Are we all really gonna die ?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Ask Ray Kurzweil

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prefer either model over the other a priori . However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness.

Since I have never read of any verifiable instances of anyone remembering "former lives", the "existence, non-existence, existence" (the "ENE") model doesnt gain much traction with me.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask Ray Kurzweil

[/ QUOTE ]Even the computer that Ray Kurzweil has uploaded himself onto will eventually run out of power as the universe decomposes into complete entropy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prefer either model over the other a priori . However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness.

Since I have never read of any verifiable instances of anyone remembering "former lives", the "existence, non-existence, existence" (the "ENE") model doesnt gain much traction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that I agree with the following: "However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness."--because, what memory do you have of events that occurred around the first year of your life? Probably none whatsoever. Yet it was/is still you...so it seems to me that past memory is not necessarily required for continuity.

[PastorDavidDD]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky, George W Bush, Rove, Kerry, the White House cleaning lady, every soldier fighting in Iraq, every insurgent fighting in Iraq, the Russians, the Chinese, the good poker players, the bad poker players, the main players, the other players, the extras, the help, everybody is gonna die. In a hundred years there will be no one reading this still alive. Not even the memory he even existed maybe.

Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really believe that everyone living now, old enough to log on and read your post, will be dead in one hundred years? I don't! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]That's why kids were invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean they were invented to make death a relief instead of something horrible? I thought that was wives.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO!

[bisonbison]

Yes

[spoohunter]

Perhaps you read this article.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask Ray Kurzweil

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Ray. Future advancements in technology may make effective immortality possible in my lifetime. I believe that it is very likely everyone I know will die, but I don't think that it is absolutely inevitable. Immortality will be here eventually (assuming no nuclear war, asteroid strike, etc.), its just a question of when.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prefer either model over the other a priori . However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness.

Since I have never read of any verifiable instances of anyone remembering "former lives", the "existence, non-existence, existence" (the "ENE") model doesnt gain much traction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that I agree with the following: "However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness."--because, what memory do you have of events that occurred around the first year of your life? Probably none whatsoever. Yet it was/is still you...so it seems to me that past memory is not necessarily required for continuity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's still "you" but that doesn't mean anything without the memory of who "you" were. I realize I'm saying that as a baby you were not really "you" as you understand yourself. For all meaningul purposes, though, you weren't "you." So even if reincarnation exists, "you" will never live again, so it's inconsequential to anything meaninful in our existence.