Could someone explain to a layman what this article is trying to say?
Something akin to: "When you die you're dead, so you can't "experience" nothingmess, hence death can't be nothingess". In other words, he just means "death is not an experienced nothingness". Well, big deal. It's still nothingness, as far as we're concerned as living beings now (when we consider our death).
Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity (1994)
31–34 of 34 posts
Re: Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity (1994)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. In any case I disagree that we know nothing. We know that subjective experience exists. I think it makes sense to start with what we actually know rather than with a bunch of concepts we've invented (like matter) to explain the phenomena we experience. The only basis I see for believing in the reality of these…
> It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. I did not say this, I said the discussion is boring because it’s not falsifiable. We might as well just say fairies are real but not perceivable by humans or any device humans can build. It could be true, but who cares? We’ll never know one way or the other by definition.
In many ways materialism is more like your example about unknowable fairies than anything I have said because ultimately it postulates that there is something called matter that exists independently of consciousness and yet is knowable only through consciousness. That concept of "bare matter" as a thing in itself looks a lot like your unknowable fairies.
Re: Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity (1994)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reincarnation The idea leads to so many questions. In your version, is the reincarnated person conscious of their past selves? If not, is that any different than a clone? What happens between death and reincarnation? How does the math work? Is there an upper limit to the number of human consciousnesses that can be incarnated at once? Non-human consciousnesses? Non-sentient ones? Along those lines: what is it that l…
I'm not sure why you say "in my version" because I didn't say I believed in reincarnation, just that the parent's comment kind of only makes sense if you do. Personally I have no particularly strong views on these matters but some form of non-dualism (in the the sense of advaita vedanta) seems to me to make the most sense. From that perspective many of your questions kind of go away because at the most fundamental le…
That was just shorthand for "in what you mean when you say reincarnation".
Re: Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity (1994)
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something akin to: "When you die you're dead, so you can't "experience" nothingmess, hence death can't be nothingess". In other words, he just means "death is not an experienced nothingness". Well, big deal. It's still nothingness, as far as we're concerned as living beings now (when we consider our death).
When people like Asimov expressed their view on death--nothingness--they probably meant the same thing this Author is trying to say here. I would say when most people say death is nothingness, they don't mean there will be a remnant of them expericing nothingness, they just mean nothingness. I feel this author is just intentionally misinterpreting people's words.
If there's nothing after death. That will last forever. This nothingness will be an infinite nothingness after death. Then, even if the experience of nothingness is timeless/instantaneous, the infinitude of this nothingness becomes qualitatively different. Because you can't have infinity pass instantaneously. Say there's some point after which there's infinitely no life. Then, and only then, this forever of nothingness is as good as experienced. A paradoxically instantaneous yet infinite time of non experience. Essentially a non experience, that we can't experience, forever. At that extreme it becomes akin to an experience. This is how I could agree one could imagine there is nothingness forever after death.
Still there remains the issue of whether or not this nothingness actually occurs. If it's the case that it does, how are we not there already? Almost surely, I'd find myself in the infinitely dead timespan of the universe rather than in the relatively zero sized timespan of the universe in which life exists. The infinitely unconscious tail end of the universe would be like an inescapable trap.
The idea that if infinite experience of any sort exists I would be experiencing it already also requires some justification. To me, I lean more toward the ideas of determinism, and that time isn't so absolute as we tend to experience it. The block universe, perhaps. I think that the theories of relativity lend credence to this seeing as they show us that time is very real but that there is no absolute reference frame from which time is ticking along at the same rate always for everyone within it. Add to these ideas that you could have woken up at any time in the past, as someone living hundreds of thousands of years ago, but did not. Equally, there's no reason why you didn't wake up as anyone in the future. Contentious, I know, but that goes along with my "b theory" belief of time. And we are living in the future, compared to those who found themselves waking up in the past. Why did you wake up into this particular body? Why not one of the past or future? Why not as anybody else? Why did I wake up as me? And then imagine, if ever I "wake", just as I woke into this body, into some experience that is infinite, then I will be trapped forever.