What is wrong with this logic?

[User]

So lets assume mawanes memory gets erased when he turns 20 for example. To him it would seem like his life starts at 20, he has no recollection of the life before that, right? So if mawane is aware and conscious right now, he can "eliminate" or very limitedly predict the future (by excluding those futures where his memory is wiped as he could not be aware of the present if that was the case). ie. he would kind of "jump" to the point where his memory was wiped and start living from that point on. so we get following scenario:



a is point where mawane is born and b where his memory is erased, so we can agree that mawane would have no memory of time ab, right? his conscious experience starts from b and goes onward to c.

however, what if we expand this by adding another memory erasing scenarios, like this:



where b-b³ represent their own scenarios where his memory is erased, we can now again agree that mawanes experience would start from the last scenario where his memory was erased, he has no memory of b-b² or b²-b³

So we can basicly say that if there is a memory erasing scenario in your future you can only be conscious after the fact. Now you might say that kind of thing basicly never happens so what is the point? My point is that memory erasing scenario happens to all of us, its called death. So lets see what we get:



Where a is mawane birth and d is his death. How is this different from the first pictures ab timeline? Its not, death is basicly a memory erasing scenario, but you dont live after.



Here they are side by side if you didnt follow my train of thought. ab is equal to ad (in both scenarios your memory is wiped, in one by magic mind eraser and in other by death) and if in ab you didnt have conscious experience, why would you have it in ad?

Furthermore, lets make one more nice little fak:



a² is the present time there as you can see, in right now as we are in a² you make a statement that you are aware and conscious, however in the upper example you could not have that recollection as you would be "jumping" to b "instantly" with no memory of the past events, so it means only in timeline ac can you make such statements and be aware of them.

So in order to have conscious experience we need to have ac (from birth to infinity), so does this it follow you live forever? that seems to be the conclusion we can draw from this but it seems weird, so where do i make a mistake? Also make note that in this i use the terms memory and consciousness interchangeably. Its hard to determine what counts as concious (for example i had surgery done, and was "awake" the whole time talking to the doctor, but for me my experience ended when the anesthesiologist admistered the painkillers, it literally felt like the surgery is about to start and i blink my eyes and i hear the doctor saying "we are done" so was i conscious during it? i dont really know.)

ps: i dont suggest any afterlife or supernatural explanation for living forever, there are many naturalistic ways such as quantum immortality.

[ville_j]

Are you making some other assumptions which you're not mentioning? Because I really can't follow your logic predicting future or having the forthcoming memory wipe outs affect the current time? Here I draw too:


Where B is your birth

Why couldn't I state now, here and TODAY that I'm aware, because the memory swipe has not happened yet?

Interesting topic if you (or I?) can make any sense of it at all.

[A.K.B.]

Is there any scientific papers on this? Would be very crazy to see. Did not go into lengths to disprove your logic though, looks nice.

[ribot]

Well you do make a lot of assumptions and unclear definitions.

First of all, what makes death a memory eraser? The erasing of memory means to be conscious of the present, while having forgotten the past. For death to be defined as such, an afterlife is required, by definition. This seems much more similar to a prenatal conception-reincarnation, than death.

Secondly, if the memory eraser would constantly erase consciousness, which perhaps is what you mean by death, but not how you defined the memory eraser, then any events that happen after would be insignificant to Mawane. It involves only occurrences after the erasing, not before, and yes, it would render everything that happens afterwards useless to the one who has constant erasing of the memory, but not one who is re-accumulating memory. This is pretty much the scenario that most non-spiritual westerners have, I think, of death.

Thirdly, when it comes to consciousness, there is such a thing called subconscious. We are not at any mundane point of our life conscious of all our memories or knowledge, but it is selective. Furthermore, there is endless things going on behind the surface, and pretty much by anyone more unknown stuff going on behind that surface. Therefore there is quite a distinct difference between memory and consciousness, where memory is accumulated recreation or potential recreation of past experiences, and consciousness the currently going on observer-mechanism of our existence.

[Bludek]

Ok, I have different question, but this topic felt fine for it and I did not want to make new topic for it. Just follow my thoughts:

Imagine world, where showing your butthole in public is as normal as showing your hands. Also in this world eating would not be a plesant experience and food would smell horribly. In other words you would have to eat to survive, but noone would really like it. On the other hand, poop would smell great.

The question is: do you think, that in this world people would eat in small rooms designed just for eating and they would defecate in public? Or are there more factors why this behaviour would be still unacceptable?

Or is there anything wrong with this logic?

[Madness]

Yeah, I think it would work just like that. There would be "restaurants" with toilet bowls instead of tables and people would go there to have a talk and shit with their family or friends after an exhausting day at work. If someone was hungry, they would simply nip to the loo (a small room with a couple of tables for drinking and a cubicle for eating).