By Bard Canning
“Afraid of dying? Don’t be. It’s never going to happen to you, and I can prove it.”
It’s said that Albert Einstein once commented that the most fundamental question we can ever ask ourselves is whether or not the universe we live in is friendly or hostile. He hypothesized that your answer to that question would determine your destiny.
Surely death is the greatest threat that we all face. For many people it gives the universe a decidedly hostile bent. They believe that the race of life can never be won; that we are born to lose.
I do not agree. In fact, I believe that the race was never started to begin with and that death itself is an illusion.
Before outlining my hypothesis, I should make it clear that the aim of my writing is the excavation and study of the truth. The truth as a pure product, consistent for all time. Through reasoned logic I intend to demonstrate that your own consciousness is not as finite in scope and lifespan as you may think.
To put it simply: I do not believe in death.
I do not think that we are immortal, far from it. My belief is that we are exempt from the unpleasant matter of death altogether. I believe that our general definition of sentience needs to evolve with our understanding of the nature of the universe and of human consciousness.
It has been my experience that once the spectre of death is stripped of its shadowy mask it becomes much easier to contend with as a concept. I believe that nothing truly known can be truly feared. If this article gives you solace and enables you to live your life with a little less fear then in many ways I have achieved my goal.
The Alpha and the Omega
“Death, in itself, is nothing; but we fear, To be we know not what, we know not where.”
John Dryden
Everyone eventually reaches the point in their lives where they become fully aware of the inevitability of their own death. It is at this point that they choose to either embrace the overwhelming significance of the realization or to recoil in horror.
“Sapiens” is Latin for “being wise” or “knowing”; coupled with the human genus it forms “Homo Sapiens”. Literally, we are the only animals that know – about ourselves and about the world around us. Surely the greatest gift of sentience is the ability to consider one’s own existence and mortality. I cannot think of anything more appalling than the thought of someone having lived and died without ever having considered the nature of their own existence. This is what fundamentally separates us from animals. This self-awareness is the crowning achievement of the human intellect; to neglect it is to abandon what makes us uniquely human.
It’s All in Your Mind
“If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”
Morpheus – The Matrix
Though science-fiction, the film The Matrix touches on a very important scientific problem: that there is currently no way for us to know for certain if what we experience is real or a sensory fantasy fed to our brains directly. All of the input information that we receive arrives to us from our eyes, ears and other senses.
Prominent scientists and philosophers have calculated that there is at least a twenty-percent likelihood that we are all, in fact, living in a simulation.
Scientists are currently fitting deaf children with Cochlear brain implants that allow them to hear despite having no physical ear-drums at all. Similarly, there are a number of devices under development that can be implanted directly into the visual cortex of the brain, allowing blind people to “see” a digital video image of the world around them.
Reality is all in our own minds. We do not actually experience the real world, only the images, sounds and sensations fed to us by our senses. It’s true that this fantasy is directly influenced by the physical universe but research has shown that we all perceive the outside world in very different ways.
Since all experience occurs within your mind, the memories that you hold leading right up to this very moment are as valid as any dream.
Is “reality” a dream? I believe that it’s more like a memory of what our senses perceived a millisecond ago. A story told to us by our minds to represent our experience of the physical universe.
From an objective viewpoint your “mind” wouldn’t exist at all. An objective observer would only see the movement of atoms and electrons within your brain. Subjective experience is eternally, absolutely subjective.
The Veil of Perception
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
Understanding the nature of death naturally requires an understanding of one’s own existence.
“Cogito Ergo Sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) is the profound philosophical observation made by Rene Descartes in 1637; that there is little that we can prove absolutely except that we, ourselves, exist.
All experience and meaning is created within our minds. The objective universe does not “see” any “meaning”, it simply is.
The confusion occurs for many people when they try to merge the concept of their own subjective intelligence with the objective reality of the universe.
It’s true that at some point we will appear to “die”, but there is no reason to assume that our experience will be anything like how we imagine death to be.
Our brains are “experience machines”. All we can be is what we experience and anything outside of that is a subjective impossibility. Death denotes a complete lack of experience, and so is, by definition, something that we cannot participate in.
Death is Impossible
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
“…your lifetime is but a parenthesis in eternity.”
The spectre of death is an illusion, and one that you will never have to face. It’s not something that should concern you since you won’t be taking any part in it.
Death may be a frightening concept, but, just like an imaginary bogeyman in your closet, you won’t be present when it comes knocking.
You felt no pain, happiness, love or fear before you were born, and you won’t feel anything when your time is done. If it saddens you to think that at some point in the future you will no longer physically exist then why does it not sadden you to think of the trillions of years before you were born in which you were also absent.
“Death” describes an infinite “nothingness”. We cannot experience “nothing”. If you are experiencing nothing, then you are not experiencing anything at all.
You cannot truly fear something which cannot exist for you. You can fear the concept of death, but it is nothing more than a shared myth, an illusion.
The Ghost in the Machine
“We are not physical beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a physical experience.”
Many terms have been used to define our “spirit”, “soul”, “mind” or “qualia”. When the supernatural elements are removed, I believe that these terms fundamentally refer to the same concept. Since our conciousness exists in the dimension of pure thought it could be said that we are living in a “spiritual plane” every day of our lives.
A subjective experience may be created by the functioning of a complex system, but the subjective qualia cannot be experienced by an outside observer, only by the mind within the system itself.
The 19th century *** Hermann von Helmholtz proposed an experiment to demonstrate the nature of qualia: his instructions were to stand in front of a familiar landscape, turn around, bend down and put your head between your legs. He suggested that it would then be difficult in the upside-down view to recognize what you found familiar before. What you were seeing was not the landscape, but your mental representation of it.
Dream On
“Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”
Morpheus – The Matrix
All subjective human experience exists in the dimension of pure thought. It is therefore impossible to truly conceive of anything in the physical universe.
All of our experience occurs within our brain. Even the world that we see around us is still a representation formed within our brain as an interpretation of what our senses perceive.
For example, the visual experience of color is entirely created in our brain. Light waves bounce off of objects and return to us at different wavelengths. Our brain attempts to delineate these differences by assigning different colors to these wavelengths. This evolutionary trait developed because it served a useful purpose for our species. Conversely, it was not sufficiently useful for us to perceive the ultraviolet or infra-red spectrums, so we did not evolve this capability, whilst other creatures did.
In truth, most of what we see is simply a representation for the physical world which helps us to understand and interpret it. This is highlighted in cases where these representations break down, such as during psychoactive drug experiences or in severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.
The same is true for the other senses and experiences, such as pain. For example, if you hold your hand over a fire you experience the sensation of pain. The experience of pain is not intrinsic to the flame, it is simply a signal sent by the pain receptors in your hand to alert you that your body is being injured. It is a interpretation of what is occurring and it exists only within your mind.
Your experience of daily life is as real as your dreams, since both exist completely within your own mind. It is for this reason that our experience of life could be compared to a dream-state.
When you wake up, does the person that you were in the dream die? No, who you were was only an illusion created in your own mind. But, then, the same can be said for when you are awake.
The truth is, who you are right now is an illusion; your illusion.
I’ll Be There in Spirit
Boy: “When you take apart a Lego house and mix the pieces into the bin, where does the house go?”
Girl: “It’s in the bin.”
Boy: “No, those are just the pieces. They could become spaceships or trains. The house was an arrangement. The arrangement doesn’t stay with the pieces and it doesn’t go anywhere else. It’s just gone.”
XKCD
A popular scientific observation is that all of the atoms in our bodies are in constant transition. They are shed from our bodies and replaced at a constant rate. The atoms within your brain are replaced every twelve months and most of your body is replaced about every seven years.
Therefore, how can you say you are the same person that you were a year ago? You can, of course, because your subjective consciousness is not a physical entity, it is an intangible system that is supported, but not reliant on, a physical substrate.
As with any system in the universe, our minds are sustained by a physical substrate; in our case, the protein-based biology of our brains. The components of the system may change, but the system itself remains.
Similarly, in a PC a program can be copied from a magnetically-encoded disk drive to an electronically-encoded RAM chip whilst maintaining its integrity.
If the carbon-based biology of your conciousness is constantly changing without your mind disappearing, then why couldn’t your mind be safely transferred to a silicone-based substrate, such as a computer processor?
The truth is that it doesn’t matter what form your mind takes, as long as its structure is maintained. This leads us to the conclusion that our minds may one day be copied into a computer; furthermore, that this copy would itself be a sentient individual.
As uncomfortable as it may make some people feel, there is no evidence to support the notion that your consciousness is inextricably linked with the biological package of meat, bone and grey matter that houses it.
I believe that the concept of a “soul” has been created by people as a means to escape their existential fear and remains unsupported by evidence or reason. What we have is conciousness; a complex system which is reliant upon, but not restricted to, a particular physical substrate.
Paypal donate to say thanks for this article.
The Chemistry Between Us
If you take the chemicals that create the emotion of love and combine them on a petri dish then have you created love itself? Most people would say that you haven’t, but when this reaction occurs within a human brain an emotion is said to have occurred.
Scientists can describe the physical properties of a single thought by recording the electrical and chemical activity in the brain, yet what they are mapping is simply matter and energy moving through space, it is not the thought as experienced by the thinker. The qualia is “lost in translation”.
There is a gulf between the dimensions of objective facts and subjective experience. The two can influence each other but are separated by a fundamental divide.
God Consciousness
“…this world known as the First Sirian Bank is a planet with a… crust consisting almost entirely of crystalline silicon… over the billenia earthquakes and so forth have caused the formation of billions of transistor junctions within that crust, forming by natural means the largest computer in the galaxy… we find the First Sirian Bank not only alive, but possessed of a universe-view sufficiently advanced to call him Human.”
The Dark Side of the Sun – Terry Pratchett
If you accept that your thoughts occur as an organised system, supported by a physical substrate then you must also accept that random thoughts are occurring throughout the universe whenever a sufficiently complex and ordered system is formed. Through pure chance, emergence, evolution or conscious design, complex electro-chemical reactions could be formed to create a precise analogue of the processes taking place within a human brain.
Therefore the universe could be filled with a diffuse, disorganized intelligence. A “God Consciousness” if you like.
The only difference with the human mind is that our brains create linear cohesion and a home for these thoughts to interact and evolve.
It is a common assertion that we are sentient individuals because of the ordered complexity of our minds. Yet, it would be absurd to suggest that we would become more real or more sentient if our brains were increased in size or complexity. You are real now, and you would be real if someone removed half your brain. You might lose some of your capabilities, but you would still be a real, sentient individual. There are tumour patients who have had half of their brains removed. It would be absurd to consider them to be half as real or half an individual. The same is true if the order of your brain was to be eroded completely. You might become significantly less intelligent but you would still exist as microscopic flashes of intelligence appearing throughout the universe. Except by then you would have lost the division between yourself and other minds because your thoughts would have spread out and merged with the general intelligence “fog”.
When your physical body dies your consciousness does not disappear, it merely becomes disorganized and less constrained by the linear concepts of time and space. Some people consider this to be rejoining the “God Consciousness”.
Artificial Intelligence
“For thousands of years, we have tried to understand how we think: that is, how a mere handful of matter can perceive, understand, predict, and manipulate a world far larger and more complicated than itself.”
Stuart J. Russell
If the right chemical reaction was created in a test tube which exactly mimicked the thought processes of a person sitting in a cafe eating a raspberry tart, then who is to say that this thought hasn’t actually occurred? Just because it has not taken place in a brain does not mean that it is less real, or that the qualia is lost.
In fact the “person” would not even realise that they existed in a test tube rather than a cafe since they would only be aware of what they perceived through their thoughts.
You are only aware of what you perceive through your thoughts.
Your mind can never die since death is an event restricted to the physical world and does not exist in the dimension of pure thought.
A Wake
“They’re made out of meat. …These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they’re made out of meat.”
“…And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed?…”
“… We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we’re just a dream to them.”
“A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat’s dream.”
If you cut open a brain you can’t see the thoughts, only the physical clues that demonstrate that a thought is occurring. The electrical currents and chemical reactions are like a wake left in the ocean behind a boat that cannot be seen. The wake is evidence of the boat, but it is not the boat itself. The wake provides evidence that the boat is moving, yet if you stood below deck and closed your eyes you would not feel as if you were moving at all. In the same way, our consciousness exists on an ever-changing ocean of atoms within our skull (which is on a planet flying through space) yet we experience ourselves as a fixed, consistent conciousness.
The existence of our mind is evidenced by the “wake” left in our physical brains, but only we can experience our own consciousness.
Hold That Thought
“Music is what feelings sound like.”
Anonymous
A thought cannot exist within any one moment in time. If that were true then you could cryogenically freeze someone’s brain, halting the electrons and chemicals in that moment, and the person would be stuck forever thinking the same thought.
A thought does not exist at a fixed point in time, rather it exists in the transition between points. Music is the same. A piece of music is not the notes on the page; rather it is the journey from one note to another that creates the song.
So are our thoughts created in the journey between moments in time.
Pause or End Game?
“You are the music while the music lasts.”
T.S. Eliot
If our consciousness is a chain of connected thoughts, like a string of musical notes, then “death” describes a chain of thought that is no longer continuing.
No pain can be felt, no disappointment, nothing.
“Nothing” is nothing, so it cannot exist, and so therefore neither can “death”.
Thank You, Come Again
A life can only be said to have ended when there is no chance of it continuing again. In regards to our consciousness, death is more like a pause than an end.
In an infinite universe anything is possible and everything is inevitable. There is every chance that your chain of thought may be continued again somewhere, sometime, in the infinite possibilities of time and space.
It’s true that the atoms forming your mind will have changed, but take a look at your own body: in the last few years almost every atom has changed within it. Who you were then no longer exists; they could be seen as “dead”. You are a copy of that body, gradually constructed around it using the proteins and enzymes absorbed from your dietary intake. If by random chance your final thought pattern was reconstructed a trillion years from now in another place, who is to say that this would not be you? Amazingly, you would not feel that any time had passed at all.
Zero-Point
“Thus that which is the most awful of evils, death, is nothing to us, since when we exist there is no death, and when there is death we do not exist.”
Epicurus
No person should fear death. Fearing death is a logical fallacy.
It’s like a mathematician fearing that a particular formula could erase all of the numbers. This is impossible since the numbers would always remain present; a particular formula might equal zero, but the numbers that created it would still be present, ready to repeat the formula once again.
Pi in the Sky
“I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.”
To illustrate my point I ask you to look briefly at the number Pi. Pi is an infinite stream of chaotically generated numbers. It has been suggested that within these numbers would be the atomic positions of every atom in your body. Every thought you’ve ever had is contained, somewhere, within Pi. Indeed, so is every possible experience you might have.
You might say “So what? It’s just numbers; it’s just math. It’s not real experience.” Yet, your brain right now is just atomic particles moving from one position to another. Your conciousness can be reduced to pure math.
If the universe is infinite, we are destined to live out every possible experience through the infinite possibilities of time and space. We can never die. The atoms that form us may change, but they have shifted constantly throughout your life without destroying your consciousness.
The Mind as a Meme
“You can kill a man but you can’t kill an idea.”
Medgar Evers
One question that arises when we consider the constant changes that occur within the physical structure of the brain is how our consciousness can remain so consistent, despite the constant shifting of the physical foundations. My answer is that the mind is a highly complex and multi-layered meme.
A meme is the conceptual equivalent of a gene. It is a concept that can be shared between conscious minds without losing its fundamental integrity; like complex religious beliefs, or the simple custom of shaking hands.
Memes tend to compete with each other for survival and are subject to the same laws of evolution as other forms of life. Memes have been shown to develop self-defensive adaptations with varying levels of internal intelligence. In fact, I assert that since memes are complex intelligent systems they are as valid a form of life as our own protein-based genes or the humans which they construct.
In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins describes how memetic concepts often survive the passage of time and the transition from person to person without losing their integrity. They achieve this by utilizing a kind of conceptual compression; a step-by-step mapping of their structure that eliminates less important details in favor of the core concepts.
The example that Dawkins gives is that when a carpenter teaches the technique for building a chair he describes a single step as “nail this here”, not “swing the hammer at thirty degrees and hammer five times.” These details are not important in achieving the goal; a goal which can be achieved despite many small changes whilst still producing an accurate recreation of a chair.
Our minds are the same in that they are memes kept alive by neurons that transfer their information from one generation to the next without losing fidelity. Even though the cellular and atomic structures of our brains are constantly changing, our meme-mind stays intact. Small details may change as the cells die and are replaced but the core integrity survives.
Your mind is a substrate-independent system. It is a consistent meme on an ever-changing ocean of cells and neurons.
An analogy would be if you recorded a time-lapse video of a tattoo on a person’s arm; it would seem to hover unchanged under the skin despite the skin cells that surround it dying and being replaced over time. Similarly, an image moving across a digital screen remains consistent despite being illuminated by different pixels as it moves.
Your mind was never intrinsically linked to a particular set of atoms or a particular location in space. Because it is a meme it can be recreated at a later date, out of different materials and in a different location.
Time Enough
The universe is not linear – nor does it move at the speed of our subjective experience. This is all our own dream and unique to us.
Just watch a fly buzzing around some time. Do you think it is experiencing the world at the same speed as you?
Physics teaches us that the universe as we see it does not exist exclusively within this moment, or any moment at all; rather, it exists in all possible moments of time.
You really do have all the time in the world, because there’s no end to speak of, only the natural progression of your own story, which is all in your mind.
How can you rush a thought? A dream? You can only work against it or in harmony with it.
Work in harmony with your dream, your spirit, and you will enjoy happiness in your life.
Since the world that we see and feel is all created within our own minds, then so too is our experience of it. As Buddhists have taught for thousands of years: “You create your happiness; it comes from within.”
The Answer?
“If I am killed, I can die but once; but to live in constant dread of it, is to die over and over again.”
Abraham Lincoln
“Some people are so afraid to die that they never begin to live.”
Henry Van Dyke
The ultimate answer is to find meaning, peace and happiness in your life.
Most importantly, discard your fears about death or time passing you by. There is no end to be feared.
Anything that does not ultimately increase your happiness is unnecessary. I believe that if we all act from what makes us truly happy then there should be no deliberate suffering in the world. No truly happy person would ever needlessly harm another. People only increase suffering when they are insecure, fearful or lacking personal contentment. Therefore, any thought that does not serve to increase your happiness is irrelevant. This is why I believe it is important to strip death of its mask so that it no longer stands as a forboding figure at the end of our lives.
Enjoy this dream of “life”, and don’t worry about the end approaching, for that too is an illusion.
The universe is not dark or cold, it is simply free of emotion and subjective experience. It is composed of energy that occasionally condenses into matter and matter that occasionally evolves into sentient beings; all of which eventually returns again to the great river of energy. This energy is the source from which we have all emanated; indeed, we have never been apart from it.
We like to draw divisions and imagine that we are somehow separate from each other and the universe, but the truth is that we are all fundamentally intertwined.
We are truly “at one” with the universe.
Paypal donate to say thanks for this article.
FIN
Following is the poem that I wish to be spoken at my funeral (modified from the original by Mary Elizabeth Frye).
“Do not stand at my grave and weep.
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow;
I am the diamond glints on snow;
I am sunlight on ripened grain;
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awake to greet the dawn
I am the day as it is born.
I am birds in circling flight;
I am the soft starlight at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.”
———
If you discovered this article through StumbleUpon please recommend it by clicking here.
Feel free to leave a comment – I try to read and respond to them all.
Contact me directly at thedeathdelusion@gmail.com (questions, comments, publishers and literary agents are all welcome 🙂
—
Further reading:
If you’re looking for specific ways to eliminate fear and stress in your life and connect with a deeper sense of purpose I highly recommend the book Your Erroneous Zones by Dr Wayne Dyer.
Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the Matrix Trilogy
Notes from a Friend: A Quick and Simple Guide to Taking Charge of Your Life
______________
Paypal donate to say thanks for this article.
Rate this article:
Kensho 
439 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 28, 2018 at 2:38 am
Cartman
“If by random chance your final thought pattern was reconstructed a trillion years from now in another place, who is to say that this would not be you? Amazingly, you would not feel that any time had passed at all.”
Bard, if ur still alive and kicking, I’m curious as to why u think would be a true continuation of the same “you”, and not just someone exactly like you, fooled into thinking “wow it worked, I’m alive again!” Because if it’s just about reconstructing the same thought pattern, what if somebody TODAY had this technology or ability, if they recreate your thought pattern of this very moment, would u suddenly find yourself in 2 bodies at once? If not, then this other person who inherited your thought pattern copy would also just be a copy of you, and not you.
Have you ever read The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler? The so-called “crackpot” author of that book theorized that a far future intelligence with enormous computer processing power could recreate your quantum signature from the moment of death, and only then would it truly be “you” resurrected, because your quantum signature is something that is completely unique to “you”, or something like that. Sorry I dont remember the particulars, but I remember finding the book fascinating when I read it all those years ago, even it was based on faulty science and a lot of wishful thinking.
June 8, 2018 at 3:45 am
My drone choice
I am regular reader, how are you everybody?
This paragraph posted at this website is in fact
good.
September 9, 2017 at 2:06 am
Dominic
Quite possibly the most beautifully put together piece of writing and philosophy I’ve ever come across.
Thank you
September 9, 2017 at 2:15 am
bardcan
Thank you, Dominic! That’s an incredibly kind thing to say. I hope that it was useful for you. Bard
February 6, 2019 at 11:48 pm
Domyo
For anyone who doubts that mind/consciousness is anything other than the activity of the brain– I have a leukotome I can take to your brain and change your consciousness forever. This is a very sweet dream of death but utterly wrongheaded on almost every biological/physical fact.
February 6, 2019 at 11:54 pm
Artyom
When we talk about consciousness I’m pretty sure we talk about the fact that we exist, and the awareness of our existence, our body could just be “puppets” who work without “someone” existing in them, yet there is.
Why do we exist, why do the rules of the universe allow life, and consciousness, this theory doesn’t mean your consciousness can’t be altered, it means it can not stop to exist. Basically no matter what happens to you, you will keep existing, and since we have no proof of a spiritual world, it seems that the only way for you to keep existing is through your body.
You should check biocentrism by Robert Lanza, a scientist, it is a very interesting book who basically talks about this theory without any spiritual or superficial crap.
February 7, 2019 at 4:27 pm
Domyo
I am sorry, but we have every evidence that consciousness stops existing with death. Look at a battery. Forget the truism that energy cannot be destroyed. When the electro-chemical reactions can no function consciousness is over. Berman and Lanza are scientists but they got way out of their league. Biocentrism’s basic tenet, that consciousness creates the universe, is utterly backwards. Consciousness is a product of evolutionary adaptation to the universe.
May 2, 2017 at 5:56 pm
accident lawyer
I would like to take some time to thank you and post this here soo
other people appreciate it too.
June 6, 2018 at 12:34 am
Demonarke
I must say Bardcan, i’ve always thought about this and I completely agree with what you are saying, I wonder if you are familiar with Robert Lanza and Biocentrism, i’ve read his book beyond biocentrism and found it fascinating. It also made me think of quantum suicide and quantum immortality. But would your theory mean that for example, if i were to play russian roulette, i would always have to win and not get shot because (let’s say I have 100% chance of dying.) otherwise I would stop existing, and since it’s not possible I must survive.
July 30, 2016 at 9:42 pm
Torben Pasucha
It’s a very interesting read and it brings up very interesting points that make living as part of this universe a bit more titilating. But it misses the major complaints I have with death:
Firstly the end of the continuity of myself. I understand I won’t notice it, but I also understand that this means that I will never see my great grandchildren grow up, that I will never see the technological and scientific marvels future generations will discover and invent, and that I may never see which way humanity takes to answer the challenges of living alone in a vast, mostly empty universe. I want to experience the future, but I may never be able to do so myself.
Secondly it does not address the fact that there will be a time when I can’t watch Star Trek and Stargate with my dad anymore, and no more Criminal Intent with my mom either. I can’t try out and share new recipes with them, I won’t be able to help them out around the place and see them smile when I managed to please them. They will simply cease to be and I will have nothing but a distant memory of the persons who shaped my life more than anyone else.
And the most heartbreaking issue: that all of this has happened to uncountable sentient individuals and will happen to uncountables following us. The dead are many and will be even more.
It is a weak consolation that there may or may not be some vague “universal consciousness” as you describe it, because it truthfully changes nothing about the nature of death. It’s complete semantics whether our individual consciousness is a result of our physical form or if our physical form is merely the construct by which it keeps itself afloat above an endless sea of consciousness. Because in either case our mind as is and our physical form is unchangeably intertwined, and one will cease to be as is without the other.
And certainly my atoms are not the same as they were 20 years ago, but there is a structural continuity and integrity, and that is what matters to my existence and experience. If I demolish a grand old cathedral and build a number of townhalls and sewers with the stones is something entirely different than if I slowly exchange all the stones in the cathedral while keeping the structure intact. And that is the continuity of the structure. I am that structure. I am not the stone, I am not the candles, I am not the bell, I am not the mortar, I am not the organ, and I am not the windows. I am the structure that arises out of the unique combination of all these. And if the structure fails, so do I. Universal consciousness may prevail, but I do not. As such this concept is entirely meaningless to my death. I am still dead, and will not experience any more.
December 15, 2015 at 5:45 am
Shelly
Experience does not take place in the brain. Experience takes place in awareness. The brain is an object in/of awareness. As such the brain is experienced.
June 2, 2015 at 9:37 am
Anonymous
After few sentences,I could tell,this is one more of those…
One of those who love to talk and throws a great flood,at great ease,
Dolling the great questions and such happy happy answers,
So delicious ,until you start to examine carefully…
What’s more important,when you read carefully ,what such showman do,
You realize that they know exactly what I am talking about and what they do,because they are intelligent and read enough to know that what they saying,is dribble,but besides their intelligence,they are deeply dishonest.
Do you believe for a moment ,they would give a damn what I or anyone else says,no.they are laughing and having a very good time,as long as they have
Enough innocent victims.
I must ad,I have a hard time wishing none of them existed,exactly because
Of the unintended benefit which the innocent victims get… The benefit is
That the dribble may encourage the victim to look further…
Remember,These dribblers and happy talkers,are the ones that introduce the innocent to such thoughts,that talk to them,it’s their market .the only one
Remember,we all start innocent ,we all swallow dribble ,….
IF ONLY THESE COMEDIANS TAKE OFF THE MASK
AND WITH A BIG SMILE AND BELLY LAUGHTER, ANNOUNCE,
YEH,I MADE IT ALL UP.
i would not illustrate,point by point ,why it is dribble,because there is too much of it and the main points have been made ,better than I could.
However ,here is a question I wish to ask the dribblers ,the true masters
Ad all in between,a question I have wished to ask in many occasions…
it can be put very simply; how can one say that we are delusional..
Why saying it ,this statement itself never seem to be included,
As if we can be as delusional as we can be,but not being delusional
Saying that we are.
I think I have an answer,and this only a thought I had for sometime
And wonder how valid it is and if someone could commit,would be great help..
which is ,in my truly humble opinion,a thought I have about the tool that man has,which makes awairness possible
And my though is,that we can be awaire “only of what we can see
Or imagine to an object looked at from the outside”
For the same reason we not know who I am ,only objectively,as if I’m someone else looking at myself from the outside,but can not know who I am subjectively,because it has to be turned into an object for it to be imagined,unless it is possible to create such tool,asthe eye that sees itself..
In my opinion,for that same reason,we do not have the tool to know
The immediate,the present,because the present is immediate and
Not an object outside of us…for the same reason ,I can say that what I am
Saying is dribble,but would not include this immediate sentence,because
It’s immediate and only after having said it ,we could become aware of
The contradiction..so that our experience of life are reflections.
We know for the first time of such thing as dream and dreaming
only when we wake up…furthermore,I don’t know for a fact ,
Or any good reason ,that would link our memories or dream ,to reality.
I wonder if there is any direct evidence we had the dream we remember
Or that there is such as dreaming,since all we know of reality and dream
Happened when no one was there …appreciate any help on this one.
thanks.pinny.
,
September 23, 2014 at 6:47 am
Madelene H. Ikner
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point.
You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your
weblog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
September 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Chelsea
This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post.
Also, I’ve shared your website in my social networks!
July 15, 2014 at 11:31 pm
Kristen
Reblogged this on uglydaze and commented:
So much love for this. Just read it, I promise it’s worth it.
June 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
youtube views
Oh my goodness! an astounding post dude. Thanks a great deal Even so We’re experiencing difficulty with ur rss . Do not know why Can not sign up for it. Could there be anyone locating identical rss issue? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thnkx
June 9, 2013 at 2:02 pm
man
Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in fact used to be a entertainment account it. Glance complex to far introduced agreeable from you! By the way, how can we keep in touch?
May 13, 2013 at 9:30 am
エルメス財布
great post, very informative.エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 I wonder why the opposite specialists of this sector do not understand this.エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 You must continue your writing.エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 I am sure, you have a huge readers’ base already.エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布 エルメス財布
May 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Clarisa Varma
Excellent blog you have here.. It’s difficult to find high-quality writing like yours nowadays. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!
April 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm
software to hack facebook
Howdy! I know this is kinda off topic but I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa? My blog goes over a lot of the same subjects as yours and I feel we could greatly benefit from each other. If you are interested feel free to shoot me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Superb blog by the way!
April 25, 2013 at 6:11 am
ejaculation by command ebook
I read this piece of writing completely about the resemblance
of most up-to-date and preceding technologies, it’s awesome article.
April 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Jack Rajan
After looking over a few of the blog articles on your web page, I really like your way of writing a blog. I added it to my bookmark site list and will be checking back in the near future. Please check out my website as well and let me know how you feel.
February 20, 2013 at 7:13 am
Dr.Anand swami
good
January 29, 2013 at 7:33 am
4_0_4 (@tom_zorro)
How can we be exempt from death if we suffer ?
Death is change – for better or worse – and nothing ever stays the same
January 29, 2013 at 7:43 am
bardcan
That is a non sequitur. You may as well say “how can we be exempt from starving if it’s raining?”
Death means the cessation of life. Suffering often precedes it, but suffering in and of itself is not death. It is also not required for death.
“Death is change”. Any change in the state of a concious mind is, by definition, change. So?
December 30, 2012 at 4:30 pm
donkeykong
You are born; you think about weird stuff; you write them in a blog; I make this comment; after a while we both die.
January 29, 2013 at 7:44 am
bardcan
Or we don’t. Have you read the article?
December 6, 2012 at 12:56 am
the death delusion | Cosmic Tranquility
[…] the death delusion […]
November 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Devin
I’m not sure if someone has mentioned this, but I’m afraid you may be misunderstanding what it means to have a “thought”. Your reference to “chemicals reacting in a petri dish” was used in order to argue that thoughts don’t necessarily need to take place in brains. A thought is not a chemical reaction, however. It’s an electrical transmission of information across a neural circuit.
I suppose you could argue that this circuit could consist of material other than neurons, but to say that we can mix together some chemicals and mimic the physiological though process is not correct.
December 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Spiritwomyn
Jesus demonstrated our cappabilities by transforming his body. He split every atom of his being and transformed it into a higher vibrating form. We are not our bodies but what uses them. We have seen things through the most powerful microscopes and know that we are in fact made up of vibrating atoms at different frequencies. THe FAITH, LOVE and FORGIVENESS, are actual energy vibrations, he showed us that life is always ongoing, but having spent 35 minutes of your time dead, I know that that is the wrong vibratory door. You brain sends neurons information across the spectrum of the physical form to keep it functioning, but the brain is not our MIND. if we want to understand what life is we must first rid ourselves of a belief that there is DEATH. That is a woord for the body not transformed. Jesus even told us how to find the knowledge we seek, it is within. We each hold the information and we bring it to the surface as we clear our thinking. We share what we find to piece together the bigger picture. I would love to sit with many to truly delve into this. However most people are ruled by trigger words and phrases and thus are not yet ready to pursue this from a truly Scientific percpective.
November 10, 2012 at 4:34 am
Spiritwomyn
So if one dies, for say 35 minutes. Total flat line. Then while dead would not have any mental experience. So, those of us who have had such an event and experienced ourselves outside of our body and very much aware of ourselves, would seem to not support your theories. I too, am a Scientist. Having died and had the event that was outside my physcal form, I disagree with many of your thoughts. Jesus demonstrated our abilities from our more Spiritual plane and said we can do all he did and greater. He even split the atoms of his body and contained it and transformed his body into pure light energy. SO if we are simply our thoughts and nothing more, then to reach a pure level of thought, one free of all negatives, we would free ourselves from the physical. But if we are only an illusion we have nothing to free ourselves from except our own beliefs or the race concious beliefs. You have a lot of clarity in some areas but others seem a tad cloudy. But then we all see through the illusion based upon our present awareness.
November 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm
bardcan
What form of scientist are you and where do you work?
October 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm
buy cheap cigarettes online
Excellent web site. Plenty of useful information here. I’m sending it to a few buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you for your sweat!
September 21, 2012 at 4:54 am
Terry
Well, think about this. Postulate a God who dwells in “Eternity”. Past and future, to Him, are like North and South to us. A number of fairly radical implications immediately follow this seemingly simple postulate. Since God can “look” at me circa “now” at any “time” he pleases, I exist as long as God exists. I do not exist in 2392 A.D., in the same sense as I do not exist in 1765 A.D. In the same sense as I am not now in Peoria. I inhabit a specific space-time domain. Think for a moment what we look like to such a God, who sees the gestalt that is “me” at every time and place I ever inhabited all at once? Doing everything I ever did all at once! Anyone still think they are going to shake hands with Jesus? What hand? Are we created in God’s image? Mind blowing…
Now, such a view requires a static universe. The Big Bang, then an Eternity of nothing changing, since everything that will be already is. Or does it?
What if the evolution of the Universe takes place in other, Spiritual dimensions?
Hey, whatever happened to 1987? It used to be 1987! What happened?! Why is it now? If I exist at every point in my life for eternity, what is it that thinks it is me in 2012?
Postulate a Holy Spirit, a form of radiation like light, that is the basis of consciousness. Such particles, passing through your aforementioned “body”, give the illusion of I. Of course, this is a kind of foggy “I”, quantum indeterminate. And right behind it is another particle that thinks it is “I”, only about 3 seconds ago. And another, five seconds back. That sort of thing…
But what if you collapse the wave function of this “Spirit particle”? Do you think you might add mass? Sort of build a soul? Evolve in some Spiritual dimension?
What do I mean by collapse the wave function? Well, my own method is the Buddhist concept of mindfulness. Also the Christian practice known as the “Prayer of the Heart”. I listen to “How Great Thou Art” a lot. YMMV
What if by “right action”, whatever that may be, at some point in time, we “pull” this outrageous body in some dimension. It might be possible to affect our past!? Sort of pull it up. Evolve backwards in time.
Hey, maybe it’s not a static universe after all.
And then, maybe I don’t know squat about diddly.
September 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm
anon
Very interesting article, quite philosophical indeed. I noticed two things, however, that might require some additional thought.
1) Memes, while fitting the definition of complex intelligent systems, are not themselves conscious.
2) This theory operates under the assumption that the universe is infinite. Unfortunately, the best we can do to determine whether or not this is true is speculate until the day that we find the edge of the universe =)
Keep up the good work, and remember: If the universe is truly infinite, we must keep an infinitely open mind in order to comprehend the limitless complexity that comes with limitless possibility!
January 29, 2013 at 7:46 am
bardcan
1) How do you demonstrate this assertion? It depends on your definition of concious.
2) I clearly state that there are two options: that the universe is infinite or it is not.
Thanks for your comments.
September 16, 2012 at 6:48 am
Matt
i would recommend this on StumbleUpon, and I would give you any spare change I can afford, but I am a college student with few bucks to spare and an avid stumbler who does not know my login information (I am on a different computer). Rated this 5 stars, because I appreciate the length of this post. I have studied much of the philosophical problems you brought up, but you gave me enough to think about with your detail for tonight. Everything was so well thought out and I appreciated this.
July 17, 2013 at 12:14 pm
bardcan
thank you so much!
I am very touched by your comments.
have a great day!
September 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm
whoofmyspace
Very refreshing read. I remember at age 4, sitting in Sunday School, looking around and thinking… “You people really believe this shit!?!?!?!” I’ve been on my own with thought ever since. Sometimes we memorize too much, and learn so little.
September 15, 2012 at 9:11 am
Sam
Your thoughts sound a lot like the teachings of Theravada Buddhism especially the bits about “no soul” and “conciousness can exist without the brain”
September 15, 2012 at 3:32 am
Paul D.
Bard,
I have certainly read articles like yours before. And for the most part articles like yours always seem to me to be another westerner’s crude attempt at re-inventing Buddhism, particularly the Zen traditions.
Are you familiar with the works of Alan Watts? Give him a try – then move on to Tich Nhat Hanh.
Paul D.
September 14, 2012 at 9:54 am
Tim
Interesting rehash on how Enlightenment reasoning can veer back into the domain of religion. It doesn’t invalidate it, but like dogmatic religion, it’s ultimately unsatisfying.
Just a few thoughts:
You suggest to rely on reason alone to discover the truth behind death. But human reason is, by its very nature, flawed. It’s easy to reason how: if everything is an illusion, then so is our power of reason, as it is a part of it. Though it is indeed a powerful tool to help extricate yourself from cosmic delusion and its inherent suffering, reason will not lead to the final answer. You say religion and spirituality should be dismissed, as they provide false comfort for frightened minds. But be warned, human reason alone can also trick you into false comforts!
Something else that comes to mind: it is an error to lump in superstition along with spirituality and religion. It’s true that many people are satisfied with religious dogma and will argue and gnash teeth over it, and as the centuries go by, the original writings get more difficult to interpret. But ultimately, deep metaphysical truths lie in the undercurrents of religions, truths that start merging with the ideas found in your article. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!
No mere intellectualizing and reasoning can make the ultimate verities known. Only through the hard work of daily meditation, and not in a roundabout way through musing and brooding, can Truth be had. It can be known only by way of direct experience within, and is in fact our own nature. Meditation is turning off the sensory inputs (one of your loose definitions of death). Die daily in your meditations, along with your fears.
July 26, 2012 at 11:31 am
Amal
Very interesting article! Would like to read more from you!
April 22, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Anonymous
you rule
June 20, 2012 at 12:39 pm
piprod0
For some reason I can’t see how to add a general comment: only reply – this is not a reply to you.
There are aspects of this article that I can agree with; being dead is not something we should fear. Of course we can fear dying.
However there are aspects of this article that I think are just silly; that we won’t die and conciousness inhabits the Universe. It doesn’t seem to me that it makes sense to talk about conciousness without reference to experience, and that experience takes at least some come degree of complex circuitry; neural or otherwise. It’s no solace to say that after bodily death we experience the conciousness of a rock – most people would consider that death is no worse, even if it were possible.
April 21, 2012 at 4:08 am
Marcel Peloquin
I have been dealing with existential terror recently over what happens when I will die. It’s incredibly comforting to read someone else’s view which reinforces what I (should) know to be true.
Thank you very much for writing this. It helps a lot.
April 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
bardcan
wow! Thanks so much!
You’re awesome, and keep on thinking! 🙂
February 8, 2012 at 8:00 am
Krishna Kumar pookat
Hi Bard ,
Hope you are well ,
You wont believe how many times i have read this post , each time it has inspired me to be a better human being .
And the comments allow a glimpse in to the vast multitudes of thoughts on a single subject .Though i fail to understand why some people cant grasp the exceptional simplicity of the post .
Btw The offer for coffee still stands 🙂
Regards
Krishna
February 8, 2012 at 2:44 pm
bardcan
Krishna,
Thank you so much! It means a lot to get comments like yours.
I’m working on a book covering many other aspects of what I hope is a rationalist philosophy. It will take a while to finish, but, like this article, it is a labor of love. I would never have started it if it weren’t for the amazing response to this article.
What part of the world are you from?
Regards, Bard
January 12, 2012 at 11:34 am
Wind Monitor
Awesomeness…
We ought to be thankful for this….
December 3, 2011 at 7:08 am
Justin Arnold
assists nurse with special procedures such as height, weight,collecting urine and stool samples, catheter care, monitors and records vital signs, provides care of body after death.
September 29, 2011 at 2:36 am
Blair Kling
One of the best things I’ve seen all week! I cannot begin to explain how structured this piece is. You have really swept me away! Super job!
August 13, 2011 at 9:24 am
Bobby
Just a note regarding accuracy. I know you were using this for illustrative purposes, but I feel you should get it right, considering you are a seeker of truth. Deaf children going for a cochlear implant actually do have an ear drum. It is the malformation or lack of function in the cochlear, which is essentially the sensory portion of the hearing system, that causes deafness. Moreover, there exists no implant to the retina or visual cortex that will deliver “video” to the brain. Currently there are very basic systems implanted into retinas which give extremely low resolution images, which are seen as flashes and rudimentary images by people who are blind. Research is ongoing to improve this, but science is nowhere near video quality images for such implants…
July 14, 2011 at 5:42 am
Ron Deck
TheSpiritForce@gmail.com …here and what if I was to tell you who you really are and that also I can prove who we all really are, as in a Spirit Being and or Living Ghost that is capable of Spirit Interaction, as within another Spirit Being and the fact that there is nothing here but US, as A Spirit Being of A Force of Energy, as Energy is the only thing here, as all else we precieve to be real, as in matter, is just an illusion, but we are very much real and provable by I, as A Spirit Force of Energy, as it is Energy that can only be transformed, manipulated and or combined to be made greater or even lesser, as in a force of energy…but never can be destroyed nor created.
Yes, I can prove of yet another Fundamental Constant Force of Energy, other than the only known 4 of, as in the 1st of, as in what that did, in fact, ignite The Big Bang to begin with, as what other force of energy did or could have if not who we are made in the image of…God, our creator! We all are made in His image, as A Spirit Being and or A Living Ghost…whichever better for you to understand…maybe.
Still, the fact remains…I can and even have proven who we all really are, as in A Spirit Being, but been told it’s not fair in how I do prove it…when, in fact, it’s not, as we all do what I can do, as to prove of yet this other Fundamental Force of Energy…The Spirit Force!
Now, you want to really shake up the world or do you have me to run in circles for you as to arguments and or you don’t want to SEE and EXPERIENCE the reality that I can create for you to SEE and EXPERIENCE, as I can for all the world to, as well, as to all that can SEE and EXPERIENCE, that is.
July 11, 2011 at 1:38 am
Michael
Thank you for that ,
I have never feared death, when i was a child of about five or six years , i contimplated my death for a short time when i was alone, my mind was absent from this plain and rushed through what i can now only know as the stars, my inner voice, stopped me from proceeding and i was back where i started,.. since then i have always known that i am only here in a sence, i choose to feel and think, act and react, i am now listing to your explaination of death and it is exactly how i have always known for some reason. I am living my experance, and each of us are living their own, …my journey is my own and we are all just shearing the road, death as we know it is but a junction, at which point we change vehicle. enjoy your journey,
Michael
June 27, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Joseph Backhouse-Barber
I would like to start by saying that I really enjoyed reading your article. Your interest and passion for the subject are palpable! However I feel compelled to comment on the “it’s all in our mind” section. I feel that in this section you have firmly supported the idea of a “self”, further more I feel that you insinuate a separation, or at least border between this “self” and the universe. This is particularly evident when you describe the universe directly influencing our fantasy but ultimately it being personal and somehow separate to each individual. It is true that we all can be seen to interpret things differently, but this is just our perspective on the same reality. We are seeing the same things from differing angles. The “dream” you talk of IS the universe, albeit a small but completely connected part of it. Also as far as describing our minds as consistent and not reliant on any physical substrate, this again insinuates a separation (as does the idea of a dimension of pure thought). Our minds are the physical substrate and they are by no means consistent. Although it is true that we experience our consciousness as a continuous stream, it is changing in every way all the time. Our mind, as i have previously said, is merely the product of the physical world and it’s dimensions change with it.
IT seems by that by the end of you article you conclude with thoughts that mirror my own so I imagine we actually agree on more that we disagree on, and although I may have disagreed with a few points I agree with the overall sentiment. sound
June 27, 2011 at 11:46 pm
bardcan
thank you, I think that we agree
June 18, 2011 at 5:35 am
Anonymous
Dude, your point could be condensed greatly. I appreciate the deep thoughts, but you started off boldly, reeled around a few science subjects, then ended back with a pseudo-science statement. The subjects you chose sound good, but have little affect. The “simulation” statement is easily misused, I just finished reading about that recently. This is similar or taken from materialism philosophy. Should I kick a stone and shout “Thus you are refuted!”? Essences and forms (house-ness, etc.) with the legos. The sub-points sometimes help your point with some stretching, and sometimes they have nothing to do with your point, you’re making a huge leap. Appreciate the thought, of course.
June 11, 2011 at 10:07 am
Song
This has been an enjoyable read and I would like to thank you for it. I would like to make a couple of comments,too, if I may.
You come right to the brink of a couple of realizations, but could go a little further, or flesh them out a bit more. I’d like to start with a critique of the concept of objectivity. The notion that the universe has some sort of objective existence which we are not part of, and is not part of us, is often taken for granted. We are demonstrably a part of the universe. We come from it, we are immersed in it, and we know that energy is not lost, merely transformed. Yet people continue to refer to the “impersonal universe”.
We actually don’t have any evidence for an impersonal universe. The only evidence we have is or a personal universe, since, as you nicely demonstrate, is all we have access to.
The reflective existence you attribute to humanity is in one form or another, the universe contemplating itself. We do not know all the levels on whch this may occur. We are, for the time being, caught up in our human existence.
This leads me to a warning about where you go with your conclusions, from your discussion of memes to your conclusions that our proper activity is seeking after our own happiness. What you are advocating is a schizoid or even psychotic universe. To say that our minds and being are a fragment of some unreconciled whole ultimately testifies to an insane creation. This is deeply unsatisfying, and potentially very harmful. And when you postulate that what remains after death is merely a fragmented remnant of the former self, drifitng disconnected through disparate regions of the universe, I believe you suffer from a failure of the imagination which does not take into account the very reasonable possibility that in fact there is an order to the universe and mind which transcends the death of your body and leaves your self intact. If you are the universe dreaming itself into existence, why would you disperse yourself and leave it at that? Wouldn’t you prefer to continue to exist, so there could be more dreams, more creations, and on a very basic level, more “I AM”?
If you are going to overcome this problem of inevitable psychosis and dissarray, take a look at some of the ideas developing now about the univserse as a hologram, that each part of the universe is a whole and complete rendering of the entire universe. You are not a fragment of the universe. You are the whole thing. If that is so, then you and I are, in fact, not different people at all. We are the same person. Examining each other. Contemplating one another. Capable of helping one another, healing each other, working together, making each other whole. Once you have realized the illusion of death, you must inevitably realize there is a lot more going on here than the solitary pursuit of pleasure, and certainly more than isolated and competing memes bouncing around in space-time.
Psalm 82
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Thanks for writing this essay, and giving me the opportunity to express some of my thoughts on the subject.
Isaiah 28:18 – 19
Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through.”
The understanding of this message
will bring sheer terror.
June 13, 2011 at 4:38 pm
bardcan
I don’t know where to start… how about you read The God Delusion and get back to me?
June 8, 2011 at 1:19 am
7800
You mentioned if the universe is inifinite, our train of thought may be continued elsewhere after we die. How do we know the universe is infinite? I don’t think that’s been proven.
June 8, 2011 at 2:30 am
bardcan
That’s why I said “if”.
June 8, 2011 at 9:58 pm
7800
Yeah but every point you make after that loses credibility.
June 9, 2011 at 4:59 am
bardcan
So, unless every supposition you hear is guaranteed as 100% likely – any point that is based on it “loses credibility”? So I’m guessing that you don’t believe in gravity, evolution or the non-existence of the tooth fairy?
June 6, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Mark Tully
Reason used to be aligned with faith, not against it. Once reason began to tear down faith, faith became a closed domain.
June 6, 2011 at 7:29 pm
bardcan
Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, ie: the suspension of reason. What you’re saying is nonsensical, sorry.
July 18, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Sean
i would like to point out that Mark Tully here is correct. Faith and reason should be aligned and that they indeed have been in history. look at Thomas Aquinas. one of the greatest philosophers, he always started with reason and ended in faith and would disagree with the definition of faith being the “suspension of reason”. i would recommend him, especially his Summa Theologica, and also Aristotle and Plato. they seem to be lacking as sources for your essay, which would have much more to say to me if you started with the beginning of the philosophical tradition rather than with some of it’s more recent authors and i would like to see you respond to them.
August 14, 2011 at 3:00 am
Anonymous
In the last days, as it is written, all will have a real chance to know and not live by mere Faith alone and if you’re talking about reason being able to tear down faith…then let the reasoning that we all are Spirit Beings and or Living Ghost made in God’s image change all of that, as it is I…that can, in fact, prove who we all really are, as in the only thing anyone can be because all of matter is all just an illusion, as in 99.9999% of all matter is void of anything. We are The Machine inside The Machine and yes, it is I that can prove that because of the mere fact Energy can only be transformed, manipulated and or combined to be made a greater force of Energy or even lesser, as to our own Spirit Force of Energy we all are of.
—
Never say, I am but one person what can I do, because it has been a many of a one person that has changed the world for good or ill and you can too!
June 5, 2011 at 7:30 am
Mike
I would like to think you’re a pretty smart guy, because i like most of the things you have to say. But it’s clear to me that you’ve never been on a boat yet you claim to know what it’s like. And for someone who doesn’t subscribe to any sort of “spirituality, superstition, or religion. You’re taking some pretty wild leaps of faith here. I understand that you’re trying to help but the least you could do is try and get a pair of sea legs before you dismiss their necessity all together. That’s a good way to fall overboard and drown in your own bullshit.
June 5, 2011 at 7:02 pm
bardcan
” You’re taking some pretty wild leaps of faith here.” Such as?
“But it’s clear to me that you’ve never been on a boat yet you claim to know what it’s like.” Wat?
“before you dismiss their necessity all together.” If you have a convincing proof for faith then get ready to receive your Nobel prize.
“drown in your own bullshit” Pot calling the kettle?
June 27, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Joseph Backhouse-Barber
I think If you are going to attack somebody’s credibility in such a way it would be better not to hide behind metaphors and speak clearly.
June 27, 2011 at 11:56 pm
bardcan
well put, thank you
May 31, 2011 at 8:54 pm
mikey
This article has confirmed much of what I have been trying to figure out. I once literally trembled at the thought of death. I tried to believe in religion, but it ultimately failed. I enjoyed reading this very much. A few parts made me laugh because of the joy it brought me. Thanks.
May 31, 2011 at 4:53 am
oscar
Nice read, but I do not fear death(or the experience of death), I fear what death strips away. I am young and I am obviously starting to experience life in my own way, and as an atheist who can comprehend how difficult it is to actually be alive… i dont want that to be taken away from me. The experience you get from love, music, taste, sight is something I dont want to let go of. Maybe when im older and had experienced ‘enough’ I’ll probably be more open about it. But in this moment, I dont think I’ve had my fill of what life can offer, and my fear lies on wether I would regret things on my last moments.
I dont mean to sound like I am constantly worried about death, but as a topic of discussion I cannot hide those current feelings I have.
October 6, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Shea
I think you point out what the fear of death is all about. I have always had suicidal thoughts and the reason they stayed thoughts for so long was not because I feared what death would bring; I feared what I would be missing out on in the “here and now”
If death was something to fear why were we all born to do it? It almost the only talent your guaranteed fools
May 26, 2011 at 1:00 am
Erik F
So, these may be simple questions, but these ones can bring up bigger questions.
1) So you say we perceive what we think and only what our mind receives and interprets. Like a dream, I sometimes am falling from a building for no reason. But why, it my first statement, which you said, is true, can I not “perceive” a hundred dollar bill in your lap? By this reasoning we are suggesting your brain cannot perceive whatever it wants. Is this because we can only think and process what exists already in qualia? But then how would new things be developed as such that we perceive? These seem very contradictory and confusing to me.
2) Also, this may be a mute question, as I know we all think and such differently, but how would you suggest to just live free of our thoughts of time and space and just be happy? We live by these principles, created by us that we cannot escape unless you do not want to live this life that we are included in?
3) So you say we exist in nothingness as terms of physical being after this life has passed, but we still exist as memes and such that can be brought back together at some point. If the existence is really nothing after death, do you suggest that people who have previously passed become new persons in the birth of others? And population increase proves some new persons would be new thoughts, so how do they automatically fit perfect to what we live in? And finally, thoughts on the Big Bang, and how that ties in with all this?
Sorry if any of these have been answered in comments already, looking forward to your response.
May 26, 2011 at 5:57 pm
bardcan
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Ive been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. Its obvious, really 😉
April 21, 2012 at 5:54 am
Unfortunate
You’re lying to yourself.
Disappointing. You _literally_ threw words together. For a second, i thought it was satire. As in, maybe he’s writing actual gibberish nonsense; to make a point, right?
Nope. Everything you wrote in the post, well, had sounded authentic. Like it was real, and you weren’t in it for image, or making some money in the the philosophy “market.”
The problem? This comment says differently. Is this all a biz game to you and you’re just feeding readers whatever will sell your book career to live your lifestyle? Are you capitalizing on a growing book market?
I hope that doesn’t always need to be the case.
Either way, right now the amount of work you’re doing seems born of “I’ll do enough to make them buy my book.” I can’t possibly imagine a scenario where someone trying to address issues of “truth” and existence, would write complete and utter jibberish in response to a someones question. An attempted trick – to provide the illusion you are insightful, so long as the herd buys in.
That’s what I am getting from this.
Disappointing.
April 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
bardcan
Thanks for your assertion… care to back it up with any facts / logical argument?
I’m honestly interested. If you defeat my premises, I will delete the article – that’s a PROMISE 🙂
April 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Unfortunate
Logical facts and arguments? “Defeat my premises”? I’m not arguing your article. But you know that already.
I’m trying to prove you aren’t serious about the issues you are raising and that you don’t take it seriously. This is the first sentence you wrote:
“Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?”
This isn’t proper grammar or syntax. It isn’t meaningful English. This isn’t philosophy. It’s a bunch of words you threw together to sound like you’re saying something.
That’s my logic. You wrote jibberish sounds expecting others to not think about what you’re writing. That tells me you’re pretending. It tells me you only care about the book deal or your lifestyle or the image. Whatever the reason, it isn’t genuine.
Good luck. Enjoy what you’re doing and where you’re going.
April 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm
bardcan
Dude. You should google that sentence. (Hint: It’s not mine. I was making a statement about the comment I was responding to.)
October 6, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Shea
Since our host did such a shotty job of responding to you I will
1) In the dream you are falling why can you not “perceive” yourself to have wings? You are not in control (of what I am gonna call) the reality of the dream. The question you are asking exemplifies bardcan’s point on perception which is not that you can perceive something into existence but that you can perceive things as only YOU can.
2) To me this question touches on what is in my opinion society/civilizations biggest fault. “[…]as I know we all think and such differently, but how would you suggest to just live free of our thoughts of time and space and just be happy” If we all think different how is it “our” thoughts.
3) Analogy (and someone correct me if I am wrong) Google what happens to a dead website/hyperlink … even Google god itself could not tell me where they end up. Do the good sites go to heaven? 🙂 They are lost in the internet forever.
May 24, 2011 at 11:58 am
God made me to smart and I stopped believing
Wow wow wow, all I can say is wow! This is everything I’ve ever thought and then some… anytime I’ve ever tried to talk to anyone about the way I feel they really just don’t understand. It’s nice to know that true intelligent people actually think things through and look at the facts… look at every possible angle… I don’t know why people who are really religous wont stop to look at the bigger picture. The two reason I come up with are fear of the unknown.. its better just to tell yourself there is a god and at least then you believe in something. I also believe that people have been severely oppressed by religion. People don’t realize that “god” gave them this brain so that they could think for themselves.Let’s get out of the dark ages people! There are things going on right under are noses that are the key to all the answer you have ever searched for!
May 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm
bardcan
I like your enthusiasm… if only more people cared about the big questions in life.
🙂
May 16, 2011 at 12:45 am
elroyjones
“The universe is not dark or cold, it is simply free of emotion and subjective experience.”
You nailed it! I’m an atheist who experienced a clinical death event several years ago. It was a totally peaceful and objective experience. I have never felt as calm. My immediate recollection was of a feeling of universal oneness. I’m not in a hurry to die since I am exceedingly fond of my people but I don’t fear death at all.
I stumbledupon this and am very pleased that I did.
May 16, 2011 at 5:43 am
bardcan
Great! That’s fascinating to hear… and thank you for your comments.
May 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Amber
I harldly have words.
I just want to say thank you.
May 12, 2011 at 9:00 am
Justin
A truly enlightening, and very well written article! In my opinion, you have managed to articulate very complex, and clearly controversial subjects into layman terms. Thank you for helping me make more sense of my own physical and none physical existence, and allowing me to further formulate my own understanding of this. The thought provoking nature of this article extends far beyond the principle of life and death, which for me, is the true benefit I received. That said, I will no doubt need to read “the death delusion” a few more times to fully comprehend some of what you have written. Go well.
JF
May 11, 2011 at 10:44 am
Gary
Best ‘stumble’ I have had in years. I’ve been feeling down and stressed recently, but found real inspiration in your article.
“If this article gives you solace and enables you to live your life with a little less fear then in many ways I have achieved my goal.”
You sir, have achieved your goal.
Thank you.
May 11, 2011 at 2:35 pm
bardcan
I couldn’t be happier to hear that! 🙂
May 11, 2011 at 10:31 am
Justin
My brother. A truly enlightening, and very well written article! In my opinion, you have managed to articulate very complex, and clearly controversial subjects into layman terms. Thank you for helping me make more sense of my own physical and none physical existence, and allowing me to further formulate my own understanding of this. The thought provoking nature of this article extends far beyond the principle of life and death, which for me, is the true benefit I received. That said, I will no doubt need to read “The Death Delusion” a few more times to completely grasp all of what you have written. Thanks again, go well.
JF
May 11, 2011 at 10:40 am
bardcan
Thanks! It makes me happy to hear this 🙂
May 10, 2011 at 12:04 am
Elemblue
Everything you said makes complete logical sense from your point of view. I have thought about this exact thing and had considered a large majority of what you said throughout my life. And the way you present it is fantastic. Its a very deep concept, and it does apply. However, I still remain fearful of death. And I DO understand your concept. Mabe not completely, I don’t pretend to understand you 100%, but I could see your words meaning. What remains for me is not the extinguishment of my conscious, but the destruction of my memories. My memories are bound to the physical matter that keeps me alive, and without its function I loose everything that makes me me. Everything that Ive learned, gleaned, gained ext. Erased. And with that I dissapear, because while I do notice key traits that come intrinsically with my own awareness, my memories are me. Im a library of my own experiances. And I do not fear not existing, because your right: in the extraordinarily metaphorical sense, my thought process could be recreated and that would technically be me. I see many dead peoples thought processes in myself. But without my memory, its not. And because the thought needs memory to be conscious of itself, when I die I will not experience it. Because I wont be there. But my memories will, and they will be deleted. And then everything I care about will be gone, and I wont care.
Without my memories I cannot exist, but I dont see how I could not exist if I have memories I have now. Our brain is larger, it holds more. Perceives more. So we can develop off our memeories more. We are nothing more then a bigger computer, and that is why we are concious. I dont want to stomp on your theory: Im not. It is true. Its just not the part about death i fear.
May 10, 2011 at 3:27 am
bardcan
For your mind system to be recreated perfectly it would, by necessity, contain all of your memories (since these are also just structures within your brain.) Thanks
May 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Sabrina
All I can say is you seem too content with what you think you have discovered.
Most people fear the death of their loved ones more than their own.
And it does not sadden us to think of the trillions of years before we were born because after we get our life, we just want more of it and you cannot want more of what you never had. But since u dont fear death or are trying to convince urself that u don’t, good for u.
May 4, 2011 at 3:45 am
spunkypunk
I would like to apologise in advance if this sounds like tangential uneducated bosh- I’m a screenwriter trying to write a comedy with a concept based on life after death, and my analytical reasoning on life after death is usually limited to “42”. I find philosophy very, very confusing, but I would definitely like to learn more and hear more of your views on death especially regarding the concept of free will.
There is no evidence for free will, and many neuroscientists believe it doesn’t exist. we are simply DNA reacting, however intricately, to environment (stimuli). The only evidence we could search for in terms of free will would be quantum physics with macro effects on the brain, though this too sounds like chaos theory rather than free will, and so far nothing has been found. So my question is, if someone were, hypothetically, to take the view that we were an automaton, a self governing machine with the illusion of free will, what would this mean for life after death. If someone who lost a loved one heard their voice, are we, in a way, a bit like the futuristic computer or the lab experiment that you have described? Psychologists say other people see us better than we see ourselves. I do not mean to imply a belief in life after death, and I recognise that the process would simply be memory and simulation, a second generation phantasm.
I guess what I’m saying is that what I think is missing in both your example and mine is authenticity and qualia. Or if you would like another example, a rainforest is knocked down and rebuilt atom by atom. The only difference between the new rainforest and the original would be authenticity. Is Qualia essential to identity?
In terms of “good” and “evil” i would like to rephrase the terms as ‘altruistic’ and ‘selfish’. Surely selfish and alruistic, as memes, are important normative factors that shape and influence our future, in gene pool theory and in game theory.
meme’s evolve, just like people. If they are taken from a normative perspective, would they then be of importance? Do you think people in the future would be more altruistic or selfish? where does selfishness come from? many people believe it comes from fear, or a lack of empathy, and compassion is like a light in the dark.
On the other hand, you could even say that altruism evolved selfishly (from the gene pool theory of evolution). If selfishness was caused by a gene could we one day remove it. They have already found a gene that links to criminality but unfortunately it also links to engenuity, a trait that our species cannot afford to give up.
On a light note, a friend has a very funny theory about death. Imagine you get really blotto, 3 sheets to the wind drunk, then black out or do something crazy that you never remember, but everyone else remembers all of your drunken shenanigans. You can’t remember anything, and have no concept of time, but your friends remember everything. Not very deep, but very amusing.
Thanks for your patience. Fantastic article with some very thought provoking concepts!
May 13, 2011 at 8:30 am
BrianDivison
“Imagine you get really blotto, 3 sheets to the wind drunk, then black out or do something crazy that you never remember, but everyone else remembers all of your drunken shenanigans. You can’t remember anything, and have no concept of time, but your friends remember everything. Not very deep, but very amusing.”
Yeah! and your brain/body eventually recovers and you function once more – but who is to say that death is not the same way? 😉
April 29, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Roojo89
I think the idea of the mind or “soul” as something separate from the physical brain has to assume that we fully understand how complex the physical brain is. I do not think we fully understand our physical world enough to make accurate conjectures into a so called “spiritual world” much less make the statement that it *must* exist according to simple logic. Really, like any theory on death this post has to rely on assumptions, just as much as any religion does.
April 27, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Brandon
I would like to congratulate you on a well written piece that will surely help enlighten those with the right kind of motivations.
I do, however, feel that the way you present death as “an illusion” is misleading. I would agree that, if you consider death the “absence of experience”, death is a phenomenon one cannot experience. However, the inability to experience it does not mean it does not occur. Death is still very much relevant to us because of its limiting effects on our experience. Death is the ceasing of biological processes that support our continued consciousness. This consciousness or self awareness is what most would consider the “I”. When these processes cease, we cease to exists.
You seem to be sympathetic to some form of life after death. You mention death as just a pause in consciousness. An issue that arises here is one that I think can be illustrated by appealing to an idea you mentioned; the idea of copying your consciousness.
For the sake of argument, lets say that I can create an exact copy of you. This copy will be the same not only at the cellular level but also at the atomic level. Each molecule in the copy’s body will have the same exact position relative to the rest of its body, as you, the original, has.
Now I kill you. Will your consciousness continue? To me it seems that it wouldn’t. Think about it from your perspective. You will be standing there, experiencing the world as you always have, watching a copy of you being formed. Once your copy has been formed it seems that you would still only experience a singular consciousness from your original perspective. Your copy is just that, a copy. It is not you, it has its own consciousness. When I kill you, your consciousness ends and the copy’s continues, just like any other human being. Your consciousness doesn’t reemerge simply because there is another cognitive system identical to yours.
This idea can now be used to combat any other claim of life after death that involves the cessation of consciousness. If you were to die and I were to reassemble your body atom by atom, it seems that I would create a new consciousness; your old consciousness would not continue where it left off and assume a fresh body. From the perspective of the new copy it would appear to be so, since it will contain all of your memories, but in actuality is seems that the original stream of consciousness has ended and will not return.
June 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm
bardcan
> > Will your consciousness continue?
Yes, you would be existing in two places at the same time. Making an argument from incredulity holds no water here.
Your copy is just that, a copy. It is not you,
Yes, it is you.
Your whole argument falls apart when you realise that your body is reconstructed, albeit slowly, from different atoms every year or so.
So, what is it? Can life resume after death… or do you die slowly every year, only to be replaced by a clone imposter… you can’t have it both ways.
April 27, 2011 at 12:06 am
Curiosity
This article has been extremely thought provoking. I do have a few questions however. First, what part does the concept of God play in this theory, if any. Also, do you believe that this is what claims of reincarnation could stem from?
April 26, 2011 at 10:49 pm
lyzaard
blah, pretentious, blah.
moving on…
April 24, 2011 at 1:05 am
Ashlin
As a Rastafarian, I absolutely love this article; I sincerely hope that this article gave at the very least one person hope for the future because I certainly approve of it. At any chance I get I try to instill peace and love and happiness in everyone I meet. Thank you for this great read and continue to do the great things that you do.
~Peace, Love, Music
~Jah Bless…
July 5, 2013 at 12:19 pm
bardcan
thanks!
April 14, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Anonymous
Zero is a real number.
April 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm
bardcan
In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I have, for only the second time in four years, removed the comments of a reader, one Miss Kiera Miller, simply because her comments represent the kind of woefully ignorant and logically fallacious tripe that drags us all down with it’s arrogant stupidity. I simply can’t abide that sort of rabble-rousing, vacuous garbage; forgive me for that, but I simply can’t.
April 14, 2011 at 6:29 am
Ms. CleverClocks
Amazing post! This is the same kind of stuff I write about in my blog. It’s very well thought out and put together. Obviously, very powerful as well. Death is just “the end of High School” if you will, after which we graduate to the next level of our existence and continue our evolutionary process to become true light beings.
“You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.”- Clive Staples Lewis
April 14, 2011 at 3:32 am
Anonymous
……you’re a loony toon…..
April 13, 2011 at 11:51 am
Shonari
This is some deep shit. But my question is, No one knows what happens after death, we all have different hypothesis that can never be proven until we die and yet we cannot share our findings with the living. We could all die and become a rock for all anyone knows. So why not fear death? it is the ultimate question with no answer. Your thesis sounds solid and reasoned but does it make it any less false? There is no truth to death as there is no proof as to what happens. We guess, assume and analyse life right up to the last breath but after that know one knows. Death is as uncertain as heaven and hell but i guess it is what we make it to be.
My theory is at death you thought…your conciousness will create its own idea of the ‘afterlife’ and that will be what it is. We could create a whole new rebirth and live our life all over again, a living dream so to speak. Who’s to say thats not what were are doing right now.
April 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm
bardcan
Thank you for your comment. The only response I can offer is: evidence, evidence, evidence
April 7, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Foreign Alphabet
Very interesting article. I won’t pretend to be particularly well versed in the subject matter, but a very large amount of what you said made sense to me.
However, I was bothered by your speaking against sadness that at some point your life will cease to go on. Much your article focused on how we should make decisions that will ultimately bring happiness to our lives. If we do so, and we live happy lives, then why shouldn’t we feel sadness that one day it will end?
April 8, 2011 at 2:24 am
bardcan
You can feel as sad as you like, I’m just trying to give some reasons why it may not be necessary to feel so sad. 🙂
April 4, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Robert
Bard,
How would an enlightened “consciousness” describe the notions of Good and Evil. Would this consciousness even believe that such words could characterize certain actions? In light of your answers to these questions, how would an enlightened consciousness live his/her life?
April 6, 2011 at 3:21 pm
bardcan
I disagree with every premise in your question, so I am unable to answer it, sorry.
April 8, 2011 at 6:01 am
Robert
Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Supposing that your assertions in this blog are an accurate depiction of reality (particularly the assertions that “our human consciousnesses are [not] inextricably linked to the biological packages of meat, bone and grey matter that house them” and “In an infinite universe anything is possible and everything is inevitable”), what does that imply about (the notions of) good and evil, right and wrong, justice, righteousness, etc., if it implies anything at all?
April 8, 2011 at 6:04 am
bardcan
I would say that it implies nothing of those things… especially since I regard them as entirely subjective. Thanks! 🙂
April 14, 2011 at 3:10 am
Anonymous
You are just avoiding a question you can’t answer. How can you claim to know the truths in the universe when all the greatest minds in history have never been able to solve them? You have no evidence to back up your faulty assertions.
April 14, 2011 at 6:35 am
Ms. CleverClocks
Because truth is what we know inside – what resonates with us. We all know exactly what’s on the other side. We know the purpose of these notions that we must experience is our 3D duality. We see it through our heart and soul. Our consciousness guides us if we choose to listen.
He doesn’t “claim” to know the truth, he chooses to remember it and understand it. Its perfectly OK to reject that and believe that our feelings are the most important – our beliefs and values (instilled in us by our society) are what we should focus on. That is what some of us need at this time to learn what we need to. To each his own.
It isn’t a matter of “solving” these “problems” because they are not problems at all. Just perceptions. Just life.
April 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm
bardcan
Great straw man! As you would know if you read my article, I’ve never made such claims and would be a fool to do so. Nice try, though!
October 6, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Shea
good/evil and right/wrong are opinions, subjective
Animal instinct (comes with the meat suit) accounts for your righteousness and altruism
April 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Sean
There is no such thing as good and evil, in a subjective reality actions my be labeled good or evil but that has nothing to do with consciousness. Something that is subjectively experienced in the 18 century as “good” possibly/could/has been experienced as evil in 20 century. Collectively a large portion of the subjective mind experienced Hitler as evil but some experienced him as good. The problem with what you are trying to get at is that you do not realize that consciousness has nothing to do with this reality and has nothing to do with good and evil. Good and evil are subjectively “human” made devices and consciousness is pre-human and post-human it is not tangible with morals or virtues in this “life”. Maybe look into Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche for answers you seek.
“Truth should be seduced not hunted”
March 31, 2011 at 12:44 pm
kieramillar
You felt no pain, happiness, love or fear before you were born, and you won’t feel anything when your time is done. If it saddens you to think that at some point in the future you will no longer physically exist then why does it not sadden you to think of the trillions of years before you were born in which you were also absent.
“Death” describes an infinite “nothingness”. We cannot experience “nothing”. If you are experiencing nothing, then you are not experiencing anything at all.
That is all speculation. You are making a lot of assumptions. It’s arrogant to draw conlusions in a field that science hasn’t even drawn conlcusions in.
Explaining the way our brain functions and processes thought does not account 100% for our conciousness and you are just pulling together random facts and making a case. You said a few things that are questionable – relayed facts that you have misinterpreted.
I admire your efforts but you should be more humble and keep learning. Why do we all need the answers so desperately? What’s so bad about being in a learning process still?
http://www.ted.com/themes/how_the_mind_works.html
March 31, 2011 at 1:11 pm
kieramillar
Also watch this:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/547385-richard-dawkins-answers-reddit-questions
One of the questions to Richard Dawkins is: In your opinion, what are the 3 most important unanswered questions in biology?
To which Richard Dawkins responds: “how did conciousness evolve and what is conciousness…?”
If he had that questions in November 2010, then that has a lot to say about the assumptions made here.
April 6, 2011 at 1:28 pm
bardcan
Sorry, Kiera, but you’re the one who comes off as arrogant.
Frankly, I find it difficult to respond to your comments because they are largely erroneous and / or nonsensical.
I would very much like to hear your argument that explains how stating that nothingness cannot be experienced as an “assumption” or “arrogant”. Honestly, your position is one of the very few ones that fills me with rage. Why? Because you come across as one of those terribly reductive people who seem to find it useful spending their time telling others that they cannot know or understand things or hold opinions on other things because of a number of logically fallacious reasons… the most pathetic of which is the appeal to authority.
April 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm
bardcan
“Explaining the way our brain functions and processes thought does not account 100% for our conciousness”
HOW CAN YOU KNOW THAT? ARE YOU A GOD?
Do you understand how erroneous it is to take this position? Unless of course you are claiming absolute knowledge, in which case we should worship you as an omniscient god.
April 14, 2011 at 3:22 am
Anonymous
No, she is not. YOU are the one claiming absolute knowledge about our thoughts and consciousness in a barrage of worthless, non scientifically-backed assumptions that border the line of insanity, in which case we should bow down to you, oh omniscient god. But then again you don’t believe in God.
April 14, 2011 at 8:29 am
bardcan
You’re so wrong you either didn’t read my article or can’t parse the language that forms it… So how about you back up your extraordinary claims with examples, evidence and well-composed argument and we’ll see which one it is 🙂
March 30, 2011 at 8:27 am
Timbre
I have only one thing to say. And that, is thank you.
You have given me a better understanding of the present, and also a better understanding of myself.
My problem always was that I wasn’t afraid to die. And I could never understand why the natural fear of an ending to life was not daunting to me.
I am only eighteen, barely taking strides into the world. I have a GED and a give ’em hell attitude, but that’s about it. And yet, I understood your article better than I have understood anything before.
I loved this piece, and I can think of quite a few people to share this bit of wisdom with. So thank you. I hope that I stumble upon many more interesting, and educational articles such as this one.
March 30, 2011 at 8:32 am
bardcan
Thank you kindly! Bard
March 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
H3LIO
We fear death, because we don’t know it. But there is something we can do to find a purpose to life… Make something for EARTH and human society and you may find your purpose to live…
March 9, 2011 at 3:56 am
ineffableideas
Very well written article. Your points are clear, concise, and understandable; quite a feat given the topic. Though I’m rather disturbed by your twisted interpretation of the sources cited in the sentence “Prominent scientists and philosophers have calculated that there is at least a twenty-percent likelihood that we are all, in fact, living in a simulation.”
Claiming that the probability we are living in a simulation has been calculated to be 20% is inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the sources. This figure is nothing more than a gut estimation of a philosopher quoted in the NYtimes. The only source that calculated the probability logically determined the it to be infinitesimally small. This oversight weakens the integrity of the article and questions the credibility of the author.
I still loved the article, that line just bothered me a lot.
March 26, 2011 at 2:39 am
Lyle Ten Eyck
Take one meter stick, strip it of all but one single centimetre marking, and tell me you cannot still measure with it. Heck, use it for walking even, but don’t abandon pleasant purposes for the self-content you’ve driven into your reply. This article is very well done.
July 23, 2013 at 5:23 am
bardcan
thank you! and I will correct this error.
March 7, 2011 at 10:56 pm
colleen
Thank you.
If I’d any cash I would buy you a coffee. Come over and I’ll make some.
March 16, 2011 at 2:47 pm
bardcan
Thank you kindly 🙂
March 16, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Anonymous
i’ll come
March 4, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Wolf
Thank you Bard, for sharing this Insight & Wisdom with us.
I ‘stumbled upon’ your article on my research for a simular
piece on my ‘Quest for Belonging’ – Website.
I like your use of alegories & metaphors in form of pictures and quotes, they become very helpfull when we discover our limitations in linguistic and still have something to communicate.
Once we have experienced a non-lineare reality, we become
aware of all the deep confusions & delusions out there.
Since our ancestors left the ‘Garden Eden’ and became farmers &
fabricators, we began to ‘draw lines in the sand’,
taking possession of everything out there.
Believing in the hierarchic Order of monotheism, we created Laws
of reward & punishment protecting privileges & properties.
Consequently, this ‘thinking in a box’ fragmented, separated & divided us mentally & physically. Now locked IN or OUT has disconnected us from everything else OUT-there & IN-here. Growth & Expansion is
clashing with the Disorder & Wilderness of nature.
‘The Linear Culture’ finds itself lost in the Chaos of ‘real’ Life.
At least since Einstein we should know that
Truth is constantly changing, and Stability is a constant Motion.
Changing the Law & Order of Control & Domination to an awareness of acceptance & integration is the Shift to harmonize eco-nomy with eco-logy
Addressing the fundamental issues of life is pivotal for a shift
in collective conciousness, and absolutly nessesary for finding
our individual ‘bearings’ to navigate thru this wonderful Chaos.
Now that you can see, where I come from,
I could not comment on your article in a way of
-I agree or disagree,
but I completely understand where you are coming from.
With this in mind and in this spirit I would like to collaborate with you.
I would like to create a link on my site ?
and maybe co-write some ‘article’ or so, composing & weaving a ‘spider’-net to catch some dreams & ideas…
Now with Beginning & End, Good & Bad desolving the frontiers,
our horizon of consciousness is ‘expanding’. Now we can lose
the fear of addressing the issue around Free Will & Choice.
Transforming an existence “I have not chosen”,
to a life “I want to be part of” !
“Just as I select my ship when I am about to go on a voyage
or my house when I propose to take a residence,
so shall I choose my death when I am about to depart from life”. Seneca
I hope to hear from you soon and …
maybe I should buy you a coffee.
Have a Great Day
March 4, 2011 at 2:59 am
dreamland
It has been almost four years since You wrote this. Do You still believe it?
March 3, 2011 at 3:31 am
Anonymous
So aborted babies live forever? Time to polish the fetus jars.
February 27, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Krishna kumar pookat
Thank you very ,much Bard . its been a very very interesting article , i am not a very experienced or knowledgeable person but somehow all of it made perfect sense to me and logical too . of course the only part i would disagree would be that humans are the only beings capable of Knowing” the world around us . who knows there might be philosophers among animals too we just dont understand their language maybe . Doesnt make a difference to the overall opinion though.
Coffee is on me anytime you come to my part of the world.
Regards
Krishna
Thank you again
February 28, 2011 at 8:43 am
bardcan
Thank you krishna. What makes you say that you are not an experienced person? You have lived the experience of your own life and surely that makes you as qualified to make philosophical observations as anyone else. You have experienced existence, so I guess that your opinion on existance is as valid as anyone else’s. Anyway, I’m glad you enjoyed readin my article! Bard
February 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Krishna kumar pookat
Thank you Bard, i will keep what you said in mind .
Best regards
Krishna
February 23, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Bosco
You are the master of your own universe. When you die, so does your universe and everything in it. While in your universe, you see others die… but from within your universe. Those others could continue right along from within their universe. They could have been doing anything else, anywhere else in their universe that you within your universe can never experience. This comment I have created was in my universe, but it does not mean it will occur in your universe… unless the ME or equivalent of me (being somebody else) also wrote it in your universe. It it can vary in an infinite possible of ways. So I can’t die, and you can’t prove it to me… even if you kill the me in your universe.
February 20, 2011 at 11:21 am
sophiavictoria
Rooted in Constructivism Research Theory, I propose that one may die, not only once, but over and over. At first only in the imagination, which is housed where? And then towards the end of fear of death, or an unknown eternity, the unconscious mind grasps physics, and is killed or terrorized.
The Angel who ‘saves’ the chosen soul, and creates an image, an illusion of the living, seeks pleasure of Heaven, but man made in form, an obsession to understand reality. Passion of the soul feels, but obsession of mind(s) and Superego fight to keep the lie alive.
Theory…
February 20, 2011 at 1:44 am
father ted
Brilliant, every inch of it.
My personal conclusion on the mind is that the subconscious represents our understanding of the concept of space, a polar scale of good and evil, or rather: God and The Devil. I don’t personally believe in God, but i fully comprehend the idea it, and see no intrinsic difference between it and ‘good’.
The comprehension that there is a present and a past leads to the development of the concept of time and the understanding of the future, all based on the polar scale of good and evil, recognising good memories and seeking to replicate them or experience more of them. This is the conscious: our own little concept of time.
This is only a brief introduction to my very own ‘dualism with a twist’ but i have found these foundational ideas limitless in explaining everything from the Philosophy of Religion to the argument of Free Will and Determinism. I shall use the latter as an example; i take a similar view to David Hume, that free will is the ability to choose between doing and not doing an action. But where does the action come from? My view is that the actions we consider doing are determined by our concept of space, a combination of sensory and meta-physical experiences (emotions included) suggest ideas based on the contents of your mind at that particular time. It is then, as Hume suggested, your free will, conscience or concept of time which considers the other angles, such as circumstancial consequences that are not intrinsic to the action, and ultimately says yay or nay.
Another example is dreams and sleep, generally agreed to be the realm of subconscious. But when you wake up, what time is it?
When you concentrate on something mentally stimulating, or when you are in an adrenaline pumping situation, your mind often ‘works’ faster than usual, your thought process is literally sped up.
However this is completely independant to your feelings, stuck in the region of space, it just allows them to change more quickly. Space, at any given time, is fixed. So are our feelings; without the knowledge of what we were and can be, development is arbitary. Only with a concept of time can we be any more than a psychological product of our own experiences.
February 17, 2011 at 7:55 am
Me Myself and I
Great article. I agree with almost everything.
I was a little confused by the section relating to the infinite universe. I think it needs a bit more explanation to really add to the article, otherwise it is only confusing and not very relevant. Maybe I think this way just because I want to hear/read more about alternate realities (=
I would also be interested in your idea of the continuity flaw in this regard, the continuity flaw being that one’s consciousness could be copied, and go on living after the original dies. From the original’s point of view, he/she is still dead.
I would also like to submit to the court the idea that god is whatever entity created the universe, under any definition, not necessarily an all-powerful being.
March 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Door
My comments are along the same lines as those of Me Myself and I. I’m with you in that we don’t experience death though I would submit that it’s not the “being dead” that people fear so much as the potentially painful process of dying. But taking the leap that further we don’t die because our identical consciousness will be recreated at some place in space and time…there is the continuity flaw and further, let’s take the analogy of the likelihood that an identical thought will reoccur somewhere in the universe by some being and that this being will suddenly become me. The chances are pretty good that during my lifetime someone else is going to have the exact same thought that I’m having had or will have. Would that then mean that our consciousnesses temporarily merge? Why aren’t people then finding themselves now and then experiencing the sense of merging during their own lifetimes? Also, the notion that my genetic pattern will somehow live on once the “meat” that currently sustains that pattern dies … I would of course be interested in hearing how that’s possible however I’m still not convinced that if it’s reproduced in another body or way that it will actually be me. Anyway, I really appreciate your perspective and I think you’re headed in an interesting direction and one I find very appealing.
February 6, 2011 at 2:50 pm
jack
Great article,lot of things to think about.Tried to read most of the comments and was surprised that no one mentioned something about being born.
How is it that i’m being born?It’s a chance in trillion that i become “me” a sentient that can ponder the question about death.Who was “i” before being born?And who or why decided that i was born and became “me”?My parents obviously, but suppose they didn’t have me?How can i die then?
Also other quotes which are common:
You are born alone,you die alone.
You dream as you die alone, or vice versa, you die as you dream alone.
Jack.
June 28, 2018 at 2:05 am
Cartman
“How is it that i’m being born?It’s a chance in trillion that i become “me” a sentient that can ponder the question about death”
ANSWER: The further back u go back in time from any chosen event, the more the probabilities multiply. But if you go back a moment or two before the actual conception event, the chance of YOU being made is close to 100%. Every step you take backward decreases the odds. When you look at things this way, pretty much every single event has a probability of 100% occurrence based on the event leading to it immediately prior. You can go back along the chain of events in time this way so that every event was pretty much a 100% likelihood. You can finally sleep at night my friend.👍😅
February 2, 2011 at 1:20 am
Steven Fleming
I loved the concepts presented in this article. But I would be very grateful if you were to elaborate on your assertion that “In an infinite universe anything is possible and everything is inevitable”. I found this to be troubling due to the fact of mutually exclusive decisions and events. For instance if i were to choose one thing and disregard the other then i would forever alter the path of the universe and the “possibilities” that would have arisen otherwise will never arive. Therefore as i understand it the perviously quoted statment cannot be true. That statment that anything is possible also directly conflicts with a theory I have adopted (If you could write back and disprove these theory or elaborate on yourown in repect to my assertion i would be very grateful) that once an action has taken place there was never any true probablity that it would not have (disgregarding the concept of infinte number of realities in which every single decision construes a new “universe”). Any other prediction that may have been made is simply the error of our estimates. Therefore there was no chance that i was to be born female as I am male and therefore the true probablity that i was to be born male is 100%. Carrying this line of logic further then if anything is truely impossible then there is and never will be any chance of its future occurance. Therefore this question of our continued being through the replication of our chemistry is not inevitable but only enevitable if two conditions are met. First mutually exclusive events Such as entropy and the assertion of continued existance. Secondly if the said procedure is truely possible, which while we have no evidence to prove other wise, the possiblility ( please excuse me for refuting my previous statments) that the human condition cannot be replicated is still a matter of conceren in beliving such a theory. If you could clear up these logical quandries i am having with your theory it would be much apperciated. Besides these problems I found your article to be very compelling and insightful.
February 9, 2011 at 5:10 am
Alex
Fail. You are trying to hard, son.
January 31, 2011 at 6:01 pm
TySharpPhotography
Great article!!!
January 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Danja
Well, I can accept the end of my physical being, its not that that bothers me. As others may have said, I fear death before anyone who cares about me, if I die last, then that would be okay. I’m not saying I’m all that great or anything, I just don’t enjoy causing other human beings hurt. I want the ones I love to be happy, and the only way I can ensure that is if I am here in a physical entity.
February 27, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Jeni
This is what i was thinking too. I have never feared my own death for myself. I won’t know it’s happened any more than I know that moment when I fall asleep. Of course everyone fears pain leading to death, but the pain and loss my loved ones may feel is what bothers me. I’d hate to leave unfinished business with people I care for. The only way is to never leave on a bad footing with any one who truly matters to you. Live every moment to the full, don’t sweat the small stuff and make sure you raise your children to follow their dreams. It’s okay for your kids to want you, but if you raise them right they won’t need you and therefore will cope fine with just their memories of you. There’s a lot of theory here, I wonder why anyone needs so much reassurance. Death, life, just a whisper in space and time. Enjoy what it gives you.
January 26, 2011 at 12:53 am
tommy
This is great stuff. Thanks for posting.
January 21, 2011 at 8:33 pm
melissa
beautiful article.
and well written.
Thank you for assisting this shift into evolving beyond fear…
I do take issue with the statement that human beings are the only beings who have self-awareness. We cannot prove that scientifically. Making a claim such as that discredits you.
January 24, 2011 at 7:52 am
bardcan
Yes, I would also disagree with anyone who made that claim.
January 8, 2011 at 10:27 pm
jason
That’s all fine if your lucky enough to die quietly in your sleep but I promise you can experience a slow, painful, excruciating, death. Also why is is ridiculous to believe in god but fine to think we might be living in a simulation?
February 20, 2011 at 1:55 am
father ted
they are equally as unprecedented.
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
David Hume
Where they differ is in the number of people who believe in them.People believe in God, fact, but nobody in their right mind asserts that we are living in a virtual reality.
People accept the possibility that this is the case, but they don’t live their lives based on an unnecessary assumption, because THAT is ridiculous.
December 25, 2010 at 4:42 am
Caleb Jones
i first would like to commend you for a very well written and very well thought through piece of work. i can see how it is very convincing to think this way and i really like many of your ideas, however i find the logic behind this theory self defeating:
“Thank You, Come Again
In an infinite universe anything is possible and everything is inevitable. There is every chance that your chain of thought may be continued again somewhere, sometime, in the infinite possibilities of time and space.”
given everything possible is inevitable in an infinite universe, then one possibility could be that something not ever occur. because this is a foreseeable possibility, and given your logic we could conclude that it is inevitable that there are some things in this universe that will never happen. which sorta defeats the theory to begin with.
also on that note, given the theory does in fact hold true that all possibilities are inevitable; one would have to conclude that an infinite god does exist. because this is a possibility, we would have to accept that a god does exist and that he/she/it has existed infinitely before and infinitely after our existence. of course this logic could also be applied to really arbitrary things like space-unicorns or something too…
honestly i just do not see your theory of everything being inevitable holding up very well. seeing that it is a key point in your overall idea i cannot buy into it as a whole either.
December 25, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Dave
I see two flaws in your reasoning here.
The first is that you say “given everything possible is inevitable in an infinite universe, then one possibility could be that something not ever occur.” The only ‘somethings’ that would not ever occur are those which are impossible, as anything possible would inevitably be realised in the passing of eternity. We are here now which means we are certainly a possibility and thus, based on the described reasoning of infinity, we will certainly occur again.
In your next point you suggest that based on this theory we would have to conclude that an infinite god exists. Why exactly?? We have no evidence based reason to believe that an infinite god, like those described by the religions of the world, could exist, so why must we conclude that ‘he’ is a certainty? The same applies to ‘space unicorns’. If they are a possibility then yes, they could exist. But the chances are they are impossible, depending on what you mean exactly by ‘space unicorns’.
I personally disagree with the theory of the infinite described in the article but for other reasons.
If I was to create an exact replica of you, atom by atom, that thinks, behaves and is indistinguishable from you, would you experience your replica’s conscious experience? I suggest that you wouldn’t. He may be indistinguishable from you to an outside observer but you would have no way of experiencing what it is to be him. The same can be said for an exact replica of you that gets created far into the future; he may behave exactly as you would now, but it would not be you that experiences his life. This is one of the major problems that arises when thinking about consciousness. It is also why I am dubious about the possibility of ‘downloading’ our minds onto a computer in the future.
December 25, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Caleb Jones
i like the fact that you have acknowledged the impossible in your statement. i feel that by this acknowledgment you in a way support my general thought. however we may simply have different ways of wording it (quite frankly i may have just worded it in a way that is only understandable to me…)
the acknowledgment of the impossible is what i am getting at.
maybe the theory simply needs to take the rationally impossible (such as space unicorns or god) into account and then have it revisited, revised, and reworded.
however you do make an awful good point in saying that since we have happened once then according to the theory we are bound to happen again.
and again, rationally, we do not have any reason to assume god or unicorns exist.
i do stand corrected…
touche sir dave.
January 27, 2011 at 1:48 am
Scott
One of the inescapable facets of being human is that it is impossible for us to truly conceive of infinity. The fact that you can not imagine the possibility of “space unicorns” serves to demonstrate this. For me, the best thing about this essay is that it made me aware of how difficult it is for me to comprehend many of the concepts put forward. This seems to support the idea of living in an illusion – If I were not “illusional”, I would not have this problem.
December 23, 2010 at 3:33 am
Doug Rosbury
There is “belief” and there is “knowing” Both are the exclusive freedom
of the indiviual. to analyze and construct an alleged perception is the
exclusive right and work of indiviual thinking and is only transferrable
by virtue of ones inability to resist the influence of one person over another.
Otherwise to pretend universal knowledge is to ignore the fact that free agency is a fact enjoyed by each of us with direct contact within with the
creator in exclusive direct consultation and ultimate freedom. In this arrangement, The creators knowing is my own and all pretence that knowledge is transferrable, can never have any true legitimacy as universally “known”. —Doug Rosbury
December 22, 2010 at 12:15 am
sungam
How much LSD have you taken?
December 22, 2010 at 12:16 am
bardcan
None. You?
December 20, 2010 at 10:35 pm
dr.shakes
I do not fear the Death itself, only the End it brings with it.
January 24, 2011 at 6:10 am
Pete
I agree. This is the biggest flaw I see in this article.
It acknowledges that death is the end of physical life, but then tries to bully us into believing that it is bad to feel disheartened or saddened about that fact. Sure, one can be comfortable with the fact that they will not know they are “dead”, but that does not change the fact that we are alive right now and the time we have in the physical world is limited. They are not mutually exclusive. I acknowledge that one day I will cease to exist in the physical world and am okay with that, but I also sometimes feel sad that one day the wonder of physically living a beautiful life WILL end, regardless of if I am conscious of it when the time comes. Future-nostalgia on a grand scale, if you will.
February 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm
hannah
I agree!
In the same way, I fear losing my mind, because it too would mean that I stop experiencing life as I do know, in all consciousness…
Most of the time, the finite nature of our lives make me treasure it, but it is tragic to be conscious of the end of something good… kind of like getting married knowing for a fact that you will get divorce in 20 years; what’s the point?
March 30, 2011 at 8:47 am
Timbre
Even though you know you will stop experiencing physical life, the main point in this article was not, I don’t think, to bully you into believing this to be a good thing. I think the point was mainly to explain that this is not technically a bad thing. Sure it makes you sad to think about it now, but when you are dead, will you still be thinking about it?
I know that thinking about death is unavoidable, it happens everyday to some, and it seems inescapable. But if you could come to terms with death as a inevitability and go on living as you do, wouldn’t the weight of the thought be lifted from your mind?
Look at it this way. It rains. You know it rains, and sometimes the rain is an inconvenience. But you’ve come to terms with the fact that when it rains, it will sometimes be an inconvenience. So the thought of it raining and ruining your plans becomes an inevitability. You know it will happen and there isn’t anything you can do about it. So instead of letting it ruin your life, you can accept it as something that just happens because it happens and go on living without the worry or fear of rain ruining your plans. Death is the same way, though much more daunting than just a rainstorm. You can either live in fear of the moment when you will no longer be able to “live”. Or you can accept that all life has to come to a stopping point eventually, and you can make the most of the time you are allotted, without the fear of that stopping point ruining what time you have.
At least, that’s how I’ve always looked at it.
Yes, people in my life have died, people that I loved. But they are dead now, and there isn’t anything I can do about it. When my aunt died my mother told me something I’ll never forget.
She said, “When someone dies, it feels like the world should stop turning, and that things should just stop. But they don’t. And so, neither can you. You just have to keep going. You can’t stop your world, just because someone else stopped there’s.”
I took that to heart, and it’s kept me going. I just have to believe that when I do die, this world will continue. It won’t end simply because I’m not there to see it turn anymore.
I just have to keep telling myself that.
March 30, 2011 at 8:51 am
bardcan
Wow, you put it better than I ever could… and that’s such a beautiful quote. It makes me happy and a little sad to read that… thank you! Bard
December 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Lord
Very intriguing. You managed to put into words something I have intuitively known for as long as I can remember. The only issue I had was with the following paragraph:
“No truly happy person would ever needlessly harm another. People only increase suffering when they are insecure, fearful or lacking contentment in their lives. Therefore, any thought that does not serve to ultimately increase your happiness is irrelevant.”
I believe that you are correct in your statement that we must do what ultimately makes us truly happy, however I pose this question: What if I were a serial killer who loved nothing more then killing people? Right there we have a dilemma. My own happiness will likely cause others some form of sadness, because even if the individuals being killed had no fear of death, the sudden absence of them as a physical individual would cause pain for those around them.
I guess I don’t have any real point to make here, I just wanted to point out something that seemed to be a minor flaw in your thinking. Other then that I loved reading this article.
My thanks,
~L
December 16, 2010 at 11:33 pm
fawkes
@lord
Your analogy is wrong. He said “any TRULY happy person-” do you honestly think serial killers are truly happy people? What you posed is an example of “needlessly harming another” as he said in the article this is irrelevant.
January 24, 2011 at 6:18 am
Pete
What gives you the right to determine what makes a person TRULY happy? Hell, taking the life of another human being may very well be the greatest rush one can ever feel. If there is one point that is consistent in this article, it is that everything is SUBJECTIVE. Morals and values are not excluded.
I probably skewed it unnecessarily in a negative direction, but this is the point I think ~L is trying to make.
December 15, 2010 at 10:48 am
Anonymous
Contradiction.
We only say we know reality is in the mind as a set of electrical pulses through empirical research. Empirical research requires a reliance on the truth of our perception. Truth is nothing other than to say something is the case.
Ergo, you use perception to deny perception. But if we deny perception then we never can say we have a valid argument against perception.
2nd year undergrad philosophy students can see the error in such reasoning.
December 15, 2010 at 8:35 am
Troy S.
You do certainly have a way with words.
As I was reading your article, I saw a written English translation of all the time I have spent thinking about life. It is even fairly easy to understand, at least on the most important levels.
I think people have a very hard time coping with the concept that there is no such thing as ‘nothing’. A Law of Opposites would state that since there is an ‘everything’ there must be an absence of everything, and yet, as soon as it is observed (IF it could be), it disappears and must take on the form of something.
Also, people have a hard time placing their brain between ‘themselves’ and all that they do. There is not a single activity you partake in, no matter how small, that your brain does not have total power over. (as far as your perception of said event, I mean)
If people knew how fragile consciousness really was, and how one set of crossed wires could turn you into a raving lunatic, we might be a little more appreciative of our experiences.
And I don’t even want to start talking about the fractal nature of the universe…
but i mentioned it, so i already started talking about it
but i said i didn’t want to, so i won’t.
but i did
but i didn’t
ooooooh
December 15, 2010 at 5:50 am
Natalia
I stumbled on here…You’ve managed to put into words what I’ve concluded a while back (due to a lack of any better options) into words. It is a great line of reasoning, but I do have to poke at the fact that if we were to agree that all that we experience is an illusion of our senses (of course!), then certainly we agree that reality or the universe around you, cannot truly and objectively be known. If that’s the case, then we can’t rely on arguments that is in part supported by “scientific fact” (evolution, genetics, memetics?) since “scientific fact” is subject to human experience. Surely we didn’t arrive at the conclusions about evolution & genetics through reason alone? Were these, as other branches of science, not heavily influenced by human observation? Observation that is subjective? Of course, I agree with you, but I am troubled by that line of argument. Unfortunately, the belief that all is an illusion of the subjective mind is just as impossible to prove through “fact” as the argument implies there is no such thing as “fact”. But I have no other better alternative to believe in, so this makes no different than the spiritual or the religious in that I have to have blind faith in an abstract concept.
December 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
Lucifer's Advocate
The following has not been extensively thought out, so I apologize if it wastes your time.
Is the way in which he uses our subjective experiences and observations to describe his conclusions not similar to the way in which the carpenter strikes the nail and instructs the apprentice to do so? The fact that we used the hammer as a tool to put the nail into the chair, does not make the chair’s legitimacy and sustainability dependent on the hammer after the nail is already in the chair.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the subjective experience is a tool used in the creation of the chair, in this case our understanding of the logical conclusion, rather than the chair’s leg, or a fundamental component of the form of the chair’s existence.
December 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm
boogerdeeunit
Then why is it that we feel drawn to ‘accomplish’ things? Receive smiles from others? Approval? Is it just kinetic energy that pulls us to do these things?
How could we feel as though we’re healthy and thriving with this mindset? If I crush an ant from his perspective did his lights go out? Was it just a bad dream?
Why am I afraid to make my mom cry about me dying even though I won’t exist?
July 23, 2013 at 5:06 am
bardcan
i can’t answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re referencing.
as for your last sentence – the hypothesis of my article is that you will exist – infinitely.
December 10, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Pastor Tom
unfortunately you are going to hell. You will have experiences there. you will not like them. I will pray for your eternal burning soul..
December 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm
bardcan
Thanks for your kind and insightful words, Pastor Tom 🙂
December 25, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Caleb Jones
and a huge thank you to pastor tom for giving us the royally perfect picture of the narrow minded, fundamentalist christian. do you realize how ignorant and arrogant you sound? the only thing you do here is piss people off.
next time you debate an atheist, show a little bit of respect. and open-mindedness is good too.
trust me when i say these things. i am a believer in my own respect (a manner in which i do not have the time or space to elaborate on here).
but i know the mentality here well. i am just as much an atheist as i am a believer. it is a part of who i am.
honestly, don’t be a bible beater. it does no good. and it surly doesn’t help your cause in the least.
December 27, 2010 at 5:35 pm
a guy
Pastor Tom, don’t you think his theories about concious life after our physical death are what we Christians call “Heaven?” In fact, the thought that our “soul” lives on after our body dies IS the exact definition of Heaven. This essay is merely a scientific way to completely support the Christan belief of Heaven.
Furthermore, though I am not one to judge this, you shall go to Hell also it seems for you consider yourself God. Who are you to forsee what will happen to another man’s soul? Last time I checked only God can truly understand such a concept, and, since you seem to think you’re capable of this almighty task, you obviously consider yourself a God and are thus perpetually going against the first commandment as you make yourself into an idol.
Also, the way in which you went about telling him he was going to Hell was entirely sinful. You do not think it is unfortunate that he is going to Hell. Otherwise, you would have given him some sort of direction so that he may avoid the everlasting bonfire. This is what Jesus taught us to do and what all good Christians must do to save others. You merely mock him in YOUR decision that he will go to Hell. You rub in his face that your soul is “saved.”
This is the way, I imagine, most of your sermons go. You give fire and brimstone rants to your flock about how they must live in your pious ways if they hope to go to Heaven. The two ironies in this, however, are that you are actually condemning them if they really are to follow in your footsteps, and that your assumption that you are saved is unbased. You judge that you understand the mysteries which only God can know, thus you think you know how to live in the right. I will pray for your soul, as I concieve that there is no way you can go to Heaven.
In conclusion, I admit that you may be entirely right. God may want people to act like you, and those types of people will eventually reach Heaven. However, if that is the case, I would rather burn in Hell than live in the presence of such a truly evil god.
January 27, 2011 at 2:00 am
Scott
I think perhaps Pastor Tom was being facetious. Either way, chill out, Dude!
April 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Casey Dague
That’s insightful… It’s comforting to know that Pastor Tom has the ability to determine people’s eternal fate.
Hope I haven’t done anything to make him mad or he might send me to hell
July 17, 2013 at 12:20 pm
bardcan
I don’t know what to say… this is such a stunning comment. I’m really floored by your insight. I very much appreciate your intelligence and candor. You’ve taught me a lot about nuanced Christian belief in one comment. Thank you!
Also, from a layperson, your position makes perfect, rational sense, whereas pastor toms is very difficult to understand and seems to come from a confused place. I appreciate your words a lot.
April 20, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Pablo DIaz
cool story bro. thanks for the advice. i’m sure that you’ve brought many peoples to Christ with this sort of talk. congratulations dude.
December 8, 2010 at 9:27 pm
anthonylebaron
Nice. I think I’m on the same page, despite the various routes we may have taken to get there. I don’t think in terms of infinite possibilities within infinite space. I collapse infinity of space and of time so that it becomes only one thing. I can’t comprehend infinity otherwise. At this point, space and time both fade away and leave only consciousness. I accept space and time, and think it’s likely that egos are simply material subsets of consciousness – which explains why some aspects of our selves are consistent, and some change as furtively as our atoms, through our perceived time. Why consciousness needs to experience matter, I’m not sure. I think consciousness is simply pervasive and doesn’t have much of an option, just as light passes through a prism and makes colours, consciousness ‘passes’ through matter and makes us. Though …’passes’ is the best word I can think of for an emanation in stillness.
Despite all that, it’s hard not to fear dying. Go figger.
Thanks for your post. I’ll come back and read it again.
December 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Dave
“which explains why some aspects of our selves are consistent, and some change as furtively as our atoms, through our perceived time.”
We change as ‘furtively’ as our atoms because we are our atoms. There is no separation between the mind and the brain, they are one and the same.
“Why consciousness needs to experience matter, I’m not sure.”
Consciousness needs to ‘experience’ matter because that is the substrate in which it exists. Our consciousness is the result of complex, information processing occurring in the brain. We simply ‘ride’ the experience of decision making which occurs in the brain and call it the ‘self’.
Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard, can probably explain it better than I: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_09_27_newsweek.html
December 9, 2010 at 2:10 pm
anthonylebaron
if i understand brad’s article correctly, then, no, we are not the atoms. we are meme as expressed through atoms, which creates this specific and current construct. we might be concurrently expressed through other media as well, and have no awareness of this. it amuses me to believe this.
December 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm
bardcan
if you define “we” as our consciousness, then yes.
December 1, 2010 at 2:00 pm
AJ
I found this article, while not instantly comforting, at least something to ponder over. Death and thoughts of my own and those of my friends and family are the only things in life that instantly fill me with dread, so much so that I begin to physically panic.
Your concept of extended consciousness, however, makes me wonder whether we, as humans, place too much emphasis on the physical self. Are many people simply unable to grasp this extended and delineated notion of the ‘self’? How, for instance, does our consciousness vary from that of a household pet, or a tree, or any other living thing for that matter?
For the most part, our brains, time and energy are geared towards what are termed our primal desires – food, water, sleep, sex, intimacy. These are our ‘needs’, which we share with all other living creatures. At the end of the day, those things which we want – things we buy, sell, create – are predominantly those which are transient, just like our physical bodies.
Do we place too much emphasis on these transient things? Why? Why are we unable to reconcile the fact that myriad streams of consciousness are floating all around us, embodied in every other living thing? Is it a matter of human ego, or something else?
November 29, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Alex
Death is not a delusion.
You just can’t experience being dead, but who didn’t know that?
People don’t fear the experience, they fear not having the experience anymore.
Conciousness is common but I am not my conciousness, I am my history, the experiences of the physical world I had that shaped my brain throughout my life. Once my brain is gone I’ll never live again.
And of course being dead is exactly the same as when you weren’t born.
But to be honest, this article is in no way comforting. I’m still afraid of dying, but I just don’t try to think of it and keep hoping infinite life will become possible within my life span.
November 29, 2010 at 6:49 pm
bardcan
So you’re saying people don’t fear the experience… they fear (the experience) of not having the experience? That is a logical paradox.
I can be frightened by the idea of being killed by a unicorn… but I would have to be insane to actually fear that I would experience being killed by one.
As for your other points… clearly you reject every major premise in my article… if so… do you have rebuttles for them?
November 29, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Alex
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with almost everything you say in your article, it is all common knowledge to me.
I see you inserted two words into my sentence that change the whole meaning, dont do that !:P
I am not afraid of the experience of being dead like I said, i know what it is like, it is like when I wasn’t born.
Although I find living like I am doing at this moment more pleasant than being not alive.
Therefore, I fear being dead.
November 29, 2010 at 7:31 pm
bardcan
It seems that you do not conceptually understand the point I am making. I cannot think of another way to word it. The unicorn example is the best I have right now 😦
simply: “I am not afraid of the experience of being dead” “I fear being dead.” are two contradictory statements…
if that doesn’t make sense, try substitution: “I am not afraid of the experience of being a one-legged woman” “I fear being a one-legged woman.”
“I am not afraid of the experience of being on fire” “I fear being on fire.”
“I am not afraid of the experience of being alive” “I fear being alive.”
if not the experience… what on earth are you talking about?
November 29, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Alex
I fear the lack of experience
There is no contradiction because there is a difference between: being dead and the experience of being dead.
–>
I fear being dead.
I don’t fear the experience of being dead.
tnx for all your quick replies btw:P
November 30, 2010 at 1:05 am
D Slater
I understand what Alex means here as, for anyone that likes life, it is natural for that person not to like the idea of it coming to an end.
News out today says that researchers at Harvard have managed to reverse the ageing process in mice http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans. Due to the exponential increase in life expectancy there will most likely come a day when life expectancy increases by more than a year, every year. This means death from old age could one day be a thing of the past. Some experts have even gone so far as to say that the first person who will reach the age of 500 is alive today.
So one day the distress people face may not come from the knowledge that their life will one day come to an end, but instead from the knowledge that it will be they that decides upon its ending.
November 30, 2010 at 3:45 am
bardcan
absolutely… and it’s a wonderful thought. I think the concept of death by old age being “natural” is simply a fantasy people tell to themselves to make themselves feel better about what was once inevitable.
November 30, 2010 at 3:44 am
bardcan
you can fear the concept of lack of experience, but you can’t fear experiencing a lack of experience… therefore, you can’t fear being dead… only the concept of being dead… which is false because you can’t experience it. 🙂
February 18, 2011 at 5:45 pm
hannah
Not trying to be annoying or anything… just curious…
But, personally, I accept the fact that most of my fears are irrational… however, it doesn’t exactly help getting rid of them.
Don’t you think it is near impossible to be logical or reasonable in any way when it comes to the fear of death?
Also, I am actually more afraid about the separation with loved ones… with my death; or more likely theirs (as you brilliantly argued, after my death, I won’t care).
June 28, 2018 at 1:49 am
Cartman
I think Alex means he fears not being alive/conscious, getting to experience life anymore, thinking, etc, and when he says he doesn’t fear the experience of being dead he just means he knows there won’t be any pain or negative experiences after he’s dead to worry about, he just doesn’t want to stop living is all. Do you understand what I’m trying to say on behalf of poor misunderstood Alex? Or do you only fear the EXPERIENCE of what I’m trying to say on behalf of poor misunderstood Alex. lol 😅
November 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Anonymous
In the words of the great comedian and philosopher:
“The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think that it’s real because that’s how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills, and it’s very brightly coloured, and it’s very loud and it’s fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question – is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us. They say ‘Hey! Don’t worry, don’t be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride.’ And we…kill those people. Ha ha ha. ‘Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride. SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and family. This just has to be real.’ It’s just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn’t matter because: it’s just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings, and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourselves off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here’s what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace.”
November 29, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Anonymous
This was Bill Hicks btw
November 29, 2010 at 2:23 pm
D Slater
First of all very nice essay. I have a bachelors degree in physics and I am currently studying a masters in neuroscience so I am interested in these ideas on many levels.
There is one area I am not sure about and have been contemplating myself over the last few months. You say:
“There is a gulf between the dimensions of objective facts from subjective experience. The two can influence each other, but between them is a fundamental divide.”
It is clear to me that objective facts can, and do, influence subjective experience, but what is to say that it works the other way around? How can a ‘choice’ we make with our thoughts directly influence the matter that supports these thoughts?
Essentially this is a question of free will, and I am leaning to believe that true free will is an illusion. It is a powerful illusion but an illusion nonetheless.
With the development Newtonian mechanics people began to imagine the workings of the universe as analogous to the workings of a clock; one action follows another with certainty over time. It wasn’t until the formulation of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century that uncertainty was once again part of the picture. This means that of all that we know about physics, only quantum mechanics offers the possibility of choice over our actions – and thus the manipulation of matter, initiated by our thoughts.
So are our brains quantum machines? If they are not then true free will is an illusion, our reaction to the world is out of our subjective control. If they are (as some prominent thinkers such as Roger Penrose believe,) quantum machines, then perhaps the subjective self can truly decide between multiple possibilities. Unfortunately there is no biological or psychological evidence for quantum computing in the brain and there are significant obstacles to its formation in biological systems (Abninder et al, Cognitive Science 30 (2006) 593–603).
Along with this, experiments in neuroscience using fMRI have shown that it is possible to predict a persons decision up to 10 seconds before they are themselves consciously aware of the decision they will make (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/philosophical-seminar/images/f/f6/Haynes_et_al_on_decision_in_the_brain.pdf).
So, in an undetailed and haphazard way I have outlined my thoughts about what would be needed for subjective experience to influence objective facts. Work in neuroscience suggests that a bubbling of processes below our conscious awareness prime us to make decisions we might not have any awareness that we are going to make. And even if we did have the power to make conscious decisions what physical process could allow these thoughts to influence matter within our brains?
Although this stemmed from a single sentence of your article I think it is very much related to our idea of ‘consciousness’ and I am interested in hearing your views on the subject. I look forward to your response.
November 29, 2010 at 3:47 pm
bardcan
Thank you so much for your response! This is why I put this piece online in the first place, as it was originally just a private way for me to organise and record my thoughts on these matters… but I hoped that there would be responses that would prompt further and deeper thoughts on them…
I essentially agree with you on every point… as Douglas Adams supposed in hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, with a sufficiently powerful computer, all you would need to feed in to it would be a slice of chocolate cake for it to deduce the entire past and future of the entire physical universe… I see no evidence to disprove this theory… in fact, I see the basic concept of free will as an inherently irrational one… to what does it refer? The inability to act against the fundamental laws of physics which have guided the path of every atom and quanta in your body since the day you were born? Of course you can’t change the inevitable trajectories of your component parts… any more than you can walk on water… besides, this nebulous concept of free will is an entirely human conceit and has no bearing on the behavior of the real, physical universe.
“How can a ‘choice’ we make with our thoughts directly influence the matter that supports these thoughts?”
The choice we make is only a “choice” to us – in our subjective consciousness… it feels that we have chosen to do something… just because it doesn’t feel like our decision was merely a series of atomic dominoes playing out an inevitable cascade within our brains doesn’t mean that it isn’t exactly that… just as how when I move my hand muscles to type this sentence it doesn’t necessarily feel like an atomic cascade of protein synthesis and microscopic muscular contractions… it just feels like I’m moving my fingers… because that’s the story my brain is playing out for me.
I find it no more disturbing to accept that free will is an illusion than I do to accept that my arm is not actually solid, but largely empty space filled by microscopic, possibly intangible, gravity wells swirling at inconceivable speeds… or that time itself may be an illusion maintained by our brains as a useful survival tool.
These are all nice stories that we tell ourselves so that we can make coherent sense of the universe.
The only way that I can see that you could conceivably break with this destiny, as it were, is if you could compute the exact outcome of the universe’s present state, then review that data and consciously chose to act out of sync with it… but of course any computer large and powerful enough to compute the exact behaviour of every quanta of the physical universe would necessarily have to be larger than the universe and operate outside of it… but when the prediction data was introduced to our universe it would necessarily become part of it… so the results would be invalid… in my opinion it’s an intractable paradox.
So, no, I don’t think that version of free will would be possible… but I’m not sure that that is an accurate description of what you mean by “free will”? Please let me know if I’ve misinterpreted it… or if you have an alternate definition of it.
November 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Alex
You missed his initial point where he refered to, I’ll cite it again:
“There is a gulf between the dimensions of objective facts from subjective experience. The two can influence each other, but between them is a fundamental divide.”
If I am correct the consequence of what you are saying is that this division does not exist, subjective experience does not influence the physical world!
November 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm
bardcan
I didn’t miss it and unfortunately I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Saying that subjective experience does not influence the physical world is like saying that a computer program cannot affect the hard drive that it exists on… this is absurd because clearly it can… although the program has no “free will” because it’s entire behavior is programmed and inevitably dictated by it’s form on the hard drive, it is still the program that spins the drive or turns it off. It’s preprogrammed, and yet the system is running… so it “experiences” making decisions. There may be only one way that it can run… but the calculations still need to be made… just as the decisions need to be made in our heads…
Physical reality and subjective reality remain two separate dimensions… which interact with and influence each other… but are fundamentally separate… one cannot be truly “perceived” from the other’s perspective… (a clumsy analogy, but I can’t think of better at the moment) As in, it is impossible to truly conceive of the objective universe subjectively… and from the “perspective” of the objective universe, the subjective point of view does not exist… only the simple movement of atoms in space. The clockwork dimension versus the qualia dimension.
November 29, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Alex
In your example the program alters the physical harddrive, but you must agree that in the end this is a completely physical process. Although the computer program is abstract, there are only physical processes going on.
If you say there is no free will you can indeed make this comparison with a computer program. This means although a subjective world emerges, there are only physical processes.
November 29, 2010 at 7:13 pm
bardcan
No. The program is running. The subjective experience is part of the running program. If you reject this, then you reject the very notion of subjective experience, or you claim that it can only occur on a biological substrate and not on a digital HDD… two concepts which I find unsubstantiated and unsustainable.
Programs or systems are not reliant on any particular physical substrate. You cannot say that they are a physical process at all… they are not physical… they require a physical substrate to be run upon, but they are not one themselves. This is why they can be perfectly replicated on different substrates. Essentially, what you are saying is “2 + 2 is a purely physical process”… (you can exchange 2 + 2 for any system, idea, meme, etc. Say, “Christianity” or “the colour blue”) This is clearly nonsensical.
November 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm
bardcan
Sorry, I miss-read one point… you said that there is “only physical processes” yet a “subjective world emerges”… so which is it? Only physical or both physical and subjective?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Bard wrote:
> No. The program is running. The subjective experience is part of > the running program. If you reject this, then you reject the very notion of > subjective experience, or you claim that it can only occur on a biological > substrate and not on a digital HDD… two concepts which I find > unsubstantiated and unsustainable. > > Programs or systems are not reliant on any particular physical > substrate. You cannot say that they are a physical process at all… they > are not physical… they require a physical substrate to be run upon, but > they are not one themselves. This is why they can be perfectly replicated on > different substrates. > Essentially, what you are saying is “2 + 2 is a purely physical process”… > (you can exchange 2 + 2 for any system, idea, meme, etc. Say, “Christianity” > or “the colour blue”) This is clearly nonsensical. >
November 30, 2010 at 12:45 am
D Slater
Thanks for replying so quickly. I like these ‘pub philosophy’ type discussions, it’s a shame so many people in the world seem to have no interest in them!
The idea of the computer and the chocolate cake is an interesting idea. I’d never thought of that before and, perhaps because of this, I’m not sure it would have all the information that would be needed right there. The most obvious reason I can think of is that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. This would mean that for the computer to analyse the current state of things at the very ‘edge’ of the universe (13.7 billion light years away) it would have to wait another 13.7 billion years for the information to arrive! That is unless that information can be deduced by other means. Also in quantum mechanics you can never know position and momentum with perfect precision; the more you know about one the less you know about the other. This applies to other physical properties as well and is called the uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). It puts a restraint upon the absolute knowledge one can obtain about any system. It is just one of the many bizarre but fascinating results of quantum mechanics.
In the next paragraph you discuss how we perceive that we have a choice when in fact we might not. I agree with you and also have no problem with it. It is such a powerful feeling of choice that we experience, whether we actually have it or not is almost irrelevant; our brains make it so convincing that we do, it would be impossible to try and live life as if we didn’t. I may be leaning towards determinism but I certainly don’t want to try and live my life like one! I don’t even know how you would try, seeing as the act of not making a choice would seem like a choice in itself.
I think there are many ways to define ‘free will’ and even I’m not exactly sure what I mean by it. I suppose here I am defining it as something like: ‘to have control over conscious thoughts which then lead to a number of possible motor outputs (movement)”.
Motor output, or movement, is what all information processing in the brain eventually leads to (even the choice of not going to the post office has implications on the movements you will make instead). Some motor outputs are out of our control (reflexes) but others seem to be made directly by us, these tend to be more complex. Complex actions require complex processing and so perhaps our concious thoughts, which so often seem to dictate our actions, merely represent this higher form of processing.
I have no idea why our ‘experience’ of these thoughts is needed, or whether for any given input there is a certainty of an output, but it is interesting to think about. It is certainly something I am not going to solve sitting at my computer and hoping the idea just comes to me! (unless perhaps I am given the right input…)
There is a book by renowned Oxford pharmacologist Susan Greenfield about how she views consciousness, emotions and the self which is very interesting and readable http://www.amazon.com/Private-Life-Brain-Emotions-Consciousness/dp/0471399752/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1291077717&sr=8-3. Also I can recommend a brilliant book by neurologist Oliver Sacks which, although not entirely related to this discussion, gives a revealing insight into how the brain works and what it is capable of http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Mistook-His-Wife/dp/0684853949/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291077636&sr=1-1.
November 25, 2010 at 6:49 pm
thadius
if only we had developed infrared vison. then again, hindsight is always 20/20. ironic.
November 24, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Gringo Tzar
This one’s gonna take a bit of sleeping on and re-reading. Til then my insignificantly meaningful retorts are suspended
November 23, 2010 at 4:19 am
Tyler K. Rauman
I first encountered this idea in Greg Egan’s novel “Permutation City”, in which he calls it the “Dust Theory”.
*spoiler:*
One protagonist deliberately sets up a digital haven for artificial intelligence life forms, a universe with ever-expanding processing power and unlimited control. He sets it running long enough for the pattern to be continued randomly for all eternity. He then has it shut off in our level of “reality”, knowing that it will continue to run in the “Dust” (analogous to what you call the “God Consciousness”).
Egan also makes a convincing case that the order of the states does not matter, bumping up the number of transfinite states in our universe. This isn’t necessary, but adds more robustness to the theory.
December 3, 2010 at 7:25 am
bardcan
Very interesting. I will have to check it out.
November 15, 2010 at 5:49 pm
zodiac signs
good article. Death it’s only something we will all face in our life.
November 15, 2010 at 5:48 pm
How to get rid of problem
just stumbled , i really like your article, also bookmarked your blog
November 14, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Steve
Interesting article, but I’m bothered by a few things you mention; namely bold metaphysical claims while offering very little support. It would seem to me that if you’re going to create a new metaphysical universe, which you seem to have done by means of not appealing to any philosophers’ arguments, then you should have a book’s worth of defense for the universe which you’ve created.
I can tell from reading this article that you are quite obviously a dualist. What is your defense of this view?
Also it appears, to me at least, that you are not talking about the process of death, but in fact the state of being death. For the experience of death is one which everyone experiences whether they are conscious of it or not. People who die in agony or great pain are indeed experiencing the process death, but not the experience of being dead. In this sense you are correct, no one can experience being dead because it is just that, the negation of sensory experience. The process of death or dying is a different story however, as it IS something that can be experienced. Just ask the people who have been in the room when someone dies a painful death.
You say death is nothing, and “nothing” is nothing so it cannot exist. Again, I assume you mean the state of being dead, not the process of dying. It is true that no one can experience the state of “being dead”, but
a person’s body can be in such a state. If your dualism is true and the mind processes sensory experience then we can indeed experience at least the process of dying, as the mind or soul continues to exist after the process of dying. It would also seem then that the mind could exist on its own and the experience of being dead isn’t the absence of experience, but the experience of a mind existing independently of a body; given this is not sensory experience so within the physical world it amount to “nothing”, but seemingly you claim that we are not physical beings, but mental beings with physical components (a body) in which case death is not nothing.
It also seems like, whether you like it or not, you are supporting religious doctrine in this article. The entire concept of life after death, which it seems you are supporting here in one sense or another (more appropriately existence after death), is one offered in and created by religious doctrine. Most if not all religions are dualistic. You say they only offer short-term comfort, but isn’t that essentially what you’re offering here?
Another metaphysical view you offer is Gapism: the view that YOU, whatever that may be, could exist over a time period and the you that exists in the future would still be the same you that exists in the present. If you could, offer a defense of how this is possible and also what you consider to be the criterion for identity.
I’m not sure if this was intentional, but it seems as though the term “brain” is used in some places where it would be more appropriate to use “mind” or “soul”. If truly all of our experience can be captured by our brain, then sensory experience appears to be a physical process which requires no interaction with the immaterial world in order to have occurred or for a sentient being to know it has occurred. You talk about color as an example of a secondary quality, which I would agree with, and you say that the recognition of color occurs in our brain, which is correct, but our brain needs physical inputs in order for this recognition to occur. Also a sidebar, but it sounded to me at one point you said the ability to recognize color came about through evolution. Is there any evidence that at some point humans couldn’t see, or more specifically differentiate between colors?
Our perceptions are a recreation of the physical world in our minds, but it is merely a reflection of what actually exists in physical space. It seems as though you claim that no objects have primary qualities, rather everything has secondary qualities which we create in mind (again the idea that perception is reality). Under this assumption it is possible that there be no physical world, that a Berkeleyan world is entirely possible nay, probable. Correct?
One last quib I have is that the universe is not, in fact, infinite. Yes, it is constantly expanding but at some point entropy will reduce to 0 and that will stop. Stars will burn out, life forms will die out, and the universe will cease to be, as it were. All the energy that ever was or ever will be would have to be contained by the big bang (Conservation of Energy Principle) and surely there is not such thing as an infinite amount of energy. It may be such a large amount that there is no possible way we could comprehend it, but that does not mean it is infinite. Even if the universe is infinite, infinites are still subject to mathematical laws. Also “zero is not a number”, what? How do you justify that?
I don’t mean for this to be a hateful response, just to offer criticism as is common in philosophy which I’m quite sure you’re very aware of. I do commend you for writing this and I’m glad you can inspire people with it. Happiness and relief of stress should be a common goal for all, and I feel philosophy is a good method for people to realize this. I look forward to hearing from you
Steve
November 15, 2010 at 11:22 am
bardcan
I’m sorry, but I find it very hard to understand how you have reached these conclusions about my article. As far as I can tell, I don’t support most of the major claims that you’ve outlined and I certainly hope that I haven’t given the impression that I do. I will review it again to try to clear up any confusion.
“It also seems like, whether you like it or not, you are supporting religious doctrine in this article. The entire concept of life after death, which it seems you are supporting here in one sense or another (more appropriately existence after death), is one offered in and created by religious doctrine. Most if not all religions are dualistic. You say they only offer short-term comfort, but isn’t that essentially what you’re offering here?”
I couldn’t disagree more. I have never supported an idea of “life after death.”.. this implies the supernatural which is by definition impossible in our natural universe.
“Another metaphysical view you offer is Gapism: the view that YOU, whatever that may be, could exist over a time period and the you that exists in the future would still be the same you that exists in the present. If you could, offer a defense of how this is possible and also what you consider to be the criterion for identity.”
I did, in the article.
“You talk about color as an example of a secondary quality, which I would agree with, and you say that the recognition of color occurs in our brain, which is correct, but our brain needs physical inputs in order for this recognition to occur. ”
I don’t agree.
“Is there any evidence that at some point humans couldn’t see, or more specifically differentiate between colors?”
We also had gills at one point in our evolution, but we weren’t classed as humans at that time. Are you somehow debating the truth of evolution?
“Our perceptions are a recreation of the physical world in our minds, but it is merely a reflection of what actually exists in physical space. It seems as though you claim that no objects have primary qualities, rather everything has secondary qualities which we create in mind (again the idea that perception is reality). Under this assumption it is possible that there be no physical world, that a Berkeleyan world is entirely possible nay, probable. Correct?”
I answer this in the article. No, I don’t claim that there could be no physical world… in fact, I repeatedly assert that there needs to be some sort of physical substrate for a mind to exist. But, it is possible that the physical world that we perceive is a simulation.
“One last quib I have is that the universe is not, in fact, infinite. ”
I have never claimed that the universe is infinite. In the article I state that my opinion is that there is a 50% chance that it may be. That’s also a rather large quib, since you are asserting that you have access to information that you could not possibly have. In fact, if you did and could prove it you would most certainly win the Nobel prize and quickly become one of the most famous people on the planet. I’m guessing that you don’t.
” Even if the universe is infinite, infinites are still subject to mathematical laws. ”
And?
Thanks for your questions,
Bard
January 24, 2011 at 6:57 am
Pete
In the most neutral tone possible, I would like to point out that replying “I don’t agree.” without further explanation doesn’t progress philosophical discussion.
Also, a big part of your article has to do with “existence after death” so I’m a bit confused as to how you’re claiming you didn’t support it.
“As far as I can tell, I don’t support most of the major claims that you’ve outlined and I certainly hope that I haven’t given the impression that I do.”
Unfortunately, when using something as simple as language to describe complex intangible things, it becomes easy to misinterpret. Steve’s discussion points reflect how I felt when reading your work as well.
November 29, 2010 at 10:02 am
Danny Nicholson
Steve, This whole discussion is quite complex, especially for someone like me, who has always had a great fear of death. In simple terms, what is your take on death and our future as former humans, after death? I have always followed a spiritual, christian concept. Birth, then death, then either Heaven or Hell. How can anyone, who is alive, really know for sure about anything, when it comes to death, for none of us writing or conversing, have ever been there yet? I am not being pompous, but just seeking answers. I would be interested in deeper detail from the author of this article and you as well. Thanks.
November 29, 2010 at 4:09 pm
bardcan
When you buy a box of cookies how can you be sure that when you open it you will find cookies inside? Could it not be filled with snakes? Or a micro-black-hole leading to the edge of the universe? You can’t, of course, know for sure… though you can do as you do in every other facet of your life: use the available evidence to make an educated guess as to what is within the box… likely cookies.
This is why I have no troubles making educated guesses as to what lies beyond the destruction of my worldly body… and why I have hesitation in discarding the fanciful and unfounded claims of every religion I have ever encountered.
November 5, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Jasmine
I enjoyed this article- I may not agree with everything in it, but you are very well informed and opinionated, and most importantly, you got myself and others who read this article thinking. Hearing others’ viewpoints is most important in the development of one’s own opinions.
One thing that bothers me, though, is the suggestion that we should not be at all upset over our own death. It is true that when we die, we will no long perceive anything, and therefore there will be no pain. It will be no personal tragedy, because we will not be there to experience it- what, however, about the people in our lives? They do not die with us, and therefore must suffer our loss. When I think about myself dying, I am pained most not by the thought of being gone, but by the thought of how my absence will impact the people who love me. Death is part of life, some of life is painful, and we have to accept that pain honestly. One can philosophize endlessly about life and death, but when faced first-hand with loss the realness and pain of death is undeniable.
November 5, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Anonymous
I also enjoyed this essay.
November 5, 2010 at 6:49 am
oreowizard
I mostly disagree with all this…..
The way i see it, its just another escape for the fear of death…
I’d rather call it fear of the unknown.
You see us humans cannot reach ” THE TRUTH”.
Our judgments are build up on our memories and the influences that were caused by people around us.
It is merely just a perspective of a man in a “different shoe”.
The only truth is within yourself.
but ironically enough, we question ourselves all the time, as if we are distrusting ourselves and others.
This is what is the fear of the unknown.
Death is just one subtopic.
For example… the dark, we can have many theories of dark on how it should not be feared, but is it the truth? Probably not. Its just in our instincts and nature to fear something uncertain.
I see that the author of this article is trying to prove that this idea of death is not a perspective, but the truth. which really makes me disagree with it even more.
And even the fact that the article is trying distinguish itself differently from religion is exactly the same what the churches do. They say its “chosen”, the ” only answer”, but is it really?
I believe that there is no such thing as truth for something uncertain.
Thats why its called uncertain in the first place. It can be guessed with scientific reasoning and with spiritual reasoning.
But the answer just doesnt exist.
It is just a fear of the unknown that we try to cope from.
even from the comments i see people saying ” im so releived”
hmmm lets see… where did i hear this before…. oh thats right churches.
and about happiness that you think are lies….
Even we live through hard times, you know the feeling of joy is real because its not really something you can control.
Just like the article stated, its all in your mind.
If your mind thinks happiness is fake, then happiness nothing but an illusion.
If you think the feeling that you have are real, then its the sweetest thing in the world you can feel.
If you cant enjoy the things in life and beleive that everything is just a conspiracy, then its just you and others who think that way will get the harm and live a sad life.
To go off topic,
If your desire for happiness is really gone, then what are you still doing in this world?
To enjoy the simulation? but i thought you said that happiness was fake?
To Spreading messages about death?
If this is just a simulation why do you care in the first place?
If you want to help people, that is your desire as well.
And you cant deny that you feel pleasure from helping others at time.
So eventually its a desire of happiness for yourself..
Even the fact that you want world peace, and everything.
i’m a horrible opinion writer. But thats pretty much what came to my mind when i was reading this article.
i know i go off topic at a lot of times, but this is just one perspective of a 15 year old.
you can reply anytime
November 5, 2010 at 7:07 am
bardcan
I reject the conceit that all truth is subjective.
Also, I believe that you’ve thrown up a bunch of straw-men… particularly comparisons to churches, conspiracies and statements like “If your mind thinks happiness is fake”…
Because they’re straw-men, I won’t bother knocking them down… unless you have any specific gripes on the actual merits of the article?
November 4, 2010 at 5:53 am
Renee
Thank you very much Mr. Canning. I’m 18 and the question of what death is and the fear of passing time have been really been plaguing me as of late. I just wanted an explanation that made sense and fit with my perception of what life/reality is. This article was exactly that.
I really can’t thank you enough.
-Renee
November 4, 2010 at 4:28 pm
bardcan
thank you so much, I’m happy to hear that. bard
November 4, 2010 at 5:50 am
Renee
Thank you very much Mr. Canning. I’m 18 and the question of what death is and the fear of passing time has really been plaguing me recently. I just wanted an explanation that made sense and fit with my perception of life. This article was exactly what I needed.
I really can’t thank you enough.
-Renee
October 26, 2010 at 2:03 am
Jerry
Theodor Reothke once wrote that “man is a beast that runs wild in his own head”. So many questions, the philosophers cannot answer. Rilke wrote it best when he suggested that we could not understand the answers if they were given, but rather, we should live into the answers. Perhaps in time, we will learn to stop asking so many silly questions and simply gaze in wonder.
October 26, 2010 at 2:08 am
bardcan
Huh. Are you so incredulous that maybe, just maybe, we can answer these questions? While some gaze in wonder others use the power of their minds to unravel and reveal the intricate truth and deeper beauty of our universe. I have no admiration for defeatists and luddites. My heroes are scientists and innovators.
October 26, 2010 at 6:13 pm
hysterichyssop
Perhaps I misunderstood, but by your own writings, aren’t you saying that experience is subjective to the species, the individual, the moment? If experience is subjective to the species, we are saying that the organism’s ability to sense and perceive its surroundings is different from that of an organism of a different species, given differences in sensory perception.
Are we removing humans from the list of species? Despite the awe-inspiring differences that consciousness and ability to imagine have granted human beings from other Earth-bound species, we are still a species limited by our own physical and psychological abilities to perceive our surroundings. (e.g. – the way a diamondback rattlesnake would perceive a desert vs. the way a pear cactus does… the two perceive heat, moisture, “hunger,” and other experiences in relation to the environment and self very differently, very subjectively)
In this way, any science or ideas we create are based on a genuinely fragile basis, that the realities we assume are true in order to create theories or concepts are really subjective interpretations of a reality that remains constant and ever out-of-scope of full understanding.
Of course, I agree that we should always attempt to define and describe and understand the world around us. That should never cease. However, maintaining a sense of wonderment in all observation, in all experience, is something that — in my eyes — is both personally rewarding and essential to truly understanding the nature of reality, to the best extent that our senses allow. Assuming we _know_ the exact nature of reality is an error in reasoning; acknowledging that we are not getting the full scope of experience and incorporating that into the process of establishing a collection of similar ideas and concepts is a more “realistic” way of going about things.
But eh, that’s just how I see it.
July 23, 2013 at 5:13 am
bardcan
your comment sounds like you’re disagreeing with me, but I agree with most of what you said. except for:
“In this way, any science or ideas we create are based on a genuinely fragile basis, that the realities we assume are true in order to create theories or concepts are really subjective interpretations of a reality that remains constant and ever out-of-scope of full understanding.” untrue. look up the “logical truths”
October 13, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Cecilia
This is amazing. What are you thoughts on human perception?
October 7, 2010 at 8:01 pm
A Child’s Fear of Death and Dying and the Confusion of Reality | On the Shore of the Wide World
[…] even if I’m not sure why that is exactly. A fellow WordPress.com blogger, Kensho, posted an article called “The Death Delusion,” which offers a very interesting, albeit off-the-wall, […]
October 7, 2010 at 3:59 am
jsides2
Not gonna lie, haven’t read any of the comments above, but-
I’m really glad to have read this. At first I thought “THANK GOD IT’S NOT JUST ME! I HAVEN’T JUST BEEN WATCHING TOO MUCH DR. WHO!” (Well, maybe I have been watching too much dr. who)
This has been a concept that’s been in my head for awhile
it also helps explain the “collective” conscious idea- why we feel as if we know certain stories- omg
October 5, 2010 at 8:29 am
zoop55
I have thoughts that i cannot put into words. For some reason I haven’t been able translate them. I’m always glad to come across writings like this (especially one so thorough), they tend to express what I myself am not at the moment capable of explaining. Thank you.
October 5, 2010 at 8:49 am
bardcan
That’s wonderful, thank you. I am so glad that so many people are having the same thoughts and that I can help express them.
October 4, 2010 at 9:49 am
Bhupen
Great and detailed piece of writing, thanks for sharing it.
October 4, 2010 at 9:50 am
bardcan
Thank you!
October 3, 2010 at 9:53 pm
HystericHyssop
While it represents a more specific angle or direct application of what I was looking for, this is a beautifully conveyance of a thought I’ve been wading into with curiosity but hadn’t quite fully realized yet.
I see this as a more detailed description of what I mean when I attempt to explain to someone that, no, there is no ultimate meaning in life or a true right/wrong, good/evil, present/past/future. … Except those that we make for ourselves. Sentience is subjective, consciousness and experience and self a mere sketch of the reality that exists as a constant outside of our ability to perceive it. Our own perspective abilities both open our consciounesses up to experience the surrounding universe and constrain us, limiting our understanding of the universe as it actually IS to a narrow scope of what it APPEARS TO BE.
I agree, albeit tentatively, that suffering can be avoided through pursuit of true happiness and contentment. However, I fear that this is more hope than guarantee because it turns a cheek to its own concept, that meaning and the subjective “reality” we all individually experience is created through that subjective experience alone and is not a given certainty. That humans’ progression from pursuit of true happiness will through natural lead to avoidance of suffering and communal compassion (or however you want to describe not negatively encroaching on another) is an assumption based on subjective meaning constructed around what it means to be “happy” or “good” or “bad” or “unhappy” or any other number of value-based, manmade emotional/behavioral descriptions.
I hope you are right, though.
October 3, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Al
You are completely right… except for one detail: your concept of thoughts and experiences being limited to the physical realm.
Through my own psychedelic and physics research I have come to understand the illusion of individual thought. If our thoughts are controlled solely from our individual physical inputs then our immediate reaction would be to say that two beings with the same inputs would indeed produce the same outputs, but are there only 5 inputs? The answer is no. Every bit in this universe is an input and has a direct influence in the happenings of our every day lives. Think of space, nothingness, the planets, your shoes, everything as part of one fabric, one fluid object. With every choice, every movement, we are directly influencing the universe at large, just as the universe is influencing us. If we chose to think of our inputs and outputs as equal, then the limitations of physical life do not apply for even after we have left our physical bodies and exist in the realms of realities unknown… Our past present and future universe still influence and ARE us. Time and the perception of matter or not-matter itself is merely an illusion, for you cannot separate that which is one in order to understand it. If we had bodies of thought that functioned in the infinity of space with no risk of decomposition, who’s to say that death would even be in our vocabulary, let alone that we were “alive”; we might just consider us to just be, like you say the universe just is. In the universe of infinity where the inputs and outputs exist as the same, there would be no need for a beginning and end.
I also have found that thoughts do not rise from just our current experience. We are in fact influenced by our past, present, and future, and given the possibilities of reincarnation and telepathic thought, we cannot limit our inputs or outputs to solely this realm. “All is one.”
Now, when we consider the possibilities under the theory of collective consciousness, there is no limit to the inputs that may serve us in this physical lifetime.
http://www.globalone.tv/group/quantumquest/forum/topics/is-the-universe-a-holographic
The article above explains quite clearly the difference between locational thinking and it’s finite possibilities and collective thought or the “all is one” paradigm.
Under the possibilities of thought existence beyond physical means we are able to construct our own views of afterlife. Having experienced death/life simultaneously and also having been to another dimension of reality where other sentient beings exist, there is a rule for perception beyond experience: Your perceptive experience lies in your acceptance. Those who feel fear in the potentiality of nothing will in fact create fear; or in other words, those who fear hell in the potentiality that is death will experience that hell that is solely their delusion. Those who feel acceptance in the potentiality of nothing will create acceptance and perpetuate the love that follows; or those who accept death as nothingness, as ultimate potential, will in fact realize ultimate potential, ultimate acceptance or love, or what I like to refer to as Heaven. Death is not a delusion, death and life exist in union and the power of each is within us. To live in life or death is to chose fear or love, once we’ve made up our minds accordingly our reality will follow.
October 2, 2010 at 4:12 am
Jennifer
You need to become more famous.
October 1, 2010 at 2:45 pm
J
In my opinion your article (although interesting reading) is similar to religional thoughts about death and “proves” as much as e.g. the bible or other religious manuscripts. Most relieving aspect for death is to understand and accept the fact that you, as everyone else, are eventually going to die (what that means is unknown, and also this needs to be accepted) and there is (currently) nothing you can do about it. With similar logic (presented also in a movie called Nines) and evenly “proven” I could state that I am a god-like entity that have created you all in my god-like bored consciousnes. That is at least as relieving “death-fear escapism” as one you presented, although quite egoistic one.
What is reality? I think (as you said) that it is just a snapshot of what your senses have brought to your brain processing during your whole age. E.g. if you would wake up on one morning in a very different reality that would be hard to comprehend some time, it would soon be your reality as the one you are now experiencing. Therefore when we discuss about death we can only come up with suggestions our reality can come up with. And in my opinion that is way too limited (note the paradox of thinking something that cannot be imagined).
The reality is sort of analogous for a floating point precision (e.g. pi as you presented). Knowing first ten decimals gives you a tool to solve most of the problems in decent accuracy (analogous to perceived reality and e.g. quantum level of it) but what about if the reality is as open ended in complexity as pi is in floating point decimals? What if both micro and macro levels are unlimited, introducing unimaginable dimensions corresponding to the level of your perception? The point in this paragraph is just trying to point the fact that with our limited understanding of the reality makes our assumptions of unknown (e.g. death) as limited.
For me the death is the last big surprise that has nothing to do with “me”. If “I” am the state of my brain (as I think), so long and thanks for the fish.
October 1, 2010 at 10:49 am
Paul
The shitty part in infinity is that “I” will eventually end up in eternal hell. How’s that for a paradox?
October 2, 2010 at 5:12 am
bardcan
But you’ll also end up in heaven for at least an equally long time. 🙂
In fact, my guess is that you’ll spend much more time in paradise since it’s more likely that you will be brought back by friendly AI than by unfriendly AI or emergence.
October 7, 2010 at 6:38 am
Paul
That’s true but what makes you say that there are more friendly AI’s than unfriendly ones? And even if you guess right (I hope) I wonder what infinity does to probabilities?
One would quickly assume that if event “x” is more probable that event “y”, in large enough sample you would see “x” happening more. But what happens if that sample is infinite? Wouldn’t that even out the possibilities since neither event would ever stop happening?
October 8, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Paul
Or to be more clear. Both events x and y would happen infinitely and so be the same size and so equally probable.
October 20, 2010 at 10:45 am
bardcan
It’s an interesting concept… I’m not a mathametician, so I can’t say with any authority… but my thought is that with infinity you’re talking about probabilities along a path or timeline… so you must assign likelyhoods to events happening instead of just blanketing them all with equal probabilities… otherwise you could say something like: “there is an equal probability of there being an unequal probability of something happening”… or other such absurdities.
September 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Jamie
Stumbled and found – Serendiptous to be sure.
How can one form an opinion by simply reading and comprehending – an article like this needs to be digested and ruminated for some time before any thoughts come to mind.
September 25, 2010 at 2:46 am
epic curious
When I saw the title, I thought I was saved from the thought I’m riddled with. The fact is – I used to think like this. But I do not agree with your wonderful thought provoking article anymore….
There are a number of assumptions made here without reason of which you claim so highly, for example atomizing can be done with anything that exists. This is pure existentialism to the max, and that’s positive, but too positive to be an answer in my opinion. I will take a more nihilistic stance saying that just because there may be the chance, note, I said chance, (you cannot assume 100percent that you are correct, it remains unknown) that we will just become completely unaware that we are unaware, that it will make a blind bit of difference in our want to continue existing, hence the “fear” is real because some of us enjoy being in this physical state, which may or may not be an illusion or simulation etc. again this you do not know and cannot just assume. We also fear the pain in death, I understand in the infinity of things this may be minor or fleeting and may be almost meaningless, however to the thinker, who fears death like myself this plays a huge part in the fear of death. That, and the unknown, and it is unknown. It may be as you say, it may be more complex than that, but it is still an unknown. All you have to do is look at a few reincarnation studies, or near death experiences, or even ghost stories to consider other possibilities, including ideals like the law of karma etc. I am not saying these are true because it remains unknown. I should conclude something here by saying what a wonderful thread for people to discuss one of the most important and not talked about enough facts of our life, death! I think the reason we hold such a weight with this topic is that maybe our lives here and what we do is quite important, for what reason i cannot say. But this topic i feel deeply is one of the most important you will ever have to consider. And you will have to, it just depends how you deal with it but please do not make assumptions if it is reason you are after, that is almost as bad as escaping to a religious belief for comfort, not saying that is bad but it is if it is reason and truth seeking you are after.
September 25, 2010 at 5:14 am
Ganapati
When we are in deep sleep our thought process is suspended. However, when we wake up we feel the continuity simply because the world around hasn’t changed significantly from what one could have projected when going to sleep. In cases where the world around changes significntly when one wakes up, the sense of contunity is not automatic and can be gained only by a more complicated process of referring to the others. It will be a very funny continuance where one cannot relate any of one’s memories to the world one experiences and I was not how many actually wish for such a continuance and such a possibility relieve them from the fear of death, where it exists.
However, there seem to be quite a few who do not mind such a continuance, whatever it may be, and relieved from their fear of death by such a possibility as evidenced by many of the responses here.
I don’t think Bard Canning’s attempt here is to find the truth about death, but absent such knowledge, to find a possibility that allows some, not necessarily everyone, to face death without fear.
September 25, 2010 at 12:31 pm
epic curious
Oh really? To Quote from beginning of article
quote
“The aim of my writing is the excavation and study of the truth. The truth as a pure product, consistent for all time. Through reasoned logic I intend to demonstrate that your own consciousness is not as finite in scope and lifespan as you may think.
To put it simply: I do not believe in death.”
unquote
Whatever bardcan “believes” is fine and whatever influence that has on others in facing death is also fine, belief is a very fragile word and it conjurs up more religious texts then anything else, but if your quoting that philisophically you are reaching these conclusions through excavating truth and reasoned logic, then assumtions cannot really be made, its nothing more then just pure hypothesis. The fear remains real because it is still unkown.
September 25, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Ganapati
There is no need to resort to hypotheses when we know the truth and hypotheses are all what we have when we don’t.
Since the truth about what happens to the ‘self’ when the organism dies is something that is as yet unknown, hypotheses take its place.
Bardcan is presenting a hypothesis, that given infinite time the same ‘self’ would be resurrected in some medium, which can be disproved only if one can show that any combination of thoughts and memories is unique and can never happen again. It can be proved is the same ‘self’ is resurrected in some other medium. I am not betting on either happening.
I am not impressed with the hypothesis myself (as evidenced by my earlier comments here), but it is a consistent, if unprovable, hypothesis.
Those who accept some kind of post-mortem continuity don’t fear death as much as those who don’t accept any.
September 22, 2010 at 8:57 am
sara
I want you to know that this article has renewed my beliefs as well as my passion for life enormously. That may sound dramatic but it’s true because it struck me at my core. And just in time when I was starting to lose my enthusiasm and give up. Thank you for making me re-realize that life isn’t the dramatic race to get it all done before we die that we all act like it is. I feel renewed.
September 22, 2010 at 2:05 pm
bardcan
I’m so pleased to hear that.
September 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Bryan
It was a roller coaster for mind reading this article. At first came the excitement of finding ideas this thought out, that transgressed through thoughts of philosophy, science, and religion. I let (as i often do) the ideas reach deep into my unconscious mind. P.S. I’ve been building my foundation of thought around something at least mostly different than most popular ways of thought. Then, after letting in this seemingly broadest way of thought came a deep emptiness and crippling of my philosophical thoughts. Cut off from their foundation as if this segment of ideas were all the answers and yet still none of them. I had no where left to think.. To be honest I was at first unsure whether or not philosophy was over for me. Not because I was so sure this article was spot on where we should start our perspectives, but because any attempt i made to find further meaning was made pointless. I was lost in unconscious thought for the rest of the day before I made the realization that this all consuming 1 dimensional yet scary foundation was too easily contemptible, it lied within the mind as if i was looking at a picture. The beauty and meaning of all the philosophies i had been creating had no room in within this reasoning of this article. It started and ended the explanation of our meaning of existence so confidently. It was then that I remembered that all beauty is truth. It was inevitable that i would find reason for non acceptance of this article. When i did eventually find it, it was the most relieving answer i could have hoped for, and reason for my personal life rushed back into my body. I am going to leave out the actual answer because it will be a little bit different for everyone, and because i would like to allow anyone who reads this, the sensation had when the flaw of this article is found. Anyways though, I do really like the article, its full of a lot of good and that is why it had me so shaken. This type of thinking is very needed but it needs to be expressed more obviously that it pertains only to 1 dimension of thought so that it leaves room for meaning.
September 21, 2010 at 4:58 pm
bardcan
Well, don’t leave us all hanging… what’s the flaw?
September 16, 2010 at 7:16 am
Anonymous
I can agree with a lot of this but there is one major potential flaw in this line of thinking. You are assuming that the universe will remain chemically active for all eternity. However, the law of entropy will eventually distribute all energy and matter evenly so that the whole universe never changes. At this point all thought, even that of your god-mind, will disappear forever. The only way this would not occur is if matter or energy were to spontaneously arise from nothing, which is only possible if the big bang repeats itself. I would consider it a stretch to assume without question that another big bang is coming.
September 16, 2010 at 8:29 am
bardcan
I would consider that a stretch too.
In my opinion, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty that existence is eternal is either 1. A liar. 2. Insane 3. Omniscient. Thankfully, I’m not claiming that.
Have you read “The Last Question” by Asimov?
September 16, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Anonymous
I have read “The Last Question”, which is partially why entropy came to mine while I read this. Asimov also led me speculate on the possibility of non-entropic thinkers(beings that have thought mechanisms based on reverse chemical reactions so that they experience time in the opposite direction). Maybe time is a line with two kinds of beings starting at both ends and passing in the middle. Perhaps there are even beings that experience all of time at once but a spacial dimension as if it progressed. In that case, maybe the perceptions of the god-mind are like a n-sphere(where n is the number of dimensions in our existence) that shrinks from infinite radius to a single point and then back out again, experiencing each point it passes through.
On another note, the idea of the god-mind got me thinking. You speculate that any event can be a stand-alone thought. However, any isolated event has ambiguous meaning. For example, electrons moving down a wire could mean anything, but in the context of a computer these signals are given meaning by the way the CPU handles them. If meaning can only be established once an organized system of event handling is established, then no thought can be unambiguously experienced without a sufficiently complex system to interpret it.
So can meaningless white noise really be a thought? Is it logical to lump all these isolated thoughts together as god-thoughts? Does a god-mind really exist if experience is dependent on meaning?
September 15, 2010 at 11:37 am
Sriram
I loved this article. Very interesting and thought provoking.
I love the arguments put up by non believers and atheists, based on logic and find them very convincing. But how can we be sure that logic is not contradictory? What about stuff like Russell’s Paradox or Godel’s Incompleteness theorem? Aren’t we working on the premise that logic and scientific method are correct? Meaning do we ‘believe’ that logic is right or do we ‘know’ that logic is right? If it is the latter, can it be proved that logic is infallible?
I am just hoping that I have made some constructive criticism and would love it if somebody can say further on what I said.
Cheers
Sriram
October 1, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Bryan
Logic merely outlines experience
September 14, 2010 at 5:51 am
Kronosblade
Incredible.
September 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Robert B
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. For awhile now I have been thinking about life and death. You talk alot about the persistence of life after death and that we do not truly ever “die”. This is a comforting notion and I liked the way you approached it. My question is: when do you think life begins? Do you consider that we are always living with this “God Conscience” of the universe and then we are simply animated at a certain time in history? Or do you believe that we must first be animated and then we are considered part of the “God Conscience” afterwords? I was thinking about this after you brought up the point pertaining to not caring about existing before you are born.
September 13, 2010 at 8:10 am
Death is All but an Illusion | Flare Out
[…] Death is the fear of nothingness! Don’t think so? Give the blog post below a go! Read Here Share/Bookmark Category: valuable Tags: avoiding death, dead, death, fear, fear of death, […]
September 12, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Alex
Bardcan thank you so much for writing this. I’ve thought about a few ideas that you mentioned here throughout my life, but never as logically or in so much detail or clarity.
Reading this definitely helped me to crystalize my own belief system about the universe, and as you said, it made me feel much better about the whole ‘death’ thing- which has been constantly on my mind recently as i have an ailing grandmother in a nursing home.
Once again, thanks, and I’ll definitely be subscribing.
September 12, 2010 at 12:26 pm
bardcan
Thank you!
My new permanent blog is at http://bardoubt.blogspot.com/
September 12, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Alex
One question i have- in the article it seems like you propose that our mind is independent of our physical body, like a program installed on the hardware of a computer.
However when our body deteriorates, for instance through dementia, doesn’t this fundamentally alter the thought chain itself?
September 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm
bardcan
Absolutely true… the next question I would ask you is this: what if your brain started to seriously deteriorate due to dementia… then, later, medical science advances and a cure is found and the damage is repaired… would this newly healthy person still be you?
Then consider another scenario: your dementia-riddled conciousness is copied onto a computer and then repaired and “healed” within the computer. Would this not also still be you?
September 12, 2010 at 9:40 am
kristina
I am morbidly afraid of death. I do not want to die because I enjoy feeling things and being aware. I really hoped this would help but all it did was further point out that one day I will be unaware. =( I’m a lost cause. I can’t sleep now.
September 12, 2010 at 10:11 am
bardcan
yes, but you won’t be unaware that you are unaware, so there’s nothing to worry about. (Actually, I could sum up this whole article in that one sentence 🙂 Also, there is the non-trivial chance that you will become aware again, in the infinite possibilities of time and space.
If it gives you any consolation, this existential dread is what has united us humans from the day that we gained sentience. In many ways is is the defining quality that makes us uniquely human. From the day that your ancestor crawled out of their cave, looked up at the stars and wondered what would happen to them when they would no longer be there to look upon those stars…. to today, you are not alone with this question. In fact, it is what binds you to every other person that has ever lived and thought about themselves.
My answer is a positive one, but if it doesn’t work for you then keep searching. Don’t be afraid of your intellectual power and curiosity, it is the most treasured gift you have. The very fact that you can ask this question is what makes you incredibly special throughout the universe. It is a privilege. The fact that the question is frightening is an indicator that it is an important one to ask.
peace bard
September 12, 2010 at 6:19 am
Haley
This was really interesting. I especially liked the poem at the end because we actually read that at my dad’s funeral a couple years ago 🙂
The one thing I kept thinking about though, was when you talked about how you shouldn’t be sad to stop existing, because you didn’t exist for more than trillions of years before you were born, and you’re not sad about that.
Personally, I think that there is a bit of a difference between never having existed at all, and ceasing to exist once you already existed. Especially because after you have existed in this particular configuration of atoms, you have impacted someone else’s perceived existence. And so if you are to die, it isn’t just about your level of comfort, but about the consciousnesses you have crossed paths with, and impacted, and the way your death impacts them.
I think that the reason death is so scary is not just because it is unknown, but also because you are aware of how other people’s deaths have affected you. We could understand death with 100% certainty, and still I think it is at least a bit intimidating, to leave the comfort zone of your current existence, even if you knew things will be 100x better after you die.
Anyway, I realize this isn’t exactly what you were talking about, but just a thought.
October 19, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Malik
I agree totally with what you are saying. Even if this is all a dream, our emotions feel real and the impact of death will still affect those who are still living or “dreaming” and this is why i cannot find total comfort in the idea that it will essentially be like the trillions of years in which i did not exist.
September 12, 2010 at 2:48 am
allan fairbairn
eternity is…where
in the void…
the eternal void…
is…
ever present…
is not born…
nor dies. what is
cannot
unbe…
so how can anything
“die”
the unliving dies
“when were you born”
stupid question
refers to a time before your inscription in the civil state
and the 280 days before
but that entity
the “personna”
is not alive
September 12, 2010 at 3:20 am
bardcan
Ok, now I know that you’re trolling. My comment to you that you’re responding to was literally a random combination of your words with no meaning. This was a test. If you can’t tell the difference between chaos and order then I see no way that I can hold a discourse with you.
I’m sorry, but I can’t have you filling up the comments section with nonsense.
September 12, 2010 at 2:41 am
allan fairbairn
the void[not negative] bears the all possible, universe
eternity bears all possible time… now yesterday tomorrow
all, are born in eternity
September 11, 2010 at 9:23 pm
allan fairbairn
there is the spiritual discourse of a material life…
and the material discourse of a spiritual life…
both the religion of creationism and that of darwinism…
make use of the former…
the latter belongs to the outsiders
September 11, 2010 at 9:26 pm
allan fairbairn
try to strive past your blocks try to genuinely think ok
September 12, 2010 at 2:11 am
bardcan
I really don’t know where to start… anyone else want to respond?
Ok, for a start saying “the religion of darwinism” makes as much sense as saying “my favourite hair colour is glass”
“try to strive past your blocks try to genuinely think ok”
again, if you want to discuss you first need to actually read about what you’re talking about
September 10, 2010 at 10:27 pm
allan fairbairn
“read is rede is make a net, is male a knot, start the rede…wide as you like…
mostly reading is murdering imagination… the only window to the present
eternity…live there now and all discussion is void… hehe”
now… here keys… read comes from rede… to make a net, to interpret a law… meaning … youu have to start from a proven point…death…? that is not proven, just, inferred…ie…reference to leaves. trees… what is your anchor point… seeing as death is not a universally accepted truth…there are degrees of disintegration but death… you must prove…
when is eternity if not now?
September 12, 2010 at 2:15 am
bardcan
ok, I’m going to give this my best shot:
mostly… thing here live… no but sound and vibration… if my rede was a lock then my interpretation of eternity… means I have to start from a point… this not death… youu insomuch as to extrapolate…. derp… not to anchor… ie… trees, etc. death… you must prove but what is eternity now?
September 9, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Alan
I like your thinking to a degree, though I wholly disagree with you writing off spirituality as a short term fix, claiming that we are constantly living in the spiritual plane. I understand your reasoning but I think you are looking at things with a far too scientific mind, give the supernatural a chance. I don’t agree with set religion but writing off spirituality totally makes as much sense as me writing off science as being defunct. There’s more to life than we can ever know, I’d love to see a string theorists come up with a theory for everything but my own theory is its never going to happen, some things just aren’t meant to be understood that’s part of the wonder of existence.
September 10, 2010 at 4:45 pm
bardcan
“some things just aren’t meant to be understood” this might sound like a humble statement, but if you unpack it it is actually an extremely arrogant position to take. Why? Because HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW? (unless you believe that you’re smarter and wiser than all the scentists who have dedicated their lives to uncovering the unbiased truth)
“I think you are looking at things with a far too scientific mind” if you are promoting uncritical thinking then I have some excellent snake-oil that you might be interested in.
“I’d love to see a string theorists come up with a theory for everything” I’m not sure if you’re aware, but that’s exactly what they are attempting to do. String-theory IS actually part of a theory of everything.
“writing off spirituality totally makes as much sense as me writing off science as being defunct” no, one is based on faith and wish-thinking and the other is THE EXACT OPPOSITE
September 9, 2010 at 8:27 pm
allan fairbairn
bardcan, i believe you’re just blathering, whistling in the dark, i’ve ttwice commented…and…silence… put up or go home… masturbate on your own watch
September 10, 2010 at 3:17 pm
ChrisTHEROCK
Hahah I have noticed that too and he even stated that he would read everyone’s. At least tell the truth haha
September 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm
bardcan
Please see my response to Allan. I also receive too many comments to respond IMMEDIATELY to all of them. I’m sure you understand.
September 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
bardcan
I have responded to some of your comments (you’ve made more than two), but honestly I can’t make sense of the rest of them. i just didn’t want to be rude by saying so.
for example:
“I sincerely believe that there is still time to alter the course we are on, but we should not tarry. For those who feel that it is already too late, perhaps the debate should also seriously consider the possibility of an extraterrestrial outpost, in space or on the moon, for example, as our species’ insurance policy.”
I have no idea what this is referring to or how it relates to my article.
You also asked me not to “sabotage” my paragraphs… by this I assume that you mean the dozens of updates and edits I’ve made to improve the quality of the article.
“read is rede is make a net, is male a knot, start the rede…wide as you like…
mostly reading is murdering imagination… the only window to the present
eternity…live there now and all discussion is void… hehe”
I’ve read this five times and I can’t make head nor tail of it. Can you explain it a bit clearer?
September 9, 2010 at 2:01 pm
nic
yes. yes- a thousand times yes. This made my night- thank you.
September 9, 2010 at 2:04 pm
bardcan
🙂
September 9, 2010 at 12:02 am
justin
Bard- I stumbled upon your website and dont usually rake the time to read articles of this length, however I was hooked from the beginning and found your reasoning and insight very welcoming. Thanks for taking the time to write such a great article.
September 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm
bardcan
Thanks Justin!
September 8, 2010 at 2:21 am
Chris
A long time ago I heard a concept that utterly fascinated me, though it was a pretty brief introduction. The idea was presented in the sense that consciousness is inherent through the universe and our brains, constructed as they are, happen to function like radios that can ‘pick up the single’. Breaking the ‘radio’ is akin to physical death. The signal is still very much present, just not focused by the appropriate machinery. Put another radio there and voila…
Anyways, this article was exactly what I’ve been looking for in a more detailed explanation of this idea. Thank you SO much for it! 🙂
September 8, 2010 at 4:43 am
Ganapati
Let me expand a little on this idea. Brain acts like receiver-amplifier-transmitter. The essence of the thoughts are in the all-pervading consciousness, but the particulars are in the brain. So each thought that occurs to one is the rearrangement of the individual particulars to an essence in the field of consciousness the brain is currently tuned into. For example a strong feeling for one’s own to the exclusion of everyone and everything else can be considered as essence. For a person in a tribe, this can generate loyalty to the tribe, for a person in a nation-state it may take the form of nationalism etc. Each would consider it an ‘individual’ thought, but it is true only in part, the details.
Now what constitutes the self? All the thoughts with all the individual particulars filled in? If so, it doesn’t exist outside the living body. If it is the essence, it likely existed before you were born, will continue to exist after you die and is most likely operating in more bodies than one at any moment making an ‘individual’ self meaningless.
September 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm
bardcan
I don’t subscribe to or agree with this idea, I’m sorry.
September 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm
stu
this article made my day, week, possibly month.
however, it leaves me with the same conclusion of absurdity that i achieve each time i consider the immensity of the “universe” and the insignificant position i and everyone i’ll ever know hold within it.
September 7, 2010 at 3:39 am
bardcan
Thank you!
“it leaves me with the same conclusion of absurdity that i achieve each time i consider the immensity of the “universe” and the insignificant position i and everyone i’ll ever know hold within it.”
It’s only possible to feel that way if you assign some kind of external meaning to the universe. If the universe has no inherent meaning then it doesn’t matter how big or small it is. You create meaning with your concious thought, so you and everyone you know are shining beacons of meaning in the endless void of space. You could not be more significant. A reason requires a reasoner. You are the creator of the universe as you experience it.
October 25, 2010 at 12:40 am
John
Right on!!!!
September 6, 2010 at 4:41 am
Mark
Your line
> When your physical body dies your consciousness does not disappear, it merely becomes disorganized and less constrained by the linear concepts of time and space.
Reminded me of this passage from Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot”, speaking of a man about to be hanged:
> He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions—one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around…A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them.
Seems like you’re in good company with this line of thought.
August 31, 2010 at 1:35 am
Matt
mental masturbation at its best
September 10, 2010 at 2:59 am
bardcan
thank you for your constructive criticism
August 26, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Tifavi
Thank you so much for putting words to my feelings
I printed it out and read it at work and it lifted me right up to…. trouble with this was that when I wanted to discuss this with my collieges they just did not get it. And when they found out that I’ve read it in english they all looked at me as if I was an alien.
Thank you so much again.
January 18, 2011 at 3:43 pm
bardcan
That’s very kind, thank you. I’m glad to hear that it has lifted your spirits. Often people need to be in the right mood to discuss these things… maybe try again one night over a nice bottle of wine? 🙂
March 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm
bardcan
You’re welcome! 🙂
August 26, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Ochiudo
Generally a very nice and well-written post. I agree on what you have to say about death, but I find all the comments and conclusions on consciousness a bit early, seeing how we haven’t yet even a working definition of what “consciousness” even is. One of the parts that made me uneasy for example was this one:
No, I don’t have to accept that. You seem to imply that consciousness must arrise from any sufficiently complex system, but that is an unbased assumption. You quote the nice XKCD comic strip with the Lego house, which is a great analogy. The “house” is simply a collection of basic parts sufficiently complex to form a “house”, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be formations of equal or even higher complexity that would still not constitute a “house” – same for consciousness. Just because something is complex it doesn’t necessarily make sense or behave in an ordered way. You can in fact think of a number of possible arrangements of structures that are vastly more complex than the structures of neurons that make up the human brain, but that doesn’t automatically give raise to consciousness. So no, I absolutely do not have to accept the idea of a universe-spanning “god consciousness” at all.
Also, what I fear in death is not the “experience” of being dead, it is the process that leads up to dying and that often goes along with great suffering. My father died of lung cancer and leukemia, and in agony. over the course of two years he slowly lost weight, all of his hair, the ability to walk and in the end even to talk, slowly and painfully turning into a vegetable. He spent the last six weeks of his life being constantly high on valium. THAT is what I am afraid of; THAT is what I don’t want to suffer, and what I don’t want my loved ones to see me suffering. The contemplating of Epicurus and Mark Twain quotes is nice enough, and it surely might help in comming to terms with one’s mortality, but dying is still pretty much real.
September 9, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Josh
again bardcan won’t respond to another well thought out response..
September 10, 2010 at 2:57 am
bardcan
I’m scanning the comments for your well-thought-out criticism, but can’t find it?
September 9, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Josh
Another great post that Bardcan did not respond to. You bring up a great point that bardcan failed to acknowldege. We do not necessarily fear death, but rather fear the events leading up to death such as disease, cancer, accidents. That is why doctor assisted suicides exist. People want to die in peace.
Oh and Bardcan don’t say “Feel free to leave a comment – I read and respond to them all” when you can’t back it up..
September 10, 2010 at 2:22 am
bardcan
I’m sorry I’m not responding to comments as rapidly as you would like, but some require more time and thought than others, especially if they are well thought out themselves. I am always most interested in rational criticism.
September 10, 2010 at 2:43 am
bardcan
Thank you, you’re right, I should have worded that sentence differently. It now reads: “If you accept that your thoughts occur as an organised system, supported by a physical substrate then you must also accept that random thoughts are occurring throughout the universe whenever a sufficiently complex and ordered system is formed naturally. For example, random complex electro-chemical reactions could create a precise analogue of the processes taking place within a human brain.”
Of course the brain is a combination of order and complexity, not just complexity.
This is why I love the online forum because we can all work together to increase the accuracy and logic of a reasoned explanation of these topics. I almost wish there was a wiki that could outline what we can reliably prove to be true about our own existence without it devolving into a religious flame war. Maybe I should start one based on invitation. You sound rational and thoughtful, would you be interested?
“So no, I absolutely do not have to accept the idea of a universe-spanning “god consciousness” at all.” All this turn of phrase refers to is that if the universe is infinite (it’s a big if) then it is a statistical inevitability then these emergent forms of intelligence will occur.
“Also, what I fear in death is not the “experience” of being dead, it is the process that leads up to dying and that often goes along with great suffering.” I have met very few people that have been able to genuinely claim that they have no fear of some day being dead. Of course we all fear the pain of dying, unless one is a masochist.
“but dying is still pretty much real” Of course it is a real experience, and I never claimed otherwise.
Even great pain can be a teacher.”Life is suffering”, as the buddhists say. I have noticed a very powerful thread in the nature of people that I have met and observed through my life – that those who have experienced deep suffering personally or by association often tend to be the ones with a heightened sense of empathy, compassion and existential thoughtfulness. I think it is by no accident that so many humanitarian politicians and intellectuals have come from painful backgrounds and minority positions.
Thanks Bard
August 26, 2010 at 9:40 am
Sara E.M.
I found this to be long, unoriginal fluff. What a lonely, solipsistic universe you describe. A long-winded superficial attempt at creating another comfort against the knowledge of our eventual death.
Somehow, I must be mistaken–here, I thought I feared death because I love living; doing things, thinking things, reading things. But, apparently, I’m supposed to just want some sort of “me” to exist forever–doesn’t matter if it can’t speak, sing, laugh, walk, swim, gaze at the stars or drink coffee. How vain.
Ah yes, and I also fear the death of others. It does bring some small comfort to know that we are made of material that recycles throughout the cosomos (we are “star stuff”). But it’s foolish to conclude that death doesn’t exist. Everyone dies. When they do, we lose the connection to them that matters–human interaction.
You can piece together as much pseudoscience with new age ideologies as you want, it won’t make that any less of a reality.
btw, congrats on the multiple cliche Einstein quotes; the science equivalent to playing Stairway to Heaven in a guitar store.
September 9, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Josh
Wow Sarah, this comment is definitely a breath of fresh air! I wish bardcan would refute it in some way
September 10, 2010 at 2:26 am
bardcan
Your wish will be granted once I’ve finished parsing the logic of the above comment. It takes a little longer considering how strenuously I disagree with it.
September 10, 2010 at 2:56 am
bardcan
Thanks for your comments. But i fear that instead of refuting my claims you are simply making an argument from incredulity, which is unfortunate because i sense that you are intelligent and i would like to hear your rebuttals. I always get excited when i start reading questions like yours because i hope that there will be some constructive criticism which will allow me to refine and improve my article. Invariably though, i am disappointed. Also, although there may appear to be some passing similarities with solipsism, this article is far from taking a true solipsistic position. I invite you to take a real shot at this fluff, i think that you’ll find it’s more formidable than you suspect.
I didn’t say this at all. Indeed, in an infinite universe it is a statistical inevitability that you will do all these things again. Also, I am fascinated as to how you could possibly find this rather simply mathematical position vain.
That brings me no comfort at all since I don’t believe that stars have any inherent purpose and so have no use for our recycled “star stuff”.
I suggest that you haven’t understood the basic premise of my article. I apologise… I will endeavour to make it clearer in future drafts.
There are many things that matter to people. Would you immediately commit suicide if you were stuck on a deserted island for the rest of your life? I certainly hope not. You are not given meaning from those that you interact with, but from within.
You can frame my words in any way you want, but that doesn’t make them so.
I believe you have confused science with originality.
August 26, 2010 at 4:43 am
Eric
I feel that you put thoughts of my dreams and the daily dream into writing. If someone would have told me these were my thoughts recorded I would believe them. Great quotes by the way. And thanks
September 10, 2010 at 2:55 am
bardcan
Thanks Eric! Glad to connect with your thoughts.
August 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm
allan fairbairn
you suppose death is a certainty, the fall of a leaf is not death, nor even the fall of a tree, nor of a forest, these are mere forms, as is mr bardcan… a mere name… a mere form… but you are not only that… you continue to be what you were before your … birth… to find right things… look in right places
ignore me if you like…my being does not depend on your aknowledgement…
have a nice one… try this discussion in chinese hehe
August 24, 2010 at 7:05 am
Anabar
Could our softwear be compatable with any other hardwear.
August 24, 2010 at 11:28 am
bardcan
yes
August 24, 2010 at 5:58 am
Ganapati
birdcan, For someone who insists on evidence for others’ beliefs you sure have a very lax standard for your own.
Exactly what evidence have you presented for this resurrection of a person’s mind other than that it has a non-zero probability of happening? Well, there is a non-zero probability of the moon disappearing from an orbit around the earth. However, I am not sure anyone who built a theory/belief around such a possibility cab be expected to be taken seriously.
However, you are being taken seriously by some because the implications of such a belief are relevant to them. The same goes for others’ beliefs without evidentiary support.
That is not to say no beliefs need to be backed up by evidence. All beliefs lacking evidence, but not contradicting any existing evidence are on the same level.
August 24, 2010 at 10:13 am
curious
I agree, anything that concerns the metaphysical is pure belief, and so cannot possibly be proven. While reason is certainly a great method, it is never enough without evidence from the senses. Reason has its faults; there is a great chance of falling into the trap of deductive fallacy. What is reason but justified true belief? Justifications are not accurate enough, in fact, they can be completely false.
Trying to justify anything that is metaphysical- in this case postmortem existence, cannot be done, simply because reason is not enough. You can reason your way into proving almost anything; it doesn’t make it valid.
After all, scientific theories are not backed up by reason. Certainly, reason plays a part, nonetheless it is backed up by hard, scientific proof.
August 24, 2010 at 11:00 am
Ganapati
Human beings expect satisfying answers to some questions. Scientific and demonstrable answers are preferred by everyone, but that is not a necessary condition.
If some questions do not have scientific and demonstrable answers that doesn’t mean people will forget the questions. Religions fill the gap. Currently what happens to one’s ‘self’ after death is one such question. There is no scientific/demonstrable answer that is satisfying to most. It is possible to invent a new answer, which is what I gather the attempt here is, but the answer doesn’t become scientific merely because the inventor uses words commonly used in the science of the day. Unless the answer is backed up by existing evidence or predicts phenomena absence which can be taken as falsifying the answer, it won’t count as scientific answer.
August 24, 2010 at 10:25 am
Ganapati
Bardcan, I apologise for misspelling your screen name in my last post.
August 24, 2010 at 11:19 am
curious
I completely agree.
August 24, 2010 at 11:27 am
bardcan
Either the universe / existence continues or repeats for eternity or it does not. The available evidence suggests to many that it does. Indeed, many accomplished physicists are divided over this point. There is no debate or evidence to suggest that the moon is likely to disappear.
August 24, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Ganapati
There isn’t any debate or evidence to suggest that thought structures and memories get resurrected either. You started it by talking about non-zero probabilities. Quantum mechanically speaking, every particle has a non-zero probability of it being anywhere in the universe. What is true of one particle is true of a collection of particles, however large. So sure, there is a non-zero probability of the moon disappearing from its orbit around the earth and reappearing somewhere else.
August 24, 2010 at 2:32 pm
bardcan
I didn’t say there wasn’t.
If you don’t think that there is a debate about the substrate independence of the human mind then I suggest some googling.
Facing eternity all non-zero probabilities become inevitable, therefore the only question at hand concerns eternity.
August 24, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Ganapati
It doesn’t really matter what debates exist among “scientists”. What matters is what evidence exists to support one claim or the other and what falsifiable predictions they make.
Even given infinite time for the universe to exist, the moon may not disappear, the probability of being it so low. But an individual “mind” may be resurrected in some place, some time. So you score a point there.
How would you expect your mind resurrected on a planet or even inside a star some trillion years from now to react and reconcile its memories with its immediate surroundings which have no correlation with them? Do you expect it to believe it has woken up from its last sleep and hence it never died?
Anyway, if eternity and non-zero probability are the bedrock of your thesis, I am not even sure why you bother with substrate independence of mind etc. There is a non-zero probability that there will be an exact replica of the solar system with its entire history, origin and evolution of life down to every single event in the life of every individual or exactly as you want them. So it will happen since there is eternity for it to happen.
Everything that is possible, things that you like as well as don’t, will happen and will happen many times over. Didn’t win the lottery? Don’t worry, you win it another time! You will not only be resurrected in mind but also in body, the same one or a better one if you don’t like your current one.
See, I didn’t even need mind, substrate independence etc to present even better picture! All I needed was that something be possible (and hence have non-zero probability of happening) and infinite time!
August 24, 2010 at 4:04 pm
bardcan
It sounds like you agree with me.
The question is – would the next you be you? I believe that it would.
August 24, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Ganapati
Clarification for the previous comment: Given infinite time, the moon too can suddenly disappear in some existence of the solar system. So special points for anyone there.
August 25, 2010 at 3:20 am
Ganapati
Agree with you? Sure! But then I am also agreeing with those who promise eternal misery/bliss! Because there certainly is a non-zero possibility of you having a miserable existence in one of those lives and a blissful one in another and since each of them will happen many times over and forever, you could call it eternal misery/bliss.
Given non-zero probability and infinite time, it is impossible to disagree with any claims of future, all of them equally meaningful/ridiculous.
August 24, 2010 at 3:08 am
rev. michael stone
Truth, absolute Truth, is always subjective. Knowing is by leaps and bounds. LOVE, like a compassionate father, holds understanding steady until the child grasps with confidence and pulls itself up.
August 23, 2010 at 7:52 pm
allan fairbairn
we live in eternity… all we need do is thirst for ultimate… what i’m on?
life… been here a long time… be here a long time longer… yin tsai piao miao shuu wu chong… enjoy your discussion… it’s only illusion…see you all at the coming shipwreck..hehe
August 23, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Searching Truth
Can the existence of any historical figure be summed up in a single sentence or formula? Of course not. But any evidence that I would provide whether it be archeological evidence or corroborating evidence would not satisfy your search for a scientific formula that proves the existence of God.
Again, if you are interested in finding the truth about life you will be able to find it, but only if you decide to search for it with an open mind. However, I am convinced that you are not interested in searching for the truth but rather an explanation of life that does not include God.
In any case, I enjoyed our discussion.
August 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm
bardcan
If my insistence on demonstrable, verifiable evidence is enough for you to be convinced that I will not believe, then I put it to you that you have no such evidence.
It’s important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Having an open mind does not mean that you lower your standards of evidence, it means that you will accept the evidence, whatever it may demonstrate. It’s for this fact that scientists are often the most open-minded people on earth. Scientists are also many times more likely to be atheists – indicating that believing in a god does not indicate an open mind, rather a mind closed to the sheer mountains of evidence refuting religious claims.
But, we both know that I’m wasting my time. “if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people”
thanks for your time
August 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Searching Truth
Here is a summary of the evidence that I speak of.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
August 23, 2010 at 8:42 pm
bardcan
Lee Strobel has such a thin grasp on reality and contempt for the scientific method that he barely warrants a mention in any serious discussion of these issues. I’m sorry, but if you are convinced by him then I guess you will believe anything.
August 23, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Searching Truth
I love your tenacity and I wish you success and prosperity in life.
August 23, 2010 at 7:33 pm
allan fairbairn
read is rede is make a net, is make a knot, start the rede…wide as you like…
mostly reading is murdering imagination… the only window to the present
eternity…live there now and all discussion is void… hehe… first realise eternity is now…
August 23, 2010 at 7:31 pm
allan fairbairn
read is rede is make a net, is male a knot, start the rede…wide as you like…
mostly reading is murdering imagination… the only window to the present
eternity…live there now and all discussion is void… hehe
August 23, 2010 at 7:34 pm
bardcan
I’ll have some of what you’re taking… or maybe not.
August 23, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Searching Truth
All I am saying is that the evidence exists. If you choose to read the evidence that is presented and still remain unconvinced than you will be in the same spot that you are now – unconvinced. But if you choose not to read the evidence that is presented then you will be in ignorance, without facts that are available, as I would be in ignorance if I chose not to read the book that claims to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
August 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm
bardcan
If compelling evidence existed and had been presented, like you said, then it would be all over the news around the world. It would be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity.
Even the most complex theories can often be summed up in a single sentence er formula. Is there any good reason why you are unable to articulate this evidence?
August 23, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Searching Truth
You said, “We should attempt to approach life as the ultimate scientist; with an open mind and without preconceptions; ready to accept the truth, whatever it may be.”
What if the real truth is that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. That he died and rose again and offers forgiveness and salvation for all who will believe in his name, resulting in eternal life.
Is this something you are willing to accept?
August 23, 2010 at 5:36 pm
bardcan
Certainly, if you have adequate evidence to support such a claim.
August 23, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Searching Truth
Adequate evidence for this claim does exist. There is a book called, “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. He is a former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, and atheist, who spent 2 years investigating this evidence.
Whether or not you are actually in search for real truth, I don’t know. But, I do not believe that you can truly rule out my above claim without reading this book.
August 23, 2010 at 6:30 pm
bardcan
You are showing your hand. I may as well say that you cannot rule out the existence of the flying spaghetti monster because unless you’ve read his book. Even if I did read your book and were not convinced by it I would still not rule out the existence of your god. I would simply remain unconvinced. You’re making a claim. If you want others to take you seriously you need to back it up with evidence.
August 23, 2010 at 9:24 pm
curious
I think it is futile to argue about religion, because it can neither be proved nor disproved. What it comes down to is faith, and that’s fine for a lot of people, but for some that just isn’t a sufficient answer.
August 23, 2010 at 5:40 am
Tiniesha
This is so interesting. I just started to learn how fascinating our brains are last year and ever since the first lecture, I feel like I can learn enough. It is so true but so hard (as in complicated) to think that nothing is really “true” that everything is simply what our brains are forming from what it is experiencing. To think that chemicals and electrical signals are everything we experience, all our memories, emotions, it’s such an outstanding thought. I love this it gives me this almost high to learn about this and talk about it. I love that there’s other people that have such a curious mind like me.
August 22, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Harry Trow
Exactly what I did when accepting the trance is tha reality which it is.
But surely logic only exists until new evidence presents itself and creates paradigms that stop us from operating freely.
August 22, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Glenn Keller
To be honest, it seems that you’re just playing a shell game with words with yourself. We call reality by its name only through our definitions of english, and the construct of our perceptions. We could call it Pumpkin Pie if we like, and if we did it long enough we’d learn to apply that thing we want to call reality now by its new name. But the perception, and the truth, is what it is regardless of how many philosophers die trying to redefine it.
August 22, 2010 at 8:46 pm
bardcan
oops: edited because I was replying to the wrong comment.
August 23, 2010 at 9:11 am
curious
If you assume there is an absolute truth, sure.
August 22, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Harry Trow
Thankyou. I had an existential experience 30 years ago where my dream merged with reality and it took many years to accept the illusion I exist in. The Matrix was the first modern media form that came close to it. I believe I can create myself how I want but the trance of existence keeps taking over. What do you recommend
August 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
bardcan
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is a chance that our lives are part of a simulation, but the evidence suggests that it is a very small chance. I would assume that your life is very real and act accordingly.
You must always rely on evidence, logic and reason. Going with “feelings” and visions is what leads to irrational behaviour and garbage like “The Secret”.
Regards, Bard
August 22, 2010 at 12:59 am
bazza76
Hi There,
I really enjoyed that read, even if I already did share the same belief as you already.
You sound like a very open minded and intelligent person and it was a great pleasure to read this piece.
Keep up the good work,
Kind Regards,
Barry
August 22, 2010 at 4:04 pm
bardcan
Thanks for your message Barry!
Regards, Bard
August 21, 2010 at 11:22 pm
curious
I should add that I don’t really know what I’m talking about…. Just a few thoughts I’ve been mulling over, and would appreciate your opinion! =)
August 21, 2010 at 11:16 pm
curious
“Cogito Ergo Sum”: I cannot acknowledge Descartes’ conclusion to be valid, simply because it contradicts the very method that he both came up with, and used. The fundamental principle was to reject all presumed knowledge, including the senses (as they can be deceiving). Yet, Descartes seemed to have overlooked that in forming his conclusion -“I think, therefore I am”, he had done the very thing he had wanted to avoid. Though it is irrefutable that doubt is a self-evident truth, and that one needs to think to doubt, it is not so self-evident that one must exist for it (the “thinking substance”) to exist as well. Not without using the senses, of which was clearly a deviation from Descartes’ method. When we link an agent, and an action or reaction, it is indubitably through the senses. “I think” : action, “I am”: agent”. Although technically Descartes had made an error with his method of reaching this conclusion, some may argue that regardless of this blunder, the proof that we exist- metaphysically, is still valid. I, however, am not so sure.
Surely the metaphysical cannot be proved, or disproved for that matter. While I completely agree that there is no way we can ascertain whether we are living in “reality” or not, similarly we cannot be sure that we our living is simply an illusion. Both reality and illusion cannot be proven, and so in my opinion, to “know” that we are in an illusion is just as deceptive as “knowing” that we are living in reality.
“I reject this concept since our brain cannot be defined as a physical constant in time or space.”
I don’t think it is so much that the thought has much to do with the brain, but rather it cannot be our own because it has more to do with the mind. It may sound naive but think of it this way, the essence of a feeling, dream, or thought cannot be captured by anyone other than the person who thought of it, dreamed it, or felt it. Obviously, an outsider’s brain will comprehend it, but the thought cannot be considered to be his own, since the way it is perceived cannot possibly be identical. As for the mind being linked to the external world, what if it simply interacts with the external world instead? Wouldn’t that imply something completely different? The expression “a mind of his/her own” comes to mind. To quote you, “The existence of our mind is evidenced by the “wake” left in our physical brains, but only we can experience our own consciousness.” Wouldn’t that also imply that a thought that occurs outside of your own brain cannot be identified as your own thought? Since thoughts are not physical, I would assume that the mind is responsible for it?
Nothing doesn’t have to mean the lack of existence, but rather the lack of thought. Then again, you can’t NOT think, unless there is no physical brain to connect with the mind. I can’t help but think that we cannot possibly know unless we die ourselves, in which case we cannot attest to this theory; we’d be dead.
While I agree with the fact that we shouldn’t fear death, and pursue a life of happiness, I cannot help but ask one question; If we can’t know the reason behind our existence, then how are we meant to live our lives? Every person has defined a reason, or a purpose for his or her life. That is fine on it’s own, but does it really answer why we exist to begin with?
August 22, 2010 at 6:43 am
Ganapati
That was certainly a thought provoking comment.
We need to have an understanding of what constitutes the essential self before its death, immortality or eternal resurrection can be debated. If vitality in a, constantly changing but continuing, physical body is considered the essential self, identity, death is inevitable and final. If the thought structure together with the accumulated thoughts upto a point of time is considered the essential self, it can, theoretically, be made to last beyond the death of the physical brain hosting it or may even be resurrected as a random natural event simply because there is a non-zero probability of it happening. But if this kind of post-mortem continuity is supposed to help anyone get over the fear of death, I doubt they will find much success. An unpredictable resurrection possibility isn’t much to hold on to in the face of the certainty of physical death and immediate cessation of the self as defined.
Moreover, as you rightly pointed out, unless the purpose of existence, if there is one, is understood, life and death don’t have much significance.
August 22, 2010 at 4:14 pm
bardcan
Thanks for your comments.
“Moreover, as you rightly pointed out, unless the purpose of existence, if there is one, is understood, life and death don’t have much significance.” I certainly hope I didn’t say that because it’s the exact opposite of what I believe. “what is the purpose of our existence?” My response is: from who’s perspective? A reason requires a reasoner. I’m sorry, but asking the question is a logical fallacy. It’s like asking “why is the sun?”
“But if this kind of post-mortem continuity is supposed to help anyone get over the fear of death, I doubt they will find much success.” Possibly. But it’s certainly more logically compelling than a capricious, invisible sky-god rewarding you with eternal reward or punishment based on arbitrary, conflicting criteria, and that seems to console 95% of the world’s population. So, I wouldn’t write it off completely. 🙂
regards
August 22, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Glenn Keller
It seems to me that this talk of purpose, and the exercise of pretending that death does not matter and needs not be feared, is little more than an exercise in religion without a god. If there is no god, no creator of us, then our purpose is our own. Make one up, and work with it. There is no right or wrong answer, excepting that it be yours. If there is a God, then our purpose was defined at our creation, and is obviated by a consistent theme throughout the religious expressions of the ages: Love each other. Take care of things. Procreate. One of my daughters tags her email with the phrase, “Live, Love, Laugh”. And death holds no fear to someone who can learn to Love. Our historical problems with religion seems to come from the injection by religious leaders without a firm grasp of their own realities of philosophies and rules that have no place in the religious realm. We simply fear death because we are built to be alive. Nothing more. We need not even overcome this fear. We must simply live, because that is what we do. If we want to complicate it, we need go no further than to decide to try to live well. Beyond that, perhaps because we argue about the meaning of living well, everything else is illusion. Being a believer in a Creator, I come from the standpoint that this is the point of the exercise. Deciding if it is reality or not is a confusion of the real issue, as per my previous comment.
August 22, 2010 at 8:44 pm
bardcan
Glenn, thank you for your comment.
I avoid the word “purpose” because it implies some sort of function or use for an individual which implies that they are the property of a higher power. I find the concept of a “creator” assigning purpose to his creations a perverse concept embraced by those who secretly wish to be controlled. Even if I did have a creator, that still wouldn’t give them the right to dictate a purpose to me.
But I do have a creator, my mother, and she would have no right to tell me what my purpose should be, or to lock me in a fiery dungeon and torture me for eternity if I refuse to follow her dictates or act as part of her cheer-squad. But, I digress.
“If there is no god, no creator of us, then our purpose is our own.”
I have no purpose. I am a human being, not a hammer or a toaster built for a function. You might as well ask what is the purpose of oxygen or the milky way. This desire to assign purpose to everything is what leads to superstitions and religions.
” the exercise of pretending that death does not matter and needs not be feared, is little more than an exercise in religion without a god.”
The exercise of pretending that there is a shred of evidence for any god is little more than an exercise in self-delusion. God = faith = believing something without adequate evidence. This article is the exact opposite of that.
“And death holds no fear to someone who can learn to Love.”
That’s a non-sequitur. You may as well say “flying holds no fear to someone who can learn to dance.”
“We simply fear death because we are built to be alive.”
And we fear going blind because we have eyes.
“We need not even overcome this”
Unless, of course fear is a negative experience. So, yes, for masochists your statement is true.
“Being a believer in a Creator, I come from the standpoint that this is the point of the exercise. ”
The point of the exercise is that someone else made you?
“Deciding if it is reality or not is a confusion of the real issue, as per my previous comment.”
So you’re saying that thinking philosophically “confuses” the thinker away from the “real issue”, your god? I’m sorry, you seem very nice, but that has to be one of the most arrogant statements I’ve ever read.
Thank you for your thoughts, and I encourage you to think a little deeper about these issues. It might feel confusing, but this is good since reality isn’t as simple as it is portrayed in holy books.
Kind regards, Bard
August 23, 2010 at 5:39 am
Ganapati
birdcan, Asking a question about the purpose of life is not akin to asking ‘Why is the sun?”. It is akin to asking “What is the purpose of a wing?” or “What is the purpose of the eye?” If it exists, it certainly cannot be dependent on perspective any more than the purpose of a wing or eye, for those that can understand it, is dependent on perspective. However, I do not expect everyone to be consciously aware of such a purpose anymore than I expect every living creature to be consciously aware of the purpose of its own organs. I also do not expect every human being to be able to comprehend it anymore than I expect everyone to be able to comprehend quantum mechanics.
” But it’s certainly more logically compelling than a capricious, invisible sky-god rewarding you with eternal reward or punishment based on arbitrary, conflicting criteria, and that seems to console 95% of the world’s population. So, I wouldn’t write it off completely.”
So apparently what is logically compelling to most seems to be not so logically compelling for you. Remember that while there is no evidence for their argument, there is none for yours either.
Glen Keller: “If there is no god, no creator of us, then our purpose is our own. Make one up, and work with it. There is no right or wrong answer, excepting that it be yours.”
I am not sure why the constraint that it be one’s own. Why shouldn’t someone buy someone else’s definition of purpose especially when it is an arbitrary one?
Anyway, purposeful life and creator are not necessarily logical complements of one another.
August 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm
bardcan
Thanks for your response.
I would love for you to show me how you logically reject “Cogito Ergo Sum”.
“we cannot be sure that we our living is simply an illusion”
If by living you mean existing, then the experience of an illusion necessitates existence.
“If we can’t know the reason behind our existence, then how are we meant to live our lives? Every person has defined a reason, or a purpose for his or her life. That is fine on it’s own, but does it really answer why we exist to begin with?”
I think you’ve shown your hand there with “why do we exist?” My response is: from who’s perspective? A reason requires a reasoner. I’m sorry, but asking the question is a logical fallacy. It’s like asking “why is the sun?”
regards
August 22, 2010 at 10:30 pm
curious
First off, thank you for your article. It has given me a chance to express a few things I’ve been thinking about for a while. For the record I don’t mean to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary; I’m very interested to read a completely different opinion than my own.
As for Descartes, well the thing that bothers me the most – and I have sparred with my instructor quite a bit about this, is that he contradicts himself in forming “Cogito Ergo Sum”. As I said in my previous comment, he eventually uses his senses in forming his conclusion despite his alleged rejection on the senses.
What I meant before was that we cannot be sure that we exist in an illusion, or rather just as we question whether reality is an illusion itself, it can be seen the other way round. Does that make sense? Bear with me.
The majority of the world’s population accepts that our existence is a reality, and so the minority -the skeptics, they recognize the naiveté, if you may, of the majority. However, if you think of a different scenario where the majority of the population are skeptics, the minority would have a completely different reaction. Hypothetically speaking of course, it would maybe seem as though the need to believe that life is an illusion would imply a belief in something more, something real, something that isn’t an illusion. Or is it too far fetched? What is common in both cases is the need to believe that our existence is more than it seems.
“From who’s perspective? A reason requires a reasoner.”
It’s very interesting you say that since a question like that probably has no answer. Although, every reasoner will have a different answer to that question, and will defeat the purpose since the question isn’t why does so and so exist, but rather why do we exist at all. It seems kind of silly, I know, but I think it’s pretty relevant to the idea of death being an illusion seeing as if there is no reason for our existence then death shouldn’t be such a frightening concept. Or rather, physical demise shouldn’t be a frightening concept.
By the way, I appreciate you putting up with me.
August 21, 2010 at 10:49 pm
allan fairbairn
on reading try” huang po”
trans. by blofield
August 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Carlos
Read the book “Life, a precious jewel” by Daisaku Ikeda. That book change your life Bardcan. The books you recomend are digestion (trash) of Buddism. http://www.sgi.org
August 21, 2010 at 9:14 pm
allan fairbairn
I sincerely believe that there is still time to alter the course we are on, but we should not tarry. For those who feel that it is already too late, perhaps the debate should also seriously consider the possibility of an extraterrestrial outpost, in space or on the moon, for example, as our species’ insurance policy.
August 21, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Marius
I like your idea about disordered thoughts when we die. But would it then be reasonable, truly logical to assume that an artist “lives on” through his art? If one is good at expressing one’s thoughts through writing/painting/music/etc, one determines another to share their thought, their almost exact thought. Like you said with memes. So if I were to listen to Mozart right now, would it be wrong in admitting that in fact, Mozart is living through you, since his feelings are once again made real by another mass of neurons? Do writers know when we read their books?
August 22, 2010 at 4:28 pm
bardcan
Thanks. It’s a great question, and something that many people have relied upon to console themselves when considering their own demise.
“So if I were to listen to Mozart right now, would it be wrong in admitting that in fact, Mozart is living through you, since his feelings are once again made real by another mass of neurons? ”
art is an expression of someone’s feelings and intentions, not the feelings or intentions themselves. It’s like taking a page from a printer and saying that it represents the printer. I don’t believe that it holds (no matter how much I wish it did!)
Thanks
August 21, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Tim
A very thought-provoking article you have written here Mr. Bard ;). Many ideas or possibilities flew through my mind as I read through your article, but one I am interested to know your thoughts on is reincarnation. Do you hold any opinions on the matter?
August 22, 2010 at 4:31 pm
bardcan
Thank you!
If you mean reincarnation as proposed by the world’s religions, then I must give you my stock answer: I have never seen compelling evidence to believe the claims of any of the world’s religions.
Cheers
August 20, 2010 at 9:53 pm
James
I absolutely loved this article, thank you for writing down all the thoughts I have struggled to think these past 18 ‘revolutions around the sun’ of consciousness. I completely agree with all of your points and I know or agree with all of your quotes. Well written, thank you very much Mr. Bard, you are another place holder on my list of enlightened beings.
August 22, 2010 at 4:33 pm
bardcan
You’re very kind. And good on you for not being afraid to tackle the hard questions!
Kind regards, Bard
August 18, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Ganapati
Thought structures getting replicated out of context may be OK. But together with memories they may not be pleasant. Imagine meeting someone with the all the memories and only the memories of someone who lived somewhere some 3000 years ago. Not sure how such an “immortal being” would react to the resurrection.
August 18, 2010 at 2:44 pm
bardcan
It would be pretty shocking, especially if the mind was no longer connected to a physical body, or one that felt totally different to their old one. Though, it’s an experience I’d rather have than not, given the choice.
August 19, 2010 at 7:32 am
Ganapati
Is there a choice? How is the choice exercised?
August 22, 2010 at 8:52 pm
bardcan
I’d rather have a million dollars than not, given the choice.
August 23, 2010 at 4:47 am
Ganapati
So you are saying that you prefer to believe that you will be resurrected by chance rather than that you will be dead forever once your body dies.
August 17, 2010 at 3:19 am
Oscar
Absolutely brilliant. Mind-blowing.
I think that our perception of exactly “who we are” is dependent on the existence of memories, previous thought processes. If our present consciousness could not call on experiences already observed by our mind, we would have no recognition of an actual self awareness. When our current chain of thought ends and we do “die”, the next arrangement of our mind that inevitably occurs at some point in time in some place may just be starting and we would never have known that we “died” in the first place or that we ever existed as the same arrangement somewhere else.
But then again, in a universe of infinite possibilities, wouldn’t there be some occurrence that WOULD be able to access previous memories, therefore, creating an immortal being of sorts?
August 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm
bardcan
Thank you kindly!
“When our current chain of thought ends and we do “die”, the next arrangement of our mind that inevitably occurs at some point in time in some place may just be starting and we would never have known that we “died” in the first place or that we ever existed as the same arrangement somewhere else.”
That’s a very interesting example, and begs the question of whether or not one’s current state of mind is related to the memories within the brain. My guess is that if your mindstate was replicated in another substrate minus the associated memories then the mind-state would rapidly degrade into something entirely unlike what you would call “you” because these memories are vital to your personality and conciousness.
“But then again, in a universe of infinite possibilities, wouldn’t there be some occurrence that WOULD be able to access previous memories, therefore, creating an immortal being of sorts?”
Exactly.
Thanks for your comments, Bard
October 8, 2010 at 3:30 am
Kim
Oscar’s comment addresses something that came to mind while I was reading. I’m not precisely certain as to whether we are thinking the same thing, but this begs the question: If our cessation of thought is emulated later in time, then is that thinker the same consciousness that occurred before in our own thoughts?
“All experiences and meanings are created within our minds. The objective universe does not “see” any “meaning”, it simply is.”
“Our brains are “experience machines”. All we can be is what we experience and anything outside of that is a subjective impossibility.”
I can’t help but speculate that memories are the base from which all thoughts are created. I agree with the above passages, but also that we react not only on our perception and experiences of ‘current’ reality, but our past. It influences who we are, much like what the second excerpt states.
“A thought does not exist at a fixed point in time; rather it exists in the transition between points…. So are our thoughts created in the journey between moments in time.”
This also seems to hold a measure of truth. I find the idea quite compelling – but when framed with the fact that thoughts are not merely reactions to our perceived surroundings, it leads me to the conclusion that each memory leading up to the particular thought with which we die is equally important; part of the ‘transition’. An entire life can be affected by a single event or recollection – a different path chosen, and as a result, a different idea thought.
“….if by random chance your final thought pattern was reconstructed a trillion years from now in another place, who is to say that this would not be you?”
Personally, I think that the only way that that thought could be the same conciousness as mine – even if it were the same exact thought – would be if our memories from the beginning of conciousness to the thought in question were identical. The transitions and steps between would be different unless our situations and even our way of understanding them were exactly matched, in which case the conciousnesses surrounding us that we interact with would also have a match in history. Those personas would also have the same situation – those they react with would have twins (so to speak) until the entire world in which we live in, in order for us to have a continuation, would be identical to a second world. This suggests parllel universes, does it not?
I don’t really know how clear that was – I have difficulty expressing ideas this abstract. But my logic seems sound in my own mind.
October 8, 2010 at 3:38 am
Kim
Also, I must confess that your writing is remarkably clear. As I mentioned, abstract ideas are immensely difficult to state coherently.
All of my life I’ve sought to discuss ideas like these with people who are open to such a conversation, but in my 15 years of life I’ve never been able to communicate the essence of what I NEED to say with the clarity that you have. Believe it or not, this piece of provocative thought has completely changed how I express my ideas. I may not find all of it in perfect accord with my own understanding, but I would never expect anyone to agree with me 100%.
August 16, 2010 at 6:21 am
Ganapati
Without an explicit definition of ‘death’ from the author, I am not sure how to reconcile statements like “To put it simply: I do not believe in death.” and “inevitable death” referred to in many latter parts Is the inevitable death of the latter statements different from the death that the author doesn’t believe in?
By ‘death’ we normally mean “an irreversible cessation of activity of an organism/organic structure as holistic entity”. Parts of the erstwhile organism/structure may continue to function as part of another organism/structure, but the original organism is considered dead, if it stopped functioning as a holistic entity.
Since no new defintion of ‘death’ was given, one has to assume ‘death’ was being referred to in the same sense as it is normally used. Given that, the ‘inevitable death’ must be referring to that of the biological organism and the death that the author doesn’t believe in must refer to some other organic entity that cohabits the biological organism. So what is this ‘thought organism’ that cohabits a biological organism but doesn’t die when the biological organism dies? The only hints the author leaves are a thought generating structure, that could potentially be replicated in a different substratum like silicon. Even assuming that this unique organism that doesn’t die is a structure (identical twins have the exact same genetic structure, but I haven’t encountered anyone who treats them as anything but different unique individuals), that structure dies when the biological organism dies. Reproducing that structure in silicon to ensure continuity beyond biological death only presents a possibility for some, not inevitability for everyone. Continuity of individual thoughts, thought patterns or memes is not continuity of the individual self any more than one’s children who carry large part of one’s genes are extensions of one’s biological self. Claiming that personal is an illusion since one cannot experience one’s own death is an amusing word play, nothing more. One cannot experience one’s own state of ‘deep sleep’, but I doubt anyone calls it an illusion. Much of human knowledge is not one of direct experience, but one of inference and all of ‘knowledge’ about future is projection from such inferences. One’s own personal death is a projection, not an illusion, based on available evidence.
Does this mean one has to fear death? Not necessarily. However, those who are afraid of dying, losing their self, will continue to look for some assurances of post-mortem continuity of the self and it is not a matter of rational argument one way or the other.
July 23, 2013 at 5:11 am
bardcan
This article is in part a deconstruction of the common definition of “death”. Whilst someone may be referred to as “dead” by other sentient observers my argument is that they cannot be classified as permanently “dead” because their conciousness may reoccur at some point in the future in a different time and place and possibly on an entirely different substrate.
“By ‘death’ we normally mean “an irreversible cessation of activity of an organism/organic structure as holistic entity”. Parts of the erstwhile organism/structure may continue to function as part of another organism/structure, but the original organism is considered dead, if it stopped functioning as a holistic entity.”
that definition falls apart because it draws on arbitrary and unsubstantiated divisions between life and death. by that definition when you replace 90% of your cells in 10 years then you have died slowly and been replaced by a clone. “Continuity of individual thoughts, thought patterns or memes is not continuity of the individual self any more than one’s children who carry large part of one’s genes are extensions of one’s biological self.” Please support this claim with some evidence. I have no reason to believe that claim at all. In fact, to me it appears to be nonsensical.
” However, those who are afraid of dying, losing their self, will continue to look for some assurances of post-mortem continuity of the self and it is not a matter of rational argument one way or the other.” again, a strong assertion. do you have any evidence to back it up?
August 15, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Eric
I think instead of rejecting fear we could simply accept it. I certainly agree with your overall perspective but would also point out that the very thing that is afraid to die is the thing that will cease to exist. The ego. The sum of those moments will be scrambled, lost, changed, perhaps irrevocably. For those that believe in reincarnation or God there is no difference. That thing in you that fears death will die. What goes on is something else.
Accept that you are afraid, understand why and move on. Sit with your fear, console your ego and make your way in this world. There is no reason to believe that the necessary components to make up our bodies would not benefit from fear. Accept the benefit but do not let it hobble you.
thanks for the post.
August 15, 2010 at 4:07 am
Amon Vengirion
Excellent read. Well written, even if some specifics are getting a bit out of date (aren’t we all made of vibrations, now? 😛 ).
Regardless, I like the idea of reason (nearly) alone being used to answer such questions as, “What is existence?” It’s very attractive. More importantly, even if you don’t buy the philosophy’s specifics, what’s the point of arguing it? Even if there -is- a God, and this God disapproves of what you’re doing, how will you know? More importantly, if this God will punish you for subscribing to such a philosophy, I postulate that -nothing- you do will please such a God, so you might as well just try to live a happy, comfortable life in harmony with existence as best as you can.
Do no harm. Live and let live.
August 14, 2010 at 10:44 pm
allan fairbairn
please don’t sabotage your paragraphs..
i copy/paste a relevant paragraph when
i post your articles [fully acknowledged]
it’s a drag to go back and cut all thes out
have a nice day
August 14, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Glenn Keller
I have many thoughts on this, but decided to stop and simply post two for now:
“it doesn’t matter what form your mind takes, as long as it’s structure is maintained”
A tree that grows by the riverbank is one form, not in order to do something, but because of what it has become. Move the tree, or river, and the tree might still be the same form today, but will not continue to be so, nor continue to function as it did. It will change. For that matter, if you don’t move the tree, or the river, it will change as well.
It does matter. But the degree to which it matters might not. We cannot get stuck calling something what it is today. It will not exist tomorrow, it will be a different thing. Minds especially. But what it is now, truly is. What it is tomorrow remains to be seen, and can’t be predicted.
“We are spiritual beings, having a physical experiences”
Absolutely true. The experience changes our spirit. In this sense, the thing we commonly call reality truly is. We might call it illusion, or delusion, because perhaps, somehow, all this could be recreated electronically, or through some other means we know not of, but then, would that not become our reality? We detest fraud because we detest being tricked, scammed, “worked”, or manipulated. Ah…manipulated. But every element of our brain’s interpretation of the world around us is manipulation in some form. We just wish that manipulation not to have a malevolent consciousness or purpose. We wish to live “naturally”. Our concept and discussion of reality seems to only take on one dimension, “is this true, or is this not true?”. The fact is, whatever happens to the senses is real. If it is not what it seems, if it is a manipulation, or a sham, it is no less real. We could, as The Matrix and other stories suggest, be under the sway of an elaborate hoax, but that hoax then becomes reality. The minute difference between what it pretends and what it is affects us just the same as the lies it tells successfully. We become something subtly different through the hoax than we would have had the thing been what we thought it was, but different nonetheless. This is reality. Whether we know it or not matters not.
August 13, 2010 at 1:20 pm
palmtreelifestyle
Hi very interesting read. Thanks
If you would like to read some other takes in life the goto my blog http://palmtreelifestyle.wordpress.com
Have a fantastic day full of possibilities. (A word full of I’s)
Kind regards
Allan
August 12, 2010 at 7:09 am
Justin
A friend pointed me in the direction of this after a discussion we had about how I plan on getting “Cogito, Egro Sum” tattooed onto my body. Though I respect Descarte immensely for his pursuit of absolute truths there have been a few arguments surrounding wording such as the lack of proving that “I” is the source of doubt and thus the source of thought. With this in mind I have a question. How do we prove that our mind is the producer of our own thoughts?
In regards to your thoughts on “death”…
I see it as very natural and somewhat necessary to fear a possible end to your existence. We see life as a positive thing and as such the beginning of it to be positive. Anything leading up to this (pre-birth) is unimportant because we are focused on the impending threat to this continued positive experience. We are scared of death because we are unsure if the events past it are positive or negative. Of course throwing out the linearity of time would make this all a moot point and result in the equalization of pre and post life you have suggested.
This train of thought (though stunning) could prove quite dangerous. If people took it out of context, instead of as philosophy and the never ending search for absolute truths, then they might see life as we know it in corporeal bodies to be meaningless. Pondering at this level does have it’s risks I would say as your views on reality can get jumbled up every now and again. Events such as that have lead me to a firm belief in “nothing”. That anything is possible, nothing is inevitable, and everything is merely speculation.
All in all I have to thank you. You have re-affirmed my love for philosophy and at a bare minimum confirmed that I wish to go ahead with the “Cogito” tattoo. I hope to continue reading your well articulated thoughts and if a book is ever published, I will be first in line.
August 12, 2010 at 7:25 am
bardcan
Thank you for your comments.
I very much appreciate what you you say about the possible danger of nihilistic tenancies resulting from these sorts of existential thoughts. I’m surprised you’re only the first person to comment about it. I believe that the train of thought that this article promotes is one of the best defences against suicide possible. In fact, I met someone once who described almost this exact philosophy as the reason why they decided against suicide. Basically, most people who kill themselves believe in some small way that death will at the very least enable them to have some rest or respite from the suffering of their lives. If they then come to believe that death provides no such relief, that death is not something they can be present for or experience, then it becomes entirely irrelevant as a method of escape. It’s like trying to pause a movie which you don’t enjoy watching, except every time you pause it, you too are paused. So that you are unable to get a break from the movie, whatever you do. Amongst the numerous excellent philosophical arguments for living a full life and against suicide, I found this one to be the most compelling. It reminds us that all we have is this life, and all we *can* have is this life. So we’d better make a damned good go of it!
“everything is merely speculation.”
so you don’t believe Cogito, ergo sum to be a fundamental truth?
“All in all I have to thank you. You have re-affirmed my love for philosophy and at a bare minimum confirmed that I wish to go ahead with the “Cogito” tattoo. I hope to continue reading your well articulated thoughts and if a book is ever published, I will be first in line.”
You are very kind. I’d love to see the tattoo when it is done.
Kind regards, Bard
August 13, 2010 at 4:29 am
Justin
I can see how freeing yourself from the belief of death would make suicide a non-issue. Considering how the point of it is to end your life, but following you logic then even afterwords you would continue existing, defeating the purpose. It is also nice to think of a life not in constant fear of a final deadline or expiration date. Not having to constantly think about how much of your life has past and how much you have left would be quite freeing. This is especially striking to me as I am turning 18 tomorrow. Turning into an adult does not seem like such a feat when I could have already existed in some meme form previously.
I do believe in Cogito but I make a differentiation between what i “Know” and what I “Believe”. So when I said I have a “firm belief in nothing” that was a mistake. What I should have said was I have a “firm knowledge of nothing”. I have many beliefs and that are constantly changing as I hear more, converse more, and read more. I conceded a couple of years ago though that I will never “know” anything. There is always a margin for error and a possibility in the seemingly impossible. Our minds are limited things. We can only draw on experience so it stands to reason that we can’t conceive of anything that we have no current foundation of. With this in mind why would I chain myself into “knowing” something when there are an infinite number of other possibilities that I cannot even conceive of.
I’m ecstatic to be discussing such things with you and will be sure to show you the tattoo if my mother doesn’t have a heart attack when I run it past her.
Justin
August 11, 2010 at 10:33 am
On the Thought of Subjective Perception of Death Within The Constraints of Consciousness. « Melodic Discord
[…] The Death Delusion by Bard Canning Full Essay […]
August 11, 2010 at 10:30 am
melodicdiscord
And in an effort to bombard more of your comment section:
Here’s the recording of that song. It’s gorgeous. 🙂
August 11, 2010 at 9:48 am
melodicdiscord
On another note, I must say I adore the poem at the end. There is a beautiful choral version of it I sang with a chamber choir last year. To live within the progressions of that song, to parallel the subjective experience that is life. 🙂
I must say however, that a certain enthymeme of your conclusions remains unanswered. Why does such a plane of consciousness exist? It is a meme, negligent of time or space, purely based on an individuals perception, why? I agree that a thought can be reproduced anywhere, essentially felt by such a “god consciousness” but in what context is anything finite or infinite defined. The “spiritual plane” of consciousness still lacks explanation. To perceive is to feel, and death cannot be perceived, therefore can not be tangible or logical to fear subjectively, but what is the reasoning behind conscious reasoning within an ever changing physical construct in the first place? Certainly not religion, but in what context is this spiritual plane and what is the nature of its “existence”?
Hoping that made sense enough. I’m very curious to hear your response, especially if it’s something I may have overlooked or misunderstood withing your writing. This is a fabulous essay, and I objectively perceive your perceptions to be truly insightful.
August 11, 2010 at 10:12 am
bardcan
Thank you, you are very kind. And I welcome your questions.
If you have a recording, I would love to hear it.
Because evolution and the continuity of a complex physical substrate enables it. But I don’t think that was your question, I think you were asking “why”, as in, for what meaning or purpose. To that I would respond with: from whose perspective?
The nature of qualia has been discussed extensively by many more articulate thinkers than myself. A simply google search will pull up weeks worth of reading on the topic.
Cogito, ergo sum – I think therefore I am. No-one has yet been able to falsify this claim, so I believe that it stands. The ever-changing physical substrate is relevant if you are assuming the the universe we see is real and not a simulation. It could be that we exist on an unchanging physical substrate. But our conciousness would still valid.
In this case “spiritual” could be substituted for “qualia”, “subjective conciousness”, etc.
Hope this answers your questions.
Kind regards, Bard Canning
August 11, 2010 at 10:21 am
melodicdiscord
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. If it’s okay with you I would love to link to this article from my own page. As I am only 17, I’m just dipping my toe into the waters that is philosophy, but I am intrigued by your writings. I believe my peers would be as well.
August 11, 2010 at 9:16 am
melodicdiscord
The lego quote is actually from a comic called “XKCD”, not “XCDC”.
August 11, 2010 at 9:23 am
bardcan
oops! missed that one, thanks!
August 11, 2010 at 9:50 am
melodicdiscord
Hehe, almost. XKCD, not XKDC. Quite the easy mistake to make.
August 11, 2010 at 9:57 am
bardcan
oh my, what would I do without your help? 🙂 reminds me of my favourite T-shirt
August 11, 2010 at 6:18 am
bluestocking
I love this article. In the past year, I have learned some things that have caused me to radically change my worldview– from very theistic to, for all practical considerations, atheistic. I’ve struggled since then with fear of death, fear of time, fear of not knowing. Lately I have begun to learn to be at peace with what seem to me to be inescapable realities; this article beautifully articulates some of my latest philosophical conclusions much better than I would be able to, and enlightened me still further. I hope you won’t be offended by a popular culture reference, but it reminds me very strongly of the ideas expressed in the last Harry Potter book.
Few things make me cry or even teary, but the all-encompassing beauty of the ideas in this essay do.
August 11, 2010 at 9:23 am
bardcan
Your comment moved me. What you described is exactly why I wrote the article, and it’s wonderful to hear that it has benefited you in some way. I understand the gravity of what you have been experiencing for the past year and I wish you continuing happiness and peace in your journey. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Kind regards, Bard Canning
August 11, 2010 at 3:16 am
aaron
This was an overall fantastic read. I love the quotes you took from The Matrix. And the way you describe color and how it is merely different wavelengths reflected off of certain objects, I used something very similar in a philosophy paper of mine covering the topic, “Deception of Existence.”
While I’d love to provide some constructive criticism and/or opinions (since each of our thoughts are subjective and individual views differ), I dont feel up for it at 12 am after a day of work and skating. I do, however, want to say again, I enjoyed the enlightening read and suggest watching the movie, “Waking Life.”
Take it easy and keep on writing,
Aaron
August 11, 2010 at 3:19 am
bardcan
Thank you Aaron,
I would love to hear your opinions and criticism when you have the time.
August 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Tilhenger
Great read. I’ve had many of these thoughts in recent years, and this about sums it all up.
August 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm
bardcan
Thank you kindly.
August 9, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Adam
As stated by so many others, this is an amazing article. I enjoyed reading each line. I am also an Atheist. I believe that there may be “something” such as the proposed god conscience, but religion as a whole is nothing more then someone’s “logical” ideas to cling to an illogical hope.
But enough of that. I am a currently 20 years old and pursuing psychology as either a major or a minor. I was wondering if you’d mind if i shared this article with a few of my like minded professors. I even think my philosophy professor would enjoy the ideas you have brought forth in your writing.
August 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm
bardcan
Thank you so much!
That would make me very happy. I would also love to hear any comments / criticisms that they have to offer.
This article is part of a book I am writing and it has been a labor of many years. The most important part for me has been filling the holes and getting it RIGHT. If anyone can help improve on the concept, that would be wonderful.
Kind regards,
Bard Canning
August 9, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Adam
Of course! I’d be more then happy to return any feedback from them. Thanks and good luck on the book!
August 9, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Turmoil
I have been looking for an answer to life’s questions since I was asked “What is the meaning of life?” 2 years ago. And since then I have been obsessively ‘studying’ every form of religious, philosophical, spiritual, scientific angle that there is to answer this simple question. I am 19 now and this post is perhaps the closest to what I have understood about life and its meaning. That the mind is everything. Thanks for your insight.
August 9, 2010 at 1:00 pm
bardcan
Wow! I really glad to hear that.
We all “stand on the shoulders of giants”. Nowadays it’s mostly a process of putting together the pieces from the many great philosophers that have come before.
August 9, 2010 at 3:22 am
Halle
I found this post because a friend of mine subscribes to these ideas wholeheartedly and he was unable to express them without contradicting himself, so he recommended that I read this. I think that you should read “More Than A Carpenter” by Josh McDowell. It can give you more answers than you have here. Despite the fact that you conveyed an anti-religious view (by phrases such as “short-term comforts” and “fairytales”), though you avoided stating your opinion directly and cleanly, you should at least peruse it.
I would also like to pose a question. You stated that we were entering a “new era of . . . philosophical awakening.” In what way and to what ideas is our society being awakened? What makes you think that the truth a century ago is any less true now?
August 9, 2010 at 3:58 am
bardcan
Thanks for your comment. Do you believe in a god? If so, there is not much that I can add because I regard faith in the supernatural as an inherently irrational position to take. There are innumerable excellent books on the subjects of Atheism and the fragility of religious belief and I do not feel that I have anything more to add more to the topic.
If you have any specific issues which you wish to challenge me on I would very much like to hear your arguments.
Kind regards,
Bard
August 7, 2010 at 8:40 am
allison
I think you just changed my life.
August 9, 2010 at 1:10 pm
bardcan
Thanks, I hope for the better!
August 6, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Jan
I would like to read the next chapters.
August 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm
bardcan
Thank you, I will be posting some of them soon on this blog.
August 4, 2010 at 12:52 am
Reply
Nice work.
I see your reasoning as succinct and appropriate through the section entitled ‘The Chemistry Between Us.’ However, it is at this point that I believe your argument becomes rather wobbly, as you become very dismissive in regards to possible objections as opposed to well-proven in your assertions.
Also, you subscribe to this odd notion that one’s thought existence can be recreated absent any contextual experience, that a thought can occur in a test tube with no thinker and nothing with which to base said thought on.
However, you become more coherent and agreeable with the ‘Pi’ section, and the following bit on memes. All in all, very well done.
I bring up one last question: How does one obtain happiness in a truly dystopian world, where reason is woefully absent mroe often than not?
August 4, 2010 at 3:55 am
bardcan
Thanks for your comments!
Can you tell me why the notion that “one’s thought existence can be recreated absent any contextual experience” is odd, or untrue?
Can you tell me specifically which parts you think are “wobbly”?
“How does one obtain happiness in a truly dystopian world, where reason is woefully absent mroe often than not?”
I don’t know. That sounds horrible. Luckily, I don’t think that I live in that world. Note, the operative words there are “think” and “I” – you may think that you live in such a world. Different people experience and view the same events in radically different ways. My aim is always to be as rational as possible… and it is very rational to find meaning and happiness in whatever circumstances life has dealt you.
Luckily, reason is always present. As long as you have a mind to think with, you can focus on reason and use it to live your life as fully as possible… even in the most dire of circumstances. I might recommend reading Victor Frankel’s “Man’s Search for Meaning” which is about a man living in “a truly dystopian world” – Auschwitz concentration camp – and finding meaning to go on living. After reading that book I have never, ever felt that the smaller problems of my own life were insurmountable.
December 11, 2009 at 1:23 pm
accuperma
Amazing affair, didn’t thought it would be so cool when I klicked at the title.
December 25, 2008 at 2:58 am
Lungs
This post really affected me. Thanks for writing it…
December 21, 2008 at 7:01 am
826paranormal
This is a very interesting article. It is nice to see knowledgeable people exploring the topic of death. I heard this tonight, a person is like a glass of water ,when you are alive the water in the glass represents that.of the living form. As time goes on the water evaporates into the atmosphere and the water in the physical form leaves the glass. The water has just taken another form and has not disappeared . The water is now part of the atmosphere and is still around us. This describes our body and soul .
http://www.826paranormal.webs.com
http://www.photoshow.com/watch/KZ3PR7zG
October 28, 2009 at 4:22 am
Nishita
This post and this response is really awesome. Makes one think hard on some difficult topics
November 26, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Alex Hudish
Thank you for this post.. and the answer is really 42 😉
October 10, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Mike
You made me think 😀
Hope we can do a blogroll add/swap.
http://waxingpoetically.today.com
http://artfromtheoutskirts.today.com
September 3, 2008 at 8:14 pm
old boy
The section “Death is Impossible” is something I’ve thought about for a while now, you put it into language much more succinctly than I ever have. You’re on my blog roll for this post alone. Bravo.
July 17, 2008 at 3:55 pm
phalid
Brilliant. Reading your essay was as if I was reading my own thoughts. Very well presented. I have a similar essay regarding existence on my blog as well. I will subscribe to your feed. Keep up the excellent writing.
May 30, 2008 at 11:42 pm
euphorixx
Great thoughts, well written and perfectly comprehensible. Subscribed to RSS feed 🙂
April 28, 2008 at 3:51 pm
bardcan
I’m great! I will continue to extend and update this post regularly. Check back to see how it’s evolved!
April 22, 2008 at 9:38 pm
ceeque
I hope you will continue to post more thoughts along this vein??? Please do. Hope you are ok…
March 26, 2008 at 11:12 am
tysdaddy
Have you read Douglas Hofstadter’s book “I Am A Strange Loop”? You’d enjoy it, and it’ll make you think – hard.
March 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm
nishi
nice post ther…..my ideas match urs on most counts
March 16, 2008 at 7:47 pm
tysdaddy
Wow. I’m not even done reading this post yet, but had to jump in and encourage to keep thinking these things through.
I am a philosophy major and plan to visit your site often.
I’ll be back, once I’m finished reading and chewing on your post.
Brian
March 10, 2008 at 2:46 pm
ceeque
Hi there, I “stumbled” here and found a most interesting and well thought out article, great piece of writing! 🙂