[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/dep/ - Depression

Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1576536789090.png (240.11 KB, 386x640, 193:320, 3388519-3709056210-32089.png) ImgOps iqdb


I despise life to an upmost extreme and I want to know that the certainty of eternal void after death is a sure thing ?

I would scared if there is endless reincarnation. I don't how come I seem to exist in the first place but I want to be in endless non existence state.


theres no rest


>Eternal oblivion
This is also what I believe is the most likely thing after death, at least when it comes to the mind.


*eternity in oblivion* → *some random guy in the 21st century, planet earth* →*eternity in oblivion this time for real*
I mean that'd be absolutely hilarious if that's the trajectory of consciousness. Seems implausible though


There is no certainty idiot, everyone is just guessing.
I personally think and hope there is nothing after death, but since consciousness is relative (for example a 2 minute dream can feel like weeks) maybe our brain really does "flash before our eyes" and we relive our life from start to finish in our dying seconds.
Or maybe our understanding of consciousness is greatly flawed and we all have souls that get recycled and attached to new bodies as they are born.
We don't know. We'll never be certain. Probably just nothing though.


The fact I didn't exist and then came into existence is bizarre enough I don't really doubt anything anymore. The more I think about it the more absurd it seems.


The lake of fire mentioned in the bible is not a place you will be stuck forever. Thats a load of shit. God promises to “disconnect” those who wish to be separate from him. But since God is the force behind everything and anything theres only one place left for you to go. And its the same Void from which any linear beings essentially came from.


I am extremely scared of what happens after death. I have intrusive thoughts of it every day. Frankly all of the options that I can concive seem pretty bad.


My own theory is that if the universe infinitly repeats itself (big bounce) or there are infinite universes, given a vast amount of time, you will be born again and relive your same life over and over again for infinity. But we can only perceive one life at a time.


This is Samsara of course, you live a life of accumulating karma, then it's held against you and you get the option of trying again. Basically the standard isekai business that the archons pull on you infinitely.



No idea but this is what I thought for a long time after giving up on any false sense of certainty:

First there is pure being. Pure being is basically nothingness as it doesn't know about itself and no qualities, experiences or differences can emerge. It's like the mind of a stone, non existent. Pure being is not yet something but rather a potential in which possibilities can be realised. Then something comes into Existence that means a possibility is realised. And once something exists this something makes differences aka think of the big bang. It changes. More and more possibilities are realized. Time and space and material emerges. All of this can be explained in scientific ways but I'm not great at that. However at some point life emerges, becomes a realized possibility. This where things start to become indefinitely more complex as this is the point where sensation and perception starts to matter. The speed of changes radically increases in contrast to processes of non living material. It's not far from that until Consciousness emerges. And that's where we come into play. Finally that one possibility is realized which you are aware of - yourself. Your perspective came into existence and all we can know is limited to this perspective and its experiences with the existing world. We are self conscious but we are also part of the material world thus we have bodies that will die obviously. As soon as consciousness fades which will happen once the supporting organic functions stop working then -yourself- your perspective will go back into nothingness as in pure being, unrealized potential. The thing is that nobody will experience what pure being is like. It has no time. So this is what I think will happpen. You die and as long as conscious life forms become realized a new conscious being pops up somewhere and this being will form a new self, a new perspective which could as well be you. The time that passes between you dying and the conscious being coming into Existence might as well the span of one nano second because time does not exist without you, without someone that experiences time.


not sure why you call non-existence pure being. Non-existence is a nonsensical proposition because it doesn't exist, it is not a state of being, it's not anything at all. All that there is or ever was or ever will be is existence and there is no alternative.


Damn it now I'm paranoid


If you died by abortion then you will die infinitely when universe repeat itself ? I don't think it's same life over and over again.

Non existence can't really exist I think because if you don't exist then you should not have come into existence at first place. Maybe after suicide I can find the answer.


The important distinction is wether we live in a non determanistic or determanistic universe.

Say the unverse is determanstic, there is only one unverse, and it infinitely repeats itself. In this case gravity overcomes dark energy, the universe stops expanding and starts to contract, eventually contracting into a singularity, followed by another big bang. Again, being deterministic, the same thing will happen again and again. So the molocules that made up your brain and made up your concsiousness will eventually remake you over and over. You will live the same life over and over again forever. You cannot perceive this though, but it still happens. The universe doesn't care that you are a fetus that didn't make it out of the womb.

If the universe is non determanistic, then given enough time all variations of the universe will happen. That means at some point the parts that make you up will be the most successfull person alive, but most of the time you are just going to be a rock or something. Again, given infinite time, infinite variations will happen.

This only works if the universe keeps going. If the universe crunches and doesnt restart, or rips apart or just freezes, and that is it, then this repeating is not going to happen. I beleive if the big freeze happens there are spontanous ways for the unverse to restart; something to do with quantum tunneling or something. Not really sure.


The universe is NOT deterministic and you DO have free will, that much is certain. Read more and waste less time arguing with materialists, who ask you to cast a fireball straight at their face to prove anything.


Free will is an illusion. Every choice you make is just your brain picking the best possible action. The decision is already made for you. Everything that has happened and will happen already exists in the unverse we just perceive time as a snapshot.


Predetermined to reply.



Pure being is the precondition of the possibility for something to exist. This a logical argument not an ontological statement.
What this means is the following. People say that rivers exist. They say that unicorns do not exist. But we can agree that unicorns exist in the fantasy of the human mind as fictive concepts. In this sense we can say that everything humans can perceive, think of, imagine and experience exists. God exists.
On the other hand we know of limitations of the human mind and our capability to explain and understand things. Now we can say that God or some form of universal principle exists and has always existed and this answers the question about how it was possible for something to exist because there was never the possibility for something not to exist. So if we assume that this all encompassing timeless and causeless entity exists then there is a problem with that because we can only say that it exists for us. The point is that existence is a human category and artificial attribution. When we say that something exists then we can only assume our human connection to that thing. Something 'existing' necessarily means that it 'exists for us' or in our minds.
Thus Plotinus says that the One which he refers to is beyond the attributes of existence/ non-existence, being/ not being. Pure being for me means an empty form or an undefined concept which does not correlate to something precise. It does not make a difference between nothingness and something. That's why I called it an potential for possibilities to become realized. Even this attribution is a part of human mind and already too precise. We cannot refer to something as if it didn't exist as something concrete. But we have to assume such thing - the impossible, unsayable, beyond human comprehension - as we can only understand what existence means if we contrast it to non-existence just like we can only understand the value of life in the face of death. There must be an indistinctive One as we can imagine that humans do not exist and without us the distinction between existence and nonexistence would similary disappear.


From a logical standpoint there shouldn't be anything after death, your brain is there rotting, but it happened once, might as well happen again and eternal oblivion will feel like a blink of an eye before you're revived in some other world.


""you"", what is consciousness really?

This perception is unique. As the atoms that shape you are unique at any given moment.

You won't be this "process" ever again, or perhaps you always are? Who knows.

What I believe most logical is that you will eventually (ad infinitum) be everything that is or ever was.


Who cares? You wont remember your past life.


Not eventually, instantaneously. It's all happening at once, time is created by the lower consciousness.


Some people (like me) would like to never experience consciousness again; whether we remember or not is irrelevant.


bro, where do you think you were before being born?


Predetermined to despair over it


Memories are not the point



A bunch of ingredients exist, not yet in sandwich form → I put them together and make them into a sandwich → I eat the sandwich and it stops existing

So the sandwich went through the same cycle of not existing, existing, and not existing. Does that mean it will have infinite sandwich lives where it will be born over and over?


The sandwich does keep existing though. It exists in your stomach and it exists in your mind. By eating sandwich you are transmuting sandwich into you.


the sandwich never existed. its just a bunch of atoms and calling it a sandwich it's a social contract.


Atoms are just as illusory as sandwiches


if that is true then what is your illusion made of.


File: 1577160960627.jpg (73.84 KB, 750x612, 125:102, 1479395401094.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>a)lternatively the new you won't care
>b)anged: if this is all you get the big crunch might just big bang over and over forcing you to live ONLY THIS over and over
>c)losure: nothing happens
>d)oth heaven and hell exist?
>e)rraticly our soul has already been scrambled during your life and you're not what you think you are but are just energy passing through a computer
>f)ucked: when you die time freezes for you and you feel your death forever
>g)arbage confusing world only seems real because you're dreaming and never ends because the rules are fake
>h)ow do you know your memories are really you and your soul is permanent but not switched out during sleep?
>i)n sleep you change lives for all you know or even more often
>j)oke: all of the above as the universe is an ever expanding reality that tries to make all things possible



But couldn't the big bang arrange atoms in a random way that would mean that you are not born in infinite cycles?

If 'we' as we know it comprise of mostly unique memories, then it isn't a stretch to say that 'you' are eliminated once death occurs, since brain function ceases.

You may become something else, but you won't be 'you'.


If it happened once it might happen again Wizzuh


File: 1579036126654.jpg (357.24 KB, 1200x1664, 75:104, 21.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Is there a non-zero probability that after death (the final and irrevocable disappearance of consciousness), consciousness will reappear? Think of it this way: we already experienced oblivion, but then we appeared, began to give ourselves away. Won't it happen again? Is it possible that after the black screen, the window of calm, there will not be a fluctuation of subjective mental experience? In the universe, everything seems to be cyclical. This seems perfectly logical to me. Then aren't you afraid of being born in worse conditions, some slave in Africa, or just an invalid? How are we born as ourselves? Why am I me? This is a philosophy, I understand. There are 7 billion people on planet Earth, but I am me, not someone else. I could be a cat, I could be a tortoise, I could be a horse, but I am a man. Is there some undisclosed law by which this selection takes place? Will it ever be open? It seems to me that this is something from the section of mysterious and obscure metaphysics. I am not a religious person, I am an agnostic atheist and materialist, but what if the next consciousness after suicide is more miserable than the one you were when you were alive now? I'm talking about karma, yes. Or is it exactly the opposite? Are suicides "reborn" into more satisfied beings? And by rebirth, I mean not the transmigration of souls, but the recombination of atoms, because they are always circulating and assembling into different structures, just like LEGO. So what do you think?


File: 1579040779633.png (231.29 KB, 905x497, 905:497, will to die.png) ImgOps iqdb

>In the universe, everything seems to be cyclical.

I hope this comforts you a bit


Under non-zero probability, you will never 'not' be you, as to not be you would be the experience of being another

Therefore, there is no 'time' when you are not you and under infinite rearrangements of big bangs, you will be you again

so its an eternal loop


The universe has a will of increasing complexity


I can feel you and I asked myself the same question. The mind can only exist with a brain. The brain will cease eventually. You die. Now the question is if death is eternal. In my opinion it is not. As the probability of the universe to create another you is not zero. However you will be dead for 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 millenia and longer. First the universe will cease at some distant point in the future. Then there has to be another big bang (very unlikely). Then human life must be formed again by nature (again very unlikely). Then the same 2 people (your parents) have to meet again and get a child (very unlikely). Then this child has to be you. I mean I don't know if you have brothers or sisters but the DNA of your parents could have fused in billions of different versions and only one specific version would be you. Then it would also be necessary to have the same shitty experiences that led you to hating life. So all things considered the probability of living again is basically zero. It is so incredibly unlikely that one can calm down. Then electrons really have to be eternal (it seems they are), however if they are not then the universe would not reset and there wouldn't be another simulation of the whole thing. If the electrons are not eternal then time is not eternal and then the probability of living again would be indeed zero. So the good thing is we can be sure to be dead for a long time.

A quote of Faulkner says:
>"I could just remember how my father used to say that the reason for living was to get ready to stay dead a long time."



The problem with this argument is:
How do you account for the number of living beings increasing over time?
There are 7 billion humans now. At some point there were a couple hundred.
When those couple hundred ones died, assuming they got reincarnated, there would still be only a couple hundred. Where did 7 billion come from?
Perhaps you imagine it's other from animals but you could just regress the same argument backwards until the very first living forms.

At some point there was a single, or just a few unicellular life forms. How did all living things in history reincarnate from just this bunch?

And next, if things are truly cyclical, who died to give life to those unicellular things?

The thought of organic matter clumping up together to the point of arising consciousness without any kind of magical or divine power is definitely hard to grasp, seems so unlikely, improbable, but it's plausible, right?

If so, the scattering of this organic matter back to its constituents would just make this consciousness stop existing. When consciousness goes away, you go away.

I say this because if you had a tumor that just kept multiplying, and some doctor removed it and kept it growing on a lab, although those are your cells, and although they may outlive you (there's famous cases like this used for cancer research, of really old tumors that keep multiplying under culture and are used for experiments), it would hardly be considered "you".

For all philosophy and religion have done, I don't think there is a single person who would really, in their heart of hearts, disagree with this. What you call you is in your brain. It's your conscious experience. If someone punches "you" it hurts "you". If someone punches a clump of your tumor cells, it does not hurt you, it hurts the bunch of your cells. But all of you is a clump of your cells, so what's the catch?

The catch is only a specific bunch of your cells makes conscious experience happen. Those, as far as we know are in your brain. It seems to make very little sense that once this brain stops living, anything could exist beyond that.


Why would you even assume a Closed Individualist view of continuity of personal identity in the first place?


Is that you in the video? How do you find these?


Haha, sensitive boi, sensitive mods, come at me


>As the probability of the universe to create another you is not zero.
Prove it.


We have really sunk to this level of debate around here..

I have nowhere else to go


Well, that is pretty self evident. It is already stated in the assumptions. I assumed that time is infinite. If that is so then everything will happen infinitely often.


I can also assume a lot of things, including that time is not infinite, and then your assumption that it is infinite will not make sense. This is not a proof, this is a hypothesis.


Obviously there can be no proof. Nobody knows what might be after death. Therefore you have to work with assumptions. I assumed that time is infinite, because it seems that certain particles like electrons seem indeed to be eternal. So let us assume that they really are eternal, then anything that is possible will happen. As the attempts are infinite.

There is a famous example of endless attempts. Imagine a monkey who randomly clicks at a keyboard. The probability to press a certain button is 1:50 (or I don't know maybe 1:100). Then what is the probability that this monkey randomly writes a perfect copy of a work of Shakespeare, if that monkey has endless time? Well, it is 1. It will happen for sure, because the monkey has endless attempts.

Back to our original problem. If energy and certain particles are eternal (and it seems they are) then it is absolutely possible that the whole universe restarts. Another big bang will occur and everything restarts. And after this universe vanished a new one will appear and so one for all eternity. But as I already wrote in my first comment, the probability of living again is basically zero.


If death isn't eternal, then where do you think you will end up after oblivion? I understand that I'm asking an incorrect question, because there will be no "you": the consciousness will disappear, and there is no proof of the soul and it's swept away by Occam's razor. It's very confusing and complicated.


Another consciousness, with no recolection of the previous ones.


As scientifically certain as I'm of blankness, dreamless sleep after death, on a subjective level it is hard to comprehend a total hard stop and eternal nothingness. Almost makes curiosity another reason on the list for suicide


There exists the parallel argument from the ancient epicurean philosopher Lucretius. It states that the time before birth and the time after life are the same. This means that death is 1:1 comparable to the time before birth.


>Is that you in the video?
>How do you find these?
It was either /sci/ or qualiacomputing


File: 1579807944200.jpg (48.77 KB, 856x1024, 107:128, jordann.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>maybe our brain really does "flash before our eyes" and we relive our life from start to finish in our dying seconds.
Fuck, so following that logic how can anyone be certain that theyre not dead? what if right now you or me are reliving our life? and what if its an endless loop, when we get to the point were we are dying do we relive it again and again endlessly?


I think that when you die you instantly respawn as something or someone else.
even if trillions of years would be between your death and respawn, you wouldnt notice any of that time.
that shit is frightening,what if you respawn as some really crippled person?
what if you respawn as a pig in one of these slaughterhouses?
maybe it just repeats itself so you always spawn as (you) but that too would be shitty.

I really dont know man it all seems fucked no matter what actually happens, every theory about what happens after death is horrifying.


The only thing that truly terrifies me about dying is the thought of being conscious, or somehow remaining aware of myself throughout eternity. Stephen King's "Jaunt", Junji Ito's "The Long Dream", Black Mirror's "White Christmas", SCP 2718, or, the granddaddy of this sort of thing, Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", all, to some degree or another, illustrate what I'm talking about here. The idea of time dilation taking place during the very moment of one's death is something that disturbs me greatly, although I'm not sure how it'd happen if somebody just blew their head off with a shotgun.

Another thing that deeply disturbs me is the spurious notion that wherever you "think" or "believe" you're going to go, is exactly where you go. What if you're an obsessive basket case like me though, who can only fear & hyper focus on the worst possible scenario? What then? Am I just completely fucked? Literally condemned to hell because of OCD I was cursed with and that I can't control? Honestly that whole thing, along with "The Secret" & authoritarian mindfulness garbage in general, is some serious "It's A Good Life" Twilight Zone bullshit. "Only think good thoughts & beliefs now, or be condemned to eternity in your own personal hell!" I remember first hearing about this kind of thing from George Carlin on one of his comedy albums (Brain Droppings, I believe it was) and, ever since, it's been something that's both enraged me & made me shit my pants, in equal measure. Even pessimistic, cynical me, honestly can't admit to the universe being that badly/maliciously designed, although, in some sense, it'd be very fitting if it were.

It's also frightening to think how someone who's paralyzed and has no use of their senses is pretty much trapped inside their body, akin to being trapped in a black, endless void. Just think of that guy who failed at shooting himself, becoming practically a vegetable in the process, and kept blinking how he still wanted to die. Dude must've been howling, blood curdling screams on the inside 24/7. "Johnny Got His Gun" is another unsettling story that detailed this sort of thing.

My reassurance against all this awfulness? Well, mostly the obvious. The mind sits at the center of everything. Once it goes, that's that. Like switching off a computer, or flicking the off switch on a light. It'll simply be nothing. Like a deep, dreamless sleep. If I knew that were the case with absolute certainty and that every part of me would be completely annihilated in the process, then I wouldn't have the slightest but of concern about death. Dying certainly, but not death. Funny how something like Hamlet's famous soliloquy on death & dying, written hundreds of years ago now, strikes right to the very heart of this sort of thing.

The fact that one would potentially still have to be alive to experience that sense of eternity isn't a exactly a great comfort, though. Quite frightening itself in fact, given the dystopian hellscape of this planet. Perhaps there will be drugs that can simulate what I've described above in the future as a form of capital punishment. You'd also sure as shit never catch me uploading my consciousness to a computer (assuming we're not in one already), since death, in the sense of it being a dreamless sleep, would be impossible, whereas any sort of hell you could imagine, would suddenly be a reality, whether due to a bored hacker, or a nightmarish cyber government. Even if that weren't the case, just imagine if the program ever got corrupted somehow, leaving one in a potentially literal version of SCP 2718 due to that corruption.

At this point, as unlikely as it is, I just pray I die suddenly & unexpectedly somehow. Couldn't imagine getting a terminal diagnosis and knowing my imminent death is on the horizon. Copious amounts of mind-numbing drugs or amnesiacs would be the only answer.



As an aside, I find watching this scene from Jacob's Ladder has always, in a small way, tended to soothe my fears about dying. When speaking of possible eventualities beyond death, aside from complete nothingness being the best and most likely outcome, I'd prefer this one the most.


I would really like to know if there is a law that determines who you will be born in the next life. As I wrote above, why am I me? How did it work? Is this an accident? Or is there some hidden pattern?
You know, for some reason, my intuition tells me that we endlessly reborn in our clones (the same appearance and similar personality), but at different times. For example, if you die, the next time you will be born the same, but in the 25 or, conversely, the stone age. Of course, this is just a stupid assumption, but I like to think so. I know I might be wrong. Quite a funny hypothesis.
If I had known for sure that a better fate awaited me, I would not have hesitated to throw myself off the roof.
The fact that we can't choose who we are born with, and that after death we will be born again without our own consent, is terribly frightening. You see, when you are alive, at least you can resist, change something, be aware of yourself. When death comes, consciousness disappears, nothing remains. There is no "you", so "you" can't resist being born, and you can be born in the most disgusting conditions. It's incredibly scary.
From some point of view, it is more logical to stay alive, if only because you know what will happen to you. You will have not one hundred percent, but at least some confidence in the future. Yes, you will live a miserable and boring life, but this is better than the non-zero probability of being reborn as Stephen Hawking with his disease. But this is just one of the points of view.
My first reaction to your post: it's stupid and doesn't make sense. Then I thought about it and realized that quantum mechanics doesn't make sense either, but it works, so I don't know what to say. It would be very bad if we endlessly lived the same life. I'm for variety.
>>212107 (OP)
>I despise life to an upmost extreme
>The only thing that truly terrifies me about dying is the thought of being conscious, or somehow remaining aware of myself throughout eternity.
Don't worry, you won't.
>Stephen King's "Jaunt", Junji Ito's "The Long Dream", Black Mirror's "White Christmas", SCP 2718, or, the granddaddy of this sort of thing, Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream"
>Johnny Got His Gun
Wow, you did some pretty deep research. Your erudition is impressive. But don't forget that most of what you've listed is mysticism, not science. I hope you feel better.


File: 1581651432824.png (27.88 KB, 871x318, 871:318, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

Jesus, his posts surprised me. Why does he openly write about it? I feel uncomfortable about it.


File: 1581651645504.png (1.07 MB, 1159x590, 1159:590, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

This guy is fucking weird.


> the certainty of eternal void after death is a sure thing
you are an immortal consciousness currently duped into thinking he's a mortal pile of cells
I'm sorry but to be conscious is impossible with only the physical world. You are something else.
lol this
you forgot your infinity, to forget it all is a part of the game. You still carry your experience, which is the reason why you aren't an NPC.


Always hated this extremely narcissistic reasoning of "Because I can't understand it, it must mean x". No, all it means is you don't know. You pulled all that stuff out of your ass to jerk that ego off nice and slow like using a fantasy world view that suits your needs. It's flimsy, it's self obsessed, it's absurd. God self awareness is the second most comical thing to occur in this shitty universe. The places it takes people among the desperate struggle to cope makes me want to gouge my fucking eyes out.


I think that it is impossible to fully relive your life in your last seconds. This is because our brain runs on electrical impulses and it is phisicly impossible to condense the amount of signals that you have had in you lifetime down to a few seconds. Our brains just aren't fast enough.


I am everything, the universe ends with me, all else is fake. What happens after, I dont know.


What is outside of the loop?


I'm not that anon, but I want to answer. Most likely, there will be nirvana — liberation from samsara, the circle of births.


you cant free yourself from something that the universe cant control. like the start of the big bang from nothing. its an endless loop of life and death.


forgot to mention that the universe is everything. there is nothing outside of everything.


>the universe cant control
The universe controls everything inside it. The natural cycle of life and death is part of it. This is the same essence as Newton's law.


Interesting. But your viewpoint is so correct, and you are so angry at the other viewpoint because….?


Nobody can explain this away
There is something more to it




>Don't worry, you won't.

Well we can only hope, I suppose. Either way, whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen. It used to bother me a lot, but now. Well now, I'm not sure. I can't tell whether I've just gotten desensitized to these hellish notions of mine, or that I've simply come to a point where envisioning an afterlife, any sort of afterlife (good or bad), just seems too silly to take seriously in my head anymore. But, like I said, whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen so, either way, I'm just indifferent.

Even having said all this, the process of dying will more than likely terrify me a great deal. Mostly as a result of hardwired biological impulses and all that. To face dying without fear and to instead meet it with strength & dignity, would be, I think, a worthwhile, albeit also meaningless, gesture. Personally, I think the point of life should be to prepare oneself for death given its inevitability and so as to face it without worry, fear or anxiety.

>But don't forget that most of what you've listed is mysticism, not science. I hope you feel better.

Yes, that's true. It's largely just a mixture of pure science-fiction &, as you put it, new-age mysticism/spiritualism. Even what I've described already can essentially just be condensed down to another version of "hell". Instead of lakes of fire & imps with pitchforks, it's simply eternity alone in an empty void. So really, when you put it that way, I guess you could say that, like many others, I'm just afraid of going to hell when I die. Or, discounting this, that eternity in an empty void simply is the afterlife and we're all of us doomed to reside in our own particular voids after death.

Funny though that even when you think of examples like the Christian idea of "heaven", or even 'The Long Dream' by Juni Ito, in the sense of them being seen as ideal forms of eternity by many given their, at least on the surface, pleasing nature. Of course, as many don't seem to realize, even heaven is just a roundabout way to hell. With even it becoming nothing more than an empty void after however much time passes until one can't bear the weight of their own consciousness any longer. I mean, imagine a reality where suicide wasn't possible. Where death or true oblivion wasn't possible. Like I say, even the traditional idea of heaven is enough to make me nauseous.

'The Long Dream' is a bit more preferable, but what constitutes an endless dream? What can one dream for eternity, when all other dreams have been exhausted? Was the character in that story simply adrift in an empty void at the end? I'd like to think not and it's really the sort of thing that's mostly just up to interpretation anyway, I suppose.

Anyway, mulling over fiction is one thing, but treating it as anything more than that is, admittedly, just silly. When all's said & done, I'm simply adverse to pain. The idea of death being merely the gateway to true & everlasting torment is a stubborn idea to get rid of given how it triggers my fear of pain which, in turn, makes me fear the idea of it even more, thereby giving it a sense of plausibility due to that cycle of fear & worry. In response, I just remind myself that when the mind rots away, the pain will cease. Without the mind, there is nothing to process pain, or anything else. If this is what death truly is, then I'd be most relieved. As opposed to Hamlet however, even if I knew this to be 100% the case, I can't say I'd be able to kill myself any more easily, due to my fear of bodily pain & mental panic from a dying body, but I could at least take reassurance in knowing that there's nothing to fear afterwards.


File: 1581975738980.jpg (1.33 MB, 5322x4242, 887:707, 17.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I really like your personality, though some of your thoughts don't overlap with mine. As I said, you rely on mysticism. I am essentially a skeptic and a person who thinks scientifically. I don't believe in anything divine, mysterious, or supernatural. Moreover, I want to add that if you were eternally conscious in a rotting body, you would know about it and still be there, because it is eternity. However, we do not observe this. The extrapolation of the concept of eternity gives us to understand that, oddly enough, there is nothing eternal, except perhaps the universe can be reborn forever (the cycle of the singularity, Planck era, the era of Grand unification, the inflationary epoch, electroweak epoch, quark epoch, hadron epoch, lepton epoch, the proton era, the dark ages, reionization, the era of matter, domination of the lambda, epoch of disintegration, the era of black holes, the era of eternal darkness, which is essentially the heat death, and all of a SUDDEN a large explosion, caused by a quantum fluctuation). I note that the scenario of the future of the universe that I described is purely hypothetical. So far, no one knows what will actually happen, and a huge number of studies are being conducted. And the future scenario is not the key point that I wanted to focus on. How the universe will die is not important in this case, it is important that it will be eternally reborn. You can look at the picture, it is very interesting.
The fact that nothing is eternal within the universe, but the universe itself is eternal, is called emergence. The concept of emergence came from mathematics, or rather from the theory of systems, and means the irreducibility of the properties of a system to the sum of the properties of its components.
>I'm just afraid of going to hell when I die
Life in principle and self-awareness of a sufficiently developed organism is hell, because it is doomed to a meaningless existence. I will not take the great philosophers who came to the conclusion about the absurdity and uselessness of being, but I will take painfully banal examples: terrorism, diseases of varying severity, whether they are physical or mental, bullying, poverty, loneliness, harmful dependencies et cetera. Some suicidal people sometimes seem to intuitively refer to the universe/God with the words "why I was given life", implying that they did not want to be born, but they had no choice.
First, based on my words above, you are already here. Second, there will be no "you" after death. What you are talking about is the soul, but there is no reason to believe that it exists. The very concept of the soul is extremely contradictory and crooked, whereas any scientific theory is beautiful and symmetrical. According to Wikipedia, it is an immortal substance, an immaterial entity. Okay. We know biological immortality, the absence of a certain species of mortality growth over time starting from a certain age (however, no creature is absolutely immortal, since it can be killed by external factors). That is, based on this definition, to be immortal, you must be a biological organism or part of it, but the soul is not an organism, it is something immaterial. Nonsense! The universe, at least the observable part of it, is all made up of matter: atoms, subatomic particles like neutrons, quarks, leptons, bosons, one-dimensional quantum particles. All possible dimensions are made up of matter. Even a term like antimatter doesn't mean it's not matter. This is the same substance, just consisting of a different type of particle. So how can the soul exist if the very fundamental structure of the universe opposes and contradicts the conditions of its realization?
You can say that not everything is made of matter, because there is such a thing as energy, but this would be a gross mistake, because it is a false dichotomy. Often, when reading articles about the universe or particle physics, you will find a phrase that mentions "matter and energy" as if they are two opposites, or two partners, or two sides of the same coin that make up everything else. This pops up in many contexts. You can read that "matter and antimatter annihilate into pure energy". Such conversations are misleading people. It doesn't mean much to physicists. These poetic epithets refer to what is clearly defined in mathematics and experiments, and ambiguous definitions simply express long precise phrases in short. In fact, matter and energy generally belong to different categories — it's like talking in one sentence about apples and orangutans, or about heaven and worms, or about birds and beach balls. Matter and energy do not belong to the same class of concepts and should not form a pair in the representation of a person. Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. Energy is a single measure of various forms of movement and interaction of matter, a measure of the transition of the movement of matter from one form to another. The energy can be contained in the mass of the object (E=mc^2), it can be associated with the movement of the object (kinetic energy, E=m*v^2/2), and so on.
You can also say that I only mentioned the observable universe, and anything can happen in an unobserved universe. Indeed, there is no limit to imagination, but the world in which we find ourselves has its logical limitations. Mathematics has an incredible predictive power. With its help, the planet "at the tip of the pen" — Neptune — was discovered. You can predict where Voyager 1 will be in 5 years. Nevertheless, no one, since the creation of mathematics itself, has discovered, even if only theoretically, on paper, such a thing as the soul.
There were very stupid attempts to justify the soul scientifically, but they all failed. The first is weight loss after death. Some idiots believed it. In my opinion, even a student who somehow learned chemistry at school will know that this is the burning of ATP or adesinotriphosphate. This is a universal source of energy for all biochemical processes occurring in living systems, in particular for the formation of enzymes, a kind of chemical currency.
The second was a well-known clinical death. Some believe that if they see their body from the outside and fly through a tunnel at the end of which light is visible, then this confirms the existence of the soul (lol, how?).
Let's go through all the "symptoms". Exit from the body. The temporal-parietal node is responsible for integrating data collected by the senses and the body, forming a person's perception. When this part of the brain is damaged, it may well be the experience of leaving the body that so many people talk about.
Light at the end of the tunnel. A 2010 study involving heart attack patients found a link between this type of clinical death and blood carbon dioxide levels. Of the 52 cardiopacients, 11 had clinical death. The level of CO2 in the blood of these patients was significantly higher than in patients who did not mention the near-death experience. Scientists have concluded that excess carbon dioxide in the bloodstream can significantly affect vision, which leads to the appearance of a tunnel and bright light.
Hallucinations. While excess carbon dioxide affects vision during clinical death, a lack of oxygen in the brain complements this. It is well known that oxygen starvation can lead to hallucinations and even contribute to a sense of euphoria, which is often reported. And while the sample size for the assessment was not as large, studies have shown that people who reported clinical death during cardiac arrest also had low oxygen levels. Oxygen starvation can also lead to people seeing themselves transported to a place where they are surrounded by friends and relatives who have long since died.
Increased sensory perception. A common moment in clinical death, and one recent study shows that a kind of hypersensitive perception can be triggered by a significant spike in brain activity in the dying moments. The study was conducted on rats and was not particularly large-scale, so some members of the scientific community do not accept the results, but lead author Jimo Borjigin believes that they demonstrate the biological basis of the near-death experience.
That's about it. No magic.
>I mean, imagine a reality where suicide wasn't possible. Where death or true oblivion wasn't possible.
This is easy to imagine, because it seems to me that there must be universes in which there is no life, and therefore no death or suicide. These can be unpredictable worlds with non-linear time. In such cases, protons and electrons will be unstable and may break up into particles that have a larger mass than themselves. If you think that in a universe where life is possible but death is not possible of its own free will, then this is impossible. Of course, you can be locked up in a solitary cell and you can't die on your own, but you will eventually die of illness or old age. Even if a super-developed evil civilization kept you alive indefinitely, this "infinity" would still have an end, because any substance will eventually decompose into its component parts, this is called entropy. None of your warnings make sense. Calm down.
>Without the mind, there is nothing to process pain, or anything else.
Can't argue with that.
>my fear of bodily pain & mental panic from a dying body
You can use a huge dose of tranquilizers. I have no experience, but I think it should help.


General disgust for humanity and its poor excuse of intelligence. The least obnoxious trait a person can have is self awareness of their own limitations but we are often built to view things from the perspective of a megalomaniac without realizing that this is what we are doing. Everything we think is correct, our potential is limitless and we are capable of understanding all there is given enough time and space. This sort of thing often lies at the basis for the kind of bogus assumptions you find all over this thread. Not observations, not personal experience, just ego.


File: 1582013223366.jpg (50.37 KB, 400x227, 400:227, 5739845798345.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


Well, all of this, at least in regards to me fearing what might come after death, is more just a result of paranoid delusion on my part, if anything. I'll be the first to admit that. I have no argument or leg to stand on for this stuff, other than that I believe the universe was designed to torment me and that the ultimate torment, eternity in an empty void, will be saved until after I'm dead. This is mostly a result of a negativity bias, I'd imagine. As in, I focus on all the bad things that happen to me, sometimes one after the other in coincidence after coincidence of awful luck, which then follows with me seeing it as evidence of a malicious universe, or a penal colony/punishment that was designed specifically for me, while at the same time ignoring all the other times when things do work out in my favor, which completely dynamites those same delusions. I mean, if the universe were truly designed to torment me, why would I be living as comfortably as I am now? What aren't I in a rape dungeon, or a vegetable, or in some third world shithole, or any number of more heinous & cruel fates? Again, I'm not saying that any of this makes sense because it just doesn't.

And yet, no matter how much I can look at it all rationally and see the whole thing as ridiculous, there's still that hint of doubt about, "What if that is what happens when I die?". I guess I've just trained myself throughout my life to always assume for & expect the worst, so why would potential existences after death be any different? Anyway, I don't know. Whatever.

As an aside, it's weird how a lot of people in this thread are worried about reincarnation, or being reborn again after how many cycles of the universe takes place to bring everything together as it is right now. The latter is extra silly/stupid to be worried about, since it wouldn't even be "you" anyway, just some guy who looks like you. Like a fucking clone, or whatever. Who gives a shit about that? Similarly, reincarnation is just kinda a limp concept to me. I mean, yeah, it'd suck, but it wouldn't be the worst thing ever. I mean it's probably all nonsense either way, but the sort of nonsense I've been talking about is way god damn worse and makes that other shit look like a light slap on the wrist by comparison.

>Moreover, I want to add that if you were eternally conscious in a rotting body, you would know about it and still be there, because it is eternity. However, we do not observe this.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that before. I guess you're right, huh? Well, I don't know. Maybe I'm in a computer simulation and my jailor thought to give me a brief life first before eventually throwing me into a void for near eternity once my "death" comes. Or, discounting the computer simulation angle, maybe that's just how the metaphysical nature of the afterlife works. As I said, I've got a paranoid delusion for everything.

Anyway, I certainly appreciated the more scientific analysis you provided on dying. You definitely went all out there, I must say. However, I don't really have 100% confidence in anything, science or otherwise. Perhaps it's just the ignorant luddite in me talking, but who the fuck knows what this universe, or reality in general, could be all about. I've always thought religion/spiritualism was complete horseshit, but, at the same time, I've also never been all that big on science either, at least so far as being the end all & be all explanation on death. At the end of the day, my own paranoid delusions win out over anything else. Hell, maybe solipsism is true and this is all just a fucking mirage in my head and anything I think or believe will come after death, will be exactly what comes. I don't know, which itself, the not knowing, is really the core of it, I suppose.

You know, as an aside, my mother has always been into spirituality and a very new-agey version of Christianity. In addition, she's also always been a firm believer in NDEs and, it's funny you mentioned that, since I've told her tons of times about how the things these people think they experienced were nothing more than the result of bodily functions gone haywire leading to hallucinations & shit, but she essentially just hand waves it away in favor of what she herself believes to be the case. As ridiculous as it sounds, just the fact that someone claimed to have an NDE and saw angels, spiritual energy, or whatever else, is enough evidence for her to believe it as a fact. But you know, in my own way, I guess I'm doing the same. Just from a more paranoid delusional angle, instead of a spiritualist new-agey one. I've always seen the reality & the universe as disgusting & wretched, so, in my way, that's enough evidence for me to believe that, assuming there is an afterlife, that it will be beyond awful.

Well, like I said, it's all bullshit. Science, spiritualism, and just humans in general. You name it. I'd say that, that eases my mind more than anything, to be honest.

>Even if a super-developed evil civilization kept you alive indefinitely, this "infinity" would still have an end, because any substance will eventually decompose into its component parts, this is called entropy.

Yeah, I guess so. Even if it isn't "forever", it's still pretty horrifying to consider either way. Close enough to it to drive you absolutely bonkers, at least, and to be a version of hell on to itself.

>None of your warnings make sense. Calm down.

Are they though? To be honest, science itself could be the deliver of a true hell of the kind I already described in my original post. Plus, you ever watch DS9? There was an episode called "Hard Time" where Miles O'Brien is sentenced to 20 years, or whatever, in an alien prison, but it's revealed that they simply "simulated" that time in the spans of only a couple hours. Imagine convicts who are given sentences of 500-3000 years. Now imagine if some technological terror comes along that can actually simulate that time, in the same way it's portrayed in that episode of DS9 I just mentioned, perhaps even forever. As an aside, this is essentially what happens to the last living protagonist at the end 'I Have No Mouth And I Must I Must Scream". I think even "The Punisher", the comic book anti-hero, managed to do this at one point, as a means to punish criminals. Which itself makes him just about most the sadistic villain ever to appear in a comic book, as far as I'm concerned. Fuck, if anything, all my concerns/reservations about death evaporate away when I start to consider techno dystopian horrors like that coming to fruition due to the reckless & nightmarish abandon by which science & technology is wielded by the irredeemably ruthless, psychotic apes which dominate this planet. This is partially the reason why the prospect of our technological society collapsing completely, due to climate chaos or nuclear war, or what you, is actually somewhat reassuring to me. All so as to simply be a means to stop this kind of shit before it might happen, basically.

I'll also mention that, more often that not, fantasizing about death/suicide is actually rather therapeutic for me. It's something I've done almost everyday for over half a decade now, as a matter of fact. Just because I have some reservations about death doesn't mean I still don't largely look upon it fondly as a means to rid myself of myself.

>You can use a huge dose of tranquilizers. I have no experience, but I think it should help.

Nah, it really wouldn't. For one thing, I have a bit of a phobia of drugs/mood alterants in general, mostly given the awful reaction I had to marijuana when I tried it. And the other thing being that instead of the stepping over the precipice being sticking a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger, it'd simply be getting fucked up on tranquilizers before then putting a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger. You see, the moment of precipice is merely shifted back a post. Instead of it being the trigger on the gun, it'd simply being getting fucked up on tranquilizers. Passing that precipice, no matter where it's place, this is something I simply don't posses the courage to do. Not to mention that getting fucked up on tranquilizers before trying to commit suicide sounds highly inadvisable and a recipe for disaster.


>I'll be the first to admit that.
Good for you, my fellow wizard!
>universe was designed to torment me
The other creatures are also suffering. Does this mean that the universe was created to torment not only you, but others as well, which frees you from a certain selectivity, and makes your statement false? I suppose you've heard of Occam's razor. If not, I'll tell you what it is. This is a methodological principle that says, in short, "Do not multiply things unnecessarily" or simply "Do not complicate". Based on its logic, it is easier to say that the universe was created not to torment you, but simply as a soulless objective space that is not aimed at you, because the first requires some complex premise like a sadistic сreator, while the second requires nothing, only a dialectical transition from one state to another. This method is always correct within the framework of empirics. If one of the options is really simpler, then it means that it is right.
>What if that is what happens when I die?
Rotting, worms. But you meant what would happen to the mind, of course. To be honest, I myself have an Achilles heel, and some irrational part of me relies on the belief that after the disappearance of my particular consciousness, some kind of consciousness will necessarily appear, whose carrier being will feel the way I feel now, that is, simply, this being will be me. I try to fight this, but NOTHING helps me.
Basically, I rely on the fact that after death, we have an unlimited amount of time, and with an unlimited amount of time, anything happens (including the fucking rebirth). One of the anons >>213536 has already written about the infinite monkey theorem. Here are his words:
>Imagine a monkey who randomly clicks at a keyboard. The probability to press a certain button is 1:50 (or I don't know maybe 1:100). Then what is the probability that this monkey randomly writes a perfect copy of a work of Shakespeare, if that monkey has endless time? Well, it is 1. It will happen for sure, because the monkey has endless attempts.
There is an opinion of real scientists that such a situation could already be realized in nature, and an infinite number of times. Considering an abstract situation that could be realized in the Newtonian model of the infinite Universe, where infinity is identified with infinity, and time is considered as infinitely extended, the authors argue that in such an unlimited volume, it is possible to realize absolutely everything that can be realized.
Aristotle himself said that "Nature does not tolerate emptiness" and the old man was right. In a vacuum, virtual particles are constantly being created (such particles, once born, cannot "fly to infinity"; they must either be absorbed by a particle or disintegrate into real particles). And this is only in the microcosm. As for the macrocosm, the universe is constantly expanding, and even with acceleration, thus filling the primordial void. So we have every right to believe that non-existence will not last forever, and that in the end it will be filled with something.
And there was a case from my childhood. I went to the village with my family to visit their adult friends. One of their friends was a man prone to alcoholism. He was very strange, always slow to speak, and was super kind, like people with Down syndrome. One day, when we were walking in the woods together, including my family, he said, "Perhaps when I die, the atoms will reassemble in me, and I will live my life again". When I was little, I believed it, and I admired it. Now I consider it heresy. What kind of atoms? On average, a 70 kg adult body contains about 6.7×1027 atoms, but which of these atoms determine who you are? For example, if you cut off your leg, you won't stop being yourself. In addition, atoms are constantly circulating in your body, some are replaced by others. The water you drank is made up of atoms, and now it's inside your digestive tract, then your stomach. Is this part of you? Is it important? Okay. Let's say that there is a certain critical number of atoms that makes you you. Where is it located? The first thing I think about is the brain or the head. There is a science fiction novel by the Russian Soviet science fiction writer Alexander Belyaev called "Professor Dowell's Head". The essence of this book is that the scientist tries to revive the severed head and he succeeds. Does it remind you of anything? Yes, Futurama. I don't know what to say next. The concept of reassembling atoms as LEGO pieces seems too vague and hazy to me.
>it's weird how a lot of people in this thread are worried about reincarnation
Disagree. These people are tired of life, and realizing that they can return to it (no matter how many years, maybe billions of billions), terrifies them. Yes, it will be a different life, a different person, but this person can again come to the conclusion that life is unpleasant, and commit suicide. And so on indefinitely. This is terrible. I'm one of those people.
On the other hand, if the next life consisted only of pleasure, I would think about it. I might even want to try it. I don't think there is a universe that consists entirely of pleasure and destroys unhappiness, but I think there may well be a part of it that fits these criteria. For example, a small planet that was created for pleasure. A kind of center of happiness. Humanoids from all over the galaxy would flock to this place to experience the "infinite" pleasure. Maybe it will be some kind of drugs, maybe a simulation of the brain with electrodes, maybe a full-fledged virtual reality that perfectly adapts to the needs of the individual. I don't know. If you've watched one of the last shitty Star Wars movies, you'll remember that there was a planet built specifically for casinos. That's what I'm talking about.
>Maybe I'm in a computer simulation
I am so tired of this fashionable opinion. But don't worry, you may be right, and my emotions do not in any way indicate the plausibility of your words. I just get pissed off by Elon Musk fans who worship him and quote him as if he was the first one to say it. They are everywhere.
I am also annoyed by the fact that it doesn't really make a difference whether you live in a "real" reality or a simulated one. What changed after you watched the Matrix movie? Yes, you were a little shocked, but what has changed fundamentally in your life? You just continue to study, go to work, or stay at home, eat, sleep, shit, and jerk off. I don't understand exaltation. There will be no special consequences during your life after this realization.
>I don't really have 100% confidence in anything, science or otherwise.
Me too. And that's good. So I'm an agnostic. It is obvious that science has its limits, and is constantly evolving. It would be interesting to know how much percentage we have achieved. Have we discovered 20% or 30% of the secrets of nature? Maybe less or more? Science is not an absolute for me, it is just a kind of night vision glasses that guide me in the dark, which, however, show only part of the visible spectrum.
>it's just the ignorant luddite in me talking
No. That's the smart skeptic in you.
>maybe solipsism is true
I'm not a fan of the idea of solipsism. It's simple. Imagine that a meteorite falls on you. If there is no objective reality, then the meteor will never kill you until you look at it, that is, you will not feel it with your eyes and ears. Nothing like this is happening. People continue to die in car accidents. Again, solipsism doesn't change your life in any way. A philosophical doctrine and position characterized by the recognition of one's own individual consciousness as the only and unquestionable reality is useless in all possible ways. It would be useful if the solipsist could change things by thought, but he can't.
>Even if it isn't "forever", it's still pretty horrifying to consider either way.
Yes. Forgot to add this.


File: 1582085364566.gif (1.81 MB, 375x282, 125:94, 47826478268.gif) ImgOps iqdb


>Does this mean that the universe was created to torment not only you, but others as well, which frees you from a certain selectivity, and makes your statement false?

Well, maybe. The collective suffering of everything else adds to my suffering as an individual, what with being on a planet, and an entire universe, devoid of meaning & proliferated with suffering, perhaps merely being a part of the larger hologram of suffering that was designed purely to torment me. Enh, it's ridiculous of course, but saying that doesn't seem to help untie the random knots my mind has worked itself into, even in the face of basic logic revealing how inconsistent & idiotic it all is.

>Disagree. These people are tired of life, and realizing that they can return to it (no matter how many years, maybe billions of billions), terrifies them. Yes, it will be a different life, a different person, but this person can again come to the conclusion that life is unpleasant, and commit suicide. And so on indefinitely. This is terrible. I'm one of those people.

I can acknowledge that such a scenario would be terrible on a fundamental level of recurring suffering to sentient organisms like ourselves, but, even assuming it's true, I still don't really understand what there is to get worked up about. I mean, yeah, the thought of another "me" having to live this whole shitty life over again is kinda unsettling/depressing to think about, but, again, it won't be really be me me, you know? I'd rather it not have to happen ever again at all, regardless of whether it's actually "me" or not, but if this instance of "me" isn't the one who has to deal with it then, truthfully, I'm kinda aloof about it. I mean, at least when I die, I'll be dead & gone forever. That's what's important. Whatever happens after that, is none of my concern. And hey, at least other "me", and the other "me's" in future universes, will get to die too, so it ain't all bad.

>Maybe it will be some kind of drugs, maybe a simulation of the brain with electrodes, maybe a full-fledged virtual reality that perfectly adapts to the needs of the individual.

Yeah, I've sometimes wondered if a "Deus Ex" like augmentation, or neural implant, will come along someday that could eliminate anhedonia & stimulate constant & everlasting pleasure. Imagine if it ever malfunctioned though, or what the long term side effects would be? Even if it were actually available, I'd be too cautious to ever make use of it myself, mostly out of fear it could go horribly wrong somehow. I'd say your example of a planet of peace, tranquility & pleasure would be a better ideal, frankly.

Come to think of it, there's an episode of Star Trek: TOS that focuses on this sort of thing. The name of the episode is called "This Side of Paradise" and it's about these plants that impart everlasting joy, happiness & pleasure to any who inhale their spores, with no adverse side effects whatsoever. Not only that, but I think they even imparted everlasting youth & immortality as well. The only reason it's seen as a problem is that the crew of the Enterprise become so happy & contented that they no longer care about exploring the galaxy and just want to relax in peace on the idyllic planet of which these plants are native to. Captain Kirk isn't too pleased about any of this of course, so he goes about trying to undo it all, which he eventually succeeds in doing at the end of the episode, simply so everybody can get back to work and start following his orders again. The motto of the story being about how humans are meant to suffer, claw & scratch their way through life, no matter what. It's fucking retarded though, since, news flash, those spores make it so you don't have to worry about jack shit other than laying around feeling happy. Destroying it for the sake of perpetuating pointless struggling & suffering was just really dumb, but, well, it's a show obviously and, even in Star Trek, you often get the whole propagandist normalist spiel about how everybody needs to keep suffering & moving forward and that pain is essential to growing as an individual. An example of the planet you described would be seen as the worst, most awful ever since it'd stop people from growing & moving forward given that they'd never need to do anything ever again. It's a form of sado-masochism that gets the slaves working harder for their masters basically, so it's no surprise one sees the whole "pain is necessary" bullshit pushed in everything, even old science fiction shows.

>There will be no special consequences during your life after this realization.

I actually agree with you. I'm also kinda sick hearing about the whole "computer simulation" thing, since it's already a well worn & overused concept/thought experiment, but, in the context I was meaning I was just trying to indicate how it might be the basis for a universe that was designed purely to torment myself. However, even if it were proven this was all a simulation, yet I could still live & die normally with me being no more important an aspect to it as anything else, then I can fully say that I honestly wouldn't care. Hell, reality itself is just a simulation being played inside my brain anyway. What's one more layer to the inherent simulation of reality itself, you know what I mean? As long as I can get nothingness & oblivion of consciousness after death, then I'm fine. However, one can never truly "die" in a computer simulation which is what makes it a very unsettling thing to think about or consider.

>Me too. And that's good. So I'm an agnostic. It is obvious that science has its limits, and is constantly evolving. It would be interesting to know how much percentage we have achieved. Have we discovered 20% or 30% of the secrets of nature? Maybe less or more? Science is not an absolute for me, it is just a kind of night vision glasses that guide me in the dark, which, however, show only part of the visible spectrum.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel/think on the matter as well. I don't really have much to add other than that. As you say, science is simply a tool for illuminating what little portion of this darkness called existence that we happen to have the gross misfortune of finding ourselves in. Who knows what else remains hidden? Perhaps revelations that could invalidate or turn everything upside down all that which we believe to now be the case. I guess, either way, I just see science to be a double edged sword. I think it's important people keep pushing the boundaries of our understanding, but, at the same time, I don't believe anything good will come of it. Like a doomed protagonist in some random H.P. Lovecraft story, science will, and to some extent has already, led to further torment/madness for humanity to grapple with. The amenities of modern technology are great and all, but the more that's discovered, the more heightened are status & awareness as living puppets becomes. Even in that though, it's just an impartial observation that doesn't really mean anything other than how we interpret & internalize it. Ultimately, no matter what we discover, it'll all be mostly useless and, in some sense, mundane. That's all really science means to me, frankly. People are engaging with it, which could potentially lead to many further technological nightmares coming about, which itself worries me, but on the basis of simply illuminating the universe, I'm just kinda meh about it.

>I'm not a fan of the idea of solipsism.

Well, it's not like I take it anymore seriously than anything else really. I guess, as a concept, it just appeals to how egomaniacal & self-absorbed I can get with my paranoid delusions. It fits in with how persecuted I sometimes feel in regards to existence and how it's been set & designed to torture me for whatever unknown reason that even I can think up an answer for, other than some bored entity got bored and decided to create a universe to torture me like it were some hyper advanced version of "The Sims", or whatever. A quote from Rust Cohle comes to mind to describe the whole thing basically.

>"Surely this is all for me?! Me. Me me me, I, I'm so fucking important! I'm so fucking important, right?! Fuck you.


File: 1582169980127.png (1.28 MB, 1555x1125, 311:225, 282.png) ImgOps iqdb

Wizardchan tells me that my post is too long, so I'll split it into two parts.
>it won't be really be me me, you know?
Yes, I thought about it. And this logic calms me. Indeed, our life is one of a kind. Even if there is a person who is 100 percent like me, it will be nothing more than a clone with its own separate consciousness. This is easier to see on people who have died, rather than on myself, because I am still alive and subconsciously cling to any attempts to come up with an extension of my consciousness (which after my death will be like someone else's, but also like mine at the same time, ha ha, what?) such as the pseudoscientific theory we have already discussed about the reassembly of atoms. Shakespeare, Tsiolkovsky, Darwin. They disappeared once and for all. If they don't exist, they can't be reborn. Nothing can happen to them but oblivion.
But there is such a thought. What if you exhume a corpse that has at least something left (a skeleton, but better a body with preserved flesh) and slowly begin to reassemble it? I don't know what technologies can allow this to happen. I saw in Star Trek: Discovery a compact medical device that sent a blue beam of light to a damaged part of the body, and that part was successfully repaired. In fact, death is the same kind of damage that can presumably be fixed. Let's imagine that there is a machine that can revive the dead. It will look as shown in the picture. You put the body in the center of the machine, and it turns on. The round thing begins to move from the beginning of the body (head) to the end (feet), gradually restoring all the missing parts. For added drama, imagine that the entire room is filled with a magical blue glow. At the end of the procedure, homeostasis begins to work and the person comes to life. Now the question is: will he experience the consciousness of the "me" that he experienced before death, or this previous "me" is forever stuck in oblivion, and there is a new "me" that has nothing to do with the past? Will his death be like a general anaesthetic, after which he will come to his senses as if nothing had happened? Of course, he will think that he is he, who else if not he? But what will that particular person who died actually feel? Is he dead forever, or will he be able to "wake up"?
For this reason, some desperate people tend to freeze themselves after death. Even if they had frozen themselves during their lifetime, which is legally impossible, they would have died, because surgeons are as careful as possible to remove blood and other fluids from the client's body, replacing them with a solution that does not form crystals when frozen. That is, everything that makes you alive is taken out of you.
I've read a lot of threads and generally I can say that I don't trust these companies. It can go bankrupt and throw all the meat in the trash. Even if everything goes well, no one guarantees that in the future you will find perfect flying cities with white minimalistic towers, waterfalls and green grass (and if they do exist, the probability that you will live there tends to zero). I am a convinced pessimist and I do not believe that in the near future a person will be better off, whatever this words means. There's a futurist named Ray Kurzweil who I think is suffering from idiocy. He "predicted" that in the 2010s, special devices will project images directly into human eyes, creating a virtual reality effect. In 2014 the power of the supercomputer will be equal to the power of the human brain. Computers will no longer exist as separate objects — they will take an unconventional form and will be embedded in clothing and everyday items. Not only does his wet and unfounded fantasies not come true, but he still does not learn from his mistakes and continues to convince people that in 2045 there will be a technological singularity (you may know this term, but I will still explain: the creation of a superintelligent AI that will create smarter machines, and these machines are even smarter machines, and so on indefinitely). I feel like he's trolling. Otherwise, he's just a pompous clown. And I don't care if he's a scientist who wrote books and worked at Google. I reject authority because they can also be wrong. I thank Carl Sagan for teaching me this simple wisdom.
>I've sometimes wondered if a "Deus Ex" like augmentation, or neural implant, will come along someday that could eliminate anhedonia & stimulate constant & everlasting pleasure.
Definitely will. Everything is moving towards this. In this podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35QvyaRn6OY Gabe Newell's son talks about the development of the neurocomputer interface. I strongly advise you to listen. If you don't have time to listen to the entire video, you can find timelapse in the comments. And yet don't take his words too seriously, he's also too optimistic and says that BCI will appear in the next 5 years (not sure I'm not lying, but my memory tells me that he really said it), and then he started comparing SAO with Deus Ex and said that he wants the world to develop along the path of Deus Ex, because SAO is a stupid anime for little succubi (this is true, but the title is not so dark, which makes it more desirable for me). It was very funny. No, seriously, who wants the world to become like Deus Ex? Despair, poverty, Gray Death, insane corporations, famine, unemployment, poorly controlled crime. Are you a sick masochist or something? I understand if you like to play it, but live in it? This is a no-brainer. Gray gives the impression of a romantic infantile schoolboy, not a sane mature person. I also love cyberpunk, but I like to look at it from the outside. I don't want to live in a high-tech but unsanitary slum.
You should also know that such devices exist now and it looks like this: https://saberanimal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Tierversuche-Flickr.jpg
Unfortunately, these are just rats. But I'm going to tell you more. Back in 1954, scientists opened a pleasure center in the brain. The experiment was constructed as follows: an electric current was turned on when the rats entered a certain corner of the cage. According to theory, they would have to stay away from the corner if the effect were discomfort. Instead, they returned very quickly after the first stimulation, and even faster after the second. In later experiments, scientists allowed the rats to press the stimulation lever on their own, as a result of which they began to stimulate themselves up to seven hundred times per hour. This area of ​​the brain soon became known as the "center of pleasure". Rats with metal electrodes implanted in the nucleus adjacent to the nucleus began to repeatedly press the lever, which activated this zone, subsequently forgetting about the ingestion of food and water, and, ultimately, died of exhaustion.
>I'd be too cautious to ever make use of it myself, mostly out of fear it could go horribly wrong somehow.
A dubious product that can harm you will NEVER be released to the market. Do you really think that there are fools in an IT company who don't conduct experiments for years, if not decades? Of course, history knows cases when succubi used lead powder, but these were times of obscurantism and denial of science, so people did not conduct tests on animals. This won't happen again.
>The only reason it's seen as a problem is that the crew of the Enterprise become so happy & contented that they no longer care about exploring the galaxy and just want to relax in peace on the idyllic planet of which these plants are native to.
Oof. This is what is called collectivism, and that was at the peak of its development in the USSR. People worked for the good of communism and the ruling party, forgetting about their own happiness. It was impossible to think of any individualism. I read that in this terrible country there was no such thing as "going to a psychologist", because it was believed that there were no psychological diseases, all this is nothing more than inventions that distract from the great future that is about to come, you just have to wait. Dissidents like Kovalev were mostly confined to psychiatric hospitals. The same is now happening in North Korea. They don't even know about their situation, they can't understand it and compare it with something else, because they are cut off from the Internet.
And if you think about it, the Star Trek setting is not much different from the USSR. All the same socialism, if not communism: there is the abolition of property rights, lack of wealth, money, sales, corporations, patent offices; the concept of the investment portfolio of the people of the Federation alien and incomprehensible; nationalized transport, industry and communications; all movements are tracked; eliminated religion and the institution of the traditional family; citizens are forced to work not for the good of themselves, but for the good of the Federation. The only difference is that I don't remember any reprisals.


>An example of the planet you described would be seen as the worst, most awful ever since it'd stop people from growing & moving forward given that they'd never need to do anything ever again.
Really. I believe that this is a scenario that will definitely happen, with the only caveat that you will not have to create a separate planet, since all the action will take place here on Earth. People will simply create a matrix that has no boundaries. For the most part, in virtual reality, there will be sex with "perfect" succubi, but there will also be the implementation of computer games in a new way: World of Warcraft, Dota 2, Counter-Strike, just under other names and graphics. The reason I think so is that virtual reality is easier to create than a warp engine. Such things as the Blue Brain Project exist today and quite successfully model the brain (not yet entirely, of course). I already wrote about BCI above, they are also not delayed. Therefore, the probability that we will lock ourselves in a hedonistic trap is very high.
>even old science fiction shows.
Well, Star Trek is very naive, and this is the sin of many science fiction works. If you look at Soviet literature (again back to it), it fiercely promoted the expansion of space. There was no direct benefit from the development of nearby planets and will not be even now, because the piece of stone on which we live has not yet run out of resources, and those that run out can be replaced with others that are located here. Red fans of Marx and Engels simply believed that the whole world should be conquered by communism, it was more idealistic aspirations than pragmatic. As for the extinction of our species from a disaster like a huge meteorite, this is computable and will not happen in the near future, so there is no need to fly to Mars either. All these dreams of space are just children's stories, I don't understand their epicness and urgency. Captain Kirk and delusional communists can go fuck themselves.
>However, one can never truly "die" in a computer simulation which is what makes it a very unsettling thing to think about or consider.
Yes and no. In the Matrix, people could die, and when this happened, the bodies were processed into nutritional gel and fed to babies. In SAO, a man who was imprisoned in that fantasy VR and who was forced to remove his helmet burned his brain. Basically, it all depends on who is on the other side, manages the simulation, and what their main goals are. If we are enslaved by machines that need only bioelectric energy from us, then it makes no sense for them to maintain the body indefinitely, allowing it to be reborn inside the virtual world. They need a replacement all the time, because bodies age and lose their tone (you can object by saying that bodies can be maintained artificially in eternal youth, in which the body produces as much energy as possible, but the problem is that this will be too costly; the task of machines is to get as much as possible with less effort; actually, I may be wrong, I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe nanorobots that will rejuvenate every cell of the body can be ultra cheap). But this has its own nuance. If the time inside the simulation is compressed, and the average age of a human inside it is equal to a second in the real world, then this means that rebirth is quite possible. 1 second in the real world and you have lived one of your lives, the next simulation is waiting for you. Then I agree with you, anything is possible.
>I don't believe anything good will come of it
It is difficult. Technology can be used for good or evil. I don't have an exact opinion on this issue. The peasants of the middle ages would have thought I was living in utopia, whereas Orwell would not have agreed with them.
>Ultimately, no matter what we discover, it'll all be mostly useless and, in some sense, mundane.
I agree. Even if the statement "everything that science does is good" would be 100% true, what is the meaning of this good, if you get used to it, it becomes routine and ordinary? Who among modern people will be pleasantly surprised by an iPhone? In this case, the absolute good would be to create a device that would give pleasure to the user, without becoming boring for him. This is not possible without changing the structure of the brain, which means that we are returning to the neurocomputer interface. My God, this is the Holy Grail of the world of science! Seriously, this shit is going to be one of the most important inventions of mankind. I don't see any reason not to plug in the wires and start stimulating the pleasure zone. I won't be upset if my mouth starts drooling.



>Yeah, I've sometimes wondered if a "Deus Ex" like augmentation, or neural implant, will come along someday that could eliminate anhedonia & stimulate constant & everlasting pleasure.

It already exists, it's called deep brain stimulation.




this sounds familiar then again psych even suggested to cut a part of my brain to fix me



>Side effects associated with deep brain stimulation may include:


>Difficulty concentrating
>Hardware complications, such as an eroded lead wire
>Temporary pain and swelling at the implantation site
>Numbness or tingling sensations
>Muscle tightness of the face or arm
>Speech problems
>Balance problems
>Vision problems, such as double vision
>Unwanted mood changes, such as anger and depression

Yeah, no thanks. This is a laughably crude prototype version of what I was describing and not in any way appealing. Sounds like the equivalent of medieval medicine, frankly. It also more seems like an evolution of the barbaric practice of ECT on mental patients, than anything I was referring to. Not to mention that, even if one were to undertake such a horribly invasive & risky procedure as this, it doesn't even accomplish what's advertised since it won't in any way give you "constant & everlasting pleasure", in fact it might even give you the fucking opposite. Let me know when it's a simple nanite injection, ala original Deus Ex, and can actually do what it's supposed to do.



There's a massive pre op testing phase to make sure it will be safe, also if you actually read the second link you would see that it is possible to get "constant & everlasting pleasure".



Hmm, well whatever. It still doesn't seem like it's all it's cracked up to be, to be honest.

>Mayberg related the story of a patient to me. This succubus had an alcohol problem in the past and, after she had her electrodes installed, she went home and waited for them to give her a sense of intoxication or euphoria. She was completely paralyzed by her expectations, and Mayberg had to explain that there was nothing to wait for. The procedure had simply awakened the lady to the realities of her life. The symptoms of her disease were diminished, but she herself had to put something in their place if she wanted to fill her life.

This doesn't seem ideal at all, for instance.

>In fact, it felt so good that the succubus ignored all other discomforts. Several times, she developed atrial fibrillations due to the exaggerated stimulation, and over the next two years, for all intents and purposes, her life went to the dogs. Her husband and children did not interest her at all, and she often ignored personal needs and hygiene in favor of whole days spent on electrical self-stimulation. Finally, her family pressured her to seek help. At the local hospital, they ascertained, among other things, that the succubus had developed an open sore on the finger she always used to adjust the current.

This sounds more like the real deal, but I still have questions. Is there any way to overdose on this? Does the euphoria eventually subside? What about withdrawals? What happened to this succubus? Did she keep pushing the button on the feel good button until she succumbed to starvation, or what? And all this happened in 1986? What the fuck? Shouldn't this sort of thing be everywhere by now if it apparently worked so well?

I mean, if it were truly as great as it seems, then why aren't more people doing it? I get that it's an intensive & highly exclusive medical procedure, but you'd think that by now some random druggie celebrity or bored rich person would've gotten themselves fucked up completely as a result of this simply because they were seeking an everlasting high. I mean, honestly, a heroin-tier high that never ends and doesn't lead to overdose, or complications as long as someone else makes sure to nourish you, move you & clean you every once in a while? Seems like the sort of thing people all over the world would be kicking down the nearest door for, frankly. Either way, I have no way to make use of this technology, assuming I even trusted it well enough to do so, which means it's irrelevant to me. And, considering our global drug phobic culture, I doubt something like this will ever get mainstream traction or development, which is quite a shame & a tragedy.

[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]