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

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" !

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."

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?

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.

Some say that "you" cease to exist every time you fall asleep. A sleeping human has no self.

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).

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).

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.

"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.

"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?



According to your definition of death, if there is life after the change, it was not death.

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.

I think it's easier to argue that without memory we would "die" at the end of each moment.

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).

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.

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.

Awesome. How will one be able to read this book?

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