DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

[Atla]

'I', God, Itself, am becoming KNOWN, consciously.

Hey God, nice to meet you, now that you are communicating through Age, could you tell which 5-digit number I've just written down?

Are you still reading the ramblings of a psychotic, and worse still replying to them in the hope that they will keep communicating with you?

It was 85729

Just a liiitle more work on that omniscience stuff, and you're good to go

[Age]

But Mind is what allows living things like you human beings to keep on imagining and creating new things
which is just rearranging what is preexisting into new ways shape and forms

All of existence is continually changing so is not limited to just the things that human beings can change

I have been saying from the outset of writing in this forum that the Universe is in constant-change. So, I am well aware that Existence, Itself, is in One constant-motion of change, and it would be an impossibility to NOT change.

I have also ALREADY explained HOW this actually happens and occurs.

I just gave the example of human beings creating 'new' things because they are, in essence, from the OPEN Mind really the ONLY creature that is able to actually create 'new' things in the sense of in comparison to ANY other, known by them, creatures. There may exist other creatures some where in the Universe able to create like human beings can, but just about all other, known, animals can only create themselves, and maybe a home or nest. Whereas, the list of 'new' things that human beings keep on creating might be reaching the countless mark by now, when this is written.

Change is ubiquitous for it is a feature of existence and is one of only two the other is that it is infinite

[Age]

Also would it seem somewhat strange or contradictory to have a spectrum called Existence but on it is points of non life
non life implies or infers non existing or non existent so to me a spectrum on or about Existence would seem weird to have non existence

That would indeed be weird but if I changed my definition of what life was it would no longer be weird
This was the point that I was trying to emphasise by implying that my spectrum could include all of life

So what would and could you change your definition of what 'life' means, so that then non life could be placed on a spectrum called 'Life"?

[Age]

I do not have a clue what panpsychism is and seriously I am not really that interested in knowing anyway

You are not really interested in knowing what you are but do you not think that is a strange thing to say

But I KNOW what and who 'I' am.

That is the very point. 'I' do NOT give myself a label so that I belong in some group that thinks in only some particular way.

I KNOW the answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'

I also KNOW the answer to the question 'Who 'you' are?

I also KNOW 'Who thee 'I' is and who the 'you' are? (This is from the objective viewpoint).

See I am able to answer ALL of these and others in a way, which fits together perfectly forming a crystal clear picture of Life or Existence, Itself. So, I do not find it at all strange to say that I am not interested in knowing from a human being, who I think will be found has NOT yet been able to answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' them self, what they only THINK I am.

Panpsychism is the philosophy that everything is alive not just things commonly accepted as being alive

Okay. But 'philosophy' to me, is just the love-of-'learning' or becoming wiser.

Also, just because I have a particular view of some thing, then 'trying to' squeeze me into some particular group as though that is what I am will also NEVER work.

[Age]

Just wondering when is a fetus alive from your perspective

I think a foetus only stops being alive either when it dies or its no longer a foetus
And so if it develops into a baby then as a foetus it would always have been alive

Okay.

[Ferdi]

No because to me both plants and a foetus are biological for both are alive
I therefore see all plants and animals as being alive and all bacteria as well

I Agree.

So, if a fetus within the womb is alive, then how can some thing alive not have life yet and just be waiting the arrival of its so called "life"?

When will it, or any one for that matter, know when its "life" has arrived for it?

How does "life" arrive?

Where does "life" come from?

What is "life"?

1 What is LIFE.
LIFE just IS, like infinity just is, beyond our dimensions, beyond our comprehension.
Life commonly comes to our senses in our world at birth. If the new-born does not show signs-of-life, the attendant will apply previous experience to induce the new-born to cry; the most common sound of coming to life.
Prior to its birth, the foetus does not have its own life. It is indeed “alive” in its mother’s womb, has been growing there by being connected to the LIFE of the mother. The foetus heart, beats at its own rate and like all its growing and multiplying cells, is “driven” by the life of the mother. Like your own heart, you are not making it beat, it is your LIFE in ”you” that makes it tick. At birth one may, or may not receive life.
“Being alive” and “having life” are different stages. Think of a package of seeds that you may buy in the shop. You expect those seeds to be viable, i.e. alive and fit to come-to-life. You will not know if the seed will receive life until it hits the appropriate soil conditions to induce life. We cannot see how, or from where life comes. We can only make our human assumption that LIFE must come from our surrounding universe.
We were not asked, we did not ask, we were given no choice to receive life; nor about the surroundings in which we eventually find ourselves to have been born in. Sooner or later we start making decisions. As we grow we find that we are free to choose between good and bad actions, with consequential responsibilities. The humans in our surroundings show their ways and influence us with their answers to our questions. No matter how well intended those answers and their advice, may be Catholic, Mafia, Muslim, Hindu, etc., one’s initial surroundings may lead one astray from what is a ”commonly considered good path” through life.

2 There is a difference between having LIFE and being ALIVE. . Life is what drives the body-and-mind of an individual; the “invisible” power in a battery . One can sense when the individual is still present in a dying person, and some moments later one can sense when the individual has departed. The body without its LIFE still looks like the individual but in fact the body has become so useless that it must be disposed-of before it falls apart. While the corpse has LOST its LIFE, looks dead and is dead, it hides the fact that the fresh corpse consists of ALIVE cells that have lost their coordinating driving force, life, and are left behind to follow their chemical decomposition phase, falling apart into the earthly elements from which they were originally assembled in a womb. While fresh the corpse can provide some still-alive parts for organ transplanting. Medical practice has found that the organ’s cells can be made to re-function again by re-connection to the driving force of LIFE in a foreign body. It made me note: the distinction between being alive and having life.

3 The corpse, without its individual, is usually subjected to funeral ceremonies, speeches to the coffin and burial rituals. Grave stones, statues, mausoleums, large pyramids and their contents are also solid evidence of humans respecting the dead INDIVIDUAL. This is evidence of a natural sensing that there is more to LIFE than meets the eye. Man feels, and science has increasingly confirmed, that everything in the universe appears to have a purpose. It is logical that an individual’s earthly sojourn, although astronomically of insignificant duration, must also serve a purpose. We can only guess what that purpose is. Life is not of our dimensions, we cannot analyse it, but we can definitely sense its absence on death, its presence after birth and feel an appreciation of having been part of someone’s good life.

[Dontaskme]

To me and possibly others too going by their words you come across as someone who knows more than everyone else here does
And so I do not bother correcting you all of the time if I disagree with you and will probably correct you even less from now on

You have only today said that you get bored having to read the same arguments over and over and
instead wish I would try to see things differently other than from my very own limited perspective
Now you want me to question you from this very same perspective which I really do not want to do

As I see you as one who is trying to get me to think better and that cannot be done if I keep disagreeing with you as much as you want me to
And so your request is therefore denied as I have zero intention of questioning absolutely everything you say that I disagree with from now on

I agree with the above principle - you'd have to like flogging dead horses when interacting with authors such as Age.

Age already has all the answers. Why Age bothers to interact on a public forum with other authors is beyond me, since he has already announced here >

AGE wrote:

I also do not really like following, subscribing or even just looking at any separate 'ism' groups of human beings with specific ways of looking at, viewing, and seeing things. Any person who prescribes them self as 'ist' thing, usually just tries to persuade "others" to get rid of their BELIEFS and come and BELIEVE what they them self does. All to no avail, I might add.

Me thinks Age likes chasing his own tail just for the fun of doing so, I mean what else is one supposed to do around here?


.

[Dontaskme]

Okay. But 'philosophy' to me, is just the love-of-'learning' or becoming wiser.

Also, just because I have a particular view of some thing, then 'trying to' squeeze me into some particular group as though that is what I am will also NEVER work.

But I KNOW what and who 'I' am.

That is the very point. 'I' do NOT give myself a label so that I belong in some group that thinks in only some particular way.

I KNOW the answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'

I also KNOW the answer to the question 'Who 'you' are?

I also KNOW 'Who thee 'I' is and who the 'you' are? (This is from the objective viewpoint).

You cannot become any wiser than that.

You've already won the race. You need to stop flogging dead horses. You are past the post. You don't need to keep replaying the goal post over and over in your head.

.

[Dontaskme]

So what would and could you change your definition of what 'life' means, so that then non life could be placed on a spectrum called 'Life"?

Life means to have knowledge of. Knowledge brings non life to life.

How can non-life be life? It can't life is a fiction.

.

[Dontaskme]

Why morn the person that has passed away?

You didn't morn that persons absence before it was born.

What do you think it is you are mourning for?

When all forms are apparently temporal transient empty appearances appearing from non-existence returning to non-existence.

Inbetween two non-existences is a brief appearance of non-existence existing.

If you know birth then you are the one making birth happen. And if you know you are making birth happen, then you can know how to not make birth happen.

You don't like mourning a passing away, but you celebrate the arrival - but you can't have an arrival without a depart.

So you have to accept boths sides of the equation to be able to experience the middle part. If you don't like the middle part then stop making birth happen by passing the knowledge of birth onto the unborn, instead leave them alone to their peace. Why impose upon the not-knowing a knowing that they are in no position to know? ..you do so because you like knowing, if you didn't, then you'd stop desiring knowledge, and the end of knowledge is the end of you, but you do not want you to come to an end, and that's why you suffer, because you like suffering.



.

[surreptitious57]

Age already has all the answers

To be fair he has actually said I just express how I see and view things which ALL OF could be completely or partly WRONG
But it is not expressed by him very often and unless it is then one will not always know this just as I did not before I asked him
And he therefore needs to say it more often and also without waiting for anyone to ask him a question about it before he does

[surreptitious57]

When all forms are apparently temporal transient empty appearances appearing from non existence returning to non existence

I would not describe them as empty but I agree with this in principle . Life is just a temporally insignificant period of existence in between the infinity of non existence before conception and the infinity of non existence after death . The I that becomes self aware is so for no time at all relative to these two infinities . So every single life is therefore a very small point on the spectrum of Existence that has always existed and will always exist . That is simply how it is and is why I just accept it and have no problem when the time comes with leaving this life and passing into the infinite state of non existence known as death . The great paradox is that nearly everything within Existence will eventually die but Existence itself can never die so there is no reason why human beings should not also die . We are nothing special . Only human beings think they are special

[Dontaskme]

We are nothing special . Only human beings think they are special

The only difference between the human primate and the other primates is that humans learn the art of language and out of that came the ego, the alter illusory self, that was believed to exist separately in and of itself in a more superior way. That belief, was the humans biggest delusion, one that will ultimately become it's own demise, as we see utter man-made disgregated chaos evidenced all over the world today. In other words, humans fucked up, they had their chance and they fluffed it. We need to stop breeding fast. It's time for energy to shapeshift into it's next transference of energy, we've long out stayed our welcome here.

[‘Uniquely human’ muscles have been discovered in apes. Apes also have muscles long-believed to be only present in humans and used for walking on two legs, using complex tools, and sophisticated facial and vocal communication.]

.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is a reason why eastern religions do whatever it takes to avoid reincarnation and why in western abrahamic religions the book of ecclesiastes states loosely: "the day one dies is better than the day they where born" and depth of attending "funerals over parties".

[Ferdi]

There is a reason why eastern religions do whatever it takes to avoid reincarnation and why in western abrahamic religions the book of ecclesiastes states loosely: "the day one dies is better than the day they where born" and depth of attending "funerals over parties".

Holy Books allegedly inspired by God are in fact produced by indoctrinated humans.
Of course there are reasons why any religious believers will do whatever they deem their duty in spreading their beliefs and wave their Holy Books. We have a free will and are free to believe what we like but unfortunately, our surroundings influence our beliefs. Missionaries and Religious zealots may mean well but are subject to self-deluding indoctrination.
Re the days of birth and death, no one remembers their own birth, and one’s death is seldom of one’s own choosing; but times are changing!