Ann got it wrong. This topic is not about what makes it worth living but how can we be certain we will still exist the next moment, given we seem at least to pop into existence.

As for memory being the answer, memory only says we popped into existence at some point and has continued to exist till now. It does not justify your existing the next moment

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Given there is as of now no explanation of how qualia arises, What is there to justify it will still exist

My main point is this mysterious concious thinking self came into existence, what is there to justify this self or myself will still exist?

Descartes, in meditations, says perhaps if thinking stops he will cease to exist.

My point is that this self which most people identify with is a thinking concious self which appears so apart from the body just as descartes says. And what is there to say this self cannot just disappear or cease to exist.

My point in bringing up Plato or religious people was to show they too identify with a thinking concious self, a soul perhaps, and it about death was just coincidental.

I do doubt and question. Here is why.

Our identity at least partly and at least how it appears to a large extend as a mind, concious thinking thing appears so mysterious and magical that until this scientific age philosophers have no consensus in explaining conciousness. Given its mysteriousness and how it exist why cant it just disappear too? Which is the reason for this thread.

In dealing with this mysterious phenomenon, concious thinking self, Plato wrote death, for better or worse, only god knows meaning naturally he assumes this self will exist and experience this thing called death.In dealing with this mysterious concious thinking self, millions of religious believers believe they will go somewhere after bodily death.

So I am here questioning just as this mysterious concious thinking self can come into existence seemingly magically why cannot it equally disappear? What reasons is there to justify that this mysetrious concious thinking self will still exist

Cicer,

I get your point. The same point as we do not normally worry about being permanently blind if there is nothing wrong with our vision. However, this is philosophy. Philosophy is where such questions arise.

Your point is a valid one and I appreciate it and and am thinking of every way I can phrase it to make it not sound like a looking down rebuff. So do not read my response as a dismissal but rather merely a response.

Like a normal person who goes walking around the neighbourhood. He walks, and one day wonders by what or based on what does he know behind the shop is his house. He questions and hence epistemology begins. This is precisely what philosophy is about.

You are wrong with saying equating "you" with a soul is due to religion.

I am an atheist, in Mensa and am completing undergraduate degree in philosophy and nother in physics. Part of the reason I am here. Back to the topic When you do physics, or comtemplate epistemology you think do you not? When you move around you do think also, together with having sensations and memory and so on. Hence it very naturally appears that you are at least partly a concious, rational thinking object. I can do away with the soul.

My point is if you were to answer my question by saying because your body is still healthy it seems very unsatisfactory to me and most people due to most people's idendification with themselves as partly a concious thinking entity and it is natural, nothing to do with religion.

You see a big hurdle I am facing is to see myself as purely an object. If I am able to see myself as fully an object then yes, given this object is in good health it will still continue to exist for the near future.

However most people fully or partly see themselves as a soul or thinking thing just like Descartes. From this very natural viewpoint then is there any reason to suppose I will continue to exist?

If you use something so alien and unnatural like just treat "you" as a mere body to explain there wont be many branches of philosophy such as philosophy of mind or phenomenology.

And to the response of because we exist in the past we are likely to still exist I can use the standard objections against the induction of science what logic is there to say something which has been always true in the past will still be true in the future