Continuation of Consciousness after Death
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last
 Continuation of Consciousness after Death | |
|
senbdib
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 21, 2007 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 51 |
 #1
Subject: Continuation of Consciousness after Death Hey everyone. I recently read an extremely interesting essay proposing the continuation of subjectivity after the death of the individual, called "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity," by Thomas W. Clark, the director of the Center for Naturalism. The concept is called "generic subjective continuity," and another writer who independently came up with the same theory (Wayne Stewart in Metaphysics by Default) calls it "existential passage." The reason I didn't post this in the Religious Philosophy sub-forum is because the argument is framed in entirely naturalistic, materialistic terms. Here is a link to the essay if you wish to read it for yourself: http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm. I'm not nearly as eloquent as Mr. Clark, but I will summarize the main points. First, he refutes the conception of death leading to an eternity of "nothingness." He claims that all of our experience is one continuous block of experience - when we are in deep sleep, heavily drugged, knocked out or in any other various form of unconsciousness, we are not experiencing this lack of consciousness, and so our subjectivity has no gaps. So neither will we experience nothingness after death, because our experience is bound in the confines of our subjectivity. The basis for his argument is a thought experiment: imagine you fall into a deep, unconscious sleep for a thousand years (think cryogenic time-travel, sci-fi style), or even a million or billions or for the duration of several cycles of the universe, and then wake up. From your perspective, you will still be alive and have the same sense of "you," or your self, always having existed, which you have through all your conscious existence. Clark writes that "consciousness, as a strictly physical phenomenon instantiated by the brain, creates a world subjectively immune to its own disappearance. It is the very finitude of a self-reflective cognitive system that bars it from witnessing its own beginning or ending, and hence prevents there being, for it, any condition other than existing." Now imagine that, during this monumental sleep, something happens inside of your brain, fundamentally changing your personality and other characteristics, to the point that you are not even recognizable. Imagine that you don't even have memories of your past self. Your past identity has been annihilated. "You" as you once were don't exist anymore, but a subjectivity still exists, and there is unquestionably a continuation of experience, which Clark calls "generic subjective continuity." He uses this though experiment to propose the continuation of experience after death: "Ordinary death and birth amount, I think, to such radical transformations of subjectivity, except that there is no obvious candidate for a successor. My point is, however, that we don't need such a candidate to insure the generic continuity of experience. We need only see that the continuity is that of subjectivity itself, abstracted from any particular context, and it finds concrete expression in the fact that none of us has ever experienced (or will ever experience) not being here." I am not completely sold on this idea, for one. The thought experiment is very intriguing, and raises questions about the nature of subjectivity, self, and death, but I think Clark left a bit of a gap between the thought experiment and his conclusion. I am having a lot of difficulty conceptualizing both. I think the whole thing could be clarified more if the non-existence of the self and the imagined existence of consciousness were explored in relation to generic subjective continuity. I'd like to hear what you guys think. Edited by senbdib on 06/12/10 - 5:52 PM |
|
unenlightened
armature righter  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Location: Wales Total Topics: 67 Total Posts: 8563 |
#2
In some sense it is quite plain that consciousness continues after death to anyone who has been to a funeral. If one considers consciousness purified, as it were, of memory and habit, pure subjectivity, there is no 'my consciousness' distinct from 'your consciousness', there is only a generic subjectivity. And one can no longer talk about it persisting through time or ending,it seems to me. Rather it always 'is' in the present - time being a construction of thought and memory along with identity. It is the sense of identity persisting through time that inevitably comes to an end, since that is an idea that one becomes attached to. Continuing and ending go together I feel, one cannot have one without the other. The trick is to end it at once, rather than wait for the body to wear out, and then one can start to live instead of trying to preserve one's life. |
|
Veritas Vincit
icy hot  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 07, 2010 Location: The True North Total Topics: 73 Total Posts: 3523 |
#3
Thank you for pointing this excellent thought experiment out for readers. I came across it a while ago, and I can find little to disagree with. I'm not sure why you thought there was a gap between his argument and his conclusion. I think the conclusion flows very well from the argument. I think this is a very useful way of looking at consciousness and self. We make much of our individuality and uniqueness, but I agree with Clark, that we are merely variations on a theme. Our lives are fleeting and ephemeral. As fragile as a bit of spider's web, a poet might muse... I've had a similar view for decades. When I finally shrugged off the religious faith that I was brought up with, people used to ask me if I still believed in an afterlife. My answer was, "Sure, there's life after death. After I die, others go on living!" His concept of "generic subjectivity" is interesting. I've had similar thoughts. It does have a mystical feel to it, but is it? It's not verifiable, so it's not within the realm of science. I think it does provide us with a certain way of looking at our fellow humans and fellow creatures. If "generic subjectivity" is mystical at all, it is far less so than reincarnation. It makes far more sense from a naturalist, materialist viewpoint. As for any experience of the void, we need not fear it, as it is circular nonsense. We cannot have an "experience of nothingness". The "place we go to" when we die is the same "place we came from" when we were born. You do remember that place, don't you? 
|
|
senbdib
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 21, 2007 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 51 |
#4
I didn't mean that there was a logical gap, just that there is something left unexplained or unexplored. Basically the essay left with many more questions than answers. At the moment, I am aware that my consciousness is not an entity, nor is my self, and the only reason it seems as such is because of my memories and my "ego," if you accept the use of that word. My death will be the death of an organism, and the "death" of a consciousness is impossible because it never lives... you might say that our "self" is constantly dying, after every infinitesimal present moment. I am also aware that other subjectivities exist at the same time, also as purely physical phenomena. But, I am unable to experience them regardless of the actual nonexistence of me as a distinct entity from everyone else, and I can't understand why death should be any different. Is Clark saying that death frees us from our current subjective imprisonment within the confines of our own perceived consciousness? In that case, is death followed by the experience of one other individual? Or all individuals? Or even every individual, experienced by the "subject" one at a time? I guess you could say that it is impossible to conceptualize what happens after death, but to propose that it is followed by the experience(s) of another or other subjectivity/ies and then not explain how is a little confusing to me. And what of other animals? Is our death followed by the subjective experience of a dust mite, and vice versa? And things that straddle the fence between life and non-life? If consciousness doesn't really exist objectively, then it's kind of hard to draw the line for what organisms have a consciousness. What about prokaryotic bacteria and algae? Most likely I've completely missed the point and am going about this all wrong, but these are the things that come to my mind. I'm not discounting the theory, just very confused!  It's also interesting that you mention reincarnation, because I found myself comparing generic subjective continuity to the Buddhist notion of reincarnation. Buddhists quite logically don't believe in a soul, but believe in the continuation of experience after death nevertheless, which I've always found contradictory but in this context is starting to make a little more sense. |
|
Naitsabes
Resident  Usergroup: Deactivated By Request Joined: May 12, 2010 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 136 |
#5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p29MG7wn4F8 |
|
Veritas Vincit
icy hot Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 07, 2010 Location: The True North Total Topics: 73 Total Posts: 3523 |
#6
senbdib wrote: No matter in which direction you look, there are always more questions than answers.I didn't mean that there was a logical gap, just that there is something left unexplained or unexplored. Basically the essay left with many more questions than answers. Is Clark saying that death frees us from our current subjective imprisonment within the confines of our own perceived consciousness? I don't think he's saying that at all. Consciousness, in my view, is what you make of it. It can seem like imprisonment, it you insist on seeing it that way.In that case, is death followed by the experience of one other individual? The phrase "followed by" is not quite it. A person dies and others live on.It's also interesting that you mention reincarnation, because I found myself comparing generic subjective continuity to the Buddhist notion of reincarnation. Buddhists quite logically don't believe in a soul, but believe in the continuation of experience after death nevertheless, which I've always found contradictory but in this context is starting to make a little more sense. I'm not well versed on Buddhism or reincarnation. Perhaps the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is like generic subjectivity, but I think other concepts of reincarnation presuppose the existence of a soul.Here's another way of looking at it, and it may seem odd, weird or mystical. Try this on and see what you think of it: This view involves looking at ourselves, each other and other creatures as eyes of the universe. We can view every living creature as a small part of the universe evolving and becoming conscious of itself. On this view, as you walk down the street, the faces of the people you see are simply masks. The eyes you see peeking through the masks, are the eyes of the universe, observing itself. This not to suggest that the universe is self aware (as yet). The "masks" we wear may be analogized as the sum of our genetic and social histories. The thing that we call ego, personality, self may be seen as simply a mask that we wear to present ourselves to the world. It gets spookier. We may be seen as having many masks, that we present different masks to different people, or groups of people, at different times, in different situations. The internet may be seen as perhaps the ultimate mask, as we anonymously communicate on forums such as this one. Our user names and avatars may be seen as masks. We are each of us, on this view, simply a small part of a universe that is evolving, possibly, eventually evolving into a cosmic consciousness. This view extends the concept of consciousness as an emergent process of the brain, and makes consciousness also an emergent process of an evolving universe. |
|
senbdib
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 21, 2007 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 51 |
#7
Veritas Vincit wrote: The phrase "followed by" is not quite it. A person dies and others live on. I'm comparing these two quotes: First that "death and birth are 'functionally equivalent' to" a transformation so profound that "the transformed person who wakes up is not me." So it does seem like he's implying that the experiences of a newborn follow immediately on the heels of the experiences of another individual. And then later that "there is no obvious candidate for a successor. My point is, however, that we don't need such a candidate to insure the generic continuity of experience. We need only see that the continuity is that of subjectivity itself, abstracted from any particular context, and it finds concrete expression in the fact that none of us has ever experienced (or will ever experience) not being here." Here he's writing vaguely about the "generic continuity of experience," and I'm having trouble reconciling the two or conceptualizing the big picture. If "follow" is not the correct word, then what does that imply? That subjectivity exists outside of time? That sort of hints at a much larger question of whether or not time really exists at all levels of existence, which isn't at all explored. I don't believe there is an "eternal subject," and neither does Clark, so again you return to the question of what experience follows your death. If you look in the commentary you can find a similar caveat voiced in one of the objections, by Michael Shleyfer, who points out that it is either "1) The last experience of a man who will die in the year 2050 will be followed by the first experience of an arbitrary individual of an arbitrary species in an arbitrary location at an arbitrary future time, and 2) That man’s experience will be continued as experience of everyone everywhere and always until the annihilation of the universe. Both scenarios are equally absurd." I'm not sure if I would call them absurd, since I simply don't understand, but I kind of have the same misgivings. Veritas Vincit wrote: Here's another way of looking at it, and it may seem odd, weird or mystical. Try this on and see what you think of it: This view involves looking at ourselves, each other and other creatures as eyes of the universe. We can view every living creature as a small part of the universe evolving and becoming conscious of itself. On this view, as you walk down the street, the faces of the people you see are simply masks. The eyes you see peeking through the masks, are the eyes of the universe, observing itself. This not to suggest that the universe is self aware (as yet). The "masks" we wear may be analogized as the sum of our genetic and social histories. The thing that we call ego, personality, self may be seen as simply a mask that we wear to present ourselves to the world. It gets spookier. We may be seen as having many masks, that we present different masks to different people, or groups of people, at different times, in different situations. The internet may be seen as perhaps the ultimate mask, as we anonymously communicate on forums such as this one. Our user names and avatars may be seen as masks. We are each of us, on this view, simply a small part of a universe that is evolving, possibly, eventually evolving into a cosmic consciousness. This view extends the concept of consciousness as an emergent process of the brain, and makes consciousness also an emergent process of an evolving universe. I think this view essentializes life and consciousness, by which I mean treats them as if they have some kind of cosmic essence when in reality they are just configurations of physical matter. The way I see it "life" is just a word we use to describe certain configurations of matter, and so is "consciousness", and they don't mean anything to the universe. So I really don't believe that the universe can observe itself, or become aware... that all just seems to metaphysical for me. Nor do I think this is really exactly what Clark was getting at, as he says, "I might be construed as saying, to borrow the language of a different tradition, that an eternal Subject exists, ever-present in all contexts of experience. I wouldn't endorse such a construal since it posits an entity above and beyond specific consciousnesses for which there is no evidence; nevertheless such language captures something of the feel for subjectivity and death I want to convey." |
|
Veritas Vincit
icy hot Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 07, 2010 Location: The True North Total Topics: 73 Total Posts: 3523 |
#8
senbdib wrote: It is a metaphysical view, but then so is the whole subject matter of your thread.I think this view essentializes life and consciousness, by which I mean treats them as if they have some kind of cosmic essence when in reality they are just configurations of physical matter. The way I see it "life" is just a word we use to describe certain configurations of matter, and so is "consciousness", and they don't mean anything to the universe. So I really don't believe that the universe can observe itself, or become aware... that all just seems too metaphysical for me. It's all too easy to discount this view as some sort of essentialism, but that's not necessarily the case. My proposal does not suggest that consciousness is a necessary or essential property, condition or process of the universe. Not at all. What it does suggest is that an evolving universe may evolve consciousness. That is to say, biological entities that are conscious to one degree or another. Just to extend that a bit, my proposal suggests that if the universe continues to evolve in a certain direction, and eventually is teeming with intelligent life, including artificial life and intelligence, that the universe may become self aware. I'm not attracted to any view that the universe arose from consciousness, or that consciousness is a necessary condition of matter or the universe. Nor do I think this is really exactly what Clark was getting at, as he says, "I might be construed as saying, to borrow the language of a different tradition, that an eternal Subject exists, ever-present in all contexts of experience. I wouldn't endorse such a construal since it posits an entity above and beyond specific consciousnesses for which there is no evidence; nevertheless such language captures something of the feel for subjectivity and death I want to convey." What Clark is suggesting may or may not be different from what I'm suggesting. I'm not particularly interested in becoming a student of someone else's view, but sometimes I use someone else's view as a starting point for my own thinking. That's not to suggest that I in any way originated the view I'm proposing. Edited by Veritas Vincit on 06/11/10 - 5:46 PM |
|
senbdib
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 21, 2007 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 51 |
#9
Veritas Vincit wrote: It is a metaphysical view, but then so is the whole subject matter of your thread. Generic subjective continuity is actually pointedly not metaphysical. The point is that it is a refutation of nothingness after death without relying on anything supernatural. Veritas Vincit wrote: It's all too easy to discount this view as some sort of essentialism, but that's not necessarily the case. My proposal does not suggest that consciousness is a necessary or essential property, condition or process of the universe. Not at all. What it does suggest is that an evolving universe may evolve consciousness. That is to say, biological entities that are conscious to one degree or another. Just to extend that a bit, my proposal suggests that if the universe continues to evolve in a certain direction, and eventually is teeming with intelligent life, including artificial life and intelligence, that the universe may become self aware. That's an interesting view which I'm not familiar with, if it really isn't essentialist as you say. If it doesn't treat consciousness as an essential property, then I don't really know what you mean by the universe becoming "self-aware." I have only heard of this in a pantheist sense, which has always struck me as attributing inappropriate qualities to the universe. Veritas Vincit wrote: What Clark is suggesting may or may not be different from what I'm suggesting. I'm not particularly interested in becoming a student of someone else's view, but sometimes I use someone else's view as a starting point for my own thinking. That's not to suggest that I in any way originated the view I'm proposing. Oh me neither! I didn't mean that you were wrong because you disagreed with Mr. Clark... but as his essay is the first place I have ever encountered such an idea, I really don't have anything to go on when considering it except for his writing and my own thoughts. In any case, the question I really hope someone can address right now is what I said in my last post. I've been turning it over for days, and I can't seem to wrap my head around it. |
|
unenlightened
armature righter Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Location: Wales Total Topics: 67 Total Posts: 8563 |
#10
senbdib wrote: I am also aware that other subjectivities exist at the same time, also as purely physical phenomena. But, I am unable to experience them regardless of the actual nonexistence of me as a distinct entity from everyone else, and I can't understand why death should be any different. The difficulty is to strip that first 'I' of what Veritas calls the 'mask'. Once the particularities of character and memory are discounted, there is no difference between 'I' and 'other subjectivities'. It is very hard to keep it clear, but whatever the experience, the subject of experience is... nothing can be said because nothing can be experienced of it. And this is the case for all and every subject. Draw a line between experiencer and experienced; everything is on the side of experienced and the subject that experiences is... no thing. Therefore there is no difference between this subjectivity and that one - they are identical - the same no thing. The mask is part of the experience, not the experiencer. The other, then, is no other than oneself in a different mask. |
| |
||
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.