/feels/ - personal experiences

Death is not black hole. No event horizon there.

>>151
it seemed to make sense to me. we perceive time because we perceive things changing, and if we lose the ability to perceive change our sense of time stops. We can't 'fade to black' because there is no blackness for us to perceive when we die, so we just stay perceiving what we perceive.

It will be like it was before you were born.

I wonder what you based this proposition on?
It seems like an analogy to an overwhelmed computer where the fps slows down and eventually one image remains onscreen regardless of what you do. It also seems that you believe this happens because the part of the brain that produces a sense of time gets impaired or destroyed, and so the last relevant moment on 'your inner screen of perception' remains there with nothing to supply a new one.

What does it take to perceive anything, from any sense? Do you have to be conscious (whether awake or while dreaming)? I myself never really perceived much of a difference in the flow of time, which is to say I don't think it ever was four times faster or slower than usual - which is negligible compared to a complete stop. How does our exposure to videos we can stop affect our ideas of this topic? How does cinematic effects affect our thinking on this topic? Even on drugs that mess with time perception, the brain remains mostly intact - how does that compare to death?

The brain obviously keeps doing things after the human loses consciousness for the last time, and eventually rots, gets eaten by bacteria, burns, gets torn to pieces by some mechanical force, get preserved by some method, etc. If the last moment is perceived to last for eternity regardless, doesn't that make us pen-and-paper programs? Or could it be that this last, perceived eternal moment thing is only possible for pen-and-paper programs, or computers which can halt the execution of things while keeping their state readable from the outside?

>>154
>If the last moment is perceived to last for eternity regardless, doesn't that make us pen-and-paper programs?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. What I mean is that consciousness is a state that can only exist as long as the brain is equipped to support it, and when that ends, I cannot imagine anything other than this happening. It must be, because there cannot be any transition wherein you somehow perceive your own consciousness ending. The mind is incapable of conceiving its own end, so it just – doesn't. From your point of view, your mind freezes up on a single thought and sits there, unable to wander even a little bit for the rest of all perceptual eternity.

>>160
My chief problem is the perspective from which you look. I'll try to illustrate
Let's say that Minsky is bored, sitting in the Chinese Room and calculating the life of a some AI, with inputs/outputs coming from a simulated world he's also calculating. Then Minsky realizes he feels weird, and then he remembers that he's dead, so he stops running the AI on pen and paper.
Now the AI is frozen in time. From the view of the AI's consciousness, from the inside, this moment is lasting for eternity - even though he is not dying, the state he was left in allows for many next moments to come; though they never do as nobody touches Minsky's papers. The papers remain and contain the consciousness of the AI, allowing it to perceive the moment for eternity from the inside, while people out there can perceive the papers and also the conscious AI within them.

(Searle has an objection to what I am saying, but he is chased off buy angry tumblrinas with sexual harassment allegations.)

The same story could play out with Minsky finishing the life of the AI, and stopping the execution of its program right in its last moment, where the AI's perception of time slows down and since there is no consciousness to perceive the next moment, it will keep perceiving the last one for eternity. Now not only is the execution of his program stopped, but its current state means that there's no next step to calculate. Still, the papers are there containing this last state of the program, and so both from inside the program's consciousness, and from outside (Minsky looking at the papers), the moments remains for eternity. This however requires the papers to be there and hold it.

(Searle is mad now, but the tumblrinas are many and he has to leave campus altogether to design some conscious robots to exterminate them out of their own free wills, which won't get him charged for murder.)

The two important things about the pen-and-paper AI above is that 1) the moment for eternity is possible because of the papers that contain it, and 2) because the papers were dedicated to the mind/brain of this AI. In the case of a human, the brain is right here and will continue to change during and after the last conscious moment, thus changing that last conscious moment. Even though it was the last one perceived from within the consciousness, it is tampered with, changed from the 'outside' during the falling apart of the fleshy brain creating it. Furthermore, unlike in the AI case, the whole program (reality) is not dedicated to the mind of that single dying human; thus the _point of view_ that is his consciousness is not separate from the world it emerged from, and that world keeps moving on. There won't be a paper, memory dump or snapshot holding the life of this person, there won't exist a point of view that perceives his last moment either from the inside, or from the outside. Both of these get changed by the world in which he took place.

It is you (who thinks about the dying person) taking him out of the context of reality, and turning him and his consciousness into a discrete set of moments (and corresponding states of his body), then discarding the unconscious parts after death, and giving extra significance to his inner perception of time that turns this last moment into unchanging and eternal. It is a theory, a model in the shape of a closed system you place on the person, who is not actually separated from the rest of the world in such a way, and is actually an open system.

It's something I've thought of too, I think. I've heard of the time-slows-down feeling when people are close to death before, and I figured what if people started hallucinating then too? Then they could live in an eternal paradise.

>>146
If im to relive my entire life for eternity then i don't want to die at all, my life is soykaf.

I've always pictured death like this too.

>>415
Completely incoherent drivel, or in serious need of context.

I've actually had the same idea, but I think its impossible. If you where experiencing stagnance in time you would not be able to process information, so you would not experience the last moment for any longer than it happened for. Sorry if I worded that badly.

A moment of eternity at death could make sense. It would be similar to LSD, and since death is one of the most terrifying, compelling experiences one can have, it might be one of the few things that can create the dump required for this to happen, at least subjectively.

>>508
how would it possibly be anything like LSD?

listen when you die your brain just stops working your consciousness doesn't exist anymore because it's literally the way a bunch of ions move through a membrane and if you stop breathing for long enough they don't move anymore

>>509
I meant the moments before death, not after it.

>>146
After I read "the egg" by Andy Weir I had nightmares for 6 months.
Imagine living out the lives of trillions of microorganisms and insects or african children who died from malnutrition six months after they were born.

It's all soykaf.

>>515

Scary.