A Natural After-Life

As people like to post crackpot theories that are congenial to them, I thought I’d plop this down here.

I was thinking about how dreams can seem (from the point of view of the dreamer) to go on for very long periods of time, even if the dream, from the point of view of an external observer, might only last a couple of minutes. And I noted that it might be the case that as we lose executive function in geezerhood and become more and more a batch of autonomous, unconscious functions, our dream experiences get phenomenologically longer and longer. [If I knew something more about relativity theory maybe I could analogize this with the difference between falling into a black hole from the vantage of an outside observer and the vantage of the falling person, but alas….]

Anyhow, it seemed conceivable to me that one’s unconscious (where Freud said “time does not exist”) dream experiences might increasingly “stretch” until, at the moment of death, they becomes “endless” (or eternal or something like that).

If this were the case, everyone would have his or her own personal eternal afterlife, and the characteristics of each of these states would have the nice feature of being to some extent a function of how well we had “worked through” things in our lives. “Redemption” would kind of be in play, since, presumably, those who feel guilty about things they’ve done and haven’t “karma-cleaned” as it were, would be likely to have a less pleasant after-life. You’d also get to “interact” with all your loved ones, and your memories of them would be in some sense better than what you can consciously access–because, again, the unconscious has no “history,” so everything’s in there in tip-top shape.  Finally, I liked the connection with the William James excerpt from “Varieties of Religious Experience” that I’d recently posted here:

Let me then propose, as an hypothesis, that whatever it may be on its farther side, the “more” with which in religious experience we feel ourselves connected is on its hither side the subconscious continuation of our conscious life. Starting thus with a recognized psychological fact as our basis, we seem to preserve a contact with “science” which the ordinary theologian lacks. At the same time the theologian’s contention that the religious man is moved by an external power is vindicated, for it is one of the peculiarities of invasions from the [pg 513] subconscious region to take on objective appearances, and to suggest to the Subject an external control. In the religious life the control is felt as “higher”; but since on our hypothesis it is primarily the higher faculties of our own hidden mind which are controlling, the sense of union with the power beyond us is a sense of something, not merely apparently, but literally true.

The idea here is that “God” is really us, but that should be OK, at least from a personal standpoint, because the autonomous functions of the brain are about as “Other” as any spaghetti monster might be. We have no control over them: they completely run the show. Thus, those portions of our “minds” of which we are not conscious ought to be seen as being extremely potent and sufficiently “outside,” just like any father-figure ought to be.

Anyhow, when I mused about this stuff, I figured that I couldn’t have been the first to do so, and googled “dreams after-life.” One of the first things that came up was this piece by Bryon Ehlmann, a retired Ph.D. in computer science.

Ehlmann’s piece there isn’t very detailed, but he links a recent publication of his in the “Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research” (which can be seen on his academia.edu page). And he has a more recent–and more technical–article, still in draft on his academia page–in which he offers what he takes to be a proof of this theory.

I haven’t read this latter paper yet, and I’m skeptical about “proofs” generally. But I can imagine empirical dream studies of older and/or cognitively impaired individuals to find out if this “stretching” is actually going on. I’m doubtful even of the likelihood of strong empirical support, tbh. I mean it’s obviously a woo-drenched theory, something that can make the fearful naturalistic type a bit less anxious. I recognize that this is no more than a theory that is congenial to me….but I can’t deny that it really is comforting. And there’s nothing supernatural about it–except maybe the inferences.

ETA: I corrected the name of the Journal in which Dr. Ehlmann’s paper appeared.

162 thoughts on “A Natural After-Life

  1. fifthmonarchyman: are you confusing the many worlds interpretation with the multiverse?

    check it out

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/26/are-many-worlds-and-the-multiverse-the-same-idea/

    peace

    Unfortunately, the article you linked contradicts itself…
    The no cloning theorem quoted in the article contradicts the idea of the many worlds theory…
    So, both multiverse and the many worlds theories remain in the world of science fiction dazz the expert operates comfortably by jumping the gun as usual…
    Poor dazz full of gazz… can’t stop embarrassing himself….

  2. J-Mac: So, both multiverse and the many worlds theories remain in the world of science fiction

    Neither of these ideas can be tested. That does not stop sciency minded folks from believing them.

    peace

  3. fifthmonarchyman: Neither of these ideas can be tested. That does not stop sciency minded folks from believing them.

    peace

    Of course… and their motive is twofold:
    the avoidance of the fine tuning of the physical laws and the metaphysical implications of the fine tuning of those laws…
    Since nobody holds the scientists responsible for withholding this information, the regular folk believes them…

  4. J-Mac: and their motive is twofold:
    the avoidance of the fine tuning of the physical laws and the metaphysical implications of the fine tuning those laws…

    Actually I think they like the many worlds interpretation because they believe it allows them to get to wave collapse with out a conscious observer.

    Though I think they are mislead in this regard.

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman,

    I personally think that quantum consciousness remains the only valid possibility of the afterlife… Unfortunately, there is no evidence that quantum consciousness/soul can be aware on its own without the functionality of the brain…

  6. fifthmonarchyman:
    walto,

    Hey walto,

    Did you read that bit of Scifi that I linked? I found it to be very thought provoking.

    It was exploring immortality from the perspective of the many worlds interpretation of QM.

    You should check it out.

    peace

    I will. Thanks.

  7. J-Mac: I personally think that quantum consciousness remains the only valid possibility of the afterlife…

    I think the only valid possibility of the afterlife is union with Jesus Christ who is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25) and who conclusively demonstrated that reality to us.

    Just exactly how that works itself out is interesting speculation but I have no doubt that our brain has a role in the whole process.

    We won’t be disembodied spirits after all.

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman: Actually I think they like the many worlds interpretation because they believe it allows them to get to wave collapse with out a conscious observer.

    Though I think they are mislead in this regard.

    peace

    That’s is another valid point! 😊

    It seems it all boils down to the avoidance of the metaphysical implications of the wave function collapse and nature of reality due to consciousness observer outside of space-time-for that lack of better word for space with the possibility of no time concept…

  9. J-Mac: Unfortunately, the article you linked contradicts itself…
    The no cloning theorem quoted in the article contradicts the idea of the many worlds theory…
    So, both multiverse and the many worlds theories remain in the world of science fiction dazz the expert operates comfortably by jumping the gun as usual…
    Poor dazz full of gazz… can’t stop embarrassing himself….

    J-Tard, self proclaimed QM expert with the reasoning skills of a peanut, tries to make pathetic excuses. Heh

    Look buddy, it’s no big deal, we all knew you were clueless, just like we know you lack the intelligence to notice your own stupidity.

  10. When dazz is ever without gazz and finally makes a real contribution to any of the OPs, can someone please alert me? I’m tired of reading his embarrassing comments that have only one recurring theme;
    ‘How can I get J-mac for exposing my inadequacies on TSZ??? I think today is the day…
    I keep my fingers crossed…’

    If admins don’t do anything about trolls like dazz, what else can be done?

  11. newton: To think otherwise would be challenging the power of revelation, after all.

    Not at all.

    If it was conclusively revealed that we would be disembodied spirits at the resurrection I see no philosophical or empirical reason to doubt that such a thing is possible.

    I don’t think that the possibility of humans being disembodied spirits is ridiculous just unprecedented and unsupported by the data we have.

    peace

  12. Death is much less scary when you consider that each of us was nonexistent for billions of years before our conception and birth. Death is just a return to that state of nonexistence and oblivion.

    I thought of that today when I came across this quote by Zhuangzi:

    How do I know that in hating death we are not like people who got lost in early childhood and do not know the way home?

    That said, the journey home can sometimes be quite difficult and uncomfortable. Being dead is not so scary, but dying can be.

  13. keiths: Being dead is not so scary, but dying can be.

    It’s funny you wrote that because this is more or less the first thing I found suspicious about random processes instilling in us the fear of death…

    Spending a lot of time on a farm as a child as have seen a lot of animals dying; either because we needed dinner or because there were so many of them around that often there would be one of them just dying of old age or…too many deleterious mutations… whatever…
    The animals were never scared of dying…I even watched my favorite dog die, and she wasn’t scared… She didn’t have the same look or face expression as a colleague of mine who was dying of cancer and knew he had few days to live…
    He was frighten… He was looking at me as if I had the WHY answer…

    Why would random, natural processes instill in us the desire to live and the fear of death, and leave out 10 billion other species without it?

    To me, this is one of the top 10 reasons why random, natural processes as creators of life stink really bad…

  14. J-Mac,

    The animals were never scared of dying…I even watched my favorite dog die, and she wasn’t scared… She didn’t have the same look or face expression as a colleague of mine who was dying of cancer and knew he had few days to live…
    He was frighten… He was looking at me as if I had the WHY answer…

    Your colleague knew he was dying. Did your dog know that she was dying? If so, how do you know that?

    Why would random, natural processes instill in us the desire to live and the fear of death, and leave out 10 billion other species without it?

    Nature selects for behaviors that promote survival and reproduction. Such behaviors needn’t be accompanied by an awareness of death. The cockroach runs for cover when you try to whack it. It doesn’t have to reason “Hmm, if that shoe hits me, I might die, so I’d better run for it.”

  15. keiths: Your colleague knew he was dying. Did your dog know that she was dying? If so, how do you know that?

    She was in pain, bleeding and having shortness of breath, gasping to the point of choking with her own blood…

    You wouldn’t know you were dying in such circumstances?

  16. keiths: Nature selects for behaviors that promote survival and reproduction. Such behaviors needn’t be accompanied by an awareness of death. The cockroach runs for cover when you try to whack it. It doesn’t have to reason “Hmm, if that shoe hits me, I might die, so I’d better run for it.”

    I’m actually glad you believe this s..t…

    But then again..what other choice do you have..?

  17. J-Mac:

    I’m actually glad you believe this s..t…

    Since you’re not even bright enough to understand how evolution works, what hope do you have of arguing against it?

  18. J-Mac:

    She was in pain, bleeding and having shortness of breath, gasping to the point of choking with her own blood…

    You wouldn’t know you were dying in such circumstances?

    I would, but did your dog? Did she even have a concept of her own mortality?

    You’re a J-Mac, but a brighter person would ask those questions.

    And by the way, why didn’t you have her euthanized if she was suffering so badly?

  19. J-Mac: She was in pain, bleeding and having shortness of breath, gasping to the point of choking with her own blood…

    You wouldn’t know you were dying in such circumstances?

    Believe it or not, keiths is considerably smarter than most dogs–even than German Shepards, boxers and poodles.

    Gotta have the concept of death to know you’re dying, n’est pas? Even many toy Schauzers lack that, apparrently.

  20. walto,

    Believe it or not, keiths is considerably smarter than most dogs–even than German Shepards, boxers and poodles.

    Yes, and that’s why I’m a cat person. More of a challenge to win them over.

    P.S. How’s Impossibly Soft Cat doing?

  21. walto: Believe it or not, keiths is considerably smarter than most dogs–even than German Shepards, boxers and poodles.

    Since when have you changed your mind about keiths? I don’t read all the comments here but last time I saw your comment about keiths it wasn’t as encouraging as this one…

  22. keiths:
    walto,

    Yes, and that’s why I’m a cat person.More of a challenge to win them over.

    P.S.How’s Impossibly Soft Cat doing?

    He’s doing well, thanks, just turning 9. Can’t seem to brush him enough to prevent a lot of summer hairballs, but, fortunately, he doesn’t mind being raked.

    He’s as gentle as he is soft.

  23. J-Mac: Since when have you changed your mind about keiths? I don’t read all the comments here but last time I saw your comment about keiths it wasn’t as encouraging as this one…

    I spelled ‘shepherd’ wrong.

  24. walto,

    I spelled ‘shepherd’ wrong.

    And ‘Schnauzer’.

    ETA: And ‘n’est ce pas’.

  25. walto,

    Can’t seem to brush him enough to prevent a lot of summer hairballs, but, fortunately, he doesn’t mind being raked.

    Yeah, that’s the thing about long-hairs.

    I’m glad he’s doing well.

  26. keiths:
    walto,

    Yeah, that’s the thing about long-hairs.

    I’m glad he’s doing well.

    Looks like keiths and walto are best friends again… This is another TSZ miracle… 😉 lest they forget…again…

  27. Walto: I haven’t visited TSZ in a long time, but in looking for a certain comment I had received about the natural afterlife from some person on some site (and I haven’t found it as yet), I ran across your last comment above. I’m not sure I ever saw it, but now that I did, I will reply. Better late then never, right? 🙂

    You stated the following: “Not being aware does not require or involve being aware either of this or that or of not this or that. All that it requires is the absence of any awareness at all.”

    True! All that you say about non-awareness is correct. BUT the thing is with our natural eternal consciousness (NEC), which makes a natural afterlife possible, at death one IS AWARE of their last conscious moment. Their is no “absence of any awareness at all.” So, non-awareness is not the issue here. The issue is that once one is aware of something (and a rock is never aware), e.g., swimming in a dream, what does it now take to make them unaware of it?

    With human consciousness with its self-awareness, it takes a new conscious moment, e.g., like waking up in one’s bed, to replace the last one as a different present. However, with the timelessness of dying and subsequent death, this new conscious moment never materializes. So a person can be “paused” in their awareness of their last moment (via dreamless sleep, passing out, general anesthesia, and even death).

    Very important to note is that the “pausing” is from the psychological (subjective) perspective of the dying person, not from a material perspective, i.e., that of the living. From this latter perspective, with death awareness is no more.

  28. Bryon,

    Hi Bryon

    Walto hasn’t commented for a while so I don’t know if he’ll see your comment. He might need a heads-up.

    I’ve just re-read the OP and comments and I’m wondering who benefits from your idea. Is it meant as some comfort for those unable to be convinced by any “conventional” religious proposal for an eternal afterlife? Personally, I find the idea of a spiritual eternity ludicrous, unappealing, and discountable. Death is simply the end of the only life we get.

  29. walto: Welcome to TSZ, Bryon.

    Because of our email correspondence, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be able to convince you of (what I take to be your) error here. But I want to hasten to say that I absolutely agree that dreamers are not aware that they are not swimming [or whatever] until they wake up, and no surgery patient can be aware that she is not counting backwards anymore until she awakens from the anesthetic.

    But this just points up the same confusion I’ve complained about countless times to you via email. Not being aware does not require or involve being aware either of this or that or of not this or that. All that it requires is the absence of any awareness at all. Rocks have the property.Non-awareness does not, as you seem to think, imply awareness of nothing. And this is true both of rocks and of entities that were sentient at one time or another. I don’t know any other way to say this.

    Perhaps, if anyone else here understands what I’m saying and agrees with me about it, he or she may be able to put the matter in a way that will seem more compelling than any I have been able to produce.

    Walto: I haven’t visited TSZ in a long time, but in looking for a certain comment I had received about the natural afterlife from some person on some site (and I haven’t found it as yet), I ran across your last comment above. I’m not sure I ever saw it, but now that I did, I will reply. Better late then never, right? 🙂

    You stated the following: “Not being aware does not require or involve being aware either of this or that or of not this or that. All that it requires is the absence of any awareness at all.”

    True! All that you say about non-awareness is correct. BUT the thing is with our natural eternal consciousness (NEC), which makes a natural afterlife possible, at death one IS AWARE of their last conscious moment. Their is no “absence of any awareness at all.” So, non-awareness is not the issue here. The issue is that once one is aware of something (and a rock is never aware), e.g., swimming in a dream, what does it now take to make them unaware of it?

    With human consciousness with its self-awareness, it takes a new conscious moment, e.g., like waking up in one’s bed, to replace the last one as a different present. However, with the timelessness of dying and subsequent death, this new conscious moment never materializes. So a person can be “paused” in their awareness of their last moment (via dreamless sleep, passing out, general anesthesia, and even death).

    Very important to note is that the “pausing” is from the psychological (subjective) perspective of the dying person, not from a material perspective, i.e., that of the living. From this latter perspective, with death awareness is no more.

  30. Ending Comment To This Conversation

    To end my contributions to this conversation about the natural afterlife, I’ll first reply to the comment by Alan Fox, which I just noticed. He stated,

    … I’m wondering who benefits from your idea. Is it meant as some comfort for those unable to be convinced by any “conventional” religious proposal for an eternal afterlife?

    My “idea,” i.e., the natural afterlife and natural external consciousness (NEC) theory, was not “meant” for any purpose as it was discovered, not concocted. However, I believe it has benefits for individuals and society.

    Second, since this conversation began in 2018, I’ve published two articles in the Journal of Mind and Behavior on the NEC theory: “The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife” and “The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: Addendum.” You can find these articles on ResearchGate.net and Academia.edu. I’ve also published a book, A Natural Afterlife Discovered: The Newfound, Psychological Reality That Awaits Us at Death. The book is based on my articles; you can find it on Amazon. Much info about it can be found on my author website, https://bryonehlmann.com. The book’s last chapter discusses the benefits of the NEC theory for individuals and society and thus addresses Alan Fox’s questions.

  31. I have no idea what this thread is about, but the remark by Byron reminds me of an idea I read about from Alan Watts long ago. When we die, it’s like throwing a drop of water back into the ocean: all individuality is lost, but the part of the cosmic spirit that was within us returns to the universal undifferentiated cosmic spirit from which it came.

    I don’t believe in an individual or cosmic spirit, but this is a nice metaphor, and the one I would adopt if I had to have some belief about a spirit.

  32. Bryon,

    The problem, in a nutshell, is this: you are essentially arguing that during the time we are unconscious (after death), we continue to be conscious, forever, of the last thing we were conscious of before becoming unconscious.

    That’s incoherent. We can’t be conscious and unconscious at the same time.

    In your paper, you wrote:

    Before death a still functioning brain produces one last present moment of a perceived event within some experience, perhaps a dream, and then is incapable of ever producing another moment that would cognitively supplant the last one from our consciousness.

    Your assumption is that an experienced moment will remain in consciousness indefinitely unless it is displaced by another experienced moment. But if our consciousness ends when the brain ceases to function, then that in itself is sufficient to “evict” the final experience. There is no longer a consciousness within which that final experience can be held. When consciousness ends, experience ends, even if no new experience arrives to “evict” the old one.

    Therefore, we never perceive and thus are never aware that our last experience is over.

    We aren’t aware of anything, including the last experienced moment, because consciousness has vanished and awareness is no longer possible. Someone who is knocked unconscious by a blow to the head ends up well and truly unconscious, even if they don’t register the fact that consciousness is disappearing.

    They don’t continue to be aware of whatever they were last conscious of. It isn’t like a fermata. The note ceases and there is only silence.

  33. keiths: We can’t be conscious and unconscious at the same time.

    When we are conscious of one thing, we are unconscious of another. We are constantly both conscious and unconscious at the same time.

    Consciousness is far over your head.

  34. To a normal speaker of English, “Erik is conscious” and “Erik is unconscious” are contradictory, and the latter means that Erik is not conscious of anything.

    I’m surprised you haven’t picked up on that. Your English otherwise seems pretty good.

  35. keiths:

    I’m surprised you haven’t picked up on that. Your English otherwise seems pretty good.

    Perhaps the word Erik is looking for is “aware”?

    Much in the news lately has been the phrase “consciousness of guilt”, and in this usage the opposite is not “dead” or “fast asleep” or anything like that. It refers to whether one either considers oneself guilty or is oblivious to it. In this sense, there is some ambiguity about whether someone is conscious of anything if they sincerely believe otherwise.

  36. Flint: Perhaps the word Erik is looking for is “aware”?

    Keiths thinks he can get by with English, but what matters here is the terminology of psychology, given the topic. I happen to be aware of the terminology and the subject matter. You clearly are not.

  37. Erik,

    The sentence “We can’t be conscious and unconscious at the same time” is not identical in meaning to “We can’t be conscious of X and unconscious of Y at the same time.”

    When we say “Erik is conscious”, with no qualifier, we mean that Erik is having a subjective experience of something, without specifying what that something is. When we say “Erik is unconscious”, with no qualifier, we mean that Erik is not having any subjective experience at all, of anything. You can’t be having a subjective experience and not having any subjective experience at the same time.

    This isn’t difficult. I suspect that you grasp it, but are simply looking for a reason, however contrived, to disagree with me. Try to come up with something more plausible.

  38. Meanwhile, I’d be interested in hearing your response to Bryon’s ideas. You believe, to the best of my knowledge, in a soul that survives bodily death and remains capable of consciousness. If you’re right, then Bryon’s concept of a naturalistic afterlife is superfluous since we already have a supernatural afterlife.

    However, Bryon’s ideas might still apply within your worldview in situations where we temporarily lose consciousness, as when we are administered a general anesthetic. Bryon maintains that in such circumstances we remain conscious of the final experience we have before the anesthesia kicks in, and that this final experience persists in consciousness until a new experience arrives to supplant it, which happens when we come out from under the influence of the anesthetic. In a sense, then, we never actually lose consciousness. It’s just that our consciousness ceases to progress until the new experience arrives.

    Do you find that plausible? Or do you, like me, believe that awareness ceases altogether while we are anesthetized? Some other view?

    Also, if the soul is capable of consciousness after death, independent of the brain, why do we lose consciousness under general anesthesia? Why does the soul’s consciousness just happen to vanish at the same time that the brain’s activity is altered?

    To me, the answer is obvious. There is no soul, and so consciousness cannot be sustained independent of the brain. When brain activity is disrupted by the anesthetic, consciousness therefore ceases. It makes perfect sense.

    How do you explain the effects of general anesthesia in the context of your beliefs regarding the existence of the soul?

  39. Erik: Keiths thinks he can get by with English, but what matters here is the terminology of psychology, given the topic. I happen to be aware of the terminology and the subject matter. You clearly are not.

    You clearly don’t bother with dictionaries. But for your edification, I provide here a dictionary definition:

    “Conscious: aware of and responding to one’s surroundings; awake.”

    Now, if you wish to impart some meaning to the word the dictionary is not conscious of (heh), fine. Present your definition. Do not castigate others for using the correct definition, or failing to intuit what you mean but didn’t say.

  40. Bryon,

    Some additional comments.

    In your paper you characterize the standard physicalist view in the form of “Hypothesis 1”, before presenting your own view as “Hypothesis 2”:

    Hypothesis 1. Quoting from a psychology textbook by Zimbardo, Johnson, and McCann (2014, p. 325): “The mind is the product of the brain,” consciousness is “the brain process that creates our mental representation of the world and our current thoughts” and “as a process … is dynamic and continual rather than static.” Therefore, when the brain dies, the mind as its product and consciousness as a brain process must cease to exist and we will “experience” a kind of nothingness like that before life.

    But the standard view isn’t that we experience a nothingness; it’s that we don’t experience anything. We have no experience at all, there being no brain activity to support consciousness.

    This applies symmetrically before birth and after death. I would not describe my “beforelife” in this way: “I experienced eons of nothingness, and it was boring as hell, until finally I was conceived and born and things got interesting.” Instead, I would say that I had no experience at all during those eons, and that my experiences only began once I had a developed and functioning brain.

    As with my “beforelife”, so with my “afterlife”. A lack of brain activity means that experience is nonexistent in both cases, which is tantamount to saying that there is no “beforelife” and no “afterlife”, neither subjectively nor objectively.

    You present your own position in the form of Hypothesis 2:

    Hypothesis 2. For decades evidence has been mounting that we perceive time as a sequence of events, each evolving one discrete, static, present conscious moment at a time (Elliott and Giersch, 2016). Outside of these moments, e.g., dreamless sleep, we perceive nothing. Before death a still functioning brain produces one last present moment of a perceived event within some experience, perhaps a dream, and then is incapable of ever producing another moment that would cognitively supplant the last one from our consciousness. Therefore, we never perceive and thus are never aware that our last experience is over. So a remnant of consciousness, an experience paused in a moment at a point in time, will become imperceptibly timeless, i.e., static, and deceptively eternal relative to our perspective. (Here experience is not in quotes as it is indeed experienced before death.)

    Your implicit assumption is that an experience necessarily continues unless we perceive its ending, but why make that assumption?

    Consider an analogy: the experience of itching. We’ve all been in situations where we wanted to scratch an intense physical itch but were unable to. (Perhaps the itch was in the middle of our back, with no back scratcher available. Or we were landing an airplane, or driving a car through a winding stretch of road, and couldn’t afford to let go of the controls. Pity the poor astronauts who develop a strong itch in the middle of a spacewalk and are prevented from scratching by their spacesuits.) The itch will eventually go away on its own, and most often we don’t notice the disappearance as it is happening, particularly if our attention is focused elsewhere. We simply remember at some point that we used to be itching, we recognize that we no longer are itching, and we conclude that the itch disappeared despite our failure to notice it at the time. It isn’t that we continued to experience the itch until we became conscious that we were no longer itching. Rather, the itch disappeared without being supplanted by the conscious understanding that we were no longer itching — an understanding that only came later.

    The analogy is imperfect, but I suggest that similar reasoning applies to consciousness as a whole. You don’t have to notice that you are unconscious in order for consciousness to cease (and that would be oxymoronic anyway since the act of noticing itself requires consciousness. Consciously noticing that you aren’t conscious is a contradiction.)

  41. Next, experience is inherently temporal. That is, it requires us to progress through a sequence of distinct subjective moments. This would be true even if the outside world were somehow static and the only differences from moment to moment were in our own thoughts and/or sensations. The only way to experience an eternal afterlife, therefore, is if our minds continue to progress through such a sequence after the brain dies, which is impossible. Consciousness ends when the brain is no longer able to sustain the sequence.

    In your view, the final conscious experience gets “elongated” to occupy an experienced eternity, at least subjectively. However, this can’t be, because experience is temporal and therefore requires a succession of subjective moments, not a single elongated one.

    When we “come to” after surgery, we don’t report that the final conscious moment has been subjectively elongated throughout the time of the operation. We instead experience that moment as momentary, like all other moments. Subjectively, it lasts only a moment, and is followed immediately by the first moment of consciousness as the anesthetic wears off. The time in between is not experienced at all.

    We don’t experience a subjective “beforelife” during our eons of unconsciousness before birth, since there is no brain activity and therefore no sequence of distinct experienced moments. We don’t experience a subjective “betweenlife” during times of unconsciousness, such as during operations, again because there is no brain activity and therefore no sequence of distinct esperienced moments. Why would we experience a subjective afterlife, then?

    You are correct that there must be a final moment of consciousness, and that we cannot be aware that it is the final moment. That would be oxymoronic, as I explained above. However, it simply doesn’t follow that the final moment of consciousness is somehow elongated to occupy a subjective eternity.

    What you are calling a “natural eternal consciousness” isn’t eternal at all. It’s just a moment, and it lasts only for a moment, both objectively and subjectively.

Leave a Reply