rockmodenick t1_jbmk7e9 wrote

I live in peace with the wild mice in the apartment. I don't leave any mess out they could eat, the pantry is mouse proof, and I even leave it a bottle of water so they don't have to risk drinking dirty bathroom and kitchen spill water. In return they don't peepee on my stuff in the closet. I feel it's fair.


rockmodenick t1_j9twcnl wrote

The more I hear about these newer things on the campus, the more it shows that inhuman does not mean unstoppable, or immortal. Most of the things on the campground, they were OLD things, things you couldn't fight, so you accommodate them out of necessity. But these new things, they're much more ephemeral - you've literally beaten one of these things to death with a backpack loaded with a dumbbell. You defied the underwear folder, and if anything, you're now the only human she respects. You killed the murder-eyeball. You told the Treefrog to stop, and it did.

My point is, these things are going to be realizing that they need to be scared of YOU. And it's going to be more dangerous for you to go around pretending that isn't the case, because they aren't going to like being prey. I know it might not feel like it, when so many of them can end a human life in an instant, but that's part of it - they're used to HUMAN lives being fleeting, not their own. There's no ducking out of the way and hoping to slip by unnoticed now. It's far too late for that. Survival means leaning in - legacy has power - just being the one that kills the things that go bump in the night makes you more empowered to stop them.


rockmodenick t1_j1lw9ed wrote

Ok cool then I'll elaborate - I counted three claims:

  1. we don't know what consciousness is

  2. I'm claiming their won't be a connection

  3. this situation is way too theoretical to make any claims at all about, with any reliability.

The reason I think these constitute the greater claim, and therefore my claim is the safer one, is as such

  1. we don't, but we can measure a bunch of things about it, and experience it, therefore,

  2. there's never been any evidence of psychic connections of any kind, so it seems really unlikely this situation would be an exception. It could be, but it seems way safer to assume no.

  3. I mean, yeah, chances are much much higher we're headed for heat death than a bounce, universe wise, so in that sense it is pretty silly to "what-if" a bounce scenario, but I was trying to relieve OPs anxiety, so I took this part as a given.


rockmodenick t1_j1luqhk wrote

I'd say you have the same ones, rather than that they're shared, because they didn't go from one to the other, in a "ship of Theseus" or teleporter situation - the actual individuals are separated by billions of years. Like, two people have separate recordings of the same movie, rather than sharing a single recording of a movie, if that distinction makes more sense.


rockmodenick t1_j1l2f50 wrote

I know that my consciousness of now is not my consciousness of yesterday. In fact, it updates moment to moment, with only memories and common hardware. How exactly is a consciousness that's been dead for billions of years going to be synchronized with another? It's absurd

However, the short answer is that burden of proof is on the person making the greater claim, I'm claiming that there's no evidence of any information exchange between cycles of the universe, should cycles of the universe even be real - which I highly doubt anyway for a number of reasons supported by data gathered by people much more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. You're claiming not only are they real, but they somehow include a psychic connection between cycles. So you need to come up with a huge amount of evidence, or the default claim, which is that that all sounds like a bunch of nonsense.