Since you don't experience the time before you were born,

>>1475135
I lived my life.
But not the life of the whole of mankind.

>>1475135
damn this is kinda deep

>>1475146
really makes ya think

>>1475135
Yes, and in the same way you experience a Xeno's paradox as you age.
Your first birthday was 1/1 of your life
Your second birthday was 1/2 of your life
your third, 1/3, up until you're 80 and your 80th year was a mere sliver of 1/80th upon the totality of your existence to that moment.

Depends on how you define a "philosopical sense", if you mean pretentious teenage wankery then yes I agree

>>1475154
Zeno's paradox, ducking autocorrect

No. You experience your life as a discrete, finite extension of time. Further, the elements that compose your body cohere as a unity for a discrete, finite extension of time.

How do you get from 'a lifetime is a brief flash of light in the midst of an eternity of darkness extending in both directions' to 'therefore a lifetime is, like, basically eternal'?

>>1475154

You have your arithmetic confused.

>>1475165
eternity as the sensation of timelessness you blundering tismo twat

File: hmmm.jpg (16KB, 324x271px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 324x271px

>>1475135
>won't experience the time after you die

>>1475195
Seems questionable.

>>1475189

You don't experience timelessness. There is no experience without time.

>>1475135
not really. you lived for all of your life, not for (all of) ever. you were born from an eternity of not existing, since time is a construct of the living, and to eternity you shall return.

also this
>>1475165

Will you be forever?

>>1475209
You can be forever.
Even after you are long dead, you start to rot and your flesh turn to minerals and your bones turn to dust...

But you are, still there.
A morsal of yourself is still there..

>>1475223
Do you even Heidegger?

>>1475204
>>1475165
But my subjective experience never ends because when I objectively die I am unaware that I am dead.

Ergo I am eternal.

>>1475245

'You' are only what you experience. If 'you' are no longer experiencing, nor will 'you' have the potential to experience, i.e. 'your' body has disintegrated, than 'you' no longer 'are' and never will be again. Therefore 'you' are the very opposite of eternal.

>>1475269
Or is 'you' just a useful illusion for survival that was came about through evolutionary processes?

Are you the food you eat?

>>1475286

I'd prefer to remain agnostic on that point. I think you can take a number of attitudes toward selfhood, with none having clear ontological priority. But I will stand by the necessarily temporal and finite character of human experience.

>>1475301
I think the division is linguistic and not an actual dichotomy.

>>1475305

The division between what?

Nah, you experience your own privately finite existence, but as far you're concerned, that's all that has ever or will ever exist.

>>1475135
no, your solipsist universe only lasted 70 years not forever

>>1475135
You were never alive, and will never therefore die.

What is this then, you ask? Letters on the screen, more specifically, in your brain.

>>1475307
What is you and what is not you.

(you) do not exist in a vacuum, but the illusion of independence from your surroundings is difficult to see past.

>>1475245
>>1475245
i see what you're saying, from our perspective that could be true and if so i hope i am praying to god when i die, but "you" aren't eternal, because when you objectively die so does your ego. "you" are like a raindrop, descended from a cloud, that will be yanked back into itself like a yoyo when you die. your conciousness resides in a soup called the collective conciousness; sheath in matter it is differentiated, but in death the you that was you will become no thing and everything at once.

>>1475135
I can't decide if it's scary or comforting to think that you can't experience death. As in, you can never experience the end of your final thoughts, can you? The end of the last sensation you feel?
So you'll never get to experience the relief that you might feel with death, although I guess if you were suffering, then your suffering will technically end. You'll never feel relief from it though, if that makes sense, right?

>>1475332

Maybe more psychological than linguistic--behavioral dispositions precede our developing concepts and a language to account for them; but all the self-talk certainly reinforces the illusion of a discrete 'thing', and that such a 'thing' is substantial, purdurant.

>>1475452
Sure, but I tend to look at it from an evolutionary sort of perspective, the form you take only developed after billions of years of evolution through an unbroken chain of life.

Also, one day you were two cells, are you an emergent aspect of nature? is the division (psychologically reinforced by evolution) mostly just for convenience rather than describing how things are?

Is everything part of the same whole? with divisions used for pragmatic reasons regardless of being illusory?

>>1475135
>>1475138

Amazing thoughts.

No, it doesn't mean you live forever, because it's not everlasting. You could say that you will never "die" in a sense or experience death, but these are kind of self-explanatory statements.

The more interesting thought for me is whether we're actually dead in a sense already. We know that there's a point in which your consciousness will cease to exist and since time is impossible to stop we will inevitably reach that point, we're just sitting ducks waiting for the point we die and nothing we do can change or influence that.

>>1475535
So some sort of life and death existing simultaneously?

>>1475544
It's more about the fatalistic feeling than actual statement of being. You know it's coming, you're already sitting on a train that's going to crash, you're already dead in a sense, it just didn't happen yet and nothing can stop it.

It actually isn't anythigng that interesting or profound, but I find slightly intruging to view death from this perspective, it makes everything looks rather pointless and vapid in that context.

>>1475558
What if choose to remain skeptical, I have not died yet, therefore I can't be certain that I will die.

>>1475576
Do you think other people die?

>>1475592
What does it mean to "die"?

>>1475135
I don't know what to believe

I don't know if there's life after death, or life before birth. All I know is the life I live while living, so all I can do is live it.

Not a fedora or anything, but I don't really get the point of spending so much time thinking about what is to come while you are wasting the time that is already here.

Sorry if I sound like some edgy teen with a superiority complex who thinks they are a super philosopher or something.

>>1475599
They cease to live, their conciousness is forever no more and any essence that made them who they were is no longer present in their body.

>>1475607
Can words (spoken or written) be said to be part of a persons consciousness? Do the impacts of every word/action live in the world after they have come into existence? Can the past be erased, if you forget something does this mean it did not happen?

>>1475135
I honestly just refer to the time before birth as when i was dead.

>>1475644
Or were you just waiting to live?

>>1475639
If we simply it then spoken words and it's consequences are effects of person's consciousness, doesn't mean they are part of them.

Yes, the impacts do influence world continuously, but that doesn't mean they're the same as biological beings. If we were to accept external reality, then whether someone heard the tree fall doesn't change the fact that the tree fell. And if we accept the continuous linear interpretation of time then the past cannot be altered.

>>1475669
>then the past cannot be altered

But our interpretation of the past, in the present, in relation to the future, can be altered.

>>1475681
Our perception could be different, however that doesn't actually change what happened at the time, merely our understand of it, which is only in the present, not past.

>>1475693
but the present become the past, and perceptions influence the directions of the future.

>>1475717
Once present becomes the past it's not alterable anymore. If it's alterable it's not past yet. Past's a already written story and how we choose to interpret the story doesn't change its contents.

>>1475730
But how the past is understood in the present can seemingly change the potential that the content of the past has to impact the future?

>>1475765
How the past is understood now impact the present and the future, no the past.

Just because I get to know that the person I've met yesterday is my new coworker that doesn't mean that the person from yesterday get swapped for someone else, nor that anything that happened yesterday occured any differently or was by any means altered by the information that was given in the future time.

>>1475775
What about theories of biological change after Darwin, there was a massive paradigm shift in how the past (and present) was understood, even if evolution was always there, with the mechanisms obscured by ignorance (and still are, just to a lesser extent). and I do know there were various theories floating around prior to Darwin too.

>How the past is understood now impact the present and the future, no the past.

I mean the understanding of the past doesn't change what happens, but can show what/how it occurred with greater clarity.

>>1475807
what happened*

>>1475807
Exactly, we might undestand better than happened, but what happened is still the same and isn't altered by any means by our discoveries, it's already written book that we're reading.

>>1475146
nah

>>1475269
But you have always been, the process of being has been going on before "you" were aware of it, "you" are the experience but the Universe controls what you experience and when. Who's to say the experience stops here at death