It would seem I was associated in some way with this body before it came into existence. Or else it would have been born without me.
— Yohan

Yeah - only in the sense that it was Yohan who did not yet exit. — Banno

I mean like, in order to make a clay bowl, you have to first have clay.
You don't really change the essence of the clay just because you shape it into a bowl or undo the shape.

So if my body became conscious, and I am the body, then if my body lost conscousness, I would still be the body, just a body without consciousness. If you eliminate consciousness from my body, and then turn on consciousness again in my body, I would hope it's me that regains consciousness, since it's the same body.

How did I become the body prior to my body becoming conscious?
I couldn't have merely began at consciousness right. I had to be a body first.
And what did I have to be before I bacame a body? The matter or energy that makes up the body, no?
But how did I become the energy or matter that became a body that later became conscious.
Does the physicalist not believe that ultimately it is is matter that becomes conscious and that matter is what is objectively real?
And if I am really real in some way, if I am, then isn't my identity in matter/energy?

As far as I can tell, part of me goes to sleep at night, while another part remains aware of myself sleeping.
What goes to sleep, is the ego, not my essential being. This is why in the morning I have a vague memory of time passing. Because deep down some part of awareness was aware of time passing.

....

Look with care, and you might notice that you assume your conclusion, around about were you imagine your self as seperate from your body. — Banno

But imaginability vs non-imaginability can work as a form of proof.

I can imagine existing without having memories or a body etc.
I can imagine all so called physical things as not existing, and yet I remaining conscious.

What I cannot imagine is;
1. Being unconscious.
2. Observing consciousness itself objectively

So I have as of yet no reason to think I can be unconscious or that matter can create or become conscious.

And I think that, others who think that they can imagine such things are involved in double think.

point — Samuel Lacrampe

You should be careful with "=" signs. It means "identical", which is not the case here. Pre-existence has non-existence as a property, but is not identical with it. Pre-existence implies a thing will exist eventually. Non-existence does not imply that. With that, point 3 does not follow from points 1 and 2. Consider this other example: — Samuel Lacrampe

How can pre-existence have a property?
How can non-existence BE a property? Do not only things have properties? Non-existence isn't a thing. It refers to an absence of thing. Or rather, it tells you that not anything is being referred to. Like a finger that isn't pointing at anything.

Consider three identical bowls:
One is empty
One is pre-filled
One is post-filled

Is the emptiness of one of those bowls different than any of the others? How about the properties of the bowls themselves irrespective of their emptiness?

Explain to me how an empty bowl is any way different than a pre-filled bowl. You can say we have more information about the pre-filled bowl...in that we know that it will be filled. But that is information about what will happen to it. Not what it is.

1. A unicorn has non-existence,
2. A phoenix has non-existence, therefore
3. A unicorn is a phoenix. — Samuel Lacrampe

I agree that that is wrong, but I think what I said is more like saying 3. A unicorn and a phoenix are exactly the same while NOT existing.

Sense?

There ain't nothin to say about nothing.
It ain't, and that's it.

As soon as you turn nothing into something, you go from making sense to talkin no sense

Here is another argument:

1. Pre-existence = non-existence
2. Post-existence = non-existence
3. Pre-existence = post-existence

If my status could change from pre-existence to existence, then necessarily my status could also change from post-existence to existence(post-non-existence) as well.

If that isn't the case, then you have to demonstrate that pre-existence and post-existence in some way hold unique ontological statuses to mere non-existence.

Which would be impossible wouldn't it? How could not existing in the past be any different to not existing in the future?

If something came from nothing before, why couldn't something come from nothing again.

It's like, yeah. It's absurd that something could come from nothing.
But if I truly didn't exist before, yet now I do, then I came into being from nothing...

My current conclusion is, all things exist except impossibilities.
So what can exist, does exist.

This means I didn't, nor did anything ever, not exist.
Non-existence is an irrational status. Because saying non-existence exists, is like saying squares can be circles.

This means, things appear and disappear. But appearance is not directly related to existence.
It means I come in and out of the realm of appearance. If I disappear from your view it doesn't mean I cease to exist. We already know many things exist which do not appear to us.

So yeah, I think I am so etching like a jack in the box. I spring up and down, but I always exist.

Thanks for reading. I hope I made sense to some one. Maybe I'm crazy and my logic is subjective

Let me try to phrase this in a newtonian way...though it may not fit.
Things at rest tend to stay at rest
Could we call non-being a sort of being at rest?

If so, something must have "pushed" me into activity, into a "being".

This implies that "non-being" is actually a sort of proto-being.

Absolutely nothing should remain absolutely nothing, forever..... unless this "nothing" is not truly nothing.

Prove me wrong, please. Or show that what I said is not necessarily the case.

Thanks for the feedback.

Imagine you are an extension of the combination of your mom and dad's DNA. Imagine no soul, or spirit. — Per Chance

But can we actually imagine consciousness coming out of something else, or consciousness not existing?

I said imagine....that is my fault. You don't HAVE to imagine consciousness being separate from the body. Its our direct experience that it is.

Of course, you can argue that this experience is an illusion generated from the brain, but I don't think there is any proof that that is the case.

OK, so if I didn't come into being until later...the question still remains. Why did this body generate my consciousness. If I was nothing at all prior to this, why couldn't I remain nothing forever.

First, do such terms refer to anything actual.
I think that everything exists except thinghood itself.

Or else explain what is it about anything that makes it a thing rather than not.

Sorry I want to add one more thing.
Something is axiomatically true, we usually say, if its true by definition.
An apple is an apple because we have defined an apple as an apple.
But how do we know if a definition is correct or complete.
That is a difficult question, I would say.

Sorry if I'm turning the question into something bigger the intended scope.
And sorry for making three separate posts.

Its kind of like saying, "Is reality real"?
Well, if its real reality, then yes. If its fake reality, then no.
The answer is to clarify the question.
"Is what we think of as reality, the real reality, or a fake reality".
I would say, what we think of as reality is a fake reality.

I would ask, how do we know that "apple" means exactly the same thing in both instances of the word.
"An apple is an apple".
For this to mean anything, it would require that each instances of the word "apple" to have a unique meaning.
Or else you are just saying "This is an apple, and its also apple".

What is an apple?
An apple.

Its a way of avoiding the real question. Beyond the appearance of an apple, what is there....what is it really.