File: 1631249729638.png (872.84 KB, 488x658, 244:329, Picture1.png) ImgOps iqdb
What do you guys think of reincarnation? Of the possibility that existence might be sadistic enough to force us back into the game endlessly? I honestly would not put it past reality to do such a thing. Imagine reincarnating as an infant that chokes to death on his umbilical cord at birth. Or perhaps a dog being skinned alive by gooks before being thrown into a pot of scalding liquid. Maybe you'll end up as an oblivious rich person who is so protected from the world that he has no idea that such things even happen. I often wonder about such things. The sheer amount of torture technology that's been devised from the human mind is astounding. Maybe I'm just focusing too much on the negative? Look at all of the beauty humanity has achieved through artistic masterpiece and technology! What other species has managed to escape the floor of earth? I think this would be a cool topic for the /dep/ board to discuss, I like disturbing feelings. I want to see this thread crawling with horror and madness and unhappiness; make it reek like a death pit, wizards! I want to hurt some people!
This world is slowly running out necessary resources such as water, breathable air and food. Essential parts of nature that are required for a functioning planet keep getting destroyed for financial gains.
People who live in the worst places on earth are mass producing children while the west which is still the best and most free part of the world is slowly dying and becoming a really fucked up place and at the dame time were dealing e
With overpopulation.
These are just a few points to show that our planet is declining, not only from a societal, social perspective but its also actually physically dying. Getting reincarnated into this planet over and over again would be like getting respawned into the same burning plane until it finally hits the ground.
People who live in the worst places on earth are mass producing children while the west which is still the best and most free part of the world is slowly dying and becoming a really fucked up place and at the dame time were dealing e
With overpopulation.
These are just a few points to show that our planet is declining, not only from a societal, social perspective but its also actually physically dying. Getting reincarnated into this planet over and over again would be like getting respawned into the same burning plane until it finally hits the ground.
>>246746
I'll laugh if I could when you eventually reincarnate as any living being and have to repeat this hell again, we're all fucking doomed, The cycle won't be broken and we are stuck in a never-ending loop now. This is existence and the only thing that can exist.
I'll laugh if I could when you eventually reincarnate as any living being and have to repeat this hell again, we're all fucking doomed, The cycle won't be broken and we are stuck in a never-ending loop now. This is existence and the only thing that can exist.
We are meat. I follow cain's teachings, oblivion is the only blessing you can bestow on meatbags.
Anyone else ever think about reincarnating into a different state of consciousness far removed from the current world in every way? I think about killing myself a lot and I get so scared it won't solve anything and only make things worse. Imagine being trapped in an existence of only pain for what seems like an eternity or something weird.
its just a pipe dream and not confirmed. I dont believe in reincarnation this is just a random meat grinder existence when you ddie its over
File: 1631306644410.png (181.04 KB, 1108x1009, 1108:1009, no_death.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>246742
The idea that death is eternal nothingness sounds too good to be true.
The idea that death is eternal nothingness sounds too good to be true.
>>246771
he made it and posts this on every chan you can think of. I have seen his posts on very small obscure chans always going on about this as if obsessed,
he made it and posts this on every chan you can think of. I have seen his posts on very small obscure chans always going on about this as if obsessed,
Where did our consciousness come from in the first place? Nothingness? Dirt? If it arose once from the raw elements of the universe, and it did, in the infinity of time and space it will happen again, infinitely. Life is eternal
>>246743
According to mainstream science there's 500 trillion galaxies in the universe. Then 60% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that exists on another plane. Then of course we have theoretical stuff like 12 dimensions (superstring theory) that could contain within in an infinitude of alternative universes. Black holes could have white holes instead of them. Hell this entire universe could be a hologram as quantum entanglement suggests. There's so much we don't know, and many places to incarnate besides Earth
>>246743
According to mainstream science there's 500 trillion galaxies in the universe. Then 60% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that exists on another plane. Then of course we have theoretical stuff like 12 dimensions (superstring theory) that could contain within in an infinitude of alternative universes. Black holes could have white holes instead of them. Hell this entire universe could be a hologram as quantum entanglement suggests. There's so much we don't know, and many places to incarnate besides Earth
>>246781
Is the act of being conscious (awareness) just the product of pure consciousness itself being altered by the machine itself? Pure consciousness being like the hidden structure that supports everything above and our awareness is nearly entirely modulated by the organic body it inhibits? If consciousness is just a product of matter itself then is the matter itself actually conscious in some way and the organic system just concentrates what is already present to react with itself in a more complex way as if it magnifies the signal?
Is the act of being conscious (awareness) just the product of pure consciousness itself being altered by the machine itself? Pure consciousness being like the hidden structure that supports everything above and our awareness is nearly entirely modulated by the organic body it inhibits? If consciousness is just a product of matter itself then is the matter itself actually conscious in some way and the organic system just concentrates what is already present to react with itself in a more complex way as if it magnifies the signal?
>>246781
We can never understand what reality actually is.
It amazes me that scientists can think they can peer outside of the confines of their form but everything itself and come to some conclusion about an origin or total understanding. You will only ever notice patterns and precesses of the physical laws and never why the thing is as it is in that particular way at all. trying to use science to discover the true nature of reality is like sculpting some figure out of clay and calling it god. congratulations your simulacrum which exists outside of reality and is built from abstractions that are limited by your own limitations checks out.
science is useless for the big questions but people are blind to the obvious
We can never understand what reality actually is.
It amazes me that scientists can think they can peer outside of the confines of their form but everything itself and come to some conclusion about an origin or total understanding. You will only ever notice patterns and precesses of the physical laws and never why the thing is as it is in that particular way at all. trying to use science to discover the true nature of reality is like sculpting some figure out of clay and calling it god. congratulations your simulacrum which exists outside of reality and is built from abstractions that are limited by your own limitations checks out.
science is useless for the big questions but people are blind to the obvious
>>246782
Honestly I don't know, anon. An idea I've had for a long time on the subject is that consciousness is like a radio wave, and our physical bodies are like radios. The radio wave enters the radio and it can play music. No radio, no music. Yet the wave is everywhere and can power an infinite number of radios, yet the wave itself exists completely independently
Honestly I don't know, anon. An idea I've had for a long time on the subject is that consciousness is like a radio wave, and our physical bodies are like radios. The radio wave enters the radio and it can play music. No radio, no music. Yet the wave is everywhere and can power an infinite number of radios, yet the wave itself exists completely independently
>>246783
Scientists are just the modern priest caste, and the majority of experiments produce results that cannot be replicated (replication crisis)
Much of the modern wisdom that scientists like to pretend is new was recorded in scripture thousands of years ago
Scientists are just the modern priest caste, and the majority of experiments produce results that cannot be replicated (replication crisis)
Much of the modern wisdom that scientists like to pretend is new was recorded in scripture thousands of years ago
File: 1631328871184.png (290.61 KB, 600x399, 200:133, 2a6031c9d53d48fda501d84bac….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>246785
>Much of the modern wisdom that scientists like to pretend is new was recorded in scripture thousands of years ago
>Much of the modern wisdom that scientists like to pretend is new was recorded in scripture thousands of years ago
>>246747
Yet you can't accept that you will die one day. Get over it, you will cease to exist.
Yet you can't accept that you will die one day. Get over it, you will cease to exist.
>>246787
a lot of us wish we were to cease to exist and it is that doubt that keeps us alive.
a lot of us wish we were to cease to exist and it is that doubt that keeps us alive.
>>246802
Fuck off, we all wish our parents hadn't had us and that life is a pointless exercise in suffering and oblivion before birth was preferable to now.
Fuck off, we all wish our parents hadn't had us and that life is a pointless exercise in suffering and oblivion before birth was preferable to now.
>>246787
I will cease to exist yes, but it's not going to be over. You know it to be true. We won't stay in oblivion forever and we'll be plucked out sooner or later. Probably the second after death.
I will cease to exist yes, but it's not going to be over. You know it to be true. We won't stay in oblivion forever and we'll be plucked out sooner or later. Probably the second after death.
>>247117
Oblivion as you put it isn’t a place, or state. You cannot return from it. Also “you know it to be true” is not a great argument.
Oblivion as you put it isn’t a place, or state. You cannot return from it. Also “you know it to be true” is not a great argument.
>>247118
>he literally thinks we will cease to exist and thats it, we won't be reborn, there is no heaven or hell, just simple nothingness for eternity and nothing ever again.
you're such a faggot. we're stuck in this cycle for forever, we are part of this universe, non-existence isn't and won't ever be a thing, you will always exist even if you die, you'll just be put into another body, another soul or mind and you won't even know. just accept it faggot, you're doomed here like the rest of us.
>he literally thinks we will cease to exist and thats it, we won't be reborn, there is no heaven or hell, just simple nothingness for eternity and nothing ever again.
you're such a faggot. we're stuck in this cycle for forever, we are part of this universe, non-existence isn't and won't ever be a thing, you will always exist even if you die, you'll just be put into another body, another soul or mind and you won't even know. just accept it faggot, you're doomed here like the rest of us.
>>247121
your preception doesn't have any proof or arguments either so whatever. no one knows what will happen in death but you're still a faggot.
your preception doesn't have any proof or arguments either so whatever. no one knows what will happen in death but you're still a faggot.
>>247118
You literally already came from oblivion once though. Where were you 100 years ago? Oblivion. Where are you now? Right here
You literally already came from oblivion once though. Where were you 100 years ago? Oblivion. Where are you now? Right here
File: 1631857640316.png (1.28 MB, 800x4280, 20:107, human depository.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>246742
Relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N4AvpwNs7mZdQESzG/the-dilemma-of-worse-than-death-scenarios
>A worse than death scenario can be defined as any scenario in which the observer would prefer to die than continue to live. A distinction is made between preferring to experience nothing and then resume living and preferring to experience nothing forever. For example, mos people would prefer to use general anesthetic during a necessary operation, but if there was no anesthetic, they would not choose to die. With the knowledge that the discomfort experienced during the operation is necessary to continue living, many would choose to go through with it (this can obviously vary depending on the operation and the observer).
>As the observer would prefer to die in a worse than death scenario, one can assume that they would be willing to do anything to escape the scenario. Thus, it follows that we should do anything to prevent worse than death scenarios from occurring in the first place. It is our first priority. In my opinion positive scenarios cannot change this due to the following observation: there is no positive scenario in which you would do anything to *not* make it stop, at least in our current human form. I cannot think of any scenario which is so positive for the observer that they don't care if it is certain that it will kill them.
>Worse than death scenarios vary in severity. The most basic example would be someone being kidnapped and tortured to death. If technology will allow immortality or ASI at some point, there are scenarios of much greater severity. The most extreme example would be an indefinite state of suffering comparable to the biblical Hell, perhaps caused by an ASI running simulations. Obviously preventing this has a higher priority than preventing scenarios of a lower severity.
>Scenarios which could mean indefinite suffering:
>1. ASI programmed to maximize suffering
>2. Alien species with the goal of maximizing suffering
>3. We are in a simulation and some form of "hell" exists in it
>4. ASI programmed to reflect the values of humanity, including religious hells
>5. Unknown unknowns
>Worse than death scenarios are highly neglected. This applies to risks of all severities. It seems very common to be afraid of serial killers, yet I have never heard of someone with the specific fear of being tortured to death, even if most people would agree that the latter is worse. This pattern is also seen in the field of AI: the "killer robot" scenario is very well-known, as is the paperclip maximiser, but the idea of an unfriendly ASI creating suffering is not talked about as often.
>There are various reasons for this neglect. Firstly, worse than death scenarios are very unpleasant to think about. It is more comfortable to discuss possibilities of ceasing to exist. In addition, they are very unlikely compared to other scenarios. However, the avoidance of the discussion of worse than death scenarios does not seem correct because something being unpleasant is not a valid reason to do this. In addition, the very low probability of the scenarios is balanced by their extreme disutility. This inevitability leads to Pascal's Mugging.
>Methods which may reduce the probability of indefinite worse than death scenarios (in order of effectiveness):
>1. Suicide
>2. Working on AI safety
>3. Thinking of ways of reducing the probability
>Suicide, depending on your theory on personal identity, may make the probability 0. If you believe that there is no difference between copies of you then there may be a possibility of being resurrected in the future however. As we aren't certain about what happens to the observer after death, it is unknown whether death will make worse than death scenarios impossible. I believe there are many ways in which it could reduce the probability, but the key question is: could it increase the probability? An argument against suicide is that it is more likely that people who commit suicide will go to "hell" than those who don't. This is because an entity who creates hell has values which accept suffering, making life a positive concept which should not be discarded. On the other hand, an entity with values related to efilism/antinatalism (philosophies in which suicide is generally accepted) would not create a hell at all. Of course, this is all based on a lot of speculation.
>There is a risk that the suicide attempt will fail and leave you in a disabled state. This could make you more vulnerable when considering indefinite worse than death scenarios. However, I would argue against this disadvantage because the only potential way to evade an entity powerful enough to cause these scenarios would be suicide, which always has a risk of failing.
>The second option listed is working on AI safety. This is due to the fact that a future ASI is the only entity which we could influence now. We can not do anything about superintelligent malevolent aliens or the fact that we may be in a simulation, on the other hand. Donating money to suffering-focused AI safety organizations may reduce the chance of an unfriendly ASI being created, and it does not seem to increase the probability of worse than death scenarios in any way. Therefore it seems better than not donating.
>The last option is thinking of ways of reducing the probability of the scenarios. It is possible that by doing this you will invent a new method. This also includes raising awareness about the scenarios in any way so that other people will also try to invent methods.
>The dilemma is that it does not seem possible to continue living as normal when considering the prevention of worse than death scenarios. If it is agreed that anything should be done to prevent them then Pascal's Mugging seems inevitable. Suicide speaks for itself, and even the other two options, if taken seriously, would change your life. What I mean by this is that it would seem rational to completely devote your life to these causes. It would be rational to do anything to obtain money to donate to AI safety for example, and you would be obliged to sleep for exactly nine hours a day to improve your mental condition, increasing the probability that you will find a way to prevent the scenarios. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this dilemma and if you think there are better ways of reducing the probability.
Relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N4AvpwNs7mZdQESzG/the-dilemma-of-worse-than-death-scenarios
>A worse than death scenario can be defined as any scenario in which the observer would prefer to die than continue to live. A distinction is made between preferring to experience nothing and then resume living and preferring to experience nothing forever. For example, mos people would prefer to use general anesthetic during a necessary operation, but if there was no anesthetic, they would not choose to die. With the knowledge that the discomfort experienced during the operation is necessary to continue living, many would choose to go through with it (this can obviously vary depending on the operation and the observer).
>As the observer would prefer to die in a worse than death scenario, one can assume that they would be willing to do anything to escape the scenario. Thus, it follows that we should do anything to prevent worse than death scenarios from occurring in the first place. It is our first priority. In my opinion positive scenarios cannot change this due to the following observation: there is no positive scenario in which you would do anything to *not* make it stop, at least in our current human form. I cannot think of any scenario which is so positive for the observer that they don't care if it is certain that it will kill them.
>Worse than death scenarios vary in severity. The most basic example would be someone being kidnapped and tortured to death. If technology will allow immortality or ASI at some point, there are scenarios of much greater severity. The most extreme example would be an indefinite state of suffering comparable to the biblical Hell, perhaps caused by an ASI running simulations. Obviously preventing this has a higher priority than preventing scenarios of a lower severity.
>Scenarios which could mean indefinite suffering:
>1. ASI programmed to maximize suffering
>2. Alien species with the goal of maximizing suffering
>3. We are in a simulation and some form of "hell" exists in it
>4. ASI programmed to reflect the values of humanity, including religious hells
>5. Unknown unknowns
>Worse than death scenarios are highly neglected. This applies to risks of all severities. It seems very common to be afraid of serial killers, yet I have never heard of someone with the specific fear of being tortured to death, even if most people would agree that the latter is worse. This pattern is also seen in the field of AI: the "killer robot" scenario is very well-known, as is the paperclip maximiser, but the idea of an unfriendly ASI creating suffering is not talked about as often.
>There are various reasons for this neglect. Firstly, worse than death scenarios are very unpleasant to think about. It is more comfortable to discuss possibilities of ceasing to exist. In addition, they are very unlikely compared to other scenarios. However, the avoidance of the discussion of worse than death scenarios does not seem correct because something being unpleasant is not a valid reason to do this. In addition, the very low probability of the scenarios is balanced by their extreme disutility. This inevitability leads to Pascal's Mugging.
>Methods which may reduce the probability of indefinite worse than death scenarios (in order of effectiveness):
>1. Suicide
>2. Working on AI safety
>3. Thinking of ways of reducing the probability
>Suicide, depending on your theory on personal identity, may make the probability 0. If you believe that there is no difference between copies of you then there may be a possibility of being resurrected in the future however. As we aren't certain about what happens to the observer after death, it is unknown whether death will make worse than death scenarios impossible. I believe there are many ways in which it could reduce the probability, but the key question is: could it increase the probability? An argument against suicide is that it is more likely that people who commit suicide will go to "hell" than those who don't. This is because an entity who creates hell has values which accept suffering, making life a positive concept which should not be discarded. On the other hand, an entity with values related to efilism/antinatalism (philosophies in which suicide is generally accepted) would not create a hell at all. Of course, this is all based on a lot of speculation.
>There is a risk that the suicide attempt will fail and leave you in a disabled state. This could make you more vulnerable when considering indefinite worse than death scenarios. However, I would argue against this disadvantage because the only potential way to evade an entity powerful enough to cause these scenarios would be suicide, which always has a risk of failing.
>The second option listed is working on AI safety. This is due to the fact that a future ASI is the only entity which we could influence now. We can not do anything about superintelligent malevolent aliens or the fact that we may be in a simulation, on the other hand. Donating money to suffering-focused AI safety organizations may reduce the chance of an unfriendly ASI being created, and it does not seem to increase the probability of worse than death scenarios in any way. Therefore it seems better than not donating.
>The last option is thinking of ways of reducing the probability of the scenarios. It is possible that by doing this you will invent a new method. This also includes raising awareness about the scenarios in any way so that other people will also try to invent methods.
>The dilemma is that it does not seem possible to continue living as normal when considering the prevention of worse than death scenarios. If it is agreed that anything should be done to prevent them then Pascal's Mugging seems inevitable. Suicide speaks for itself, and even the other two options, if taken seriously, would change your life. What I mean by this is that it would seem rational to completely devote your life to these causes. It would be rational to do anything to obtain money to donate to AI safety for example, and you would be obliged to sleep for exactly nine hours a day to improve your mental condition, increasing the probability that you will find a way to prevent the scenarios. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this dilemma and if you think there are better ways of reducing the probability.
File: 1632006024532.png (778.96 KB, 571x612, 571:612, ουροβορος.png) ImgOps iqdb
The idea of awareness/consciousness being a one-off event is just as retarded as the idea of there being an afterlife. In fact I think the atheistic notion of nothingness succeeding death as a an inversion of the christian doctrine inevitably retains the very self-centered christian understanding of the soul/self as being something special, immutable and unrepeatable that if not destined to live forever must perish forever. The idea of eternal nothingness entails an extension of selfhood beyond it's proper realm, it just happens that the extended self is in a state of perpetual non-awareness as opposed to a state of eternal bliss.
The distinction between your awareness and all other awarenesses is an illusion created by your biological apparatus, and it will surely go away when said apparatus dissolves.It is like a momentarily elevated state. When that elavetated state has ceased to be, another one is bound to take its place because, fundamentally, awareness is a continuum. And I guarantee you that if that state manages to individuate from the soup enough to acquire higher cognitive functions, it will feel just as real, unique, and "present" like the one you are experiencing right now. These states were never distinct subjects to begin with.
I think the real question is the Vertiginous question: what makes you be (you) in the present moment, as opposed to someone else. What makes this elevated state feel present as opposed to a less privileged one. Afaik there are a few answers to that question like Caspar Hare's perspectival realism but I wouldn't be the one to elaborate on that and its also probably besides the point, as it doesn't detract from anything of the above.
>>246742
>Of the possibility that existence might be sadistic enough to force us back into the game endlessly?
This is unfortunately more like a certainty than a possibility. We are bound to re-emerge as perceiving things of various degrees of awareness with an equally varied potential for suffering. And oh boy are we going to suffer so fucking much. The universe is a giant meat grinder that churns out INDESCRIBABLE amounts of suffering and we are stuck here either until it itself implodes or, in the worst case scenario, for-fucking-EVER. Hope u enjoy the ride because we're not even halfway there :3
>>246787
You realize there is no profit in us advocating for an "afterlife" if we think 1 life is bad enough, right?
The distinction between your awareness and all other awarenesses is an illusion created by your biological apparatus, and it will surely go away when said apparatus dissolves.It is like a momentarily elevated state. When that elavetated state has ceased to be, another one is bound to take its place because, fundamentally, awareness is a continuum. And I guarantee you that if that state manages to individuate from the soup enough to acquire higher cognitive functions, it will feel just as real, unique, and "present" like the one you are experiencing right now. These states were never distinct subjects to begin with.
I think the real question is the Vertiginous question: what makes you be (you) in the present moment, as opposed to someone else. What makes this elevated state feel present as opposed to a less privileged one. Afaik there are a few answers to that question like Caspar Hare's perspectival realism but I wouldn't be the one to elaborate on that and its also probably besides the point, as it doesn't detract from anything of the above.
>>246742
>Of the possibility that existence might be sadistic enough to force us back into the game endlessly?
This is unfortunately more like a certainty than a possibility. We are bound to re-emerge as perceiving things of various degrees of awareness with an equally varied potential for suffering. And oh boy are we going to suffer so fucking much. The universe is a giant meat grinder that churns out INDESCRIBABLE amounts of suffering and we are stuck here either until it itself implodes or, in the worst case scenario, for-fucking-EVER. Hope u enjoy the ride because we're not even halfway there :3
>>246787
You realize there is no profit in us advocating for an "afterlife" if we think 1 life is bad enough, right?
>>247285
Absolutely spot on. Excellent post. Reincarnation is inevitable and there are infinite lives both before and beyond this one. I pray the eastern saints are correct and escape from the cycle is possible, even if only for a time
Absolutely spot on. Excellent post. Reincarnation is inevitable and there are infinite lives both before and beyond this one. I pray the eastern saints are correct and escape from the cycle is possible, even if only for a time
Belief in reincarnation is mostly an emotional thing, with no concern for metaphysical truth.
The early advocates of this bullshit idea (from mid 19th century socialist circles mostly) came up with it to explain why creatures were unequal since that fact of life sounded so horrendous and unfair to them, and there is nothing more to it. It is rather childish when you think of it.
You people have twisted it in the other direction so to speak: it's cruel and terrifying so it must be true because that's what life is about. Just ctrl + f 'suffer' itt. You guys have a hardon for horrific fantasies and that's it.
The early advocates of this bullshit idea (from mid 19th century socialist circles mostly) came up with it to explain why creatures were unequal since that fact of life sounded so horrendous and unfair to them, and there is nothing more to it. It is rather childish when you think of it.
You people have twisted it in the other direction so to speak: it's cruel and terrifying so it must be true because that's what life is about. Just ctrl + f 'suffer' itt. You guys have a hardon for horrific fantasies and that's it.
>>247301
You think early advocates of reincarnation are to be found from the 19th century 🤦
You think early advocates of reincarnation are to be found from the 19th century 🤦
>>247346
Yes, the idea is a recent invention based on misconceptions about eastern doctrines. If you want another somewhat related example of a wrong interpretation of a concept, look at karma and what it actually means vs what the new age definition is. There's also yoga which is an even more tangible instance of what I am describing.
A lot of what we think we know about eastern spirituality has been falsified when not outright made up by western authors (a lot of them being german, like Schoppenhauer) who wanted to make them fit into their own systems, and this is how it got into the new age movement and eventually went mainstream.
Yes, the idea is a recent invention based on misconceptions about eastern doctrines. If you want another somewhat related example of a wrong interpretation of a concept, look at karma and what it actually means vs what the new age definition is. There's also yoga which is an even more tangible instance of what I am describing.
A lot of what we think we know about eastern spirituality has been falsified when not outright made up by western authors (a lot of them being german, like Schoppenhauer) who wanted to make them fit into their own systems, and this is how it got into the new age movement and eventually went mainstream.
>>247301
Rationalists don't believe in karma though or any kind of reward/punishment.
They just believe being alive in one form or another is inevitable given untold billions of years for random chance and evolution to work its thing in the universe.
No, you wont remember a thing from your past existence, but it's inevitable you will exist in one form or another even after you die.
For the sake of this discussion, I refer to "you" as in every single person in this thread including me. Not you as a human being.
Rationalists don't believe in karma though or any kind of reward/punishment.
They just believe being alive in one form or another is inevitable given untold billions of years for random chance and evolution to work its thing in the universe.
No, you wont remember a thing from your past existence, but it's inevitable you will exist in one form or another even after you die.
For the sake of this discussion, I refer to "you" as in every single person in this thread including me. Not you as a human being.
>>247369
>Yes, the idea is a recent invention based on misconceptions about eastern doctrines
Except for the fact that it isn't.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation
>Yes, the idea is a recent invention based on misconceptions about eastern doctrines
Except for the fact that it isn't.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation
>>247301
What socialist circles? Marx and Engels were materialists and atheists, also not egalitarians.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
"Religion is the opium of the Masses"
The idea of reincarnation predates them:
"For one who has taken his birth, death is certain; and for one who is dead, birth is certain. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament."
https://asitis.com/2/27.html
What socialist circles? Marx and Engels were materialists and atheists, also not egalitarians.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
"Religion is the opium of the Masses"
The idea of reincarnation predates them:
"For one who has taken his birth, death is certain; and for one who is dead, birth is certain. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament."
https://asitis.com/2/27.html
>>247369
The popular conception of karma is pretty accurate. The word itself simply means action, and refers to the cause and effects of action. My favorite teacher uses the word rnanubandhana instead usually, but they're mostly the same concept
Yoga on the other hand is a complicated subject, however everyone with two bracrabls to rub together knows the stretchy stuff isn't actual yoga. Merchants just took stretching (asana) practice from raja/hatha yoga that traditionally aids in preparing the body for meditation, and marketed the stretching alone as a means to make money
You're dead wrong on reincarnation by the way. Nobody gives a damn about Schopenhauer, and certainly not normies. Your average new ager is more familiar with figures like Ram Das
The popular conception of karma is pretty accurate. The word itself simply means action, and refers to the cause and effects of action. My favorite teacher uses the word rnanubandhana instead usually, but they're mostly the same concept
Yoga on the other hand is a complicated subject, however everyone with two bracrabls to rub together knows the stretchy stuff isn't actual yoga. Merchants just took stretching (asana) practice from raja/hatha yoga that traditionally aids in preparing the body for meditation, and marketed the stretching alone as a means to make money
You're dead wrong on reincarnation by the way. Nobody gives a damn about Schopenhauer, and certainly not normies. Your average new ager is more familiar with figures like Ram Das
File: 1632173509448.jpg (61.74 KB, 760x758, 380:379, ancapistan vs ancombodia.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>247387
I want more than my needs. Their statment is such a declaration against letting me have my own product whenever I may obtain it… as if it is not enough already coz of muh taxes!
I want more than my needs. Their statment is such a declaration against letting me have my own product whenever I may obtain it… as if it is not enough already coz of muh taxes!
Different body, different person, so who cares. It's like getting buttflustered over the fact that other people will continue to exist when you die. Slightly disturbing is the possibility that we could live the exact same life over again infinitely many times as the universe goes through big bang and big crunch cycles, but even then it doesn't change literally one thing from the opposite outcome, if you're only able to perceive living once what does it matter that you might live infinitely many times?
>>247410
Yeah that's how I calm myself down when I get too panicky about this stuff. The prospect of experiencing excruciating pain sometime in the future is still scary though, even if you can't recall each previous time.
Yeah that's how I calm myself down when I get too panicky about this stuff. The prospect of experiencing excruciating pain sometime in the future is still scary though, even if you can't recall each previous time.
>>247402
Yes this is how it works. Porkies take the surplus value from the wage cucks. Wage cucks only take a small fraction of what they produced. Da gobermint exists to protect the interest of Porky.
Yes this is how it works. Porkies take the surplus value from the wage cucks. Wage cucks only take a small fraction of what they produced. Da gobermint exists to protect the interest of Porky.
>>247119
If I reincarnate but I don't remember any of my previous life why would I care? I won't be the same person. Death is the final end even if reincarnation is real, because if you forget all about your past lives then you will be a totally different person in your next life.
If I reincarnate but I don't remember any of my previous life why would I care? I won't be the same person. Death is the final end even if reincarnation is real, because if you forget all about your past lives then you will be a totally different person in your next life.
>>247285
I can't believe someone somewhere seriously thinks this shit makes sense. Seems like TDMT or simple retardation.
I can't believe someone somewhere seriously thinks this shit makes sense. Seems like TDMT or simple retardation.