Does anybody have any scientific theories as to how consciousness might persist after death? Or are we really just supposed to act like we're racing towards an empty void and that's okay
>>16867117>Does anybody have any scientific theories as to how consciousness might persist after death?Quick save, quick save, full save. Always.>Or are we really just supposed to act like we're racing towards an empty void and that's okayMake sure you always have a working emulator and you'll be fine.
>>16867117A meme storm is indistinguishable from most human consciousness.
>>16867117Sure, why not? I mean, if we can have string theory we can have ghosts, too, right?
A scientific theory on how quantum immortality could work:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI
>>16867407Pure observer? Sounds like mystical bullshit. Epistemology and ontology necessitate each other.
>>16867117If you take relativity literally then the universe is just a static 4D object. Your experiences are frozen in this structure. Small downside: If your life sucks it will suck eternally and you have no power whatsoever to change it.
>>16867414https://benthams.substack.com/p/you-are-a-soul
>>16867117Well materialism is obviously wrong, so either transmigration or an afterlife seems to be the case.
>>16867117If you were somehow still conscious after death then wouldn't you also still be conscious when you're unconscious? How does that make sense? Like if you have a general anaesthesia then you should still be able to think if consciousness is somehow outside the brain
>>16867117This goes beyond science. You should ask the philosophy and theology experts on /x/
>>16867117anon, entropy is the great eraser.no ego survives the death of the body.
>>16867549No recollection =/= no existence
>>16867117It is impossible to experience no experience so your mind will just loop back through itself in what feels like forever internally.This film covers it a bit from many perspectiveshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waking_LifeIncluding some that support the Global Workspace Theory of cognitive architecture and there are many long and short form essays about the film that tie into various scientific theories of consciousness.
>>16867117I dont believe in death, not because of fear, Id like to be dead, I just dont believe in it.
>>16867117>Does anybody have any scientific theories as to how consciousness might persist after death?Nothing happens to consciousness "after death". It continues to manifest in other life forms in accordance with their physical specifics, which are presumably different from your particular ones, which disintegrate when you die. Hope that clears things up. Anything unique to you is demonstrably tied to your brain and body.
>>16867885>It is impossible to experience no experienceSure.>so your mind will just loop back through itself in what feels like forever internally.This doesn't follow at all. Go drink until you pass out, or get anaesthesia or something, and see for yourself if any of this nonsense happens. The capacity to know that you're experiencing is intrinsically related to experience itself. It just fades.
>>16868235>This doesn't follow at all. Go drink until you pass out, or get anaesthesia or something, and see for yourself if any of this nonsense happens. The capacity to know that you're experiencing is intrinsically related to experience itself. It just fades.No memory doesn't mean nothing happened. It's like retrograde amnesia
>>16868301You don't know what you're talking about but I hope someone knocks you the fuck out and shows you better.
>>16868314That's how faggot losers think
>>16868316Faggot losers (i.e. you) think their baseless fantasies somehow override reality. They need to be put back in their place, doubly so when it serves as an educational experience about the actual topic
>>16868320You got some issues, I think you need some counseling
>>16868321I think you need to stop being such a sissy faggot and go get knocked out to learn about "no experience".
>>16868324It's not that complicated a concept, so I don't think that's necessary. It's the baseline assumption in science, so I'm not sure why you need to defend it so passionately. This thread is about alternative theories.
>>16868326>It's not that complicated a conceptI agree. Your concept is trivial but also demonstrably wrong, which you can prove to yourself in a myriad different ways instead of playing retarded word games.
>>16867117Why would there be something after you die? Your brain is literally you. If that stops working you aren't you anymore.
>>16868331>Why would there be something after you die? Your brain is literally you. If that stops working you aren't you anymore.Some questions that are still unanswered:1. How physical processes in the brain generate subjective experience (“qualia”).2. Why conscious experience exists at all rather than purely unconscious information processing.3. What specific neural mechanisms give rise to unified consciousness.4. How and where the brain binds sensory inputs into a single coherent experience.5. Whether current physical theories are complete enough to fully account for consciousness.
>>16868339I don't see why these are required to say there is no afterlife. We know that damaging parts of the brain can fundamentally change a person, so we know your physical brain is an integral part of your personality. If you remove it, you aren't "you" anymore. At a minimum you don't have your memories or any skills you've learned throughout your life. If some ghostly consciousness or energy exists, it doesn't matter because it's not you anymore.
>>16868342>>16868342>I don't see why these are required to say there is no afterlife.They're not, they just keep the possibility open. Just questioning why everyone acts like possibility is completely shut off with 100% certainty.
>>16868342>we know your physical brain is an integral part of your personality. If you remove it, you aren't "you" anymore. At a minimum you don't have your memories or any skills you've learned throughout your life. If some ghostly consciousness or energy exists, it doesn't matter because it's not you anymore./threadMost people's sense of identity consists almost entirely of stuff demonstrably tied to the brain. Even the sense of having an identity at all, of being a singular and continuous entity, of being human, can be altered using chemicals. So unless you experience yourself as somekinda buddha, when you die, you DIE and that's it. Absolutely clear-cut. No unique you-ness remains. Westerners with their individualism and their magical souls ironically suffer from this problem the most.
>>16868348Like I say, if your memories, skills, and so on are physical, then you don't really get to experience an afterlife. If people didn't lose their memory and skills when they got smashed in the head I might agree. But as of now we have a ton of examples of brain injuries and we can say pretty much everything that makes you unique relies on those physical connections.
>>16868361That is a good point regarding continuity of self. I still question the total annihilation of consciousness just because nothingness doesn't really make sense as a concept.
>>16867117We don't even have scientific evidence that consciousness exists!
>>16868374>We don't even have scientific evidence that consciousness exists!There is literally more scientific evidence that consciousness exists than there is scientific evidence for anything else.
AI firmly shows that the mind is a mathematical objects. As such, it is immortal, like number 3 is immortal.
>>16868385>AI firmly shows that the mind is a mathematical objects.How does mindless token stringing show anything about minds?
>>16868387It can be made indistinguishable from you == it is the same thing.
>>16868389>It can be made indistinguishable from you == it is the same thingI'll put aside the fact that this is a subhuman take and just issue a daily reminder: you may be so dumb and mindless that you can't tell yourself apart from a token stringing automaton, but not everyone is a lowlife like you.
>>16868393pathetic cope
>>16868394>t. mentally ill retardCall me back when your imaginary friend can manage the bare basics of reasoning.
>>16867424So do we not actually have free will? Cause this is how I'm imagining it, on the left is free will, infinite branching paths for any and every conceivable action at any and every time, on the right is "free will" where you're free to act however you desire, but it's still ultimately restricted to a defined path
>>16867424This notion posits nothing ever happens and all thats is is eternal and has always been such a state. So what is experiencing this eternal universe? That seems to be outside the scope of eternal frozen time. Regardless, the problem still persists in your way. >>16868331This argument appears solid but the argument falls apart soon as you apply a Ship of Theseus analysis to the brain. Not just swapping out, but even fully duplicating infinite brains from parts of the brain. The problem arises of which is real you? The law of identity falls apart. So that doesn't work either. It also doesn't work with a mind having memories and personalities either as the change over time as well.
Gotta level up and unlock time travel, go backwards and bring everyone back, 1 at a time, 1 Planck unit of time at a....time.... suddenly, everyone is back alive at the...same...........time.......
>>16868235>This doesn't follow at all.Except it does.>Go drink until you pass out, or get anaesthesia or something, and see for yourself if any of this nonsense happens.But dreaming does happen when you are asleep.> It just fades.No, you just start hallucinating and/or dreaming if your body gets too stressed.
>>16868329No, people dream when they go unconscious, so your example proves the concept, you just for some reason decide that the capacity to create entire imaginary universes with new laws of physics and continuities inside of dreams is "trivial".
>>16868329>demonstrably wrong,>t. never heard of NDEs.
>>16868689>but the argument falls apart soon as you apply a Ship of Theseus analysis to the brain.This just doesn't matter for what we're talking about. If you destroy Theseus's ship all at once, it no longer exists. If you're suggesting your brain is somehow replicated in a spiritual realm when it's destroyed, I would ask: why? And even if it is, a lot of your brain is "designed" to work with a physical body. If you take those desires out, are you really "you?" and do you get to actually experience this?
>>16868726>>16868728>>16868729Completely delusional and barely coherent.
>>16868689>This argument appears solid but the argument falls apart soon as you apply a Ship of Theseus analysis to the brain. Not just swapping out, but even fully duplicating infinite brains from parts of the brain. The problem arises of which is real you? The law of identity falls apart.It doesn't undermine his argument in any way, it just undermines your naive idea of identity and implies there's nothing real about it at all, let alone anything to survive death.
>>16868855Yes, dreams are often barely coherent hallucinations, what's your point, that you don't understand the concept of dreaming?
>>16868865>mongoloidal animal thinks passing out or being anaesthesized is like going to sleep and having sweet dreams
>>16867117Sorry but only based people persist after death
