Let's See Veeky Forums's Mental Prowess

meant to say cease being John and be Jane

haha smoke weed dude

There is no wrong answer; so the whole point is to provide an analytic reason to your decision.

Once you've died, you will not remember what you came to know. It will be a new life. But gamblers always love their odds, don't they?

Time is not cyclical from a metaphysical perspective. This does not prove time travel possible, for it will not be "you". You will have gained once-in-a-lifetime knowledge to decide to cope with.

If you stumbled across the answer to your life after death, it would not change your very being? I highly doubt that.

Define free. Are you free? Existentially, are you free?

Clever. Dismissive and contrive, but clever.

How does it not apply to your existence? How else would you experience it besides knowing it?

You, as in the state of awareness you experience every moment of being alive. The man watching the projector behind a pair of eyes.

I don't think it's some deep, revelatory thought. It's merely a concept to serve a thought experiment. If you can't handle your own thought experiment, then don't take it out on me.

Why did you answer everyone but me you stupid fucking faggot?

On my phone and the reply box blocked me from seeing your post.

Simply one day you are stricken by an undeniable assurance in the fact that you are living and to live all human lives that have been and will be. It has been seen so clearly in your mind you know it to be true to your core.

The metaphysics are what said in the other reply. Otherwise there are no other metaphysical boundaries. You may believe in any metaphysical sentiment as long as it doesn't contradict the stated restriction when answering :
>You, as in the state of awareness you experience every moment of being alive. The man watching the projector behind a pair of eyes.
and, a little extra
>None of the knowledge you've attained or will ever attain in any life will carry over from one to another. You only know what you know now.

>lawwwwwwwwjik
>intelligence

>value placed in it would be subjective
>insane thought experiment

those two things together don't make sense.

>You, as in the state of awareness you experience every moment of being alive. The man watching the projector behind a pair of eyes.

Yeah you've lost me, your thinking is based too much on metaphysical fairy dust. We are all individual entities. There is no soul or spiritual "you" (not that you can't be spiritual and enjoy the numinous). If you want to argue fine, but I can't argue back because that very premise is nonsensical and therefore any "answers" to it are essentially null. The you is a material being.

If you don't want to agree because it makes you seem sort of insignificant think of it this way - we are all humans in this together, and humans are all literally pieces of the universe. That part of the universe and something of you will live on even after you die. You have much in common with other people, with the universe, more than you think - in fact you are the universe. Non omnis moriar.

If you're still feeling spiritual look up Alan Watts. Amazing thinker. I think you'll enjoy him.

>analytic reason
Why?

Intelligence is the manifestation of societies vanity. Give me a reason I'm wrong. And I'll give you another reason I'm right. If neither of us get angry, we're having a logical discussion about concepts in superposition. Intelligence isn't a factor here.

>lawwwwwwjik is good
I never said intelligence is good btw

*inane not insane
You're right though, to clarify though if one were to take the inane presumptions seriously and answer the question - it would ultimately be a very subjective answer as it has to do with value.

>phoneposting while monitoring a discussion thread

>None of the knowledge you've attained or will ever attain in any life will carry over from one to another. You only know what you know now.

Then I don't think anything of the value at all. My perception of this life will end in the equivalent of annihilation. Getting a new life is simply nothing to me. I ask for more clarification of the metaphysics so there may be a purpose to it.

You are a cluster of of atoms that are as relatively far apart as our galaxy is to Andromeda. Every seven years, you are 100% completely different atoms than you were before. Everything that ever made you up seven years ago is in the dirt, in the air, in the water. The only thing that never changed was your mind. And even that has undergone some level of transformation, has it not? Your being is a static as the ocean yet. That's scientific fact, not metaphysical thought space.

If you choose to see it as inane, that's is OK. You're attacking me for asking you to exercise a thought. The mind is an assembly of perceived forces against the body, going on a purely physical notion. By definition, would that make the mind a distorted recalibration of all the forces around it? Does your body feel pain? Or do you?

I feel like your under the impression I'm some bigot who thinks himself profound. I'm literally bring ambiguous. I'm only countering what I'm given.

You are looking at this as if you're answering a question and not putting yourself there. You're asking for me to put half the thought into your thought.

Do your best to focus on your state of being right now. Not your thoughts, or your life around you. Focus on the outlines of your vision as the whole of your being, and nothing else. Hold this focus intently and while doing so, imagine you're someone you know well or love. Parents work best. Don't imagine anything you'd do as them or their general being, but imagine that the outline of your vision, and all within, is theirs instead of yours, but it is still "you". Then think about certain beliefs of characterizations this person has and do your best to empathize while holding focus.
That's the metaphysical essence I'm going for. That's what I mean by "you". Any more than that, and the question does then become me blabbering on and being a pseud.

That's scientific fact, not metaphysical thought space.
When did I refute that?

Okay I will. And don't take that the wrong way - I'm not attacking you, just your thought experiment. :)

>perceived forces against the body
what do you mean against? I think you're trying too hard to separate the mind, the body etc.
It's one thing. It's all one thing. You are the universe. I've gotta sleep have a good night.

You're saying the same thing I am trying to covey in the thought experiment you're arguing against. You must be tired. Good night man.

Just like every piece of wisdom that held any sort of significance to me, it would only be a temporary paradigm shift. I cant comprehend something until it actually takes effect in the now, or at least if it was zealously approaching.

If you take the word reincarnate completely out of context sure

re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations
"he is said to be a reincarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu"

Seems like the exact context I'm using it in, I'm not sure what you're saying you believe it to be then.

It does not apply to my existence because of my own bias. Technically, it could or it could not. I have no idea of knowing. But anything that can't be directly proven to exist I generally assume to not apply to my existence, like an afterlife. This concept is incredibly interesting and I would place great value upon it were it true, but not on life.

Your question states that I now have complete knowledge of what life has in store for me, meaning I now know what happens after I die. My value of the concept remains the same, but my valuing of life drops precipitously.

Finally, a direct answer with some reasoning behind it. It only took 30 posts to get there.

To poke and prod some more, would you say that it only decreases the value of your current life, knowing that the information will not be retained across lives, or does it decrease the value of all life to you? And why?

Well, I personally don't hold animal/plant life to the same standard as human life because of my own inherent instincts, so I'll just assume that when you say "all life" you mean humans specifically.

It decreases the value of all life, since I now know that mine and others' conscious, or metaphysical perception of the material universe, will be carried across multiple bodies, in a way.

If I had the knowledge right now, the value of all life would drop. If I died, went through reincarnation in a different body, and had none of the knowledge from before, I guess it all depends on my upbringing and whether or not I'll regain that prior information.

>And why?
Suffering and pain varies in degree and length of experience across all lives, but those lives will be rejuvenated continuously and thus it becomes a constant with no potential relief (unless somehow the future holds trans-humanism and pain is nonexistent).

I'm beating around the bush, but basically all experiences are nothing because they will be embraced at some point or another in the infinite stream of reincarnations.

>every person from every time

So, you'll go through one body and then you won't be placed back into it? Or will you eventually end up in the same body by chance or time?

I did mean humans, glad you understood.

What of the nature of our work? Would you say that for the billions of lives of great suffering you'd live, would the lives of the great kings, emperors, and most wealthy and endowed (get your head out of the gutter) find you some form of peace?

What do you believe? Do you believe you'd live all human lives and then repeat the cycle of cycles? Or would there eventually be an end, as peaceful as sleep or as dark as a black hole? There's no restriction there.

Also, trans-humanism is entirely fathomable within this thought experiment, since it is becoming a true possibility.

You're focusing too much on the constraints you believe I wish to have in place when the only two I wish you to acknowledge are what I said . Otherwise the only constraint ate what you decide to acknowledge in your responses.

>Would you say that for the billions of lives of great suffering you'd live, would the lives of the great kings, emperors, and most wealthy and endowed (get your head out of the gutter) find you some form of peace?

I believe every human will find their own form of suffering, regardless of their status. As of now, the idea of living my life as a king sounds nice, but, of course, there's no telling when I'll go back to being a beggar who was abused by his/her parents and lives in a harsh, cold, windy city. Living as a king at that time, without the knowledge, would be great, I'm sure. I don't think there's a way to "even things out" since every life lived is its own immutable element and nothing from previous lives can meld whatsoever. Every pain will be newfound, every facet of life that brings torment will be fresh, and it has no end. Even nobles have their stresses.

So, I'm just going to ignore the theories of how the universe will end or be remade for now. I'm just going to say that there will always be more and more human lives to live and that there will never be an end. There's the odd chance that I'll be placed back into the same body by chance.

TL;DR - Living the lives of emperors/kings brings me no peace in my state of realization. The cycle will repeat forever.

I don't know. I'm only 18 and not well-read on philosophy whatsoever.

No.

All I feel is disgust.

Neither am I? But everything the great philosophers thought about was right in front of their faces, just as it is for you.

I come to this board and frequently am shocked by how many people here don't even believe in or understand half the things their defending or stating when it comes to beliefs of great thinkers.

I just wanted to do this to encourage a little free thought of your own. To sit and ask yourself questions that press the outline of your being, without someone telling you what "the best answers should be". This world today does so much to confine your being and there needs to be more people out their encouraging the understanding of yourself as the world applies to you, and not how you apply to world. And I feel the best way to achieve that is to perform thought experiments on the things you don't know how to explain of yourself and your being based off of your experiences in life. There is nothing wrong with conformity, but as long as our minds are separated by space-time no one will have the same experience. No one will come to the exact same conclusions as to just what this life is. Even the people who share their beliefs with others and together agree upon so much of their ideals, have some level of relatively experiential understanding that separates their ultimate understanding from another's similar beliefs. And honestly, the younger you are, the better it is. Your mind still retains a youthful innocence within its realms of abstract thought, allowing you to reach further than those whose minds have seeped into their bones. Empty space should not be more flexible than your being, since their essentially the same thing.

OK.

OK.

I'm not going to press you to do this. But thanks for the bumps.

>that affirmed for certain
How would I know if it is for certain? Are we talking psychological certainty here, like being certain that the sun will rise the next day despite not having empirical data at hand or being an astronomer etc? Our ancestors were certain about many falsities. There is no way I am aware of to be certain of being reborn beyond psychological certainty. Is this science fictio?. I wish I was at home.

You are missing the point. Read what I said here . By that statement, if you can not attempt to fathom your own manner in which you would know for certain, you can base your thought off of. Also .

Please understand I'm not saying these are facts or anything. I'm playing this game just as much as you are, I'm just trying to help you along. I fully believe there's should be classes taught in middle school and high school that teach the analytics of your thoughts and imaginings by performing thought experiments. I'm just trying to encourage a little free thinking.

Watch "Being John Malkovitch"

The idea of "reincarnation" is nonsense. I am not you, nor are you me, neither could we be any other people. You can "imagine" being another person all you like: it will remain fantasy.

Of course you aren't someone else, nor are they you.

Why the mimicry? Could you perhaps explain the point you're trying to make instead of parroting?

Okay, how about this.

Of course you aren't someone else, nor are they you. You are you and they are they. But of course you are someone else and they you when you are they and they are you.

Or should I say...

Squwak!

>But of course you are someone else and they you when you are they and they are you.

This is nonsense. "Of course an apple is an orange when an orange is an apple." Utter tripe, logically speaking. If we're talking in poetic i.e. non-logical terms, whatever.

Depending on whether I was able to remember any individual incarnation or not, it would either be hell or not different at all.

If I could remember, I become essentially everyone at once and my individuality would fade into nothingness. In an infinite existence any individual experience becomes blurred as essentially vacuous in terms of the all.

If I couldn't remember, who I am as an individual dies with every incarnation. "I" still die, and any knowledge of the reincarnation dies with me. The next me would have no relation to the other me and would essentially be a different person anyway, so this knowledge becomes pointless.

I recommend reading "El Inmortal" by Jorge Luis Borges (short story), for something in a similar vain to what you propose. It pretty much summarizes what I think on the subject.

An apple that is an orange is still and apple you've just decided to call an orange. The state of being experienced by anyone is entirely the same yet utterly different. You can not compare metaphorical metaphysical imagery to physical reality. Read what was said here before when others have asked similar questions. It's the primary excuse I'm standing by as to why I'm being short with you.

You're missing the entire point of the post and you're missing the entire thread. I will not pull you by the arm, let alone hold your hand.

I would value my current life as very valuable, because compared to the other lives I have become enlightened.

I read it.

The "point," as you say, is to engage in navel-gazing. "Let us play with a fantasy and see how far down the rabbit hole we can go," seems to be what you're asking. But that's the point: you want us to acquiesce to your conceit. And if I were to play your game, the first step would be to "value my life" one way or another, which presupposes I compare it to other lives and impose objective metrics (wealth, security, friendship, happiness) over each life and thereby describe which one is "better." This is also a nonsense question, because your premise is nonsense. Not only that, it's unhealthy and judgmental: you're implicitly asking us to say that one person or one mode of life is better than another.

Your jumping off point is too logical to entice creativity, and too illogical to make sense. You have made a bad thread, and it incenses me that you believe you're the fucking arbiter of "mental prowess" or some other haughty garbage. Why don't you use your own creativity instead of asking people to be creative for you?

Even if you were not to remember, have you considered the weight of knowing, even temporarily, all the years you've spent and will spend on this planet, every waking minute of our short yet incredibly long lives, learning things that you soon will forget only to relearn over and over and over again. Think about the amount of time encompassed by billions of lives averaging 50 years on this planet. "You" will spend more time living than the universe has physically existed, as we understand, by more than tenfold.

Or the same idea, but instead you do remember? Even for me playing devils advocate, that's an unsettling thought. Of course, I stated before that you would not remember. So that's more of an after thought.

Still a good answer. One I personally agree with on some level. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely check it out.

I like this answer. It's not overly complex yet has thought behind it. It's homely, settling, and bears with it an acceptance of your fate.

What of your day to day life then? Enlightenment covers your mental health, but how would it effect the value of your everyday, physical life?

I personally believe it's still a bit of an oversight, but that's not what this is about. I appreciate the straight forward answer.

>When 'you' die, 'you' get reincarnated, eventually as every 'person' from 'every time'.

Wew lad. Not very clear whether you mean that all beings ever are only 'you' or that all beings will take a turn being all other beings. Assuming the latter…As people already pointed out, whatever is meant by 'you' is very unclear. The way the questioned is posed makes it seem as though it is assuming there is some fundamental part of you that will exist even without your memory, experience, physical body, etc.. This way a being can still be considered 'himself' without having any of his previous qualities. This would mean there is something, I don't know what it is, which connects these reincarnations together as being the reincarnations of a single 'you'. I suppose the n the immediate metaphysical goal would be to discover what this connecting aspect or attribute is in order to discover the links between current, previous, and future lives and gain whatever we could from them. But if there is nothing outside this process of rebirth then it would take meaning away from life because as the world is now I see a final goal that is outside the physical limitations of experience and more experiences is all your scenario seems to provide.

I am not asking you to read into my conceit. Some people specified that they wanted more detail. I agree, I should have more specified what I meant by "you" in the OP. But that does not mean I'm asking you to read inbetween my lines. I'm asking you to read inbetween yours. I purposely chose a thought experiment I personally believed very few people accept to believe, to see the extent to which they'd be willing to appreciate concepts outside their realm of reality/comfort.

Notice how your focus is more on me, my beliefs and my formatting of the question. You're spending more time arguing the semantics instead of being sporting.

If you choose to see me in that light, that is your qualm. As I've said before, I'm only responding with what I'm given. I picked a starting point for the thread, without a large deal of certainty myself in how people would answer. And that's the fun of it. I've not biased in favor of any answers, (though I've told noted to people when I appreciate their answer or understand it in a similar way myself) and have only asked questions in return to answers to help those who've answered dig a little into why they answered as they did. The irony here, if you're missing it, is I'm using this to (help you)dig into your conceit and understanding, not you into mine.

Really? Because as it stands this incarnation would know an inkling of the way things work but would be unable to put that information to good use.

You should consider that life worthless on those terms because, if it is possible, some greater incarnation will inevitably not only have this information but be able to use it to some ends.

>"You" will spend more time living than the universe has physically existed.

Honestly, I think one lifetime is more than enough desu.

Of course the knowledge by itself would make me look a others on a slightly different light, but as I said it wouldn't fundamentally change how I live my life or perceive it in any meaningful way. Without memorial continuity the disconnection between incarnations is total, making them a complete "other" without any real bearing on my sense of self.

>I'll definitely check it out.

If you got a liking for labyrinths, obsessions, existential dread and the concept of infinite, Borges has got quite the collection.

Please read the thread. The question is intentionally ambiguous and opaque. Can you not entertain a concept with a blurry starting point by building your own foundation around it? Or more impressively, can you do it without an air of cynicism? Either way, this thread is working for me exactly as intended. It's just been a little disappointing, though not surprising. I'm glad you at least played along a little after the wew lad remark. And I'm increasingly glad to see someone finally counter with alternate belief of life after death. But, as you said:
>But if there is nothing outside this process of rebirth then it would take meaning away from life because as the world is now I see a final goal that is outside the physical limitations of experience and more experiences is all your scenario seems to provide.

What sort of non-physical state of being to anticipate, if you don't mind explaining? And why continuous, yet always different, experience after your current life is so disconcerting when compared to your belief?

Stfu and feel gracious I even replied to the little thread of some shilling-lifed student mining others for ideas, no doubt.

If life is open and shut, live->experience->die, then we are forced to base the meaning of life on either on the value of our experience (which is lost in your example once you die) or on the effects our experience has on the experiences of others. The second possibility seems nice but since others will simply be born and die their individual experiences are no more important that our's. A billion zeroes still amounts to zero. And even if we don't count the value of experiences as zero, it will still be a finite number (ever-increasing towards infinity maybe but never actually getting there). Whereas the value I am looking for would have to be categorically different; it couldn't simply be additive since, in my feeling, a 'closed circuit' existence is just rebranded nihilism.

Yeah, the point and difficulty of the question, especially in it's ambiguous state, is that it brings up the idea of the self and what it means to people. And like I said to either you or the other guy I'm talking with now, I purposely chose a question which revolves around a concept of self most don't accept or even entertain. I'm not asking anyone to accept this, nor insisting it's more correct. But simply to bring it to focus in the mind for a moment. And by playing devils advocate, I'm trying to bring to light ones strength in their own belief, and not convince them any one way, but to strengthen their core beliefs by forcing them to dig into them through self justification and thought experiment.

>If you got a liking for labyrinths, obsessions, existential dread and the concept of infinite, Borges has got quite the collection.

You've described my day to day thought processing there. I now really believe I should check him out. I'm always weary of taking any suggestions off this board for good reason. But I've always had a vague understanding of and curiosity in Borges, hearing him discussed here often, so I'm entitled to trust this.

Without any intention of being conceited, I'm confident that, after nearly a decade browsing this site and board, I'm more creative than most posters. And I have no intention of taking any of this beyond the thread. It's all good fun (except for you of course). And I'd say I have to be pretty good on my feet, ideologically, for an ideological thief.

>The second possibility seems nice but since others will simply be born and die their individual experiences are no more important that our's. A billion zeroes still amounts to zero.

But would it not be more like a million zeros taking turns being a one? Why can't an experience be self contained and meaningful?

It would ease my mind knowing that if I do not achieve great success in this life I will have a plethora of other great successes to live through

It would also make me scared to undergo all of the human suffering that has ever occurred

It would also make any accomplishment seem less of an achievement, because I am simultaneously the winner and loser of every fight.

I would also feel alone seeing as every other person is just a life I will experience at some time or another

I would also wonder when "person" begins and when the last ape-man and first human actually begins. Would I be every common ancestor of a human ever? Would I live the life of neanderthals too?

I would probably value my own life less seeing as I live the lives of great men like Napoleon and Washington and it would make the insignificance of my current life mundane in comparison

I love the response, well thought out from multiple angles and aspects, and the thought of our place in the animal kingdom is a great questionable insight. I would say, for a good grounding there, maybe start with wherever it feels right that humans first became self aware? But even I couldn't answer that, within the realm of the question of course. I suppose whenever makes sense to you that "humanity" began. I can't really give my opinion within the question either, because then that would just be me projecting my beliefs.

Do you often think of the nature of existence? Do you often perform thought experiments? Totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but I'm curious. Is this something you already believe? I'm just a little surprised, and feel as though you've studied into this or believe in something similar to it.

I've heard of a concept like this before so I've already thought about the hypothetical scenario and all the consequences of a universe where this is true.

First I usually think "Great! I would get to experience the life of a great man like Julius Caesar or have the enjoyment of a life like a member of the Beatles, a life where every day would be enjoyable." But then I think "I would also suffer the pain of Caesar's assassination and Lennon's murder."

I wouldn't say I perform thought experiments often, I do like to think of "what would happen if..." and other hypothetical scenarios. I don't really believe this would be true though based on the gray area of what is and isn't human

What a pseud fucking faggot

OK.

Thanks for the bump!

Wouldn't make a fucking difference. How is reincarnation any better than absolute death? In my lifetime I'm user #1. I live and think and experience as user #1. When I'm reincarnated, I become user #2, with no recollection of my past life as user #1. I, as user #1, would be no better off than if I were dead forever.

How's that any different from what we have now? We're born and then we die, our bodies get recycled to serve as resources to make up new life. Repeat to infinity.

Would I at least get the opportunity after death, floating around in some ether, to reflect on my past lives before getting shoved out of a vagina for the millionth (or whateverX∞) time?

Less. Why is it discussable? A finite resource has more value

Nope, the death of your brain and body cuts off any and all forms of perception, the moments between seethed and your first new memory just seem like a hazy dream.

>seethed
Meant death