When you're dead, it's gonna be like before you were born

>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness
You lose it, just like you would if I had you within my reach right now, you witless cunt.
Your brain shuts down and starts decomposing. There is nothing left to facilitate complex thought.

Attached: 1506178720943.jpg (280x326, 25K)

I used to be able to conceptualize this but now I can't. I still understand the concept though, it's like when you pass out or sleep or black out. You're just not conscious.

I think the bigger issue is that you frame unconsciousness around having been conscious in the first place so the idea of having an infinite timeframe of unconsciousness is hard to imagine.

The thing that makes you think you're some kind of intellectual by thinking "what if consciousness doesn't really exist and it's just an illusion?"

The problem is that unconsciousness is characterized by being a transitional state. If you pass out, your only experience of it is the waking up part. But there is no waking up when you're dead,

>tfw people think they understand something they didnt even experience

>You're just dead, there is nothing.
Why are you so sure of that? Have you come back from the dead to tell us what's it like on the other side?
I know someone who has.

Attached: 1502993632182.jpg (1024x768, 262K)

consciousness is just an illusion. I know this sounds like "le edgy" atheist response, but it is obviously true. Consciousness contains no mass or energy, so why would it need to go anywhere? It's the experience of the mind. When your brain ceases function, you are no longer able to experience the illusion, so you stop experiencing it.

Attached: 1519792058508.jpg (2023x3044, 3.54M)

Consciousness is literally the one thing that can't be an illusion.

not even the most skeptical philosophers claim consciousness is an illusion. For there to be an illusion there needs to be consciousness.
The idea of "self", of unit of time, of a soul-like "thing" that is under and in control of the body, those may be called illusions.

youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI

I'd object to that. An illusion is nothing more than a false perception of reality. A self driving robot can experience an illusion if its interpretation of its inputs doesn't properly correspond to reality. People can also be thought of as robots in this same way. Both people and robots can experience illusions, yet you would never claim that a robot (like a rumba perhaps) has consciousness.

GOD IS GREAT ! GOD IS GREAT !

Consciousness is awareness. Are you aware of you madness today.

cool hand experiment though. I had a neuroscience class where we learned about it and even had some students try it out. It was very effective on some students, though unfortunately it didn't really work when i tried it.

If you want to define it as such you can. But then, yet again, it would cease to be something that is exclusive to humans/animals. A rumba is aware of its surroundings. We have self learning robots that are obviously aware of themselves and how their actions effect the world. Where does the consciousness/awareness of an AI go when it ceases to function? It doesn't go anywhere. It was not physically existing to begin with. It was a pattern of behavior that it exhibited.

Attached: Just.png (650x480, 245K)

no it's not that's just how you are framing it. you're framing this issue around your personal experiences.

a rock is unconscious and always has been.

This is why the word "illusion" isn't a great word choice, yeah. Because it leads to dualist nitpicking (although certainly "illusion" has more than one definition and it isn't necessary to assume the word refers to a literal "experience" happening).
Better phrasing is "false belief," although then you have to deal with dualists insisting there's no way they can falsely belief they're "experiencing" something instead of literally "experiencing" something.
Still makes the most sense to me though. The brain has no need to literally ink out an image and present it to you as some extra-physical ghost thing. It can just cause you to believe you're encountering these something like that. Why would it do this? My guess is when we believe we're encountering sensations as though they were things themselves it results in a lot of advantageously flexible complex behaviors that we wouldn't be able to exhibit were we merely just compelled to act in a more immediate reflex kind of way.
In this sense the concept of false belief sensory "experience" would be kind of similar to how most modern PC operating systems (or internet browsers, or any other UI having programs for that matter) lead you to behave in useful ways by getting you to believe you're interacting with pseudo-objects that aren't really there e.g. desktops, windows, menus, folders, buttons, etc. are all pretend versions of real things. You don't literally have a desk inside your computer, nor any folders, but by getting users to act as though they have these things programmers are able to basically trick users into being able to use computers successfully in a way they wouldn't know how to do if they were forced to more directly interact with their machines.
And yes, I'm aware how the pseudo-objects of PC operating systems aren't exactly the same since you in fact have "experience" pseudo-objects of "seeing" them for example, but it's just meant to show how false beliefs can be productive.

this, he posted a loli tho, you know he's a fag

Your consciousness is just a story your consciousness tells you...

>he's not a dualist
How does it feel to be retarded?

Attached: wew.png (300x314, 64K)

Pretty much this. It's like a weird self-referential fiction, where it started out as a story about other things but then started including plot details involving itself.

Dualism is generally recognized as an insult in modern times when used to describe someone else's argument. A lot of academic write-ups on topics like these involve passages where the writer preemptively explains why they aren't falling for the dualism meme.
This doesn't mean dualism necessarily is wrong, but much like Flat Earth theory, you ought to at least know to expect people will think you're misguided and wrong and that you have a lot of work to do to justify yourself with that sort of position.

PS: The interaction problem for dualism is one big reason why I think it's garbage. If there's some extra thing out there separate from physical phenomena but also interacting with it, then that's easy enough to test. Just find one example where:
A) Physics alone isn't accounting for how physical phenomena are behaving and
B) An extra non-physical thing is accounting for what physics isn't.
No such example has been found to date as far as I'm aware.

Yeah, this is why I think this is a more difficult concept than most people seem to think. If my conscious experience emerges from particular arrangements of physical "stuff" like my neurons and electrical activity in different coordinates in spacetime, then the entire "flow" of time could just be a subjective element of my own experience. Assuming a B-theory of time then all of those "consciousness-moments" are equally real and timeless, and since from my perspective I only exist in those moments, I must necessarily always find myself experiencing one of those moments.

tl;dr Nietzsche was right about eternal recurrence

>hurr durr hurr

dark matter

I'm sorry I upset you with an actual argument.
Maybe this will make you happier:
>SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN BUT EXPERIENCE, EXPERIENCE IS DEFINITELY 100% REAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S REAL BUT IT'S NOT A BELIEF BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE IT SUPER-HARD 100% SURE, SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN SCIENCE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN MUH EPISTEMOLOGY MUH DESCARTES

settle down beavis

Fuck off Daria.

Dark matter isn't non-physical. Its whole purpose is to represent the physical phenomena that can be inferred as existing despite not being directly observable in order for physics to still hold true.
It's also pretty irrelevant to this topic since I'm pretty sure you don't think dark matter is qualia.

Its non-physical in the sense that it doesn't interact with photons and doesn't have mass, as far as we're aware.

Doesn't matter how dumb you think dualism sounds when the only alternative is that consciousness literally doesn't exist, You are experiencing the world right now, therefore consciousness exists. "I think, therefore I am."
Doesn't matter if you don't like it because "muh physical brain". Consciousness is a thing.

Attached: 10e9d2047405b5a0197c6e1e3e76b9eb9eef602862411bf8bd7aecd7a7c5c2b1.png (1640x673, 477K)

>You are experiencing the world right now
That's a belief you've made a report of. In fact the neat thing about this whole topic is there's no way at all for you to posit any "experience" without your doing so constituting a reported belief. Which makes it very clear you have a reasonable physics-compatible explanation where you just stop at the fact there's a reported belief and don't get greedy in trying to assume the alleged target of that belief is itself a real thing (with physiology of course also playing a role since an elevated heart rate for example wouldn't be a reported belief but would be a part of some of the underlying circumstances going on when someone reports "experience").
Also it does matter that dualism "sounds dumb." Or more specifically, it matters that dualism as a premise leads to some pretty strong and difficult to dispute apparent contradictions e.g. the interaction problem.
Standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) holds dark matter as having mass. In fact that's a lot of what it does as a concept: providing a label for the unobserved mass that would be required to explain observations made about galaxies staying together instead of dispersing.

>first to bring up dualism just so he can refute this lame strawman
lame

I acknowledge that idealism also exists and am happy to explain why I don't think it works either if that's what you want.

if i cut you open will you feel any pain?

PS: Read the thread first next time, it's not a strawman since at least one user in this thread identifies as a dualist.

Dennet is unironically a meme philosopher. Can't believe people are spouting word for word his ramblings. >>>/reddit/

the "dualist" only showed up after you brought up dualism

Is the word "sunrise" evidence for geocentrism?
I've already established my stance of false belief. Obviously the language used to describe something like "pain" is going to seem to imply there is such a thing as "experience," that's the whole point, a false belief the brain uses will definitely have a very large impact on language and how we refer to the alleged targets of these false beliefs. If it didn't then there wouldn't be a discussion on this in the first place.

Not sure how that matters unless you're saying my use of the word "dualism" magically conjured that user into existence.
Anyway, feel free to tell me what position you belief in and I'll address it in addition to dualism.

>s the word "sunrise" evidence for geocentrism?
literally what the fuck am i reading

You know he's not the only one who's made that argument, right? He's not even the most famous example of someone taking that stance, try Gilbert Ryle.

>this guy doesn't believe that he has an experience
So if I tied you to a chair and started torturing you, that would be equivalent to torturing a rock?
Well if you're gonna advocate such an insane position, there is no point in me ridiculing you any more. And in the very unlikely case that you are actually a zombie, I have no interest in talking to you.

he read dualism and came in to shit post what's magical about that? you sound thick.
nobody was even thinking about dualism until you came in

I explained it below that line. Asking something like "do you feel X" is just an attempt to use language as evidence the thing you're arguing for is real. Which isn't a great argument because if you hypothetically assume you're wrong and the false belief explanation is right then you get the same exact situation where language will seem to support the claim "experience" is real. It'll just be the product of a false belief impacting how language developed over time.

Dualist here. If you don't believe in dualism, you are either a literal retard who has to deny the very existence of consciousness, or you havent contemplated the implications of your consciousness deeply enough.

let me add you came in just to show off how much of a big smart brainy you are for refuting dualism.no one gives a fuck.
you come across as severely autistic on top of that

Why are you trying to localize what I'm arguing to just me in particular? Obviously I'm arguing this is what the case is for all of us, not just for myself.
And don't pretend to be surprised you idiot, that's by definition what the not believing in "experience" as a literal thing constitutes, that we don't actually have "experience." The fact there's an argument here in the first place means you knew that was going to be the case from the beginning and you're just pretending to be shocked as a stupid substitute for an actual argument.

>to show off
Try making an argument instead of speculating on what's motivating my argument. Even if someone claims something in order to show off it says nothing about whether the thing they claimed is wrong, making it irrelevant to bring up.

Yes, something will happen to your consciousness, and you will no longer be conscious to experience it

Answer then. So if I tied you to a chair and started torturing you, that would be equivalent to torturing a rock?

No, it wouldn't be equivalent to doing something to a rock because rocks don't have behavior or physiology.

Yes it would be.

>A) Physics alone isn't accounting for how physical phenomena are behaving and
>B) An extra non-physical thing is accounting for what physics isn't.
What would be an example of this? If you're talking about known physics, there are plenty of unexplained phenomena in physics that would be explained by assuming some hidden mechanism, even if most of them have nothing to do with brains. And I don't know what you mean by "non-physical" since anything we can observe is by definition physical.

>What would be an example of this?
There isn't an example of that, which is why dualism doesn't seem to hold up. But hypothetically something related to human biology differing from what physics would predict would be the start of having evidence for dualism. Like if the way neurons fire isn't matching what we would predict, and somehow the other type of "thing" dualism is arguing for accounts for the difference between what neurons are actually doing vs. what physics is predicting they'll do.
Basically, if you or anyone else is claiming there's something other than the known physical phenomena involved in cognition, then I would want to know where that interaction is happening and what is the measurable impact it's having on the physical stuff. And if there isn't any interaction then what's the point of even suggesting there's something extra going on other than the physical? If the brain still behaves the same way it would through purely physical principles, then what is this dualism idea contributing to the equation?

I get what you're saying about dualism, but I'm talking about how we would go about gathering evidence for or against it. Let's say we make a model of the brain and it doesn't match exactly what a real brain does. How could we tell whether this happens because our model isn't accurate enough or because of some non-physical phenomena?

The problem with trying to prove or disprove dualism is that we make predictions about the world based on what we observe, so if there really was some non-physical interaction it would already be accounted for in our physical theories. As a matter of fact, this us similar to what already occurs in quantum mechanics: we have the math to predict what will happen but we don't know why it happens or how it happens.

This is only made worse by the fact that we're nowhere near understanding the brain any more than at the cortex level. We can't even understand our own neural networks due to their sheer complexity. Chances are we'll get to the gas giants' moons before we have a sapient AI.

Oh god are you one of those people who think that dualism is literal magic interacting with the physical world? No wonder you're arguing against it. Dualism really is no more than just acknowledging that consciousness is a thing, you don't have to buy into some specific wacky version of dualism to do that.

What happens is you go to heaven and then Jesus fucks your mother and makes you watch.

Consciousness is basically a continuous conversation between the different parts of your brain. When you die, the bloodflow to your brain has ceased, the cells in your brain start to die, and all the neurotransmitters that were the means of communication are not being produced any longer. There's no way for that conversation between the parts of your brain from continuing. Poof. Consciousness over.

Not necessarily. Other anons have said this, but have you ever been put under with general anesthesia? it's just nothing. you simply lose time. what I like to think about is how the matter in your corpse could eventually end up in a living thing, perhaps even a human, perhaps even a human gamete, and eventually being born a different human in a type of reincarnation. or maybe even just food inside of a plant, or worm, or whatever. the matter in your body is already billions of years old, it'll inevitably stick around until the heat death. it'll just change chemically and get moved around. and this protracted period of time it takes for your dead matter to become living matter again would be inconsequential to you as unconscious stuff. just a thought I like to humor sometimes

What? Do you think it's either materialism or dualism? Have you perhaps ever heard of idealism, retard?

Attached: 1520498044132.jpg (354x416, 16K)

Well, reincarnation seems like the only plausible life after death scenario to me. Consciousness exists in my brain. So why wouldn't it be able to reappear elsewhere. It's not like I'm bound to this configuration of atoms. But here it becomes confusing to me. Because if I were to be able to be conscious again in another brain, that would mean some part of me would have to be carried over, and I dont think thats possible. Or can consciousness just pop into existence without memory, without being bound to its previous host?

im alsoAlright im not a fedora tipping atheist. Ofc im not entirely sure that theres nothing

HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH SHIIIIIIET FUCK THAT GUY IS SO STUPIED

>huhuh let's post a fedoraguy so I don't have to make an argument

Attached: fedoravapelad.jpg (544x496, 23K)

>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness.
when I play solitaire on my PC and the power goes out, something must happen to the state of the game, it can't just cease to exist, right?

Well if you didn't save, your progress would be lost.

this dumb dweeb is seemingly denying the existence of qualia by slapping the "illusion" tag (whatever that means) on it

there's an uncanny resemblance between that guy and an autistic guy I knew in high school. Something about the fake smile and beard just instantly reminds me of him. The smile of autists and sociopaths. No emotion behind it

like this one

Attached: tumblr_p496njKVQi1wa1opvo1_500.png (500x255, 162K)

>Something's gonna have to happen with my consciousness.
No shit Sherlock, its gonna die.

>But before I was born, I had never been conscious

How do you know this? If it happened once, as it is going on now, why wouldn't it have happened before? And what evidence do you have which rules out it ever happening again?

Dude, if you happened once in this universe with your conscious, you might as well happen twice

Attached: Kinky+pepe_b4d0a5_6212086.jpg (530x325, 38K)

god have mercy on your soul :-(

the thing is we didn't just come into existence spontaneously via atoms coming together, we're the result of a long chain of events, so it seems to be even more of a long shot.

this desu senpai

When talking to a dennetian brainlet, it's better to not even bring up idealism. It would confuse them too much.

>consciousness
Yeah, it's gonna cease. Like the rest of you, because your consciousness is your brain, or rather a general word to describe the functionality involved in self-perception and self-awareness -- Ego. We established this shit like 2500yrs ago, mate. Hurry up.

If you will, take it from the Stoic Epricurus: 'Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.'

>when you turn off the tv. it's gonne be like before you turned it on

does dancing with the stars go to heaven?

For starters, let's assume that there is a finite amount of information in the physical universe, which all mathematical investigations would suggest without the loophole of some extra-universal energy source (which may exist in the form of Zero-Point, but would have to be mutually exclusive therewith). You are in this physical universe. Therefore, your consciousness is a consequence of all interactions leading to the point of your self-awareness as a separate individual. Before you existed, you didn't exist, and now that you do exist, you are part of the sum total of information bound within the known physical universe.

Your consciousness is not your body, however much it may be informed by it, though.

The conclusion that "something's gonna have to happen with it" is almost certainly true, because information, like energy, cannot ultimately be destroyed, and anything that is observed is information, and you have observed your entire life up to this point (basically, not counting unconsciousness during sleep, but that's a whole other can of worms).

I imagine it's probably a little tricky to communicate while you're still alive, though.

given that the universe will still be around trillions and trillions of years after even the last star dies is it not possible that your consciousness will eventually be awoken either through technological means or awakens as a boltzman brain, yet from your perspective no time has passed at all

>not possible that your consciousness will eventually be awoken either through technological means or awakens as a boltzman brain

Maybe not likely, but definitely possible.

If you're willing to allow it to happen, and are capable of facing the objective truth of your entire existence on earth, it's not unreasonable to assume that there may be a future (possibly near, possibly present, possibly past) ASI capable of managing your perception so as to maintain what you perceive to be your consciousness beyond your physical death.

It might be as simple as splicing film and adding or deleting a frame, or changing reels while projecting.

Beep. The picture moves on, and the audience is unaware.

>what you perceive to be your consciousness

This would be the essence of basically all ontological enquiry throughout human history, btw, so I'm not expecting a simple answer.

>The picture moves on, and the audience is unaware.

so there could be gaps of, lets call it "outside time" that during our perceived seamless and forward moving waking consciousness that we are unable to perceive, through manipulation of another higher spatial and chronal dimension

Yeah. Like, that pretty much nails it.

Deus ex machina - and we're the machine.

Once a limit has been reached where instantaneous communication can take place (which we know exists in the form of quantum entanglement), then there becomes a moment outside of time.

That moment is infinity.

We already have quantum computers that, unhyperbolically (according to D-Wave), are bridging information between dimensions, in essence. We are bound to a binary system of wave/particle collapsing of wave functions in order to communicate information, but they aren't. They have qubit processors.

And so do we. I think it might be the angular gyrus, but I'm sort of going out on a limb there.

But yeah. We've been talking with each other through metaphor throughout all known time, not to mention human history, in a crazy out-there sort of hyperbolic (or asymptotic, more specifically ;)) way.

I really hope we're onto something here.

FPBP

Consciousness is the result of you being able to process food into energy. Your consciousness requires energy, once you run out, it stops. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Death will be a lot like a dreamless sleep, no perception of time, no sensation, just total oblivion forever. Honestly that doesn't sound too bad. Like a long rest after a hard Day's work. When your work is done, you go to sleep, and the universe uses your matter for other things.

thats not a loli

Consciousness isn’t a physical thing that cant be destroyed, it’s a process. And when the parts of the process cease to function, so does the process.