Some Reflections On Death I

(Aycharaych tells Flandry that death is "a completion" so this image is relevant to the post.)

Some, though not all, of my reflections on death relate to Poul Anderson so please bear with me as I express them here. One such reflection relates to Robert Heinlein who is significant for this blog as a precursor to Anderson. Any complete discussion of Anderson's first two future history series would have to be preceded or accompanied by a discussion of  Heinlein's Future History. (Wells wrote about the Time Traveler whereas other authors, including Heinlein and Anderson, have written about time travelers. Heinlein wrote the Future History whereas other authors, including Anderson, have written future histories. Wells and Stapledon did write histories of the future but these were fictional historical text books, not series of stories or novels on the Heinlein model.)

In fact, since Heinlein's comment on death that I want to discuss appears in a volume that purports to continue his Future History, let's get that point out of the way first.

"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it."
-Robert Heinlein, INTERMISSION: Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long IN Heinlein, Time Enough For Love (New York, 1974), pp. 240-251 AT p. 240.

I have spoken to two people who agreed with this comment. My response: if there is "life after death," then we will know about it whereas, if there is no "life after death," then we will not know about it. How could Heinlein or his readers miss this point? Wishful thinking: they are assuming the very proposition that is in question.

Some people argue that death is the end of life, therefore that "life after death" is a contradiction in terms but questions of fact cannot be answered by defining words. Empirically and legally, the criterion of personal identity is spatio-temporal continuity of a visible, tangible, living body. However, if our experience were different, then our criteria might change. See:

Dead Men (Tell Tall Tales)
Minds And Brains

There is no conclusive evidence of "life after death"? I agree but there is alleged evidence which should be investigated. I hope to live into a society where such questions can be considered scientifically and dispassionately, not as entrenched positions with most people either for or against.

There is no evidence of any sort against it? On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that brain states are both necessary and sufficient for mental states. Without eyes, can we see? Without ears, can we hear? Without a brain, can you or I think? Logically, I think that we might but a mere logical possibility, which I would have to defend against some philosophers, is nowhere near to a proof.

These reflections will have to be continued.