4 ms·

>We didn’t exist before birth At the risk of sounding all "woo-woo", this statement bears some qualification. How do you define existence, here? Are you equa

>We didn’t exist before birth At the risk of sounding all "woo-woo", this statement bears some qualification. How do you define existence, here? Are you equating it with consciousness? Surely your constituent parts (atoms, molecules, particles, etc) existed before your consciousness, and continue to do so afterwards. I think you'll also agree that the arrangement of matter and energy you call "your life" is regulated by natural processes. In principle, it's possible for the thing you call "your life" to be a brief window within some larger process (a meta-life, if you will) of which you have no recollection. I don't know if I believe any of this to be true, but metaphysically speaking, it's not at all obvious that we "didn't exist before birth".

coldtea 8y ago
>How do you define existence, here? Are you equating it with consciousness? Yeah, I, for one, equate it with consciousness. I could not give less fucks if my "atoms, molecules, particles" existed before me or will exist after me. I want the whole conscious being, able to kiss, hug, think, love, hurt, eat a steak, and so on to extend. >I think you'll also agree that the arrangement of matter and energy you call "your life" is regulated by natural processes. In principle, it's possible for the thing you call "your life" to be a brief window within some larger process (a meta-life, if you will) of which you have no recollection. If I don't have "recollection", then I still don't care.
- presscast 8y ago
  I think you may have completely missed the point being made.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    No, I've got the point being missed. I just don't find the distinction useful at all. The whole point being made was that "metaphysically speaking, it's not at all obvious that we "didn't exist before birth". Which I say is irrelevant, if we need to distort "exist" so much as to mean some "larger processes" or our "atoms and molecules" existing. Metaphysically speaking it might not be obvious, but the way the grandparent, me, and almost everybody else uses the term existence (i.e. regarding the conscious person, or at least their soul) it's obvious that we very much do not exist.

coldtea 8y ago

>How do you define existence, here? Are you equating it with consciousness? Yeah, I, for one, equate it with consciousness. I could not give less fucks if my "atoms, molecules, particles" existed before me or will exist after me. I want the whole conscious being, able to kiss, hug, think, love, hurt, eat a steak, and so on to extend. >I think you'll also agree that the arrangement of matter and energy you call "your life" is regulated by natural processes. In principle, it's possible for the thing you call "your life" to be a brief window within some larger process (a meta-life, if you will) of which you have no recollection. If I don't have "recollection", then I still don't care.

presscast 8y ago
I think you may have completely missed the point being made.
- coldtea 8y ago
  No, I've got the point being missed. I just don't find the distinction useful at all. The whole point being made was that "metaphysically speaking, it's not at all obvious that we "didn't exist before birth". Which I say is irrelevant, if we need to distort "exist" so much as to mean some "larger processes" or our "atoms and molecules" existing. Metaphysically speaking it might not be obvious, but the way the grandparent, me, and almost everybody else uses the term existence (i.e. regarding the conscious person, or at least their soul) it's obvious that we very much do not exist.