How did you feel in, say, the year 1810? Whatever your answer, that’s exactly what it feels like to be dead. There, I’ve solved the mystery of the afterlife.
I hate to break it to you, dear reader, but you have been dead for the past 13.5 billion years. It was only very recently that you became alive. Throughout the vast majority of all time, throughout all of the vast history of the universe, all of us, you, I, everyone, has been dead.
Other than “What is the meaning of life?”, the mystery of death is considered to be the greatest unknown question. In fact, a lot of people assume that this question simply can never be answered because nobody can come back from the dead. But people come back from the dead all the time!
I submit to you that “dead before life” is the same as “dead after life”. Why shouldn’t it be? Every time someone is born, they go from being dead to being alive. All of us know exactly what it’s like to be dead, because we each have experienced it.
It feels like nothing.
It feels the same as being unconscious, or being asleep, or being put under the gas to have your tonsils removed. Without consciousness, you cannot feel. The eight hours you spend sleeping at night passes in an instant, just like the previous 13.5 billion years, and just like the billions of years that will come after you die. It’s all the same; it’s all nothing.
Now, on the sliding scale of certainty, I am far from being 100% certain, but it makes a lot of sense. I just don’t like how people treat death as this evidence-less void of unknowability, and that we are each free to make up whatever we want to believe about the afterlife. Surely, there is a plethora of evidence as mentioned above that death really is “nothing”, certainly more evidence than there is for it being filled with 72 virgins, or for Heaven up in the white clouds.
I’m about 95% certain that death is “nothing”, but let’s entertain the possibility that there is “something” after death: what would that something be? In my opinion, it would in all probability be reincarnation. There is one key bit of evidence that really brings reincarnation into the realm of possibility: incarnation!
That is, we were all obviously incarnated or we wouldn’t be here. Birth = incarnation. This is known as, “If it happened before, it can happen again,” and is the opposite of, “Lightning never strikes twice.” I find this argument to be very compelling, and it can be applied to many other questions. For example:
- Are there aliens out there? I wouldn’t rule it out, because clearly the creation of life is possible and has happened before here on Earth billions of years ago. It seems reasonable that life could happen again on some alien world.
- Is time travel possible? Well, time traveling forward is certainly possible, and at different speeds, so I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility of making time go backwards.
In much the same vein, my incarnation has happened before, so it seems at least possible that it could happen again. Contrast the evidence for reincarnation with the evidence for ghosts, Heaven, etc., of which there is none.
Obviously, this is a weak argument for reincarnation, I’m not saying otherwise, I’m just saying that it brings it within the realm of possibility. To reiterate: we KNOW that incarnation is possible, at least the first time, and is the first time so much easier to understand than the second? Imagine trying to explain some of the other “firsts”:
- There was nothing, then there was a big bang, and then there was a universe! Um, what?
- There was nothing, then there was abiogenesis, then there was life! Um, what?
- (There was nothing, then God, who existed even though there was nothing, created stuff! Um, what?)
My point is, we accept things like the Big Bang and abiogenesis not because they make sense or are easily explained, but because they obviously HAPPENED. The whole “but it happened” argument is mother nature’s way of slapping you in the face with ultimate evidence that cannot be denied. Incarnation, the idea that a new life can be born, sounds ridiculously unlikely to me, but it happens. So, why not reincarnation?
Why not, indeed. Reincarnation raises a boatload of problems. First, where does the “soul” go in the interim between death and reincarnation? How does it get from one body to the next? What is a soul, anyway? Are there “new” souls, or is everyone reincarnated from “old” souls, and in that case where did the original souls come from? If I was reincarnated, why don’t I remember my previous life, and if we don’t remember, in what sense were we reincarnated at all?
It’s because of all these unanswered questions that I feel reincarnation is extremely unlikely. My other theory, the theory that death is “nothing” and that there is no soul, easily avoids all of these questions and explains everything. To sum it up, I’d give “nothing” a 95% chance of being what really happens, reincarnation a 1% chance, and the other 4% to various other possibilities I haven’t discussed or thought about.
Tags: afterlife, death, nothing, reincarnation
That is exactly how I imagine death. Its like staring somewhere and trying to figure out what you “see” behind you. I guess it’s kind of the same nothingness we “feel” when we are dead, only the stuff we feel and see is gone.
wow…I’ve never considered the prospect that we were essentially dead before we were born. This is the truth, unless someone comes up with evidence for something else. It is fascinating to consider that: After we are dead, the atoms of which we are made stay on earth, becoming parts of soil, sea, air, plants and other animals. In the same way, what we are made of came from the atoms that were parts of nature before we were born.
There’s actually a group called Aware, that tracks people that die and are brought back to life. They will put an image in the room during the “death period.” Eyes closed, no possible vision, and then the person will invariably remember that image when brought back to life, although the image has been removed. One way or another, there is cognition after we die. So, if we have evidence of life after death, why not assume life before we’re born?
It’s nice to find out I’m not the only one who thinks this is how it works. I figure being dead is the same state as before birth.
Yeah man ! I made exactly the same conclusion several years ago ! This is so true.
i believe in the christian beleif of life after death. i dont care about this philosiphy. although it makes me think. i know that heaven exists and it’s there for us to live with God and his angels. period.
cool article, found upon a search for “nothingness after life.” (incase you were wondering.)
one thing for sure about death… we will all find out, won’t we? (the leading cause of death is being born.)
as for the deities… one would hope “it, he, she, they” are as advanced as we believe them to be and take into account how limited they have created us. so much for wrongs and forgiveness. this is a no-brainer for a real god.
anyway, on this particular (or only) journey, it’s nice to have made your acquaintence via our “series of tubes”… best wishes. ron
I’ve seen two of your videos and it seems to me that you consider yourself very smart. You’re a bit more arrogant than smart and your talking points never seem to dive below the surface of the same old crap that any child can spew. You do not have any original thoughts or new evidence to back your claims. You are a rather unimpressive individual, much like some kid that thinks he’s a hot shot because he can play a few chords of “Stairway to Heaven” on the guitar and after all it’s really more annoying than entertaining. I say that just in case that you are trying to be an entertainer.
It seems more likely that you are struggling with the very questions and answers that you are denouncing and your childish rants are actually a cry for help. A wise man who is content in his beliefs would be at peace, however, you seem to be quite the “chatter box”. Do you think the world needs your “wisdom”? Are you out to save the world? Are you out to impress the world? What? What is the point of your videos?
If what you believe is true, then live and die in it. Trying to persuade others to your way of thinking will not make it any more true. Truth is not created in a consensus; it just is and what ever it is, everyone will find it in the end or perhaps sooner if one is determined, yourself included. I know I did.
Do you think, perhaps that you are afraid of that truth?
For someone who doesn’t believe in God, you sure seem to be upset with him. Where I come from, we call people who rage against imaginary entities a lunatic.
I offer this advice: Until you can actually answer such questions as “Where did this all come from?”, “Why am I here?” and “Where am I going?”, without offering the same old lame, lazy and unoriginal proposal that these questions are not valid in the first place, turn your camera off, lest you continue to make yourself a babbling fool. I’m just trying to help.
Mike-N-TN
If you don´t wish to be entertained or informed by Philip, then stop reading this site… Easy as that. If Philip wishes to express his thoughts (though they may not be entirely new thoughts) then that´s his choice, and his blog. Unless you have the answers to all your questions, don´t expect him to have them just because he has a blog.
A wise man who is content in his beliefs would be at peace, however, you seem to be quite the “chatter box”.
How is it that you know what all “wise” men do, and don´t do. You are saying that because Philip is quite the “chatter box” he can´t really be wise. That´s quite an assumption. It seems more like you are the one who is arrogant.
Eh, I’ve always leaned towards Reincarnation myself, although not how people usually define it, as your soul entering a new body. The only reason I believe in it, or at least a variation of it, is that when we die we lose what gives our consciousness. Without that, we can’t experience anything, not even nothingness. Nothingness cannot exist as anything more than a mere idea due to that.
So as a result of that, we must assume some other form with consciousness. Our previous self no longer exists, as all the memories and what not belonged to that bodies brain. Thereafter, we just live our lives as something else with a conscious, and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be human. Whatever we get reborn as could even be on another planet for all we know.
Anyways, that’s the general gist of what I believe.
My take on this is: If my individual consciousness is unique to myslef (as it appears to be: I can’t merge my mind with anyone else’s), and I cease to exist FOR ETERNITY after I die,
then
as far as I as an individual am concerned, everything that ever was, and everything that will ever be — ALL OF CREATION AND ALL OF EXISTENCE — is contained in the span of my lifetime and my awareness.
If I will never share my consciousness with another being, or return as another being — if what I experience is all I will EVER experience, then all the rest of “existence”, including the beings that lived, and the events that transpired in the time before I was born and those that will transpire in the time after I die, all of it has no impact, no relevance, no “existence” TO ME at all.
From my point of view, all of time and space and matter and energy exists while I am here. To consider what happens after that is meaningless. We only know of the past from messages preserved from those who came before, not directly. We can only infer the future from the events we see taking place around us.
But as ME, inside MY head, all of eternity, all of time, all of space, is contained in my life. To me, I am all that ever was, or will be, or can be.
Does it happen again? Is it continually happening? If my existence is all of existence (to me at least) then to me it is eternal. I have typed these letters “before” and will “again” but more likely is that I’m typing these letters forever.
Thanks for your patience with this.
Affinity
the theory that death is “nothing”…explains everything.
Errrrm, don’t mean to be contrary but I can’t really find a lot of explanatory power in this theory. It doesn’t explain consciousness, the sense of self, the (imaginary or otherwise) experience of being alive, how it is that a pile of carbon and other materials can be not-alive now but alive two minutes earlier, it doesn’t explain why humanity has for millennia believed in spirits etc. I’m not saying you don’t have explanations for any of those things, I’m saying that your theory doesn’t.
As for your assertions that being dead is the same as being unborn and that death \feels like nothing\. They are just that — assertions — and nothing more.
Apart from being non-explanatory and unsubstantiated it’s a good theory.
I’m going to quote my Very Jewish Grandmother on this one…(oh and feel free to throw in a Very Boston/Brooklyn accent in…oh and for good measure, throw in a bit of Woody Allen theatrics into the mix.
When you’re dead…You’re DEAD.
You asked, how the soul get from one body to another. But you also can ask the question: How got your body a “soul” in the first time?How has this been created, where does your consciousness come from?
Excellent question, Sylvia, and without an answer, the theory of having a soul is completely unconvincing.
Imagine you meet someone and they try to convince you that they have $1 million.
“Where did you get the money?” you reasonably ask.
“Uh… I found it.”
Riiight. Not very convincing. Likewise, when people try to tell me that I have a “soul” but they can’t tell me where it came from, I can’t take them seriously.
@OP
I agree mostly with what you have said here, however, I feel that I should point out mistakes you’ve made about the Big Bang and abiogenesis. I will quote you.
“# There was nothing, then there was a big bang, and then there was a universe! Um, what?
# There was nothing, then there was abiogenesis, then there was life! Um, what?”
No one is certain that there was “nothing” before the Big Bang. Our universe might be the latest of many to have existed, or it may simultaneously exist alongside many others. However, there might have been what we would call “nothing”. As it turns out, “nothing” is not very stable on a quantum level. Another point is that if you take all the all the energy and the gravitational force in the universe and add them up, they cancel each other out. Everything that exists adds up to nothing. I recommend watching this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
About Abiogenesis, it definitely wasn’t the result of nothing. We’ve actually demonstrated how proteins can be formed in labs. All you need is one self replicating molecule to get life started. It will evolve based on which variations of it survive and reproduce more efficiently. Scientists are in the process of figuring out just how it happens. http://www.livescience.com/str.....-life.html
The universe had basically unlimited chances and billions of years for abiogenesis to occur. In a universe where life could physically exist, it was unavoidable that it would.
@Blingmone
You said:
“Errrrm, don’t mean to be contrary but I can’t really find a lot of explanatory power in this theory. It doesn’t explain consciousness, the sense of self, the (imaginary or otherwise) experience of being alive, how it is that a pile of carbon and other materials can be not-alive now but alive two minutes earlier, it doesn’t explain why humanity has for millennia believed in spirits etc. I’m not saying you don’t have explanations for any of those things, I’m saying that your theory doesn’t.”
Consciousness is caused by the firing neurons in your brain cells. You know that if your physical brain is disrupted or enters a different state, you will not be conscious. (Alzheimer’s disease, head injury, sleep). The sense of the self is there because you are an individual organism that is intelligent enough to think about your own existence. The experience of being alive is very real, as far as I am concerned. A dead body is not a mystery. The brain has stopped functioning, so there is no consciousness there. Religions were created by humans to explain mysteries, control people, and for other reasons.
@ Disagree
You said:
“i believe in the christian beleif of life after death. i dont care about this philosiphy. although it makes me think. i know that heaven exists and it’s there for us to live with God and his angels. period.”
It’s fine with me that you belief whatever you want, but here, you say that you “know” heaven is real. If you could provide evidence for this, it would be greatly appreciated. However, I know that you can not know this. You are only human and are limited to human experiences. You are a liar. I will not deny that. Furthermore, I know enough about your religion to say that it is utterly ridiculous. Most adherents are only so because of child indoctrination or social acceptability. If you wish to carry the backward beliefs of an organized religion and shut your mind to freethought, that is your choice. But I will not pretend that anything you say regarding it is credible.
If anyone would like to discuss topics such as these, feel free to email me or add me on Windows Live (MSN) Messenger.
Excuse me, I didn’t realize my email address would not be posted in my last message. The address is brettalan1991@hotmail.com
[...] http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=1013 Share this:PrintEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Blog Post, Critical Thinking, Philosophy by AlwaysQuestionAuthority. Bookmark the permalink. [...]
I would like to make an observation:
I am conscious. I am self aware. There is something to this consciousness of mine. Why? Because I am here and can contemplate it. If this is untrue, then wouldn’t this perceived reality just be a flaw in nothing? Then again, how can “nothing” be flawed in the first place?
If there is nothing to consciousness, then how is it the double split experiment works the way it does?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
NOTE – to sum up the video: physical matter reacts differently while being observed/measured Vs. not observed/measured. To observe/measure matter you would need a conscious oberver/measurer.
Now to my question: If this consciousness is in fact real, is it possible that this “consciousness” is a singular extra-planar entity of which we all share, only to be separated by our physical memories/experiences. This theory takes into account Alzheimers and any other physical condition.
If this is the case, then the phrase “I am you, and you are me.” are partially correct.
Oh, and another link for the Double Slit Experiment. (contains sources of info)
http://www.highexistence.com/t.....xperiment/
Theoretically, the idea that there is nothing in death makes sense and is very practical. But, to a sentient species that lives for the sake of living and can contemplate its own existence and what comes after, it is a terrible and unappealing end. Naturally, I think we all want to believe there is something more, something eternal, powerful, untouchable, incomprehensible, that will be there when we’re gone.
I think the reason many people they refuse to accept that there is any thing but a heaven, nirvana, some form of spirit, God or reincarnation after life is the above. This is the human condition. Sometimes, no matter how precise, irrefutable, perfect or logical the facts may be, people just won’t, or are unable to accept that they are true. I think this is one of those times.
It doesn’t mean that you, Phil, or anyone else here is wrong, far from it. It’s just that the idea that there is nothing after this short existence we are experiencing now is simply unacceptable for most or all people. Perhaps it’s genetics, perhaps its dogmatism, perhaps it’s evolutions, perhaps it is just a fact of life. No matter which way you slice it, as long as you try to convince people of this while they’re still alive, assuming that in death there is nothing and thus no-thing will matter anyway, you will be unable to make them believe you.
It is still fascinating to discuss though.
Absolutely. One of the most difficult things in life is to put aside your own prejudices, wants, desires, and feelings. These things are fine for subjective matters like who your friends are or what your favorite movie is, but it is not appropriate for science, finding the truth, government, or the law.
For example, if somebody wants to believe in an afterlife, that’s absolutely fine, in fact it’s their right, but it certainly shouldn’t be taught in school, or treated as “true” or “real,” or anything like that. Just like religion, superstitions should be put aside when serious discussions begin.
The question should be phrased not as whether “dead (i.e., non-existent) before life” is the same as “dead after life” but whether “having lived and died” is equivalent to “never having been born at all.” When you put it this way, even a confirmed atheist might fudge at saying “yes.”
@Dmitry Chernikov
Take a bunch of carbon atoms. Put them in soil, and grow a potted plant. Burn the potted plant back into its composite carbon atoms. There is no reason to believe that these carbon atoms are any different for “having lived and died.” Likewise, there is no reason to believe that being dead before or after life makes any difference.
I don’t understand, are you denying that you are alive right now? I am not talking about the atoms that compose your body, I am talking about you, or Smith, or Jones, i.e., human beings.
If you do not think there is such a phenomenon as “life” as distinct from “non-living matter,” then of what value are your ruminations? If there is no life, then how can there be death? “dead before / after life” then becomes “non-existent before / after non-existence.” To parody the Catholic prayer, “We have never existed, do not now, and never shall, no world at all.” Alternatively, since matter seems everlasting, i.e., it does not corrupt though may change from one form to another, we have “existence as atoms before / after existence as atoms.” Again your argument is thwarted, because now we (= carbon and other types of atoms) are immortal. Thus, we “have always” existed and always will.
Now you may argue as follows. Humans are just like man-made robots, only much more complex. This view is untenable on other grounds, but let’s assume it. Hence, “life” means “a working robot,” “ill-health” means “a malfunctioning robot,” and “death” means “a broken robot.” But in that case, given sufficient technology, someone could re-create you in the distant future. In fact, that what the Christian Gospels promise to a materialist, namely, that the robot that he is will be rebuilt and fixed up to operate at peak efficiency at the end of days; in the meantime, humans sort of sleep in their graves. You may fasten onto that, as you do onto reincarnation.
My initial question was meant to awaken you to the possibility that you can influence the course of human events, for good or ill, and that your life matters. How — that is up to you to figure out.
[...] Brocoum suggests that there is no life after death, anymore than life before birth. That, of course, is a non [...]
Oh wow man, like everything i see is purple and i’m gonna die and i ain’t comin back. Wow, everything is purple…
@Dmitry Chernikov
“I don’t understand, are you denying that you are alive right now? I am not talking about the atoms that compose your body, I am talking about you, or Smith, or Jones, i.e., human beings.
If you do not think there is such a phenomenon as “life” as distinct from “non-living matter,” then of what value are your ruminations? If there is no life, then how can there be death?”
We are just incredible delicately balanced collections of atoms that have attained consciousness. This delicate balance which sustains your individual consciousness is the definition of “alive.” We call a particular instance of conscious atom collections people and give them names. When the delicate balance inevitably fails consciousness ends: the brain stops functioning and decomposes. There is nothing left to sustain conciseness and so that is the absolute end of your consciousness, your life.
Doesn’t it make sense that some civilization will eventually create eternal life, go farther, create time travel, go farther, save every living creature in the universe from dying, go farther, extend the life of the universe forever? I mean, assuming limitless technology, and near infinite time left in this universe, isn’t “heaven” inevitable?
recently i came up with a striking thought. you are just as you are for really a split second and your past self if you think back to him or her really isn’t yourself. all your atoms as they are combined are only here right now. all your past selves might not have been you even though you have memories of other times. What i’m trying to say is that we might only be alive right at this moment although the perceived reality with memories is different.
Trying to see through the back of your head does indeed feel a bit like ‘nothingness’ but if you experiment with this for a bit longer you begin to notice that it actually does feel like something after all. There is overwhelming evidence now that there is no such thing as nothing. Empty space is full of potential energy. If before birth and after death is a bit like trying to see out the back of your head then it will be similar to nothing but not precisely the same thing as nothing. Some people may well be able to feel somewhat the amount of time that passed before they were born. Many people when they wake up from sleep can tell whether they have slept a long or a short while. This indicates they were never completely unconscious during sleep. It is said that while under anaesthetic you cannot tell how much time has passed. I would say it indeed is possible to have a rough idea of how much time has passed given enough exposure to the experience. After all people sleep every day so some can tell whether they slept a long time or a short while. Many people are able to wake up at a specific time on purpose somehow. These things I speak of all involve consciousness. Also if you can’t remember something that does not mean it does not exist. We can’t remember a great deal of our life but we know it exists. This knowing is a form of consciousness. The best chance for reincarnation would involve the recycling of matter as it is consumed by creatures great and small until it eventually becomes you again on a planet or some such logic again somewhere. You will not have any memories of your previous lives but the you that you understand as being you will be the same. Consciousness could be eternal though and a fabric of nature in which case all bets are off.
Funny reading the “religious” response from Mike-N-TN. They say the truth hurts. To know inside that your religious beliefs are based are nonsensical 2000 year old myths that are ridiculous today, must be hard to deal with. I see that reaction a lot from religious people who bury their heads in religion as the truth that we know nothing about our meaning & death is just too much to bear for them, but like Mike-N-TN, deep inside they know their beliefs are false and easily become defensive.
One thing I think we should consider in this discussion is the fact we aren’t intellectually equipped to come close to understanding what everything is. There are obviously other dimension(s?) we can’t comprehend so who knows what bearing that has on our existence. Also thoughts like this interest me: “if eternity is real then isn’t it a certainty that our atoms will come together again, along with those in everything currently around us, in exactly the same formation as they are now at some point in the future?”