On the Viability of the Death/No Experience State in a Materialist Worldview

[Bill Green]

This topic always seems, as a scientist, to make me scratch my head. I am baffled. Maybe someone can  help me!

Bernardo in Brief Glimpses in a positive sense, puts forward the simple if/then statement and verbiage:

"If all reality is in consciousness, then your consciousness is not generated by your body. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that your consciousness will end when your body dies. Your body is simply the outside image of a particular configuration of consciousness that you experience when you are alive. When you die, that configuration – or state – of consciousness will change, perhaps dramatically. Changes in your state of consciousness, however, happen all the time: when you wake up suddenly from an intense nightly dream, your consciousness changes its state rather dramatically as well. Now, would we live life differently – perhaps in a less anxious, more present and grounded manner – if we knew that death isn’t the end of consciousness? If the fear of death were no longer viable as an instrument of social control or economic gain, what would be the practical consequences for our culture, economy and society at large? And if you knew that your consciousness isn’t going to end when you die, wouldn’t you be interested in investing a bigger part of your life in preparing yourself for the transition – so it isn’t traumatic – and perhaps for what might come next?"

      Ok, we idealists accept, OK the brain is not the projector, projecting subjective consciousness outward onto the world (with we also experiencing it, but Im getting ahead)---so, unplug the projector and consciousness does not vanish. Fine, it may become drastically altered from your point of view, but that happens all the time in breathing waking life. This is not the part that makes me scratch my head.

    Now I walk up to a materialist scientist in his laboratory.  I ask of course, "What are you trying to measure."He  says, "I want to measure this voltage". So I say, "You will experience that by looking at this multi meter or oscilloscope to believe that it exists."  He looks at me quizzically but then says, "Duh."  He agrees.  So I switch to lawyer mode, hopefully entrapping him, like he does with his measurement. "Well, you might as well say, it doesnt exist  until I measure it, at least for you: you wont write the paper until you experience it."  He thinks he may be about to get the better of me and says, "No, the device in this state is generating a voltage, (electrons and lots of them are moving) and it would be here whether or not I measured it." Referring to something irreducible existing outside of, at least his, consciousness.

  I say OK fine those are physical things, that you say exist but most likely wouldnt submit a paper until you verify it yourself. Maybe even get other people to verify it, same set up, same measurement!  He says, "That would be best. Then I wouldnt have to believe, I would KNOW!"

   So I say, "What about this other thought "inside my head" (he can't see the quotes) that I'm not telling you about, measure that and tell me what it is!" He says, "there is no way to do that. Only you left-wing Jungian influenced new age airhead types believe in mindreading!"  I said but what difference is that than a voltage, my brain is a device and generated it."  He thinks for a moment, "Gee well, science certainly will be able to, some day, measure that and say with absolute certainty what it is!"  At this point I am convinced he either skipped all his quantum classes or slept through them. "What if I told you the human brain is incapable of intellection, that there is not way to view a screen of his mind to evaluate what an individual perceives as "red" when they look at a screen." Ok, he says, "If my brain doesnt generate consciousness then what part of me does, my ass???" I do my best not to agree instantly with him.

   I say, "How do you know I even had a thought I wanted you to read"  "You told me so, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you are standing here talking to me, and alive, and don't lie that much." Moving in for the kill, I say, "So if I was laying down, dead and a known liar you would not think I had thoughts you or science in some dim future might be able to read." "Duh, he says, if you're dead YOU wouldn't even be able to generate a thought let alone reflect on it so I might believe it or ever transcribe it."

"So let me sum up, you are measuring a voltage, experiencing it, others have duplicated your experiment.  You moved from theory to belief to acceptance and knowing based on the the standalone experience of the voltage, your experience of the voltage and others' duplicative measurements. 

Now you are accepting as fact a state that can neither exist nor be measured, that no one has be able to experience subjectively as you say, because there is no experiencer (according to you), the non-experiencer has never come back to tell us about his non-experience (except every year on Easter and according to growing NDE literature) and there are not scientists duplicating all these non-experiences, and you all are convinced that when youre dead youre dead. 

 If that is not a non-scientific religious belief system, I have never heard one." He walks out silently in disgust. But thinking, which is spiritual.

[Lex Benjamin]

Now, would we live life differently – perhaps in a less anxious, more present and grounded manner – if we knew that death isn’t the end of consciousness?

I believe that we would. I can say that I do as a direct result of understanding that matter being the fundamental essence of reality is less parsimonious than mind being the fundamental essence reality. Not to say that Occam's Razor is to be the arbiter of truth, just that my understanding of science (not a scientist) supports this. Heck, just look at Quantum Field Theory and you see that a solid reality is no longer plausible. Fields of energy are more like mind than anything we experience from our perspective. 

 

If the fear of death were no longer viable as an instrument of social control or economic gain, what would be the practical consequences for our culture, economy and society at large?

 I asked this same question on Quora a bit ago and received some interesting answers. Even though our consciousness will/may continue, the experience of the individual likely will not. The experience Bill Green being largely dependent upon the composition of your physical form and its relation to the rest of the physical world. People believe, to varying degrees, in a continuation of their fundamental existence, yet we still worry and suffer at the thought of this form ending. We ruminate over the extinguishing of our identity and mentally created self. I don't think much will change unless we are able to truly accept that this individual and specific experience is impermanent and fleeting. 

 

And if you knew that your consciousness isn’t going to end when you die, wouldn’t you be interested in investing a bigger part of your life in preparing yourself for the transition – so it isn’t traumatic – and perhaps for what might come next?"

Yes, I think this is important. Learning how to end that is. Terence McKenna said that some Amazonian Shaman told him that a person can screw up dying. That in that moment, we can get lost, freak out, panic, and miss the boat. The result of which is true and permanent death. With no experience or understanding what you truly are, it may be possible to rejoin this disassociated consciousness with the Mind at Large properly. 

I don't think this is true, I do believe that preparing for the inevitable is rational and responsible. 

[Bill Green]

Thanks Lex:

The statement: I don't think much will change unless we are able to truly accept that this individual and specific experience is impermanent and fleeting. 

This is fundamental Tibetan (and probably in other types of Buddhism) tenet: There is no concrete and permanent self living or not. Anatman: I suppose the concept of permanent Atman is illusory based in fear and anxiety. I dont feel that individuality is preserved either, and that the concept of screwing up death and REALLY dying is akin to St. Peter with the thumbs up or down at the Pearly Gates.  Thats shamanic social control.

[Ben Iscatus]

 "OK", he says, "If my brain doesn't generate consciousness then what part of me does, my ass???" I do my best not to agree instantly with him.

:))

I admire your forbearance, Bill.

[Bill Green]

Easier said than done.

[RHC]

I think internalizing a belief that you will survive death to the point where it effects how you think and live can only be positive.  For one thing I don't think even your egoic self is lost, though I doubt consciousness expressing through it continues to "wear" that baggage.  This is unbelievably liberating.  For me anyway, it has caused me to mostly release the idea that I can somehow screw up this life.  And though I had mostly lost my fear of death, even when I was still a materialist as a result of some health issues I experienced in my early 40s, I now even feel much less existential dread over the survival of life on Earth.  Whatever happens, it all lives on in TWE.  Everything changes, but nothing is lost.  Im not saying I never feel existential fear for myself or Life in general, but now at least I have a counter-argument for myself that seems significantly more reasonable than materialist oblivion.  But then I also allow my worldview to be influenced by NDE experiencer accounts.   Anyway thats a long prelude to saying I dont think you need to prepare for your transition, in a way other than simply living ones Idealism.  To the extent our thoughts create our subjective reality its helpful to minimize ones inner negativity.  That's well worth a life practice.  Beyond that try to enjoy acting in your role in this movie.  And by all means take it and your role seriously, checking out, because its "just a movie" seems self-evidently dumb to me. 

[Peter Jones]

II feel the scientist deserves a better argument, but then I didn't quite understand the OP in places. .

[Mark Tetzner]

RHC - I have spent the last few days watching NDE on youtube ...German accounts.
It had never occoured to me to watch German ones.
They are indeed the most important puzzle-piece, so fascinating.

Here is one of the things I find weird: Once you start watching those the side-bar will
point out all kinds of videos, people who met Satan and so on, its just so weird.

But in general I have found some people who are so genuine and believable,
amazing personalities, its almost not possible not to believe them.

[RHC]

Mark I know what you mean.  The more nde accounts one is exposed to, the harder it gets to doubt the average sincerity of the experiencers.  Im sure there are a bunch of frauds in the mix, but there are just to many recorded experiences, and to many of those that happen under relatively verifiable conditions (ie emergency rooms),  to dismiss the phenomenon.  And then there are just to many repeated common elements to dismiss them as random hallucinations.

Clearly though there is a range of experience.  People sometimes experience elements of what they expect to happen, sometimes not.  The combination of objective experience outside the experiencers control, and possibly subjective creation or layering of personally meaningful attributes  ala Jeffrey Kripal's Authors of the impossible is totally fascinating to me.   That combination of many common elements and many personalized ones makes me even more sure NDEs are what people experience them to be, transition experiences at an overlap of the edge of the whirlpool and whats outside it.  

Hey that would make a great name for an article or  book At the Edge of the Whirlpool:  Idealism and the Near Death Experience

[Mark Tetzner]

Thanks RHC - I was going to chime in but you pretty much said it all.
I really have to read that book you just mentioned, I almost forgot about it.
Hopefully of to Teneriffe next week or the week after and then thats on my list.

!