4
   

If humans cells are constantly dying, does that mean we humans are constantly dying

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 12:44 am
@Cyracuz,
According to Gurdjieff the only thing holding "you" together could be your name !
i.e Most of us spend our lives fulfilling promises made by "somebody else" !
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 04:14 am
@biller,
IMO, you need to define what a 'self' is as well as what 'dying' is. Both of which are enlightening to read about. But in response to the title question, a friend once said to me "The day we're born is the day we start to die."
0 Replies
 
biller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 05:56 pm
@Cyracuz,
Question to anyone

I still am a little confused I believe we change? But my question is when we change to do we die or we only die once like the merrian webster dictionary definition, A permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life. How could it be interpted any other way?
biller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 07:53 pm
@biller,
Also what about the division fallacy and the composition fallacy? Just because cells die it doesn't mean you die. So is this correct we do not constantly die every time we change.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 08:40 pm
@biller,
Some say that "you" cease to exist every time you fall asleep. A sleeping human has no self.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 09:48 pm
@Cyracuz,
Yes, then when the self is formed it can resist further social conditioning (but I think we continue our conditioning unaware that it's happening).
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 09:48 pm
@Cyracuz,
Yes, then when the self is formed it can resist further social conditioning (but I think we continue our conditioning unaware that it's happening).
0 Replies
 
biller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 02:01 pm
@Cyracuz,
you cease to exist every time you fall asleep, but don't your cells or body exist?

"The day we're born is the day we start to die." So in your opinion we do die?

I still am a little confused I believe we change? But my question is when we change to do we die or we only die once like the merrian webster dictionary definition, A permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life. How could it be interpted any other way? Also what about the division fallacy and the composition fallacy? Just because cells die it doesn't mean you die. So is this correct we do not constantly die every time we change.
biller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 02:45 pm
@biller,
"The day we're born is the day we start to die." So in your opinion we do die?
I meant to say that in your opinion we do die everytime we change.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 05:52 pm
@biller,
Quote:
you cease to exist every time you fall asleep, but don't your cells or body exist?


"You" meaning your sense of self. The "self" is generally thought of as an entity, and some believe that when that entity goes to sleep it is no more. Upon waking up, the entity is born again, assembled from memories of the last entity. Each evening one "I" ends, and the next morning another "I" is born. All of them together give the overall perception of "you living your life". But what holds them together? Some kind of internal ability, or external influence?

Quote:
"The day we're born is the day we start to die." So in your opinion we do die?


According to your definition of death, if there is life after the change, it was not death.
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 09:12 pm
@biller,
Quote:
I meant to say that in your opinion we do die everytime we change.

No, we don't die everytime time 'we change'. 'We' just 'change'. In my opinion, death exists but where the 'self/consciousness' goes is a mystery. But you got to understand what constitutes a 'self'. Yes, the biology of the body changes, yet there feels like there is this inner world that you are only privy to.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2011 08:19 am
@biller,
I think it's easier to argue that without memory we would "die" at the end of each moment.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2011 01:49 pm
@rosborne979,
I assume that without (short-term) memory we cannot function. I don't recall any literature on the pathological condition of brain damaged people in this regard. Memory, however, also promotes a sense of self, of a continuing being behind changing experience. Mystics who free themselves from an identification with or attachment to this sense of "self" (ego with lower case s) retain an orientation of self for all practical purposes. But they identity principally with their Self (with capital S). The content of this Self is not "the perceiver" but all that is perceived. He IS his world, not some little subjective center of it (Tat Tvam Asi).
Procrustes
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2011 06:38 am
@JLNobody,
If memories are information stored in neurons and consciousness is what fires these neurons to percieve the information, it is plausible to say that a sense of self is both neuronal and conscious which is based on the experience with all the environments "the perceiver" has been in. Although, the fact that chemicals and molecules in the brain can alter perception doesn't take away from the unique characteristics of individuals to make random nuances in the way that they do naturally. In other words, I think a 'Self' is influenced by chemicals but is not what makes the up the 'Self'. To me, a self is constructed over time, influenced by genetics and environment, memorised and always susceptible to change. It is illusory but real at the same time.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2011 04:58 pm
@Procrustes,
Nice. Self-as-identity is certainly a physiopsychosocial construction that develops and changes over time. It is the center of my autobiography. This is what I refer to as self in contrast to Self which precedes my birth and continues after my death.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2011 09:59 pm
@JLNobody,
Awesome. How will one be able to read this book?
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 11:41 am
I believe this requires natural science, such as senescence, hayflick limit, immortality, and telomeres on the chromosomes.

I also do acknowledge that there are three variations of programmed cell death.

You must define the conditions of this "dying" interpretation.

Example:
cell deactivation =/= organism death
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 03:27:55