Death, Atheism

[Received]

From le bloge:

I don't understand nonexistence. So I'm wary of any sly atheist who self-justifies his rejection of God by saying that when we die, we are no more. What does "no more" mean here? It is nonsensical. We know the negation of something in the world because we observe its negation. I see a soap bubble, oop, and I see it no more. But the negation of something in the world is infinitely different than the negation of that which makes somethings (and negations) possible -- namely, ourselves, consciousness.

Unlike the negation of objects, which we've known since consciousness first sparked into the universe, we've never known or experienced a negation of subjectivity. You can't experience nonexperience. You can say that we've all been unconscious, and very clearly we all have. It happens every night (unless you're an insomniac or in college). But this use of unconsciousness is to conflate neurobiological existence with consciousness existence, and is therefore misleading. I do not ("I" does not) exist without consciousness; therefore in the realm of sleep, we do not exist, save in timeless snippets afforded by a dreamworld.

But if we haven't experienced permanent unconsciousness, if we know the negating of objects but not the negation of consciousness, then does it make any sense to say that when we die, we shall be "no more"? No, it doesn't. We know this intuitively; we know that nonexistence makes absolutely no ontological sense when speaking of the subject, but through a few words tied together we've come to an elusive conclusion that we do. "No more" is a phrase extracted from noticing the negation of objects in the world other than ourselves; it can't be applied to ourselves, because the permanent death of subjectivity is different than the negation of objects, including human bodies.

Human death makes sense only in view of the death of the other. The death of one's self makes absolutely no sense, because it signifies nothing. We quite simply can't conceive nonexistence. And this makes an atheistic philosophy that entails speaking non-agnostically about death problematic. Living forever might not make biological sense (it never was meant to), but it does make metaphysical sense.

I'm not making an argument for theism, by the way.

 

[CauseAndEffect]

I don't understand nonexistence. So I'm wary of any sly atheist who self-justifies his rejection of God by saying that when we die, we are no more. What does "no more" mean here? It is nonsensical. We know the negation of something in the world because we observe its negation. I see a soap bubble, oop, and I see it no more. But the negation of something in the world is infinitely different than the negation of that which makes somethings (and negations) possible -- namely, ourselves, consciousness.

I don't know very many atheists that reason like this. It seems that when we die its lights out but I guess we can't really know for sure until we're dead and when were dead how would we really even know?
I can't say with absolute certainty that there is no 'life' after death but given that we , while were alive, can observe inanimate dead people , there is no indication of that. There is NO reason to assume that we have some external soul that travels to a higher realm. I don't know how theists make that positive claim and disregard science as a tool for examining that claim. Such beliefs require faith.

Unlike the negation of objects, which we've known since consciousness first sparked into the universe, we've never known or experienced a negation of subjectivity. You can't experience nonexperience. You can say that we've all been unconscious, and very clearly we all have. It happens every night (unless you're an insomniac or in college). But this use of unconsciousness is to conflate neurobiological existence with consciousness existence, and is therefore misleading. I do not ("I" does not) exist without consciousness; therefore in the realm of sleep, we do not exist, save in timeless snippets afforded by a dreamworld.

Scientifically speaking , we don't know when exactly consciousness became a property of matter and no rational thinker assumes they know this. Btw, consciousness =/= existence and I don't quite understand the point the author is trying to make here. It would help if he actually defined existence and consciousness.

But if we haven't experienced permanent unconsciousness, if we know the negating of objects but not the negation of consciousness, then does it make any sense to say that when we die, we shall be "no more"? No, it doesn't. We know this intuitively; we know that nonexistence makes absolutely no ontological sense when speaking of the subject, but through a few words tied together we've come to an elusive conclusion that we do. "No more" is a phrase extracted from noticing the negation of objects in the world other than ourselves; it can't be applied to ourselves, because the permanent death of subjectivity is different than the negation of objects, including human bodies.

It would help if the author defined in more detail the terms he is using. In the purely physical sense, even after death we don't stop 'existing.' We, or rather our physical bodies, exist as dead biological masses that eventually degrade. However, based on the evidence of examining those which are dead, it does not appear that life is any longer a property of this matter. But it raises an interesting question, can there be consciousness independent of matter. We have no reason to assume there can be. All consciousness we know about is always derived from matter. To imply consciousness exist without matter , due to the lack of any evidence , seems irrational and separated from known reality.

Human death makes sense only in view of the death of the other. The death of one's self makes absolutely no sense, because it signifies nothing. We quite simply can't conceive nonexistence. And this makes an atheistic philosophy that entails speaking non-agnostically about death problematic. Living forever might not make biological sense (it never was meant to), but it does make metaphysical sense.

No, death only makes sense when compared to life. After something has experienced death we consider it dead. This implies that the subject in question previously experienced a state of life at some time. We would not call a rock 'dead' in the literal sense because such an assertion is nonsensical implying the rock was alive at some point. By saying 'living forever makes metaphysical sense' does not tell us anything about truth or reality so such claims can be worth little when regarding truth values and knowledge about reality. Again , when we say something is dead , we are saying that it lost the property of life, implying , that the subject was alive at some point. The physical mass of their bodies still remains and and exists but it is no longer a subject of life-study.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't understand nonexistence.

Unfortunately, the universe isn't under an obligation to make sense.

So I'm wary of any sly atheist who self-justifies his rejection of God by saying that when we die, we are no more. What does "no more" mean here? It is nonsensical.

Again, we shouldn't expect the universe to make sense.

We know the negation of something in the world because we observe its negation. I see a soap bubble, oop, and I see it no more. But the negation of something in the world is infinitely different than the negation of that which makes somethings (and negations) possible -- namely, ourselves, consciousness.

Why?

Unlike the negation of objects, which we've known since consciousness first sparked into the universe, we've never known or experienced a negation of subjectivity. You can't experience nonexperience. You can say that we've all been unconscious, and very clearly we all have. It happens every night (unless you're an insomniac or in college). But this use of unconsciousness is to conflate neurobiological existence with consciousness existence, and is therefore misleading. I do not ("I" does not) exist without consciousness; therefore in the realm of sleep, we do not exist, save in timeless snippets afforded by a dreamworld.

But if we haven't experienced permanent unconsciousness, if we know the negating of objects but not the negation of consciousness, then does it make any sense to say that when we die, we shall be "no more"? No, it doesn't.

Why? Just because we cannot experience it (it's practically the definition of non-existence), doesn't mean that it isn't the end result of our existence.

 

[Received]

Hi CauseAndEffect. I'd like you to know that I'm the author, and that it's from a blog, so that explains the lack of philosophical precision.

I don't know very many atheists that reason like this. It seems that when we die its lights out but I guess we can't really know for sure until we're dead and when were dead how would we really even know?
I can't say with absolute certainty that there is no 'life' after death but given that we , while were alive, can observe inanimate dead people , there is no indication of that. There is NO reason to assume that we have some external soul that travels to a higher realm. I don't know how theists make that positive claim and disregard science as a tool for examining that claim. Such beliefs require faith.

I'm not making an argument for an immortal soul; I'm analyzing the nontheistic claim of nonexistence after, or at, death. My point is that we have no experience of nonexistence, and that experience forms the substance of language. When we say something "doesn't exist", we are saying something in the world once was, but is no longer. Applying this to ourselves is qualitatively different than applying it to other things. We've never experienced self death like we have experienced the death of something else; indeed, it's intrinsically meaningless to say that nonexistence, could ever experience anything, seeing how non-experience is essential to nonexistence. Because we have not experienced nonexistence, our statements about our nonexistence are necessarily empty. Most people conflate nonexistence of things in the world (from the perspective of the experiencer) with nonexistence of the experiencer, and that's where the fallacy happens.

In the purely physical sense, even after death we don't stop 'existing.' We, or rather our physical bodies, exist as dead biological masses that eventually degrade.

I disagree. It makes no sense even on an everyday level to say that Bill is Bill's dead body; the very phrase "Bill's dead body" implies that Bill is more than his remains. It's my understanding, and so far as I can tell at least a decent consensus among philosophical thought, that what makes us human beings is subjectivity, and what makes subjectivity is consciousness, typically with an element of self-consciousness (which some would say is essential to all consciousness, but that's another discussion). Existence is not tantamount to consciousness; human existence, however, is based in consciousness, and essentially human beings are their consciousness.

 

[Received]

Again, we shouldn't expect the universe to make sense.

Never said it should. Pointing out nonsense isn't tantamount to expecting sense where there is nonsense.

Why? Just because we cannot experience it (it's practically the definition of non-existence), doesn't mean that it isn't the end result of our existence.

My emphasis is on trying to understand what nonexistence even means from a subjective stance. What does the end of our existence even mean? We only know existence. Therefore phrases like this, and general terms like "nonexistence" as applied to subjectivity -- these are meaningless. Experience forms the basis of the substance of our words. If we haven't experienced something, we cannot signify it; we must pass over it in silence, as Wittgenstein said. Nonexperience obviously can't be experienced, therefore it can't be signified; therefore any terms we use in an attempt to speak about "it" are fallacious, misplaces, misnomers. If nontheistic beliefs want to remain logically consistent, they can't speak about "subjective death" (in doing so they're confusing the death of an object, something out there, with the death of the self, whatever that means).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Never said it should. Pointing out nonsense isn't tantamount to expecting sense where there is nonsense.

My emphasis is on trying to understand what nonexistence even means from a subjective stance. What does the end of our existence even mean? We only know existence. Therefore phrases like this, and general terms like "nonexistence" as applied to subjectivity -- these are meaningless.

I disagree. Simply not experiencing something doesn't mean we can't describe it, doesn't mean it is meaningless.

I have never experienced length contraction or time dilation, but those terms don't lose their meaning. I have never seen or otherwise acquired the qualia of an electron, but the word nonetheless has meaning.

Experience forms the basis of the substance of our words. If we haven't experienced something, we cannot signify it; we must pass over it in silence, as Wittgenstein said.

Yes, and I am one of those who disagree with Wittgenstein's analysis of language and the limits thereof.

Nonexperience obviously can't be experienced, therefore it can't be signified; therefore any terms we use in an attempt to speak about "it" are fallacious, misplaces, misnomers. If nontheistic beliefs want to remain logically consistent, they can't speak about "subjective death" (in doing so they're confusing the death of an object, something out there, with the death of the self, whatever that means).

What else can one do? Deny one's death? Conclude that we'll live forever more?

At the end of the day, non-existence is a possible outcome to death.

 

[ragarth]

Before we can quantify what death is, we must understand what defines the state of death. This is difficult to do, because there are varying forms of death. Clinical death is where the heart stops, this is not true death, brain death is when the brain ceases producing detectable signals and is not true death either since the brain can continue producing signals but at such a low level we cannot detect them with standard medical equipment. True death occurs when all brain activity ceases, this is the point at which we are currently unable to bring people back.

If the true death of the individual is the point at which all brain function ceases, and the individual is conscious, then the death of consciousness is at the point where all brain function ceases. Given this, we can surmise that consciousness is the result of something to do with brain function. It's not entirely material since the matter is still there at death, but it's not entirely biochemical since there isn't a continuous voltage across the neurons- the voltage begins at a brain cell and terminates at a synapse and the chemical neurotransmitter exists only within the realm of a single synapse. Rather I hypothesize that it is the interaction of the neurons via biochemical impulse that gives rise to the resultant property of consciousness that our brains posses. In this way there is no central piece of matter or energy in the brain that we can look at and say 'that's consciousness' because it is a resultant property of the system defined by the brain.

In my signature, I have a quote:

Frank Zindler: To believe that consciousness can survive the wreck of the brain is like believing that 70 mph can survive the wreck of the car.

And it's very apt to this line of logic. We can quantify 70mph even though it does not physically exist. Vector and speed are a resultant property of matter, it represents the potential energy of material moving in relation to a fixed point. It has real effects, if two objects moving 70mph relative to each other impact, there will be a real impact, but the speed is still a resultant property of the matter. In the same sense, since consciousness is a resultant property of the biochemical interaction of the neurons within our brain, the cessation of that biochemical interaction is akin to the cessation of 70mph. If the 70mph were consciousness, then it would fear the impact because it represents it's cessation, and therefore it's death.

Now as a side note, I've had the argument in the OP used on me previously. It's basically this:

"You didn't exist/weren't conscious before you were born, so why would you die, it's just you returning to the state you existed in before you died."

This sucks, it's poor logic. Just because I was not conscious before I was alive does not mean it's okay to return to that previous state. A man who's recently released from being tortured is not okay with going back to the torture chamber simply because it's the state of his existence before being released from torture. A child with poor eyesight who gets glasses, won't see the state before they had glasses as equal too the state after getting glasses, the state of having glasses is better than the previous state of not having glasses.

 

[Received]

What else can one do? Deny one's death? Conclude that we'll live forever more?

Not speak about it. You spoke of things we haven't experience but we know what they mean. Well, our experience of things in the world have led to an internalization that leads to an image set by which we can understand complex things like the qualia of an electron. The words of things we haven't directly experienced have meaning because of previous experiences that were internalized, which in turn help us conceptualize other difficult concepts. We haven't experienced unicorns, but we can think of a pretty horse and put a horn on it; this unicorn concept implies the fusing of two previous experientially extracted images. To my thinking, the only things that are a priori are structural things, like logic -- or maybe only logic --, not form-related. Still, nonexistence is exclusively a spectator quality -- something that we see happening to things in the world. That's all. Subjective nonexistence makes no sense because everything we know, intuitively or through experience, implies the existence of a subject. Imagining subjective nonexistence is like imagining, as the saying goes, the north of north. Therefore any attempt to signify "it" is a misnomer, typically because of incorrectly taking nonexistence of objects (as a concept) and forcing it to oneself, while implicitly thinking that the self is to be understood as something outside of the self, i.e., as an object.

 

[Received]

Just because I was not conscious before I was alive does not mean it's okay to return to that previous state.

What does it mean to speak of "I" not being conscious before the "I" existed (i.e., was alive)?

 

[ragarth]

What does it mean to speak of "I" not being conscious before the "I" existed (i.e., was alive)?

going back to my line of logic in my previous post:

Just as the 70mph did not exist before the car reached it, I did not possess consciousness before my brain gave rise to that property.

 

[Received]

That makes no sense to me, because I understand the "I" as possible only through consciousness. You therefore can't speak of an "I" existing without consciousness. At least not according to explanations I've come across.

 

[ragarth]

That makes no sense to me, because I understand the "I" as possible only through consciousness. You therefore can't speak of an "I" existing without consciousness. At least not according to explanations I've come across.

I may not be fully understanding your question. I quantified what I believe consciousness to be composed of, and by doing so provided a basis for the existence or nonexistence of consciousness based upon the existence or nonexistence of that which quantifies consciousness. If being capable of using "I" in reference to myself is a product of consciousness, then the cessation of what consciousness is composed of is the end of my capacity to refer to myself as "I".

It is possible, however, to semantically refer to the hypothetical of myself not possessing consciousness as "I". "I did not exist, now I do." Is a valid statement because I'm referring to myself as a modified version, that modification being the lack of my existence. I can refer to speed the same way. "I wasn't going 70mph, officer" is referencing the non existence of 70mph.

 

[Received]

But I don't think there's any meaning in saying "I did not exist, now I do." This would be a confusion of the "I" as an object out there, comparable to a soap bubble. Saying "I did not exist" implies that you know what it is like to be an I without existence, which goes back to the experience as the basis of our words. Moreover, existence is not a modification of nonexistence; modification refers to already existent entities.

I know this is dense, so please don't hesitate you say you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[ragarth]

I know this is dense, so please don't hesitate you say you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I fear so, I don't really see the point of your confusion. To me, consciousness is analogous to any other non-physical resultant property such as velocity and wave forms. Since we can atleast hypothetically quantify what consciousness is (my first post) we can then surmise the lack of consciousness as the lack of what composes it (If there is no biochemical interaction in the brain, then consciousness does not arise from the brain). So to say "I will cease to exist" is to say "My brain lacks the capacity to produce the emergent property of consciousness via biochemical interaction."

To not be able to say "I do not exist" or "You do not exist" is the same as not being able to say "forward does not exist for my car" It's true that consciousness or direction do not exist as physical objects, but they are *properties* of physical objects.

To say "I do not exist, now I do" is analogous to a car going from 0 to 60. At one point velocity does not exist for the car, at another it does. This has meaning- Either the car is moving, it's movement is nonexistant, or it is moving, it's movement exists. Just as I don't exist, my brain has no biochemical interaction, or I do exist, my brain does have biochemical interaction.

That's about as far as I can spell it out for you. I'm a rather literal minded individual with my view on life grounded firmly in the scientific method.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not speak about it. You spoke of things we haven't experience but we know what they mean.

And you said we can't know what they mean if we don't experience them .

Well, our experience of things in the world have led to an internalization that leads to an image set by which we can understand complex things like the qualia of an electron. The words of things we haven't directly experienced have meaning because of previous experiences that were internalized, which in turn help us conceptualize other difficult concepts. We haven't experienced unicorns, but we can think of a pretty horse and put a horn on it; this unicorn concept implies the fusing of two previous experientially extracted images.

Agreed.

To my thinking, the only things that are a priori are structural things, like logic -- or maybe only logic --, not form-related. Still, nonexistence is exclusively a spectator quality -- something that we see happening to things in the world. That's all.

Hmm, not quite. Non-existence is not a property or process we can observe. Existence is a spectator quality, but non-existence isn't (almost by definition).

Subjective nonexistence makes no sense because everything we know, intuitively or through experience, implies the existence of a subject. Imagining nonexistence is like imagining, as the saying goes, the north of north.

Or a time before time. But the point isn't that we exist in a state of nonexistence. As you point out, we cannot possibly imagine non-existence. But that doesn't mean it isn't our ultimate fate. To obfuscate that possibility in semantics is, to say the least, intellectually dishonest.

 

[ragarth]

It's my opinion that to claim to not understand the non-existence of (ie, lack of) something is analogous to claiming to not comprehend the concept of 0. Case in point:

If we embedded an electrode in your brain and used it to measure precisely the bioelectrical signals in your brain, we could then quite accurately judge the point at which it ceases. Once those signals reach 0, you are dead. I can comprehend this value and turn it upon myself:

"Once the biochemical interaction within my brain reaches 0mA, I cease to exist."

 

[Received]

Non-existence is not a property or process we can observe. Existence is a spectator quality, but non-existence isn't (almost by definition).

Then how do we make sense out of a claim of subjective nonexistence? If it makes no sense, then the phrase as a signifier is empty.

As you point out, we cannot possibly imagine non-existence. But that doesn't mean it isn't our ultimate fate.

Well, it isn't our ultimate faith; "our" presupposes existence. Nonexistence isn't technically a fate; fate implies a modification, which implies existence. Your fate is to be a watchmaker: that makes sense, because being a watchmaker is a modification according to the category of existence. Thought isn't limited to language; we can think in images. But even here subjective death cannot be conjured up imaginatively. It makes no sense linguistically, and it isn't even applicable to images, since this implies experience. The concept has absolutely no meaning. It isn't even a concept. Saying "it" is our ultimate fate would mean a pronoun without a referent.

 

[Kharak]

In the world's earliest religions, there was no such thing as an afterlife. If you die, you get buried and eaten by the maggots: The End. When it did arise, it was a reward for only those of nobility or mythological status. You see, even 'good' people did not go to Elysium, and the Field of Reeds used to be reserved strictly for the Sun God. The Jews did not even claim an afterlife.

Remember: The key drive behind Gilgamesh in his quest was to seek immortality to avoid death.

 

[Received]

The afterlife with the Jews was obscure, even contradictory. Sheol in many places is referred to as the grave, but in a few it seems to imply an abode for semi-conscious "shades" (see Isaiah 14:9, for instance). The inconsistent imagery associated with it can easily be reconciled with the ontological uneasiness regarding death: nobody can really understand what nonexistence means, given that it really makes no sense, and so they struggle to come up with obscure ideas even though they have no direct revelation of an afterlife. Why? Because at least living forever makes sense; living can be understood, it makes sense.

In my view, the whole reason for the existential anxiety associated with death is the inherently vacuous meaning associated with subjective nonexistence. People think of nonexistence in the way one would objects in the world. But the self, the subject, is not the same as an object in the world, even if it's constituted objectively (i.e., by neurons, glial cells, molecules, etc.). This would be the ultimate reason why God is created, obviously, but it's not like religion is solely an emotional response or based in wish fulfillment. On the contrary, God implies the possibility of an afterlife, and as biologically absurd that is, it's a metaphysically satisfying answer; nonexistence after death makes no sense at all.

 

[Kharak]

The afterlife with the Jews was obscure, even contradictory. Sheol in many places is referred to as the grave, but in a few it seems to imply an abode for semi-conscious "shades" (see Isaiah 14:9, for instance). The inconsistent imagery associated with it can easily be reconciled with the ontological uneasiness regarding death: nobody can really understand what nonexistence means, given that it really makes no sense, and so they struggle to come up with obscure ideas even though they have no direct revelation of an afterlife. Why? Because at least living forever makes sense; living can be understood, it makes sense.

In my view, the whole reason for the existential anxiety associated with death is the inherently vacuous meaning associated with subjective nonexistence. People think of nonexistence in the way one would objects in the world. But the self, the subject, is not the same as an object in the world, even if it's constituted objectively (i.e., by neurons, glial cells, molecules, etc.). This would be the ultimate reason why God is created, obviously, but it's not like religion is solely an emotional response or based in wish fulfillment. On the contrary, God implies the possibility of an afterlife, and as biologically absurd that is, it's a metaphysically satisfying answer; nonexistence after death makes no sense at all.

Nonexistence after death makes perfect sense: It's making immaterial assumptions afterwords that doesn't. The prospect of living forever is just as disturbing as it is arrogant: How many conquerors of men have desired Elixirs in their spirals towards insanity?

The problem is you think the universe is determined by you consciousness, but that's only a finite part. All the wonderful components that constitute you will break down and go somewhere else in various forms, just as your neural synapses move to another place in the physical realm. Your perception of reality is finite. You can't measure any sort of afterlife, but I assure you that I could confirm you were dead if I took a Tokarev to your head, comrade. . . .

Don't think of it as nonexistence, think of it as retirement.