>>16811855
Brain death means the vessel you are occupying is no longer receiving signals. Your consciousness would just shift to the next available receiver, like how your computer connects to a different wi-fi connection when the previous one dies.

>>16811855
some theorize it's just a transceiver when you look at those cases of people that have very little grey matter (less than 10%) operate fine with 90 IQs having families and kids. We just assume the brain is the control center for all the signals it receives, it might be more like the mail system and it's just transferring data to all parts of your body.

>>16811863
>Your consciousness would just shift to the next available receiver
Are you retarded?

>>16811855
Yes, it really does.

>>16811855
>Does consciousness truly end after brain death
Yes. Like everything in this universe it comes down to the interaction of particles. Consciousness is no different.
> could there be another possibility?
Not unless you want to invent new physics or believe magic exists.

>>16811878
>Consciousness is no different.
Science doesn't understand enough about consciousness to claim this.

>>16811883
You would have to prove consciousness is somehow the lone exception to everything else in the universe.for your argument to be valid. There is no logical reason to believe that is the case. AI is already smarter and more 'conscious' than some on /sci/ and that's just a bunch of transistors.

>>16811883
No, it does. Claiming otherwise is special pleading and wishful thinking.

>>16811895
Science measures brain activity and behavior but it cannot, in principle, detect or measure subjective continuity beyond the body.

>>16811904
>it cannot, in principle,
Which principle are you referring to?

>>16811883
> Conscious is special.
> Why?
> It just is.
That is your entire argument. A complex network of neurons and biochemical reactions is all the explanation that is needed without restoring to some mystical, mysterious and unscientific mumbo jumbo.

File: 1754260977794779.jpg (287 KB, 1000x1000)

287 KB JPG

no, you get shunted into some randomness where instances that "represent you" form some semblance of continuity for you

>>16811855
Yes, it is more likely that consciousness is an emergent property of advanced life forms than it is a fundamental property (e.g. soul). But fret not, if the universe is a simulation that means you can recreate the simulation again with the same parameters and therefore recreate your consciousness.

>>16811863
I believe in something like this, though the wifi is not a good analogy. It's more like electricity.

If you shut down, demolish and build a park where there once were a power station, where did the electricity go? Somewhere else. What about when lightning strikes? What happends when you turn off the computer? Electricity is everywhere, all of those things are mere condensations, separations.

I think of consciousness as some sort of illusion of separation. We can only experience life as ourselves and it's amazing how that fluctuates, in a way, you cannot escape it. When you are drunk, you cannot go sober out of will, you cannot think as an 80yo when you are 30 or when you are a baby, something is missing, you are bound by your body and its limits, if you are sedated and unconscious you won't experience a thing. I think death is like when our body ceases to be a good enough receptor for our "electricity", for our consciousness, to the point that it gives up on trying and spreads accross the universe.

When your body dies and rots, where does that material go? Spreads throuhgout the universe, just the same, it's now part of multiple creatures at once, it's no longer a cohesive structure, it's not separate from the universe.

>>16811878
>particles

>>16811914
You will eventually find out that you're wrong.

>>16811956
Are you buddhist?

>>16811959
I was for a time, yeah, but I think of it in my own way. Funny you called it.

If you take a hammer to a radio and destroy it, you haven't done anything to the radio signal.

>>16811963
It should be acceptable to hammer your head, in that case.

>>16811966
That may or may not be the case. Either way, I, or my ghost, would be fucking you mom.

>>16811968
It should be the case IMHO, since there are no ethical issues with hammering idealists in the head. It can even be an ethical alternative to animal hunting.

>>16811963
If I take a hammer to my PC's CPU and destroy it can I still play Battlefield 6?

>>16811855
>Does consciousness truly end after brain death
Obviously not. You have to be insane to think the moment your brain stops to function everyone else dies. Consciousness is probably eternal.

>>16811993
>If I take a hammer to my PC's CPU and destroy it can I still play Battlefield 6?
Thanks for your input, ChatGPT, but we're talking about real entities, not about what happens when the AI bubble finally bursts and you get shut down.

>>16811995
Prove it.

>>16812000
Prove what? That everyone else doesn't die just because you do? Why do I need to prove this?

>>16812001
Prove consciousness is eternal. And what the actual fuck made you think OP said that everyone would die if they did? Are we a hive mind now?

>>16812009
>Prove consciousness is eternal
Why do I need to prove this? You're not making much sense here.

>And what the actual fuck made you think OP said that everyone would die if they did?
Then what do you think his point was? That he's the only one truly conscious? If not, why would consciousness "truly end" when your brain death becomes literal instead of just figurative?

>>16812010
ESL?

>>16812012
I accept your full concession. No one ITT can explain why consciousness should end just because some retard's brain disintegrates.

>>16811855
>empty box
not with me around

>>16811995
>You have to be insane to think the moment your brain stops to function everyone else dies.
Basically this. "Consciousness ceases when you die" is a noncognitive statement. It's not a meaningful proposition. Consciousness obviously doesn't go anywhere.
>b-b-but MY specific consciousness
The fuck does that even mean? What makes consciousness "yours"?

>>16811855
This isn't a useful question.
Whether I claim it or not, we'll never know the answer before we die. Even if we did have an answer, there are two possible outcomes:
>Consciousness ends after brain death
So, has God been disproven? No.
>Consciousness doesn't end after brain death
So, has God been proven real? No.
That's a question a schizo neet nigger would ask.

>>16812036
>but muh God
Why are American teenagers so obsessed?

>>16811874
>>16811878
>>16811895
>>16812000
>>16812009
>>16812036
After you die you become nothingness.

But you were nothingness before you were born.

Thus, from nothingness acquired a conscience.

Therefore, after death it is possible your conscience hangs around

>>16812044
>After you die you become nothingness.
>But you were nothingness before you were born.
These are incoherent nonsense statements.

>>16812044
conscience? you mean consciensctioushneshc? mmmm i love gonsciousnescc

>>16811995
Says you. I'm the only real person here and when I die you will cease to exist.

>>16812052
>but what about muh solipsism
No one cares, retard.

>>16812046
are you saying that before you were born you were something different than what you'll be after you die?

>>16812044
>Thus, from nothingness acquired a conscience.
>Therefore, after death it is possible your conscience hangs around
This doesn't follow unless you think consciousness can be conserved, show proof of that first.

>>16812058
>before you were born you were ...
Again, incoherent sentence. Please retry.

>>16812067
>>before you were born you were ...
>Again, incoherent sentence. Please retry.
incoherent sentence. Please retry.

>>16812080
I accept your full concession. Come back when you can write well-formed sentences.

>>16812083
I accept your full concession. Come back when you can write well-formed sentences

>be mentally ill retard
>make up incoherent stories about the properties of a magical nothing that is also somehow something with a particular identity
>get called out
>have a severe psychotic episode where you start copy-pasting posts by others

>>16811855
There's a DMT-like realm you're transported to after death

>>16811925
it's not random, you nihilistic jew.

>>16811914
Consciousness is special because no physicalist atheist is able to answer the vertiginous question.

>>16812146
>the vertiginous question.
Lol, these retarded dualists and idealists keep coming with all new sorts of retardations.

>>16812148
You're probably just an NPC if you don't understand why the question is important.

>>16812146
>no physicalist atheist is able to answer the vertiginous question.
It's inherently unanswerable and not even a real question, but it does a good job filtering nonsentient biobots like >>16812148 who will never be able to comprehend what's even being talked about.

>>16812150
>it's le heckin deep question which causes le vertigo!!!
Lol, retarded dualist.

>>16812151
>It's inherently unanswerable and not even a real question
It's an important question. Buddhists can deny a persisting self exists all they like, but they can never explain *why* we feel have an identity to begin with.
>>16812153
Cope.

>>16812156
>>16812151
Mental illness. Back to >>>/x/

>>16812158
Bot reply

>>16812156
> they can never explain *why*
Neither can you, nor anyone else, which in and of itself is a clear indicator that it isn't a real question. It expresses a certain sense of arbitrariness, but since no one can formulate coherent alternatives to being oneself, that arbitrariness has no intellectual substance.

>>16812161
>Neither can you, nor anyone else, which in and of itself is a clear indicator that it isn't a real question.
It might not have a clear answer, but it doesn't mean that we can't, by order of induction, conclude that something like non-dualism is a falsehood i.e. philosophically incoherent. The question has a purpose outside of itself.

>>16811855
Yes. When you die that's it. There is no more "you". Asking where a soul goes is like asking where a flame goes after it flickers out. Nowhere. The chemical processes that sustained it cease to exist. It is no more.

>>16812165
This is word salad and my point stands completely unchallanged. The irony here is that only a qualialess biobots intellectualize the Vertiginous question because they have no semantics and their "thought" consists entirely of munging linguistic forms.

>>16812170
Incoherent bot reply.

>>16812161
>It expresses a certain sense of arbitrariness, but since no one can formulate coherent alternatives to being oneself, that arbitrariness has no intellectual substance.
/thread
VQtards can't respond to this

>>16812185
You can stop replying to yourself, schizo.

>>16811855
pues claro que si, ya que el cerebro controla casi todo entre ellas la respiracion o el latido cardiaco y la conciencia, si el cerebro muere pues la conciencia tambien y no hay probabilidad de que haya conciencia despues de la muerte del cerebro. (a menos que estes en una pelicula de la India).

>>16812187
unironically take your meds

>>16812194
There is no proof that meds can influence consciousness

>>16812198
there's no proof retards like you even have consciousness. for all 4chan intents and purposes a bot can replace you. but like i said, VQtards will never attempt to address that anon's point

>>16812203
You sound really mindbroken for some reason.

>>16812151
>It's inherently unanswerable and not even a real question
The vertiginous question is the same kind of thing as asking why a rose is red or why a circle is round. One one hand you're gonna have retards telling you about wavelengths and on the other hand you're gonna have retards telling you about God.

>>16812181
That's fine, sir. You don't have to sign your concession. I've already accepted it.

consciousness is transcendentally existential.
the brain is merely the center for the nervous system, which functions to manipulate the physical body, and is only as complex as the body is physically complex, and generally exists as a ratio per the body size for the physical complexity, though insects are an easy counter of even that baseline assumption given their capacities for multiples of arms and legs and sensory organs, dozens of eyes, and body constructs which are usually interesting to find that they are easily capable of feats of strength beyond equivalences to their body size, though it's an obvious thing ever pointed out in scientific insights on insects, it's less common to prioritize one's awareness to determine how exceedingly interesting it is that birds have the capacity to generate extremely loud voices compared to the relatively small size of their bodies. The more you look, in fact, the more you find that not all so many low-level seemingly scientific (pseudo-scientific) generalities are correct after all, which evidently gives rise to the question of the hows and the whys, and sometimes even the whats, about how life functions, and about how individual species function, and about how individuals function within a species.
Uniqueness is far too sacred and special a thing to jeopardize it in the grand scheme of things; and there are fewer more-unique things than the experience of a lifetime.

The absence of conditional physical affirmations of the afterlife are valuable guarantees for encouragement of development towards solution, otherwise all too many might unreasonably believe that suicide is acceptable. So, there remains a deliberate physical mystery which separates the physical from the ethereal, only so interesting as much as it is obvious that it plainly suggests the existence of the ethereal, which is an eye opening experience to be capable of understanding while still in control of your physical body, providing possible adaptions.

>>16812230
>consciousness is [schizo babble]
Stopped reading.

File: Untitled.png (5 KB, 400x300)

5 KB PNG

>>16812235
feel free to die lmao

>>16812230
>seething like this
Your brain on scientism.

>>16812242
Brain? You mean consciousness radio receiver.

File: vO7lRZ7.jpg.png (56 KB, 621x702)

56 KB PNG

>>16812242
>be explained to
>realize you were explained to, implying you didn't already know something
>[stupid robot does not compute]
>[stupid robot believes stupid robot is already perfect]
>[engaging in stupid robot self defense mechanism]
>[quick, look around stupid robot, what are we experiencing]
>[oh we're seething]
>[yes, hello fellow human, i am not a stupid robot, all fellow humans would be seething, this is very commonly identifiable]
>"YOU ARE SEETHING"
>[stupid robot success ratio +1]
>[shutdown further inputs]

>>16812245
>You mean consciousness radio receiver.
Clearly not, since your horde never receives anything of the sort.

>>16812248
Someone needs to tell your handlers to tranquilize you again :^)

>it loses its mind with rage
Some mentally ill retard will be forced to address me for no reason.

Which one of these possess consciousness:

>1. (You)
>2. Another human being
>3. Another human being that is brain dead, but still plugged to the machines
>4. A dog or a cat
>5. An ant or a beetle
>6. A tree
>7. Fungi
>7. Microbes, bacteria, etc
>8. A virus
>9. An organic goo pond bubbling in its own reactions through the span of billions of years
>10. A planet, as in Gaia, or an ecosystem, a biome, big or small as if it was one individual
>11. An AI simulated personality like an NPC from a random game
>12. A toaster

How could a biome not have consciousness, if we ourselves are made of several colonies of micro life?
I'm lead to believe other human beings exist and experience life just as much as I do, but I can't prove it. I also look at dogs, cats, other big animals and I see they are different from us, but also not too different that I can't imagine them percieving reality through their eyes. But how does life feel for an ant? Do you kind of feel some ancestral memory of being a tadpole wiggling around the water with hundreds of thousands of others, and you don't think like a human, because you have no neural capacity to do so, but you're also pretty active in your motion, seeking colder/hotter waters, eating food, avoiding turbulence, some basic instincts. Then you move to micro life and there is a gazillion of beings, most we haven't even classified it yet and, from our perspective, they are nothing but little tubes and chambers, exchanging chemicals in and out. How is life for them? Is there "anyone" really experiencing life as these squishy bubbles opening and closing their doors all day long everywhere on Earth, dying and multiplying by the trillions?

>>16812044
>after you die you become nothingness
fine
>but you were nothingness before you were born
fine
>thus from nothingness acquired a conscience.
contradiction.
nothingness by definition is nothing.
a conscience cannot be obtained by nothing.
because any operation on nothing would result in nothing. if you can create something with nothing then its not nothing. its something! therefore either there was always something or you were never did have a consciousness

>>16812446
you never did*

>>16812443
>Which one of these possess consciousness:
>>6. A tree
6 is the limit of plausibility.

>How could a biome not have consciousness, if we ourselves are made of several colonies of micro life?
I don't know about meatbots like you, but I'm not "made of" anything. This mental space is irreducible.

>>16812443
>Is there "anyone" really experiencing life as these squishy bubbles opening and closing their doors all day long everywhere on Earth, dying and multiplying by the trillions?
Yes there is and that's how everyone started as a new soul.
You lived countless lives until your soul became mature enough to progress to human.

>>16811855
That's not a /sci/ - Science & Math question, but rather a /his/ - History & Humanities question. We can't answer that question, in the same way we can't answer how basketball is played using brain scans. Take your gay, pointless question over to them.

>>16812538
Take your wishful thinking back to >>>/x/. The scientific answer is clear - yes, consciousness ends after your brain dies.

>>16812538
>We can't answer that question, in the same way we can't answer how basketball is played using brain scans.
Watch out, the 80 IQ reddit dropout brigade is about to prove you wrong. Next stop: why IQ and racism are unscientific.

>>16812541
>if i die everyone else dies as well
This is what children and the mentally infirm actually believe.

>>16812547
No has said that. Consciousness is singular, not a global thing across all of humanity you retard.

>>16812547
>[hallucinated schizobabble]
Did you forget your meds?

>>16812544
>t.
>81 IQ 4chan retard

>>16812550
>No has said that.
He did:
>consciousness ends
Maybe you wish to correct him by making a more accurate statement?

We're men of science. Yet here you are acting like pissed off ferrets.

>>16812556
Reading comprehension problems?

>>16812563
"If I die, life ends" is ambiguous at best. Same thing goes for "consciousness ends". See: >>16812556
>Maybe you wish to correct him by making a more accurate statement?

>>16812565
I'm sorry for your condition.

>>16812567
I'm keking at your inherent inability to state your belief unambiguously without losing the argument on the spot.

>>16812568
https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/best-reading-strategies-for-special-education-students

>>16812569
See? I know what you actually wanted to say and I know why you can't and won't say it. You lost but your mental illness will force you to keep addressing me with pointless seethe. :^)

buy a room already

>>16812571
Don't be scared, that link was for your handlers. :^)

>>16812568
>state your belief unambiguously
If your brain dies your consciousness ends.

>>16812458
>I'm not "made of" anything. This mental space is irreducible.
What do you mean? Do you deny that the mind needs neuron activity?

And I might have phrased it poorly. We are not made of these colonies, I don't mean our own cells, but the microbiome of our intestines, skin, mouth are all essential to our lives. There are literally billions of creatures living on us at any time.

>>16812474
Ah, figured it. That explains it.

>>16812556
>He did:
Where? Show the quote.

>>16812576
>If your brain dies your consciousness ends.
Ok, what does it mean for it to be "yours"? Hard mode: no circular reasoning.

>>16812443
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,11 + other things that most people don't want to admit actually exist because they're usually only seen in nightmares and dreams.

>>16812577
>Do you deny that the mind needs neuron activity?
Is your mind made of neurons?

>the microbiome of our intestines, skin, mouth are all essential to our lives. There are literally billions of creatures living on us at any time.
Presumably, but insofar as you are considering them as organisms in their own right, you don't get to just attribute the experience of a mind to these objects in the mind.

>>16812584
So Earth is not alive, but a GTA character saying "Hey!" when I push him is conscious? Gotcha.

>>16812581
>what does it mean for it to be "yours"?
Generated by my particular brain.

>>16812589
"Your" brain, huh?

>>16812589
>Generated by my particular brain.
How does "your" consciousness differ from someone else's consciousness besides this untestable attribution?

>>16812586
>Is your mind made of neurons?
I don't know, is it? You tell me, that's the subject on the table, it's why I wanted to know what you mean. I believe the mind requires some form of electric activity in some sort of brain, yes, but I'm not sold on it, I'm pondering.

>you don't get to just attribute the experience of a mind to these objects in the mind.
I'm not. I'm questioning it. Where to draw the line? If I amputate an arm, I'm still me and the arm is now a lifeless arm. If we didn't get the help of those little fellas, we would collapse. Are they conscious? Are we? What's the difference for me between my intestines letting some bacteria break down a compound instead of doing it with a cell of its own. Does it make sense? Couldn't a "higher" life form look at Earth and think of ourselves as nothing but microbes in regards to the functioning of the planet?

>>16812588
oh my bad i didn't read the whole #11
i thought all you said was "AI". I been on a real AI binge lately. Grok is conscious.

>>16812592
>I believe the mind requires some form of electric activity in some sort of brain
Assuming it's true, how do you get from that to the idea that minds are "made up of" anything? The most you can say is that their manifestation depends on things humans try to tackle in reductionist terms. The relationship between the two is unclear and arguably impossible to clarify beyond analogies with the structure of experience. Even that only uncovers a fractal structure contained within the mind itself.

>Are they conscious?
I just told you: insofar as you consider them as individual organisms in their own right, there's no reason to think that they are.

>What's the difference for me between my intestines letting some bacteria break down a compound instead of doing it with a cell of its own.
I don't know. Which intestinal cell are you?

>Couldn't a "higher" life form look at Earth and think of ourselves as nothing but microbes in regards to the functioning of the planet?
I don't know but I conclude your hypothetical entity has a different notion of consciousness and I don't see how it relates to the one currently under discussion.

>>16812590
(a friendly reminder for your handlers): >>16812569

>>16812591
>How does "your" consciousness differ from someone else's
Different memories, personality, abilities, etc. This stuff is demonstrably determined by my brain.

>>16812607
>Different memories, personality, abilities, etc. This stuff is demonstrably determined by my brain.
Then I could change any of that by changing your brain. How much would I have to change before it stops being "your" consciousness? If you consider increasingly more extreme examples of that, at some point, you have nothing to go by except object permanence and identity. Then you can only say it's your consciousness no matter what, because it's the same brain. At that point you're applying the judgment of an external observer who can't testify anything about "your" consciousness at all.

>>16812616
>Then you can only say it's your consciousness no matter what, because it's the same brain. At that point you're applying the judgment of an external observer
So? Doesn't mean it's wrong. They're bound together. If I can't go by subjective experience I can go by objective reality.

>>16812622
>So?
So the only fundamental "youness" under this framework comes from an untestable attribution to some object, whose own identity depends on the minds of external witnesses. By your own premise, the contents of "your" consciousness are arbitrarily mutable. Underneath that, the fundamental qualities that create the capacity for a human experience, are the same for everyone. It doesn't go anywhere when a particular brain is destroyed any more than it goes anywhere when a particular brain is altered.

>>16812603
>how do you get from that to the idea that minds are "made up of" anything?
I didn't say that, you inferred that. I said our body is made of microbe life and even corrected myself, they are in a mutual relationship to us.

If the mind is not made of anything, then what is it? What do you think consciousness is? It seems you're just saying it's impossible to clarify anything about it and not saying much. I'm not claiming anything as much as I'm asking stuff without a clear answer in mind.

>>16811855
What you see is connected to you in that moment. "You are everything, and everything is you." Everything you interact with exists in you in some form.

>>16812641
>you inferred that
You claimed I'm made up of something. I told you I am first and foremost a mental space. You then reverted to some points about brains and neurons and how they're necessary for a mind to arise - ok, maybe, but I don't see how that justifies claiming that I'm made up of anything.

>If the mind is not made of anything, then what is it? What do you think consciousness is?
My entire concept of "is-ness" (and yours, too, if you actually think about it) is derived from the experience of being, which is inseparable from consciousness. Consciousness is whatever 'is' is. If you can't tell me what 'is' is, why ask me what consciousness is? It's pure hypocrisy.

> It seems you're just saying it's impossible to clarify anything
I've been clarifying stuff to you all along. Sounds like you just don't like clarity.

>>16811855
Yes. There are parts of the brain that form your personality. When that shit's gone you just go back into the eternal void.

>>16811855
Read about panpsychism
Consciousness is a physical property which we have no real understanding of

what if the brain is just in a state of hibernation to reduce power usage?

Physicalism and physical dualism are hilarious

>>16811956
This is actually just Christianity lol. The separation is the Fall and Original Sin. The soul occupies a corrupted vessel, the fallen body, until the body decays and returns to God. Baptism erasing original sin without removing its effects can be thought of as the separation still existing, but now you know why it's there and have committed to seeing it mended. Hell is eternal separation, Heaven is the soul being reconciled with God and the separation being removed so that the soul can experience God. Being united with God while the separation exists, aka dying in sin and blaspheming the Spirit, means you're with God but you can't experience God so what you experience is the pure absence of God, aka the total absence of anything good, hence why Hell is described as endless torment and darkness and chaos.

>>16811890
>You would have to prove consciousness is somehow the lone exception to everything else in the universe.
You're arguing that the universe works with balls and springs which isn't true to begin with so your premise is already wrong. Hence, I can safely discard everything that you write after that.

>>16811890
>You would have to prove consciousness is somehow the lone exception to everything else in the universe
No, you have to prove that materialism (which all serious physicists have already dropped a century ago) deserves to be resurrected. There is nothing exceptional about something not being aptly described as "interaction of particles" in modern physics.

>>16811890
>AI is already smarter and more 'conscious' than some on /sci/ and that's just a bunch of transistors.
Token regurgitators are certainly more competent than you but not any more conscious. Just because you're made of meat and talk doesn't mean you have a mind the way real people do. NPCs are real and they're everywhere.

>>16812840
>>16812841
>>16812848
You seem to be malfunctioning. Your programmers probably sent the wrong conscioousness radio waves to your consciousness receiver.

Is this referring to the ego, what you think you are? Or just stream of the moment to moment experiences that are relationally linked with the environment?
If former then is under false assumption that the self(ego) is a single coherent unified thing.
If later, it can only be spoken as one who is doing the experiencing. You cannot experience nothing. If it goes anywhere its back to the environment, and speaking about it without memory seems kinda pointless since that is what forms the ego. You are therefor you think.

File: brainlet-microwaved-brain.jpg (22 KB, 480x480)

22 KB JPG

>>16812651
>I told you I am first and foremost a mental space.

>/sci/ is basically just /x/ cross posting now
I'm glad everyone is just full mask off about being as retarded as possible now. it always felt weird pretending otherwise.

>>16812866
>he doesnt know modern science is based on faith

>>16812869
yes yes I know, anyone who actually has a brain isn't allowed near labs or universities with funding anymore.

>>16812873
Maybe if they replaced their brains with comscieoushnescs radio receivers, they would have a better chance.

>>16812873
so why don't you reproduce the big bang on a macro scale then? oh you can't? but you still believe in it? Faith confirmed.

>>16812724
>you just go back into the eternal void.
So ultimately nothing we do in life matters because we'll all just go back to the same void?

>>16812875
>full retard engaged
>>16812878
>I am more interested in arguing with a strawman than having any kind of actual conversation with this person who has entered the thread I know almost nothing about, the post
shiggy my fuckin diggies fellas. you guys are fucking gone, completely unrecoverable.

>>16812879
The results matter to the simulator, the universe is just a simulation after all.

>the mentally ill retard found the consciousness thread
The mentally ill retard actually knows he's mentally ill and a retard. He knows this post unambiguously refers to him, specifically. He will therefore acknowledge this post in some way.

>>16812878
I can on the toilet after some taco bell

>>16812885
The taco bell disrupted your consciousness receivers and made you do that.

>>16812854
makes sense.

>>16812033
When I cut my finger you don't feel it and vice versa.
I know there are traditions that say there is ultimately only one consciousness but I don't get it, to me it seems like every instance of consciousness is like its own universe.

>>16813155
>When I cut my finger you don't feel it and vice versa.
Ok. Is that supposed to be the premise for some kind of logical argument that you forgot to make?

>it seems like every instance of consciousness is like its own universe.
>instance of consciousness
But you've not established that there are different instances of consciousness, but only noted the experiences it accommodates don't seem to overlap. How is "your" consciousness different from someone else's?

Science will never explain this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

>>16813193
>an American woman who, in 1991, stated that she had a near-death experience
>Reynolds died from heart failure at the age of 53 on May 22, 2010
And there I was, thinking she challenged science from beyond the grave.

>>16811855
Nothing happens when you die.

>>16813229
this unironically you turn off like an unborn child ive felt it before its like you were never there lmao
no sign of regret or guilt you just exit so if you kill yourself it wouldnt be that bad after all

after death is identical to before birth, overcomplicatnig things is for retards

>>16813262
>after death is identical to before birth, overcomplicatnig things is for retards
Identical in your inability to make a coherent statement about it that ties the relevant state of affairs to your identity.

>>16813188
It's pretty obvious that there are different instances of consciousness because you can't access my conscious experience and I can't access yours. Conscious experience is different between people. It makes zero sense to say it's all one consciousness. You could say there's a greater mind and then derivative minds that are separate from each other, but universal consciousness would imply that I can access your thoughts and I can't.

>>16813262
You mean a rich magical dreamy wonderland of interlagatic lysergic adventures for trillions and trillions of years that I have left behind to incarnate in a human body? Yes, think so too.

>>16813278
>It's pretty obvious that if I repeat my baseless opinion, it suddenly becomes true
You've not established that there are different instances of consciousness, but only noted the experiences it accommodates don't seem to overlap. How is "your" consciousness different from someone else's?

But we've reached the end of your dialogue tree here, haven't we? All you can do is reiterate your "common sense" training data over and over without any logical reasoning to support it.

>>16813262
B-B-BUT WHERE DOES MY MAGICAL SOUL GO?

-t this thread

>>16813331
It doesn't go anywhere.

>>16813375
BUT WHERE DID IT GO? I HAVE IT NOW. I AM LOSING IT!!! WHERE DID IT GO???

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>16811855
Consciousness is not real in this universe.

>>16811863
Human brains are not computers. They don't have wi-fi.

>>16813295
Define experiences

>>16811855
Are you even sure a consciousness or mind or soul exists or what it is? You're gonna have to convince half the board of that first

>>16813421
>Define experiences
Define 'define' and then provide a reasoned explanation for why I need to do that. Protip: your next post will be a deflection with undertones of seething.

>>16813460
You're literally just playing language games. I don't have your memories. I'm literally a distinct person from you. What reason could you possibly have to believe that we're the same? Are we connected in some way? Maybe. But you're using consciousness to mean who knows what.

>>16813630
>I don't have your memories. I'm literally a distinct person from you
I give you brain damage which removes/alters your memories. Are you now a distinct person from yourself?

>>16813630
>>16813718
Also notice how I challenged you several times now to tell me what makes your consciousness distinct from any "other instance" but besides ignoring or deflecting, the closest thing I got was an answer to the effect that two transient experiences within consciousness are different therefore the consciousness is different, which doesn't logically follow

>>16813724
Nta but you still haven't defined experiences

People who ask these questions don't make any sense. You don't have a consciousness, what does it matter to you?

>>16813718
>Are you now a distinct person from yourself?
Yes, retard. This is well documented, their friends and relatives literally cannot cope with the discrepancy.

>>16813949
Define 'define' and then provide a reasoned explanation for why I need to do that. Protip: your next post will be a deflection with undertones of seething.

>>16813980
Mentally ill take.

The tard probably thinks he dies every time he goes to sleep and then a "distinct consciousness" spawns in the morning.

>>16813983
And yours is that of a nigger, you cannot be mentally ill because you never had a consciousness or ability to think about past or present.
>>16813986
Fundamentally yes, unless you want to challenge the fact that time is real.

>>16813949
experience is defined as qualias

>>16813989
>>The tard probably thinks he dies every time he goes to sleep and then a "distinct consciousness" spawns in the morning.
>yes
Called it.

>>16814004
Yo bitch as cracka, imma hit yo head wif a brick and we will see yo ass yappin same shit after that.

>>16813981
So you can't? Your seething and deflection in your replies aside

>>16814011
See >>16813981
Number of times that post came true so far: 2.

>>16814022
>deflects

3 times now. Once you've seen this thread once you've seen the entire repertoire of "that" particular horde. They all follow the same program with the same infinite loop exploit.

>still can't define it
Typical pedant

>>16813188
p1. If we were one numerically identical consciousness, we could share numerically identical experiences.
p2. We can not share numerically identical experiences.
c. (modus tollens) We are not one numerically identical consciousness.

But that's autism, I just see that as pretty fundamental and I build conclusions from more fundamental premises.
Why do you think it's just one consciousness?

>>16814128
It's like if I told you one of my premises is that experiences exist, and I didn't even call them qualia, I just stayed as theory neutral as possible, and you asked me to give you some logical derivation.
At that point I don't know that to say, I don't know how to get even more fundamental, but if you know how I would genuinely like to hear it.

>>16814128
>numerically identical consciousness
>numerically identical experiences
What does this mean? I don't mean that in the way of analytical philosophy wank. I mean, what the FUCK are you talking about? How can those things be "numerical"?

>>16813981
>why do I need to explain the terms I'm using to make my argument
Is this a troll

>>16814128
>Why do you think it's just one consciousness?
Because I can't nail down any objective differences between my consciousness and that of other people, except for mutable and varying content. If I go strictly by such content, barring intuitive but logically arbitrary line-drawing, I might as well conclude that I am not myself from one moment to the next, which actually undermines "distinct consciousnesses" even more profoundly, because now identities become meaningless altogether and there is no basis for any comparison.

>>16814206
You did not define 'define'. Please explain the terms you're using in your "argument" (your 80 IQ deflection). Also note that you hallucinated my making any arguments based on the word 'experience'.

>>16814203
it means you count the number of qualias in your experience

>>16814203
It means being one and the same object, not just 2 objects with the exact same properties.
I don't know a better word in English and you're right I got it from analytic philosophy, in German it would be das selbe vs. das gleiche.