Your stream of consciousness is effectively broken when you sleep

Your stream of consciousness is effectively broken when you sleep

So you have one day on earth, and you're spending it doing this??

Not me though, I'm never sleeping again

youre acting like dreams arent a thing. youre basically conscious when youre asleep but you are really relaxed and hallucinating about things that happened earlier today/what you are hearing. not joking when i say that one time i woke up after having a dream about the suite life and the episode was getting wrapped up on the tv.

Only part of your sleep has dreams.

>about things that happened earlier today/what you are hearing

You must be really boring if that's all you dream about.

My studies of conciousness disagree but that doesn't really mean much. I would say that you are always conscious at a subtle level even in the deepest sleep. Read up on yogis explanation of dream yoga and explore this claim for yourself.

I think about dying that way, too; I'll only ever know I die if I wake back up and had somebody inform me.

>Implying that one day of life is as long as 100 years of life because the universe is infinitely old and within that infinity the two are essentially equal.

I dont get it. I have way more days on earth. Sleep doesn't end your life.

>the universe is infinitely old
>old
>implying the concept of 'old' exists in the context of infinity

This. Infinity is a state of being, there's no "new" or "old" because those are terms we use in relation to a beginning or end. Also there are larger and smaller infinities.

He's saying there's no way to determine the you of yesterday is the you of today.

d-does the present exist in the context of infinity?

>Veeky Forums attempts philosophy
harder than you thought it would be, huh

If I step on a "teleporter" that creates a perfect clone of me somewhere else with new atoms and then destroys the original, is that clone still me?

Does "me" really need the exact same atoms that I started off with to still be me? even though less than 0.000001% of the atoms in my present body are the same as the ones I was born with.

Is Nihilism the ultimate redpill?

>Nihilism
>Redpilled

No, because it opens you up to hedonism which is a bluepill supreme.

Also, a perfect clone of you is you according to Veeky Forums's hard materialist consensus.

>Hedonism - (the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.)

uh, what exactly is wrong with this? our pursuit of such pleasures is both the core aspect of natural selection and is what built human civilisation.

do you want everyone to be unhappy and as lost as a broken compass, is that your "red pill" user?

why does a stream of consciousness need to be unbroken to be considered ongoing?

Fucking boring. We already went through this shit about 2,500 years ago.

I'll take what is the Ship of Theseus for $100 Alex.

>We already went through this shit about 2,500 years ago.
Aaaand what was the conclusion?

Nothing in reality actually has a stable identity. Everything is in flux and trying to draw a line between something in one state or another is a human-imposed distinction, one down out of functionality. For example you might draw a line between when your car's paint job is "chipped" or "like new" based on some criteria you made up. You would say at one point your car's paint is in a stable state of "like new" when in reality it's not stable at all, every second the paint job is different, at the microscopic level.

OP makes the mistake of assuming that before he is cloned he is a stable identity with a clear identity. He isn't, his atoms and forms are changing every moment. The only reason he thinks he is "the same" is because it's functional to have a concept of "self" that is "the same". Whether the clone is the same or not is going to based a human-defined criteria.

For instance. Let's say you were a slaver and you were cloning OP so that you could have slaves to work in a mine. One slave is as good as another so as far as you are concerned both clones are identical. Than one of the slaves loses a foot and can't work, now you start viewing these as separate things because of their difference in functionality.

I don't understand your post because time is relative

Correct, happy to see there are other enlightened individuals on Veeky Forums

...

hard materialism is cringe

Your stream of consciousness is effectively broken when you doze out.

Even if the stream of consciousness isn't broken there still isn't anything absolute tying one moment to the next into one unified identity except for temporal proximity. The different moments of thought are only as sharing in an identity as a row of rocks can be said to be sharing in an identity, in both cases it's just nearness (first in time and second in space).

Define "you" please. Whose stream of consciousness is broken?

Agree. Self-consciousness, i.e. feeling of 'I" - is just continuity of being awake. Everything else - body, memory, personal traits - can be replicated in theory and hence doesn't content uniqueness inseparable from self-consciousness. This continuity is broken by sleep. Analogy is like operative memory on computer vs records on hard drive. You can't split in two identical "I's" while being awake, but tomorrow two I's may be rise from sleep. This is why I am staying awake so late - I just want to postpone me imminent discontinuity and effective death of my ego as soon as I fall asleep.

>not lucid dreaming

redpill =/= conservatism
redpill just equals any form of enlightenment

so if you make a perfect clone of yourself you have two bodies?

There is no real "you" in the first place. Each body's thoughts would be equally positioned in proximity to the thoughts before the cloning took place, though neither body would have access to the sensory input or thoughts of the other after the cloning. Just as nothing absolute connects one moment of thought to another in a single uncloned body, nothing absolute would connect the last moment of thought in the source body with the first moment of thought in the copied body. In short the anons who bring up this scenario to say "it'd just be a clone so brain uploading doesn't really give you immortality" are right to notice a lack of any actual continuous "self" thing in said scenario but are stopping short of turning this concept back on everyday moment to moment thinking in a non-cloned body and realizing there was never any such actual continuous "self" thing to begin with. That extra step of seeing how this applies to everyday thought and concept of "self" is what the buddhist anatta (non-self) doctrine is all about.

>le physical monism meme

Is anyone unironically and non-accidentally a dualist still in modern times? How do you think the two worlds interact with each other? Pineal gland like Descartes thought?

>How do you think the two worlds interact with each other?
no idea. However the more we learn about the brain the less we find out we actually know.

there's no valid physical explanation for the hard problem of consciousness. In fact, split brain patients appear to have a single consciousness which is pretty good support for dualism.

there's some goofy explanations like the integrated information theory (i.e. I'm conscious, you're conscious, all humans are conscious, monkeys are conscious, your dog is conscious, bees are conscious, ants are conscious.. oh yeah and your phone, your computer and America as a whole all have consciousness)

>In fact, split brain patients appear to have a single consciousness which is pretty good support for dualism.
I don't think that's good support for dualism. If you've looked into those split brain experiments then you know the thing that keeps coming up in those subjects is how absolutely delusional they become when justifying how they believe they know what they think they know. They'll come up with ridiculous stories to rationalize why they believe what they're holding on the one side's hand is actually what they're seeing with the other side's eye. The logical conclusion to this behavior is that there's an extremely strong rationalizing narrative functionality that exists to resolve conflicts in information. It's not at all unusual given this rationalizing narrative functionality that these people would still report in terms of a single unified 'consciousness' even though their behavior reveals the differences in which side is actually getting which inputs. I think it's way, way, way more likely the stuff that seems mysterious about how 'conscoiusness' works seems that way because our personal sense of our own 'consciousness' is itself one of these rationalized narratives and very different from what's really going on in our brains when these cognitive processes take place than it is likely that there's a second non-material world that requires the discovery of a separate new non-material specific physics to sort out.

I don't think any modern dualists consider knowledge and senses, for the most part, to be on the "mind" side of things anymore

you are eternal, time bends, dimensions are crossed and then reverted.
nothing is real all you have is here all you are is now.
even JFK is back. see pic related.
revenge is soon, the cia will fall from the inside out. then I will eat the left overs.

>consciousness ends when you sleep

you faggots must sleep fucking hard because I'm pretty sure you're dreaming through the entire sleep

You probably don't dream the entire time you're asleep. You definitely don't have nothing but REM sleep the entire time you're asleep and REM is generally accepted to be the time when you do most or all of your dreaming.

idk man I'm an expert at staying on the edge of consciousness and I can tell you I definitely start dreaming from the start

All that's required for you to think that is your brain producing the belief "I was dreaming the entire time." This belief doesn't need to have anything to do with whether or not you actually dreamed the entire time. And brains are extremely good at making you believe untrue things with great conviction. A well documented phenomenon among stroke patients is the delusion they can still move a paralyzed part of their body even though it's obvious to everyone else around them that they can't for example. Like their arm will just be hanging there completely immobile and they'll flat out deny anything's wrong. And when pressed on the issue they'll say crazy shit like they aren't moving it because they're tired or the arm the other person is pointing to actually belongs to the patient sitting in the bed next to theirs. Or in perfectly healthy subjects you have change blindness where you can do shit like have a guy in a gorilla suit slowly walk across the screen on a video you're having them watch and they won't notice it at all.

It also can't get refuted, though, which means it's here to stay until otherwise.

explain consciousness then

imagine you wrote out and modeled all the brain's functions on a piece of paper

would that also be conscious? even though it'd be systematically equivalent to a real brain??!?

>Your stream of consciousness is effectively broken when you sleep

>So you have one day on earth, and you're spending it doing this??

You are not the same person you were five minutes ago also.

anyways,
muh criterion of continuity fag

If you atomically duplicated a brain it would be conscious, yes.

elaborate

oh fuck off searle

If we're going by monism (and have no reason not to at the moment), consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. Instead of trying to understand that point of complexity, we can just duplicate a natural brain and should get another conscious entity. Literally one human clone answers the duality problem, or refutes the question, rather.

>consciousness is an emergent property of complexity
do you think that the whole human race has some form of consciousness?

"i'm a Nihilist"
"nothing matters in life except the validation i get by pushing my thoughts and beliefs onto others"

Individuals, yes. Maybe some wonky post-human civilization would have one on a united scale.

individual humans act remarkably similar to neurons in some ways

7.5 billion people vs 100 billion neurons

those numbers aren't too distinct