• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
I came across a really cool paper that looks at death from a phenomenological perspective while adhering strictly to naturalism as a guiding principle. It's kind of a fusion between Epicurus' conclusion about death and the peculiar logic of subjective experience, namely its sense of always-being-here, always filling in objective time gaps to create an apparent stream of consciousness. All bolding is mine.

There will be no future personal state of non-experience to which we can compare our present state of being conscious. All we have, as subjects, is this block of experience. We know, of course, that it is a finite block, but since that's all we have, we cannot experience its finitude. As much as we can know with certainty that this particular collection of memories, desires, intentions, and habits will cease, this cessation will not be a concrete fact for us, but can only be hearsay, so to speak. Hence (and this may start to sound a little fishy) as far as we're concerned as subjects, we're always situated here in the midst of experience.

Even given all this, when we imagine our death being imminent (a minute or two away, let us suppose) it is still difficult not to ask the questions "What will happen to me?" or "What's next?", and then anticipate the onset of nothingness. It is extraordinarily tempting to project ourselves--this locus of awareness--into the future, entering the blackness or emptiness of non-experience. But since we've ruled out nothingness or non-experience as the fate of subjectivity what, then, are plausible answers to such questions? The first one we can dispense with fairly readily. The "me" characterized by personality and memory simply ends. No longer will experience occur in the context of such personality and memory. The second question ("What's next?") is a little trickier, because, unless we suppose that my death is coincident with the end of the entire universe, we can't responsibly answer "nothing." Nothing is precisely what can't happen next. What happens next must be something, and part of that something consists in various sorts of consciousness. In the very ordinary sense that other centers of awareness exist and come into being, experience continues after my death. This is the something (along with many other things) which follows the end of my particular set of experiences.

[...]

As I tried to make clear above, subjectivities--centers of awareness--don't have beginnings and endings for themselves, rather they simply find themselves in the world. From their perspective, it's as if they have always been present, always here; as if the various worlds evoked by consciousness were always "in place." Of course we know that they are not always in place from an objective standpoint, but their own non-being is never an experienced actuality for them. This fact, along with the fact that other subjectivities succeed us after we die, suggests an alternative to the intuition of impending nothingness in the face of death. (Be warned that this suggestion will likely seem obscure until it gets fleshed out using the thought experiment below.) Instead of anticipating nothingness at death, I propose that we should anticipate the subjective sense of always having been present, experienced within a different context, the context provided by those subjectivities which exist or come into being.

In proposing this I don't mean to suggest that there exist some supernatural, death-defying connections between consciousnesses which could somehow preserve elements of memory or personality. This is not at all what I have in mind, since material evidence suggests that everything a person consists of--a living body, awareness, personality, memories, preferences, expectations, etc.--is erased at death. Personal subjective continuity as I defined it above requires that experiences be those of a particular person; hence, this sort of continuity is bounded by death. So when I say that you should look forward, at death, to the "subjective sense of always having been present," I am speaking rather loosely, for it is not you--not this set of personal characteristics--that will experience "being present." Rather, it will be another set of characteristics (in fact, countless sets) with the capacity, perhaps, for completely different sorts of experience. But, despite these (perhaps radical) differences, it will share the qualitatively very same sense of always having been here, and, like you, will never experience its cessation.


To deal with the anticipated objections, the author provides a thought experiment where a single person (TC, himself) is radically altered in memory and personality while asleep, becoming "TC/rad". It's not a groundbreaking idea, but I like the way he uses it to isolate what he is talking about:

Although this transformation has disrupted the personal subjective continuity imparted by a stable context of memory and personality, there is another sort of continuity or sameness, that created by the shared sense of always having been present. Such generic subjective continuity is independent of the context of memory and personality (that is, of being a particular person), and it amounts simply to the fact that, whoever wakes up feels as if they've always been here, that there has been no subjective blank or emptiness "in front" of their current experience. We can, I think, imagine going to sleep, being radically transformed, and having someone else wake up, with no worry about falling into nothingness, even though we no longer exist. The first experience of TC/rad (a radically changed TC, no longer identifiable as the same person) would follow directly on the heels of the last experience of TC. If there are no subjective gaps of positive nothingness between successive experiences of a single individual, then there won't be such a gap between a person's last experience and the first experience of his or her radically transformed successor. That first experience occurs within a context of memory and personality which establishes the same sense of always having been present generated by the original person's consciousness.

But of course the difficulty here is that it seems arbitrary, or simply false, to say that TC/rad's experience instantly follows TC's last experience if there is no connection of memory or personality, but only some bodily continuity. (And if we wish, we can imagine that drastic changes in body as well are engineered during the unconscious period, so that TC/rad looks nothing like his predecessor.) The objective facts are that TC has a last experience, then sometime later TC/rad has a first experience. But despite the lack of personal subjective continuity, despite the fact that we may decide at some point on the continuum of change, (in memory, personality, and body) that TC no longer exists to have experiences, experience doesn't end for him, that is, there is no onset of nothingness. What we have instead is a transformation of the subject itself, a transformation of the context of awareness, while experience chugs along, oblivious of the unconscious interval during which the transformation took place. It's not that TC/rad's experience follows TC's in the sense of being connected to it by virtue of memory or personality, but that there is no subjective interval or gap between them experienced by either person. This is expressed in the fact that TC/rad, like TC, feels like he's always been present. However radical the change in context, and however long the unconscious interval, it seems that awareness--for itself, in its generic aspect of "always having been present"--is immune to interruption.

He then uses this as fuel to make the same kind of conclusion about death itself, which I have come across before but never expressed in this way.

This thesis implies that even if all centers of awareness were extinguished and the next conscious creature appeared millions of years hence (perhaps in a galaxy far, far away) there would still be no subjective interregnum. Subjectivity would jump that (objective) gap just as easily as it jumps the gap from our last experience before sleep to the first upon awakening. All the boring eons that pass without the existence of a subject will be irrelevant for the subject that comes into being. Nor will they count as "nothingness" for all the conscious entities which ceased to exist. Subjectivity, awareness, consciousness, experience – whatever we call it – never stops arising as far as it is concerned.

At this point it is likely that our intuitions about experience "jumping the gap" have been stretched beyond the breaking point. We have moved from the fairly uncontroversial fact of the continuity of one person's experience (no subjective gaps in consciousness during a lifetime) to this seemingly outlandish notion that consciousness, for itself, is impervious to death or indeed to any sort of objective interruption. But let me quickly reiterate my main points in order to reinstate some plausibility.

  1. It is a mundane, although contingent, fact of life that when I die other subjects exist, hence subjectivity certainly is immune to my death in these circumstances.
  2. If I am unconscious for any length of time I don't experience that interval; I am always "present"; this is personal subjective continuity.
  3. If, after a period of unconsciousness, the transformed person who wakes up is not me there still won't be any perceived gap in awareness. The person who wakes up feels, as I did (hence "still" feels), that they've always been present. There has been no prior experience of not being present for them, nor when I stop existing do I have such an experience; this is generic subjective continuity.
  4. Death and birth are "functionally equivalent" to the sort of transformation in 3), so again there will be no perceived gap, no nothingness of non-experience into which the subject might fall. Generic subjective continuity holds across any objective discontinuities in the existence of conscious beings.

I don't know if I accept this idea fully yet, although I have believed for some time now that subjectivity operates according to a different internal logic compared to the third-person view.
 
The great thing about nothingness is it is so relaxing. Not a care in the world.
 
When you die you die, End of story.
 
https://jaced.com/2011/06/29/how-does-it-feel-to-die/
How does it feel to die?

Drowning
The “surface struggle” for breath

Heart attack
One of the most common forms of exit

Bleeding to death
Several stages of haemorrhagic shock

Fire
It’s usually the toxic gases that prove lethal

Decapitation
Nearly instantaneous

Electrocution
The heart and the brain are most vulnerable

Fall from a height
If possible aim to land feet first

Hanging
Speed of death depends on the hangman’s skill

Lethal injection
US-government approved, but is it really painless?

Explosive decompression
It takes your breath away
 
When you die you die, End of story.
No, what constitutes you is recycled into millions of things.
We do not know the relationship between existence and non-existence very correctly - Virtual particles.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, that is what religion is for. And in modern times a mix of mysticism and science, New Age philosophy. 'Virtual Nonsense'.

In the two rehab facilities I have been in death is a routine event. Not that people do not grieve when it is someone they have gotten to know but it is what it is.
 
Since the self is created by the brain and can easily be imbued with any sense of time the brain desires (as is proven every night in our dream states), I’m sure that in the moments just before death the brain probably grants us all chemical eternity and that this natural euphoric release is the basis for every story we’ve ever told ourselves regarding “life after death.” We probably do indeed see our dead relatives again, albethey figments of our brain’s imagination.

Iow, “we” can easily seem to live an eternity in the drop of one tear since all “we” are is chemicals in a neuronal algorithm.
 
"Life after death" is simply a meaningless oxymoron.

We all already know what death is like because it is exactly the state before we were conceived. Death is a state of nonexistence.

Spiritual and religious claims and ideas about survival of consciousness is the result of nothing more than a desire to continue - wish fulfillment
 
Last edited:
One thing is not really arguable if we consider ourselves organisms like other organisms. And that is that we were all once dead, and will be again.

Life is complex chemistry to varying degrees.
 
Man... would it be too much to ask for at least one of you to actually read the paper in the OP? I get that it's easier to reach into your bag of stock comments for stuff like this, but on the off chance that you're not right about everything, maybe it could be instructive to see what the guy who runs a site dedicated to scientific naturalism has to say about life after death before dismissing it as mystical nonsense.
 
I read the article. Unfortunately, that is four or five minutes of my limited life that I will never get back. The reason it took that long is that I was trying to make sense of the basis of the musings presented.

ETA:
Can you give any possible reason (other than wishful thinking) to believe that consciousness continues after death? If you believe it does then do you believe that this consciousness existed long before birth or even the birth of our ancient predecessors? Do the consciousnesses of chimps, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, wombats, etc. continue on?
 
Last edited:
If believing in some continuation of life after the body dies improves the quality of your life and helps ally fear then good for you. I say the same thing to Christians.

When my time comes I either will not end up knowing one way or the other because I will be dead, or I will be pleasantly surprised. Or I could end up with my ass on fire from exernal fiery hell.

There used to be somebody who continually started threads on science claiming quantum physics proved life after death.

Star Trek in all the TV incarnations explored possibilities of non corporeal intelligent life. Anything is possible. A self sustaining complex EM field of some sort. Some form of existence we can not see in our science is certainly possible but without any theoretical basis.

It is what scifi thrives on.

It is certainly a topic to pass the time with.

- - - Updated - - -

I read the article. Unfortunately, that is four or five minutes of my limited life that I will never get back. The reason it took that long is that I was trying to make sense of the basis of the musings presented.

ETA:
Can you give any possible reason (other than wishful thinking) to believe that consciousness continues after death? If you believe it does then do you believe that this consciousness existed long before birth or even the birth of our ancient predecessors? Do the consciousnesses of chimps, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, wombats, etc. continue on?

Some say the body is a cocoon of sorts that gives birth in a way to a spirit.
 
I read the article. Unfortunately, that is four or five minutes of my limited life that I will never get back. The reason it took that long is that I was trying to make sense of the basis of the musings presented.

ETA:
Can you give any possible reason (other than wishful thinking) to believe that consciousness continues after death? If you believe it does then do you believe that this consciousness existed long before birth or even the birth of our ancient predecessors? Do the consciousnesses of chimps, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, wombats, etc. continue on?

The gist of the article is that what is important for my survival is not the consciousness that is generated in any particular brain, including the one I call my own, but consciousness as such. As an example, he describes a situation in which he is placed into a coma and inflicted with total amnesia. When he awakens, the same brain that was providing his conscious experiences beforehand would be providing them again, but without any psychological connection to the prior state due to the total amnesia. He claims that this would be something that it is rational to anticipate happening before being placed in a coma; that is, HE should expect to wake up with no memories, rather than expecting to be annihilated forever and replaced by a "brand new" consciousness with no memories. By this reasoning, survival is not a matter of psychological connectedness to prior states.

His next move is to show that the only remaining candidate for a carrier of my survival, physical integrity, also fails to play the required role. For one thing, it is obvious that an experience is either fully my own or not mine at all; there may be gradients of intensity, dim experiences and vivid ones, but regardless of their magnitude, they are either FULLY happening to me or FULLY not happening to me. But the physical identity of an individual brain is plastic and constantly changing. It can be replaced piecemeal, duplicated, and combined with other parts until its original state is diluted into noise. There is no way to resolve what will become of "me", in terms of my survival as something that has experiences, if in addition to my total amnesia I am also physically altered during the coma. If the alteration is slight, I should still expect to awaken as myself, but as before I would be very confused, lacking any memory to associate with my current situation due to the amnesia.

But if one small change is permitted, then a succession of small changes must be permitted, otherwise we would have to imply a threshold of different-ness that would, in a flash, erase me from existence and replace me with a different consciousness altogether. This not only sounds a lot like dualism, but it seems totally arbitrary, like deciding at which specific number of hairs a person becomes bald. Baldness, like physical integrity, lies on a spectrum, but my subjective experience as a mind is all-or-nothing. So, it stands to reason that if I can expect to be the unfortunate person who awakens with total amnesia after being placed into a coma, I should also expect to be the person who awakens with even a radically altered physical makeup.

But if that's true, then what is special about the coma scenario compared to a scenario in which I never wake up from the coma, but a person with exactly the physical makeup I would have been given wakes up instead? Why should I rationally anticipate only the experiences arising from the fuzzily-defined object I call my own body, when a functionally identical one should present no barrier to the continuation of my subjective experience? If we are serious about naturalism, and do not immediately object that something would have to "jump" from one body to the next, we arrive at the conclusion that any person who is awakened after I slip into a coma has everything it takes to extend my own survival, as a consequence of the binary nature of subjectivity compared with the granularity of physical integrity and memory.
 
"Life after death" is simply a meaningless oxymoron.

We all already know what death is like because it is exactly the state before we were conceived. Death is a state of nonexistence.

Spiritual and religious claims and ideas about survival of consciousness is the result of nothing more than a desire to continue - wish fulfillment
Wait, so are you claiming that you didn't exist before your first memories? How can you know anything about what it was like before you were conceived, when your first memories begin years after that point. I see no reason to assume you understand pre-life any better than early life.
 
Memories are the self, and the self is memories. If you are placed in a coma and wake with complete amnesia, then you died, and the person who woke is a new person, who just happens to be using the same body and brain as his support system that you once used.

Consciousness is simply immediate term memory. To discuss the 'self' in the context of complete amnesia is meaningless.
 
Memories are the self, and the self is memories. If you are placed in a coma and wake with complete amnesia, then you died, and the person who woke is a new person, who just happens to be using the same body and brain as his support system that you once used.

Consciousness is simply immediate term memory. To discuss the 'self' in the context of complete amnesia is meaningless.

That's one option to take, but it strikes me as counterintuitive when you deconstruct it. What about cases of memory loss that is reversed? When previously forgotten memories resurface or are otherwise restored, does their restoration make them my memories, when beforehand they were those of "a new person"? What happens to this other person when my memories return and are re-integrated into my own consciousness? I think it's more straightforwardly coherent to instead say that remembering what was once forgotten reveals them as having always been my memories, my experiences when they occurred.

Another way to argue this is to think of the following prospect: tomorrow, I will administer a drug to you, bilby, that will give you total amnesia for a temporary period of time. During that time, I will perform unspeakable torture on your body (or the body of this "new person" you refer to). When I'm done, the effects of the drug will wear off, and all memory of the torture will fade with the drug as it leaves your system. Assume no lasting physical damage will be recorded as aches or scars--if you like, it would be a direct cranial stimulation of your pain receptors.

If you're right, you should regard this proposal as an unfortunate occurrence for that "new person", in the same way you'd view the news of a torture victim being found in some person's basement. Poor guy, but better him than me, right? Somehow, I don't think you'd feel this way about the situation, though. You would look upon the next 48 hours with the dread of being he who undergoes first the disorienting confusion of memory loss followed by the agony of torture, and knowing that both experiences would in a sense be isolated from your current self due to the lack of memory connections would not remove this feeling of anticipation. Am I wrong?
 
Back
Top Bottom