Sure, but I didn't say that. — 180 Proof

In that case, did you mean that you conceive non existence via unconsciousness and forgetting?
I am not sure if non existence is ever conceivable. Moreover I wonder if unconsciousness and forgetting state of minds are able to conceive anything.

Any fact you can think of – concrete, not abstract – is finite, always can change or cease to be. Thinking is also a fact (not the contents which are merely abstract but the activity or process) which can cease to be. This a priori contingency enables thinking of counterfactuals and alternative scenarios, plans of action and predictions. One can think of oneself not thinking or, in principle, the nonexistence (nonbeing) of thinking insofar as the activity of thought itself is contingent (i.e. can cease to be).

In that case, did you mean that you conceive non existence via unconsciousness and forgetting? — Corvus

Yes. Lapses or gaps in my memory inform my conceptions of my own nonexistence.

I am not sure if non existence is ever conceivable.

Not when one is nonexistent. One exists and glimpses nonexistence – we sleep one-third of our lives, we forget much (even forget that we've forgotten), we experience everything changing as things known and unknown cease to exist, and, also, encounter histories of times before one was born, even before h. sapiens or life itself existed. Conceivable signs or indicators, though not themselves experiences, of nonexistence.

Yes. Lapses or gaps in my memory inform my conceptions of my own nonexistence. — 180 Proof

Memory is always memory about objects or situations or others which are different from the owner of the memories. Forgetting and having gaps in between memories cannot glimpse one's own non-existence.

Not when one is nonexistent. One exists and glimpses nonexistence – we sleep one-third of our lives, we forget much (even forget that we've forgotten), we experience everything changing as things known and unknown cease to exist, and, also, encointer histories of times before one was born, even before h. sapiens or life itself existed. Conceivable signs or indicators, though not themselves experiences, of nonexistence. — 180 Proof

Hume even said "One cannot find one's own ideas of self', because what one ever perceives is just a bundle of perceptions of the external objects.

Another problem is that, non existence is vague.  How can one conceive non-existence when nothing is present?

Hume even said "One cannot find one's own ideas of self', because what one ever perceives is just a bundle of perceptions of the external objects. — Corvus

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.

But he refers to himself many times, while denying its existence.

At the same time, one's conception is distorted when one applies knowledge to non-existence, which has no knowledge. But we an idea of it in dreamless sleep, or thinking about non-existence before birth. It's vague, but we have it.

Memory is always memory about objects or situations or others which are different from the owner of the memories. Forgetting and having gaps in between memories cannot glimpse one's own non-existence. — Corvus

On the contrary. A gap in memories (i.e. forgetting) or in an object like a donut hole, thus conceivable and, as a conception, memorable.

Hume even said "One cannot find one's own ideas of self', because what one ever perceives is just a bundle of perceptions of the external objects.

Good job! Hume's 'bundle theory' conceives of the non-self, or nonexistence of ourselves as selves. I'll add that to my list.

How can one conceive non-existence when nothing is present?

Apparently, just as one conceives of future events, numbers, vagueness or holes.

When you say that, 'If we were incapable of thinking but we were didn't (before birth and after death) it could be said that we were in hell( before birth) and we will go back to hell (after death)' you are suggesting that non existence as a form of to be dreaded. This is a common attitude to death in Western culture. I think that death and non existence is seen very differently in Eastern traditions.

Even though Hinduism and Buddhism often indicate possible journeys to other dimensions, such as those described in, 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' and future rebirths, there is still a certain emphasis upon breaking free from the cycle of rebirth and potential Nirvana. Whether the idea of Nirvana is seen as non existence ultimately is something which I am not certain about from my reading of such ideas, but, nevertheless it does point to the end of existence as we know it. I think it definitely points to the end of the existence of ego consciousness and the thinking mind, but this is not viewed as something to be dreaded.

I feel that death is only significant to the one who is facing one, or had lived and died. It is a personal historical event only meaningful the dead himself. — Corvus

If I understand that correctly, it is exactly wrong; the opposite of what is the case. Being dead is not something you will live through or experience, not part of your life; so it can have no significance for you. It's significance is in those left behind. It is not meaningful to the dead.

But I must have misunderstood you; I can't see how you could get this so wrong.

Any fact you can think of – concrete, not abstract – is finite, always can change or cease to be. Thinking is also a fact (not the contents which are merely abstract but the activity or process) which can cease to be. This a priori contingency enables thinking of counterfactuals and alternative scenarios, plans of action and predictions. One can think of oneself not thinking or, in principle, the nonexistence (nonbeing) of thinking insofar as the activity of thought itself is contingent (i.e. can cease to be). — 180 Proof

You have a point. I'm particularly interested in counterfactuals - thinking of possibilities (what can be) instead of factuals (what is). Thus, the mind, in principle, should be able to ponder death/nonexistence (a counterfactual). Sam Harris' method as outlined in the OP is just that.

Yet, I have this nagging doubt regarding whether or not "One can think of oneself not thinking..." Allow me to explain. To contemplate death/nonexistence, one has to have some idea of what not thinking is like but that's impossible because one has to simultaneously be not thinking and thinking - not thinking so that we may assume the mind state of death/nonexistence and thinking to get a feel of what it's like to be not thinking - and that's a contradiction!

This may seem like a total loss but no, it isn't because in line with the purpose of Zen koans - make the mind "crash", make it unable to process what we demand of it, make it stop cogitating - the aforementioned contradiction is just what the doctor ordered. It's like being sucker punched in the face by late boxing legend Muhammad Ali - your mind experiences an acute crisis and is unable to process the input (Ali's punch = the contradiction) and for a brief moment the mind or the brain if you like hangs like a computer subjected to information overload. Put differently, thinking grinds to a halt and that's what death/nonexistence (cessation of consciousness/thinking is (like)! Mushin no shin (mind without mind)!

It must be noted though that Zen doesn't seem to view the mushin no shin state of mind as death/nonexistence - it's actually something else and my hunch is it's the Chinese & Japanese conceptualization of nirvana/bodhi.

This squares with the patriarch Gautama Buddha's view that life is suffering or, rephrased for logical clarity, if you're alive then you suffer. Naturally then, taking the contrapositive, if you don't (want to) suffer then you're (you need to be) dead/nonexistent. Thus, to end your suffering, you need to not exist which is just another way of saying you need to stop thinking. Zen koans are designed to do just that - make you stop thinking.

As you might've already noticed this leads to a paradox: Life is suffering as per the Buddha and Zen buddhism recommends that to end suffering one needs to turn off the mind but as I said :point:

More updates

The Unthinking-Suffering Equivalence

1. If in pain, not thinking (too painful to think)
2. If not thinking, in pain (people dislike being called a fool)
Ergo,
3. Pain = Not thinking (1, 2 logical equivalence)
Ergo,
4. Maximum pain (hell) = Thinking impossible (pesudo-nonexistence)
Ergo,
5. If we were/are capable of thinking but we didn't (before birth and after death), it could be said that we were in hell (before birth) and we'll go back to hell (after death). — TheMadFool

suffering itself turns off the mind! Put simply, suffering switches off the mind and Zen buddhism's solution (nirvana) is to switch off the mind. That's like saying the best way to handle an accident that caused the lights to go off is to switch off the lights?! It's already off!!

That means, those in hell, completely unable to have even a single thought, overwhelmed as they are by the most excruciating torture, are enlightened beings, bona fide buddhas! What then do we make of buddhahood advertized as a total, eternal bliss?



:confused: Oh well!

Interesting but besides the point. Daily living, as I point out, (structurally) provides glimpses – epiphanies – of not existing (via ineluctable gaps in awareness and memories). For me these are enough.

Interesting but besides the point. Daily living, as I point out, (structurally) provides glimpses – epiphanies – of not existing (via ineluctable gaps in awareness and memories). For me these are enough. — 180 Proof

Hey, 180 Proof! Oh, it's no use! He's too far ahead. Let's hope he takes a break and maybe then we can catch up with faer! :rofl:

But he refers to himself many times, while denying its existence.

At the same time, one's conception is distorted when one applies knowledge to non-existence, which has no knowledge. — Manuel

Hume's comment on the idea of self was while he was living and conscious. He clearly denies its existence. But even without the knowledge, what he seems saying is, one can feel its own existence without its ideas. But if you asked Hume, if one can conceive one's non-existence, I am sure he would have said "No".

At the same time, one's conception is distorted when one applies knowledge to non-existence, which has no knowledge. But we an idea of it in dreamless sleep, or thinking about non-existence before birth. It's vague, but we have it. — Manuel

Would it be an imagination of non-existence before one's birth? It is not the same concept or mental activity as conceiving. Having an idea of it during dreamless sleep? Not sure on that, as I have never experienced it by myself. When I am asleep, I cannot even conceive my own existence. I might see myself in the dreams, but then I appear as some 3rd party other person many times. Even when I am myself in the dreams, I just see other objects or people, but never my own self. But non-existence in dreamless sleep? I cannot even imagine what it is.

On the contrary. A gap in memories (i.e. forgetting) in an object like a donut hole, thus conceivable and, as a conception, memorable. — 180 Proof

This is interesting. I will try to find some relevant reading material for the point, and will get back to you when / if I can find some idea of significance on it.

If I understand that correctly, it is exactly wrong; the opposite of what is the case. Being dead is not something you will live through or experience, not part of your life; so it can have no significance for you. It's significance is in those left behind. It is not meaningful to the dead.

But I must have misunderstood you; I can't see how you could get this so wrong. — Banno

You should read some Heidegger :D It sounds like you are talking about death from emotional and sentimental point of view. Here we are discussing death from the stone-cold metaphysical and logical point of view :)

Actually I was paraphrasing Wittgenstein. Perhaps you ought read him.

On the contrary. A gap in memories (i.e. forgetting) in an object like a donut hole, thus conceivable and, as a conception, memorable. — 180 Proof

Cannot find any philosophical articles or information on "conception under gap in memories or forgetfulness". There are some articles from psychological researches on the memory loss and forgetfulness, but all seems related to some illness or abnormal symptoms in clinical level from ageing or causation by drugs.

Actually I was paraphrasing Wittgenstein. Perhaps you ought read him. — Banno

He is an interesting philosopher of language. But outside of the linguistic topics, he has his limitations. The universe and its content are far more than any language can grasp.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must reason, analyse, and break his silence.

Think it through. I wasn't quoting from an article when I wrote that. It's an analogy not a theory. If it does not make sense to you (in the context it's expressed), Corvus, then tease out and clarify why. Otherwise, consider it, or don't.

Think it through. I wasn't quoting from an article when I wrote that. It's an analogy not a theory. If it does not make sense to you, Corvus, then tease out and clarify why. Otherwise, consider it, or don't. — 180 Proof

The reason why I went and searched for articles or information on the topic was, that it didn't make sense to me no matter how I tried to think or imagine. You cannot just make up some statements from your imagination or gut feeling, write them out, and expect others to accept your creations in philosophical discussions.

All your statements must be backed by the universal reason to some degree. Otherwise, whatever you utter becomes a pile of poetry or fiction.

If you can't think it through yourself, then documentary corroboration is just a appeal to authority (or popularity) anyway, and therefore you may learn something without ever understanding it. In this case, apparently, you don't understand my analogy in the context of this topic and, instead of trying to think it through you're searching for a supporting citation like an answer to a multiple-guess exam. Whether or not my analogy makes sense, Corvus, you'll never know unless you think it through in context for yourself.

If you can't think it through yourself, then documentary corroboration is just a appeal to authority (or popularity) anyway, and therefore you may learn something without ever understanding it. In this case, apparently, you don't understand my analogy in the context of this topic and, instead of trying to think it through you're searching for a supporting citation like an answer to a multiple-guess exam. Whether or not my analogy makes sense, Corvus, you'll never know unless you think it through in context for yourself. — 180 Proof

It sounds like you are trying force down something analogous to your religious beliefs (faith) or intuition to others throat. It is not going to work.

I see. Whatever, man. :sweat:

He is an interesting philosopher of language. — Corvus

Sure.

I see. Whatever, man. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Think about it.  Memory is a mental activity which retrieves what had been stored in the past in the depth of mind. But without ever having experienced non-existence directly as a living being, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with memory or gap between memories, hence suggesting any type of analogy between the two (memory, forgetfulness, and non-existence) is simply nonsense.

Sure. The best you can do is have a vague feeling or sensation just prior to going to sleep and as soon as one wakes up. In the non-dreamless sleep or before non-existence, there is nothing to say. It's only in experience that we can look back on these things and comment on them.

But If I tell you that right now, thinking about dreamless sleep or the time "before my birth", I have a vague sensation of what it is. My sensation would not be the same as non-existence, of course, there is no sensation in non-existence. But I have an inkling of what that would be. I don't see a contradiction in this.

No, friend, you think about it. One can observe a black hole or chemical reaction indirectly by the effects on their respective environments. In fact, most of what we 'experience' is indirect and distorted by memories and so much must be inferred. The analogy I use is a suggestive inference. Requires thinking.

Sure. I am not saying you cannot have your own intuition or inklings on your own non-existence. Of course you can, supported by your own imagination too.

But what I am concerned about was, that if you say that you can conceive your own non-existence, be it before birth or after death, then I think there is some contradiction there. Because to conceive something means that you take something into your mind, and form a correct notion of. Now that is too far-fetched an assertion no matter what analogy you bring in with the motivation of trying justify that.

Conceive of a donut hole? Good. No contradiction. Your own semantics confuses you.

Conceive of a donut hole? Good. No contradiction. Your own semantics confuses you. — 180 Proof

I thought we have been discussing about conceiving one's own non-existence. What donut hole are you meaning? Why do you want to conceive a donut hole?

None of your tedious objections to my analogy hold up under scrutiny nor add much to the topic. Sorry this simple discussion has sailed so far over your head. Have a good one, Corvus.

None of your tedious objections to my analogy hold up under scrutiny nor add much to the topic. Sorry this simple discussion has sailed so far over your head. Have a good one, Corvus. — 180 Proof

My definition of "to conceive" is not my own semantics, but it is the standard definition from the English Dictionary and Etymology. You are trying to distort the facts.