Suicide is a terrible option because, in all likelihood...

I love the mental gymnastics people play when they realize that nothing happens after you die
>yeah man, just like universes and shit man

But they won't have any memory of their former life, so what difference does it make? Suffering one life is the same as suffering a billion from their point of view.

>nothing happens after you die
You literally have to believe in souls to make this statement. Provide literally any evidence that souls exist.

You can "just believe in God" if you really want to.

Just because the body and mind is the same doesn't mean it'll be the "me" I am now experiencing it again.

>Just because things are the same doesn't mean they are the same.

It still means that the one life you live comprises the totality of your experiences. So saying it's just a big sleep after you die is basically the same as your life reoccurring forever

So I can only fathom two options:

1) Eternal life, either via some everlasting afterlife or reincarnation/living infinitely many lives
2) Living the same life over and over aka EXISTENCE IS A SICK JOKE AND WE'RE ALL LITERALLY LIVING IN HELL

If you make an exact clone of yourself with all previous experiences you've had will it be the you who's thinking right now experiencing the experiences the clone will have henceforth or will it be another being that's exactly like you having those experiences.

3) you die and it's lights out, dreamless sleep forever.

this is the only possibility remotely suggested by logic or science or reality. you are a literal retard

the second one

>2) Living the same life over and over aka EXISTENCE IS A SICK JOKE AND WE'RE ALL LITERALLY LIVING IN HELL

But you just admitted that it's ''basically the same'' as if death is absolutely final. Why are you talking about this idea of eternal recurrence if it doesn't add anything?

>So saying it's just a big sleep after you die is basically the same as your life reoccurring forever
Absolutely not. This is a massive leap that you can't possibly justify.

>So I can only fathom two options:
>1) Eternal life, either via some everlasting afterlife or reincarnation/living infinitely many lives
>2) Living the same life over and over aka EXISTENCE IS A SICK JOKE AND WE'RE ALL LITERALLY LIVING IN HELL
Pseud bullshit and drastic oversimplification.

Then wouldn't the whole universe coming into existence again making you exactly as you are be the same thing? That was my point

No you faggot. Logic and science suggest that there is no subjective reality.

The first one. There is only one agent in the universe.

this is a terrifying prospect i have sometimes wondered about.

although you would never have memories, it would explain deja vu.

No it wouldn't. Think about what you just said.
Do you have memories of the past life?
If yes, you would realize everything that was happening to you was the same as before while still a child, giving you predictive power of the future that would of course prevent it from being the same because you would remember things that hadn't happened yet and change them, preventing the memories from being true and making this entire hypothetical reality impossible.
If no, you wouldn't have any fucking deja vu.
Your post would imply some half-assed mixture of the two with seeping of memories between lives like something in a garbage sci-fi movie from the 80s.
Every speculation in this thread is fucking /b/-tier retarded. It also isn't about books amd should be deleted.

You should study under Socrates.

If you relive the same life over and over again, then you will always die the same way regardless, so this thread is pointless or maybe it isn't.

So my mind the one I'm using would be in two minds at the same time why?

Because it doesn't make sense that agent could be contingent on something physical, because agent is constant in nature while physical things are constantly changing.

Your mind is completely physical what proof is there that it isn't?

The fact that it's constant. If it didn't have this anomalous property, nobody would have applied a label to it in the first place.

Your mind is the most inconsistent thing in your body the mere suggestion of a memory not being what you remembered it as can change that memory completely

If you forget what circles are does that mean they cease to exist?

Agent is not memory.

The sign denoting circle ceases to exist which is all that really matters anyway. Experience and knowledge mean nothing without someone else to understand it.

If the earth and all intelligent life is destroyed does that mean the circle is destroyed too?

Say you're in a coma for seven years. In that time every cell in your body will have been replaced. Your consciousness will have gone and come back again.

Yet that's still the same person. In what way is that so, if it's a different set of atoms located in a different part of the universe?

See The Doctrine of Cycles by Borges. There is a closed, finite set of possible forms, but universes have no reason not to exist, and therefore they repeat 'infinitely', guaranteeing recurrence of the form that constitutes (you).

Doesn't need to be the same universe.

>Time is a subjective function of your consciousness.
While I'm an idealist concerning time and buy into McTaggart's argument and am therefore the most likely type of person to buy into temporal subjectivity, this claim is non-obvious, incredibly controversial, probably not true, and herein unsubstantiated.
>without consciousness (death), an infinity of time passes more or less instantaneously without your having perceived it.
This is predicated upon a number of unsubstantiated claims, namely the last claim you made, the actual existence of consciousness (non-controversial, but neither universally accepted), that consciousness ends or pauses after death (which we have zero evidence for and no real reason to believe if we're open to the argument you're presenting here; certainly substance dualists, various panpsychists, mystics, and most theists would disagree), the notion that temporal perception is reliant on consciousness (probably true), and the terminology "more or less" is just lazy writing, as, if you're correct, it would be less, not more.
>The heat death of the universe
Why do you feel that the universe will end in the completion of entropy? Why not a "big rip" or "big snap" situation? What if the simulation hypothesis is true and the plug gets pulled (which is unlikely, but Bostrom's smarter than me)? What if our universe is destroyed in a more dramatic fashion? What if the rules governing the interaction of fundamental particles changes suddenly? (even more unlikely than SH, but possible).
>and the subsequent Big Bang.
Why do you assume a cyclical cosmology? This sort of pseudo-metaphysical naval-gazing is worse even than Deepak Chopra or Alan Watts on psychedelics. It's also incompatible with the theory that the universe ends in heat-death, as there would be no reason for expansion to re-occur.
Like there's been a couple of American pop-science physicists who've gone on TV and shared similar (dumbed down) cosmologies, but this is an extreme minority view.
>Your next perceived moment,
Why should there be one? Why has consciousness passed unmolested but memory and perception have not? If souls exist and reincarnation is real, you're still making so many assumptions that it's impossible to take you seriously.
>obviously,
Oh I am laffin.
>is when you are born again
Why should I be? Why should my soul (if I have one), find its way to a new body?
>(as an infant)
Why should consciousness be imbued at the moment of birth? Why not the moment of conception? Or when measurable brain-activity begins? Or roughly at the transition from embryo to foetus? Or when practiced cognition becomes recognizable? Or when elementary language skills have fully developed? Or when I can show preference and prediction of outcomes? Or when I begin to form and recall comprehensible and vivid memories? Why does tearing up my mom's poor labia imbue me with consciousness?

I'm just gonna set off chatting about this - listen if you like.

One thing that's caught me, w/r/t that and its consequences for identity, is the relation between forms that ~almost repeat~ and forms that are exact. Because those definitely have more consistency between them, in fact, than the forms of a pre- and post-coma person. I would happily say that inexactitude does not constitute the 'edge' of that identity: that, therefore (multiple universe theory aside), even on a straight, unsplitting existential line we approach forks, both courses out of which we do genuinely take.

Immediately (as we feel it), this kind of tasks us with finding that 'edge'; what is the outmost limit of this 'I', as I am using it now?

Don't want to say there is no limit, because that's nihilism (although I'm prepared to say it, if the thinking turns up that way). But I don't altogether mind the notion that the constitutive 'I' is consciousness. Follow the gradient of near-shifts outward and I am, in a sense, every atom that is able to utter 'I am' (maybe even: every atom that has ever been or will ever be able).

>Of course you will have no memory of any of this having occurred.
Why not?
>But as you can see, you are destined to repeat your life for eternity.
And now we're assuming determinism? But also dualism and the existence of souls and reincarnation? Those things aren't necessarily incompatible, but they are completely unsubstantiated and are a very unlikely pairing.
And why should I have to repeat my life? Why can't I be reincarnated as a squirrel, or a plankton, or an amoeba? Why has this brand-new universe developed in the *exact* same way according to the *exact* same laws and the *exact* same preconditions so that, not only has expansion occurred (which under your eschatology is impossible), but the preconditions worked out to be exactly the same (in what appears to be a random distribution of a potentially infinite set of variables), the laws of physics have panned out with 100% accuracy to their function today, Earth formed in exactly the same place, life developed along the exact same lines, and not only did the exact same sperm enter the exact same egg, transferring the exact same DNA with 100% accuracy, but this happened with all of my quadrillions of ancestors, down to the first little lonely bacterium spazzing out in a pool of primordial ooze 4 billion years ago.
And would it really be *my life*? I'd have no memory of my previous existence. I'd have no continuation of perceptions, no unbroken stream of consciousness from one moment to another? Only the substance remains the same. This is like saying: we melted down a solid gold bust of Socrates and turned it into a bust of Plato, but it's still the same bust, even though almost none of the properties are the same, because the substance and general function of the material are carried on, even if unbroken. Complete nonsense.
>This is exactly what they mean when they say "What it's like after you die is exactly what it's like before you were born".
No, this is not what they mean when they say that. The quoted phrase is meaningless. It's meant to be a non-answer to the question, "what happens after you die?" The most generous reading of that crappy, annoying cliche is "I don't know." The most likely reading is "I don't have an answer, but I want you to think I do, so here's some bullshit I read on reddit once."
>So you can see
I really don't see anything because you've said nothing, but somehow you're still wrong.

>the correct option is to pursue as much happiness, joy, and contentment as you can in every moment.
How does this possibly follow? If I have no choice but to relive my life in the exact same way over and over again, then I have no options, do I? I can't possibly accept your proposition.
And what if my easiest path to happiness is to inflict suffering on others? Arms dealers, cartel leaders, brutal dictators, evil billionaires, and serial killers are often very happy with their lifestyle. So why should you possibly try to convince anybody of your theory if you think they have no choice over whether to kill themselves or not?
And why do you think that pursuit of pleasure is any better than any other choice? Why not living as the Overman, as suggested by Nietzsche? Why not accepting the Absurd, as suggests Camus? Why not mastering control over what one can change and learning to be content even in the face of misery, as the Stoics preach? Why not serving others and God even to one's own personal detriment, as the Christians suggest? Why not pursue a life of simple pleasures, as an Epicurean? All of these choices are just as valid as hedonism, if we accept existentialism. And all of them are better from a moral or ethical point of view. Even suicide is better in many cases, since, even though, outside of prolonged torture or terminal illness, the personal pain experienced and the heartbreak caused is not your problem anymore (you dead).
>It's a heavy responsibility
No it's not because according to you there is literally no choice.
>I believe in you.
I'm not sure you believe in anything.

Prior to any of this thinking, I had zero respect for notions of oneness or Deepak Chopra-type pabulum.

It was the novel Echopraxia by Peter Watts which threw open to me the idea that intuition could function as a means to 'knowledge' (i.e. correct but illogical belief), before evidence was forthcoming - think of Pythagoras' knowledge that the Earth was round. The Ancient Greeks had inadequate basis for that conclusion, but because they appointed groups of people whose duty it was to think and meditate, however sophistic a lot of the stuff, they were able to - from the comfort of forums and closed study-rooms - acquire knowledge of something that was not to be proven for ~two thousand years. And I do think it's correct to call it knowledge, even if it's a kind of knowledge that's strange to me.

So as this guy refers to 'Deepak Chopra or Alan Watts on psychedelics', those figures sound to me to be of the same sort of legitimacy as Pythagoras, w/r/t a lot of his process.

Of course a lot this is hard to prove, because it's not directly experienceable (in this phase of life anyway). But old theories of reincarnation and general identity-continuation after death are, I think, intuitive approximations of ~this~ conclusion.

But I hesitate before that 'every atom that has ever been' point. Because that's veering to the same nihilism I wanted to avoid.

I suppose if - for no reason - we accept that identity is subjective, then we can call an atom that is different-in-time truly different, and that therefore the atoms don't retain your self-hood after disconnecting from your consciousness (which is easy enough to do, because there's an exact line semi-imaginable there: the edge of consciousness, wherever that is), but that doesn't alter the problem (I suppose it's a problem) of edgelessness between conscious agents. It all tends to the idea, basically, that all consciousness is ~one thing~. A unified patchwork.

This is Sanātanī Dharma shit right here. As respects the core principles, I don't see a difference. What ill you commit against conscious agents ~is~ an infliction against oneself (I mean, if you're okay with taking up a whole lot of moral spooks; because the thing is, when you drop spooks, you're also free to drop the notion that ~you~ were ever wronged, immediately as you're dropping the notion of your having ever wronged anyone else (that is to say, if you're okay with taking up this theory and outlook pragmatically, as something useable in the world; because (ofc) only then do its implications become ~morally~ relevant)). But I don't object to its implementation as practice, in any event: it's a very good, very functional outlook - the sort that could make people with bad natures act like people with good natures.

I have to call it Hinduism because that's what it called: doing anything would else just be making a 'Hinduism for white people'.

I wanna take a major left-turn here, and don't want anything I've said so far to be measured against this turn: it's about the implications of technology, if you mix the fact of that in with this worldview.

That's a cute little theory Nietzsche

You literally cannot commit suicide.
Shoot yourself in the head, the gun will jam.
Hang yourself, the rope will break.
Throw yourself from a 50 stores building, it was just a dream.
Have a wild animal attacking you, miracolously you will kill it with your bare hands.

Only other people can kill themselves.

Let's throw a whole bunch of things together. The multiple-universe theory (though we won't dwell on that), the simulation hypothesis, and eternal recurrence, and mix it all in with a schizoanalytic base. What do we know about the possibilities of technology, really? There doesn't seem to be much reason to believe tech will stop developing (at least, not in every civilisation), even over thousands, millions, billions of years. It looks roughly as constant as every other form in the universe, even if it took a while to come into being.

The simulation hypothesis strikes me as basically correct, but generally irrelevant; thinking works best (for my purposes here) if you pretend you're in Cosmos A, then imagine making new simulations therein. Suppose at some point it was possible to make a perfect, one-for-one map of the universe, using simulations, and then, to backtrace it along probabilistic lines to its origins. I don't know whether you'd get only one origin, or multiple. But even if it took millennia, after time enough you'd definitely be able to exhaust the possible forms of human life, then reproduce all such consciousnesses as simulations. Simulations secure in a technological near-telos, which may well have the means of leaving its universe.

All of this just looks logical to me, but it does kind of seem like what I'm describing is a heaven-like thing (or a hell-like thing, depending what they make). And if that process is possible, then in infinite course, it will happen.

This notion can be arrived at from the armchair and, therefore, it's understandable that so many intelligent people came to be persuaded of the existence of heaven or heaven-adjacencies. It wasn't all wish-fulfilment or hopeful delusion. I think some people really mean it, when they talk about how 'terrifying' eternity is.

Look at all this stuff, and its implication for your identity and what you will or won't do, what the structure of your 'life' is, and the problem of when it will end. A thousand years of life is cosy, but eternity ~is~ terrifying.

There's something more to the popular belief in it, I say, than convenience. It has to do with that Pythagorean intuition I was talking about.

How any of this could hint at the existence of a god, I'm not sure - but I suppose that's just the idea that anything matters. That life has any meaning, really, is a good deal more challenged by infinity than it is by death. Perhaps God is intuited via a conviction in universal order, arrived at not as a first thought, but as a final conclusion after believing in a) eternity; b) oneness; c) moral order.

As respects that, I only have the same intuitive action available to me as Pythagoras had, when learning the Earth was round.

All of that's starting to win me over, though, to the thought that God could exist - even if I have nothing but intuition to suggest that.

>even if I have nothing but intuition to suggest that
If it helps, our intuition is the only reason we trust in logic

What if you have crippling cluster headaches for the foreseeable future and you'd rather kill yourself and relive your life than go through 20+ years of agony?

Magic mushrooms.

That's all I had to say for now, anyway. I've started making dinner.

>brain cells are replaced every 7 years
lmao

You can still make something out of it. Hell, if you're that hopeless you may as well become a hardcore drug addict.

This sounds terrible btw.
>take magic shrooms
>"wow this feels weird"
>cluster headache sets in
>experience primal horror and damnation for 12 hours

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/longtime-sufferers-of-cluster-headaches-find-relief-in-psychedelics.html

Or it might provide a lifelong solution. 12 hour badtrip will only last 12 hours. Be brave user

>not smoking DMT on shrooms in your painful moments
>not stretching those 20 minutes of intense pain into aeons of agony

Also

>not taking delirants on a couster headache

I have a similar view but not that it will be same life. I think this sensation of being myself is just a certain state of the brain. I also believe there are other kind of intelligent life forms in the universe so I believe that this sensation of being myself somewhere else will be replicated when I die.

>This is exactly what they mean when they say "What it's like after you die is exactly what it's like before you were born".
No, this means that death is the end of you, which it is. Nothing more.

Also, it was Schopenhauer who said that.

Pseudo-intellectualism is a boring way to troll.

I think the intention behind suicide is what matters.

If it is out of unrequited love of the material world then all bets are off - eternal recurrence, hell, eternal death, locked into oblivion, they're all on the table.

If it is out hatred of the material world, and especially hatred of its "pleasures", then real qualitative change should happen.

Stop posting that cancer image.

Not him, and I think gnosticism is flagrant idiocy, but scientism (which takes the philosophical form of materialist determinism) is basically a reformulation of Christianity, specifically Calvinism.

All that "proactive love" stuff seems like junk to me, though.

Start asking yourself why that is.

>All that "proactive love" stuff seems like junk to me, though.

Of course it does, that's the point I'm making.

OK, I guess it simply doesn't bother me as much as the rearranged Christian worldview of most STEMfags because at least gnostics are usually open to the criticism that their ideology has flaws. The gnostics I've met, anyway.

Brainlet here from the other thread, can you expand on this point of yours vis a vis reactive/proactive love

exactly, OP even said "new" universe

user coming through with the most retarded post of April so far

I become what I am, forever.
Forever between existence and inexistence.