Were we dead before we were born? I mean, we certainly weren't alive

>we weren't alive
atheists actually believe this lmao

But (You) are just a by product of your body, of your memories and experiences and thoughts etc
Whatever other existence you might have had or might have in the future won't be you in any shape or form

>without an appeal to authority
PARMESAN CHEESE LMAO isn't an appeal to authority?

You cannot create or destroy being, so my constituent substances are eternal.

Not only am I immortal in that sense, but I am also immortal because even if someone tears me into pieces, those pieces will eventually come back together. Given sufficient change, those bits and pieces will eventually be organised back into their current configuration.

No matter what you do to me, I will be reborn. It's just a matter of time.

parmesan cheese lmao

>& Humanities

Your constituent substances aren't you though

Think of all the children you haven't yet had OP. Are they dead?

Depends on what we're referring to when we talk about me. I will play the game; I assume you're talking about me as a particular instance of a human in a specific context.

I agree that we are referring to something different than any one particular constituent substance. However, even accepting that very narrow focus, my potential persists and will never be destroyed.

You can never destroy me, I will always be lurking in the shadows. One day, I will live this moment again; I can never be stopped.

I'm talking about you the stream of consciousness, you will never exist again once your engine breaks down

Consciousness is a form, it cannot be destroyed. If that's the measure of immortality, then I'm safe and sound.

Further, you're wrong about "you will never exist again once your engine breaks down". I assume you mean that once my current body fails me and I die, I will never be born again.

As already pointed out, you cannot create or destroy being. Even if my body is dissolved, the constituent matter persists and continues to undergo change. Eventually, being will undergo enough change that my body will be reconstituted and I will live again just as I do today.

We have always had this conversation, and every other possible conversation. There is no finality, we all have eternal life.

That's not how it works breh. You're the genetic offpsring of your parents made up of specific constituent substances that will simply find a new purpose after you're dead and rotting somewhere.

You're going to die some day. Stop kicking and screaming, just acknowledge it and move on.

you are sadly mislead by the hallucinations your brain has developed to construct in order to sustain its survival. you are the type of person that would live in existential dread and nihilism if you didn't believe in some sort of reincarnation so your brain constantly produces those comfy thoughts. someone simply had the epiphany one day or stumbled into some DMT plant and boom they create a whole religion and following of people who believe it because it feels good. to any seriously rational person it doesn't make sense. sorry not sorry. this is why so many top scientists are moving into life extension because they know. there has always been a search for the fountain of youth because we always have this rational mind that doesn't want to die. even if a culture and brain produces a powerful enough hallucination to make us believe in some sort of nirvana or reincarnation we still search for the fountain of youth. i wonder why. we are afraid of death. and for good reason. it's scary as fuck. why would anyone want to return to the void? sadly some people with depression and other diseases have to endure mental torture, but for normal people... fuck the void.

Hows about we all be a little more specific in regards to what mode of thought we're all in, so that no one compares the death of the body to the platonic form of consciousness as a universal essence, hmm?
Nice thread though remember the power the op pic has in its direction as a whole.

No matter what definition you come up with, I will continue to be right.

You say that my current body will be destroyed and its genetic constitution will be lost. Such a claim does not contradict what I pointed out:

The substances that constituted my body will continue to undergo change. Eventually, so much change will occur that the substances will be reorganised exactly how they were at the time of my birth.

At that moment, I will be made beautiful and new.

You ought to stop kicking and screaming. Not even the gods fight against necessity.

lmao if you have nothing intelligent to say it's okay to just close the thread without responding

you didn't refute a single point i made and you're calling me stupid...

Or who knows, maybe the heat death of the universe will happen first and you won't be reborn
Too bad

>you are the type of person that would live in existential dread and nihilism if you didn't believe in some sort of reincarnation so your brain constantly produces those comfy thoughts
Seems to me that there are many more of these people than not; if indeed they will lose their minds without this cognitive barrier, why in the world would you find it proper to discredit that barrier as a form of truth? There is no need to prove yourself a renegade to the void.

More like fuck you, I for one look forward to the sweet embrace of nothingness when my time comes
Won't it be nice? After a long and fulfilling life to finally let go and just dissolve away

>discredit that barrier

if something tastes good, it must be good for you

if something tastes bad it must be bad for you

both of them are fallacies.

have you ever taken drugs by chance?

From Χάος we are born and to Χάος we return!

um no. i want to be here for the end of time to see what happens. we are still cavemen. fuck that. a million years in the future we will be gods. i want that.

Phaedo was a fun Dialogue

youtu.be/ClQcUyhoxTg

Humanitiesfags trying to grasp basic biology are so cute and adorable.

If you think that you made a relevant point, then you really are stupid

I'm sure you wouldn't call the unraveling of an individual's psyche a good thing. Everyone would appreciate if you didn't poorly construct analogies and admonish the perceived use of logical fallacies while making use of a cheap shot of your own. You would be more correct to say "if something tastes good and one's definition of good is the pleasurable experience of good taste, then that thing must be good for them."
I can employ ad hominem too: you aren't very good at nuance.

yeah mr pseudoscience i did. there are no other realities but this one we live in.

who cares? if everyone believed the way you do then we would all be huddling around fires and worshipping sparks and hallucinations.

If I lived and died before then why am I consious and self aware NOW? Why was I not aware or conscious in the past and why now?

Have fun with the mind expanding chemicals that will be released into your brain near death, sucking you into the timeless consciousness of your own personal evil with that attitude.
You speak about peace as if it's "cringe-worthy" to you. But you're right, who cares? Not you; this thread didn't catch your attention. (Or maybe the OP, sadly, did)

Nobody ever said there were other realities.

read -> comprehend -> post

You literally raised no points at all. You just hid from the proof of my eternal life by accusing me of wishful thinking. Weak.

>my eternal life
good luck with that mr pseudoscience

Can someone please answer this? I'm sorry if it's crudely worded.

Why am I conscious and self aware right now? Why am I sitting here typing in first person now instead of the future or past?

You were conscious and aware in other instances.

You are conscious and self aware in this instant because certain substances are in a certain state.

as if you know what life after death experience may entail. i've had an out of body experience and i still don't believe in other realities. you fucks are just lost little sheep. it's my bedtime anyway kiddies. i have my health to maintain.

lmao you failed to respond to anything I said. sad!

I still don't buy that, reincarnation scares the shit out of me I'll admit but I still don't buy that.

The answer is in the temporal parameters of the question. You are conscious right now because it happens to be the present, which will always align with the now. Yesterday you were also conscious, and at the time you would have been conscious in the present, and likewise tomorrow you will also be conscious, and at the time you will be conscious, and at this time too you will be conscious in the present. If you feel the need to extend that to past or future lives, you can. You were conscious in the then present during your past lives and will be conscious in the then present during your future lives, provided such things do exist.

Also if you're stuck on the fixed direction of time, that's just the dimensional limitation of human experience and you're going to have to take it at face value. There is no reason to be scared of reincarnation, since if it is to happen, each life will feel like the first, as if you were to wake up each day with amnesia. Presumably you've already reincarnated many, many times without a problem so why worry now lol.

Shouldn't we retain memories of the past if that's the case? Or does being reborn wipe your memories? New body/brain = new memories?

The one who laughs at the sheep is usually the dog, not the shepherd. No one mentioned life after death but it's nice to know that's what you had in mind when you were projecting your insecurities. And congratulations on your out of body experience and misunderstanding of the concept of realities.
(If maintaining your health feels good, then it must be good for you)

Depends on what you believe! Memories would typically seem to be bound to the body-mind in the sense in which you're speaking.

>>sad!
Sounds like something Trump would say.
10/10 troll. You're doing Gods work, son.

Haha, thanks man!

I understand the question you are asking now. Yes, that's a really big question, I agree. It's not clear to what extent it impacts my immortality, but it is definitely a big metaphysical mystery.

A quick answer might be that you are in this particular moment because this is the current place or configuration of the substances. As opposed to a place or configuration that has undergone relatively more or less change.

There are different directions to go if you want a more thoughtful answer. I have not made a final determination about which is correct and I am open to new ideas. Perhaps it goes back to three things: "being is", "change has limit", and time is a measurement of change.

The current arrangement of being is absolutely all there is. Nothing exists beyond being, because you cannot say that "is not is". Any concept of an actual "alternative present" is a mistake, because the present is all that exists and it encompasses the concepts of alternatives.

Certain substances are subject to change, but not all. We undergo change to some degree and can perceive it. Being in its fundamental sense is not subject to change, though, or else it could cease to be.

So it follows that being is ultimately without change, and although there is a large but limited number of potential configurations of the substances, the actual configuration is the only one we could ever be in because there is nothing beyond being.

If your question is, why does change occur in a particular way, then you are talking about the unmoved movers, or perhaps selfmoved movers.

Thank you for this serious answer, I've asked that question many times and this is the first satisfying answer.

FUCKING CHAD SAID THIS!!!

SCREW YOU!

CHAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

I read your statements, and it appears your reasoning goes as such:

I existed yesterday, and I will exist tomorrow; therefore, I have always and will always exist.

>>Being in its fundamental sense is not subject to change, though, or else it could cease to be.

Can things not come into and out of existence?

>your reasoning goes as such...

In regards to the eternal nature of my constitution, and inevitable rebirth? No, my conclusions follow from certain metaphysical principles.

First, the most fundamental principle: "being is".

Then, I posit division.

Using division, I list the different things that exist.

I posit that change exists.

I posit that humans exist.

I exist as a particular human because certain substances are arranged in a certain manner.

I posit that humans are largely subject to change.

Sufficient change will result in my death, because the portions of a human will eventually come apart.

Sufficient change will result in the recreation of a human, because the portions will eventually return to the appropriate configuration.

Therefore, it is inevitable that I will eventually be reborn.

>can things not come into and out of existence

No, unless someone is positing that you can create or destroy being. If someone put that forward, I'd like to hear their reasoning; how do they suppose that something would come out of nothing, or how something would be reduced to nothing? As Parmenides pointed out, it is not viable to claim that "is not is".
there exists division

the fragment at the very end, "there exists division", is just something repetitive that I forgot to delete

Being and is... Pre-Socratic Anaximander had a story or dialogue on this? The philosopher asserted cosmology to be the highest form of philosophy/science. Who was it? What was the monologue? Its killing me.

>> Sufficient change will result in the recreation of a human, because the portions will eventually return to the appropriate configuration.

I disagree this is true. Can you provide an example where the portions will necessarily return to the "appropriate config"? Can you prove that will always occur?

And you are equating appropriate config with that of being human while who is to say your config is the most or is at all appropriate?

>>No, unless someone is positing...

A star comes into existence from matter congregating in a space, the center of gravity causing the huge amount of matter to "collapse" in on itself to the extent the force of gravity cause nuclear fission/fusion (can't remember which).

At some point, the star goes supernova. The constituent matter of the star still exists, but the concept or instantiation of the concept of that particular star ceases to exist. That particular star will not necessarily exist again in that particular configuration.

Also, so you buy into mind body duality.

*do you agree with or accept mind/body duality principle?

DON'T THINK IT
DON'T SAY IT

what do you mean by division?

i think he was referring to

-Chad

Anaximander's works are lost, and I don't recall him being an active character in any dialogue that I've read. What's the details of the story?

>>I disagree this is true.
>>Can you provide an example where the
>>portions will necessarily return to the
>>"appropriate config"? Can you prove that >>will always occur?

My position follows from two points.

First, nobody has posited an end of being or change.

Second, the number of possible arrangements is ultimately limited.

Where the system has no set beginning or end, and there is some limit to the possibilities, every potential will necessarily be realised.

Anyway, I'm not sure what actual demonstration would satisfy you. I can do something simple like move an object and then place it back where it came from, but I cannot do it on the scale you probably desire.

The time it would take to observe the natural and inevitable reconstitution of a specific cat, for example, is well beyond us.

>>And you are equating appropriate config
>>with that of being human while who is to say >>your config is the most or is at all appropriate?

No, I didn't mean "appropriate configuration" in the sense of a moral judgment. The topic was how a human would be reconstituted. Because the human was the subject, I called that particular configuration to be the "appropriate configuration".

The discussion starts with the living human. It dies and its body is dissolved. Time progresses and substances eventually come to be arranged in the pattern of a human, the "appropriate configuration" for purposes of the discussion.

>>Stars

You're not positing that being can be created or destroyed. Just that whatever constituted a particular star has undergone change.

>>Also, so you buy into mind body duality

Well, I believe that the monad gives birth to the dyad. By that I mean, the most fundamental thing is being, and being is then divided between matter and form.

So I guess I am a "mind body dualist" to some extent.

I mean that we can identify distinctions, difference, division, whichever word works best.

If we just posit being and go no further, then all we have is an impenetrable monad. This conversation would be impossible.

So, I say that being has matter and form. The monad gives birth to the dyad, although there are many different interpretations of that phrase.

Death is a process of fading. It's not like all your cells give up the ghost at once.

You can't fade if you are already nothing. Therefore, no, you were not dead before you were born.

There's no you when "you" are alive either

Yes it will, because it will be a product of your current thoughts and experiences