Would you agree that "life" (distinct from "existence" which comprises matter that is not conscious/doesn't experience) is simply a succession of uninterrupted experience? And said experience is simply what the entire universe is doing at that particular place filtered through the prism of one's senses and ego? This whole process is changing, warping, chasing entropy at every passing smallest unit of time like an incredibly complicated rapid crashing through its own contours and is only given context, meaning, and a semblance of regularity because of the existence of observers?
For example, before you were born it wasn't waiting in line for 14 billion years-it was just "POOF" you exist. We know that it took many, many, MANY years for Earth to form (and many more for it to become home to sentient life) but it doesn't matter because if nothing is being perceived then that time is perceived to pass by instantaneously. It's an UNINTERRUPTED succession of conscious experience because the absence of the experience is skipped like how two separate audio/video files in an editing program get spliced together-there's simply nothing going on in between.
When you die it will be like before you were born-POOF! Experiencing consciousness as something else. My best guess is as another organism on Earth. It makes not sense that when a fly dies it dies for all eternity-but the popular conception of death for humans is that we DO die for eternity-completely leaving unaccounted for how in the hell we got here in the first place.
And even when Earth becomes unable to support life in 500 million years it won't even matter. It's of no real concern to observers because even if it takes trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years for conscious life to arise again it will necessarily and inexorably be perceived as gapless. There is no waiting because there is no one to wait.
wut
non-consciousness can't exist. so the opposite happens.
temporality/atemporality
tempor(t)ality
>>8207887
>...(distinct from "existence"
I got this far, then dismissed your post as qualia trash. But since someone bumped it; I thought I'd post.
>>8207986
I don't mean to suggest life is some sort of hippy dippy state that transcends the physical, if that's what you're suggesting.
I acknowledge that there is no sharp divide between life and mere existence ("death", as if I blow my brains out with a shotgun the remnants of my brain matter and skull still exist-they don't dissolve into the fucking shadow realm), as life forms are constantly swapping out and recycling merely "existing" parts to maintain life. There is no special spark or what have you that clearly delineates the animate from the inanimate.
The animate is letter for letter derived from the inanimate-you can't survive long without eating or drinking. You don't exist in a vacuum.
>>8207887
Hey! cool to see that someone has thought up the same thing as me. To be honest it seems logically infalliable, however I don't see why after death consciousness should return at a fffuture time only, why noyt in the past and why in preferential proximity to earth?
>>8208405
>Why not in the past
Doesn't make sense.
>why in preferential proximity to Earth?
Because you are here right now. When things die here, they decompose and are recycled into Earth's ecosphere.
>>8207887
>When you die it will be like before you were born-POOF! Experiencing consciousness as something else. My best guess is as another organism on Earth
No.
The matter you are composed of may contribute to the maintenance of another organism, after you die/fall into a less ordered state; however it is practically impossible for it to constitute another organism entirely.
>There is no waiting because there is no one to wait.
The flow of time is likely an illusion.
>>8207887
I think you're missing the point here, OP.
>>8208757
What point am I missing, exactly?
>>8208740
You are not static. You are constantly in a state of maintenance because of what you just said-other organisms (often their death) contributes to your homeostasis.
You wake up a measurably different human being, atomically, everyday. The only constant that lends it the illusion of a persistent experience is your ego, your being's accountant/secretary.
And what of being born, then? Does the universe draw upon a near infinite bank of "souls" to be incarnated at some random point in time and at some random place? If you're born a krill, by some stroke of misfortune, are you allotted that life and only that life and when you're inevitably swallowed up by a sperm whale "well, I hope you enjoyed your time being alive, all 3 days of it"? Why does this logic seem out of place when applied to other organisms? It sounds ridiculous because it is.
"Maintenance" of other organisms also includes the maintenance of its reproductive faculties, but I don't think you need to be reminded of that.
