>>40454862
Death is just a cultural concept we defined to roughly describe a physical phenomenon.
But when we move beyond everyday life, and start to interrogate the true boundaries of the concept, it gets messy.
Why should we think the rabbit and the twink are both dead? There is another consciousness that exists in continuity with both of them. Both terminate at the same place the new one begins, the same as how a new day's consciousness begins with yesterday's consciousness falling asleep.
The only quirk is that what was two are now one, but why should that be disallowed? Can we prove the rabbit has no element in the new consciousness? Perhaps the rabbit's sense of consciousness is so rudimentary that it overlaps fully with the twinks and is effectively redundant?
Why can't we merge consciousnesses without "death" in your framework? What purpose does drawing the line there serve? Does it not lead to uncomfortable conclusions in this hypothetical universe where humans and rabbits can fuse? Would it not be more practical for the inhabitants of such an alternate universe to conclude this is a "normal" experience?
