Sunday, 7 September 2014

Beyond Death

Greg Bear, Eternity (London, 2010).

I am extremely skeptical of any claim that each of us consciously and indefinitely continues to exist after physical death. Surely the overwhelming evidence is that mental states depend on brain states? - although any contrary evidence must be investigated. Some analytic philosophers argue that "survival" is logically impossible but I think that that goes too far. Of course, we can define death as the end of life, in which case "life after death" is a contradiction, but matters of fact are not settled by defining words.

Could the memories and sense of identity that are transmitted from each momentary cerebral state to the next later be transmitted from the last cerebral state into some other medium or even continue without embodiment? I do not believe in disembodied consciousness - indeed, how could it be detected? - but I do not see that it is logically impossible either. Accounts of "out of the body" experiences may be disbelieved or explained as vivid imagination but they are not dismissed as verbal contradictions, like "square circle." A philosopher may continue to argue that the "survivor" is not identical with the original but concepts change as experiences change. In Buddhist teaching, the apparent self is like a candle flame, burning different wax from moment to moment, then either extinguished or passed on to another candle.

I see no impossibility in the speculation that future technology might record and preserve individual consciousness. Greg Bear gives us some feel for what this might be like. Two characters meet in a technological hereafter:

"'I'm not in the right place,' she said.
"'None of us is, mistress,' the Kelt said. 'Remember. I am trying to be strong, to remember, but it is difficult. Remember!'" (p. 279)

And another two:

"What are we - spirit, energy?
"We are like a current using the hidden conduits by which particles of matter and energy speak to each other, tell each other where they are and what they are..." (p. 258)

And again:

"They sped along the conduits reserved for the subtle messages of subatomic particles, space-time's hidden circuitry." (p. 288)

These survivors of death have become like elemental beings, merging themselves with nature. But can the minute forces linking subatomic particles carry enough information for this purpose?

8 comments:

Jim Baerg said...

One problem I have with the notion of reincarnation is that it runs into a "Ship of Theseus" problem.
There is a continuity between a certain young boy named Jim Baerg of several decades ago and the me of now, in both body & memories, so it makes some sense to consider both to be the same person.
If it is claimed that I am a reincarnation of someone who lived several centuries ago, what sense can I make of that? I have no memories of that earlier person, & there is no continuity of the body either.
There are no boards from the earlier ship, nor is there a continuity of the form of the ship, for the ship in which each board has been replaced over time.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Jim,
Exactly - although I had not heard of the Ship of Theseus.
Paul.

Jim Baerg said...

One nice thing about internet conversations is how easy it is to look up something mentioned that one was previously unfamiliar with.
Wikipedia usually gives a good introduction.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

While I often use Wikipedia, I also regard it with distrust and suspicion, esp. when it comes to controversial persons and matters, due to the bias I've seen slipping in. So it should be used only with caution and reserve.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Can you give us an example of this bias?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

One example comes to mind, due to me reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn's MARCH 1917. That book had me looking up many of the historical characters we see in it. Such as Nicholas II of Russia. The author's depiction of the Tsar does not entirely match that of Wikipedia, the latter of which often seems biased.

I don't expect Wikipedia to be like a detached and judiciously fair minded biographer. Unlike, say, Antonia Fraser, with her biographies of people like Charles II, James VI and I, or Cromwell.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I will read the Wikipedia article on Nicholas II.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I find statements about Nicholas but which do you think are biased?

Paul.