Link to thread?
I've thought about this actually. But then again it is this life I abhor and there may be a life that is not abhorrent.
I've thought about this actually. But then again it is this life I abhor and there may be a life that is not abhorrent.
ksp
Arcanist
- Oct 1, 2022
- 435
consciousness includes my past experience - my memories (my life experience)
the difference between death and coma/sleep is continuity
continuity is ensured through memory
when i wake up from my coma i have continuity: my memories add up, starting from birth to now, and every second in between, except for my 'pause' - my coma is just a break in my consciousness, but i will continue to exist and be persistent about my current experience
when i die, there is no continuity between my current life and any previous or subsequent experiences
i cannot compare a current life to any other life; my current life started from my birth and ends in my death - that's the full story, otherwise all people on earth will have proven connections between previous lives, and not just small exceptions
even if my personality and mental capacity are the same with another previous consciousness, the previous life is not mine because i don't have access to my previous history / memories - my previous 'me' is not the same as current 'me'
the podcast implies my persistence between all my lives, which is incorrect because of my missing memories from previous experiences - non continuity
computer analogy: i am typing my life story from age 0 to 70, but at the end i forgot to save it to disk (didn't 'commit' it to the hard drive). death = computer gets shuts down and i have to reboot it, but my previous life story is not saved and now is lost for ever; i have to type my new story (new life) all over again, unaware of my previous life and all its details
the difference between death and coma/sleep is continuity
continuity is ensured through memory
when i wake up from my coma i have continuity: my memories add up, starting from birth to now, and every second in between, except for my 'pause' - my coma is just a break in my consciousness, but i will continue to exist and be persistent about my current experience
when i die, there is no continuity between my current life and any previous or subsequent experiences
i cannot compare a current life to any other life; my current life started from my birth and ends in my death - that's the full story, otherwise all people on earth will have proven connections between previous lives, and not just small exceptions
even if my personality and mental capacity are the same with another previous consciousness, the previous life is not mine because i don't have access to my previous history / memories - my previous 'me' is not the same as current 'me'
the podcast implies my persistence between all my lives, which is incorrect because of my missing memories from previous experiences - non continuity
computer analogy: i am typing my life story from age 0 to 70, but at the end i forgot to save it to disk (didn't 'commit' it to the hard drive). death = computer gets shuts down and i have to reboot it, but my previous life story is not saved and now is lost for ever; i have to type my new story (new life) all over again, unaware of my previous life and all its details
Last edited:
Ouch, my brain hurts after this but it's interesting- so- thanks for posting it...
So- if I've got this right, they're saying we need to have consciousness to register that we have gone through a period of non existence like anaesthesia... Ok- got that bit. But 'how can a persistant state of non- experience... be sustained?' I agree that non-experience relies on experience (or consciousness) for us to be AWARE of it but is it reliant on consciousness or life for it to exist? (or not exist rather!) I don't see how one depends on the other as a state of being (or not being.) How does non- existence need to be 'sustained'? It doesn't exist! Bit like that saying: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Why is it we're so arogant that we feel like we need to be able to experience or register the fact that we've not been experiencing things for a while for them to exist or be a fact?
Why is being under anaesthetic with a fully functioning brain that will eventually wake up and start perceiving again being compared to being dead when we have no functioning brain or body to perceive anything anymore?
Plus, why does it have to be a loop? If I'm reading this right (maybe I'm not! My brain kind of hurts thinking about it!) Are they saying because we are non-existent before birth and non-existent after death, this non-existence after death HAS to be followed by a birth? (Presumambly by the same soul) Why though? Plus- how do they account for changes in population? Why can't those two non-existent states be just coincidences?
I'd kind of argue we aren't really experiencing existence/ consciousness from birth anyway. Supposedly babies don't develop a sense of awareness till 5 months old. Who here can even remember anything for the first few years of life?
To be fair, I hate the idea of reincarnation so maybe I'm not giving this a fair chance... It could actually very well fit in with the evolution from monkeys to homo sapiens when you think about it- if the same souls and consciousnesses are being recycled, maybe they are evolving as they go.
So- if I've got this right, they're saying we need to have consciousness to register that we have gone through a period of non existence like anaesthesia... Ok- got that bit. But 'how can a persistant state of non- experience... be sustained?' I agree that non-experience relies on experience (or consciousness) for us to be AWARE of it but is it reliant on consciousness or life for it to exist? (or not exist rather!) I don't see how one depends on the other as a state of being (or not being.) How does non- existence need to be 'sustained'? It doesn't exist! Bit like that saying: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Why is it we're so arogant that we feel like we need to be able to experience or register the fact that we've not been experiencing things for a while for them to exist or be a fact?
Why is being under anaesthetic with a fully functioning brain that will eventually wake up and start perceiving again being compared to being dead when we have no functioning brain or body to perceive anything anymore?
Plus, why does it have to be a loop? If I'm reading this right (maybe I'm not! My brain kind of hurts thinking about it!) Are they saying because we are non-existent before birth and non-existent after death, this non-existence after death HAS to be followed by a birth? (Presumambly by the same soul) Why though? Plus- how do they account for changes in population? Why can't those two non-existent states be just coincidences?
I'd kind of argue we aren't really experiencing existence/ consciousness from birth anyway. Supposedly babies don't develop a sense of awareness till 5 months old. Who here can even remember anything for the first few years of life?
To be fair, I hate the idea of reincarnation so maybe I'm not giving this a fair chance... It could actually very well fit in with the evolution from monkeys to homo sapiens when you think about it- if the same souls and consciousnesses are being recycled, maybe they are evolving as they go.
