What happens when we die? Does all experience end forever? Or do we live on somehow?
Well over half of all humanity believes that death is not the true end of life, and that beyond this mysterious threshold, something continues on. The standard view among secular academics is that these beliefs are no more than wishful thinking - a product of our fear of death, and our inability to comprehend the ultimate end of experience. I too struggle to imagine how this vast universe could be organized in a way that preserves all minds at the point of death, presumably for eternity.
Personally I'm not religious, but nevertheless I don't believe we can simply dismiss the possibility of survival. Despite the many discoveries of modern science, reality remains a deeply m mysterious place. There are, for example, respected philosophers and thinkers who believe that there is a not insignificant possibility that our entire reality is a simulation created by an advanced civilization, with goals beyond our comprehension.
It goes without saying that if we do live in a simulation, all bets are off about what we can expect to experience at death. Many believe that reports like those of near-death experiences (NDEs) and apparent reincarnation offer possible evidence of survival. In the world of the paranormal, we find reports of strange phenomena that resist ordinary explanation, and I've read various cases that strike me as deeply anomalous.
I actually studied psychology at one of the few universities in the world with a parapsychology department. The University of Northampton in the UK. And reading about some of these strange cases was on my undergraduate syllabus.
While ultimately I'm not convinced by these cases, I don't reject the possibility of life after death. In fact, I'm convinced that it's real. In the end, it was not strange paranormal phenomena that eventually convinced me that consciousness does survive death.
Instead it was a philosophical argument that I encountered much later, as postgraduate in philosophy. This argument, as we will explore today, appears to demonstrate that consciousness is immortal, that death, as a real end to conscious experience, is an epistemic illusion, and that following death we should expect not oblivion, but an enduring sense of always having existed albeit manifest in the form of other conscious beings. This argument, which comes from the philosopher Thomas Clark, might be seen as a form of impersonal reincarnation, and it is, I think, the very least we should expect to experience after death.
In spite of this seemingly bold claim, it is a view that does not rely, as it might at first seem, on some exotic view of consciousness. This argument, as we will explore, would hold true even if we live in an entirely physical universe, governed by completely unconscious, directionless physical laws. To be clear, my own view is that consciousness may well be more fundamental than current materialist science has appreciated.
But I find it fascinating that a view that makes no such claim offers the most profound argument for survival that I have heard. It is this argument, together with its extraordinary implications, that we will explore today. As I mentioned, this argument originates with the philosopher Thomas Clark, and it can be found in his essay titled, "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity.
Clark begins his essay by pointing out a surprisingly common error made by secular and scientific thinkers: That if death is the end of experience, then the dying individual should anticipate being cast into an oblivion of nothingness at death. Clark lists many secular thinkers who replace religious notions of Heaven and Hell with the concept of nothingness. Clark points out that many secularists have mistakenly depicted death as though it were a kind of "positive nothing" - an eternal situation into which the experiencing subject is plunged, as though into a dark ocean, at the moment of death.
The error, as Clark points out, (quote) ". . .
is to reify nothing - make it a positive condition or quality, for example of blackness, and then place the individual in it after death, so that we somehow fall into nothingness, to remain there eternally. " (end quote) Clark is far from the first to point out this logical fallacy. Over two millennia ago the Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote, (quote) "Death is nothing to us.
When we exist, death is not, and when death exists, we are not. " (end quote) Clark argues that when we dispense with this flawed idea, that a kind of "positive nothing" awaits us at death, a strange and counterintuitive picture emerges -- a new conception of immortality. (title) Immortal Consciousness We're almost ready to dive into Clark's profound argument for the immortality of consciousness, but before we do, we first need to understand a fundamental truth about conscious beings.
Clark calls this truth "personal subjective continuity. " It refers to the fact that, as conscious beings, we experience our entire lives as one uninterrupted sequence of experience. While there are many times in life when we are unconscious, such as during dreamless sleep or while under general anesthetic, these unconscious moments simply do not exist for us.
This creates our personal subjective continuity, in which subjectivity bridges all gaps, and our entire lives exist to us as one continuous stream of awareness. As Clark observes, it is our nature as conscious beings that we always exist to ourselves. This block of experience is bracketed at its beginning and end by our birth and our death, yet just as we have no memory of the billions of years prior to our birth, nor should we expect to be plunged into an eternal night after death.
Instead, Clark argues, that death will not be the end of experience. To understand why we'll now explore a thought experiment which I've adapted from the one in Clark's essay. Imagine a world where cutting-edge medical technology allows people to undergo a remarkable process known as "LifePause.
" During LifePause, an individual's consciousness is temporarily halted and advanced surgeries akin to intricate brain and body makeovers take place. This technology enables, not only the suspension of time, but also the customization of memories, personality traits, and even physical appearance. Now meet our protagonist.
Alex. Disillusioned about his life, Alex decides to undergo LifePause for an extended period. He also signs over permission to the LifePause technicians to make any changes they want to his mind and body.
Before the procedure Alex is "Alex Classic" after the transformation however there are two possible outcomes. The first we'll call "Alex 2. 0.
" In this scenario, the changes made during LifePause are moderate. Alex 2. 0 wakes up with a refined version of the original characteristics.
Perhaps a slightly altered personality or some new preferences. Alex 2. 0 for example, finds that he now enjoys coffee, where Alex classic had not.
From the point of view of Alex 2. 0, the transformation feels like a seamless continuation of the same conscious journey through life. We now move on to the second scenario.
This time the LifePause procedure creates "Alex Reborn. " Here LifePause introduces much more radical alterations. Alex Reborn wakes up with significant changes.
Perhaps a completely different personality, different memories, and even a different physical appearance. Yet despite these stark differences, the subjective experience remains unbroken. From Alex classic to Alex Reborn, there is no perceived gap or interruption in consciousness.
Alex Reborn is significantly different to Alex Classic, and yet it nonetheless feels to him as though he has always existed. Whether Alex emerges as a refined version, as in Alex 2. 0, or a radically different persona, as in Alex Reborn, the key Insight is that subjectively, the thread of awareness persists.
We now move on to the final part of the thought experiment. Now imagine that instead of undergoing LifePause, Alex is involved in a fatal car accident on his way to the LifePause clinic, resulting in his irreversible, natural death. Now imagine that later a new consciousness emerges in the universe, free from any direct causal link to Alex.
Nevertheless, we will call this new Consciousness "Alex Renewed. " It is here that we realize the surprising truth. -- There is no difference between that which is taking place in the LifePause procedure, and the subjective continuity between these distant conscious beings.
Just as with LifePause, the transition from Alex Classic to Alex Renewed does not entail a subjective gap. There is no experiential void, no firsthand encounter with nothingness. Instead, just as in the other scenarios, there is a seamless transition from one subjective state to another, even if memories, personality, and physicality vastly differ.
We simply always are this generic subjectivity, wherever and whenever it arises in the universe. When we really see that every Alex is the same identity, the implications are profound. Alex is everyone in every scenario.
Alex is you. The key insight is that death and birth can be seen as identical to that which is occurring in the LifePause scenario. And indeed it is the same as that which is occurring between every conscious moment of our lives.
As Clark writes, (quote) “… even if all centers of awareness were extinguished and the next conscious creature appeared millions of years hence (perhaps in a galaxy far, far away) there would still be no subjective interregnum. Subjectivity would jump that (objective) gap just as easily as it jumps the gap from our last experience before sleep to the first upon awakening. All the boring eons that pass without the existence of a subject will be irrelevant for the subject that comes into being.
Nor will they count as "nothingness" for all the conscious entities which ceased to exist. Subjectivity, awareness, consciousness, experience – whatever we call it – never stops arising as far as it is concerned. ” (end quote) The thought experiment shows that what we really are, our true enduring identity, is consciousness itself, or what Clark calls "generic subjectivity.
" We should clarify that this is quite different to the traditional idea of reincarnation, in which your specific consciousness will, after death, suddenly discover itself inhabiting some new being. Instead, the continuum of consciousness transcends individual identity. It is more accurate to say that you continue as consciousness itself.
And while this may sound like a familiar platitude, the thought experiment shows just how intimately we share in the subjective identity with all conscious beings. Reflecting on Clark's argument, the neuroscientist Sam Harris remarks, (quote) "The birth of any conscious being after your death, is in some sense deeply analogous to your own rebirth. Given your identity as consciousness, your survival of death is more or less assured as long as consciousness persists anywhere.
" (end quote) Both Clark and Harris offer this idea of a continued consciousness beyond death as offering some comfort to those who fear the end of life. And yet others might see that such a view brings the varied conscious experiences on offer in reality far too close for comfort. Consider all of the conscious experiences taking place in the natural world -- both beautiful and terrifying.
Or of alien forms of mind that might emerge in the future, or in distant reaches of the cosmos. As consciousness, ours is the experience of the greatest and most serene enlightenment, as well as all of those actual experiences that exist and will exist, of terrible suffering, loss, and frustrated desires. Several philosophers have argued that our primary identity is consciousness, and that this fact carries profound ethical implications.
In his fascinating book, You Are Them, the philosopher Magnus Vinding challenges his readers, asking, (quote) "Why are you the same person when you wake up in the morning as the you who went to sleep the night before? Why don't you instead wake up as a scared rabbit in a dark forest in the middle of the night? Well, who says that you don't?
" (end quote) It's a view that resonates with both both ancient and contemporary ideas. One in particular is "open individualism" put forward by the contemporary philosopher Daniel Kolak. In open individualism, there exists only one numerically identical subject who is everyone at all times.
In open individualism there isn't a distinct entity that is the owner of first-person experiences. Instead, wherever there is awareness, there is . .
. you. Every conscious being that has ever existed or will exist in the future, is experienced by the same principle of awareness.
By analogy we can think of this awareness principle as similar to the process of nuclear fusion taking place in stars. There are trillions of stars in the universe, and they are all powered by nuclear fusion, but we don't say that there are billions of nuclear fusions. Rather it is more accurate to say that there is just one process of nuclear fusion which powers all stars in existence.
Similarly there is just one principle of awareness that underlies the innumerable minds in existence. In this view there is no separate self or soul navigating through experiences. There is only consciousness, experiencing itself in an innumerable variety of forms.
Whether or not we live in a purely physical universe, consciousness, by its nature, transcends individuality and binds us in a shared continuous experience of existence. The New Age slogan, "We are all one. " is often accompanied with naive platitudes of peace and love.
In truth, facing the unfettered reality of consciousness as our primary identity is deeply sobering. We see that there is, in truth, no escape for conscious beings, regardless of their circumstances. We are for all time, and to the last conscious being, in this together.
In this sense, the recognition that our ultimate identity is consciousness is more than a salve for the fear of death. --It is an ethical revelation. There is ultimately nothing for us to do other than to try to improve the available experiences of all conscious beings within the reach of our influence.
I and others have argued that this will require the systematic reduction, wherever possible, of all avoidable states of agony and suffering. Another, perhaps secondary imperative, is the general facilitation of conscious states which all beings might consider to be worth having such as happiness, joy, and bliss. The emerging view profoundly challenges many of our human norms and practices.
For example, it negates all rationale for retributive punishment or what we might call "violence to consciousness. " Speciesism, outgroup aggression, and selfish prejudice are seen for what they are: a product of mistaken identity. Death is not an escape from reality.
Instead dying, as Clark writes, is more accurately seen (quote) ". . .
more like the radical refreshment of subjectivity than its extinction. " In the end, we are that part of reality that becomes aware of its existence. For better or worse, we are truly immortal.
We can experience death, but only as an abstraction -- from the outside. But it is an illusion. There is no life after death, because there is no death.
Hello, me again. I hope you found that interesting. I'm very curious to know what you think about this argument or what if anything you think might happen after we die.
Please leave a comment and let's have a conversation. Please remember to also hit "like" which will help with the algorithm, and subscribe for loads more open-minded videos about the nature of consciousness, reality, and life's place in the universe. If you want to go above and beyond and really support my work please consider subscribing to my patreon at patreon.
com/wakingcosmos for exclusive updates as well as early access to every video and podcast I create. And a huge thank you to those of you who are already supporting my work. Alright!
That is about it from me. Thank you for watching. I'm Adrian Nelson.
