Non-existence is the same for every death? I don't know. I cannot imagine what non-existence or death would be, not having experienced personally. I am sure you have not either. — Corvus

You cannot experience death. It is by definition a complete lack of experience and thus yes, I have already “experienced” it. It came before me and I am very aware of that nothingness.

Apple and death are not even apple and oranges. Categorical mistake. — Corvus

No mistake. A lack of an apple is comparative to a lack of humans. You cannot say that something exists in a state of non existence.

You seem to be suggesting that a conscious being is one that relies on its ability to remember. I have been blackout drunk before where there were hours I could not recall, but everyone had recalled me being conscious and talking and living normally. Just because I didn’t remember anything doesn’t mean I wasn’t conscious. — Dante

No no, not just remembering. The whole lot. Consciousness covers all mental activities I would think.
You can become unconscious too, if you were hit on the head for sure.

No mistake. A lack of an apple is comparative to a lack of humans. You cannot say that something exists in a state of non existence. — Dante

I never said that :gasp: that something exists in a state of non existence. ???? I said you cannot say they are identical when something is non existent.

No no, not just remembering. The whole lot. Consciousness covers all mental activities I would think.
You can become unconscious too, if you were hit on the head for sure. — Corvus

So you’re saying there is no mental activity in the womb? If consciousness began at the age of 2 or 3, the baby would fail to survive upon exiting the womb.

I said you cannot say they are identical when something is non existent. — Corvus

That makes no sense. If the universe didn’t exist, then everything would be in an identical state. Matter would be no different to energy or space if they did not exist. If I don’t exist and you don’t exist, then we are in the same identical state; non existence.

So you’re saying there is no mental activity in the womb? If consciousness began at the age of 2 or 3, the baby would fail to survive upon exiting the womb. — Dante

Nope !
Instinctive perception would be enough. They don't have to go through some bush wilderness survival. They are in well protective environment of nature.

That makes no sense. If the universe didn’t exist, then everything would be in an identical state. Matter would be no different to energy or space if they did not exist. If I don’t exist and you don’t exist, then we are in the same identical state; non existence. — Dante

How can you say whether something is identical or non identical or wet or dry, when non existent?

How can you say whether something is identical or non identical or wet or dry, when non existent? — Corvus

I’m not sure that you have the same definition of non-existence as me. Non-existence is a not a state with different properties or characteristics, in fact, it has none. It is just a human construct to identify that something doesn’t exist, it is uniform for everything.

Something that doesn’t exist has no properties, it is not wet nor dry.

I’m not sure that you have the same definition of non-existence as me. Non-existence is a not a state with different properties or characteristics, in fact, it has none. It is just a human construct to identify that something doesn’t exist, it is uniform for everything.

Something that doesn’t exist has no properties, it is not wet nor dry. — Dante

Sure. I think our definition on non-existence is not far off. But that is why I feel that you cannot say anything about it. To say something about something, it must exist. If not, then we cannot say anything about it. It sounds like Wittgensteinian actually, but it makes sense to me.

If you say, you can, then we would be talking in Kabbalistic view of the universe, not in critical philosophy.

@Corvus

A non existent apple has the same properties of a non existent banana, which is none. Non existent things share the fact that they have no properties.

I am not sure if "none" is a meaningful or intelligible property. Property of something is for the objects which exist in the real world. Never for something none existent.

then may exist a sequence of consciousnesses, though bearing no relation to anything it succeeds or replaced. — Dante

Hmm interesting... but one would imagine all conscious beings have some consistent feature that they all share. The parameters scientifically speaking that give rise to the state? The laws that permit it. Even if the form and content of each “life” is unique both qualitatively and spatial temporally.

Spatiotemporally in the sense that identical twins are genetically identical but we understand them as two separate individuals because they don’t occupy the same space though they are clone of eachother. Even conjoined twins are not one organism

What it is it then that demarcates the individual?

The subjectivity of the experience?

A non existent apple has the same properties of a non existent banana, which is none. Non existent things share the fact that they have no properties. — Dante

has the same properties — Dante

they have no properties. — Dante

Contradictory statements for non existent things.

@Corvus

Not really. If they share a lack of properties then that in itself can be the only “property” that they share.

Another point is "None" is a pronoun like he she that or these. It cannot be a property of something.

@Corvus

It is also an adverb.

To be a property of something, I would have thought, it should be either primary or secondary quality which can be sensed. No?

"None" is like that, it, they, he, she ... a pronoun, not a perceivable qualia.

@Corvus

This is a pointless discussion of semantics. In the case of something that cannot be sensed in any capacity then it has neither a primary or secondary quality in which case I describe the total of properties with the adverb “none”.

Or you could say that the primary quality is that it lacks any tangible quality. A void. An absence.

Please do a quick Google of the word none. It is a pronoun, but also an adverb.

You started the pointless semantics initially in the middle of the discussions, and I am trying to clarify on the points. If it is an adverb, then it modifies verb, adjective or another adverb. It still cannot qualify as properties or qualities of something.

Or you could say that the primary quality is that it lacks any tangible quality. A void. An absence. — Dante

Due to illogical attributes of none as the property of none existence, you come to the wrong conclusion that all death are same. I feel that it doesn't make sense.

@Corvus

Correct, we are not dealing with “something”, we are dealing with a lack thereof.

Extract from another site:

“ Assumption: An object has no properties.

I can think of that object as an object with the property that it has no properties, but this is a contradiction to my assumption. Hence all thinkable objects must have at least one property.

On the other hand I can think of an object that has no properties, but then this object will have a property: "The property of not having any properties".

Before matter existed the universe only had energy. Thus it had no material properties; none.

Due to illogical attributes of the none as the property of none existence, you come to the wrong conclusion that all death are same. I feel that it doesn't make sense. — Corvus

Feelings don’t hold any weight. If you feel that the state of death is unique and different for all life forms, I’d love to hear why this is so?

@Corvus

If we were to say that some experiential properties of the consciousness are the ability to; see, hear, taste, smell, touch and compile memories. Then the termination of this consciousness suffers a severe lack of all these properties.

For death as a condition to be unique to the individual then it must possess a distinguishing property, but what properties can death be said to have regarding the consciousness, if not none at all?

Correct, we are not dealing with “something”, we are dealing with a lack thereof.

Extract from another site:

“ Assumption: An object has no properties. — Dante

Wouldn't it be that because you are now thinking about death and applying the concept "none" to death, it looks as if it is something that doesn't exist or some state which is non state?

One's death itself would mean, no perception, so there would be no possibility to perceive anything, not even the concept of "none".

Other people will perceive and remember the dead, but it would be just the body, not the state of none existing consciousness or the state of death of the dead.

It would be only possible to postulate immortality of souls, if only if one enters the realm of religion such as Christianity or Kabbalah. In the realm of reason, death is final, nothing to perceive or explain, because it is indeed none existence which has no quality or property. None existence means none existence, nothing less or more.

Wouldn't it be that because you are now thinking about death and applying the concept "none" to death, it looks as if it is something that doesn't exist or some state which is non state? — Corvus

Correct. Death doesn’t exist. It is an illusion. It is not a real state.

because it is indeed none existence which has no quality or property. None existence means none existence, nothing less or more. — Corvus

So then we agree.

Correct. Death doesn’t exist. It is an illusion. It is not a real state. — Dante

So then we agree. — Dante

:ok:

If death has no properties, what valuation does it have?

How much suffering must someone experience in order to make it "worthwhile" to kill himself?

In terms of game theory, a value is missing here.

Are we dealing with a lack of anything?

I would argue that... Well, first I would argue that everything is living, but barring that...the lives of the deceased still have an immeasurable impact and influence on the present and future.

This is what I term "the spirit." Though, to me, the "soul" is the physical body.

In my opinion, if something exists, ever, it is eternally "real" and nothing, not even the passage of time, can make it "unreal."