Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity

From Naturalism: Nature is Enough

This has been on one of my tabs for over an hour, and how I stumbled across it I can't remember. But it's an interesting thought experiment and philosophical position, and one I find strangely comforting as a possibility. My own earliest memory is of simple awareness; of being conscious in the dark, as if I woke up from sleeping without any prior memories or experiences. Waking up one day to find myself back in that state, even at the expense of everything that is "me" in this life, doesn't sound so horrible.

Of course, going strictly by intuition, my biggest problem with this notion is the same as I have with any idea of reincarnation: I'm actively engaged with the mind and life I have now, without any traces of something prior. I wouldn't know how to get any perspective on continuing to experience consciousness without any memories or sense of a self that previously existed short of developing severe amnesia (though perhaps interviewing someone else with amnesia would be a healthier alternative.)

Why would there still be awareness if the body collapses into its non-mental materialist constituents?

It seems "you" wouldn't wake up, and the author acknowledges the fact here:

Nevertheless, I believe a materialist can see that consciousness, as a strictly physical phenomenon instantiated by the brain, creates a world subjectively immune to its own disappearance. It is the very finitude of a self-reflective cognitive system that bars it from witnessing its own beginning or ending, and hence prevents there being, for it, any condition other than existing. Its ending is only an event, and its non-existence a current fact, for other perspectives.

Reincarnation, OTOH, allows for you to either keep your memory in the between-life state or at the least retain aspects of yourself even if the distinct memories of the self are gone.

If someone wants to exist even as diffuse awareness Materialism is unlikely to offer that choice unless you extend emergence of consciousness from matter to such a wide degree of processes that we'd very close to Panpsychism.

Of course, going strictly by intuition, my biggest problem with this notion is the same as I have with any idea of reincarnation: I'm actively engaged with the mind and life I have now, without any traces of something prior. I wouldn't know how to get any perspective on continuing to experience consciousness without any memories or sense of a self that previously existed short of developing severe amnesia (though perhaps interviewing someone else with amnesia would be a healthier alternative.)

Even within a single lifetime, take this one we are living right now, we experience different phases in our existence. I still remember my first day at school at the age of five, but I don't remember the second day. I can place my attention on trying to recall myself, what I experienced, what were my concerns and where were my thoughts focused typically during those days. And there are various, multiple in fact stages or phases in my life, some associated with say which job I had, or where I was living at the time, or who were the circle of friends with whom I engaged during a particular time. But there is a strange sensation of both connection and separation with each of those times. On the one hand, I fully feel and accept, at a deep level, that the small infant who attended school, or the boisterous student I was years later, and others, all of those were me. But at the same time, none of them are me. The only me, the "I am" is right here, right now, typing these thoughts.

Its a curious thing. The only part which is real is the single moment, the now, but also, all those other times past were just the same, they were also made up of the single moment, the now.

When I think of reincarnation I don't see any particular obstacle. It only entails a set of phases made up up a lot of 'now' moments. Do I remember those past lives? Not particularly. But do I remember the entirety of this lifetime? There is an illusion that I do. But a moment's reflection shows that there are vast portions of this life which I don't recall particularly well. Whole episodes and occurrences can disappear from my ability to recall, and I never notice. Perhaps when reminiscing with others, we each point out the omissions and gaps in the other's memory. The timeline may not be complete. But other than an occasional sense of frustration or annoyance at an inability to recall some episode of our life, we don't feel any lesser for it.

I suppose I dwell on the simple concept of 'now'. If all that I can say for sure is that my existence is composed of a set of 'now' moments, and that 'now' is all that really exists, then ideas of past lives or future existence seem almost inconceivable. Even yesterday and tomorrow are inconceivable, they are unreachable, we always find ourself in today. Perhaps this view neither enables nor rules out what came before or might follow. It leads to an agnostic open-mindedness on the matter.

Well, (going purely on intuition again) the only thing I can think of as a reference point for the idea of reincarnation is dreaming. I've had some pretty vivid dreams, but none of them comparable to waking objective experience, and none yet have seen me without any memory or sense of self as I currently am. Were my true nature as a non-physical being incarnating into various physical bodies, I would assume that the primary perspective of my mind would be as that being, with physical lives being dreams, and that I wouldn't lose that sense of self just because I found myself "dreaming" in another body.

I'd probably echo much of what Typoz had to say and possibly add something for those of us who imagine a continuum - the "now" moments amounting to a story.

I remember reading (but can't remember the book or the author - possibly a Seth book or similar) that our lives, from the perspective of the afterlife, are made up of significant events and "fillers" - times which are not important and we hardly ever remember but are nevertheless necessary. Also, from the perspective of the afterlife, the life just completed is no more than a chapter in the story of the soul. Or, perhaps more accurately, a single story in an anthology.

If we listen to many of those who have had an NDE, we get a sense of some common themes which are also common to material coming from mediums and channeling. One of these themes is the realisation, almost immediately, that the personality is part of something greater. Not only the sense of being One with everything but also, on a smaller scale, being part of a greater soul which includes what is often called the "Higher Self" and also past (and probably future) personalities.

So, in short, what I'm trying to say is that I see no reason to believe that either oblivion or dissolution awaits as I think we will still be able to self-identify albeit with a greater sense of being. Having said that, both oblivion and dissolution remain as my permanent irrational fears which I can't seem to shake off.

Were my true nature as a non-physical being incarnating into various physical bodies, I would assume that the primary perspective of my mind would be as that being, with physical lives being dreams, and that I wouldn't lose that sense of self just because I found myself "dreaming" in another body.

According to at least some of the people who believe in reincarnation the reincarnating entity remembers past lives between incarnations - and I think these same people believe you eventually stop reincarnating.


Is there anyone who believes in reincarnation who has claimed you just go from one life to the next, never remembering anything? This seems like a rather unfamiliar position to me...

Is there anyone who believes in reincarnation who has claimed you just go from one life to the next, never remembering anything? This seems like a rather unfamiliar position to me...

And yet that seems to be a popular view of reincarnation held by those who probably have no interest in the subject. This along with coming back as a horse (cat, lizard, snail or whatever) or the other popular misconception that everyone who has a past-life memory happened to be some famous historical figure.

And yet that seems to be a popular view of reincarnation held by those who probably have no interest in the subject. This along with coming back as a horse (cat, lizard, snail or whatever) or the other popular misconception that everyone who has a past-life memory happened to be some famous historical figure.

I do think some traditions think you come back as an animal - Hinduism and Buddhism propose this happening sometimes. There's also an interesting idea that animals represent parts of a reincarnating soul rather than its entirety.

But yeah I agree there seem to be many misconceptions about what people believe about God and the afterlife.

I do think some traditions think you come back as an animal - Hinduism and Buddhism propose this happening sometimes. There's also an interesting idea that animals represent parts of a reincarnating soul rather than its entirety.

But yeah I agree there seem to be many misconceptions about what people believe about God and the afterlife.

Yes indeed, Seth also clarified that by claiming that humans don't usually incarnate as animals but the soul can have fragment incarnations as either a co-existing human or an animal companion (dog, cat, horse, etc.).

http://www.afterlifedata.com/life-after-...imals.html

There is nothing to prevent a personality from investing a portion of his own energy into an animal form. This is not transmigration of souls. It does not mean that a man can be reincarnated in an animal. It does mean that personalities can send a portion of their energy into various kinds of form.

— Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul, Jane Roberts
pg. 307, 1994

According to at least some of the people who believe in reincarnation the reincarnating entity remembers past lives between incarnations - and I think these same people believe you eventually stop reincarnating.


Is there anyone who believes in reincarnation who has claimed you just go from one life to the next, never remembering anything? This seems like a rather unfamiliar position to me...

But that's the thing - dreams are all I can think of for a reference point, and I don't forget who I am in my dreams, no matter how divorced from everyday life they are. I've had several dreams where I'm not even in them (that is to say, "I" am only a spectator to the action playing out), and I don't lose a sense of being me. On that example, it doesn't follow that I wouldn't remember right now, in this life, that I'm that larger incorporeal entity.