Death vs every day life?

[The Sum of Awe]

I know that I am not the only materialist here that doesn't believe in a 'self' other than a collection of memories constructed from senses and thoughts constructed from those memories. There is no constant that really defines the self that works with the way it is used.

I do view this is true, but it often draws questions for me that I sort of can envision an answer but not clear enough to actually see the math.

If there is no constant self, and you are pretty much a different person every time you change your train of thought, or maybe each time you wake into a new day, or forget something, etc, what exactly is death ridding? Why is death seen as the end of perspective? Is it the end of the collection of perspectives or consciousnesses following one shell? What exactly would be different in the goal of suicidal people if consciousness is always ending or 'you' is constantly dying anyway? What exactly is different? Why do people seek suicide if their self will die by tomorrow?

Is the difference only the riddance of the memories causing suffering to consciousnesses remembering those memories?

Why do I not envision my world going black, void, nothingness tomorrow but I envision my world going black, void, nothingness when this walking sack of flesh turns off, when both are the same thing: the end of self?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Bump? I know it's a day old, but 38 views and no replies doesn't look so good, and this is something I really have been contemplating.

 

[bobhikes]

First I would argue the self never dies while we're alive. Yes it changes but it evolves into something new. Like evolution it is a small change on an otherwise similar sequence. The New self still has links or parts of the old self.

Second, I think a person who seeks suicide feels overwhelmed by the challenges they perceive against them. They feel their self is being attacked and they are slowly dying in extreme pain. Suicide is not a death of self but a death of pain.

 

[idav]

A decent perpective i have seen with this subject is with the buddhist train of thought which younare probably aware. The important concept here is rebirth rather than reincarnation. To me even the christain perspective gets into this as it isnsaid we must be reborn in spirit. Really as time passes it can be seens as if we are constantly being reborn. We are not the person we were just a second ago. All our perceotions are in constant flux. The contention for me is to believe the self is us, when in reality we will always be the person we were at the stage of a blank slate. We were all born once with no memory and no experience which I see as a true self, the self without the wei by t ofmthe world on the mind. Similar when we become reborn in spirit we are the true self as a blank slate without the nuances of changing from precious moment to precious moment. We are therfore after the true self, the self without memory and "I", the self beyond conceptions which can only be glimpsed during deep meditations when oneness with god gets us beyond our material selves.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But wouldn't that mean we are constantly dead anyways? Which does not answer the question; if we are always dead what exactly leaves when the physical body dies? And why are dead people suicidal?

 

[idav]

But wouldn't that mean we are constantly dead anyways? Which does not answer the question; if we are always dead what exactly leaves when the physical body dies? And why are dead people suicidal?

Nothing is ever dead but full of life and change. My perspective is non change equals a static boring existence. What changes in death is being reborn in spirit. Not sure of your suicide question, suicide would be a failure, a giving in to suffering instead of transcending it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Nothing is ever dead but full of life and change. My perspective is non change equals a static boring existence. What changes in death is being reborn in spirit. Not sure of your suicide question, suicide would be a failure, a giving in to suffering instead of transcending it.

What exactly is it that changes at death and reborn in spirit?

I really am not trying to talk about the ethics of suicide, but only questioning the difference between death and every day life. If 'you' is not present right now, as in its always changing, then how is it different than suicide which is the elimination of 'you'?

 

[idav]

What exactly is it that changes at death and reborn in spirit?

I really am not trying to talk about the ethics of suicide, but only questioning the difference between death and every day life. If 'you' is not present right now, as in its always changing, then how is it different than suicide which is the elimination of 'you'?

I think I see what your asking but I am not even seeing it that way. I don't see the next moment as an elimination of you but a you being reborn. I see the question similar to asking if a clone is still you if the previous you become vaporized. I believe it would still be you but a definate tough call philosophically speaking. Similarly we are still us when we get brain damaged to a point of no return. A loss of data is never really gone as information never completely goes away. Information can be retrieved even when we think its gone because it is traceable. Memory is a tough thing here, since memory is what seems to make us who we are, that really isn't the complete picture or else we are not us when we lose some of that stream of consciousness. The consciousness part is what is thought to transcend, that which is reborn as we delve back into the state of nothingness. It is however the reborn state which is in contention.

Rebirth*in Buddhism is the doctrine that the evolving*consciousness*(Pali:samvattanika-viññana)[1][2]*or stream of consciousness (Pali:*viññana-sotam,[3]Sanskrit:*vijñāna-srotām, vijñāna-santāna, or*citta-santāna) upon death (or "the dissolution of the aggregates" (P.*khandhas, S.*skandhas)), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

Ironic perhaps, but this topic is close to what has been travelling this mind. First of all, suicide is not always the intentional end of suffering, it can be an act of love.

Perhaps, moment to moment is an illusion, it is my contention it is always now and the perception of change is just that.

More in the now that I have yet to perceive.

Thank you and bestest,
swampy

 

[Thief]

What exactly is it that changes at death and reborn in spirit?

I really am not trying to talk about the ethics of suicide, but only questioning the difference between death and every day life. If 'you' is not present right now, as in its always changing, then how is it different than suicide which is the elimination of 'you'?

The irony is presented.

I believe we go on...no matter what.

When we stand from the dust, heaven appears to see what came of it.

Dead men do not write or read.
They do not speak or listen.
Communication is then directly to mind and heart.
The manner that you think and feel will be visible to heaven.
They will be able to 'see' who (or what) you really are.

They will have the advantage.
They will know the territory, the language and the scheme of things.
They will have the advantage.

Can we stand before heaven and claim we can still change?
I hope so.
If we are not ready to follow when that hour arrives....we might be able to.

 

[Thief]

But wouldn't that mean we are constantly dead anyways? Which does not answer the question; if we are always dead what exactly leaves when the physical body dies? And why are dead people suicidal?

And the Carpenter said....Let the dead bury the dead.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This was mostly directed to materialists who lack believe in a self

 

[Thief]

This was mostly directed to materialists who lack believe in a self

You mean the guy with the shovel?.....or the guy in the grave?

If you were able to see it coming (and sometimes we do).

You can know you're a dead man before it hits you.

As for your spirit.....
If you can see the consequence dealt for what you have said or done.
and that consequence happens to be pending in the next life....
then you can anticipate what will happen to you.

So....Let the dead bury the dead.
And don't they know? (yes they do!), their turn is coming.

Do they worry?....probably.
Without some assuredness of mind and heart there is nothing but worry.

And assuredness comes from where?.....spirit of course.
And it lays to what?.....mind and heart.

Materialists?
I have many things gathered.
Hope to leave most of it to my children.
Center my life to acquisition?....nay.

Is this the discussion you were asking for?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

not really

 

[omnifarious]

I know that I am not the only materialist here that doesn't believe in a 'self' other than a collection of memories constructed from senses and thoughts constructed from those memories. There is no constant that really defines the self that works with the way it is used.

Correct, we are a product of circumstances preceding our existence and consciousness, outside our conception, eternally in motion.

If there is no constant self, and you are pretty much a different person every time you change your train of thought, or maybe each time you wake into a new day, or forget something,

Yes, we are constantly dying and being reborn again, and again, and again.

what exactly is death ridding?

It ends the stream of a consciousness.

Why is death seen as the end of perspective? Is it the end of the collection of perspectives or consciousnesses following one shell? What exactly would be different in the goal of suicidal people if consciousness is always ending or 'you' is constantly dying anyway? What exactly is different? Why do people seek suicide if their self will die by tomorrow?

Is the difference only the riddance of the memories causing suffering to consciousnesses remembering those memories?

To end that which is persistent within them in order to escape from that which is, in their minds, the otherwise inescapable. We are not only our memories, they are not all which result in suffering. While one person may experience complete bliss from a certain situation, another may experience complete hell after encountering the exact same situation. Not only do we have differing physical neural structures, but also different chemical balances - those which constitute our perception. Human brains are unique.

Why do I not envision my world going black, void, nothingness tomorrow but I envision my world going black, void, nothingness when this walking sack of flesh turns off, when both are the same thing: the end of self?

Death is nothing like the subtle daily changes we experience.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That makes sense... somewhat. Well, doesn't answer the question fully.

If we are constantly getting reborn and keep losing our old consciousness, then what difference does death make?

Why is death not similar to it when the consciousness never stays

 

[Thief]

That makes sense... somewhat. Well, doesn't answer the question fully.

If we are constantly getting reborn and keep losing our old consciousness, then what difference does death make?

Why is death not similar to it when the consciousness never stays

Excellent!...finally.....

And there has been occasion in my life that I did with my hands complex items as if I knew them.
As if I was born to it....as if having done so before.

Do I know the self of previous life?....name and face?........no.

But I am certain this thing we call Man will end.
What comes of it must be spiritual.

 

[idav]

Why is death not similar to it when the consciousness never stays

Well quite frankly it is similar. In fact by the time your an adult you can be sure all your original cells have since re-replicated themselves, old ones die, and your a whole new body.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't really view it like that.

As I type this, I'm alive. I experience what seems to be the now. If I was a rock, or dead, I coudn't do that.

I haven't seen sufficient evidence that the self will die by tomorrow. Consciousness certainly feels continuous, and much of the same neurons and other materials remain present, and get replaced only slowly in parts. And contrary to popular myth, not all cells get replaced; there are some neurons and some on the eyes that persist for the lifetime, although I doubt that makes much of a difference. I'd need to see evidence that consciousness isn't continuous, to believe that.

Anybody who doesn't believe that the self persists from day to day, or even moment to moment, should be completely unafraid of the worst torture ever happening to them tomorrow. And yet of course, just about anybody making this type of argument would not want to be tortured slowly to death tomorrow, and in fact would be gravely afraid of such. That is a demonstration of doubt by them that self is not continuous.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't really view it like that.

As I type this, I'm alive. I experience what seems to be the now. If I was a rock, or dead, I coudn't do that.

I haven't seen sufficient evidence that the self will die by tomorrow. Consciousness certainly feels continuous, and much of the same neurons and other materials remain present, and get replaced only slowly in parts. And contrary to popular myth, not all cells get replaced; there are some neurons and some on the eyes that persist for the lifetime, although I doubt that makes much of a difference. I'd need to see evidence that consciousness isn't continuous, to believe that.

I think the reason why it seems continuous is because of an illusion similarly to the illusion of freewill in that it is only deep down when it becomes noticed. Perhaps it is the memories collected over the conscious experiences an individual body had.

In my opinion, consciousness isn't really a thing, and so it doesn't truly "die". I think consciousness is a process, the body's reaction to the things nearby. Consciousness is all the working senses at work at once, and self awareness is the interpretation of these senses, and memories are things sensed in the past that remain in the brain, and thoughts are different memories in a creative order. because of this, consciousness isn't something that one can identify their "you" with. I think that many people use 'you' to mean the collection of memories and thought patterns together being interpreted by self awareness, but this identification is useless because it is not a constant - amnesia would eliminate memory and coma would eliminate self awareness.

Anybody who doesn't believe that the self persists from day to day, or even moment to moment, should be completely unafraid of the worst torture ever happening to them tomorrow. And yet of course, just about anybody making this type of argument would not want to be tortured slowly to death tomorrow, and in fact would be gravely afraid of such. That is a demonstration of doubt by them that self is not continuous.

Exactly what I'm confused about.