Have you existed before?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by birch, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    This is what is called 'word play'.

    Playing with terms like 'nothing' and 'aware of' doesn't compel reality to obey.

    But just for fun: Note that this mangled logic still doesn't account for the scenario where there is no one being aware.
    If there's no one to be aware or not be aware, then the issue of whether there can be awareness of nothing does not arise.

    Note also that 'nothing' is an inadequately defined term. You've only used circular logic. Thus, using a sloppy word to rule events in or out is invalid.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    yes it does, because being aware of nothing is the same as not being aware of anything.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    Which is irrelevant if there is no entity that has awareness at all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    not having awareness at all is the same as not being aware of anything.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    Still irrelevant. Both your statements presuppose there being an entity to "have" or "not have" something.

    No entity = no "have" or "have not".

    The universe ticked merrily along for 9 billion years plus with no such entity.
     
  9. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    not being existent is the same as not having awareness at all because there wouldn't be anyone to have it.
     
  10. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    Given that non existence is not a state of existence, you have probably not been non existent before.
     
  11. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    You really miss the point. No have is the same as have not. And no have not is the same as have.
     
  12. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    Piffle.
    Non being is not a state of being, so one can not not be, and non awareness is not a sort of awareness, so one can not be unaware from their own perspective.
     
  13. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    As opposed to now, when different superstitions rule the world, such as materialism.

    I dont believe progress was entirely linear.
     
  14. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    anyway, I found a better way to word the same argument, to explain why even if non existence did nesacerily entail unawareness, that still would not disprove my argument.

    one can not not have a perspective from their own perspective.
    therefore own must have a perspective from their own perspective.

    and that's why I say you must be aware of something because you can not be aware of nothing.
    if you do not not have a perspective, you have one, and are as a result aware of something.

    it is different in other instances, you can not see from your own perspective, you can not hear from your own perspective, but you can never not be aware from your own perspective, because unawareness means the absence of your perspective.

    you could be unconscious, for any amount of time, but not to yourself, you would just skip that time period that you were unconscious for and wake up in the future within 0 duration from your own perspective.

    unconsciousness, then, is not the same as annihilation, but time travel.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    Materialism rules the world?
     
  16. just me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    270
    pretty much. mainly through the schooling system.
    it gives them all the perfect mindset, the whole universe is a machine and you are too.
    it rules the world even if it wasn't supposed to.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,202
    Except that's not a superstition.
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You are willing to blindly accept quantum theory but not naturalism? You realize science is based on methodological naturalism?
     

Share This Page