When does a person really cease to exist.

@mikeymojo,

Shakespeare said, in his well known Sonnet 18....

Quote:

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

(this= the poem)

@fresco,

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st;
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

0 Replies

I think the question is becoming anachronistic:

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

she really still exist.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Thanks, FBM, for the literay reference. Looks interesting.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

You're welcome. I've only just started reading it, but so far so good.

0 Replies

Nobody here think she still exist?

1 Reply

“Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one's head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no tomorrow. To forget time, to forgive life, to be at peace.”
― Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost

“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
― William Shakespeare, Macbeth

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

And you are saying what exactly?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Just as I thought. You understand nothing but what you want to believe.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Just as I thought. You understand nothing but what you want to believe.

It really sounds like you are describing yourself! lol
You dismiss anything you can't comprehend.That is anything that is not within your belief system. get it?

love it when people project like crazy. So you can see into their mind and they don't get it. Nice!

It is ok though.

But you don't believe she still exist?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Do you think that you do not look like you're projecting? We all do it all the time. (depending, of course, on how you define "projection.")

I see my nature in the world and the world's nature in me. Similar to the mystic's realization that he sees God with the same eye that God sees him (Meister Eckhard).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Do you think that you do not look like you're projecting? We all do it all the time. (depending, of course, on how you define "projection.")

I see my nature in the world and the world's nature in me. Similar to the mystic's realization that he sees God with the same eye that God sees him (Meister Eckhard).

But you still don't believ she exist?

There is plenty of evidence for that. That people still are a live after they 'die'.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Nobody here think she still exist?

Unless Tegmark's distant duplicates [2nd quote below] were the case and the survivors among them could somehow be construed as this Jill, she certainly wouldn't exist anymore in the type of space / time that our extrospective experiences of the world conform to. She would still exist in physics' theoretical version of space / time, but not in this "current" region of it. The relational-based outer appearances of Jill and the ideas / conceptions of Jill stored in other peoples' memories never was a non-represented Jill or the "what it was like actually be-ing Jill". Though nobody else would have ever encountered that manner of her existence, anyway (each only speculating about / imagining it based on their own brand of such).

PAUL DAVIES ...And what if science were able to explain away the flow of time? Perhaps we would no longer fret about the future or grieve for the past. Worries about death might become as irrelevant as worries about birth. Expectation and nostalgia might cease to be part of human vocabulary. Above all, the sense of urgency that attaches to so much of human activity might evaporate. No longer would we be slaves to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s entreaty to “act, act in the living present,” for the past, present and future would literally be things of the past.

...Given that most physical and philosophical analyses of time fail to uncover any sign of a temporal flow, we are left with something of a mystery. To what should we attribute the powerful, universal impression that the world is in a continual state of flux? Some researchers, notably Nobel laureate chemist Ilya Prigogine, now at the University of Texas, have suggested that the subtle physics of irreversible processes make the flow of time an objective aspect of the world. But I and others argue that it is some sort of illusion.

After all, we do not really observe the passage of time. What we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past, rather than the future, is an observation not of the passage of time but of the asymmetry of time. Nothing other than a conscious observer registers the flow of time. A clock measures durations between events much as a measuring tape measures distances between places; it does not measure the “speed” with which one moment succeeds another. Therefore, it appears that the flow of time is subjective, not objective. THAT MYSTERIOUS FLOW; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN; September 2002

MAX TEGMARK ...The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on. The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.

You will probably never see your other selves. The farthest you can observe is the distance that light has been able to travel during the 14 billion years since the big bang expansion began. PARALLEL UNIVERSES; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN; April 14, 2003

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Q wrote that "There is plenty of evidence ...That people still are [alive] after they 'die'."

You are taking the theistic position of the immortality of one's core being or soul. I take the position--for better or for worse--that there is no soul, that you and I neither begin nor end; we just appear as the experience of "objective" or "subjective" phenomena

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

Quote:

When does a person really cease to exist.

NEVER.
When does the Law of the Conservation of Energy cease to exist??

It applies to conscious life.

www.IANDS.org

David

0 Replies

Although our bodies die, our souls go into temporary "cybersleep"-
"Don't grieve for those asleep,for they sleep in Jesus" (1 Thess 4:13/14)

Then on judgement day we get a wakeup call-
"In the twinkling of an eye the dead shall be raised imperishable and we shall be changed" (1 Cor 15:52)

That's the final stage of human evolution, when we become immortal spiritual beings..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/survs-aaa2_zpscfe001f9.jpg~original

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

You are taking the theistic position of the immortality of one's core being or soul.

It is not a position, there is plenty of proof we will still live after we 'die'.
If people say that we don't live after we 'die'', don't know or ignore the evidence.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Although our bodies die, our souls go into temporary "cybersleep"- "Don't grieve for those asleep,for they sleep in Jesus" (1 Thess 4:13/14) Then on judgement day we get a wakeup call- "In the twinkling of an eye the dead shall be raised imperishable and we shall be changed" (1 Cor 15:52) That's the final stage of human evolution, when we become immortal spiritual beings..

Nancey Murphy's faction [below] apparently takes that more literally, dropping the dualism and buying the whole analogy of such a "sleep" period consisting of survival as information templates. Also tucked in there seems to be vague suggestions of either this world or the "new next one" being something akin to a virtual reality. Or if not that, then their version of the resurrection apparently involves re-embodiment as indestructible nanobot composed bodies. At any rate, just as hillbilly music has today converted itself to the style of '70s rock music, I suppose tomorrow's Christianity will reinvent itself in Philip K Dick or Neuromancer or Matrix or Frank J Tipler mold.

"Can We Believe in Both Science and Religion?" (transcript)

... ROBERT KUHN: But you certainly believe that people who have died, as Christians at this point are dead, they’re unconscious, they’re non-conscious, they don't exist until they may or may not be resurrected in the future.

NANCEY MURPHY: Right, there is no part of us that continues to exist after death.

ROBERT KUHN: And that God would have to resurrect the body and recreate your thought patterns.

NANCEY MURPHY: Basically, yes, re-create us in a different form, a whole different world, because otherwise we would be equally subject to corruption and decay as we are in this life.
[...]
NANCEY MURPHY: So... [one historical detour has considered dualism] to be essential to Christianity. Now it looks as though the neuroscientists are coming along and they’re saying, ah, there is no soul, in fact there is no substantial mind. It’s actually the brain or the nervous system that does all of the things that were once attributed to soul or mind. So it looks like yet another place where science encroaches and religion has to step back. But in the liberal half of Christianity, those who have a higher degree in theology are almost all physicalists.

MICHAEL SCHERMER: Really?

ROBERT KUHN: Physicalist meaning that there is no…

NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies.

ROBERT KUHN: There is no non-physical element required to make us human beings.

NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies. That’s right.

MICHAEL SCHERMER: Now when you’re resurrected, how old will you be?

NANCEY MURPHY: 30.

MICHAEL SCHERMER: Really? You have an answer.

NANCEY MURPHY: Augustine thought about that, that’s when you reach the height of your powers but before you start to disintegrate.

Nature's God: An Interview With Nancey Murphy

... INTERVIEWER: Some would say the dualistic view was never a biblical view to begin with, though it has long been part of Christian tradition. Do you agree?

NANCEY MURPHY: I follow New Testament scholar James Dunn in holding that the biblical authors were not interested in cataloguing the metaphysical parts of a human being -- body, soul, spirit, mind. Their interest was in relationships. The words that later Christians have translated with Greek philosophical terms and then understood as referring to parts of the self originally were used to designate aspects of human life. For example, spirit refers not to an immaterial something but to our capacity to be in relationship with God, to be moved by God’s Spirit. It is widely agreed that the Hebrew Bible presents a holistic account of human nature, somewhat akin to contemporary physicalism. The New Testament authors certainly knew various theories of human nature, including dualism, but it was not their purpose to teach about this issue.

0 Replies

When does a person really cease to exist.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know