Death After Life vs Death Before Life

[Scorpion]

The reason we do not remember past lives is because human memory starts with birth and the limitations of the physical brain. In my philosophy we have always existed as non physical spirits, and we incarnate in a physical body for experience sake.

According to theosophy we have a number of non physical bodies which interpenetrate one another. There is the etheric body which is a shell that channels consciousness down into the brain from the higher bodies, such as the astral and mental body. But the spirit is contained in the causal body, and all memory of past lives is contained in the causal body.

 

[psionl0]

The reason we do not remember past lives is because human memory starts with birth and the limitations of the physical brain. In my philosophy we have always existed as non physical spirits, and we incarnate in a physical body for experience sake.

According to theosophy we have a number of non physical bodies which interpenetrate one another. There is the etheric body which is a shell that channels consciousness down into the brain from the higher bodies, such as the astral and mental body. But the spirit is contained in the causal body, and all memory of past lives is contained in the causal body.

One of the many theories you can find about life before birth/after death that abound. What a pity there is no way to test this before we die.

 

[theprestige]

The reason we do not remember past lives is because human memory starts with birth and the limitations of the physical brain. In my philosophy we have always existed as non physical spirits, and we incarnate in a physical body for experience sake.

According to theosophy we have a number of non physical bodies which interpenetrate one another. There is the etheric body which is a shell that channels consciousness down into the brain from the higher bodies, such as the astral and mental body. But the spirit is contained in the causal body, and all memory of past lives is contained in the causal body.

Cool story. Let me know when you figure out a practical application.

 

[suren]

Sure there is a lot of religious/philosophical speculation on the subject of life before birth or life after death and reincarnation etc but there is absolutely no way that any of that speculation can be tested.

Yes, I don't know whether I existed in some form or another, the same with after my death. That's why I noted "At least that's what many people on this forum think". Maybe I should not write that way. But anyways, this is interesting because many famous people who didn't believe in afterlife claimed something similar to returning to the state before birth after dying, probably without realizing the ambiguity of such claim. Many atheists also use this idea when debating with religious / spiritual people, again, probably without realizing that this is somewhat an ambiguous claim. It can also be applied for reincarnation. Also from the scientific point of view if we have no reasons to think that the "death" before birth is principally different from the death that awaits us then this question is intriguing at least from a philosophical point of view.

 

[suren]

much of the bulk of our cranial brain cells stay with us all life long - and I presume that much of the structural matter (cell membranes, DNA, mitochondriae...) also remain

Yes, most brain neurons live with the person and few if any neurons are produced, but the atoms might still change even in the long lived cells.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I don't know whether I existed in some form or another, the same with after my death. That's why I noted "At least that's what many people on this forum think". Maybe I should not write that way. But anyways, this is interesting because many famous people who didn't believe in afterlife claimed something similar to returning to the state before birth after dying, probably without realizing the ambiguity of such claim. Many atheists also use this idea when debating with religious / spiritual people, again, probably without realizing that this is somewhat an ambiguous claim. It can also be applied for reincarnation. Also from the scientific point of view if we have no reasons to think that the "death" before birth is principally different from the death that awaits us then this question is intriguing at least from a philosophical point of view.

There's nothing ambiguous about not existing, then existing, then not existing again.

 

[suren]

There's nothing ambiguous about not existing, then existing, then not existing again.

What about this possibility:
nonexistence -> existence -> nonexistence -> existence -> ... etc?
Why is this not possible?

Is it because the next existence is a different person or other conscious thing (the problem of personal identity) ?

 

[sackett]

Nothing ambiguous, let alone interesting, about this question. You exist if your body exists. Part of your body is a brain. When it's functioning normally, your brain produces a sense of self. When it quits functioning, that sense ceases to exist.

ETA to snip some bad-tempered language. Sorry.

 

[bruto]

There's nothing ambiguous about not existing, then existing, then not existing again.

I think the OP is confusing the words we use to describe the process of our living with what lies outside it. We call the transition from being to not being "death" at one end of life. We can use all sorts of language and metaphor to speak of how the time after life ends resembles the time before it begins. That's not an actual suggestion that life is reversible and birth some inverse death or death an inverse birth. There's no ambiguity in the equivalence of one nonexistence to another, only in the language we use to describe the life in the middle.

You don't need to bring in any gods or spirits or world souls or universal purpose or anything else to notice that life is a mystery so profound and complex that it seems to us a miracle, which our language struggles to describe. We'll just have to live with it.

 

[sackett]

Life isn't as profound or complex a mystery as it once was. I don't think biologists struggle to express it the way some laymen still might, and I'm confident that more knowledge is on the way.

This thread makes me want to call out, "Jabba, izzat you?"

 

[Olmstead]

What about this possibility:
nonexistence -> existence -> nonexistence -> existence -> ... etc?
Why is this not possible?

Is it because the next existence is a different person or other conscious thing (the problem of personal identity) ?

The only way for "you" to exist again would be by having your brain configuration exist again. Either the universe would need to "reset", bringing us back to this exact moment, or your brain (and potentially body, but let's not be greedy) would have to spontaneously form, akin to a Boltzmann brain. In an infinite universe, both those things are conceivably possible, but then again, maybe not.

The real question in this hypothetical is why you would care about any of that.

 

[Myriad]

I'm certain I existed in other incarnations before my present life's beginning. I'm nearly (but not quite) as certain that I will also exist in other incarnations after my present life's end. I'm also quite certain I exist in numerous other incarnations right now.

Those other incarnations are known as other people.

Apart from a hypothesized mysterious immaterial memory store that's claimed to hold memories of "my" various past and present lives separate from "other people's" various past and present lives, there is absolutely no difference between a hypothetical "future reincarnation of me" that has different genetics, environment, upbringing, talents, beliefs, experiences, personality, and learning from myself; and any other person existing after my death. There's no evidence that such a memory store exists or could exist; and if it did exist, there's no plausible reason the memories in it couldn't simply be shared by everyone instead of hoarded by and for individual lineages.

The conventional reincarnation narrative doesn't make sense. This one does (though its usefulness is arguable).

 

[suren]

The only way for "you" to exist again would be by having your brain configuration exist again.

The brain is a plastic organ and it changes during the course of the life, some neural connections are formed, some connections are lost, other changes also occur. So my brain configuration is slightly different than 10 years ago and even more different when I was a child.

So I don't think recreating a brain configuration can help here. There is a problem of the persistence of the person's identity in philosophy, and there is no final answer.

 

[Olmstead]

The brain is a plastic organ and it changes during the course of the life, some neural connections are formed, some connections are lost, other changes also occur. So my brain configuration is slightly different than 10 years ago and even more different when I was a child.

So I don't think recreating a brain configuration can help here. There is a problem of the persistence of the person's identity in philosophy, and there is no final answer.

Of course there is a final answer, but you might not like it. The answer is that there is no persistence of a person's identity, not between two identical brain configurations separated by aeons, and not between the you from yesterday and the you from today.

You think your identity has persisted since yesterday, because you remember being the person you were yesterday, and the spontaneously created brain in the future will think the same thing, because it will remember being you, but there is nothing that could possibly accomplish an actual continuation of consciousness in either case.

 

[suren]

You think your identity has persisted since yesterday, because you remember being the person you were yesterday, but there is nothing that could possibly accomplish an actual continuation of consciousness.

You mean there is no such thing as identity or consciousness, did I understand correctly?

 

[sackett]

"I don't know the answer, therefore YOU don't know the answer!"

 

[Olmstead]

You mean there is no such thing as identity or consciousness, did I understand correctly?

I'm saying that a person is a process, like the flame of a candle. We're not a permanent thing but a succession of moments, and every moment of our existence replaces the last one. Consciousness exists, but actual continuity of consciousness is an illusion created by memory.

You can snuff out a candle and start it up again, or you can leave it burning, but in both cases the flame is not the flame from the past. Consciousness is the same.

 

[theprestige]

What about this possibility:
nonexistence -> existence -> nonexistence -> existence -> ... etc?
Why is this not possible?

How should I know? It's your scenario. You're the one who says it's a possibility. What do you think makes it a possibility?

Is it because the next existence is a different person or other conscious thing (the problem of personal identity) ?

Is it a possibility because of literary equivocation or philosophical navel-gazing? You tell me.

---

I'm not going to play your pseudosocratic games. If you have a thesis, state it plainly. If you have a conclusion, present it, along with the evidence and reasoning that led you to it.

If you think Schopenhauer and Twain were onto something you can see but the rest of us are overlooking, tell us what you think it is.

If you're just confused and unsure about the nature of the afterlife, admit it, and put this thread out of its misery.

 

[steenkh]

When people die they don’t stop existing, it is only their brain that stops working. The body remains for a long time, unless incinerated.

The consciousness is a process that stops when we die. You cannot claim that it is the same consciousness that is working in another body, even if it was born after the death of the first body. In fact, you could just as well claim that two living persons had the same consciousness: it simply does not make sense.

 

[Olmstead]

When people die they don’t stop existing, it is only their brain that stops working. The body remains for a long time, unless incinerated.

The consciousness is a process that stops when we die. You cannot claim that it is the same consciousness that is working in another body, even if it was born after the death of the first body. In fact, you could just as well claim that two living persons had the same consciousness: it simply does not make sense.

It makes sense if you consider that continuity is an illusion created by memory, and that there is no reason why it should matter which specific meatbag is running the identical process.

I can have one meatbag that is constantly running the process of consciousness, one meatbag that stops the process for a second and starts it up again, and another meatbag that stops the process, gets disassembled into atoms and perfectly reassembled, and starts the process up again.

The difference between 2 and 3 seems immaterial. The process has stopped in both cases, and there is no identity in dead meat. Why would it matter what happens to the dead meat before the process starts up again?

The only question is whether the process being "always on" matters. Arguably, our consciousness isn't always on, so it doesn't even apply, but even if it did, what would it actually change? Does it somehow make your identity keep going? How?