'Poofed' into existence from nothing?
There is a generally held belief (especially among atheists, antinatalists, nihilists, etc) that one essentially spontaneously came into existence at their birth. People speak of "being brought into existence", "coming from nothing", "being plucked out of non-existence". People speak of "potential persons", or say things like, "Why should I fear death? The 14 billion years of non-existence before my birth didn't bother me in the slightest. Returning to that state is nothing to fear."
The general idea here is that there is a world, and there is non-existence. Prior to ones birth into the world, one was in a state of non-existence, and was somehow plucked or pulled out of that state into being. Antinatalists here speak of not being asked for consent prior to their birth, before being pulled into existence. People think of themselves as not existing in any sense prior to their birth. It's very magical. As if one just 'poofed' into existence at their birth, from a prior state of nothingness. As if a conditioned being just spontaneously appeared from non-condition.
But this is incoherent. We are born of the world and are part of it. There is just the world. As worldly beings we can use words like "non-existence", and "nothinginess", but these are not more than worldly concepts. It is an error in thought to mistake these worldly concepts for actual things or states (which is what we do when we talk about coming from nothing, or not existing in any sense prior to our birth). One is not some separate being from the world, forced into a life from nothing, only to return once ones body ceases to function. Rather, there is just a world, with it's various causes and conditions. One didn't come from nothing into the world, instead, various causes and conditions in the world brought a birth, within that world. You didn't come from nothing, into being. Instead, being is manifesting itself as you.
This has many implications in terms of what happened prior to ones birth, where one came from, what happens when you die, etc.
The general idea here is that there is a world, and there is non-existence. Prior to ones birth into the world, one was in a state of non-existence, and was somehow plucked or pulled out of that state into being. Antinatalists here speak of not being asked for consent prior to their birth, before being pulled into existence. People think of themselves as not existing in any sense prior to their birth. It's very magical. As if one just 'poofed' into existence at their birth, from a prior state of nothingness. As if a conditioned being just spontaneously appeared from non-condition.
But this is incoherent. We are born of the world and are part of it. There is just the world. As worldly beings we can use words like "non-existence", and "nothinginess", but these are not more than worldly concepts. It is an error in thought to mistake these worldly concepts for actual things or states (which is what we do when we talk about coming from nothing, or not existing in any sense prior to our birth). One is not some separate being from the world, forced into a life from nothing, only to return once ones body ceases to function. Rather, there is just a world, with it's various causes and conditions. One didn't come from nothing into the world, instead, various causes and conditions in the world brought a birth, within that world. You didn't come from nothing, into being. Instead, being is manifesting itself as you.
This has many implications in terms of what happened prior to ones birth, where one came from, what happens when you die, etc.
Comments (24)
Quoting Inyenzi
This is very Wittgenstein'ian. Recall the first proposition of the Tractatus. The world is everything that is the case. And what the case is, is a state of affairs that can be represented pictorially. Now, assume that existence is the picture here and things like nothingness are nonsensical.
What do you think?
When someone says ''nothingness before birth'' s/he's referring to the fact that we didn't/can't experience anything at all before we're born. In a sense we popped into existence at birth and some might say even later to, say when you're 5 or 6 years old, the earliest memories of experiencing something of this world.
You're talking about something else entirely. I agree that a Barbie doll is, in some way, already existent in the rubber and plastic material that go into constructing one BUT the form that is recognizable as a Barbie comes into being at a particular point in time and will disintegrate at another.
Not necessarily.
Maybe you did and you can, but you just don't remember.
Consider this: At birth, you pass through a sieve, which leaves some qualities out and some qualities in.
That makes sense. We hardly, at least I don't, remember what we did and wore a few weeks ago and yet I did exist.
Nonetheless, the point I was making is that experiencing the world through the five senses and interpreting these sensations is a key part of the definition of existence for people who claim we were nonexistent before birth.
Understandable.
As to, did we exist before this?
I'd consider it as existing in another 'state' or 'frame', moreso than existing; considering the aforementioned definition of existence is limited by a few senses.
We're like a man spinning in place; our view changes, but we stay in the same spot.
I don't how what you say sits with what people seem to call Emergence which, if I understand correctly, basically claims that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. On this view consciousness is a different layer of reality arising from a particular configuration of matter (brain). Doesn't this mean we, consciousness, didn't exist before the brain formed?
The whole is the sum of its parts plus itself.
Think of it like this: You cut up a square in to four parts. How many squares are there? Five; four little squares (parts) and one big square (whole).
Now, did 'this' consciousness exist prior to the brain being formed? Probably.
Was it, for lack of a better word, on - prior to the brain being formed? Probably not.
If you take consciousness to be light, you may think of the brain as a light switch.
It doesn't determine the existence of consciousness, but whether it is evident or not.
Very, very interesting. Yet, in your view there has to be that switch which makes, in this case, consciousness evident. In other words something additional is required, like fuel/the driver to get the car moving. This may be the requirement people stress on when talking about existence/non-existence.
What I'm saying is you've given a different perspective but haven't solved the problem.
Quoting Inyenzi
It is a mistake all right, but who actually makes that mistake? When I say that I did not exist prior to my birth, I do not necessarily commit myself to such a self-contradictory notion as existing in a state of nonexistence - that is just your uncharitable interpretation.
There is a general theme, in antinatalist thought especially, that children (including themselves) were essentially pulled from non-condition into a state of being at their birth (or conception, or what have you). That is, before their existence there was non-condition, then at birth somehow they magically exist in a conditioned state ('poofed into being from nothing'), and at physical bodily death there will be non-condition again. As if one is viewing their life as some blip between Nirvana. It is incoherent. We are born of, and are part of the world. We do not come from somewhere non-wordly, and we will not return to somewhere non-wordly at death.
Due to various causes and conditions the world is manifesting itself as this very conscious experience. From the perspective of this reified ego that thinks it is distinct from the world I can ask questions like, "what was I before my birth? What will I be after death? Should I reproduce and inflict life on other egos? Why should I fear death when beyond it I won't exist?" But this is incoherent. We are entirely of, and are sustained by the world. At death we will not 'become' non-conditioned again (language somewhat fails here), all the can really be said is the causes and conditions in the world that were manifesting themselves as conscious experience (that we delusionally think of as me and mine, and distinct from the world entirely) have shifted and changed.
Of course the idea that one in some sense actually existed (as an ego? as potential?), located in a state of non-existence prior to ones birth is incoherent, but I am trying to make a deeper point about how we are in no sense distinct from the world.
So an antinatalist might say something like, "it is immoral to bring children into the world, because life contains harms and non-existence never harmed anybody." But this is to in some sense reify non-existence. Children (including ourselves) are not brought into the world, or into existence, or into being. Rather (to speak poetically) they are grown of the world. In reproducing, we creatively manifest the world in a particular way, growing, nurturing, sustaining and enculturing the child. The child is not something over and above, or separate from the ongoing particular way in which the world is manifesting itself. So this antinatalist talk of potential persons and consent, and non-existence is incoherent. And so is the way in which atheists speak of death (as if one just 'poofs' into existence, lives a lifetime and then is annihilated at death).
As a side note, I still think there is an antinatalist argument to be made over whether we should engage in the creative practice of baby making and child rearing (or say, whether we should push or nudge the world to manifest itself as a baby through changing or controlling various conditions in the world). But to speak of potential children, consent, etc is to reify both the child and by extension ourselves as something over and above the particular way or form in which the world is manifesting. I had neither existence nor non-existence prior to my birth, I am nothing over and above the way in which the world is manifesting/taking form.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, so mentally I can scroll through my memories autobiographically to my earliest, and then place non-condition or non-existence prior, and I can project forward and do the same beyond my death. As if there was non-condition, then a lifetime poofed into existence, and at death is non-condition again. At a surface level, from the perspective of an autobiographical self this makes some sense. Annihilation before an autobiographical lifetime, and annihilation after. But in an ultimate sense it is incoherent.
Quoting TheMadFool
Or, to use an analogy of a flame, fuel and heat and oxygen come together and flames arise. If a flame could have a perspective it might think that prior to this burning there was non-existence, and once the flame goes out it will be annihilated, as if the flame were something over and above, or separate from worldly burning.
I don't think such a view is as incoherent as opposing views are speculative. If rationality is maintained evidence is a priority and that's what's lacking.
Nonetheless we may be poetic or creative in our approach and that can make a person see his own existence prior to his/her birth in the food that fed his parents or the seed from which the food grew etc. It's a beautiful way of looking at reality - to identify oneself, one's existence, with the world and the cosmos itself.
Actually the idea is that prior to conception, there is no "one" in any state. Conception creates one. It doesn't create one "out of nothing." It creates one out of sperm and an egg. That's not nothing.
Now, suppose we swapped out 'creates' for 'transmutes'.
How do you go aboutQuoting Terrapin Station
then?
? Using "transmute" instead doesn't change anything except we'd substitute that word. The materials in question are transmuted (not from nothing). "One" is those transmuted materials once that occurs.
Quoting Terrapin Station
You're saying that there's no state of being prior to conception.
And yet...
Quoting Terrapin Station
But we'd be creating something, by changing its state of being, wouldn't we?
No state of being re you as you, correct. That doesn't mean no state of being of anything. The stuff that becomes you when it's in the right structure, undergoing the right processes, exists.
Quoting Shamshir
When we create or transmute things, yes. Again, the idea isn't that something is coming from nothing in this scenario. It's that something is coming from something. It's just the case that prior to that point, there's no "you" to speak of.
But considering 'you' are just the frame or composition of different things, you do exist prior to transmutation - even if in a state of void.
Now I understand that equating 'you' with the current state of 'you' is nigh impossible through constant flux; but if you were to view 'you' as the process, rather than the product, then every instance of 'you' is 'you' in part, whereas there is a whole 'you' that twists into these instances.
Which in turn allows for a 'you' - prior, during and post transmutation.
No, you don't. You don't exist until a particular structure/process of materials does.
Quoting Shamshir
You're not identical from moment to moment. There's no overarching identical thing.
In any event, you do not exist as such until a certain structure/process of materials does.
It's just like the fact that a car doesn't exist until the raw materials are put together in a particular manner. Surely you do not believe that every future invention exists already?
I do. For the same reason that the end of a movie exists before it is reached.
Quoting Terrapin Station
But I am a part of everything.
So if everything exists at all times, so must I, in part, exist at all times.
But this is the way antinatalists mean it. It is the "autobiographical lifetime" sense of "something", not the physical constituents themselves. As @SophistiCat said, you're making an uncharitable (and literal) interpretation when an antinatalist says "forced into being". A lot of it is about possibility and consciousness. The possibility for any fertile couple to procreate exists. By conceiving and birthing a child, the child will "exist" in the world. At this point, whether the child has secondary consciousness or self-awareness matters not. It also doesn't matter that a child develops over a lifetime using social cues and context. Due to the fact that our culture treats fully birthed babies as properly human beings, that is where antinatalists draw the line as to what it means to be "born". So, if that is where the marker starts, the question is, "How did the child become born?". Well, that would be the whole procreating part. So procreation minus some complication or abortion, will lead to being born.. That is the "forced" into existence. Its shorthand for a bunch of processes that took place to create a child where the child did not have to be created from that couple. By deciding not to procreate, a new child would not be "born" from that couple. That is one less life of suffering. If another couple decides not to, that is two less lives suffering. Millions of people deciding not to have children and that is that much less suffering.
Now an objection would be that there would still people living and thus someone is suffering so who cares if more people are born and experience it. I just don't see one person's suffering as a stand-in for other potential suffering that did not get manifested. Those are separate occurrences of experiencers of suffering. I am not solipsistic with this, meaning I don't think that only one person needs to suffer and the whole thing is ruined. Also, remember, I see antinatalism as rebellion against the tyranny of existence itself. The forced nature of either killing oneself (through starvation or suicide) or aligning oneself with life's conditions are both bad choices to foist on a person (by procreating them in the first place).
The end of a movie only exists in the sense that it's encoded on a disc, or printed on film, etc. Believing that future inventions exist already is, well, I'll refrain from applying an adjective to it. ;-)
You're not in a vacuum isolated from other things. If that's what you're getting at there. What that has to do with anything we're talking about, well, who knows.
Quoting Shamshir
Which it certainly does not.
Which would mean we certainly don't exist.
Oh, well.
Because?
This is not the prevailing view in psychology. Rather, the tabula rasa model, first advocated by Locke, and experimentally explored by Piaget, is the most dominant.
In this model, consciousness and self consciousness are later products of coherent logical deduction, long after birth. At birth, one experiences a medley of sense experiences, without being being able to differentiate which of those are of the infant's body, and which are stimuli from outside it. Over time, the infant learns progressively to differentiate between inner and outer sense experiences, and then, after much, much, much more time, to deduce that there is a self, and attach experiences to consciousness.