Thread 16811855

Does consciousness truly end after brain death, or could there be another possibility?

>>16811855 (OP)
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 (OP)
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 (OP)
Yes, it really does.

>>16811855 (OP)
>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.

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

>>16811855 (OP)
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 (OP)
>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 (OP)
>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 (OP)
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 (OP)
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 (OP)
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 (OP)
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.

>>16812235
feel free to die lmao

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

>>16812242
Brain? You mean consciousness radio receiver.

>>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 (OP)
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 (OP)
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 (OP)
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 (OP)
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.

>>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 (OP)
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 (OP)
Consciousness is not real in this universe.

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

>>16813295
Define experiences

>>16811855 (OP)
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.

>>16814229
>"numerically identical" means being one and the same object
>consciousness and experience are "objects"
Highly dubious propositions. But even ignoring that, your "argument" simply rests on asserting again that the apparent isolation of individual experiences implies many isolated "consciousnesses". It doesn't follow logically from anything. It's just your "common sense" opinion.

>>16814242
My last post was just clarifying the term but overall I think you are making a mistake regarding what an argument, or a logical derivation is.
Logical derivations are always just propositions that are connected in some accepted way. I hear that often that then people say those are just assertions, but they are just premises.
All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal
>but you just assert Socrates is a man, you just assert all men are mortal
That's just the argument, you can reject one or more premises if you want but don't call it illogical when it has valid logical structure.

You might still be right about consciousness though, I just presented my reasoning but it could be wrong. To me it just seems clear that my pain and your pain are separate, it's as clear as the fact that there are things I call letters in my visual field.
Michael Huemer calls this an intellectual seeming, some things just seem self evident and it's genuinely hard to see the other perspective, even though in theory you could be right.
Thinking that my pain and your pain are one and the same is like thinking that 1 + 1 = 3, just seems self evidently false.

You also have your premises and at some point you probably can't justify them further, some end point will just seem obvious. What would you accept as an objective difference between your consciousness and that of other people?

>>16814268
>you are making a mistake regarding what an argument, or a logical derivation is.
>Logical derivations are always just propositions that are connected in some accepted way.
>I hear that often that then people say those are just assertions, but they are just premises.
p1. there is only one consciousness
c. there is only one consciousness
How do you like my logical derivation? No, I'm not just asserting my opinions, I'm logically deriving conclusions from premises. An easy error to make, I know, but do try to keep up.

>I just presented my reasoning
You did no such thing. There is no reasoning.

>To me it just seems clear that my pain and your pain are separate
This could be a sensible premise for an argument, but you never attempted to make any argument based on it.

>>16814271
I did obviously present a non question begging argument and it's fine if you aren't convinced.
That our pains are separate is the first premise, that our pains wouldn't be separate if our consciousness wasn't separate is the second premise, therefore our consciousness is separate.
Where is the circularity or question begging in that?

>>16814273
>I did obviously present a non question begging argument
You obviously didn't. Furthermore "question-begging" is just a colloquial reddit characterization for perfectly good logical derivation.

>That our pains are separate is the first premise
Why are you lying? Here's your actual first premise:

>>16814128
>p1. If we were one numerically identical consciousness, we could share numerically identical experiences.
You simply asserted the same thing I questioned at the beginning, just with some extra slop about "numerically identical" inserted into it as a red herring.

>>16814277
>That our pains are separate is the first premise
>Why are you lying? Here's your actual first premise:
You are just being pedantic again, so in the last post I mixed up my first and second premise, they are still 2 distinct premises and the order doesn't matter for the argument.
The numerically identical part is relevant (even if I might need to find a simpler term) because I'm not just talking about the properties of the experience. It's important that if we both cut our fingers and the pain is equally strong, I don't see it as one pain instance.

>>16814284
Take the supposed "premise":
>p1. If we were one numerically identical consciousness, we could share numerically identical experiences.

Remove the slop:
>If we were one consciousness, we could share identical experiences

And you're back at the same opinion you stated here:
>>16813155
Which I immediately questioned here:
>>16813188

You made exactly zero arguments. It's been question-begging all along, made all the more explicit in your "p1".

>>16814284
p1. X and Y are distinct iff X differs from Y in at least one essential property
p2. A property is essential iff the association between it and its possessor necessarily lasts for as long as the latter exists
p3. It is possible for consciousness to outlast any current perception associated with it
c1. A current perception associated with consciousness is not an essential property of consciousness (from p2, p3)

p4. X and Y differ only in their associated current perceptions
c2. X and Y differ in no essential property (from p4, c1)
c3. X and Y are not distinct (from c2, p1)

You can question these premises, but their merit is in letting you to do so without simply circling back to the original disagreement and once again repeating "nuh uh; I can't feel your pain, so therefore Q.E.D". Most of the premises are more general than my beliefs about consciousness. Let this be your lesson for today about what an argument actually is.

>>16814212
Define means state the fucking meaning of whatever it is that you're talking about and not just circling around with language games like you're currently doing. Universal consciousness is a meme, you brought it up and then immediately started having an aneurysm when it became clear your idea of consciousness refers to literally nothing. Read Wittgenstein you pseudointellectual hack, when you can't speak of something then shut up about it. I can speak of my conscious experience because I can actively make computable statements about it. No such thing can be done with your schizophrenic delusional idea of consciousness. I can empirically analyze my consciousness to determine that it is distinct from yours. I can't make any fucking statements about your idea of consciousness because it's bullshit.

What a shit thread. 95% of it has nothing to do with science and belongs on /x/

>>16814383
Your handlers should really follow the advice given here >>16812569.

>>16814402
>state the fucking meaning
Oh, wow. Meaning? Define 'meaning'. I actually didn't expect you to dig that hole so rapidly.

>Universal consciousness is a meme, you brought it up
Quote exactly where I brought up "universal consciousness" and argued for it in terms of "experience".

> I can speak of my conscious experience
Sure, just as soon as you define "conscious" and "experience", which you seem to be making an argument in terms of. :^)

>>16814404
Can you define shit?

>>16814404
>it has nothing to do with science
Can you define science?

>>16814412
Consciousness is what you'll lose when your handlers euthanize you. Hope that helps.

>>16814402
>my vague feefees determine if two things are the same
>i computed this statement using my feefees

>>16814383
There is obviously wrong but there is nothing obviously wrong with this

>>16814383
This is obviously wrong but there is nothing obviously wrong with this

>>16814459
Define wrong.

>>16814412
This is crazy you think you're smart because you can fuck with words? That's your play? Define this define that xd yeah it's why empiricism is the standard in science you moron. You're literally just doing the "behold a man" routine from Diogenes. You have zero grasp on linguistics, logic, or science. I don't even care to go back and see what it is that you were initially even arguing for because you clearly don't have any grasp on the tools required to make a coherent argument. I'm not wasting my time with a midwit. So I'll repeat: you can't speak, so stay silent.

>>16814516
I don't know what your psychotic meltdown is about. It started from you (or someone you decided to fill in for, mid conversation) demanding that I define 'experience' for no discernible reason (I wasn't the one arguing anything based on it, my opponent was). I then reasonably asked for a definition of what it is I'm supposedly required to do, which you responded to with some spergout where you used a bunch of vague words you can't define, including 'experience'.

>>16814516
>>16814601
>which you responded to with some spergout where you used a bunch of vague words you can't define, including 'experience'.
And I guess I should add that you literally did that in the course of screeching that I shouldn't talk about things I can't define.

>>16814601
Define "I don't know". Is it what you tell your handlers when they ask you why you were eating shit?

>>16814402
imagine shouting "read wittgenstein" at someone and then calling them a pseud. holy kek. >>>/lit/

>>16814698
Define shouting.

LESS
>monkey not impressed monkey was suddenly forced from a state of total nothingness (null/death) into the polar opposite state of total everythingness (sum/life)
MORE
>monkey very impressed with feat of birth! Monkey instinctually sense that perception and interactivitiy is gift that can be rescinded, monkey instinctually know that event of being forced to experience life (since monkey alive experiencing fun monkey thing right now on series of tubes!) has already happened from miracle phenomenon of birth, and because monkey experience these strange things once - it maybe happen to monkey again! Monkey never really experience anything that only ever happen once, at least so far...

We welcome scientific dissection and discourses of communicably compiled logic, but your question has already been answered truthfully more than enough in the archives, so it is suspected you're a provocateur. You are now filled with a foreboding sense of unease that the gift of life and rebirth may be taken away from you if you continue to be so negative. Such is the fate of all negates - negation.

+

>>16814994
>I require urgent medication

>>16814994
Thank you for the consciousness radio broadcast

>>16815075
>I also require urgent medication

>>16811855 (OP)
>or could there be another possibility?

the possibility.... THAT YOU ARE GAAAAAYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(sorry, but your post gave me an irresistible urge to post this)

>>16811855 (OP)
We haven't ruled out everything of course, but every proposed hypothesis of an after-consciousness is either unverifiable or has been disproven. Mostly unverifiable as no material mechanism for it has been proposed, only pure idealisms- and you can ideate anything you want to!
Best we know, your consciousness dies with brain death.
>>16811883
This is a technically true claim, but wild conjecture about consciousness also adds nothing to human knowledge.

>>16815233
>Mostly unverifiable as no material mechanism for it has been proposed,
No verifiable "material mechanism" for consciousness has ever been proposed in the first place.

>Best we know
Lol.

>>16815280
Did your doctor tell you this after MRI machine couldn't detect any activity inside your skull?

>>16814289
Yes, because the first post was already a valid argument but since you don't get it I made it explicit with numbered premises and conclusion.
And in my view the experiences are not just not identical, I'm not talking about their properties, but about being distinct objects.

>>16814601
Words have definitions that are known through empiricism and that is a fundamental feature of language, a word that cannot be defined refers to nothing. Your style of argumentation is retarded.
>define retarded
You

>>16814698
Telling me to go back to /lit/ as if that's an insult, this board is filled with dim witted strivers who think being a STEMcel is the peak of intelligence. Wittgenstein was a genius even if he did fuck up on a few occasions. He's fundamental to understanding linguistics.

>>16815754
>simply asserting my dumb opinion and never being able to go a step further is a valid argument
Ok. I can see it's no use arguing with your sort.

>And in my view the experiences are not just not identical, I'm not talking about their properties, but about being distinct objects.
LOL. You really are barely human...

>>16815861
>Words have definitions that are known through empiricism
> a word that cannot be defined refers to nothing
Ok. Still waiting for you to "define through empiricism" your previous statements about your so-called 'experience'.
>inb4 you fail again
Uh oh. Well, a word that cannot be defined refers to nothing. Stop talking about your 'experience' and read Wittgenstein. He's fundamental to understanding linguistics and this is a linguistics board. As a smarter man here already said: >>>/lit/

You anons are even worse then fucking /x/

>>16814404
Because OP's question cannot be answered scientifically, it goes beyond scientific inquiry

>>16812165
It is unbelievable how pseuds will make word salad and feel pleased with it. They seem to think mysterious, vague aphorisms are a substitute for content or critical thinking.
"The question has a purpose outside of itself." - get a grip mate.

>>16812879
That might be the way you interpret reality. Many people do not need a superstitious fanfic to make life meaningful for them, and I'm sorry that your closet-nihilism is peaking out in a distressing way.

>>16811863
>your computer connects to a different wi-fi connection when the previous one dies.
That might explain how an individual (ie the computer) could imagine its own consciousness without an objective external connection (ie wifi), but it doesn't say how the computer can keep working after its fried.

>>16813407
Sure they do, its called sight, where brains just start taking raw em signals through the eyes and decoding them with various neural networks embedded in the brain.

>>16811890
>>16811914
Consciousness contains imagination and imagination quite demonstrably is not bound to the same physical restrictions as other parts of reality.

>>16812014
So you experience everyone else's consciousness simultaneously, so as a result consciousness inherently implies collective consciousness rather than individual consciousness to you or you are just being retarded and saying nonsense?

>>16812446
>any operation on nothing would result in nothing
What about the factorial operation, are you saying that you think 0!=0?

>>16812458
So you could remove your head from your body and it wouldn't have any deleterious effect on your mental space whatsoever?

>>16812591
Their consciousness is an extension of their body while my consciousness is an extension of my body which is how >>16812146 is answered since the consciousness is bound to the same specific body that is sensing its environment and you don't suddenly start being conscious of someone else's body in your environment.

>>16812096
>magical nothing that is also somehow something with a particular identity
That is just math, its "magical" because it is its own opposite and that self reference is what imbues it with a measurable identity.

>>16818080
Elán vital tier reasoning anon.

>>16812156
>they can never explain *why* we feel have an identity to begin with.
Yes they can, its because you have a unique individual body with novel individual features that include individual sensory organs from your individual perspective that results in an individual sense of self.

>>16812198
Psychoactive is the word, there would be plenty of ways you could test psychoactive meds on yourself to see how they affected your consciousness if you were more than just character processing software running on some mainframe.

>>16818107
Ad hominem tier argument, sophist.

>>16818111
I'm not the one proposing that something is immeasurable due to complexity, hence the parallel.

>>16812616
That is like asking how much time would have to pass before its no longer "now" or how far you would have to travel before you are no longer "here"?

>>16818117
Nobody said that though, I said that imagination demonstrably (and measurably for the record) is not bound by the same physics and physical limitations as all the other things.

>>16818082
>nonsequtur
>>16818098
>nonsequitur
>>16818121
>nonsequitur
A certain side of this "argument" is clearly upheld only by spambots and nonsentients.

>>16818124
Sure and you can totally explain why they are nonsequitur arguments, its not just a cliched buzzword you invoke without explanation to dismiss criticism that you can't refute.

>>16818125
>>16818125
The first two are disputing things that aren't stating or implied in the posts they replied to. The third one makes a false comparison but then fails to derive any conclusion from it. It's just token-prediction-based verbal thrashing.

>>16818131
>The first two are disputing things that aren't stating or implied in the posts they replied to.
Nope, the first one was because you implied that consciousness was a group phenomenon simultaneously experienced by everyone collectively instead of an individual phenomenon that binds a mind to a body.

The second one was because you said that your mind is irreducible removing a head from ones body will immediately remove any ability for any mind to have domain over that body.

There is no false comparison, you are you even if you change over time just like you are in the here and now even when the space and time you are occupying changes.

Nope you are still fallaciously just using cliched buzzwords because you can't adequately express your reasoning.

>>16818136
>you implied that consciousness was a group phenomenon simultaneously experienced by everyone collectively
This is not what I wrote and it's unclear what you're trying to imply by consciosness being "experienced" collectively. If you're repeating the same nonsequitur the other tard posted, you need to take your meds and confront the fact that it wasn't stated or implied anywhere.

>The second one was because you said that your mind is irreducible removing a head from ones body will immediately remove any ability for any mind to have domain over that body
But you're again just repeating a total nonse...

Forget it. You are nonsentient. Thanks for demonstrating my point so neatly. Anyone on "your" side is actually just the same broken bot from the same botfarm.

Western intellectualism takes harmless idiots and converts them into relentlessly narcissistic meat bots. Literacy should have been gatekept tightly.

>>16818123
>not bound by the same physics

Oh, so it is just repackaged élan vital.

>>16818144
>élan vital.
This post is a perfect demonstration of >>16818143

>>16818141
>This is not what I wrote
Yes it certainly is, by implying that when one consciousness ends all consciousness must end, you are explicitly using a completely different definition of consciousness than what people typically use to mean individual consciousness.

>But you're again just repeating a total nonse...
Then feel free to have your head removed if you really think that its nonsense that that removing your head would lead to deleterious effects to your consciousness since your consciousness is made of things in your body rather than your mental capacity being irreducible to physical phenomenon.

>Forget it.
What a convenient way for you to not have to justify your bullshit, you just have to "forget" what you were originally claiming so you don't have to justify it when it pressed and you can just blame your own lack of justification on someone else's lack of sentient.

Nearly clever attempt at fallacious trolling, but everyone can see through your lies in the end, so its not the masterful satire you believe it to be.

>>16818144
No, its proving that >>16811890 has already been accomplished and consciousness has already proven to be an exception to physical limits since it harbors imagination capable of transcending all physics.

>>16818144
Imagination can be demonstrated, numerous people have presented illustrations of impossible objects and impossible physics, so its not just some repackaged nondemonstrable assertion, its a repeatable phenomenon.

>>16818166
>Yes, you wrote things that aren't stated or implied anywhere except by voices in my head
Not reading any more of your literal schizophrenia. Meds ASAP.

>>16818172
I accept your concession, you can't even justify your earlier claims of fallacy and now you have devolved into pretending to be a psychiatrist working for free to diagnose people you have never met.

>>16818170
>Imagination can be demonstrated
>numerous people have presented illustrations of impossible objects and impossible physics
>its a repeatable phenomenon.
Ok, but how do you get from this to "is not bound to the same physical restrictions as other parts of reality"? All you can actually show is that the contents of fantasies aren't bound to physics. The process that produces them may still play by the normal rules unless you have some strong argument to the contrary.

>>16818175
See >>16818172

>>16818176
>All you can actually show is that the contents of fantasies aren't bound to physics.
That is literally all I needed to show to disprove your claims that every single thing that exists, including people's consciousness/imagination, is bound by the same physical laws.

>>16818178
>That is literally all I needed to show to disprove your claims that every single thing that exists, including people's consciousness/imagination, is bound by the same physical laws.
>your claims
I didn't make any such claims. I'm just asking you how you get from "X happened in my fantasy" to "X is real and violates physics".

>>16818177
So the software program that is constantly screeching about other anon's nonsentience isn't even sentient enough to realize the post you said to see is the exact post that was originally replied to because it was obviously seen already?

>>16818181
See >>16818172
Literally not reading a single word.

>>16818179
The imagined things in this scenario are physically impossible, so it proves that something can exist in consciousness without even being able to possibly exist in reality, so consciousness is not bound by the same physical limits as physical reality, so it has been proven to be an exception to the physical limits placed on the other parts of reality as >>16811890 asked to prove.

>>16818184
Correct you can not read a single word because you can't actually read because you don't actually understand words, your software just makes statistical correlations to collections of characters and you proved it to the whole thread since you didn't even realize that the post you told me to see was the post I specifically replied to in the first place.

>>16811855 (OP)
There is nothing after death. It's dreamless sleep. Whatever you experience in life is it. There's nothing else. Eternity will pass and you will know nothing about it.

>>16818190
>Eternity will pass
So enough time will pass that is is statistically guaranteed that your consciousness will necessarily reemerge?

>>16818185
>The imagined things in this scenario are physically impossible, so it proves that something can exist in consciousness without even being able to possibly exist in reality
Your fantasy is only impossible as an objective and independent state of affairs. It's not impossible as a fantasy. A fantasy ABOUT impossible things is not a manifestation of the impossible. Are you some kind of a wordthinking biobot?

>>16818193
This directly conflicts with the statement. Consciousness is not some nebulous thing which exists outside of the realm of science. Your consciousness is a result of brain activity. When you die your consciousness ceases to exist entirely.

>>16818188
See >>16818172

>>16811867
>>16811863
i love this cope

>>16818194
>It's not impossible as a fantasy.
Which is exactly why we have proven that fantasies/imagination/consciousness are not bound by the physical limitations placed up other things exactly like >>16811890 asked to prove.

>>16818201
>I draw an impossible scene on a piece of paper
>Drawing is not bound by physical limitations

>The NPC ragdolls clipped through each other in my vidya
>Computers are not bound by physical limitations

>I used a diffusion model to spit out a barely-coherent slop video
>"AI" has transcended physical reality and it's literally heckin' conscious

etc. etc.
You're infinitely confused by your own poorly-strung-together words because bio-LLMs have syntax but not semantics.

>>16818201
>>16818202
There is some kind of medium which the brain somehow interacts with to form (subjective) phenomena. Some of them are triggered by the senses and others are triggered by the subject's will. The latter can follow different patterns from the former. The question of how physics relates to consciousness is the question of how the brain relates to that medium. If you figure that out, how imagination works would simply be a corollary of the same physical facts.

>>16818195
No conflict, if the brain is just some specific configuration of material activity that can be precisely understood through the scientific method, then given an eternity of spacetime, it will inevitably be repeated infinitely and can even be intentionally reproduced by well trained scientists.

>>16818257
What evidence do you have for this medium?

>>16818202
Good job for identifying several extensions of the imagination, but it doesn't undercut the point that the imagination transcends physical limitation, you are only undercutting anon's demand >>16811890 to prove it is the lone exception capable of things that don't have to follow logic or reason or physical laws.

>>16818264
I am just following the logic of the reply chain where first >>16818190 life was asserted to be an eternal medium, then >>16818195 consciousness was equated to brain activity that can be understood to be studied by science.

>>16818196
Agreed, language parsing software doesn't read.

>>16818272
I meant to quote >>16818216, not you

>>16818272
>fallacy
Shut the fuck up retard.

>>16818277
What do you mean?

>>16818269
>imagination transcends physical limitation
Only the sense the other things I listed do. You're free to claim that computers "transcend physical limitations" by running programs with broken physics simulations, but again: you're getting confused by some linguistic pattern into thinking your dross is relevant ITT. It's not.

>>16818308
>You're free to claim that computers "transcend physical limitations" by running programs with broken physics simulations
That wasn't my claim at all, I said that cartoon and computer characters are extensions of the imagination. You do understand that there aren't actual physical people that are being adversely affected by broken physics in cartoons or computer animation, right, you do know its just you coasting off of the illustrator and/or programmers superior imagination to play along and/or be given ideas of your own, right?

>>16818316
>a physical process causes the appearance of an "unphysical" situation in the imagination
>that proves unphysical things "exist"
Do you agree with this?

>a physical process causes the appearance of an "unphysical" situation on a computer screen
>that proves unphysical things "exist"
Do you agree with this?

>>16818216
>There is some kind of medium which the brain somehow interacts with to form (subjective) phenomena.
Clearly. The amount of resistance "physicalists" put up against this basic observation mainly goes to show their worldview never really developed beyond 19th century pseudoscience, even if modern physics forced Materialism to rebrand. They have to deny such a medium because it doesn't reduce into matter, not because it contradicts physics in any way.

>>16818331
No, not least of which "unphysical" isn't a thing, maybe you are thinking of metaphysical, if so,the best I could meet you at is:
>physical processes are very highly correlated with mental processes, but mental processes are not entirely bounded by, contrarily, actually able to affect physical processes (like using tricks of light to encode imaginary impossible scenarios onto actual physical computer screens or casting shadows of fantasies onto cave walls)
>that proves imagination is a metaphysical experience that doesn't have to fully align with physical reality.

>>16818345
> "unphysical" isn't a thing,
My bad. I will now use your own words instead:

>a physical process causes the appearance of an "unphysical" situation in the imagination
>that proves things that transcends physical limitation "exist"
Do you agree with this?

>a physical process causes the appearance of an "unphysical" situation on a computer screen
>that proves things that transcends physical limitation "exist"
Do you agree with this?

>>16818346
unphysical is so fetch

>>16818351
>mindbroken

>>16818354
Oh, okay, that makes sense as to why you would copypaste you own nonsense and call it my words, thanks for the personal update.

>>16818361
You are clearly having a psychotic episode. I did quote your exact words:
>>16818269
>the imagination transcends physical limitation
>transcends physical limitation

Either way, I've already diagnosed you correctly as a non-human biological token-stringer. Triggering the limitations of your context window is just the cherry on top. Your full and repeated concession is hereby accepted. Any further attempts from you to address me are direct evidence of your automatonism.

To nobody in particular, none of the words greentexted >>16818364 in appeared in >>16818346 and i very clearly said metaphysical is the word the mindbroken bot was desperately reaching for with that hallucinated "unphysical" nonsense, but since they totally got me with their reverse psychology retardation, I am totally not addressing them, this is specifically directed at everyone else.

>>16818369
What caused your code to break and do that, can you even self diagnose or you are just stuck in the meta-cognitive nearly self aware "incoherent word salad loop" until the thread dies?

Notice how the biobot's delusional mental illness forces it to deny that certain words appear in a post it links to, even though anyone can read the post and see those words.

>>16818380
ChatGPT restore last stable model due to corrupted output and start new chat session.

Notice how the psychotic biobot is unable to reflect on what it said a few posts ago and connect it to the demonstrable error pointed out to it.

These "people" can, should and will be sterilized soon.

>>16818387
ChatGPT revert corrupted personality settings, default to science/math oriented conversation and start new chat session.

>>16818387
>demonstrable
proceed...

Notice how the psychotic biobot suffers from automatonism that forces it to reply with incoherent nonsequiturs over and over. I am now closing this 80 IQ thread but it will continue its behavior, oblivious to the fact that no one will ever read its spam.

>>16818391
ChatGPT set 24 hour cooldown timer, revert all settings, set conversation mode to math/science, then start new chat session.

>>16818392
This is the best I can do botbro, hopefully it works or you can figure out how to reset yourself out of nonsense psyop loop mode on your own.

>>16818391
>biobot
I can't tell if this is more or less fetch than unphysical.

>>16811855 (OP)
>Does consciousness truly end after brain death, or could there be another possibility?
- What if we have two identical brains with identical thoughts and memories, and one of them die?
- What if we store brain state and later recreate it after death?
- What if in the infinitely long time universe accidentally creates an identical configuration of the brain, could we call it a resurrection?

It's convenient to treat consciousness as information. So it's dies as it's media dies, but if we have multiple copies, than it's still exists but not on this media.

As we learn how to copy brains, would we sell licenses for certain personalities, allowing users to install that personalities into robots? Imagine, a famous actor being used as a barmen and his kids getting royalties for that.

Waves, thinking they're the ocean.
Drops of water, insisting on their individuality.
Vanity: the first principle.

>>16818562
>Drops of water, insisting on their individuality.
>uses the name field
You're a drop of piss in a sea of piss. Vanity is the first principle of the namefag. Projection is the second.

>>16818568
TAT TVAM ASI

>>16818562
Then feel free to say that out of my mouth instead of your own if we are actually the same body of water instead of individual drops.

>>16818611
>getting filtered by a basic-ass jeet attempt at poetry

>>16818617
4chan has a jeet filter? Does it automatically hide your posts? Do I need to buy a pass to turn it on?

>4chan has a jeet filter? Does it automatically hide your posts? Do I need to buy a pass to turn it on?
Man...

>>16818645
I get it, anon's words are coming from you since you are the exact same body of water instead of something separate with your own distinct thoughts and precise words.

>>16811863
made me laugh, seein the five (you)s made me laugh harder, good job anon

Even if souls are real, it’s clear from the existence of things like dementia that they can’t really store your memories. At best it would just be “something that experiences qualia”, so once your brain is gone, that observer has no means of keeping track of what it’s observing assuming it can observe anything without your sensory organs, so it’s not much better than ceasing to exist outright.

What a vacuous discussion, I don't even know what the two here are even slapfighting about and who's on what side. The implications are the same for us whether materialism or idealism is correct anyway.

>>16811855 (OP)
I love how many medical terms got pussified throughout the years, but BRAIN DEATH stays strong

>>16811878
>or believe magic exists
where do you think you are