>>12677788>You obviously exist for all eternityThat's not obvious to me. Why do you think so?
>but as a living being only in the time range that you actually walked this worldMy body does, sure. However, there is a question of whether or not that which is I is confined to my physical body. Do you think it is? Why?
>And there is nothing "before" or "after" that, that could be called "you" without stretching the meaning of that term.Why not? What about a faithful computer encoding and a simulation of me?
>For fuck's sake, it's assured that somewhere in space particles will assemble to form your exact current self all the fucking time.I don't know what kind of popsci garbage you've seen this claimed in but I'm 99% sure this is absolutely not true.
>>12677825>If I would shoot you in the head would you who typed this response still exist?That is the question at hand.
>Some form of energy/soul? Perhaps.
>I understand most people don't like the idea that life is finite but I think its like this.To me it seems more likely that I end after death, but I'm not entirely convinced yet.
>People have told many tales about life after death in the many years our species has existed and was capable of forming these thoughtsGiven that they have been wrong on so many other things I find it hard to take their claims about life after death as evidence of anything.
After all, it's more attractive for people to think afterlife exists.
>Its all a form of cope to give our existence some kind of value some kind of reasonIt's comforting to believe that the afterlife exists. That doesn't say anything about whether or not it's true. It's comforting to think that the twin prime problem is decidable, but that doesn't mean it's less likely to be decidable by the fact.
Your whole post seems like a jumbled mess of poor reasoning and little actual ideas.
