What happens when you die? - Page 4

On May 03 2017 22:07 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + Everything about this is pure speculation. Prove me otherwise. Well, why don't you present your case then? What has you convinced that the default position should be abandoned and we should entertain "all those possibilities" equally? Which possibilities are the most likely according to you? Is it just because of the sheer amount of possibilities (seems to be what you are defending)? I haven't seen any good reason to believe that the belief in an afterlife theory -- whichever one -- is anything more than the result of a scared animal attempting to deny its own mortality. Humans have a self-serving need to believe in something greater than themselves or that they will somehow persist after perishing. No matter how many other possibilities someone presents to me, it isn't going to affect my conviction that this is the most likely reason for the belief. And since there is no way to verify any of the life after death claims, then this is really the only aspect of it that is meaningful to discuss imo.

I cannot provide solid evidence to either case, thats the thing. Thats why such topics are pointless too, for the default position to be anything other than the one I present, you should be the one providing evidence, not the other way around, my position is the most balanced one logically, isn't it ? We do not have enough information regarding life and the universe to come to a probable conclusion. You address the matter with a poker player mentality of developing a conclusion based on limited amount of information, which doesn't amount to anything if we use the scientific method and just clash it with various counter theories e.g. If The Big Bang for example works in a way where everything repeats itself over and over, then we are surely reborn. Each non-existence theory would have a counter with the data we currently have.

Obviously you're right that we are searching for a validation for post-life existence. I myself don't care, because its out of my hands, it either does or does not happen, but nothing I could do would change that and fear of death is another case.

Also Baal's definition of existence is what would shift the discussion as well and validate the non-existence theory. However he dwelled philosophically. I like to discuss things with facts. If a person gets reborn for example but has no recollection of previous life, doesn't mean that he didn't exist before, as Baal would believe. Physically he would have been there, that it wouldn't matter to the person is another topic.

On May 04 2017 00:36 Baalim wrote: If person A is teleported to point B he will have a continuous experience of consciousness even if the teleportation process would mean to kill the source (A).

Let's take a step/post back and break it down. We have two options as you wrote:
1) If you teleport someone all you create is a continuous consciousness OR
2) If you create a new consciousness and the other one dies you still don't know where that other consciousness go

Case 1) is the teleportation we know from films and books - person A enters a machine and teleports to another place as the same person A. His initial consciousness is intact - the process is similar to as when you go to sleep, just that you wake up (teleport) at a different place.

Case 2) involves a process, in which the initial consciousness is destroyed and then recreated - it is not similar to sleep since in your sleep your brain/subconsciousness is still functioning. To put it in the film scene - it is more like some magician made you a frog and then a person again.

Note that both these cases do NOT involve different kind of teleportation. We are talking about the same way of teleporting someone - we just don't know in which case we will end up (similar to death).

So now we discuss case 1) since case 2) does not offer us new info (we don't know what happens with this initial consciousness as you wrote).

For case 1) to be successful this means that consciousness should not reduce to brain/matter (you can have conscious forms of life, which do not have a brain - conscious AI made from silicon chips for example) since teleportation involves changing that brain/matter, but not changing its way of functioning (the information flow is just transferred/teleported). So if one has continuous consciousness after teleportation consciousness reduces to information (cryonics for example are based on exactly this information-theoretic death theory, although these two are not exactly the same since in the cryonics the information is only preserved, but the flow is destroyed) or matter reduces to consciousness (see idealism).

Consciousness is not awareness. You can be conscious yet unaware and unconscious(asleep) but aware. If you say you're non-existant when you sleep then who is the dreamer?

On May 04 2017 08:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 04 2017 00:37 asdf2000 wrote:   On May 03 2017 22:18 Baalim wrote:   On May 03 2017 19:18 asdf2000 wrote: Of course you can talk about likelihoods. It is much, much more likely that non-existence doesn't follow death. None of us know if we have ever experienced non existence, or if even such a thing is possible. However we do know that existence is possible, because we do experience that. You experience existence every day and non-existence every night. For your argument to be true you are either arguing that only reality exist within your consciousness or that you have experienced consciousness in many beings/forms you just dont remember. The first argument would be one of those absurd sophisms I was talking about, and the second is flawed because as I've said before, having no memory of past experiences renders your consciousness as brand new. my post isn't nonsense at all. many people who have devoted their entire lives to spiritual reflection have come to similar conclusions. you're arrogant. So your definition of non-existence is what? Not remembering things? We certainly don't experience "non-existence" when we sleep. Nor do we stop existing, if you want to put it that way. I don't even understand what your 2nd sentence meant, but I am pretty sure you haven't realized my position. From the perspective of the person, consciousness and existence is the same thing, and yes, having no memories is the same as non-existence. For example, you could have reincarnated 100 times before your life but you dont remember, and that would be exactly the same as if you were a new consciousness, (setting aside all arguments about cognitive abilities for simplicity). Most people who dedicate their lives to spiritual reflection end up with idiotic ideas, priests, imams, babas etc, and yes I'm arrogant what else is new? What part of my 2nd sentence isnt clear? I was replying to the teleportation post

I disagree with this. If tomorrow you get in a car accident and lose all memory, you won't "stop existing". Heck, maybe you will eventually remember stuff.

Also, let's say scientist tomorrow said "we discorvered there is NOTHING after life", i think it would be pretty different from "We discorvered humans reincarnate as a new human after death".

Of course, you would lose your current consciouness and all memories, but.... Thats clearly not the same as never experiencing anything ever again.


Also,

On May 04 2017 08:20 Baalim wrote: For example, you could have reincarnated 100 times before your life but you dont remember, and that would be exactly the same as if you were a new consciousness, (setting aside all arguments about cognitive abilities for simplicity)."

Even tho my current life will be the exact same wether or not its my first existence, the big difference is, if i've been reincarnating 100 times, it means i will reincarnate again after this life, which is a pretty big deal imo.

On May 04 2017 15:45 napalm wrote: Consciousness is not awareness. You can be conscious yet unaware and unconscious(asleep) but aware. If you say you're non-existant when you sleep then who is the dreamer?

There is a state of dreamless sleep.

On May 04 2017 09:02 Expiate wrote: Show nested quote + On May 04 2017 00:36 Baalim wrote: If person A is teleported to point B he will have a continuous experience of consciousness even if the teleportation process would mean to kill the source (A). Let's take a step/post back and break it down. We have two options as you wrote: 1) If you teleport someone all you create is a continuous consciousness OR 2) If you create a new consciousness and the other one dies you still don't know where that other consciousness go Case 1) is the teleportation we know from films and books - person A enters a machine and teleports to another place as the same person A. His initial consciousness is intact - the process is similar to as when you go to sleep, just that you wake up (teleport) at a different place. Case 2) involves a process, in which the initial consciousness is destroyed and then recreated - it is not similar to sleep since in your sleep your brain/subconsciousness is still functioning. To put it in the film scene - it is more like some magician made you a frog and then a person again. Note that both these cases do NOT involve different kind of teleportation. We are talking about the same way of teleporting someone - we just don't know in which case we will end up (similar to death). So now we discuss case 1) since case 2) does not offer us new info (we don't know what happens with this initial consciousness as you wrote). For case 1) to be successful this means that consciousness should not reduce to brain/matter (you can have conscious forms of life, which do not have a brain - conscious AI made from silicon chips for example) since teleportation involves changing that brain/matter, but not changing its way of functioning (the information flow is just transferred/teleported). So if one has continuous consciousness after teleportation consciousness reduces to information (cryonics for example are based on exactly this information-theoretic death theory, although these two are not exactly the same since in the cryonics the information is only preserved, but the flow is destroyed) or matter reduces to consciousness (see idealism).

Why teleportation in scenario 1 does not reduce consciousness to the brain? we are talking about a perfect copy, atom per atom, therefore you are teleporting the brain with all its function and memory, like teleporting an AI computer, every bit will still be in 1 and 0s retaining its conscious state in matter.

On May 04 2017 16:23 Floofy wrote: Show nested quote + On May 04 2017 08:20 Baalim wrote:   On May 04 2017 00:37 asdf2000 wrote:   On May 03 2017 22:18 Baalim wrote:   On May 03 2017 19:18 asdf2000 wrote: Of course you can talk about likelihoods. It is much, much more likely that non-existence doesn't follow death. None of us know if we have ever experienced non existence, or if even such a thing is possible. However we do know that existence is possible, because we do experience that. You experience existence every day and non-existence every night. For your argument to be true you are either arguing that only reality exist within your consciousness or that you have experienced consciousness in many beings/forms you just dont remember. The first argument would be one of those absurd sophisms I was talking about, and the second is flawed because as I've said before, having no memory of past experiences renders your consciousness as brand new. my post isn't nonsense at all. many people who have devoted their entire lives to spiritual reflection have come to similar conclusions. you're arrogant. So your definition of non-existence is what? Not remembering things? We certainly don't experience "non-existence" when we sleep. Nor do we stop existing, if you want to put it that way. I don't even understand what your 2nd sentence meant, but I am pretty sure you haven't realized my position. From the perspective of the person, consciousness and existence is the same thing, and yes, having no memories is the same as non-existence. For example, you could have reincarnated 100 times before your life but you dont remember, and that would be exactly the same as if you were a new consciousness, (setting aside all arguments about cognitive abilities for simplicity). Most people who dedicate their lives to spiritual reflection end up with idiotic ideas, priests, imams, babas etc, and yes I'm arrogant what else is new? What part of my 2nd sentence isnt clear? I was replying to the teleportation post I disagree with this. If tomorrow you get in a car accident and lose all memory, you won't "stop existing". Heck, maybe you will eventually remember stuff. Also, let's say scientist tomorrow said "we discorvered there is NOTHING after life", i think it would be pretty different from "We discorvered humans reincarnate as a new human after death". Of course, you would lose your current consciouness and all memories, but.... Thats clearly not the same as never experiencing anything ever again. Also,   On May 04 2017 08:20 Baalim wrote: For example, you could have reincarnated 100 times before your life but you dont remember, and that would be exactly the same as if you were a new consciousness, (setting aside all arguments about cognitive abilities for simplicity)." Even tho my current life will be the exact same wether or not its my first existence, the big difference is, if i've been reincarnating 100 times, it means i will reincarnate again after this life, which is a pretty big deal imo.

You are failing to grasp the concept.

When people have amnesia they retain certain memories and cognitive abilities, so mainly most of you are gone, so you are not a "brand new" consciousness, but still a pretty new one, if you remember something then this new consciousness is expanded with this information.

If you dont remember past lives your reincarnation is meaningless, you could be in your 100th reincarnation or be a new consciousness and there would be literally 0 difference.


People would feel different if they were told they would reincarnate without memory or they would die because people cling to permanence, they make up gods and stories of eternity right now, but their stupidity doesn't change logic.

On May 04 2017 19:29 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 04 2017 15:45 napalm wrote: Consciousness is not awareness. You can be conscious yet unaware and unconscious(asleep) but aware. If you say you're non-existant when you sleep then who is the dreamer? There is a state of dreamless sleep.

this, I obviously mean dreamless sleep which If I remember correctly is the majority of the time we sleep

On May 05 2017 00:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 04 2017 16:23 Floofy wrote:   On May 04 2017 08:20 Baalim wrote:   On May 04 2017 00:37 asdf2000 wrote:   On May 03 2017 22:18 Baalim wrote:   On May 03 2017 19:18 asdf2000 wrote: Of course you can talk about likelihoods. It is much, much more likely that non-existence doesn't follow death. None of us know if we have ever experienced non existence, or if even such a thing is possible. However we do know that existence is possible, because we do experience that. You experience existence every day and non-existence every night. For your argument to be true you are either arguing that only reality exist within your consciousness or that you have experienced consciousness in many beings/forms you just dont remember. The first argument would be one of those absurd sophisms I was talking about, and the second is flawed because as I've said before, having no memory of past experiences renders your consciousness as brand new. my post isn't nonsense at all. many people who have devoted their entire lives to spiritual reflection have come to similar conclusions. you're arrogant. So your definition of non-existence is what? Not remembering things? We certainly don't experience "non-existence" when we sleep. Nor do we stop existing, if you want to put it that way. I don't even understand what your 2nd sentence meant, but I am pretty sure you haven't realized my position. From the perspective of the person, consciousness and existence is the same thing, and yes, having no memories is the same as non-existence. For example, you could have reincarnated 100 times before your life but you dont remember, and that would be exactly the same as if you were a new consciousness, (setting aside all arguments about cognitive abilities for simplicity). Most people who dedicate their lives to spiritual reflection end up with idiotic ideas, priests, imams, babas etc, and yes I'm arrogant what else is new? What part of my 2nd sentence isnt clear? I was replying to the teleportation post I disagree with this. If tomorrow you get in a car accident and lose all memory, you won't "stop existing". Heck, maybe you will eventually remember stuff. Also, let's say scientist tomorrow said "we discorvered there is NOTHING after life", i think it would be pretty different from "We discorvered humans reincarnate as a new human after death". Of course, you would lose your current consciouness and all memories, but.... Thats clearly not the same as never experiencing anything ever again. Also,   On May 04 2017 08:20 Baalim wrote: For example, you could have reincarnated 100 times before your life but you dont remember, and that would be exactly the same as if you were a new consciousness, (setting aside all arguments about cognitive abilities for simplicity)." Even tho my current life will be the exact same wether or not its my first existence, the big difference is, if i've been reincarnating 100 times, it means i will reincarnate again after this life, which is a pretty big deal imo. You are failing to grasp the concept. When people have amnesia they retain certain memories and cognitive abilities, so mainly most of you are gone, so you are not a "brand new" consciousness, but still a pretty new one, if you remember something then this new consciousness is expanded with this information. If you dont remember past lives your reincarnation is meaningless, you could be in your 100th reincarnation or be a new consciousness and there would be literally 0 difference. People would feel different if they were told they would reincarnate without memory or they would die because people cling to permanence, they make up gods and stories of eternity right now, but their stupidity doesn't change logic.

I do understand your concept.

There is no difference for me right now wether this is my first consciousness or if i've been alive before, i agree on this.
BUT, I do think there is a pretty large difference between knowing you will reincarnate after death, and knowing its just over after death.

Yes, reincarnation does mean your current self kinda does die forever, but still, you get to experience things again.


I could be wrong, but i think its highly unlikely our current consciousness will remain after death.

Majority or not you say you're non-existent when you sleep, which simply is not true because there also is dream state, besides you can be aware in dreamless state aswell if your mind is still with enough consistency. Unconsciousness simply is not a basis for non-existence.

we go to sleep after death for some time, then when the 2nd coming of Jesus. Judgement day will comes, get resurrected and we either go to heaven if we are righteous or hell if we sin.
I choose the former so i can not wait till that day when there will be unlimited happiness.

Also gambling is not sin, the love of money is the root of all evil. Love of money is a sin. So in short DO NOT SIN.

Just my opinion and if anyone of you like to learn about the bible give me a message.
I am a converted christian, so i have been studying the bible religiously.

lol

On May 05 2017 00:02 Baalim wrote: Why teleportation in scenario 1 does not reduce consciousness to the brain?

If consciousness reduces to brain and teleportation involves changing that brain/matter this means that you can NOT have continuous consciousness. This is like a theorem. If C reduces to B and you change B to B', C won't exist any more, although B = B'. In our case you will have C' on the place of C with C' = C. This change from C to C' is making this a non-continuous consciousness (aka you fall in case 2).

the brain isn't changing constantly already? so I don't have continuous (aka made-up) consciousness

On May 05 2017 06:57 napalm wrote: Majority or not you say you're non-existent when you sleep, which simply is not true because there also is dream state, besides you can be aware in dreamless state aswell if your mind is still with enough consistency. Unconsciousness simply is not a basis for non-existence.

He's not wrong since he didn't say you are exclusively non-existent when you sleep.

And I don't care how much you train yourself, you will never be able to be lucid as you enter deep sleep. If you become lucid it's because you're out of deep sleep.

In every meaningful way, unconsciousness is non-existence. Unless you want to pretend to care about the various microorganisms that are still alive and "aware" in your body. The lights are off and it doesn't matter which words we use -- we're simply not there.

Assuming death feels the same as deep sleep or anesthesia we die every night and wake up as a new person and only memories from past days give us illusion of continuity, question is what happens if somebody creates an identical copy of your brain by uploading it to a computer or by teleportation (assuming we have the technology ) and destroys the "original" , would you still feel the same continuity ? Logic says it shouldn't matter since your body replaces most cells every ~10 years and you are still you, although its happening gradually and not in 100% so we cant be certain.


The more i think about it the less Im afraid of death, worst case scenario its just eternal sleep where energy and atoms go back to the universe, who knows maybe after many billions of years the same atoms recycled countless of times will randomly create RNA and start life on another planet, there is also option we "switch" to body in another multiverse where you are still alive, or if universe is truly infinite there must exist another planet exactly like earth maybe you get reborn without memories of you past life, finding out we are simulation created by advanced civilization seems like the most depressing option.

On May 05 2017 15:32 Expiate wrote: Show nested quote + On May 05 2017 00:02 Baalim wrote: Why teleportation in scenario 1 does not reduce consciousness to the brain? If consciousness reduces to brain and teleportation involves changing that brain/matter this means that you can NOT have continuous consciousness. This is like a theorem. If C reduces to B and you change B to B', C won't exist any more, although B = B'. In our case you will have C' on the place of C with C' = C. This change from C to C' is making this a non-continuous consciousness (aka you fall in case 2).

what? again I dont understand what you mean.


If you think your brain as a computer, (processor and Hadr drive), when you teleport it thus copying it perfectly to the subatomic level, it means that every bit of information in the hard-drive will remain the same, so you will experience a continuous consciousness, you will be in one place and then in the other, nothing has changed.

On May 05 2017 18:28 Loco wrote: In every meaningful way, unconsciousness is non-existence..

On May 06 2017 02:50 maryn wrote: Assuming death feels the same as deep sleep or anesthesia we die every night and wake up as a new person and only memories from past days give us illusion of continuity, question is what happens if somebody creates an identical copy of your brain by uploading it to a computer or by teleportation (assuming we have the technology ) and destroys the "original" , would you still feel the same continuity ? Logic says it shouldn't matter

Yes

I always say this in a "consciousness" thread, but you people need some SOMA in your lives.

http://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/282140/