without being dead?
is there such a thing as a walking dead?
please tell me
An android that is not conscious, but walks around according to programming, rather than will, would be dead without being dead because it was never alive.
Sleepwalkers are basically dead without being dead. The same is true if theyâre lying in bed and havenât woke up yet.
We donât end when our body dies. Thatâs why we remember our dreams (at least one kind of them, anyway).
I doubt it. The body could somehow be animated with robotics or other things, but without a living mind then itâs just a dead body. Like a zombie.
The mind is what matters. The mind is the self, and although this does stray into the deep biologies of the body the primary emphasis is on the non-biological mentality. The structures of energies in tectonic arrangements stacked and spiralled fractally in and through themselves in ways we could never possibly unravel, creating self-referenced points of contact with pure truths. And being able to store those experiences and re-experience them and build upon them in newer ways.
Can a person be dead without being dead? Well maybe they can feel like they are dead. That could happen if someone experienced a huge loss or great pain, maybe. But that would only be a metaphor, a kind of healing or obscuring image to keep the reality at bay or at least make it palatable. To think oneself is already dead would be, at best, a kind of noble lie and sort of psychological defense mechanism. Because if one is really dead then there is no one there to âknow they are deadâ. Hence death has no consciousness and no awareness of itself. But humans can imagine death and understand it is a fact of reality and will happen to them someday. So we can make use of and even abuse the idea of death for lots of purposes.
Anyway that was a long rambling answer to your simple question⌠sorry. Hope something in there contributed to your topic.
Is anyone, truly, alive?
If we define life as we would immortality⌠then are we not all equally dead?
Iâm afraid itâs impossible to be dead. After dying, there is no subject the predicate âdeadâ can describe, for the subject who dies has ceased to be entirely and therefore canât be described.
The statement âheâs deadâ makes no sense.
Of course itâs possible to be dead. âDeadâ means not living. When a living body stops being alive it becomes a dead body.
You might say that âyouâ as a living thinking being cannot be dead, and yeah, obviously. That would be like saying âa living thing can be deadâ which is clearly a self-contradiction. But no one is actually saying that, because that would be stupid.
Either the self/mind/soul or whatever somehow survives after the body dies, in which case that person is still alive just in another way that we donât really know much about, or their mind/etc just vanishes upon the death of the body. In which later case it would be accurate to say that the living person died, as in they no longer are alive. To say âhe is deadâ is just another way of saying âhe diedâ.
.
Being dead without being dead is a modern woe⌠food, medications, vaccinations, otc drugs, all are designed to dis-able the masses.
Avoid those things / avoid becoming a walking dead.
.
Hope that helps/hope your alright?
1 Like
Yes and yes, kinda. Perhaps a âwalking deathâ might be more appropriate to effectively convey the sensation. For some, misery is their primary remaining identity. Not an outward sort by intention, but these have an inner turmoil that seeps out through the cracks in their otherwise reasonably effective training.
Sadly the type of society we live in today conditions most people into servitude to shallow existents and mere images, surface renderings that are supposed to be deep because they are painted to look like that despite existing on a flat surface. Deeper tectonics are lacking in most cases. Just read an old book (as I say that, thinking of the book I just opened up again which was published in the 1960s, how can that be considered âoldâ? Itâs literally not even that long ago. There are plenty of people alive right now to remember the 1960âs) and see how much has changed since then. Different thinkers have different ways of describing it, I like Marcuseâs formulation of the notion of technological rationality and one-dimensionalization. This is quite accurate. The one I like even more is Heideggerâs notion of techne as the disclosure of hidden truths/natures by the developing relationship between man and his technologies, which are really relationships between man and nature itself. Which of course collapses into a whole series of self-relations. But thatâs being a bit optimistic isnât it? Marcuse is probably closer to the truth, although a little optimism certainly doesnât hurt TOO much.
And what if Descartes could be proven to be right after all? What says to a man who promises to think through his existence, until and beyond he becomes cognoscenti that he has really gone into the great beyond? Can he actually know when his vitals have stopped, and flat lined for a significant time, enough to pronounce him gone? How significant is measured time on a machine (techne) that could not measure a glimpse into an indeterminate an unending time that people on acid(seem to have experienced? Reports of people who survived such death have reported altered states which correspond to the feeling of timeless yet impersonal clâconsciousnessâ if it can be called that? Is the phrase âtime is of the essence another clue as to these kinds of thoughts?
So Descartesâ cogito can also be classified as a before and after cognitive experience, but the the question arises, before what and after what?
Death? The circularity of that is oddly a recreation of the initial pronouncement that the essential proceeds the existential derivation of its own question. So, circularity is again, reminiscent of a recreation an eternal recreation of formidable elements, which resound the same formal elements of an original thema. But if so, if the relation between existence and its reigned fixed foundation is merely a cyclical affair, then that becomes itâs own foundation, that is the unlimited foundation of cyclical recurrence becomes itâs limited eternal existential revision.
In such a scene , the thought , qua âconscious manifestation becomes itâs own unlimited foundation, then the cogito is such a recreation, albeit currently manifested by artificially induced intelligence.
In such a scheme, âdeathâ, becomes the natural, pre simulated affect of what ever it came after itâs state of simulation. Simulation becomes the effect of crossing the ânaturalâ boundaries of perceiving ârealityâ
Skepticism for its own sake is only useful for noobs, those early into the whole philosophy thing. Yes it may be something of a ânecessaryâ step (I put that in quotes because it would certainly only be necessary for some, not all truth-seekers) at the beginning of oneâs journey into becoming philosophical, but I mean⌠most people like that I know are stuck in it forever, with no hope of escape.
Any philosopher/thinker/artist who invents or glorifies, based on his own supposed position of authority, what amounts to a soul-trap that most who fall into it will never escape from, hardly merits anything in my book.
But feel free to not concern yourself with anything I say. That is part of the beauty of philosophy, rather of truth and even life itself. As one great philosopher said, perhaps the greatest although that remains to be seen, âThere is one ultimate power on which every other human power rests, and which no one can take away from you: the power to tell everyone else to go fuck off.â