Toribash
Originally Posted by Datsick View Post
Death as most people perceive it really can't be a possible scenario. It doesn't take any leaps of faith to realize that it's impossible to be conscious if you're "dead" but it's also impossible to be unconscious because you cannot be aware of not being aware(as you have stated you agreed with). Therefore the only plausible explanation is that you never really "die" your physical body is gone, and you are reborn with no pauses in between. Now the method in which this occurs is either not known or I haven't read that far yet. Either way you can't deny its true.

It most certainly is not true.

When you are dead your ability to be conscious and unconscious both stop completely. Life sustaining electrical activity ceases, and within a short time the brain decays irreparably.

There is a very simple way to disprove your theory. You exhibit a logical fallacy known as 'false dichotomy'. You firstly assert that a person can only ever be conscious or unconscious, which is not correct. If you are neither conscious nor unconscious, then you have ceased brain function.

There's another flaw, you say you cannot be unconscious because you cannot be aware of not being aware, but that is totally irrelevant. People are unconscious all the time. The vast majority of time when you sleep you are not lucid, when people sustain a head injury and 'lose consciousness' they - unsurprisingly - lose consciousness. More often than not when people are unconscious they are not aware.

If you die then you are dead. Trying to play word games won't change that.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Gorman's pretty much hitting what my retort would be dead on the head, sole exception being that you are completely ignoring the fact that, as I said before, being unable to be conscious of being unconscious means nothing by itself. It requires a situation where that observation could be violated for it to mean anything.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
It most certainly is not true.

When you are dead your ability to be conscious and unconscious both stop completely. Life sustaining electrical activity ceases, and within a short time the brain decays irreparably.

There is a very simple way to disprove your theory. You exhibit a logical fallacy known as 'false dichotomy'. You firstly assert that a person can only ever be conscious or unconscious, which is not correct. If you are neither conscious nor unconscious, then you have ceased brain function.

There's another flaw, you say you cannot be unconscious because you cannot be aware of not being aware, but that is totally irrelevant. People are unconscious all the time. The vast majority of time when you sleep you are not lucid, when people sustain a head injury and 'lose consciousness' they - unsurprisingly - lose consciousness. More often than not when people are unconscious they are not aware.

If you die then you are dead. Trying to play word games won't change that.

You talk about how you're completely unconscious in your sleep, that is not true. One of two things happen in your sleep. One being you have dreams, this is a sort of consciousness in itself, just not in the physical world. The second being that you just sleep and wake up with nothing in between. But the thing is, that when you sleep you don't know that you're asleep you just instantaneously transition from the point you lose "consciousness" to the point where you regain it. The thought that when you die, you lose consciousness forever can't be true because there's nothing to instantly transition to, like when you sleep. There can't just be blackness because blackness is something you are aware of, but then again there can't be nothing because there has to be SOMETHING, nothingness isn't possible. I don't know if I'm really getting my message across the way I intend to, so I apologize if I don't make sense.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
There is a very simple way to disprove your theory. You exhibit a logical fallacy known as 'false dichotomy'. You firstly assert that a person can only ever be conscious or unconscious, which is not correct. If you are neither conscious nor unconscious, then you have ceased brain function.

Ok. That's his take on it; not what the author actually says.
The author says that logically, if you are concious of being unconcious then you are not actually unconcious. He uses that as a premise for immortality, because death is essentially the infinite unconciousness to some people. If you are incapable of realizing that you are dead; does that not make you immortal? Because if you can't realize you're dead, you are either alive, or you are in some sort of limbo; which is not death.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
There's another flaw, you say you cannot be unconscious because you cannot be aware of not being aware, but that is totally irrelevant. People are unconscious all the time. The vast majority of time when you sleep you are not lucid, when people sustain a head injury and 'lose consciousness' they - unsurprisingly - lose consciousness. More often than not when people are unconscious they are not aware.

When people are in comas for long periods of times, do their brains shut off? No, there is still brain activity, proving some sort of awareness to life. Perhaps not what we percieve as physical, but there is still some measure of activity and conciousness.
Simply because someone is not speaking to us or they are asleep, are they truly unconcious?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
If you die then you are dead. Trying to play word games won't change that.

Prove it. Prove there is no second life, please do.
Please show me definitive evidence that there is no such thing as reincarnation or a higher existence.
Please do it. I'd really love to see what nonsense you manage to come up with.


You would seem to be over-thinking this. The author doesn't actually ever say that this is definitively true. It's a postulation. Similarily to how people say that when we die it is simply a black void of nothingness and unknowingness. We don't know this, and perhaps we will never know it; but we can always think about possibilities. Can't we?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
|Replay|ORMO|
Opinionated garbage, not "truth". Living several lives is a concept before all of our times, and the rest was starry-eyed theoretics. Nothing new/nothing to discuss here.
-----
Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
Prove it. Prove there is no second life, please do.

We can't, but can you prove there is one? No, it's better to remain neutral and seek answers for questions that are comprehensible, like the first quote of OP's website says.
A man should look for what is and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

Last edited by moonfloam; Dec 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
hatter make me famou
what happens when you die? same as before you was born - you do not exist.

people try to come up with any kind of bullshit to distract themselves from unavoidable death, and even gather together to reinforce it, even though most people except retarded fanatics do realise that it is all a bullshit to cope with fear of unavoidable death, they will support it if criticized based simply on horde instinct "everybody says X, so will i".

well whatever
tell me about aikido
~referencing Dark Souls in suicidal threads since 13/01/15
This must be the sadest thread I've seen on here.
Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
Prove it. Prove there is no second life, please do.
Please show me definitive evidence that there is no such thing as reincarnation or a higher existence.
Please do it. I'd really love to see what nonsense you manage to come up with.

The thing is, when you want to do science you, in pleb-speak, start from a clean slate, and then work your way from there.
You don't start with an opinion that makes you feel good and ask others to disprove it, which is what you're doing when you go "there's life after death and you can't disprove it hurr durr".
The burden of proof is on you, show us there is a some sort of afterlife if you want to have a serious discussion about it.

In the case you think that's a bullshit reasoning I'd ask of you to try disproving Russel's teapot, which is a famous example using the exact same logic as you've presented us with.
The point being, why would there be a teapot orbiting the sun, there's nothing pointing to it being so, but we can't disprove it.

Off-topic: Why can't we filter out people who repetitively show they're unable to make a solid point, or something like that.
Last edited by Hattersin; Dec 4, 2014 at 05:23 PM.
PM me with any and all questions
Originally Posted by Datsick View Post
You talk about how you're completely unconscious in your sleep, that is not true. One of two things happen in your sleep. One being you have dreams, this is a sort of consciousness in itself, just not in the physical world. The second being that you just sleep and wake up with nothing in between. But the thing is, that when you sleep you don't know that you're asleep you just instantaneously transition from the point you lose "consciousness" to the point where you regain it. The thought that when you die, you lose consciousness forever can't be true because there's nothing to instantly transition to, like when you sleep. There can't just be blackness because blackness is something you are aware of, but then again there can't be nothing because there has to be SOMETHING, nothingness isn't possible. I don't know if I'm really getting my message across the way I intend to, so I apologize if I don't make sense.

Sure, you aren't unconscious when you are asleep, you are just at a very low state of consciousness.

If you die you transition to being dead. Sure it's not instant, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
The author says that logically, if you are concious of being unconcious then you are not actually unconcious.

This is correct, by definition unconsciousness requires you to have a lack of introspection, so you can't be conscious of it.

Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
He uses that as a premise for immortality, because death is essentially the infinite unconciousness to some people. If you are incapable of realizing that you are dead; does that not make you immortal? Because if you can't realize you're dead, you are either alive, or you are in some sort of limbo; which is not death.

A person born blind can't understand what it means to be blind, does that mean they can see?
Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
When people are in comas for long periods of times, do their brains shut off? No, there is still brain activity, proving some sort of awareness to life. Perhaps not what we percieve as physical, but there is still some measure of activity and conciousness.
Simply because someone is not speaking to us or they are asleep, are they truly unconcious?

No, to be unconscious you must not have awareness of self, so just not speaking does not mean they are unconscious.

Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
Prove it. Prove there is no second life, please do.
Please show me definitive evidence that there is no such thing as reincarnation or a higher existence.
Please do it. I'd really love to see what nonsense you manage to come up with.

Asking someone to prove a negative is illogical.

I think you don't seriously have an argument to support these claims, and are just asking to play devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
You would seem to be over-thinking this. The author doesn't actually ever say that this is definitively true. It's a postulation. Similarily to how people say that when we die it is simply a black void of nothingness and unknowingness. We don't know this, and perhaps we will never know it; but we can always think about possibilities. Can't we?

So I should accept his invalid logic for the sake of postulation?

In the case that death does not exist and the mind continues, then there's no way to prove consciousness or unconsciousness, so how should we continue the discussion? We come to the same impass.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
(My native language is spanish so sorry if there's something wrong with the grammar.)

This kind of topic always creates conflict by the opinions of everyone and their acceptance. The Truth, is complicated and discuss it requires a good understanding of what each person is trying to say or argue.

To know the reality about all what it is talking, we should ask ourselves the meaning of truth. The truth, evidently we can't never know what it is .. One could not simply find it through the thought. We as humans acquire knowledge right through the experiences and from it emerges the thought. However, our knowledge is limited, it is impossible to know everything about life. And the problem we have is that we base the truth with something as limited as knowledge. The only thing we could perceive as truth is the now (using the five senses), the only reality. So basing on the issue of death, we should ask ourselves, What is the deep meaning of death? What is what dies in addition to our physical body? Instead of seeking immediate answers right through what you know, you should look around and see the truth about death in the only thing that is real, the now.
Originally Posted by Hattersin
The thing is, when you want to do science you, in pleb-speak, start from a clean slate, and then work your way from there.
You don't start with an opinion that makes you feel good and ask others to disprove it, which is what you're doing when you go "there's life after death and you can't disprove it hurr durr".
The burden of proof is on you, show us there is a some sort of afterlife if you want to have a serious discussion about it.

In the case you think that's a bullshit reasoning I'd ask of you to try disproving Russel's teapot, which is a famous example using the exact same logic as you've presented us with.
The point being, why would there be a teapot orbiting the sun, there's nothing pointing to it being so, but we can't disprove it.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no evidence to support either side.
IP said a definitive
If you die then you are dead.

I asked him to prove it. I didn't expect him to, although i did expect a bunch of people to make the same proposal of me, which I know is also impossible. No matter what you think of death, you can't prove it's true.
Unless you want to kill yourself and then come back somehow and tell us what it was like; then by all means go right ahead.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
This is correct, by definition unconsciousness requires you to have a lack of introspection, so you can't be conscious of it.

Yeah
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
A person born blind can't understand what it means to be blind, does that mean they can see?

Perspective. Maybe they simply see the world differently, much as how animals would view the world differently then us.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
No, to be unconscious you must not have awareness of self, so just not speaking does not mean they are unconscious.

I didn't say not speaking is unconciousness.
Because we say someone is unconcious because they appear to be completely unaware of the surrounding world does it mean they are?
Again, perspective. because something appears to be one way to us, it doesn't mean it appears that way to everyone else, which is pretty much what the book is saying.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Asking someone to prove a negative is illogical.

I think you don't seriously have an argument to support these claims, and are just asking to play devil's advocate.

Never said there is an afterlife. I asked for you to prove there isn't a possibility of there being one; and that death isn't an inevitable infinite void that will never end.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
So I should accept his invalid logic for the sake of postulation?

In the case that death does not exist and the mind continues, then there's no way to prove consciousness or unconsciousness, so how should we continue the discussion? We come to the same impass.

It's an idea.

Originally Posted by moonfloam
Opinionated garbage, not "truth".

So am I allowed to say that your opinions are just opinionated garbage?

Originally Posted by moonfloam
Living several lives is a concept before all of our times, and the rest was starry-eyed theoretics. Nothing new/nothing to discuss here.

no shit have you read the book? It's not just about living several lives; or a theoretical immortality, there's more to it.

Evangelists still believe the world is 6000 years old and made in 7 days.

Originally Posted by snake
what happens when you die? same as before you was born - you do not exist.

people try to come up with any kind of bullshit to distract themselves from unavoidable death, and even gather together to reinforce it, even though most people except retarded fanatics do realise that it is all a bullshit to cope with fear of unavoidable death, they will support it if criticized based simply on horde instinct "everybody says X, so will i".

well whatever

Your mind doesn't exist, but your physical body does. Devoid of movement and heat maybe, but it's still there. So you also exist and perservere in the memories of other people.
Existence does not simply end because what we view as human life finishes; it goes on in different ways.
Argue all you want that existence is life, and vice versa, but all of this is completely subjective to how you define existence.

It is only when we forget all our learning that we begin to know.
Henry David Thoreau

Ya, great quote.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
|Replay|ORMO|