| Philosophy The forum for the discussion and debate of general philosophy & epistemology |
 | | 
1st November 2009, 03:05 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 1st November 2009
Posts: 405
Blessings: 26,675
Reps: 9,381,024,361,483,714 (power: 9,381,024,361,486) | | | Is it possible for yourself to cease to exist?
First of all can we make the assumption that I do actually exist... (actually if you want to challenge that then feel free, I'm sure there is someone here who is eager to tie me in knots, and it is interesting)
Personally, I can't possibly experience my own non-existance. Does that mean that non-existance from my pov does not exist? And would it follow that I will always exist, since my non-existance is an impossibility to me?
I actually believe that when we die, that's it, no more experiences, quite straightforward. I thought it might be interesting if anyone has any other philisophical views on that though, not really too interested in biblical references or anything like that though... |
1st November 2009, 10:15 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
    
 | | Join Date: 13th February 2007 Location: America
Posts: 3,882
Blessings: 77,909 My Mood 
Reps: 10,450,327,509,946,648 (power: 10,450,327,509,954) | | And would it follow that I will always exist, since my non-existance is an impossibility to me?
it's an impossibility for you to experience, but it's not an actual impossibility. |
2nd November 2009, 06:44 PM
| | God?? What do you mean?
54 
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005
Posts: 24,237
Blessings: 47,368,609 My Mood 
Reps: 21,124,454,843,429,512 (power: 21,124,454,843,460) | | Originally Posted by underpressure  First of all can we make the assumption that I do actually exist... (actually if you want to challenge that then feel free, I'm sure there is someone here who is eager to tie me in knots, and it is interesting)
I am tempted to challenge the concept of an "I/me/self", but since I don´t think this question is crucial for the question you ask I will abstain from doing so for the time being. Personally, I can't possibly experience my own non-existance.
Yes, that´s obvious to the point of triviality. No disagreement. Does that mean that non-existance from my pov does not exist?
Well, I am assuming that (notwithstanding all the problems that come with the concept of "person") you observe persons ceasing to exist, so I conclude that even from your pov the difference between existence and non-existence is experienced. And would it follow that I will always exist, since my non-existance is an impossibility to me?
No, doesn´t follow. Just like your inability to experience yourself sleeping or having lost your consciousness doesn´t force the conclusion that people can´t sleep or lose their consciousness.
__________________ Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
|
3rd November 2009, 04:58 AM
|  | Contributor
23    
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,584
Blessings: 50,320,515 My Mood 
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by daniel777 it's an impossibility for you to experience, but it's not an actual impossibility.
Couldn't put it better myself.
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
3rd November 2009, 06:16 AM
|  | Reverencing the Exalted Spirit of Man
45 
| | Join Date: 1st January 2003 Location: American resident of Sweden
Posts: 18,492
Blessings: 8,259,692 My Mood 
Reps: 440,945,404,461,670,976 (power: 440,945,404,461,699) | | Originally Posted by underpressure First of all can we make the assumption that I do actually exist...
Certainly. I'd hate to be here talking to myself. Personally, I can't possibly experience my own non-existance.
True. Does that mean that non-existance from my pov does not exist?
No, it means you can't directly experience your own non-existence. Nothing more. And would it follow that I will always exist, since my non-existance is an impossibility to me?
You will always exist for as long as you exist. Your life is "your eternity", but it is also just a handful of decades. eudaimonia,
Mark
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
26th November 2009, 10:08 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 25th November 2009
Posts: 5
Blessings: 56,110
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by underpressure First of all can we make the assumption that I do actually exist... (actually if you want to challenge that then feel free, I'm sure there is someone here who is eager to tie me in knots, and it is interesting)
Personally, I can't possibly experience my own non-existance. Does that mean that non-existance from my pov does not exist? And would it follow that I will always exist, since my non-existance is an impossibility to me?
I actually believe that when we die, that's it, no more experiences, quite straightforward. I thought it might be interesting if anyone has any other philisophical views on that though, not really too interested in biblical references or anything like that though...
If you conceive of your consciousness (sense of self) as something that emerges from your biology, which in turn depends on a particular arrangement of atoms then you are taking the reductionist's viewpoint and you will indeed cease to exist when your body ceases to function.
While I am neither a Christian nor religious I find the reductionist's viewpoint to be quite naiive.I would highly recommend visiting the following website: susanrennison.com/Index_sciencetalk2.htm. You'll have to look past the cheesy web design. The site explains, in laymen's terms, the concepts of Standford University professor William Tiller. I find his ideas fascinating. He offers a way of looking at the world that derives from Einstein's equations that accounts for consciousness.  |
26th November 2009, 10:13 AM
| | Reverencing the Exalted Spirit of Man
45
| | Join Date: 1st January 2003 Location: American resident of Sweden
Posts: 18,492
Blessings: 8,259,692 My Mood
Reps: 440,945,404,461,670,976 (power: 440,945,404,461,699) | | Originally Posted by masterlock1 If you conceive of your consciousness (sense of self) as something that emerges from your biology, which in turn depends on a particular arrangement of atoms then you are taking the reductionist's viewpoint and you will indeed cease to exist when your body ceases to function.
Not so. If consciousness is emergent, this is a non-reductionist's view. Reductionism is opposed to emergentism, since emergentism implies that an entity may have properties that its parts do not have individually (i.e. reductively).
I see nothing naive about emergentism. eudaimonia,
Mark
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
26th November 2009, 11:37 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 25th November 2009
Posts: 5
Blessings: 56,110
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Eudaimonist Not so. If consciousness is emergent, this is a non-reductionist's view. Reductionism is opposed to emergentism, since emergentism implies that an entity may have properties that its parts do not have individually (i.e. reductively).
I see nothing naive about emergentism.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Actually, reductionism DOES allow for emergent behavior -- sometimes called an epiphenomenon -- but maintains this behavior can be explained by the collective action of the entity's individual parts. |
26th November 2009, 11:41 AM
| | Reverencing the Exalted Spirit of Man
45
| | Join Date: 1st January 2003 Location: American resident of Sweden
Posts: 18,492
Blessings: 8,259,692 My Mood
Reps: 440,945,404,461,670,976 (power: 440,945,404,461,699) | | Originally Posted by masterlock1 Actually, reductionism DOES allow for emergent behavior -- sometimes called an epiphenomenon -- but maintains this behavior can be explained by the collective action of the entity's individual parts.
Okay, I'll buy that. eudaimonia,
Mark
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
26th November 2009, 12:22 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 25th November 2009
Posts: 5
Blessings: 56,110
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Eudaimonist I see nothing naive about emergentism.
eudaimonia,
Mark Both emergentism and reductionsim essentially grant consciousness second-class ontological status. Even though we can't see gravity we can see and feel its effects. Even though we can't see consciousness we can see and feel its effects. Why is one given primacy over the other? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
