Two ways of not existing

universaldistress said:
Shifted, but not beyond recognition.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. If you saw a picture of an 8 mth old baby stranger, and then 10 pictures of different 80 year old men, of which the baby was formally one of, good luck with picking him out.

I'd be hard pressed to say in fact, that those two pics WERE of the same person. What would be the same ? Certainly not any of his physical matter. His mentality ? Personality ?

Heck, I recall my personality as a very young boy 40 years ago - completely and absolutely different from what I am today. I am even extremely different from waht I was 20 years ago, personality and mentality wise

What remains ?
 
Last edited:
Lakon said:
Maybe, maybe not. If you saw a picture of an 8 mth old baby stranger, and then 10 pictures of different 80 year old men, of which the baby was formally one of, good luck with picking him out.

I'd be hard pressed to say in fact, that those two pics WERE of the same person. What would be the same ? Certainly not any of his physical matter. His mentality ? Personality ?

Heck, I recall my personality as a very young boy 40 years ago - completely and absolutely different from what I am today. I am even extremely different from waht I was 20 years ago, personality and mentality wise

What remains ?
Click to expand...

The difference between baby and mature adult is skewed by the incomplete form of the infant, and therefore not a fair representation. From 20 to 80 is fairer, if one is going purely on physical looks as the measure of difference (beyond recognition).

The genes may mutate millions of times throughout a human lifespan, but due to the immense size of the genetic information a genetic test would still be visibly identical on the resolution level usually tested. In fact a sample taken at birth would be indistinguishable with one from an 80 year old, with such a test; and therefore easy to "recognise" the individual.

The delicate balance of self is more difficult to compare, as the mind lays down new networks of neurons until death, and the physiological expression of genes (phenotypically) and hormones etc. etc. can change one's psychological outlook. Not to mention the environment-one-lives-in's effect yadda yadda.
 
scheherazade said:
35 hours without sleep puts me in the perfect frame of mind for this contemplation....

Prior to being born, we are purely random potential.

After we die, though the state of not existing may or may not be different for us, the fact that we did exist, albeit briefly, is indelibly stamped upon the memories of those who knew us.

This is true even in the case of miscarriage and stillbirth, especially for the mother-to-have-been.

Before conception, only potential.

After conception, the memory of something, long after it has ceased to be.
Click to expand...

before life = faith
after life = memory

? yes like that?

before life we do not exist and are born by chance
after life we do not exist and have lived

before life parents give faith to make a baby, a thought/a memory of a baby to come, a person to live a life
after life children live by faith given by parents, a thought/a memory of parents lives on in them
 
wynn said:
Do you have any evidence of this?
Click to expand...

what if we approach this by finding evidence against this? That void is irrelevant, but its the faith that counts, a thought. Void before and Void after. A thought of new life before and a thought of our life in others after. They carry a thought with them and we live on in a new life therefore. Without any knowledge of our past lives or future.

Two ways of not existing? There is only way to not exist, this is non-existence in the material world. And since we do indeed live in the material world, something else caused us to be alive here, something that is not material yet is able to connect with this non-existence. I propose that something is a "thought" or even "faith". Faith has the power to create, albeit for us to believe in such would be unscientific. But I say that this assumption of faith having power to create (anything not just us) is indeed true, it is just that for us faith chooses much simplier routes to come to life, much less energy required paths to creations, which allow this faith to exist. An example would be an existence of an apple: Yes by faith alone we could have created an apple in thin air by our mind, but this will never happen, why? because an apple can exist by growing on an apple tree, and this is much simplier for universe than to choose the path we would have wished for this apple to exist. Am I making sense here? I hope so.
 
universaldistress said:
The difference between baby and mature adult is skewed by the incomplete form of the infant, and therefore not a fair representation. From 20 to 80 is fairer, if one is going purely on physical looks as the measure of difference (beyond recognition).

The genes may mutate millions of times throughout a human lifespan, but due to the immense size of the genetic information a genetic test would still be visibly identical on the resolution level usually tested. In fact a sample taken at birth would be indistinguishable with one from an 80 year old, with such a test; and therefore easy to "recognise" the individual.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see and accept this point.

The delicate balance of self is more difficult to compare, as the mind lays down new networks of neurons until death, and the physiological expression of genes (phenotypically) and hormones etc. etc. can change one's psychological outlook. Not to mention the environment-one-lives-in's effect yadda yadda.
Click to expand...

Underlined .. do you actually mean mind or brain ? If mind, then you refer to a 'higher' controlling aspect of brain ?
 
youreyes said:
what if we approach this by finding evidence against this? That void is irrelevant, but its the faith that counts, a thought. Void before and Void after. A thought of new life before and a thought of our life in others after. They carry a thought with them and we live on in a new life therefore. Without any knowledge of our past lives or future.

Two ways of not existing? There is only way to not exist, this is non-existence in the material world. And since we do indeed live in the material world, something else caused us to be alive here, something that is not material yet is able to connect with this non-existence. I propose that something is a "thought" or even "faith". Faith has the power to create, albeit for us to believe in such would be unscientific. But I say that this assumption of faith having power to create (anything not just us) is indeed true, it is just that for us faith chooses much simplier routes to come to life, much less energy required paths to creations, which allow this faith to exist. An example would be an existence of an apple: Yes by faith alone we could have created an apple in thin air by our mind, but this will never happen, why? because an apple can exist by growing on an apple tree, and this is much simplier for universe than to choose the path we would have wished for this apple to exist. Am I making sense here? I hope so.
Click to expand...

Underlined .. with respect, no you are making no sense at all - to me. I find it hard to take seriously that by (blind) faith alone we can materialise stuff out of thin air, but we don't because nature takes a simpler path ..

That's one weird (IMO) set of ideas right there.

Are you a religious person ? Probably - that's fine. But IMO, some religious folk badly abuse the word faith.

As an interesting exersise, try finding the word faith as it was originally and primarily used in your holy book, research it a bit, and see what it might have meant in it's original form and language. You might be surprised.
 
Last edited:
Lakon said:
Underlined .. with respect, no you are making no sense at all - to me. I find it hard to take seriously that by (blind) faith alone we can materialise stuff out of thin air, but we don't because nature takes a simpler path ..

That's one weird (IMO) set of ideas right there.

Are you a religious person ? Probably - that's fine. But IMO, some religious folk badly abuse the word faith.

As an interesting exersise, try finding the word faith as it was originally and primarily used in your holy book, research it a bit, and see what it might have meant in it's original form and language. You might be surprised.
Click to expand...

no I am not religious unless you count my faith in buddhism as religious. I always believed in reincarnation and transcendentalism. To me the universe makes sense in the material world and the world where a thought alone counts just as much. It is like quantum universe laws and the laws of Einstein-Newton universe on large scales, both exist in the same realm yet the rules of existence are different. In a quantum universe a particle can both exist and not exist at the same time. If something like that is possible in our universe than why is my idea of the less energy path more efficient way of achieving a result from a thought not logical? I ofcourse may not be using the word faith correctly, I am trying to tie the laws of universal entropy to the human nature of realization of self. This is very hard.
 
Lakon said:
Yes, I see and accept this point.



Underlined .. do you actually mean mind or brain ? If mind, then you refer to a 'higher' controlling aspect of brain ?
Click to expand...

One can't separate the physical construction of the brain from the mind. One is the hardware and software, the other is the simulation it runs. I refer to the physical construction of neurons, as in they grow new connections throughout life, but the mind is the consequence of that. I wasn't distinguishing/separating the two, as it wasn't a relevance of my point.
 
universaldistress said:
One can't separate the physical construction of the brain from the mind. One is the hardware and software, the other is the simulation it runs. I refer to the physical construction of neurons, as in they grow new connections throughout life, but the mind is the consequence of that. I wasn't distinguishing/separating the two, as it wasn't a relevance of my point.
Click to expand...


Your last sentence ..

Noted.

(Why do the format thingies when repying, sometimes come up and sometimes not ?)
 
Magical Realist said:
Is there a difference between not existing before we were born and not existing after we die? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

There's at least a non-functioning body lingering for awhile after death - barring explosions, cremation, etc. But aside from that the absence of space, time, "self", and other content of conscious experience would seem to be the same as before prenatal brain development - a dissolving back into the general nothingness of a non-aware universe (at least any awareness consisting of phenomenal manifestations and intellection).
 
C C said:
There's at least a non-functioning body lingering for awhile after death - barring explosions, cremation, etc. But aside from that the absence of space, time, "self", and other content of conscious experience would seem to be the same as before prenatal brain development - a dissolving back into the general nothingness of a non-aware universe (at least any awareness consisting of phenomenal manifestations and intellection).
Click to expand...

And what evidence do you base the above on?
 
what of the paranormal though

such as ghosts and entities , which seem to to have the ability to intertwine with our reality but at the same we can't seem to touch
 
wynn said:
And what evidence do you base the above on?
Click to expand...

I'm open to any good evidence that this would not roughly be the conventional / default view of a science forum (minus the opinions of its religious and pseudoscience participants, etc.); or the most widely accepted or warranted conclusion that has been outputted by naturalist methodology. That phenomenal consciousness (experience) and understanding are products of brains, and not universal or fundamental.

"...Neuroscientists consider it settled that the mind arises from the cooperation of billions of interconnected cells that, individually, are no smarter than amoebae. But it's a shocking idea to some that the human mind could arise out of such an array of mindlessness. [...] The brain is the mind is the brain. One hundred billion nerve cells, give or take, none of which individually has the capacity to feel or to reason, yet together generating consciousness. For about 400 years, following the ideas of French philosopher René Descartes, those who thought about its nature considered the mind related to the body, but separate from it. In this model—often called 'dualism' or the mind-body problem—the mind was 'immaterial,' not anchored in anything physical. Today neuroscientists are finding abundant evidence of an idea that even Freud played with more than 100 years ago, that separating mind from brain makes no sense. Nobel Prize-winning psychiatrist-neuroscientist Eric Kandel stated it directly in a watershed paper published in 1998: 'All mental processes, even the most complex psychological processes, derive from operations of the brain.'"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/09/12/sad-brain-happy-brain.html

I'm open to any good support that metaphysical / theological / speculative alternatives - those are not very amenable to experimental testing - would not be considered as being merely contenders in the possibility department (at liberal best) rather than the "evidence" department, in the same or similar context expressed previously.

"...The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness, however, has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates the brain. [...] Thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes produce subjective experiences. The fact that neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing. [...] How does consciousness cause matter to materialize? We are not told. Where (and how) did consciousness exist before there was matter? We are left wondering. As far as I can tell, all the evidence points in the direction of brains causing mind, but no evidence indicates reverse causality. This whole line of reasoning, in fact, seems to be based on something akin to a 'God of the gaps' argument, where physicalist gaps are filled with nonphysicalist agents, be they omniscient deities or conscious agents. [...] No one denies that consciousness [phenomenal experience] is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let’s give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think." --Aunt Millie’s Mind; Michael Shermer; Scientific American
 
C C said:
I'm open to any good evidence that this would not roughly be the conventional / default view of a science forum (minus the opinions of its religious and pseudoscience participants, etc.); or the most widely accepted or warranted conclusion that has been outputted by naturalist methodology. That phenomenal consciousness (experience) and understanding are products of brains, and not universal or fundamental.

"...Neuroscientists consider it settled that the mind arises from the cooperation of billions of interconnected cells that, individually, are no smarter than amoebae. But it's a shocking idea to some that the human mind could arise out of such an array of mindlessness. [...] The brain is the mind is the brain. One hundred billion nerve cells, give or take, none of which individually has the capacity to feel or to reason, yet together generating consciousness. For about 400 years, following the ideas of French philosopher René Descartes, those who thought about its nature considered the mind related to the body, but separate from it. In this model—often called 'dualism' or the mind-body problem—the mind was 'immaterial,' not anchored in anything physical. Today neuroscientists are finding abundant evidence of an idea that even Freud played with more than 100 years ago, that separating mind from brain makes no sense. Nobel Prize-winning psychiatrist-neuroscientist Eric Kandel stated it directly in a watershed paper published in 1998: 'All mental processes, even the most complex psychological processes, derive from operations of the brain.'"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/09/12/sad-brain-happy-brain.html

I'm open to any good support that metaphysical / theological / speculative alternatives - those are not very amenable to experimental testing - would not be considered as being merely contenders in the possibility department (at liberal best) rather than the "evidence" department, in the same or similar context expressed previously.

"...The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness, however, has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates the brain. [...] Thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes produce subjective experiences. The fact that neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing. [...] How does consciousness cause matter to materialize? We are not told. Where (and how) did consciousness exist before there was matter? We are left wondering. As far as I can tell, all the evidence points in the direction of brains causing mind, but no evidence indicates reverse causality. This whole line of reasoning, in fact, seems to be based on something akin to a 'God of the gaps' argument, where physicalist gaps are filled with nonphysicalist agents, be they omniscient deities or conscious agents. [...] No one denies that consciousness [phenomenal experience] is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let’s give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think." --Aunt Millie’s Mind; Michael Shermer; Scientific American
Click to expand...

I agree fully with what you are quoting here

but the fact remains where is it that these same people actually investigate properly the paranormal , meaning that these same scientist GO to where the paranormal activity is allegedly taking place , such as the series the PSI-Factor had done

this is what I have been waiting for and so far has not been done
 
Cyperium said:
Once you are you, you will always be you. So you only need the same initial conditions that were present when you were born, once that seed (that makes you exist as you) is there then you will exist no matter how you develop. I don't think that those initial conditions have much to do with the body though, you could be any body since, as you say, there is no identity in nothing, all is the same. I have no idea from a purely scientific perspective what caused nothing to differentiate into different existences, nor what was the process that choose who got to be who.

There is no future when you don't exist, there is no past either, so your question if there are added restrictions to our own future possibility is meaningless. For you, the world is reset to the state where nothing existed, so time doesn't go on for you when you die, there is no universe when you don't exist (not for you) so there are no possibilities to unfould. Neither was there any before you were born if you didn't exist. From purely scientific reasoning it should really be impossible for you to exist at all, or the world for that matter.

When you don't exist then you are the same state that were prior to the universe, that were prior to all existence. Or existence is eternal and who knows what it would be to be outside of it, yet you were...so, where does that leave us? Well, naturally you should exist as yourself as if everything has been reset. If there is a eternal non-existence after you die, then there should have been one before you were born as well, but there wasn't, we do know that at least.

My idea has a flaw though, it calls for individual non-existence, just as we have individual existence. It doesn't seem possible. Yet we do exist as individuals although there was no individual to exist as. Is it a game of chance? Then what is throwing the dice? Could there be some kind of process that actually makes what we call "nothing" a potential something, that is ruled by some kind of law?
Click to expand...

Good thoughts! And I stand corrected about nonexistence having a future. Indeed we ARE talking about a timeless and spaceless state. But there does seem to inhere within this state a sort of potentiality for being, especially if we regard it before we or even the entire universe came into being..In this sense nonexistence, while not being a physical state, seems to have the properties of a mental state, if we define mental as a state of pure realization of possibility AS possibility. Could it being a sort Platonic receptacle which holds within itself possibilities, ideas, geometrical forms, and even mathematical equations in a sort timeless eternal state? I guess what I'm proposing here is a universal mind or state of pure potentiality that in fact is presupposed by any state of actually physically existing.The quantum vaccum perhaps? I don't know. I'm trying to be open to ALL possibilities here..;-)
 
C C said:
There's at least a non-functioning body lingering for awhile after death - barring explosions, cremation, etc. But aside from that the absence of space, time, "self", and other content of conscious experience would seem to be the same as before prenatal brain development - a dissolving back into the general nothingness of a non-aware universe (at least any awareness consisting of phenomenal manifestations and intellection).
Click to expand...

A nothingness that in at least two instances that we know of comes into contact with somethingness--birth and death. I am bewildered by what this relationship is and how it can even be. How does a being come out of non-being, and how does a being go back into non-being? At least in a Minkowskian spacetime, existence seems to exist in an eternal, transtemporal state. That certainly solves the problem, but somehow it seems unsatisfying. Does nothingness even really exist? Seems everywhere existing leaves off only more existing continues.
 
Magical Realist said:
A nothingness that in at least two instances that we know of comes into contact with somethingness--birth and death. I am bewildered by what this relationship is and how it can even be. How does a being come out of non-being, and how does a being go back into non-being? At least in a Minkowskian spacetime, existence seems to exist in an eternal, transtemporal state. That certainly solves the problem, but somehow it seems unsatisfying. Does nothingness even really exist? Seems everywhere existing leaves off only more existing continues.
Click to expand...

there is no evidence that birth and death are nothingness
 
Magical Realist said:
Good thoughts! And I stand corrected about nonexistence having a future. Indeed we ARE talking about a timeless and spaceless state. But there does seem to inhere within this state a sort of potentiality for being, especially if we regard it before we or even the entire universe came into being..In this sense nonexistence, while not being a physical state, seems to have the properties of a mental state, if we define mental as a state of pure realization of possibility AS possibility. Could it being a sort Platonic receptacle which holds within itself possibilities, ideas, geometrical forms, and even mathematical equations in a sort timeless eternal state? I guess what I'm proposing here is a universal mind or state of pure potentiality that in fact is presupposed by any state of actually physically existing.The quantum vaccum perhaps? I don't know. I'm trying to be open to ALL possibilities here..;-)
Click to expand...

life energy evolves as does ALL life

it grows in its ability to manifest first , awareness of its self
 
Magical Realist said:
Is there a difference between not existing before we were born and not existing after we die? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No real difference. The only different seems to be that before you were born, you were in that part of the spacetime fabric perceived as "future", and after you die, you will be in that part of the spacetime fabric perceived as "past". But, because there is no true division between past and future, there is no real difference.

PS: Sorry, but your question is unjustifiably loaded because it assumes you will never exist after you die. Many will disagree with you. Abrahamic religions e.g. assume you will be resurrected along with "another Earth and the Heavens".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top