• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are actively trying to destroy it as your body is continually trying to preserve itself … you are your own worst enemy.

        • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You are both the reason it isn’t already rotten, and the reason it inevitably will be, no matter how hard you try.

          • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Neat the power of good and evil, yin and yang, the dead and the living … a constant balance between forces

            Where life may have momentary strength and periodically wins in the short term … death has stamina and plays the long game

            • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Perhaps, though that seems a perspective biased by living, while the other 99.999% of reality would consider all life to be a fleeting anomalous spark that arcs brilliantly before returning to the collective abyss.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Some people around then were well ahead of their time.

          The Epicureans theorizing around all mass as made up of indivisible parts realized that if deterministic movements governed those parts that free will could not exist and thus ended up with their idea of the ‘Swerve’ and how indivisible parts of matter could have multiple probabilistic outcomes - much closer to 500 BCE than the 20th century experimental evidence both proving mass was made up of indivisible parts and that those parts have multiple probabilistic outcomes.

          Maybe ideas you dismiss just haven’t had the proper supporting experiments dreamt up yet.

          • dudinax@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The Epicureans started with the idea that people were just bits of mass doing the things bits of mass do. Only by making a materialist assumption were they able to reach an interesting, novel, and possibly correct conclusion.

            • kromem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The thing that was the biggest contributor to the Epicureans being right about so much was their commitment to avoiding false negatives and insistence on not discounting explanations for things when they weren’t certain.

              What is why it was weird they were so committed to the idea of the soul’s dependence on the body, particularly when their belief in eternal recurrence effectively provided the conditions for that not to be the case.

              You can start from a materialist beginning and yet arrive at a non-materialist conclusion.

    • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s all just the one problem, just like how even the phrase decaying body could be split into multiple different evaluations.

      They’re all different aspects, perspectives, or results of the same issue. The issue being a gradual unstoppable slide into The Twilight Zone.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    The worst part is that they have convinced me that if this vessel dies I die when more intuitive knowledge would suggest that I would be free instead.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not that hard to be convinced otherwise.

      The argument for the self’s dependence on a physical body (an argument dating back to antiquity) gets less persuasive with each passing month.

      Ironically, by way of a counter-argument also from antiquity that was largely ignored and forgotten because it was wildly out of the context of the age.

      • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I would love to be convinced otherwise. But it’s stuff like brain damage and general mental degradation that makes it difficult to believe that a “soul” or another spiritual body contains the self

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          If I were to create a perfect digital twin of your brain, with every neuron mapped on a 1:1 basis, and continued to send it signals relating to a physical world and subjective experience in that world, it would presumably continue to generate the data related to your subjective experience of self in that emulated world.

          If those neurons were to then degrade or simulate damage, your expressed ‘self’ would also degrade accordingly, yes?

          But unlike with your biological brain, I could always restore a snapshot of that brain from a healthier period and put it in a very different emulated environment after its natural ‘death.’

          So while yes, there is an apparent local dependence of the self on physical constraints, this is predicted on an assumption of physical primacy and disregards the possibility of secondary recreation of that physicality.

          Given the rapid progress towards exactly those kinds of secondary recreations, the assumption of our own primacy seems to be more and more spurious with each passing month.

          Particularly given we’ve been measuring for a century that our universe at micro scales converts from continuous behavior to discrete at the point of interaction and switches back when persistent information about that interaction is erased, but only for the past ten or so been using continuous seed functions to build out massive universes which then convert to discrete units in order to track state changes from interactions with free agents - a very similar paradigm in much more primitive form.

    • Anticorp
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’

      • maccentric@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I dunno, I think you have till you’re around mid to late twenties before the decline begins—at least, that’s when I began to notice it

        • Anticorp
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No you don’t. Your body is growing and advancing in youth. It isn’t until your 20s that it starts degrading

      • GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I know this is something people say and it sounds deep, but the truth is that growth and death are opposites. The day and acorn sprouts is not the day it begins to die, it’s the day it begins to turn into a tree. Death will come to that tree, but dying is not what it’s busy doing.