You can't describe non-existence in phenomenological or psychological terms because existence is required for experience (unless you believe in "souls"). The body will exist, but the neural activity that underlies experience will be absent.
edit: another user commented and said this was "logically unsound 20th century positivism". Let me direct you to this quote ca 300BC from Epicurus:
> Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.
If you believe in souls then why assume they dont have limitations as we do? Perhaps a soul if it exists is just as ignorant of its reality as we are of ours. Perhaps in some way a soul would be just as limited but in different ways.
Is it neural activity that underlies all experience? Or is it neural activity which filters it?
Crypto is the greatest wealth transfer of this generation alright - transferred directly from the bamboozled suckers who work real jobs for their money, and right into the pockets of the many crypto platforms charging fee after fee.
When the value of the coin in the wallet inevitably drops as markets start "dumping" rather than "pumping", the crypto platforms that took advantage of the hype will be rich as hell (and in "real" money, too).
Yes, Sirhan Sirhan, the man who conveniently "forgot" everything leading up to and including the shooting itself.
Strangely enough, years later his attorney's argued that he was framed. Even RFK's son, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., believes that Sirhan Sirhan was framed and did not actually conspire to kill RFK. He actually wants Sirhan Sirhan released [0].
Multiple witnesses saw him approach RFK with a revolver and fire it three times at him. Nobody really denies that. What his son (and others) allege is that one of RFK's bodyguards used the assassination attempt as cover to actually assassinate him.
Nobody argues that Sirhan conspired to kill RFK and shot a revolver at him, and very few people question the leadup to that attempt.
Point taken, however, that RFK's assassination is not an unquestioned case of a single deranged individual.
> weaponry in particular, most "ray guns" are noticeably inferior to real-world guns in almost every way except perhaps ammo capacity
I was thinking about this watching Foundation. In thousands of years will humans really be _shooting projectiles_ at each other to disrupt vital organs? Why wouldn't it be some kind of device that interacts on a deeper level, I'm thinking like setting off a mini-nuclear-chain-reaction when coming into contact with a single cell that just causes their body to instantly vaporize.
Guns in general seem like something that should already be antiquated.
The Foundation book series, IIRC, has "disintegrators", which are invisible beams that disrupt the charges of the target atoms and cause the target to lose all chemical cohesion. However, "invisible beams" work poorly for video. As a result, most sci-fi video weapons have the huge disadvantage of forming an arrow pointing directly at where you are. Real firearms have muzzle flash but that has nothing on a huge finger pointing right at you.
Additionally, since the audience needs to "see" the beam, most sci-fi weapons have miserably slow firing rates, enough that on the modern battlefield they would be useless.
"Guns in general seem like something that should already be antiquated."
This comes from a mindset that technology is "tiered" and that later technologies are "better" than earlier ones in all ways. This is caused by watching too much science fiction and/or playing too many video games. It is not how the real universe works. In reality, throwing things really hard at your opponent is likely to be a viable strategy indefinitely. The science fiction technologies that would invalidate this, like Dune's shields, do not seem to be things that exist in the real universe.
> This comes from a mindset that technology is "tiered" and that later technologies are "better" than earlier ones in all ways.
That wasn't really what I was going for. What I was thinking was actually efficiency. Of course projectiles will always be effective, but they are not the most efficient. Technology tends towards an increase in efficiency, and inefficient technologies are often supplanted by new ones (swords being largely displaced by guns, muzzle loading weapons being largely replaced by automatic, etc).
If the point is to eliminate an adversary's existence, I can imagine that in thousands of years more efficient means will have been invented. But you're probably right that it doesn't make for exciting television.
On that link there's a screenshot of the homepage for the service. It looks about as awful as you'd expect. How this even got past the elevator pitch is entirely perplexing.
