How likely is it that death is the permanent end of consciousness?

How likely is it that death is the permanent end of consciousness?

Other urls found in this thread:

s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

define "consciousness"

It's not, but only because consciousness isn't a real thing.

I'm 99% death is the end of consciousness

Assuming religions are bullshit, very likely.

Being aware, experiencing

>Being aware, experiencing
Sounds pretty unscientific.

Are you imploofing that consciousness is mystical?

>Are you imploofing that consciousness is mystical?
I said unscientific, it's up to you if you think that implies mystical.

The age of the universe over 1 instance of your consciousness.

No, the inverse of that.

Extremely

Once your body decays and the molecules of your brain dissociate you'll experience just as much consciousness as you did before being born. Which is to say none.

There is no way for science to answer this question. Believe it or not, there is many basic things even today that science cannot answer and people who answer this question as if they know are bullshitting you.

>mystical
Yes. Definitions have to clear and reality-aligned if you want to have any meaningful discussion.

Not likely, self-evidently true.

100%

There isn't a question to answer in the first place. The terms are undefined.

A 1/universe age chance that death is permanent would make no sense.

Any time someone makes a thread or just mentions consciousness some brainlet has to reply with "muh define consciousness" to try and sound smart.

You know what consciousness is you fucking retarded faggot.

Very.

this

all terms are undefined retard

>Do you remember what it was like before you were born? It'll be just like that after you die.

>You know what consciousness is you fucking retarded faggot.
No, you really, seriously don't know what it is at all. People don't ask you that to sound smart, they ask you that because everyone has their own separate and not all similar idea of what they think of as "consciousness." It's a label that gets thrown around for almost anything that relates to processes of the brain, and to a bunch of non-processes people believe exist that don't on top of all that. Any good attempt to say something meaningful about that label will necessarily begin with a long write-up of all the things you don't consider "consciousness" so you don't end up arguing with everyone else's imagination of what they think you meant by talking about it.

And while Julian Jaynes was obviously not a reputable authority on formal neuroscience, I'm going to bring up the example of him doing exactly what I'm talking about and explaining everything that *isn't* "consciousness" before getting into what he had to say about his well defined concept of what that word refers to.
s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf
>The Extensiveness of Consciousness
>To begin with, there are several uses of the word consciousness which we may immediately discard as incorrect. We have for example the phrase "to lose consciousness” after receiving a blow on the head. But if this were correct, we would then have no word for those somnambulistic states known in the clinical literature where an individual is clearly not conscious and >yet is responsive to things in a way in which a knocked-out person is not.
>Therefore, in the first instance we should say that the person suffering a severe blow on the head loses both consciousness and what I am calling reactivity, and they are therefore different things.
>This distinction is also important in normal everyday life. We are constantly reacting to things without being conscious of them at the time. Sitting against a tree, I am always reacting to the tree and to the ground and to my own posture, since if I wish to walk, I will quite unconsciously stand up from the ground to do so. Immersed in the ideas of this first chapter, I am rarely conscious even of where I am. In writing, I am reacting to a pencil in my hand since I hold on to it, and am reacting to my writing pad since I hold it on my knees, and to its lines since I write upon them, but I am only conscious of what I am trying to say and whether or not I am being clear to you.

we turned away from God's natural eugenics plan and now must suffer for awhile

I would post a lot more of this because he goes on for a long time about all the little nuances people tend not to consider when they try to talk about "consciousness," but there are character limits.
tl;dr You'd be surprised how much of what you tend to believe "you" do is actually not a conscious behavior at all. A good analogy he uses is comparing us to a flashlight that believes everything in the world is always lit up because wherever it looks is where its light is shining. We're only ever aware of what we're aware of, so we get the false impression our consciousness is this vastly immersive all encompassing movie like experience when really it's a lot more erratic and choppy with much of the details you think you're experiencing being supplied by rationalizations made after the fact.

What if there are several gods playing some type of snail race with intelligent life forms in distant parts of the universe, and ours is currently raging because we did the equivalent of retracting into our snail house and not moving at all?

Why would it be?
Suppose you watch someone die. Does consciousness end?

Well. Our god would clearly be a dumbass for choosing us.

But what if you a a god unto yourself, and you simply don't know it? A god rolled up in its shell, unaware that to get out, it must first go within.

>But what if you a a god unto yourself, and you simply don't know it? A god rolled up in its shell, unaware that to get out, it must first go within.
You're not, I already checked.

>Somewhat related question, or rather a hypothesis, whatever.
Looking at the current scientific understanding of consciousness, which is made through processes of the mind, therefor once you ded, your fucked senpai. But even with this explanation of when the brain is fugged consciousness ceases, wouldn't you just start a new life?

The fact that you are alive right now means that out of the billions of years from the beginning of the universe, you just magically popped into existence, couldn't it happen again? Who is to say that this is your first life.

But who is this "you" you speak of? I think hidden in your statement are some unexamined assumptions about the nature of identity.

I am you (You)

>The fact that you are alive right now means that out of the billions of years from the beginning of the universe, you just magically popped into existence
That's not what you being alive right now means. What you're describing with popping into existence is more like a boltzmann brain. We didn't just pop into existence, we emerged from an extremely gradual multi-billion year evolutionary process, there was nothing sudden or magical about it. The earliest form of life might have emerged as early as 4+ billion years ago, which would make our existence as the latest iteration of life forms stemming from that earliest ancestor more than a quarter of the age of the entire known universe.
>couldn't it happen again?
Life in general could emerge again somewhere else in the universe, but that's not the same thing as what I think you're trying to suggest which is the idea that you'll wake up reborn into another life after dying.

Much smaller if you decalcify your pineal gland.

Sigmund Freud said that there's the conscious subconscious and unconscious a century ago faggot. Consciousness is just having a working, perceiving, experiencing mind. That simple. No need to be pretentious and get into semantics nobody except Neuro hipsters care about

You missed the point. He wasn't claiming to discover that the unconscious exists, he was explaining all the things people think are conscious behaviors that aren't. If you read some more from the linked PDF he goes into how consciousness isn't required for thinking and isn't actually a process of capturing visuals of your surroundings for memory like people tend to think it is.

>Sigmund Freud
stopper reading right there.

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

Ya he's missing the root 2 scale factor

the particles in your brain don't cease to exist, they just get rearranged

in fact they are constantly being rearranged as we speak

Make sense, so much sense you have to rely on memes because you know just how retarded a cosmic wizard doing it sounds by comparison

unironically this

you are asking a question without giving your definition of Death and cousciousness thus it is impossible for me to answer your question. If my consciousness you mean the neural network combination of patterns to form an idea than yeah death would cease any further neural activity. Now the real question is how long after you are killed are you still alive??? couple seconds?

>Freud
You mean the sick Jew fuck who kept pushing his sick fetishes on everyone?

some aren't

Why are you such a faggot.

Philosophy is for faggots. Is that a good definition?

thank you

>Sigmund Freud

Go back to 8ch please

>sigmund freud
DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D

It's clearly a thing, it's undeniably a thing. Actually it's the ONLY thing you know exists.

Cogito Ergo Sum. Simple as that

Here's a term for you:
Faggot (n) - loves homosex

The particles don't stop existing, but your living brain cells sure do, and as far as we know... you know the rest

Can anyone give me a material basis for consciousness that would include you and me as conscious, but that excludes the macro systems that contain us? If the collective information processing and interconnection of neurons can give rise to the subjective experience of reality, then why shouldn't the earth, or the internet also be conscious, since they contain equally complex networks of interacting information processors.

>Freud
more like Fraud

...

half this thread is just arguing about the definition of consciousness

Not very. Mechanization is a complex topic that is sidestepped by every thermodynamic process.

hi philosofag.

do you think that computer is conscious or not?