that changing them in any way
will lead to a state of "unconsciousness".

If your brain was deprived of oxygen, after some time spent in that state
enough areas of your brain would die, and even if that "state" of oxygen
depravation was interrupted, and people tried to resuscite you,
you would still be unable to wake up from your unconsciousness(death), as opposed
to let's say me in my hanging attempt that only lasted 4 minutes, or maybe less.
You can only lose so many brain cells/brain function and still have a brain capable of
generating consciousness. That limited amount of brain cells + the other cause (if there is another cause)
that are responsible for "awareness" as opposed to "unconscious" is the irreducible "you".

Getting back to your question, and I hope we now both agree on what the word
consciousness means: the "awareness state" which emerges from a few thoughts, which
emerge from the "physical cause or causes".
If I have alzheimer's disease and I don't remember my name anymore
or who my mother is, when I die and I wake up do I still have Alzheimer's disease?
I don't know. Maybe? It depends in what state you've been recreated. You're not
your "Alzheimer's disease".

You could be recreated as the minimum set of qualias, which is actually who you are, the you-ness.
Or you could be recreated in "Alzheimer" form.
I really don't think Alzheimer's disease is an intrinsic part of your consciousness,
I don't think your consciousness could only "reemerge" if it was "attached" to Alzheimer.
If you had alzheimer, then you also had a time when you didn't have alzheimer. You
existed in both forms.

Just like I have a stammer today years after my hanging attempt, and I was me before the stammer
and I'm still me after the stammer. Those lost brain cells didn't matter to my continuous identity.
Consciousness is just a thought that's aware of itself.
That thought can be attached to other thoughts, but those "other thoughts" aren't an intrinsic
part of your identity, they don't make your consciousness function.
You can be recreated after your death with them, or without them. But that's not of any importance for the thought experiment of this thread. And I really have no idea what "governs" what comes out
of quantum fluctuations. Or any other possible alternative that could lead to the reemergence
of the basic brain function + other factor/s. And there could be alternatives for all we know
(maybe we live in the Matrix and the administrators decide to recreate you after your death).
We don't care what the afterlife is, we just want to know if it's rational to believe
in the possibility of one.


Your consciousness isn't your name, or the memory of who your mother is, your horniness, other qualities etc.
Your consciousness is your "awareness", it's a thought that's aware of the previous thought.
There are at least 7 and a half billion human "thoughts that are aware of themselves",
and all of them are separated from each other. Nobody is thinking thoughts that aren't theirs.
You can't think my "I-ness". You can't "put it" in your consciousness.
Even if we could communicate telepathically, we would still be separate consciousnesses in doing so.
I might be able through telepathy to taste the icecream that you're eating, but I can't
actually have the exact taste that you're experiencing, I can only have a copy of that feeling.
I couldn't be able to feel your "I-ness" either.

How can you say that we all have the same consciousness. There's clearly a separation, and
the separation must have a cause. All consciousness maybe are very similar in how
they function, but they're clearly exclusive to themselves. Only you can be you, and no one else.

These thoughts that think about thinking and are exclusive for each individual that's having them are the reason why a Nolifenopain1 from universe1 has a "sense of individuality" that differs from
the "sense of individuality" of Nolifenopain2 also from universe 1. Even though they
both have the same brains, some extra cause-factor lead to that "difference" in identity
between these brains. And if you do agree that the difference exists, then you also
agree that it must have a cause as we've said. If you also agree that the cause can be
recreated, then that must result in the same effect each time the cause is recreated.
That effect is You. Being Aware of being you. If you're not aware of your awareness, you dissappear.
If you remove anything from that basic set of qualias, you just get unconsciousness.
That set is irreducible.

When I hanged myself
I permanently lost the capacity to express myself properly. I think the hanging affected the speech areas
of my brain (that means I've lost parts of my brain. Hanging/ox. depr. kills brain cells) and now I have
a stammer that makes me "pause" sometimes when I try to speak, or makes me repeat sounds.
Even though some cells from my brain are dead, I'm still conscious, am I not?
I was clearly not dependent on these cells to be able to function and exist as an "awareness".
This proves my point that most of the brain has nothing to do with that "being aware"
state, it's only extra function that can be attached to that "aware" state.
The basic or minimum brain function is "YOU", and that's the only thing that needs to be recreated,
in order for "YOU" to exist again.
Your Alzheimer or the memories of your mother aren't part of YOU. They're just toys
YOU (your consciousness) can play with.

But obviously if enough cells of my brain had died, let's say even the minimum amount
of cells the brain needs to create a basic "I am - awareness" thought/qualia
(the basic brain function) then I wouldn't be writing this post anymore.

Do you believe that someone that has Alzheimer's disease doesn't have
a consciousness anymore? That your brain must be 100% intact for you to have
a consciousness, and if it changes even slightly that will make the brain
acquire a different consciousness, so the same brain has every second of his
life a different NoLifeNoPain. Is that what you believe? So the
person that asked me these questions was someone else, and now I'm talking to some other
guy that inhabits that same body. Even if that was the case, would it even matter
if we can't tell the difference? My argument still stands. New consciousness every second?
If the causes that lead to that system of consciousnesses spawning every second
is recreated after your death, then you still must wake up.

 

[Deleted member 847]

@Smart No More

I've given it some more thought. You're right, Quantum Suicide doesn't appear to work (Although I was NOT arguing for it in the first place).
If I'm playing "russian roulette" with a shot gun pointed to my head, and by some truly random mechanism there's a 50% chance the shot gun will fire, and 50% chance it won't fire, when the universe
splits after the decision (observation) is made, there is going to be a universe where one of ""my"" brains is intact, and one where the other is destroyed. You can replace the shotgun with an atomic bomb or whatever.




But I'm only in one of these brains, the other brain is inhabited by a consciousness that was terminated due to the gun firing.
In my hypothesis consciousness with identical brains have separated theaters of mind (perspectives).
Nolifenopain 1 universe 1 and Nolifenopain 1 universe 2 are not the same consciousness even
though their brains have the same configuration of atoms.

And one of
them has to die in the universe where the gun fired. For me to be immortal these two consciousnesses (one of them being the real me) should be able to "merge" somehow into
the one that survived.
So when Nolifenopain 1u1 is dead (me) he somehow merges with Nolifenopain 1u2 (my clone) that lived.
I don't believe the brain from the second universe doesn't have a consciousness.

But if the consciousnesses don't merge, and I'm the unlucky guy in the universe where the shotgun fired, do I stay dead forever?
Isn't there a reason why my own theater of mind (separated from the theater of mind of my clone from universe 2) exists in the first place, and can't that reason/cause happen again? Who the fuck knows. But I'm clearly here (Nolifenopain number 1 from Universe 1), and something must be responsible for that.

This is very interesting. I'm definitely gonna spend some more time thinking about it. You could actually say that
any failed suicide attempt is a "quantum suicide experiment", except it's an experiment that can't give you any answer,
because if your failed suicide attempt was actually successful, you wouldn't know because you would be dead, and if your failed
attempt was really a failed attempt, you wouldn't know if you survived by having "merged with your clone" or just
by getting lucky. I'd say if you're 600 years old and you're not dead yet, because you bought
some "sci-fi pill" that was invented right before you were about to die, and some other crap happened
when you were about to die your second, third or fourth time, then maybe there's something to this theory (or maybe you're just
a lottery winner).

In my hanging attempt, if the premises of quantum suicide are true, there was a "me" that died and a "me" that lived,
and a shit load of mes that lived but ended up even more crippled than I currently am after surviving my attempt (those mes would be completely paralyzed not just with a stammer), and
mes that survived the attempt entirely unaffected by any brain damage (the setup untied or broke instantly in that scenario. Surely
there should've been a universe where that happened).
I did survive the attempt with some brain damage, if somehow my "dead me" merged with my "alive but different theater of mind-me" from another universe,
I have no idea why it chose the clone that was crippled instead of the one that was completely
unaffected by the attempt. And I have no idea how two consciousnesses can become one (merge) either
(I don't think they can).

Well anyway I hope I just stay unconscious (Dead) for eternity.
Eternal life would be a fucking nightmare.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Trying to revive this thread, maybe someone will reply to it


you can talk about anything afterlife related, even near death experiences,religion and the supernatural
it doesn't have to be philosophical anymore

 

[AliceTheGoon]

How likely do you think that is? ​

Not sure if you're asking how likely it is that we emerge as a consciousness in a different body without any sense of time having passed? I'd say based on my previous experience with not being alive that it's an absolute certainty.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Not sure if you're asking how likely it is that we emerge as a consciousness in a different body without any sense of time having passed? I'd say based on my previous experience with not being alive that it's an absolute certainty.

I don't remember typing these words, can you tell me exactly the number of the quoted comment?

ex: your comment is number #69

Sorry, It's just I wrote so much shit on this thread and I'm a little bit confused right now

I'll respond just to what I understood from your comment then

If the probability of the basic brain function + the other cause
reemerging after your death in reality (everything that exists) is 0,
then even though you can't experience unconsciousness, that doesn't
mean you'll live forever. You'll be unconscious forever.
Yes you can't experience absence of memories, because you are memories, but that's not evidence that consciousness must
persists after death. You'll cease to exist, and you won't perceive that, because you'd have to exist to be able to process your nonexistence,
which doesn't make any sense.
I hope I worded it decently enough.

 

[AliceTheGoon]

I don't remember typing these words, can you tell me exactly the number of the quoted comment?

#1

 

[Deleted member 847]

#1

Ok the reply is above.

The only way of an afterlife being a certainty
is if the probability/certainty/chance
of the basic brain function + the other cause
of happening again after death
is 100%

the basic brain function + the other cause = the reason for Nolifenopain 1 universe 1 and Nolifenopain 1 universe 2
having different theaters of mind

your own existence is evidence that your theater of mind has a cause
the point of my thought experiment is that the cause that
created the effect called "your theater of mind"
might happen again after you die

I'm basically saying that after you die, you might happen again

to deny the existence of an afterlife you must either
believe that your theater of mind is made of magic (it has no cause)
or that reality doesn't have the resources needed to create YOU a second time

If you agree that you're not magic
If you agree that we don't know what reality is in its entirety
then you also agree that eternal nonexistence is not a certainty

that's the summary of my essay

it's 2+2

I'd be scared of even a 0.00000....1% chance of a random afterlife
before trying to kill myself
because random can mean painful

edit

 

[AliceTheGoon]

I'm basically saying that after you die, you might happen again

OK I misunderstood, I was thinking more like your rabbit example.

 

[Deleted member 847]

OK I misunderstood, I was thinking more like your rabbit example.

Do you have any other questions?
I'd like to inform you that I spent 5 minutes thinking all of this crap

"If I have a consciousness, and someone recreates my brain, and my clone isn't my consciousness, he's a different consciousness,
then that must mean he didn't actually clone my consciousness, so my consciousness can't be cloned, and what if it can happen
a second time after my death? didn't it happen a second time after I hanged myself, because the causes that made it function the first time
appeared again after ceasing for a few minutes? (My brain didn't completely die, my brain being the cause, and that made me regain consciousness)"

it's literally 2+2 = 4 thinking

also in my reasoning death and unconsciousness are the same thing
unconsciousness is just temporary death

This is basically what happened to me when I hanged myself (outside the square is real time, inside the square is how I perceived time)


edit***

OK I misunderstood, I was thinking more like your rabbit example.

@AliceTheGoon

the rabbit example was just a way of
telling you how your consciousness could be recreated in any form after your death

you can replace the rabbit with a blue andromedian living in the city of skurskol in the glorious union of
glokomian'ra on the planet pthreta

your consciousness just needs a little bit of brain to create the first "awareness" thought,
then the rest of the brain can be a rabbit brain, a dinosaur brain, a homosapiens brain,
or a blue humanoid andromedian brain, this is what I call the extra-brain function

it can take any form
the only form that can't be altered is the part of the brain
that creates your theater of mind in its most primitive state

think of consciousness as a binary system
it's either on or off
but it can have other things in it,
such as thoughts, memories, urges, hormones
but you can exist without those in a more primitive state
the primitive state is actually your consciousness
anything else is just an extra feature

 

[AliceTheGoon]

Do you have any other questions?

lol no I think what I'm calling a certainty is what you said you'd be scared of and I don't blame you, it scares me.

 

[Zerengin96]

I already hate that Alien asshole that recreates my retarded brain for its own amusement. Let me die in peace

 

[Deleted member 847]

lol no I think what I'm calling a certainty is what you said you'd be scared of and I don't blame you, it scares me.

you know why I'm scared of the afterlife?
because I know we live in a godless universe

and this is the reason why:


So let's say I die and there is an afterlife,
and now I'm the zebra that's having their nuts and guts eaten by a lion that doesn't care about my feelings,
because evolution made predators stupid (They only go for the neck when the pray fights back, as a way to make it stop,
they don't do it to make it painless to the pray, because they don't actually realize their pray feels pain. In most eaten alive videos the pray has
the suffer the whole process while being conscious because the lions don't go for the neck unless they absolutely have to)

or I could be a blue andromedian being burned alive by other blue andromedians that hate me for some reason

It'd be a fucking nightmare, because the universe doesn't have a referee
it's a jungle without laws

I REALLY DON'T WANT THE AFTERLIFE TO BE REAL.
An afterlife without god,rules is worse than eternal nonexistence.
Remember the universe doesn't give a fuck about your pain
If it recreates you, it won't care if you'll be a zebra in pain or a rich andromedian living the dream

I mean think about the luck some of us had in our current life
you're not on a bestgore video are you? but it could've been you though
your consciousness was created in the right brain, the
brain that wasn't a bestgore.com burned alive video
The afterlife isn't a good thing, it's a lottery

 

[AliceTheGoon]

your consciousness was created in the right brain, the
brain that wasn't a bestgore.com burned alive video

I wouldn't be on here if my consciousness was created in the right brain.

 

[Deleted member 847]

I wouldn't be on here if my consciousness was created in the right brain.

I see. Sorry.
So why exactly do you think the afterlife is a certainty?
It's because you've never experienced death, because you can't be aware of not being, that's your point?
Just tryin' to understand

Are you an idealist?
My afterlife only happens because of physical causes, it doesn't care about my subjective experience

 

[AliceTheGoon]

So why exactly do you think the afterlife is a certainty?

Because my only experience with not being alive was before I was born and here I am. That's all I have to go on.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Because my only experience with not being alive was before I was born and here I am. That's all I have to go on.

So because you can't be conscious when you're unconscious, then unconsciousness can't last forever?
I'm really not following you.
Let's just agree to disagree

Before your birth = unconsciousness
your life consciousness
after your life = unconsciousness

your life only proves that your consciousness happened once
it doesn't prove it should happen more than once

in my hypothesis it may happen more than once if
the basic brain function + the unknown second cause (if there is a second cause)
have a chance of happening again

I still think you might an idealist (And you probably don't even know it)

 

[AliceTheGoon]

So because you can't be conscious when you're unconscious, then unconsciousness can't last forever?

More like because it didn't last forever then it doesn't last forever.

 

[obafgkm]

If the elite want to kill us and depopulate the planet why do they make guns illegal (Assuming these elites rule Europe + UK + Australia as well), why did they make Nembutal illegal, why do they fund suicide hotlines and force the suicidal into loony bins

Probably because there are more than one elite. They don't always agree with each other. There are also the uprising elites. To gain power many go for popular support. Pro life is a safe bet. Life extension is a fast growing market. Most rich people also don't want to die. Elites want 'others' to die. It's better to do it through warfare, famine, disease, pollution, events where poor people are less likely to escape.

 

[Deleted member 847]

More like because it didn't last forever then it doesn't last forever.

But this only proves that your consciousness happened once

I still don't get it

your unconsciousness didn't last forever before your birth, that's all your consciousness proves

but yeah sure, for all we know it (your consciousness) could happen again after the next "forever" of unconsciousness happens
that was my point too

I just disagree that it's a certainty

It's a possibility

edit

 

[AliceTheGoon]

But this only proves that your consciousness happened once

I still don't get it

your unconsciousness didn't last forever before your birth, that's all your consciousness proves

Well not just me, this happened to every conscious being that has ever existed and continues to happen.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Well not just me, this happened to every conscious being that has ever existed and continues to happen.

I still don't get it

it's a possibility not a certainty
do you agree to that?

eternal nonexistence is also a possibilty
do you agree?

your consciousness and mine are not the same thing
you'll never be nolifenopain,
even if you had all of my memories

do you also agree to that?

I'm the only me that can be me,
all the others mes are just clones ,
so they're really not clones, they're just different minds that think they're me

Our theaters of mind are separated, you have your perspective and I have mine

the cause of the existence of your perspective is what must happen again, every time you die,
for you to be immortal

let's say we can communicate telepathically, so you can eat the same ice cream I'm eating
your qualia is still different from my qualia of ice cream flavour, even though they feel the same,
they have unique identities.

if you copy paste a picture, the copy is not the original, the information is the same, not the identity

(which is also why I think quantum suicide doesn't work, it assumes you are the other brain in the universe where you lived,
and I don't think you are, that's just a clone of you, the copy pasted you)

if many worlds theory is right, there already is an infinite amount of living you, and you're clearly stuck in this one brain, so they're obviously not you
I think there must be a cause that gives us a unique identity
if you can find a way to "control" the cause, then you'll live forever
edit

 

[AliceTheGoon]

I still don't get it

it's a possibility not a certainty
do you agree to that?

eternal nonexistence is also a possibilty
do you agree?

I don't agree. To me existence proves its own certainty.

 

[Deleted member 847]

I don't agree. To me existence proves its own certainty.

So you think consciousness is existence?
I think consciousness happens inside existence, while you believe the opposite

I'm a materialist (matter = mind)
and you're an idealist (mind = matter)

 

[AliceTheGoon]

So you think consciousness is existence?

I think it's a function of existence.

 

[Deleted member 847]

I think it's a function of existence.

But you think it's not made out of matter right?