What were we before we were born? What will we be after we die?
lol, this nigga still believes in time.
idk but it makes me think of this songhttps://youtu.be/GKAgo-g5V2E?is=cD9A_24iyC7XjPUR
>>43154938Before you were the probability that you would be was statistically improbable.After you have been you will become statistically insignificant.
>>43154938Anything you think of as you did not exist before you were born. This is true even if time isn’t linear at least in the subjective sense of you. You as a subjective entity that thinks of any self that you think of as you only exists as a consequence of the experience of the appearance of linear time. It’s much the same for after you die. Even if there is some eternal element, it won’t be you. Even if there is an afterlife, what you think of as you won’t be experiencing it. You are an experiencer inescapably locked to the present that has emerged as a consequence of the potentially illusory experience of linear time. Whether or not you think of yourself as a continuous entity across a limited span of time from birth to death, nothing beyond those points would be considered you. Even if an entity of some sort has access to your memories from that limited segment of experiences and apparent time, it won’t be you. Even if it believes itself to be a continuation of the you you think yourself to be, it will be wrong.
Here, a visual demonstration of the answers to your question. https://youtu.be/n4wlS5y896E
>>43155051>"u no exist"only for NPCs like you, little moronsome of us enjoy full continuity after death and aren't just random fecal specks from some "higher self" who sharted part of itself down here to farm muh experience
>>43155101>”u no exist”What a gross misrepresentation of my post explicitly saying that a you exists. I addressed your point about continuity as well. What you’ve failed to take into account is the nature of différance and the necessary frames of reference for OP’s questions. I made no claims as to the nature of any entity beyond the subjective self except that it is not the subjective self. Project as many ad hominems and construct as many strawmen as you’d like, but the point stands. The subjective self ends when the subjective self ends.
>>43154938you were deadyou will return to death
>>43155184the subjective self doesn't begin or endyour perception of it doesthe "self" is immortal because it does not even "exist" as such, in temporality, as something to be defined at allthe temporal form it takes on is not eternalthus "you" are always changing, but never stop "existing"you continue to change forever and everthe problem is MEMORYyou cannot RE+MEMBER yourselfas in RE+ASSEMBLE yourselfand so your "self" becomes more and more fragmentedspacetime expandsentropy always increasesbut the whole system goes throughCONFORMAL RE-SCALINGthis is also known as aWEYL TRANSFORMATIONin theoretical physics and mathematicsSir Roger Penrose (nobel prize laureate and colleague of Stephen Hawkings) has all but proven this to be the case when he discovered "HAWKING POINTS" thanks to the James Webb Telescope MWB images recently released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
>>43155239Again, the problem of différance and frames of reference arises. The subjective self certainly has a beginning in the subjective experience of it. The subjective self is defined clearly through the use of différance which relies on subjective experience and the potentially illusory nature of perceiving linear time. When you say “self” you are speaking of something that differs from self. It is not the same. Aside from that, your speculations on the objective are plausible but not relevant to the subjective self.
>>43155274The self is not "subjective"
also stop repeating yourselfyou sound like a fucking robotsay some new information
>>43154938>What were we before we were born? What will we be after we die?You were gay and gay you will remain.
>>43155281How do you define the self except through the use of différance which itself relies on our subjective experiences? Even if noumena exist, they are separate from any concept we create through différance.
>>43154938a little cloud of energy. a little cloud of energy. Then you go back and do it all over again, unless youre abrahamic, if that's the case your little cloud of energy goes into the maw of yahweh to be destroyed
Endless dreamless sleep Forget about pain, about hurt, forget about jealousy, theft, abuse, exploitation. Just return back into the unconscious nothing void of building blocks where you existed for the past 13 billion years that the universe has existed Kind of comfy and peaceful
>>43155022Good quote.
>>43155051>>43155051>about pain, about hurt, forget about jealousy, theft, abuse, exploitation.>Just return back into the unconscious nothing void of building blocks where you existed for the past 13 billion years that the universe has existed>Kind of comfy and peacefulKind of like the difference between me in my dream and me in real life ?
>>43155313I can tell you're young because your brain is full of the same fucking words and you have no idea about reality beyond some fucking thing you saw or read and it inspired you and stuck in your head and that's all you have, that's ityou heard about post structuralism, and you DID NOT read Grammatology, and probably do not even fucking know what that book even is, or who Jacque Derrida is you fucking clownstop using words you don't fucking understand the meaning of idiot
>>43155361>ad hominem>well poisoningWrong on all accounts, anon. In fact, I’m too old to keep biting your bait. >>43155354I wouldn’t say all that, but it’s possible. I personally believe that trying to conceive of what is beyond the subjective is a fool’s errand as each attempt to name or describe that which is beyond the subjective is doomed to merely construct a new subjective concept that doesn’t necessarily correlate to anything beyond it. I would however argue that dreams are themselves subjective experiences which contribute to the subjective self.
>>43155420Thoughts about Out of Body Experiences ? Kids remember past lives ?
>>43155446It’d be highly speculative. My own experiences are rather limited and I’ve always been a bit of a descriptivist experientialist. That means that I can only really offer a biased discussion. I’ve had a limited number of out of body experiences but no direct experience with past life recall. Out of body experiences for me are very little different from hypnogogic or lucid dreaming experiences. I’m not making any claims about the objective nature of these things, simply that they are subjectively similar if not the same. Why that would be the case would be speculation on an objective model as opposed to a description of the experience. In my own experience, I’ve seen weird events where world history apparently decouples from believed personal history. Some people call these Mandela Effects and flip flops. These experiences make me believe that linear time is not entirely real except as defined such to describe the subjective experience of it. In other words, subjective experiencing creates linear time in some way, but that it also does it imperfectly. My most speculative thoughts on an intersubjective model for reality seem to center on the idea that time is a spatial dimension and that perception in a sequence creates an emergent self, an illusion of time, and the opportunity for non-linear perception in a subjectively linear subjective perception. This would include past life recall and Mandela Effects, and possibly out of body experiences, but such stuff is beyond my expertise and again highly speculative.
>>43155509Why am I myself and not you ? Why am I not two person ? Why am I even a person ? Even if the process were to be totally random, it includes a division, a separation between me and you. Do you think, from all your studies on religions, cults and other beliefs most humans held for longer than our civilisation, that this distinction layer stops just one level up ? You think this is where subjectivity goes ?
>>43155524I think how we define things ultimately controls how we perceive them. How we define things is ultimately a result of what we subjectively experience. Many ancient civilizations conceptualized afterlives based on lives. Many modern humans conceptualize afterlives based on technology in a sense. Think of models of a simulated universe or singularity being popular these days. Familiar symbols paint reality for what we believe it to be. Anyway, the self requires a definition. Definition requires différance. That much is inescapable and is the answer to most of your questions. But it does not answer the question of what happens beyond the subjective self’s death. I don’t think it can. None of the symbols we construct would be applicable because none of the subjective experiences necessarily would be applicable to objective beyonds. But it’s that distinction that gives me some confidence in saying that the death of the subjective self, the only definable self really, means that anything related to the self in such beyonds would not be the self as we subjectively define it. Could not be, even.
>>43154938Life is energy and energy can not be created or distroyed only transformed
>>43155567>the death of the subjective selfThat's the thing I don't get : why do you associate physical death and subjective self ? What causes that axiom ?Also, have you had ego death ? Those descriptions sound like what you are trying to explain. Or what do you think actually dies during ego death ?
>>43154938i just had this argument with chatgpt. we are either A. souls before we were human and then sent to wombs where we develop into meat suits orB. imagine sand and the tide. you scoop up sand to make a sand castle. the sand and the ocean create things based on the laws of physics and quantum physics, when the shows over, you are again, the sand and the ocean that created you in the first place. the same way your save file character doesnt exist, but does exist waiting on somone to need it or continue through you. you will be stored as memory and i think unless you want a job and a god, youll be left unplayed. im doing everything in this life to show God i can exist and be of use in many forms, and to beg him to let me continue experience the universe.
>>43155593i am this >>43155596 anoni ate enough mushrooms to question the language the thoughts in my head were announcing. i pissed in the toilet and i wasnt sure if this was something i invented or if someone was going to kick the door down and rub my nose in it like a bad dog. AMAi saw that the universe uses black holes to suck and recycle matter and ive seen what the other side looks like. the blackest black surrounds these infinite tornados of matter draining from existence and the universe created us to prove to itself that it could defy probability
>>43155593Well, we’re talking about the event of death as opposed to the process of death. The event of death specifically regarding our selves. If we define the self to the extreme of experientialism then the self is a momentary thing to begin with, but even if we do not, the subjective self we experience now will be different from any subjective self that could be experienced after it. Think about the mirror argument for death. It suggests that after death ought to be the same as before birth, but a common counterargument is that the sides are not equal because of the subjective experience of life. Death comes with an apparent loss of something whereas before birth does not. I’m not saying that the ego itself dies, although it could, upon a subjective event of one’s death. I’m saying that even if something survives beyond it, it won’t be the subjective self we experienced as a living and/or mortal entity. The experiences will be too different. So different that even if what could come after the subjective death believed itself to be a continuation of the self, it experientially would not be. Essentially it boils down to how we define continuity of self and how we define the self initially, and I’ve clarified that such definitions are constructs of the subjective limited to the subjective. I’ve never experienced ego death though, no. I do suffer from brain damage that prevents me from forming autobiographical/episodic memories though. That experience makes me more focused on how illusory continuity can be even in subjective experiences of living. My semantic memory is at least intact, and thankfully I retain most of my education regarding thanatology.
>>43155184spin it all you want, but what you posted was just the tired old stock NPC metaphysics we've heard a million times about "ego" and how we're illusions that'll disappear after death to return to le real "higher self"...only in different terms than thosestop being such a fag
>>43155701>original anon says the subjective self is transient but the only self that is signifiable as the self>aggressive retard projects some bullshit about ego and the subjective self being an illusionDunno anon. Seems like (you) can’t read and want to derail the discussion.
>>43154938Every life is like it's own black hole. You can't see past the event horizon but inside there could be a whole universe or nothing at all
>>43156410WhhHOOooOAaAA broooosSo deep*snap claps*
>>43154938Dunno, but here's Plutarch As to what you hear from some people, who get many to credit their notion, that the dead suffer no evil or pain, I know that you are prevented from believing that by the tradition of our fathers and by the mystic symbols of the mysteries of Dionysus, for we are both initiated. Consider then that the soul, being incorruptible, is in the same condition after death as birds that have been caught. For if it has been a long time in the body, and during this mortal life has become tame by many affairs and long habit, it swoops down again and a second time enters the body, and does not cease to be involved in the changes and chances of this life that result from birth. For do not suppose that old age is abused and ill-spoken of only for its wrinkles and white hair and weakness of body, but this is the worst feature about it, that it makes the soul feeble in its remembrance of things in the other world, and strong in its attachment to things in this world, and bends and presses it, if it retain the form which it had in the body from its experience. But that soul, which does indeed enter the body, but remains only a short time in it, being liberated from it by the higher powers, rears as it were at a damp and soft turning post in the race of life, and hastens on to its destined goal. For just as if anyone put out a fire, and light it again at once, it is soon rekindled, and burns up again quickly, but if it has been out a long time, to light it again will be a far more difficult and irksome task, so the soul that has sojourned only a short time in this dark and mortal life, quickly recovers the light and blaze of its former bright life Maybe he was just saying that to make his wife feel better, but he was in a mystery cult and I'm not, so maybe he knows better than me.
