If someone was never born or conceived (they never existed) does that mean they are dead?

if someone was never born or conceived (they never existed) does that mean they are dead?

You go from nothing to something, and then something to nothing. What comes after nothing? Something.

No. You baiting moron.

How many things that do not exist are blue?

You cant die if youve never lived.

>does that mean they are dead?
No, it just means they are non existent. "Dead" is simply a label for a specific form of nonexistence, meaning "having previously existed."

Think of it as anything "dead" is nonexistent, though not everything nonexistent is "dead." Kind of like how all "bourbon" is whisk(e)y, but not all whisk(e)y is bourbon, if that helps.

Mark Twain
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

.. this might be the purest piece of philosophy, I ever gleaned from this site.

Why do you use a comma there, user?

don't confuse consciousness with l , you could have been alive but not conscious , can a plant think?

I'm Danish, our ways of punctuation is more... yeah, dramatic, I guess.

Not him, but consciousness is the only thing that defines the "I." What transferable property would you attribute to that plant which is then going to be passed on to a human in another "life" other than the physical makeup the environment?

Interesting, though that's not quite how punctuation works. Don't just throw a comma wherever you may normally take a pause when speaking aloud.

And as a side note, is just asinine and doesn't even really deal with OP's question.

>Interesting, though that's not quite how punctuation works. Don't just throw a comma wherever you may normally take a pause when speaking aloud.
we quit the use of grammatical commas long ago, nowadays commas are placed wherever we feel like placing them.

anarchy, man. Fucking anarchy.

>we
Correct grammar is not subjective, with the exception of language. You guys can choose to say screw it, but just a heads up, that's going to look poor to anyone outside of your country's circles, m8.

>anarchy, man. Fucking anarchy.
You're telling me, user. I'm going to go cry for a bit now.

>And as a side note, is just asinine and doesn't even really deal with OP's question.
not really, no... but, it makes the point that if nothing begets something then the termination of said something into nothing does not necessarily mean the end, if nothing spawns something and something returns the nothing then the cycle may repeat.

yada yada time is a flat circle etc.

>Correct grammar is not subjective, with the exception of language. You guys can choose to say screw it, but just a heads up, that's going to look poor to anyone outside of your country's circles, m8
I know, I just don't... like, really give ½ a shit, you know.
>You're telling me, user. I'm going to go cry for a bit now
me too, user. Me too.

>then the termination of said something into nothing does not necessarily mean the end
Well, technically speaking it does ("termination"). But I think I know what you're saying, maybe just phrased as it does not rule out the new something. If something is "terminated," then by definition, it would have to mean the end. And while I understand where you're coming from, the other user's post, at the same time, does not mean we can presuppose the contrary and assume that "What comes after nothing? Something." To be fair, I think he's probably not even in the thread and doesn't give a shit.

Oh yea, I know.

in the words of the very much dead Jim Morrison, "we live, we die and death not ends it.. "

I totally just blew my nose in my dirty boxers, man.

And all Morrison's quote brings up is either just an unsupported opinion where he was trying to sound cool, or he was referencing the way an individual "lives on" through his/her artistic ventures, primarily music or writing. I think the latter is probably more likely what he was trying to say.

dude was a poet, for better or worse, he intermingled absurd non-figurative ramblings with absolute truth and great beauty.

a Picasso of words. People just can't look past the leather pants and the rock-god posturing, but sometimes I think he actively sought that image as an amour to ward of those who judged on mere assumption.

what I think he was trying to say, was exactly that if nothing begets something then something must also beget nothing and thus the whole concept of the end, is merely a concept borne on the concept of existence.

"we're trying for something that's already found us.. "

"No, Grandma! I said 'Can I get a smoke?' not 'Can I get smoked!'"

"Turn up your hearing aid!"

>if nothing begets something then something must also beget nothing
What in the actual hell? Where is the justification here? That is a massive premise just simply expected to be universally accepted?

That's the philosophical equivalent to saying "if you need $20 to get a pizza, then when you finish the pizza, $20 must come back to you."

I think you're interpreting Morrison's statements incorrectly.

>That's the philosophical equivalent to saying "if you need $20 to get a pizza, then when you finish the pizza, $20 must come back to you."
no, you dunce. It's saying "if I pay 20 bucks for a pizza, then someone receives said 20 bucks and forks them over elsewhere where someone else receives them etc" -the 20 bucks don't disappear.

inb4 broken window fallacy, you brought up the dollar analogy.

That doesn't work, because you're talking about the transferring of an entity, the $20 bill, but the whole discussion started off of the understanding that we were discussing the termination of a state of being (in this case, it's a pizza).

You shouldn't be so quick to call others names when you complete miss the crucial part of the analogy, user.

We're talking about the consciousness, or the "I," part of an individual, not the physical, decayed mess left afterwards. Let's stay on track here.

No, because they do exist, in the form of an egg in a woman's womb, laying dormant in egg purgatory until a man's sperm meets the egg, making a zygote, thus creating life.

No because there is no "they" to speak of,you are literally referring to nothing
>Is nothing dead?
No,because it's fucking nothing

the pizza may cease to be a pizza, or to fit the criteria for the concept of "pizza", upon being eaten.. but the matter that made up the pizza does not disappear, it simply changes. The sum of all matter is constant.
>You shouldn't be so quick to call others names when you complete miss the crucial part of the analogy, user.
it's Sup Forums, we call each other names. I'm a faggot, you're a faggot, we're all God's chosen faggots here.
>We're talking about the consciousness, or the "I," part of an individual
yes, and said I is merely a construct within a concept, unless we decide to believe in soul/spirit, but if we don't, then we must acknowledge that no "I" ever existed outside an idea that was formed in..
>the physical, decayed mess left afterwards
exactly.

.. and that leaves exactly nowhere, until we realize that there are shores and continents that beseech our understanding.

how high are you

No it means they aren't someone

>but the matter that made up the pizza does not disappear, it simply changes
We are not disagreeing on that, user. Why are you bringing this up? We aren't talking about the physical matter, I even went out of my way to explain to you that it's not the issue here.

>no "I" ever existed outside an idea that was formed in
Yes, that's literally what I have been saying in the thread, user. We aren't believing in "souls" or whatever other nonsense, I was explicitly talking about an individuals consciousness, which ceases upon death, and yes the physical remains of a corpse are there, but that's not the point anyway (and I know you're saying that too).
All you're doing now is agreeing with my posts.

so, it seems we have to define and identify "consciousness", eh?

>the human mind vs a highly sophisticated AI
>an AI vs a pocket calculator
>a pocket calculator vs a toaster
>a pocket calculator vs an abacus
facit: consciousness is no more real than soul.

...

>so, it seems we have to define and identify "consciousness", eh?
No, we don't. Are you pretending to not know what consciousness is? I don't get what you're trying to play here, bud.

>facit: consciousness is no more real than soul.
This is so blatantly false, I can't tell if you're just trolling at this point. We can't prove the existence of a soul, but consciousnesses is self evident and proven by the fact that you're sentient right now.

What are you even trying to argue at this point?

>Are you pretending to not know what consciousness is?
are you pretending to know? I sure as shit don't know.
>I don't get what you're trying to play here, bud.
not Devil's Advocate, if that's what you're implying. I'm merely trying to narrow down a common premise.
>This is so blatantly false, I can't tell if you're just trolling at this point.
.. then define consciousness, in a way that sets it apart from the idea of soul but also from just being physical interactions betwixt neurons and synapses.
>but consciousnesses is self evident and proven by the fact that you're sentient right now
am I? How am I more "sentient" than, say... Clever Bot? Or any, actual AI? What makes me sentient, but not my pocket calculator?
>What are you even trying to argue at this point?
what I said earlier, that consciousness is no more real than soul, and therefore can neither begin nor end -only change, through the eyes of the beholder.

You seem to have answered your own question there
>They never existed

>if a machine was never built, does that mean it is broken?
(protip: no)

No. Death is not equivalent to or synonymous with non-existence, it is the state of gradual decomposition after life has occurred.

well, if it ain't built then it doesn't work and then you better go fix it, now won't you?

>66
nice quads

>go fix it
fix what? the void? You probably mean BUILD it :^)

if the void needs fixin', then we better fix that there void I'd reckon.

>are you pretending to know? I sure as shit don't know.
Well, I thought it was understood that we were all using the same generally-accepted definition of the word. Pic related, the last definition in the case of talking about at what point AI has reached "consciousness." The fact that your response was "I sure as shit don't know" is a curious one.

> in a way that sets it apart from the idea of soul but also from just being physical interactions [between] neurons and synapse
By defining it, we're already separating (the definition of) consciousness. And why in the world would we try to define it apart "from just being physical interactions [between] neurons and synapses.?" That makes no sense.

Quite literally speaking, that is what consciousness is composed of in humans. That's. What. It. Is. Why do you feel the need to want to separate out the definition from what we know causes it? Again, speaking descriptively in the case of humans, not excluding other possible ways to achieve consciousness that we aren't aware of yet.

> How am I more "sentient" than, say... Clever Bot?
You are aware of your surroundings and existence, Clever bot is not (at least not yet). Why would you even begin to think that a pocket calculator could someone meet the criteria for being aware of it's own existence?

I'm trying to not be an asshole here, but I don't know if I'm believing you're this logically incompetent. Pls no bait, but I'll keep biting.

Agreed.

Whoops, forgot pic related!