why according to human logic experience never ends

[wollet2]

there can only be 2 things
a experience
and the lack of any experience (= a non experience, although that doesnt 'really' exist by definition, its the lack of an existing thing which is experience)

a lack of experience can only be pointed to, shown to someone else that 'goes through it', but never be experienced in 1st person. because how could the lack of experience be experienced.

we say x person is unconsious and we are experiencing the whole scenery, him laying down with eyes closed, being unresponsive etc, but the x person doesnt experience anything.

you have never in your life experienced a non experience, only have figured out that you had 'been' through one after losing and regaining experience

there is always the point B when you regain experience, so that you are able to tell you 'were' not experiencing

going under a permanent non experience is logically inconceivable to the human mind, therefore any alternative that supports continuation of experience seems more reasonable, also considering that

'you' (metaphorically) were in a state of non existance (therefore no brain, no experience) before being born and out of nowhere your brain was formed and an experience rose

whos to say that after 'you' return to the same state the same cycle wont repeat. if it has happened once, it may happen again, especially after considering that a permanent non experience seems impossible to conceive. why do you think that you are so special that the phenomenon of arising experience is tied to your current 'you' only, happened once to 'you' and will never happen again

'you' are actually nothing but just a rose experience with memories that forms a temporary identity
the temporary identity will be lost with the death of your brain but the phenomenon of arising 1st person pov experiences will keep going

 

[wollet2]

@douche
if experience exists now, it will never end
it may change or it may not but it will never end.