Thread: If My Parents Had Never Had Me Would I Ever Be Born?

Assume that years ago my parents never conceived me.

Would my conciousness never come into existance, would it be put into the body of their next child or what?

Obviously, nobody really knows, but what do you think?

One of the more farfetched theories I had was that there is almost like a queue or a waiting room where you wait before you're conceived. If you're at the front of the queue then the next child to be conceived on Earth is where your conciousness is placed.

Like I say, farfetched.

Why are we human? Why were we not layed in an egg by a crow or brought into the world in a herd of cows? was I always going to be born a human, to human parents? Could I have been born into a family of animals depending on some kind of aleatory?

Discuss, homies.

Hint: Your consciousness is a delusion.

Define I.

Well the person you are, the personality traits, knowledge and morals you characterize are a mixture of genes and life experiance. With the exeption of the genetic characteristics you start life with a clean slate, ready for moulding from your peers. There have been storys about babys that have got lost in the wilderness and found years later with a pack of wolves acting just like one, walking on hands and knees, eating off carcusses without their hands etc etc. You wasnt born with the personality you have now, you developed it over time based on your lifestyle and the people in your life that you mimic. Its a proven fact for example that in some cases victims of child abuse go on to become the abusers themselves in their own children. You learn from others in your life. Also the traumas and memorys of your life influence who you are now. An example of this would be, if you had a really bad relationship it would likely make you more cautious in your next one and have changed your whole outlook and moral standing.

So my point is, that unless you are born again to the same parents you have now, and live your life pretty much the same as your current one, you will never be the same person again. The person you were at age 0 was impressionable and could have turned out completely different in a different surrounding and lifestyle.

Originally Posted by marlie

So my point is, that unless you are born again to the same parents you have now, and live your life pretty much the same as your current one, you will never be the same person again. The person you were at age 0 was impressionable and could have turned out completely different in a different surrounding and lifestyle.

I understand that, but the question is would you still be you?
Part of the answer is defining "you" and explaining what conciousness is.

EDIT: Whoops! Double post.

Originally Posted by marlie

Well the person you are, the personality traits, knowledge and morals you characterize are a mixture of genes and life experiance. With the exeption of the genetic characteristics you start life with a clean slate, ready for moulding from your peers. There have been storys about babys that have got lost in the wilderness and found years later with a pack of wolves acting just like one, walking on hands and knees, eating off carcusses without their hands etc etc. You wasnt born with the personality you have now, you developed it over time based on your lifestyle and the people in your life that you mimic. Its a proven fact for example that in some cases victims of child abuse go on to become the abusers themselves in their own children. You learn from others in your life. Also the traumas and memorys of your life influence who you are now. An example of this would be, if you had a really bad relationship it would likely make you more cautious in your next one and have changed your whole outlook and moral standing.

So my point is, that unless you are born again to the same parents you have now, and live your life pretty much the same as your current one, you will never be the same person again. The person you were at age 0 was impressionable and could have turned out completely different in a different surrounding and lifestyle.

Weird how that works out. If your father beat you, you would beat your child probably. So you are your father, and your father is you. You are both the same, yet you are both different.

to the OP: This is the kind of question that can make people go crazy.

That is a good question, and it is a hard one to answer. I don't believe in souls, but I do believe in specific consciousness, which is enough to make this really confusing. I got to thinking about his a while back when I pondered on how my mother once dated a guy who ended up later being a sort of famous actor. She broke up with that guy and got back together with the guy who ended up becoming my father. I was conceived very soon after they got back together. I thought about how the actor guy "was almost my father". Hmmm... What in the world does that mean? If that guy had become the fertilizer of that particular egg that blossomed into "me", would it still be "me"? Or if the exact sperm cell that brought me about had fertilized a different egg, would that be me? What if the same sperm cell and the same egg created babies, but not with each other? What if "I" had never been born, but a person from that egg and another person from that sperm cell existed now? Would "I" exist? I can't really answer that question. It is like asking if a wave would exist if it had been stopped ahead of time but exactly the same water formed a wave at a different time.

Here is another thought, one that was partly brought up by an Art Bell guest and expounded on by another philosopher. Let's say some supersurgeons in the future have a way of taking out every single one of your brain cells, one by one, and replacing them with some kind of other cell each. Every new cell is identical to the cell it replaces. You remain awake and aware through the surgery. After every cell exchange or certain number of exchanges, you think, "It's still me. I have been here the whole time." After the entire procedure is finished, you are thinking, "Well, it's still me. I never went anywhere," yet every cell of your brain was replaced by a new cell. Your brain is not at all the same object it was before the procedure. Is it really still you?

Now suppose that while your brain cells were being replaced by new ones, every one of your cells was being put into a new brain that is in the exact configuration your brain was in right before the surgery started. That would be the same object that was your brain, and it would be in the same state it was in. Is that you? Are there now two of you? If not, which one is the real you?

In the book The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennet, they discuss a science fiction story about a man who gets trapped on the moon. He is totally screwed, except there is a machine that can beam his exact anatomical/physiological configuration to a bio lab on Earth. The man has a dilemma. He can remain on the moon and die very soon, or he can be destroyed by the machine that takes his anatomical/physiological blueprint and beams it to the bio lab on Earth where everything about his body is copied into biological material, which will create something with the exact set up that was/is the guy. If he does that, will he exist on Earth? That person constructed on Earth will have all of his memories, emotions, personality traits, everything. This person will swear he was the guy on the moon. Is he? Should his wife react as though it is really him? Then the book talks about how it could turn out that the guy actually survived the machine on the moon and somehow makes it back to Earth years later. What then? What should the guy's wife do at that point? Should she have two husbands who are really two versions of the same husband?

The Zen-Buddhists say, "There is no 'I'." This is the kind of stuff that suggests they are at least close to being right. It also suggests the potential reality of the universal mind, meaning that there is really only one consciousness and it comes in the form of every conscious mind. A oneness seems to be suggested by those issues.

Thanks UM. Those are some intereesting thoughts. I believe my own mother almost married a millionaire once (not sure why she didn't), and I've often wondered the same thing as you and the actor, your almost-father.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Here is another thought, one that was partly brought up by an Art Bell guest and expounded on by another philosopher. Let's say some supersurgeons in the future have a way of taking out every single one of your brain cells, one by one, and replacing them with some kind of other cell each. Every new cell is identical to the cell it replaces. You remain awake and aware through the surgery. After every cell exchange or certain number of exchanges, you think, "It's still me. I have been here the whole time." After the entire procedure is finished, you are thinking, "Well, it's still me. I never went anywhere," yet every cell of your brain was replaced by a new cell. Your brain is not at all the same object it was before the procedure. Is it really still you?

Now suppose that while your brain cells were being replaced by new ones, every one of your cells was being put into a new brain that is in the exact configuration your brain was in right before the surgery started. That would be the same object that was your brain, and it would be in the same state it was in. Is that you? Are there now two of you? If not, which one is the real you?

I've been trying to get this same idea across in another thread somewhere. One of my analogies was taken from a little sitcom we have here in England calls "Only Fools and Horses". There's this really stupid character called Trigger who lives his life almost as if he is brain-dead. He is a street cleaner. He meets the local governor on the roadside one day and talls her that he has swept the streets with the same brush for 21 years and the governor congratulates his good use of government funds (because heh as not had to have a replacement sweeping brush for 21 years).

She gives him a medal for his good service to the government. After receiving it he shows it off to his friends. They all question him, "Have you honestly used that same brush for 21 years? It looks to be in good condition for 21 years of wear and tear." He then says, "Well, it's had 14 new heads and 16 new handles but it's still the same brush."

Is it though?

Originally Posted by Super Duck

Thanks UM. Those are some intereesting thoughts. I believe my own mother almost married a millionaire once (not sure why she didn't), and I've often wondered the same thing as you and the actor, your almost-father.



I've been trying to get this same idea across in another thread somewhere. One of my analogies was taken from a little sitcom we have here in England calls "Only Fools and Horses". There's this really stupid character called Trigger who lives his life almost as if he is brain-dead. He is a street cleaner. He meets the local governor on the roadside one day and talls her that he has swept the streets with the same brush for 21 years and the governor congratulates his good use of government funds (because heh as not had to have a replacement sweeping brush for 21 years).

She gives him a medal for his good service to the government. After receiving it he shows it off to his friends. They all question him, "Have you honestly used that same brush for 21 years? It looks to be in good condition for 21 years of wear and tear." He then says, "Well, it's had 14 new heads and 16 new handles but it's still the same brush."

Is it though?

lol i remember that episode that was too funny, and no of course its not the same brush.. although in his world its the same so in some form it is

Originally Posted by Super Duck

I've been trying to get this same idea across in another thread somewhere. One of my analogies was taken from a little sitcom we have here in England calls "Only Fools and Horses". There's this really stupid character called Trigger who lives his life almost as if he is brain-dead. He is a street cleaner. He meets the local governor on the roadside one day and talls her that he has swept the streets with the same brush for 21 years and the governor congratulates his good use of government funds (because heh as not had to have a replacement sweeping brush for 21 years).

She gives him a medal for his good service to the government. After receiving it he shows it off to his friends. They all question him, "Have you honestly used that same brush for 21 years? It looks to be in good condition for 21 years of wear and tear." He then says, "Well, it's had 14 new heads and 16 new handles but it's still the same brush."

Is it though?

Wow, it's easier to answer when you don't feel the need to hold onto what your ego is. That would not be the same broom. It would be a broom in the same flow of broom parts, but not the same broom. Even though that makes one issue easier to answer, it makes me wonder even harder what in the world "I" am.

Originally Posted by marlie

...and no of course its not the same brush...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That would not be the same broom.

Exactly, but try telling that to Sandform:

Code:

 Sandform: If something is repaired that doesn't make it a new item...that is my
only point. Is your computer a different computer if you write over old data? lol

Super Duck: The brush is a whole new brush. If I gave you a new head, torso, and
pairs of limbs you would have a new body would you not?

Sandform: Not if it grows from myself...It isn't a "new body" if I have my arm chopped
off and then you inject me with something that makes the arm grow. Different arm,
same body.

Super Duck: No, there is nothing organic left from the old body. It's exactly the same
concept as the brush. The handle is new and the head is new so nothing about it is
left over from the first brush.

Yeah and I want to add that the question isn't even which atoms make up a certain item or person. That is completely irrelevant. The question is whether it is the completely identical same item. And that's not determined by whether it's the same atoms but only by the chain of meaningful events that led to the phenomenon. The atoms that make up a human change all the time anyway. The question is whether he carries humanness within him, a real history as an individual interacting with the world and being the result of meaningful forces.

So all in all I would say:

- Teleportation preserves identity in all cases.
- Death/Resurrection destroys identity.
- Cloning preserves identity of the original and makes the clone identity-less/newborn.

Originally Posted by Super Duck

Exactly, but try telling that to Sandform:

So when exactly did it become a new brush super dick? When it first had an add on?

If you suppose that by adding a piece to another piece slowly over time it becomes part of the brush...even if it wasn't originally created with it, it isn't new it is just different. If you named your brush Sally...at what point would you have to give it a new name?

When does the brain become a new brain? When the first cell is rejuvenated? When things "become" a part of something it is still the same thing, it is just changed. Is your house new because you remodel the bathroom? Does it become a different house if in 50 years there have been different rooms remodeled? New pieces same house, because once it is place with something, it becomes part of it.

Since the mind is in CONSTANT change in the first damn place, your brain is and always will be you! I'm not denying that the person you once were no longer exists, I'm just denying the notion that you can say the brain isn't the original brain...because it is. The moment of the "you" is gone, but that you still exists in the collection of past actions that led to who you are. In other words, you used to be just this collections of actions, now you are this collection of actions and also this collection as well.

Simply adding one thing to an item and removing another doesn't change the status of the item, so at what point does the item become "new?"

I say changing something doesn't make it a new object, just not the same, in the same way that a shirt is still a shirt even if it is missing a button or gets a new button added on. Once you add it, it becomes part of the shirt, so while it isn't the same material, it is still the same shirt, and then when something else is added, that new button is already part of that shirt and thus the shirt only has one new item, which when added becomes part of the shirt. The definition of what the shirt "is" gets changed, thus preserving it. The shirt itself is not just the material it is made of, but all of the actions that lead up to the shirt where it is now.

The same as the brain, the brain is not what it is made of now but instead the brain is the collection all of the actions that led to now. So even if the material is new, that doesn't change the fact that it is still the same brain, because the chain of actions is what determines what an object is. When you realize that everything after the point in time that you once were is merely and additive, it becomes clear that it is not a new brain, it is simply a more effected brain.

I think the question isn't so much with the state, configuration or makeup of brains but with the meaning that we associate with phenomena subjectively. We don't focus on just one phenomenon separately, we look at it in the context of the whole. Obviously a person with an identical copy of a brain would come so close to the original person that nobody would notice, ever. The issue isn't with the "objective" similarity but with the fact that to us as humans, it not only relevant "what" we have in front of us subjectively but what kind of complete concept of a phenomenon we can associate with that.

This is why I think that some of those questions are not very usable because they are too abstract. The one with the moon is pretty good though. The point is that we want to live in a world that provides meaning.

When someone died, would we want them to be resurrected? I know that I wouldn't. Not because I'm content with the death but because that's the meaningful termination of the process of life. A resurrected person wouldn't be a substitute because the person is supposed to be dead. Our bond with the person doesn't exist through the mere existence of the persons but through the meaningful relationship. This becomes even more apparent if we were talking about a parent-child relation. A biological child is the result of countless meaningful interactions and a long history. The point isn't that the DNA or the brain carry specific properties and similarities but because the child-parent relationship is deeply meaningful to human existence.

(No, I'm not talking about someone whose heart wasn't doing anything for a couple of seconds and who got a shock back into life, but about someone who's dead for like, 2 days)

The same applies to forms of cloning and similar concepts. When we just got to know someone a day ago, we probably couldn't care less about whether it's the "same" person. But if it's a family member or something like that, this would become increasingly important. The reason is that with things such as cloning and resurrection we are interfering with the meaningful processes and concepts of human life. We are interfering with the concept of individuality. That isn't to say that objectively it is relevant, but to us as humans it's much more relevant whether the person we have in front of us is actually supposed to be there.

The question is whether it is a continuous thread of meaningful events that led to something or whether it is just a sterile product or some process we don't have anything to do with.

It is relevant to us whether stories are based on real events. It is relevant whether a chocolate pie looks like a piece of shit or like something more appealing. It is relevant whether we are talking to real persons on a forum such a this, or to a language processing supercomputer. The result and outcome of these things is always the same. What alters our perception of it is the bigger perspective, not the things themselves.

I was talking to an insane man on the streets of Memphis;

this is habitual for me and isn't uncommon in any big city.

He told me that life was but one of many, and so I interrupted the poor fellow and asked him if he were by any chance Buddhist. He said no, and yet said that his reasoning was in some way based on this.

When you die you simply move on to another body: Eg, you die and your next waking moment is being born. It's like trying to remember sleeping. It isn't blackness, just nothingness. One should wake up from this nothingness, as all nothingness comes to an end, he says. It isn't quite like the queue you talk about, but close.

I was intrigued and gave him a five dollar bill.

All these hypotheticals highlight that the continuity we call 'I' has no objective existence. At most it's an intersubjective collaboration between ourselves and our daily contacts--as Korritke seems to suggest, an intersection of relationships, including the material interactions that establish, sustain and eventually dissolve our forms.

Lacking objective existence, identity, 'I' or the self, is quite flexible. I, for instance, identify at different times to varying degrees with: this born-dying thing from a certain family, land and people; a transcarnate principle that emerges and fades in many forms; and the totality of being. I've clung to each of these to the point of error at times, but none of them is soley or ultimately me.

So to the OP, I would say the continuity in which you find yourself would certainly carry on in some form(s) had your conception been averted, and those forms would be you as much as you are now: somewhat, but not particularly.

One of the more farfetched theories I had was that there is almost like a queue or a waiting room where you wait before you're conceived. If you're at the front of the queue then the next child to be conceived on Earth is where your conciousness is placed

That is so so cute.

Why are we human? Why were we not layed in an egg by a crow or brought into the world in a herd of cows?

Awesome question. Don't expect good answers at first. Wait a while for the discussion to heat up.

[Edit]It seems I posted that too soon. After reading Universal Mind and what he had to say. I have to hand it to him. That was one response you don't see everyday. I have to respond to that later next time I get the chance.

Marlie you are on the right track but leave out the scientific cause and effect that created the environment. Random environment may not always be so random. Hence who you are may not be so random. In addition reactions may not be fixed depending on decisions made.[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So to the OP, I would say the continuity in which you find yourself would certainly carry on in some form(s) had your conception been averted, and those forms would be you as much as you are now: somewhat, but not particularly.

I think that's about the best answer there can be, combined with Korittke's point about the subjective nature of what a self is.

The experience is the being

The sight, sound, feeling, smelling, tasting are all One

Circumstances surround the manifestation of the subject of experience

Such determines the nature of the subject

Its percieved reality


The subjects are unique creations

No two are exactly the same

Objects are shared in the perception

From one subject to another


Such sharing, such proximity

These have deeper meaning, greater significance

Perpetuation of trans form manifestation

Consciousness reaching higher and higher


Subtle patterns develop

Arising to greater complexity

Self awareness growing

Originally Posted by Good as Gold

I was talking to an insane man on the streets of Memphis;

this is habitual for me and isn't uncommon in any big city.

He told me that life was but one of many, and so I interrupted the poor fellow and asked him if he were by any chance Buddhist. He said no, and yet said that his reasoning was in some way based on this.

When you die you simply move on to another body: Eg, you die and your next waking moment is being born. It's like trying to remember sleeping. It isn't blackness, just nothingness. One should wake up from this nothingness, as all nothingness comes to an end, he says. It isn't quite like the queue you talk about, but close.

I was intrigued and gave him a five dollar bill.

This could be true. While nothingness may be billions of years it will only be an instant for you. It will be like closing your eyes and right away opening them. You close 1 reality, you open another. Wonder what i'll be in a billion years. Maybe an alien gorilla on a strange smelly planet that is covered in fog.

So to the OP, I would say the continuity in which you find yourself would certainly carry on in some form(s) had your conception been averted, and those forms would be you as much as you are now: somewhat, but not particularly.

So if you are a funny guy, and you instead were conceived as a dog, you'd be a funny dog?

You're who you are and there are no "waiting lists" or people lamentating because the next soul will be a plant and not a human. Come on.

Originally Posted by Zera

So if you are a funny guy, and you instead were conceived as a dog, you'd be a funny dog?

You're who you are and there are no "waiting lists" or people lamentating because the next soul will be a plant and not a human. Come on.

Yeah...cuz I said all that stuff about souls and waiting lists and funny dogs... "Come on" and read what you're responding to.

Originally Posted by Zera

You're who you are and there are no "waiting lists" or people lamentating because the next soul will be a plant and not a human. Come on.

Proof?

if someone came back to the past and just tripped your mother your chances of being born would be so slim it wouldnt even be worth betting. and I dont see how cloning makes you live forever, you will die why'll someone who has all the characteristics of you and the same body lives on. to everyone else you will be the same but you will die.

Originally Posted by Super Duck

Assume that years ago my parents never conceived me.

Would my conciousness never come into existance, would it be put into the body of their next child or what?

Obviously, nobody really knows, but what do you think?

One of the more farfetched theories I had was that there is almost like a queue or a waiting room where you wait before you're conceived. If you're at the front of the queue then the next child to be conceived on Earth is where your conciousness is placed.

Like I say, farfetched.

Why are we human? Why were we not layed in an egg by a crow or brought into the world in a herd of cows? was I always going to be born a human, to human parents? Could I have been born into a family of animals depending on some kind of aleatory?

Discuss, homies.

If you never had a stick would it be yours?

In short: No.