Death and Life? What is death?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If in death we can feel and see and experience everything then surely that means that we are not dead? Because to be dead is too feel nothing and experience nothing but if in death we do indeed feel and see and experience everything then surely that would mean we are more alive than when we are truly thought to be alive? Because in life we can not experience everything but in death we can, so what is the true distinction between the two except for the fact that we do not have our bodies in death but if we experience everything that must mean touch as well so maybe we are given are a form. So what truly is death?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,274 • Replies: 7

No top replies

@TheThinker,

Quote:

If in death we can feel and see and experience everything then surely that means that we are not dead?

Being dead is like the "life" of a rock in a pasture. The rock absorbs environmental energies all day long and yet recognizes zero of what it assimilates. A mouse may only be a little better when placed in front of a television set -- its interest or conceptual apprehension going no deeper than the device being a source of light.

Quote:

Because to be dead is too feel nothing and experience nothing but if in death we do indeed feel and see and experience everything then...

Without a memory for retaining and distinguishing and classifying -- for generating heterogeneity and individuations -- then becoming "everything" as such a ubiquitous uniformity would probably still be the equivalent of "nothing". Just be content with the loss of suffering from life's desires and addictions that a corpse enjoys, a transition the rock never gets to encounter.

0 Replies

@TheThinker,

TheThinker wrote:

If in death we can feel and see and experience everything then surely that means that we are not dead?

Yes; as commonly used the word only refers to the molting off of the human body.

www.IANDS.org

TheThinker wrote:

Because to be dead is too feel nothing and experience nothing
but if in death we do indeed feel and see and experience
everything then surely that would mean we are more alive than
when we are truly thought to be alive?

Yes; people who have returned from alleged death, in hospitals,
have described it as WAKING UP.
Some of them referred to continuing in human life thereafter,
as being put back in jail.

TheThinker wrote:

Because in life we can not experience everything but in death we can, so what is the true distinction between the two except for the fact that we do not have our bodies in death but if we experience everything that must mean touch as well so maybe we are given are a form.

So what truly is death?

The word is intended to mean loss of life.
That does not prove that death really exists.

David

0 Replies

@TheThinker,

To experience anything, whether it be nothing or everything requires a body of some sort. We tend to think of (particular) experiences as a function of a brain and experiences as the objects of a subject or ego's subjective existence. This is dualistic delusion. The Hindus say Tat Tvam Asi (that art thou or thou art that). I agree that my experience IS me not something happening to a me (ego-self).
Consistent with this perspective is a recognition (right or wrong) that when one dies and ceases to have experience it is because there is no self to be that experience. How can there be a state of death when there is no longer a subject to be that death? No subject, no predicate. It's so hard to talk about such things because the grammar of our language dualistically presumes subjects and objects, where in fact there is only experience, no subject of experience or objects of experience, only experience.
Language forces me to contradict myself here. I can try to resolve them when you bring them to my attention.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

To experience anything, whether it be nothing or everything requires a body of some sort.

Will u reveal the source of your knowledge on this point ??

JLNobody wrote:

We tend to think of (particular) experiences as a function of a brain and experiences as the objects of a subject or ego's subjective existence. This is dualistic delusion. The Hindus say Tat Tvam Asi (that art thou or thou art that). I agree that my experience IS me not something happening to a me (ego-self).

Consistent with this perspective is a recognition (right or wrong)
that when one dies and ceases to have experience it is because
there is no self to be that experience.

Being "consistent with" or a "recognition" has no probative value.

JLNobody wrote:

How can there be a state of death when there is no longer a subject to be that death?

Y do u ASSUME that "there is no longer a subject" ??

David

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I agree, David, that my propositions regarding non-existence of a self (aside from its subjective value) have no probative worth. They are not the kind of hard evidence that can sway a skeptic. They softly ring my subjective bell, however, and I offer them to anyone who may have similar bells. Notice that my signature line refers to the bliss of non-existence, to our state of pre-birth being similar to our state of after life. That's just my personal perspective, not something I can convince anyone not appropriate disposed.
And isn't that what this activity is about? Are we not sharing with each othere our mental creations for whatever they're worth?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I agree, David, that my propositions regarding non-existence of a self (aside from its subjective value)
have no probative worth. They are not the kind of hard evidence that can sway a skeptic.

I am a skeptic of your assumptions
of non-existence, unless that existence be manifested in a human body,
because I have had several out-of-body experiences,
wherein I saw my human body at a distance of about 3O feet;
i.e., what I felt and knew to be THE REAL ME was away
from my human body; both were conscious and active at the same time.
It felt good; it was fun, tho brief-- too brief,
but enuf that I knew that my human body
only hangs around with the REAL ME
(like myself and my car are not the same).

JLNobody wrote:

They softly ring my subjective bell, however, and I offer them to anyone who may have similar bells.

My bells are dissimilar.

JLNobody wrote:

Notice that my signature line refers to the bliss of non-existence,
to our state of pre-birth being similar to our state of after life.

What reason do u have to believe
that there is "non-existence" before birth or after death of the human body??
U did not see me before I began to post on the Internet.
Does that mean that I did not exist before then ??

JLNobody wrote:

That's just my personal perspective, not something I can convince anyone not appropriate disposed.
And isn't that what this activity is about? Are we not sharing with each othere our mental creations
for whatever they're worth?

Yeah, but we r not abandoning the principles of reason.

David

0 Replies

@TheThinker,

Thanks too your replies so far guy's I had to think about them all for a bit as I'm only thirteen but I think I understand them all so thanks Smile

0 Replies

Death and Life? What is death?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know