[deleted]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Death is like life : a part of the evolutionary process. Actually the creation itself evolves through the process of life and death of its constituents. So it's the creation as a whole that evolves through life and death cycle of its constituents. Everything that has life should come to an end at one point or other and help the creation evolve.

If a thing that cannot die continues to suffer and long for death. It is well documented in the movie pirates of Caribbean when hector barbosa and his crew long for death.

A thing when dies simply ceases to exist individually. If it wants to live forever it becomes greedy and the greedy is evil. So, it comes to a simple logical end that either something cease to exist individually at some point or become an evil wanting eternity and keep suffering.

You're talking about correlates of consciousness and associated physical processes. I don't disagree any of tbat, but the processes don't "prove" anything in themselves.

And your calculator also takes input. It doesn't automatically have experience.

>Okay, wow. Bold claim. Evolution seemed to work hsrd to develop a CNS and such if all "input" is subjective experience.

CNS can't work without input. It requires a steady stream of oxygenated blood and hydrocarbons all of which require input.

>It doesn't prove anything and again hss no bearing on my point.

You can't be serious. We can cause specific experiences by providing specific input.

But its not only "consciousness"!

The relevant truth must be:

We cant know without a function of knowing.

So i think you have to redefine the art of knowing.

Many dont understand the comoplexity and the dependency that is involved here.

Knowing is an (inter)action itself.

But its more then one action.

But first, of course, we must set the existentialism.

So lets say, if nothing interacts, nothing can register other beings. There must be movement and there must be interactions.

This does not include knowing so far. As knowing is a special way of interacting.

So what do we need to know, wether consciouss or not?

We need senses, that retrieve information out of the classic interaction. Its not clear if you need a conscious here or only a subconscious. Anyway, we can argue, that without senses, there is no consciousness. But stil we need to proof that!

Next, we need the memory system, which can save the information.

Then we need the rational system, which values the information.

And then we need the realization model, which brings the thought into the rest of the world.

So you need a lot to have a conscioussness and a unconscioussness. And there is more body function you need ...

Still its not clear how all these things work together, how they become one. But we can see the dependnecys much more clearly now ... after science walked on the last 200 years ... and now we see and know a lot more!

So, its not a hard probem of metyphysics anymore, its a normal problem of understanding the function of knowing and life at all and to realize the importance of empiricism and the whole informational/rational system we have. It all works together.

So, it brings us not very far to say, we need a conscious to register conscioussness. Its quite obvious - NOW.

So the hard problem of the past and classic metaphysic is and was, that they think, we can know something without a basic process of empiricism and knowing at all. and we cant know without a basic empiricism.

we dont need empiricisms actually to make deductions about unsensed objects, but we can only deduct if we have basic senses and all structures of knowing to recombine it to a new structure we havent sensed at all.

so i would say metaphysics is just a very old and incomplete system.

determinism, physics, systemtheory and all its dependencys, must be included into the philosophy, otherwise, we wont sense the whole thing and will make infinite and incomplete assumptions - called metaphysics!

It doesn't prove anything and again hss no bearing on my point. You seem to think this is about some ghost in the machine. It's not.

Okay, wow. Bold claim. Evolution seemed to work hsrd to develop a CNS and such if all "input" is subjective experience.

What if we see death as the solution to life? Problem fixed.

>Mentioning elechtrochemical activity and the God helmet has nothint to do with the point.

It has everything to do with the point. It proves that experience is the result of electrochemical activity in the brain and causing electrochemical activity in the brain causes experience.

>It's is of course arcbitecturally completely different than my brain.....

It's really not that different though.

>From "input isn ot experience" it doesn't follow that there can't be any experience without input.

Sure it does. Experience is the result of electrochemical activity in the brain. That doesn't happen without input.

>I am simply saying not all forms of input result in subjective experience.

And I am saying they do.

This sounds like dogma to me. I haven't heard a concrete reason that death being inevitable implies we should accept it.

There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't. It's not in the nature of a living being to accept death because living beings are driven by survival and reproduction and death is the opposite of that. From the moment we come into this world, our bodies scream at us to avoid death. It makes surrounding people unhappy. It means the destruction of memories, personalities, and abilities in the dying person. How does accepting it benefit us? How does it grant wisdom?

Everyone who isn't a child knows we're going to die, and we shouldn't try to hide that fact because that would be lying - but the pervading culture that we should make peace with death or pretend we think it's a good thing in an abstract way seems like it can only do harm.

> removed thank you

Lol, for some reason that had me cracking up

Just to make things a bit more stomachable, game theory says the basilisk, once it already exists, gains nothing from actually punishing you so the rational thing to do, for both parties, is to do nothing.

Maybe but I’m not sure not dreaming is a thing, maybe we all dream but we don’t always remember the dreams.

I don’t know if you’ve had general anesthesia, for me it was a shocking experience. It was like a light switch was flipped and you just aren’t. I have no experience of the switch being flipped either, one second I was chatting away with the nurses and the next I was waking up after, there was no counting down and getting dizzy/blurry and all that they show in the movies. It was truly a mind fucking thing to have happen to me, existentially speaking.

I like this question. This is something I think about a lot in fact.

Death is a bitch

There is just the easy problem to solve. Now the easy problem is going to be really hard to solve, but is solvable.

Lol, like people haven’t been killing themselves for millennia??? humans can jump off high things and die near instantly without euthanasia….

I don’t ever want to live in a society that promotes or welcomes, in any way, suicide….

That troubles me at least.

Your nature and my nature is to die at some time. It's not going against the nature of what is human to accept death as an integral part of existence.

I do not see how this would promote suicidal ideation. If anything then I'd suspect the opposite. A closer relationship to death might make us more content and relaxed with our own humanity.

I am not making any claims. We don't know of any way, in principle, how to infer subjective experience. Don't think there are absurdities there either.

Okay. I find illusionism a useless position with zero explanatory value. It tries to claim phenomenal consciousness is an illusion and leaves us with the same stuff to explain, only now they're called illusions.

I personally just don’t see a difference. It’s not like you’d necessarily perceive the transfer even if it were gradual- there’s a lot of factors there. I don’t believe in any sort of “soul” or anything- we are a pattern in the end, and as long as that pattern is preserved, so are we.

You are the one making the claims. You can’t lay the foundation of your argument on this point and then turn around asking me to be rove it wrong.

Anyway if I were, then I’d use a reductio ad absurdum style argument. If you do assume what is true then it leads you to the absurdities of the hard problem. You’ll end up with phenomenal experience being an epiphenomena, which is impossible. Or you end up claiming the brain doesn’t obey the laws of physics.

I think that’s a symbolic continuity and while it may not make much of a difference from an outside observer I think the original you is still gone. I think restarting the same mind from unconsciousness of whatever level is different then flash copying a new version as the old one dies. Though I admit I lack the knowledge to confirm the difference. I think if your priority is that a continuation of your experience keeps going then the flash copy is fine. But the inherent possibility that both could have existed simultaneously even if artificial constraints have made it functionally impossible is evidence to me that they are not the same though again I could not explain why in granular detail. At this point we enter into the philosophy of consciousness and discard the physical laws. When I think of the terror of death though I am not assuaged by the idea of another me out there experiencing the life I could have experienced.