Funny question

[BrandonPrry]

Is being dead the same as not being not born yet? I am curious to see some opinions on this. If this is the wrong section, I apologise.

[iNow]

When you say, "not being born yet," do you mean after gestation begins, before the sperm hits the egg, or at some point after fertilation and prior to delivery?

[Dudde]

It seems an unspecific sort of question, there are a wide range of answers really.

 

Not being born is...well... not being born. If you're referencing cenception and growing in the womb, then you have cells dividing and creating something according to a genetic code.

 

Whereas when you're dead, your cells have stopped dividing and are, essentially, completely devoid of doing anything. You of course still have some living organisms hanging out, but the cells that were a part of your genetic make-up cease to function.

 

Kind of a weird way to explain it, sorry if the wording is bad (or wrong) - if you can clarify the question, I'm sure you'll get a much more interesting answer

[Phi for All]

Not being not born yet? If you remove both negatives, you'd have, "Is being dead the same as being born?"

 

Or are you a reincarnationist? That would make being dead the same as not being born yet.

 

But being dead the same as not being not born yet? I don't yet not have an opinion.

[BrandonPrry]

From a state of conciousness point of view. Any time before fertilisation. This is also assuming something happens after you die (not in a religious way per se, like going to heaven).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not being not born yet? If you remove both negatives, you'd have, "Is being dead the same as being born?"

 

Or are you a reincarnationist? That would make being dead the same as not being born yet.

 

But being dead the same as not being not born yet? I don't yet not have an opinion.

 

Haha, I am not a reincarnationist. Yes, the wording was bad, but I think you understand what the question was supposed to ask. If a conciousness is created during inception and ended at death, then obviously being dead would be the same as not being born yet.

 

This question is taking into account theories of the universe being a hologram, Jainist beliefs, things like that.

Edited March 21, 2009 by BrandonPrry
Consecutive posts merged.

[Dudde]

That's a discussion kind of to itself really, I don't know that there's anything after death personally, but assuming there were, I'm sure it would be.

 

Assuming there isn't however, I stick to my aforementioned logic. You should narrow down the scope of what you're asking, i.e specifically 'if the universe were a hologram', else you'll get a lot of jumbled and ridiculous replies

[BrandonPrry]

Hmm, I guess you are right. I should think about it a bit more then and try and figure out a more concise question.

[visceral]

Not quite, before conception you simply don't exist. After death you have a body but it doesn't have any functions.

[iNow]

Also, after death, you will exist as a memory in the minds of those still alive. You will have impacted the world and changed peoples lives, even if you didn't realize you had. You will have moved around materials like stone and lumber, and contributed from your carbon footprint. You will be fertilizer for the bugs and wee beasties in the ground, and those aforementioned memories will impact the neural web of those who knew you.

 

In sum, there are, of course, a few similarities to the point "prior to the fertilization" and "after death," but the differences far outnumber those similarities and hence the point before fertilization and after death cannot be called the "same."

[padren]

In sum, there are, of course, a few similarities to the point "prior to the fertilization" and "after death," but the differences far outnumber those similarities and hence the point before fertilization and after death cannot be called the "same."

 

The experience (or lack of one) may be the same though, since he qualified it with "From a state of conciousness point of view."

[iNow]

The experience (or lack of one) may be the same though, since he qualified it with "From a state of conciousness point of view."

 

That's a good point, but also why I chose to mention the memories of us in the minds of others. From the point of view of their consciousness, it's not the same. They are markedly different as a result of our exchanges than they are/would be they'd lived a life where my dads sperm never hit my moms egg.

 

I want to be careful, though, as this is obviously an issue about frame of reference. From the frame of reference of "general consciousness," then my argument is that it's different since the consciousness of countless humans are influenced before my death. However, from the frame of reference of my consciousness, the question is meaningless since a sperm and an egg before they meet do not have the quality of consciousness.

 

Sigh... I'm mixing reference frames. I have one of those gut feelings that it's "just different." I could rationalize all kinds of ways to support that if I wanted to.

[BrandonPrry]

That's a good point, but also why I chose to mention the memories of us in the minds of others. From the point of view of their consciousness, it's not the same. They are markedly different as a result of our exchanges than they are/would be they'd lived a life where my dads sperm never hit my moms egg.

 

I want to be careful, though, as this is obviously an issue about frame of reference. From the frame of reference of "general consciousness," then my argument is that it's different since the consciousness of countless humans are influenced before my death. However, from the frame of reference of my consciousness, the question is meaningless since a sperm and an egg before they meet do not have the quality of consciousness.

 

Sigh... I'm mixing reference frames. I have one of those gut feelings that it's "just different." I could rationalize all kinds of ways to support that if I wanted to.

 

I had never thought about it like this, interesting... But, maybe I can take it a step further. This is purely speculative and I have no evidence really to back any of this up, so if it goes too far outside the scope of this forum, that is fine.

 

A lot of people believe that everyone is of the same conciousness, just experiencing each other subjectively. How do you think this would affect being born and dying in respect to that person's (the one being born or dying) conciousness?

[moth]

what about looking at it from a "selfish gene" point of view? before you were born your genes were dispersed in a population, they come together in you and probably there are more copies after you die.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A lot of people believe that everyone is of the same conciousness, just experiencing each other subjectively. How do you think this would affect being born and dying in respect to that person's (the one being born or dying) conciousness?

 

if we all share a single consciousness we would seem to be connected on another level, and of course we are all connected through time because you came from your mother who came from her mother etc. so if you could imagine all of humanity throughout all our history all at once,it may look like a family tree shaped creature and since we're speculating you could presume it is conscious. in such a situation being born would be like being singled out, and death would be like merging.

[iNow]

A lot of people believe that everyone is of the same conciousness, just experiencing each other subjectively.

 

You lost me there, bud. I'm obviously not one of "those people."

[SkepticLance]

The answer to the original question, from a consciousness viewpoint, is yes.

 

It is like asking if a darkness is like the darkness that happened before the light was turned on, or the darkness after the light was turned off. The answer is that dark is dark, and it does not matter which dark. They are the same.

 

Before fertilisation, there is no consciousness. After death there is no consciousness (excluding general religious dogmas) and both non consciousnesses are the same.

[allien]

If you are in timeless region, they could be samething.

If time is a parameter than they are different.

 

like;

dark before light. (or only dark)

light.

dark after light.

Dark and dark after light is not same with respect to time.

 

Like before and after Jesus.

[Daecon]

I've got almost 14 billion years' worth of experience of not being born yet, although I don't have any experience of being dead yet.

 

When I find out, I'll let you know.

[Duration]

I've got almost 14 billion years' worth of experience of not being born yet, although I don't have any experience of being dead yet.

 

When I find out, I'll let you know.

 

What were you 270 billion years ago? Previous life?

[iNow]

No. He was not yet born, as is perfectly obvious to pretty much everyone but you, and explicitly stated in the post to which you replied.

[BrandonPrry]

Thanks for the insight guys (for the most part).

[Duration]

No. He was not yet born, as is perfectly obvious to pretty much everyone but you, and explicitly stated in the post to which you replied.

 

He said he had almost 14 billion years experience of not being born yet. I say he has more experience at it than that.

 

Time didn't start almost 14 billion years ago, it never started, so he technically had infinite experience not being born yet, and he'll have infinite experience being dead.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There is an ice cube in the freezer now. It has been there for 26 years.

 

Life is but an ice cube in the freezer, before it was an ice cube it was water, and before that it was, and before that it was........

 

...and after it melts it is water, and after that it is, and after that it is........................

 

Evolution is simply the infinite continuous change of energy.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Duration
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

He said he had almost 14 billion years experience of not being born yet. I say he has more experience at it than that.

 

Time didn't start almost 14 billion years ago, it never started, so he technically had infinite experience not being born yet, and he'll have infinite experience being dead.

 

We don't know that. In fact I'm pretty sure the conventional wisdom suggests the opposite, that time extends "only" 14 billion years into the past. There are several reasons for that, although I'm not really the best one to explain them. In that case, “270 billion years ago” would be a meaningless phrase.

 

Interesting article for laymen on the subject:

 

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html