Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: maxresdefault.jpg (161KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
161KB, 1920x1080px
In response to the question "what happens when we die?" a lot of the responses are something along the lines of "remember what it was like before you were born? it's like that."
But is this coherent?
'What it was like before I was born', whatever that was *produced* my existence. Life came from that.
So why do people assume that the nature of this void changes after death, in relation to before? Before your birth, the nature of the 'void' was to produce your existence. Whereas after your death, people assume the nature of the 'void' is to produce nothing, forever.
Why are people making this assumption about the 'void'?
We know, 100% that non-existence produced a lifetime for us once before. So what would prevent non-existence from producing one?
Why would the nature of non-existence change post death?
I say that it wouldn't, and that when we die, non-existence will bring forth another lifetime or some sort of existence for us again, just as it did with the production of this lifetime now.
I don't know what sort of life it would be, or whether it would even in any way be related to this reality at all, but I assert that another existence will follow this one, because the nature of 'non-existence' is to produce lifetimes.
>>
>>3211609
Because our existance isn't a product of "nature of void", but of our body.
Our body is the hardware on which our software (soul) runs. Once the hardware breaks down, software can't run anymore, thus we stop existing
>>
>>3211665
t. filthy materialist
>>
>>3211948
better that than being massively confused by your own incorrect categories and false conclusions.
>>
>>3211609
We have to define what a soul is.
If a soul is an unchanging property of human consciousness, from birth to death, then it will remain unaffected by:
Amnesia
Hemispherectomy
Severe brain damage
age
neurogenesis
neuro degeneration
etc
And OP, I'd like to accept your theory, that there will be an eventual re-birth, that lifelessness is a precursor to not just life, but our own individual life. It took life 4 billion years for my existence to occur; that's excluding all the possible lifetimes I could have had within that 4 billion years. Is it much of a stretch to say that the same ghost in the shell wouldn't reoccur?
But we have to address some fundamental problems with the concept of soul.
If there is a soul, and the observer/qualia of your body can only inhabit one body, then in the act of cloning, one's soul must take one path, the road already being traveled (the original)
Let's remember the ship of Theseus.
Imagine your brain was removed from your body and placed in a body of a clone. It'd still be you, correct? Same brain, same you, same consciousness, same soul? Well what if it were possible to replace each neuron, over the years, with a new neuron, insomuch that it was never noticeable, until all the neurons in the brain had been replaced. It's essentially the same brain, but with newer parts. And what if we were able to stitch all those old neurons back together and put that into the body of the original? Which living being would be "you".
Or... something more easy. What if you ceased to exist for a second, and appeared out of thin air, all physical parts and neurons in tact, nothing changed? Undoubtedly, any skeptic would say "That's you". But then what if you ceased to exist, and simultaneously two of you were to reappear? They would both YOU, but natural linearity of existence would force you into one body. What dictates which body you inhabit?
>>
>>3211609
Here's the thing about the idea of the "void", your consciousness consists of photons firing in your brain. Once these photons stop firing and you reach complete brain death there is no way for their to be a consciousness which means that you would be caught in the theoretical void I guess. the idea of a 'soul' isn't really tangible.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1