• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would you be conscious if you weren't born?

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I think that everybody born has an eternal spirit and a temporary (for many lifetimes) soul. So the soul that would have experienced through that physical body will eventually experience through a different body.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...

I'm not sure I exist now, depending how one defines I, but in answer to your inquiry would I be conscious- no I don't think so.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I'm not sure I exist now, depending how one defines I, but in answer to your inquiry would I be conscious- no I don't think so.

I agree, there's nothing constant that could be used to identify as a self. However, consciousness is very weird. I can understand it somewhat, but it's just so strange as well
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...

do you remember your life before you were born?


If we are eternal, there should be a memory of ourselves prior to being born because our consciousness, which is part of us, would also be eternal.
 

omnifarious

Acolyte of Revelation
I think of the universe as stream of continuous radiating energy. I am eternal because the universe and the conditions which brought me forth are eternal. My father is eternal therefore I am eternal, but not necessarily omnipresent. I have always existed, and will always exist as long as the conditions are present - I simply await for the opportunity to re-emerge and be reborn.

All life being manifestations of the Avatars, which are found in the centerpiece, branch out into complex permutations which stretch out to the exterior realms forming the illusion which we call the "self".
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...
You would need to look at the reach and scope of our own experiences by which consciousness is reflected upon through the limitations of memory. Obviously we all were conscious during instances where later on, over time, you can no longer recall or perceive those instances you actually experienced consciousness.

Our "being" will always be there. Possibly experiencing consciousness when conditions allow, and dissipation as time passes through the process of change. Im confident we have been experiencing episodic consciousness for a very long time. Perhaps even timeless, yet at the same time, never a continuum where consciousness is thought of as an unbroken stream.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Interesting thoughts on this, all. I appreciate it.

But I'd very much appreciate a materialist/skeptic approach to the topic
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Interesting thoughts on this, all. I appreciate it.

But I'd very much appreciate a materialist/skeptic approach to the topic

I'm not so sure I don't represent a skeptical approach, seeing as there's really nothing supernatural in my personal understanding of Buddhism. I think our consciousness is the result of both internal and external factors. The way our brains process these factors creates a kind of self or consciousness. To realize consciousness is not independent of these sensations, etc is to understand the inherent emptiness or falseness of an independent self. Everything is connected through karma, causes and effects constantly at play, so to speak

I think to be aware of this truth at any given moment is Buddha/Zen mind. Sorry if that seemed rantish.
 

omnifarious

Acolyte of Revelation
Imagine if I were to make a complete copy of your entire physical body, down to the last atom, which would have your exact memories and thought processes, then have you interact with that copy. Then imagine if I were to destroy the original you, where would your conscious go?

Now imagine instead I made 3 billion atomic copies of you all believing they were the original, all.remembering the same experiences. Where did all of their consciousness come from?

Material bodies are physical expressions of universal principles, nothing more.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Particularly by a materialistic approach, consciousness is a property of material constructs.

Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

I would not be. Identity, too, is a property that arises out of constructs. It is not inherent to anyone, and it is very possible that it is ilusory in nature.


It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...

What if identity itself is a perception-suit? It looks far more likely to me.
 
Last edited:

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
If we are eternal, there should be a memory of ourselves prior to being born because our consciousness, which is part of us, would also be eternal.
So, you remember everything that happened while you were asleep last night?
When we dream, we don't remember being awake: we are only conscious of the dream. So is it not possibe that when we are incarnate, we are only aware of the current incarnation?

But I'd very much appreciate a materialist/skeptic approach to the topic
I wouldn't: I don't want atheists and materialists on a religious forum. :p
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...

I know that the components that make up 'me' existed before they were 'me'. If consciousness is a separate and distinct component, then I would expect it existed before it was 'me', as well. Naturally, that's a big if and even if it is true, it doesn't mean that consciousness before 'me' resembled consciousness as 'me' now. Sort of like though my blood is primarily water, and the molecules of water likely existed long before I ever did, this doesn't mean my blood existed long before I ever did, if that makes any sense.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
To aid the confusion:

What is the default? Existence or non-existence?

Are there more things that exist or more things that don't exist? One way to look at it is, there are more things that exist than there are that don't exist, because things that don't exist don't exist, and thus nothing doesn't exist.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
To aid the confusion:

What is the default? Existence or non-existence?

Are there more things that exist or more things that don't exist? One way to look at it is, there are more things that exist than there are that don't exist, because things that don't exist don't exist, and thus nothing doesn't exist.

You're forgetting that the overwhelming majority of beings that have ever existed no longer exist. IMO, non-existence is the norm. Existing is like a fart in a hurricane, one half-smelt hint of a whiff and its gone forever.
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
To aid the confusion:

What is the default? Existence or non-existence?

Are there more things that exist or more things that don't exist? One way to look at it is, there are more things that exist than there are that don't exist, because things that don't exist don't exist, and thus nothing doesn't exist.

I'm going to go with neither. There are lots of things that used to exist that no longer exist, but then again there are lots of things that don't exist now but will eventually exist. Considering the nature of 'things that exist' its safe to say that its virtually infinite on both sides. Perhaps literally infinite though we'd never really know it.

For example, an apple exists. If I eat it, does it stop existing at that point or if not, at what point? If at that point, I still remember the apple I have a concept 'apple' in my head that still exists. What if I take a picture of the apple before I eat it? Now the picture of the apple exists, and the concept 'apple' exists, both based directly on the apple I ate that no longer exists. What if I just took a bite of the apple and then used that as a logo for my computer company? Now the apple will continue to exist as a logo for God know's how long. Infinite variations of existing things spawned by a single existing thing that no longer exists. All subject to non-existence sooner or later, and at once capable of spawning infinite existing things in turn.
 

raw_thought

Well-Known Member
Materialistically speaking, if your parents did not have you as a child, would you simply not be, our would you be conscious as another?

It's got me thinking. What if life is default? Because those who are not born do not exist, so there was nobody that wasn't born. Every person exists, and every person is simply the collective senses following a meatsuit.

I really wish I could explain it better...
Perhaps another way to ask this question is, " can a subject exist without predicates"?
Nagel in The View From Nowhere - Thomas Nagel - Google Books debates that question.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
To aid the confusion:

What is the default? Existence or non-existence?

Are there more things that exist or more things that don't exist? One way to look at it is, there are more things that exist than there are that don't exist, because things that don't exist don't exist, and thus nothing doesn't exist.

Tricky concept, that of default. It implies some sort of structure with an expectation of a choice or decision.

The answer will of course depend on what those structure and decision are.
 

raw_thought

Well-Known Member
Without a subject ( subjective, consciousness etc ) there are no predicates. For example, "bravery" is only an abstraction until someone is brave.* Does the reverse hold true? The subject cannot exist without predicates? Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object: Franklin Merrell-Wolff: 9780517527559: Amazon.com: Books http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/sitehtml/unknown/noumena.pdf
Perhaps that no-thing ( no predicates) is the void that Buddhism talks about?
" People are scared to empty their minds fearing that they will be engulfed by the void. What they don't realize is that their own mind is the void."
Huang Po http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/huang-po That last site reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing_(phenomenology) Once again wiki sites do not transfer well. Click on the last site and then click on the first site given.
* "2+2=4" are only meaningless signifiers until given grounding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding) by a subject.
 
Last edited:
Top