- #36
Dezepar
- 23
- 0
Originally Posted by Kerrie
At what point during life quality reduction does it fall outside the parameters of human defined living/existence? For example: A permanently comatose person with reduction to vital mechanical, and basic motor skills is by strict definition, living. However the subject's awareness of its existence is null. (Speculation of course) Although an extreme example, it can apply to milder circumstances that might be associated with complete interactive deprivation as well. Secondly, I offer the notion that the quality of your life would continue to decrease until it reduced to zero. (Physical beings or otherwise, which would ultimately require the concept of existence to be redefined.) Therefore, number 1, not maintaining the balance normally associated with the concept of living, and 2, inevitable non-existence, which is clearly not continuing to exist. I tend to believe that interaction is a vital component of the basic human survival pack. If I've assumed your definition of "existence" incorrectly Kerrie, please guide me.
olde drunk, for this train of thought, try accepting the removal of others as a constant or unchangeable property and then apply your above quoted point of view to it. (Realizing of course that your belief is rooted in you being in the drivers seat of your existence.)
Originally Posted by olde drunkyes, the quality of my life would decrease,
My first point:i submit that you can exist alone,
At what point during life quality reduction does it fall outside the parameters of human defined living/existence? For example: A permanently comatose person with reduction to vital mechanical, and basic motor skills is by strict definition, living. However the subject's awareness of its existence is null. (Speculation of course) Although an extreme example, it can apply to milder circumstances that might be associated with complete interactive deprivation as well. Secondly, I offer the notion that the quality of your life would continue to decrease until it reduced to zero. (Physical beings or otherwise, which would ultimately require the concept of existence to be redefined.) Therefore, number 1, not maintaining the balance normally associated with the concept of living, and 2, inevitable non-existence, which is clearly not continuing to exist. I tend to believe that interaction is a vital component of the basic human survival pack. If I've assumed your definition of "existence" incorrectly Kerrie, please guide me.
olde drunk, for this train of thought, try accepting the removal of others as a constant or unchangeable property and then apply your above quoted point of view to it. (Realizing of course that your belief is rooted in you being in the drivers seat of your existence.)