How do you cope with the tragic sense of life?

Where do the new souls come from? Other planets? Consciousness is located in the brain/body as evidenced by blunt force trauma to the head negatively effecting cognition. When the body is destroyed so is the "soul". Sorry to have to break it to you. Hinduism and buddhism are still great though.

>Consciousness is located in the brain/body as evidenced by blunt force trauma to the head negatively effecting cognition
>when I drop the radio and it doesn't work that means the radio wave originates from and is exclusively contained within the radio device

bam

This is a false analogy. I'm not smart enough to articulate why though. Some one help me out.

Okay got it now.

Can you change the radio broadcast by removing a component? No.

Can you change the content of cognition by altering the brain? Yes.

Just because you can claim that when you hit a light-switch a light fairy turns on the light doesn't mean that the existing materialist explanation isn't both sufficient and superior.

By realizing that tragedy and comedy are two sides of the same medal

>content of cognition
A lot of Hindu philosophy separates the mind and cognition from the Atma or soul though, so proving that cognition is dependent upon the brain in no way would disprove their understanding of a non-physical and eternal soul
>doesn't mean that the existing materialist explanation isn't both sufficient and superior.
Except that you still have the hard problem of consciousness

Attached: 1561794309673.jpg (672x1024, 97K)

FUCK JANNIES

What this poster said Awareness/atma =/= thought/mind/cognition

Nor can you disprove that your eternal soul won't be tormented for eternity because we're in a simulation in which that was programmed in.

It's unfalsifiable. Occam's razor to the rescue.

As for the hard problem I dont think it's that hard. Phenomenological experience arises due to electrochemical processes in the brain.

>simulation hypothesis
I find that idea to be silly for reasons somewhat similar to Searle's Chinese Room concept, that there is no reason or evidence to suggest that 'beings' in a simulation would actually subjectively experience a sense of consiousness, any simulation would ultimately just revolve around creating a representation *for* the programmer, but lines of data don't become subjectively self-aware if they become complex enough. You could have the most advanced quantum computer simulate a brain down to the last atom and it would still just be a bunch of non-conscious electrons zipping around in a computer chip, the hypothesis is based on unexamined mistaken assumptions IMO.

>It's unfalsifiable. Occam's razor to the rescue.
Occam's razor only supports whatever position you are predisposed to find more tenable, someone who has studied a lot of Hindu ontological arguments could very well find them to be a more natural explanation.

>Phenomenological experience arises due to electrochemical processes in the brain.
If you take a few moments to read about the hard problem of consiousness you'll find that the whole reason it's a problem in the first place is that the explanation you gave is considered to be an insufficient explanation for various reasons.

>utilitarianism
>comparing humans to objects

You have to go back

Does ur dick reincarnate?

Attached: Screenshot_20190702-000034_Chrome.jpg (1020x272, 106K)