>>17080512
where does talking to a mobile phone go when you destroy the phone? in the well of talking to mobile phones?

File: Phones.jpeg.png (644 KB, 710x400)

644 KB PNG

>>17080524
>in the well of talking to mobile phones?
They "magically appear" downtown on a blanket with other phones.

>>17080529
That's called reincarnation

>>17080512
Scientifically, God is an unobserved variable for which we've yet to find a single instance where it must be accounted for.

>According to the theory of the conservation of energy, you cannot destroy energy, it simply gets transferred.
Where does a fire go when you snuff it out? Are you insinuating there exists some sort of "pool or well" of fire?

>>17080537

To point out the obvious, the 'accounted for' part is consciousness - consciousness must be accounted for

I'm not sure what you mean by pool of fire, the energy stops being transformed into heat and light when you snuff it out

>>17080540
>consciousness must be accounted for
Sure. And do you mean to suggest that God is the only way one could account for consciousness?

>>17080540
>the energy stops being transformed into heat and light when you snuff it out
the energy stops being transformed into consciousness when you snuff it out

>>17080546
>And do you mean to suggest that God is the only way one could account for consciousness?
It's a reasonable theory, a large pool of consciousness which some people refer to as 'Lord', or 'Almighty'. The 'Greatness' would suggest power and vastness among other things.

>the energy stops being transformed into consciousness when you snuff it out
Fire is not conscious, but if you mean to imply that the conscious is not measurable, sure, we have yet to measure the conscious except through worship

>>17080550
your consciousness cannot exist if not powered by chemical energy from food. literally. you'd go offline. and die. without food. it needs...energy. around 15W total more exactly. and consciousness part is speculated at under 10W. 7W or so.

so when you turn off the flashlight, where does the light go? to light heaven?

>>17080550
Nowhere in my post did I indicate fire was consciousness, nor did I point to consciousness's lack of measurability.
The point I was making is that, like fire, consciousness could just be the output of a particular set of interactions.
You snuff a flame; the fire fades to nothing.
You snuff a life; the consciousness fades to nothing.

>>17080553
>>17080557
Both agreeable points

Your theory is that consciousness is not separate from the energy that permits it

My theory is that consciousness is part of the fabric that allows us to experience reality. Reality being the shapes and sounds around us. Fire does not experience the night sky or the fireplace. We do.

Clear difference

>>17080557
he isn't here to get answers or to clarify his understanding. he's here for propaganda under the guise of "scientific" questions. the idea is to spread th word, not to correct his understanding.
as in, you will not convince him of anything no matter how good your arguments are. that's not the point of the post. the point is to bate you into debating him, thus platorming his ideas when he's explaining them to you. else it would look really fucking awkward to start spiritual vomit unprompted. he needs you to pretend it's a "scientific" debate or some shit

>>17080561
>My theory is that consciousness is part of the fabric that allows us to experience reality.
there is no consciousness fabric just like there is no cloud elephants fabric. it's a virtual thing, a collection of many things. like a carnival, it's not some carnival fabric it exists on, it's a collection of things happening at once, in a way, that we call carnival. it's a...set.

>>17080562
>spread the word
I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically, but ending the debate on God once and for all scientifically would end many conflicts around the globe

>>17080564
spirituality is more open ended, religion isn't. usually why I find crystal chicks to be more chill about it all.
so if it's open ended for you as well then sure, I guess it's a fair discussion

>>17080565
It's as open ended as you can get, these are just theories trying to solve the worlds biggest problem

>>17080563
>there is no consciousness fabric just like there is no cloud elephants fabric.
This is up for debate
Here you get into the philosophical realm, 'I think therefore I am'

>>17080566
I'll steelman something, one thing I always found fascinating with the crystal chicks is that the quartz thing kinda matches.
it's the foundation of a lot of today's shit. quartz. it is used in transistors and pretty much all chips from today. almost all. and its value comes from being so abundant and cheap. either way, funny coincidence.

>>17080567
>This is up for debate
no I mean the point is that if you see elephant shaped clouds it doesn't mean they are literal elephants. it's virtual. looks like something but it isn't. it's not up for debate, cloud elephants arent' really elephants and there's no fabric.

>>17080569
The fact that you can see suggests a clear difference between you and the fire

I'm not sure where else this debate goes, there is difference in sentience.

>>17080562
Yes, obviously. But I'm irredeemably autistic and easily baited.

>>17080569
I'll break it down further

The fire is of type non-sentient, therefore it cannot consume reality or experience it in any way shape or form. It does not have the shape or form to experience reality, such as eyes, ears nose etc.

Humans are of type sentient. We are able to experience reality as is permitted by our eyes, nose and ears. We have these eyes and ears because we are sentient and should be able to experience reality

>>17080561
>Fire does not experience the night sky or the fireplace. We do.
Just like our experience can't burn a house down. Just because I point to on similarity between two things to make a point does not imply I'm saying they're identical. And pointing out differences unrelated to the point being made does not make for a valid counter.

>>17080575
>And pointing out differences unrelated to the point being made does not make for a valid counter.

I'm actually saying you've brought up a fundamental piece of the argument/theory, and thank you for doing so

Refer to this post >>17080574

>>17080574
>Humans are of type sentient. We are able to experience reality as is permitted by our eyes, nose and ears. We have these eyes and ears because we are sentient and should be able to experience reality
you just described data input. yes, we process data. we get feedback from it which helps us stay alive.

>The fire is of type non-sentient, therefore it cannot consume reality
we do not consume reality. we process the small amount of data we can receive from the environment, and use it to stay alive.
one thing I do is I don't rush to guess what something I don't understand could be. if I do I force a tunnel and data that sits outside of that tunnel isn't really processed, it's discarded. you have higher chances of understanding something when you observe it without forcing it in some boxes.
when you decide it's something in particular for no real reason, you're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and will have nothing that doesn't match what you want it to be. thus you will miss out on relevant information, you'll simply filter it out, if it goes against what you want that thing to actually be, the thing that you don't even understand. but decided it must be something in particular.
you start hunting for evidence of it being what you want it to be. even forcing evidence of it being that
that doesn't make for good science, or a good scientist. that makes for a lot of wasted time, most likely failed career, and a lot of disapointment

>>17080576
Fire does not experience things. It burns things.
Consciousness does not burn things. It experiences things.

These are differences in the behavior of the two entities. But that says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. You asked about where consciousness goes when one dies. I pointed to the similarity with fire in that it need not "go" anywhere. The process terminates.

>>17080532
Don't let Eve take the apple.

>>17080578
Yes the main argument against the proposed theory is that non-sentient things are somehow related to conscious, sentient things.

>>17080579
The energy must be transferred or transformed according to the theory of the conservation of energy.

The counter to this seems to be, non-sentient things just terminate.

>>17080581
quite obviously they are, at the most fundamental level, they are all based on particle interactions... you cannot have anything without particles and their interactions, isn't it so?

>>17080583
Particles aside, what about the things that allow us to experience reality

Eyes, nose, ears, tongue.

We are fundamentally different to a non-sentient thing

>>17080582
>The energy must be transferred or transformed according to the theory of the conservation of energy.
yes, the chemical energy you brain consumes to enable your consciousness is wasted as heat, carried away by blood, and radiated as IR, or through conduction/convection. it's not lost, it's transformed.

>>17080584
>We are fundamentally different to a non-sentient thing
no but we aren't, that is my point. at a fundamental level everything is the very same thing, particle interactions.
if you'd look at them individually you wouldn't be able to figure out which one does what, or belongs to what, human or rock or in a fire.

>>17080586
The non-sentient thing does not have consciousness there it does not have eyes and a nose

Does this make more sense?

Consciousness = Eyes and Nose

>>17080587
>Consciousness = Eyes and Nose
this can easily fall under the bait category lol

I don't understand your question, we are based on the laws of this universe. there's no magic thing happening in us that does not obey the laws of this universe, just like everything else.
we just happen to be a very highly complex particular structure, arrangement of particles, which enables your "sentience". just like a certain particular ccollection of particles + some energy enables fire.

btw, fire is quite rare in this universe. not sure scientists discovered other places where it's possible like on Earth. as in other planets. needs oxygen, at least some of it, maybe even temperature/pressure. like really, fire might be as rare as sentience

At this point, I would say, by very definition, anything which is conscious must perceive the fabric of reality with some sort of physical shape/form

Therefore, consciousness must abide by rules and or shape, otherwise the experience of reality is not grounded

If consciousness adheres to a form, then it must be tangible and/or measurable to the point where it cannot be destroyed like classical energy

>>17080512
>Where does consciousness come from?
From nothingness. Egg cell gets fertilized by a sperm cell, brain develops and at some point it turns on consciousness.
>And where does it go when we die?
To nothingness.

At least that's my take. We didn't exist as organism before egg cell got fertilized by a sperm cell and as a conscious being until our brain matured to give us sense of awareness. Then we die and we are going back to the beginning, aka ''nothingness'. Basically reincarnation, only without all the mysticism and philosophical chatter. assuming the process can repeat itself. If we ''didn't exist (body, consciousness) before all the biological shenanigans took place, and yet we are here, why couldn't it happen again if we end up not existing ''again''? I wonder how this could be proved/disproved.

>>17080512
>According to the theory of the conservation of energy, you cannot destroy energy, it simply gets transferred.
Energy doesn't exist as it own independent thing, it is a complex function that arises whenever a body of mass is moving through space over time, your entire confusion seems to arise because you don't understand energy is a compound metric rather than its own independent variable.

>>17080590
> it cannot be destroyed like classical energy
classical energy can’t be destroyed though…

>>17080512
Consciousness comes from learning from other humans, it's basically a cultural trait we developed. Look at feral children, they act like animals if they grow up alone, they have no human consciousness because they missed out on that cultural trait

>>17080512
the energy gets transfered to the maggots that eat your body you meta physical retard fuck off, go ask chatgpt

>>17080669
I mean, just to reiterate your point, most people don’t even have memories that go before when they started learning language. I am not saying preverbal babies are not “conscious”, they are in some sense, but not in the sense most adults relate to.

Freud associates the “start” of a mature person with basically potty-training, and the “repression” of natural bodily functions. I don’t think Freud is necessarily right either but associating the development of an adult consciousness with cultural practices is not new.

However I think the fact that newborn babies have some clear personal agency before any cultural influences on them have time to occur is maybe a counter-argument to what you are saying

>>17080669
>language is the same thing as consciousness
No, wordcel and even if that were true, feral children can be taught basic human language skills and so can a number of animals, so your argument would fall apart on that basis too even without considering that animals develop their own vocalizations and body languages that diverge from modern human language and a number of primitive human tribes have derived their languages or portions from surrounding animals.