There is a fallacy about life and existence that's common to normie drones and other robots who claim themselves to be incels. I'll call it the "Limited Lifespan Fallacy"
The "Limited Lifespan Fallacy" is the fallacious belief that all conscious organisms have only one life, and once that life ends, they stay "dead" for eternity, never to regain "consciousness" again
There are three major issues with the "Limited Lifespan Fallacy"
Issue 1: A common misconception about conscious experience
The conscious of the human operates by a restricted perspective, which means the conscious of the human is suspectible to uncertainty about the existential conditions of any thing or being that isn't within the range of its restricted perspective. The being of consciousness has no discernible form. This means it is impossible to observe the externalization of consciousness. Basically it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty that consciousness has affected anything in existence other than yourself
Thus you cannot be absolutely certain that you know the conscious state of any being other than yourself. At best, you can be almost certain, and reduce your sense of doubt about the conscious state of another being, by determining whether their body responds to stimuli and whether the body has a pulse. Still, this doesn't determine with 100% certainty that a being (other than yourself) is conscious for reasons already stated
So if someone dies, it doesn't prove that their conscious situation was affected by their death, because:
It's this simple. The externalization of consciousness, which is consciousness beyond the self, is a mystery. All notions of externalized consciousness are ultimately speculative to some degree. There's no way to be truly sure that there is a conscious being other than yourself. Thus it wouldn't be silly or illogical to suppose there is potential for consciousness to wirelessly transition into a new living body after the old body dies (Anyone who objects this possibility is coping and knowingly lying to themselves)
Issue 2: What is the ultimate proof of life?
What is life? How do you define life? If you say proof of life is determined by the presence of heartbeat, that may be a reasonable criteria. But the driving force of life seems to be contingent on the notion of self-mobility - If it moves by itself, it may be deemed a living thing for that very reason. But nothing moves by itself. There is always a driving force to the mobility of something
Let's hypothesize and say there's a force that causes any affected object to move, but suppose this force is not electromagnetic nor gravitational. How would you determine that an object has life if it were to be moved by a force that's neither electromagnetic nor gravitational? Magic? Paranormal? That's the issue - A proof of life is restricted to scientific criteria. It doesn't account for the absurd or unintelligible possibility, like being "isekai'd off". What it means to be alive is ultimately based on a restricted criteria (i.e. a science-based criteria). Hypothetically there may be a world where some being has motion, and the driving force to motion isn't a physical force. You might dismiss it and be like "It doesn't matter because it's otherworldly and not real because it defies science". But it ultimately means your understanding of what defines life is limited, as your criteria for defining life is restricted, and isn't as inclusive as it hypothetically could b
Issue 3: The primal fear is the fear of the unfamiliar and the unpredictable, not the fear of losing a valued property
The fundamental reason why animals fear death is not because they value life, but because they are uncertain about what will become of their "identity" or "consciousness" after the death of their biological organs. If all animals knew exactly what will happen to their "identity" or "consciousness" after they die, depending on what would happen, there would be no logical reason for animals to fear death. The fundamental fear in animals isn't the fear of losing a valued property --- It is the fear of being exposed to unfamiliar situations, where the events have a perceived unpredictability about them
The "Limited Lifespan Fallacy" is the fallacious belief that all conscious organisms have only one life, and once that life ends, they stay "dead" for eternity, never to regain "consciousness" again
There are three major issues with the "Limited Lifespan Fallacy"
Issue 1: A common misconception about conscious experience
The conscious of the human operates by a restricted perspective, which means the conscious of the human is suspectible to uncertainty about the existential conditions of any thing or being that isn't within the range of its restricted perspective. The being of consciousness has no discernible form. This means it is impossible to observe the externalization of consciousness. Basically it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty that consciousness has affected anything in existence other than yourself
Thus you cannot be absolutely certain that you know the conscious state of any being other than yourself. At best, you can be almost certain, and reduce your sense of doubt about the conscious state of another being, by determining whether their body responds to stimuli and whether the body has a pulse. Still, this doesn't determine with 100% certainty that a being (other than yourself) is conscious for reasons already stated
So if someone dies, it doesn't prove that their conscious situation was affected by their death, because:
- There was no way for you to determine with absolute certainty whether the person was conscious before they died
- Even if the person was conscious before they died, there's no way for you to ascertain beyond all doubt, exactly what happened to their consciousness after death (as the externalized form of consciousness cannot be observed)
It's this simple. The externalization of consciousness, which is consciousness beyond the self, is a mystery. All notions of externalized consciousness are ultimately speculative to some degree. There's no way to be truly sure that there is a conscious being other than yourself. Thus it wouldn't be silly or illogical to suppose there is potential for consciousness to wirelessly transition into a new living body after the old body dies (Anyone who objects this possibility is coping and knowingly lying to themselves)
Issue 2: What is the ultimate proof of life?
What is life? How do you define life? If you say proof of life is determined by the presence of heartbeat, that may be a reasonable criteria. But the driving force of life seems to be contingent on the notion of self-mobility - If it moves by itself, it may be deemed a living thing for that very reason. But nothing moves by itself. There is always a driving force to the mobility of something
Let's hypothesize and say there's a force that causes any affected object to move, but suppose this force is not electromagnetic nor gravitational. How would you determine that an object has life if it were to be moved by a force that's neither electromagnetic nor gravitational? Magic? Paranormal? That's the issue - A proof of life is restricted to scientific criteria. It doesn't account for the absurd or unintelligible possibility, like being "isekai'd off". What it means to be alive is ultimately based on a restricted criteria (i.e. a science-based criteria). Hypothetically there may be a world where some being has motion, and the driving force to motion isn't a physical force. You might dismiss it and be like "It doesn't matter because it's otherworldly and not real because it defies science". But it ultimately means your understanding of what defines life is limited, as your criteria for defining life is restricted, and isn't as inclusive as it hypothetically could b
Issue 3: The primal fear is the fear of the unfamiliar and the unpredictable, not the fear of losing a valued property
The fundamental reason why animals fear death is not because they value life, but because they are uncertain about what will become of their "identity" or "consciousness" after the death of their biological organs. If all animals knew exactly what will happen to their "identity" or "consciousness" after they die, depending on what would happen, there would be no logical reason for animals to fear death. The fundamental fear in animals isn't the fear of losing a valued property --- It is the fear of being exposed to unfamiliar situations, where the events have a perceived unpredictability about them
Last edited:
