What do we mean by “cease to exist”?

If I visited a town you [had] lived in, and you asked me about the condition of an old favorite restaurant to which I replied, “Sorry, it doesn’t exist anymore.”

What do you think happened to the restaurant?

If it was demolished, the constituent “physical” stuff would be expected to be around. Just what we mentally conceived of an arrangement of said particles constituting a restaurant would be lost.

Similarly if the building still existed, and we - after getting recipes from the previous owners along with their blessing - pooled money to reopen the restaurant it would “pop” back into existence.

In fact we could re-open the restaurant in a new location, though some might argue it’s not the same restaurant because of a new location and new ownership. But what if the original owners came back, then it could be considered by more people to genuinely have continuity with the prior restaurant.

But what about the minds that hold the idea of this restaurant, along with a variety of other concepts and ideas and emotions? 

If these minds cease to exist, it is neither akin to the demolished building [n]or the concept/idea of a particular restaurant.

It seems to me the idea that a Person could cease to exist is saying something rather unique, a special kind of non-existence we don’t have a good analogy for?

Or am I wrong about this…honestly not sure…

The only comparable thing that comes to mind is fields ceasing to exist, like heating up a magnet so its magnetic field is gone…not sure that’s really comparable to a Person ceasing to exist…

[Laird]

If these minds cease to exist, it is neither akin to the demolished building [n]or the concept/idea of a particular restaurant.

It seems to me the idea that a Person could cease to exist is saying something rather unique, a special kind of non-existence we don’t have a good analogy for?

Totally agreed. As opposed to a restaurant, at her core, a person is indivisible and not composed of anything; she is a pure perspectival subjectivity. At her core, she has no components that can be rearranged - like those of a restaurant - so as to muddy the question of her continuing identity.

Or am I wrong about this…honestly not sure…

You're not wrong.

Totally agreed. As opposed to a restaurant, at her core, a person is indivisible and not composed of anything; she is a pure perspectival subjectivity. At her core, she has no components that can be rearranged - like those of a restaurant - so as to muddy the question of her continuing identity.


You're not wrong.

Do you think a field ceasing to exist is comparable in any serious way? Or do we accept that the end of the field effect by, as per my above post, heating a magnet does not cause any actual loss to the total of existing things?

[Laird]

Do you think a field ceasing to exist is comparable in any serious way?

Not in a serious way. A field is spatially divisible in the way that a person, at core, is not, thus clouding the question of its identity. One field is also interchangeable with another in the way that a person, at core, is not interchangeable with any other person.

Or do we accept that the end of the field effect by, as per my above post, heating a magnet does not cause any actual loss to the total of existing things?

That seems to me to be a different question (although one which helps me to see what you're getting at with the comparison): the possibility of "actual loss" doesn't seem to be limited to fields (and of course to persons); as best I understand physics, particles themselves can pop in and out of existence, thus changing "the total of existing things".

Not in a serious way. A field is spatially divisible in the way that a person, at core, is not, thus clouding the question of its identity. One field is also interchangeable with another in the way that a person, at core, is not interchangeable with any other person.


That seems to me to be a different question (although one which helps me to see what you're getting at with the comparison): the possibility of "actual loss" doesn't seem to be limited to fields (and of course to persons); as best I understand physics, particles themselves can pop in and out of existence, thus changing "the total of existing things".

Yeah AFAIK the total energy is conserved so the loss of a field isn’t the radical kind of non-existence we seem to have only reserved for Persons….

It’s just interesting to me that the only entity for which we apply this kind of Oblivion to is the Experiencer through which Everything Else is known….just further increases my confidence in Survival [really] because upon reflection this seems rather silly/strange…

[Laird]

Yeah AFAIK the total energy is conserved so the loss of a field isn’t the radical kind of non-existence we seem to have only reserved for Persons….

We have to be careful here too, because, as Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out (and which I've just fact-checked), a field is neither physical nor energetic itself; it is an abstract (mathematical) concept which merely describes the dynamics of energy and forces. The loss of a field, then, wouldn't in and of itself be a loss of energy (although I don't have the technical knowledge to know whether it is possible for the two to be disentangled in practice; logically, it seems not: it seems that a field could only be "lost" if the energy - and force - distribution it describes is also "lost").

It’s just interesting to me that the only entity for which we apply this kind of Oblivion to is the Experiencer through which Everything Else is known….just further increases my confidence in Survival [really] because upon reflection this seems rather silly/strange…

I'm curious what you mean by this being silly/strange. I'd have chosen different words, although off the top of my head I can't think of them.

Yes, though, I agree that this bolsters confidence in survival.

We have to be careful here too, because, as Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out (and which I've just fact-checked), a field is neither physical nor energetic itself; it is an abstract (mathematical) concept which merely describes the dynamics of energy and forces. The loss of a field, then, wouldn't in and of itself be a loss of energy (although I don't have the technical knowledge to know whether it is possible for the two to be disentangled in practice; logically, it seems not: it seems that a field could only be "lost" if the energy - and force - distribution it describes is also "lost").

Yeah may[be] I've forgotten or just never learned enough physics but I see many disparate answers as to what a "field" actually is.

I'm curious what you mean by this being silly/strange. I'd have chosen different words, although off the top of my head I can't think of them.

Yes, though, I agree that this bolsters confidence in survival.

I've been thinking about this for awhile and I can't think of any entity that "ceases to exist" in the way anti-Survival adherents say a Person ceases to exist. We usually mean either a dissipation/dissolution of some Structure - like a building being demolished - OR a change in Structure such that a concept - like the favorite restaurant - is no longer held to apply.

Only Persons seem to "wink out" of existence. I suppose certain anti-Survival but also non-Materialist metaphysics preserve memories in some way, though they claim the 1st Person PoV - what I believe you call the "pure perspectival subjectivity " - is gone. It just struck me as quite odd that the Experiencer vanishes in a way that we would see as inapplicable to any other entity, even though it is the "Root Entity" by which we come to [know] all other entities.

I doubt I am saying anything novel here, and I'm sure some philosopher - [Fichte] perhaps? - has written about this already. Just that I personally haven't thought about this myself until I began to consider the Person is a Monad and how it is at least arguably illogical Monads are destroyed...

[Laird]

Yeah may[be] I've forgotten or just never learned enough physics but I see many disparate answers as to what a "field" actually is.

Just ask ChatGPT. That's what I (eventually) did.

I've been thinking about this for awhile and I can't think of any entity that "ceases to exist" in the way anti-Survival adherents say a Person ceases to exist. We usually mean either a dissipation/dissolution of some Structure - like a building being demolished - OR a change in Structure such that a concept - like the favorite restaurant - is no longer held to apply.

Only Persons seem to "wink out" of existence. I suppose certain anti-Survival but also non-Materialist metaphysics preserve memories in some way, though they claim the 1st Person PoV - what I believe you call the "pure perspectival subjectivity " - is gone. It just struck me as quite odd that the Experiencer vanishes in a way that we would see as inapplicable to any other entity, even though it is the "Root Entity" by which we come to [know] all other entities.

I doubt I am saying anything novel here, and I'm sure some philosopher - [Fichte] perhaps? - has written about this already. Just that I personally haven't thought about this myself until I began to consider the Person is a Monad and how it is at least arguably illogical Monads are destroyed...

OK, it seems that you're saying that it seems silly/strange mainly because it's new to you and you hadn't thought of it before.

I can definitely go with "strange" with respect to the very fact of the existence of this pure perspectival subjectivity that is the core of our identity. This has fascinated, awed, and amazed me since childhood.

As that implies, it's not conceptually new to me: for as long as I can remember, I've seen the self as reducible to this; reducible in the sense that we can imagine stripping away our body and still retaining our basic identity; then we can imagine stripping away our memories and personality and still retaining our basic identity; and in the end, we can strip everything away until we arrive at a pure, perspectival subjectivity. Everything else can change; it is our "looking-out-from-our-unique-perspective-ness" that ultimately defines us.

Just ask ChatGPT. That's what I (eventually) did.


OK, it seems that you're saying that it seems silly/strange mainly because it's new to you and you hadn't thought of it before.

I can definitely go with "strange" with respect to the very fact of the existence of this pure perspectival subjectivity that is the core of our identity. This has fascinated, awed, and amazed me since childhood.

As that implies, it's not conceptually new to me: for as long as I can remember, I've seen the self as reducible to this; reducible in the sense that we can imagine stripping away our body and still retaining our basic identity; then we can imagine stripping away our memories and personality and still retaining our basic identity; and in the end, we can strip everything away until we arrive at a pure, perspectival subjectivity. Everything else can change; it is our "looking-out-from-our-unique-perspective-ness" that ultimately defines us.

To be clear what is strange to me is that anti-Survival adherents believe the Experiencer will "cease to exist" in a way that nothing else within Experience will. Basically they insist on a strange - illogical? - Oblivion for Persons yet would be unlikely to accept a chair can "wink out" of existence.

The Person as just the PoV...it's not new exactly but I'd not given it much thought...