Premise One: Death is not simply the process of living and then dying but is perhaps more accurately identified as the absence of one’s consciousness. — Dante

While dreamless sleep is the first and immediate comparison to death that comes to mind, your statement would imply that anytime I go into dreamless sleep, I actually die. I don't think that is what happens to me every night.

Premise Two: All forms of conscious life begin initially with an absence of itself, an absence of its consciousness. Via birth this condition is transformed and the consciousness is developed and woken to reality. — Dante

Where consciousness begins (or what it even is), I believe, is one of the great mysteries of life.
Keep in mind that even cells react to their environment. To light, to heat, to chemical surroundings and all sorts of other factors. They maintain themselves, grow, diverge and multiply. Are they conscious? Science hasn't quite come to an agreement on that question, as far as I know. If our singular cells are conscious, do we even begin life absent of consciousness? Or is it rather just an absence of memory until our brain is developed enough?

Given that I proceed an absence of myself, can we conclude that a return to this absence will encourage the cycle to repeat? — Dante

I don't think it's a conclusion we can viably make. How do we know it's a cycle?

@Hermeticus

I haven’t quite worked out how to quote and reference precisely yet… so apologies for that!

In reference to dreamless sleep, the consciousness may not be in a lucid state but the brain continues to function and maintain the body’s sub conscious operations and thus the consciousness, whilst dormant, is not absent from reality. The absence I refer to is of course brain death, in which case the consciousness cannot be retrieved or sustained.

In reference to the consciousness of beings, for the sake of my case I regard a conscious being to be a sentient organism (featuring a nervous system) that can compile and respond to memory stored in the brain. Of course less complex biotic factors could be conscious to a lesser extent, in that they have fewer senses and can still react to their environment, but to say they experience reality to the same extent that we do, would be false or maybe hopeful.

The cycle that I imply in my question is the supposed observation of absence then formation. It is perhaps possible that the absence proceeding death is similar in condition to the absence required before the formation of life.

It is true to say, given the timeline of the universe, that at some point life didn’t exist at all and in the end will be completely erased. In which case death is a universal condition from which all life has formed and will return to, any exchanges or transformations in the middle of these two events are what I’d like to explore.

Does life simply imply death or does death in fact imply life, if an absence precedes formation?

Perhaps the OP overthinks :point: death.

The living devour the dead until their carcasses in turn, ouroboros-like, are devoured by the living. Death is the only god which provides and answers when we call. :fire:

Death is necessary for you to be reborn again and start all over. Desth and birth are touching each other. The moment die I am reborn. Even with hundreds of billions years between them. That"s how long big bangs are separated from each other in time. After the big rip a big bang occurs. No big crunches involved. It could be that a big bang has already occured behind us but that would imply there can be two of me. Wich means that I'm not reborn again.

I haven’t quite worked out how to quote and reference precisely yet… so apologies for that! — Dante

For quotes, you just need to mark the text you want to quote from a user, then next to the marked text will popup a button "Quote".

In reference to dreamless sleep, the consciousness may not be in a lucid state but the brain continues to function and maintain the body’s sub conscious operations and thus the consciousness, whilst dormant, is not absent from reality. The absence I refer to is of course brain death, in which case the consciousness cannot be retrieved or sustained. — Dante

Consider a person in a coma. There are the ones that can react and sometimes recognize external stimuli, which means at least a part of the mind is still there. Then there are the ones who are totally unresponsive. They're in dreamless sleep indefinitely, unaware even of their own existence. Humans have drawn the comparision of sleep being the little brother of death for a couple thousand years now. Not for nothing death is called the "long" if not "eternal sleep". Are they conscious or unconscious, considering that the body maintains itself regardless?

The thing is, there's countless definitions for what consciousness and life are.

For life, I got myself a personal favourite one from a microbiologist, which I reckon captures the essence of life really well: "Life is a chemical system that uses energy to to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibpdNqrtar0)

For consciousness, I'm not so sure on a definitive definition.
Is it a requirement for life? Probably. But I'd argue then that even the smallest of cells are conscious themselves. Perhaps our consciousness is the accumulation of billions of tiny little cellular consciousness? Or perhaps it's all just one big united consciousness and that's where we return to when we're not conscious individually anymore?

The cycle that I imply in my question is the supposed observation of absence then formation. It is perhaps possible that the absence proceeding death is similar in condition to the absence required before the formation of life. — Dante

I'm sure the sensation (or rather the not-sensation) is the same. The Buddhists say something along the lines of: "If you want to know what dying is like, imagine what it was like before you were born."


Generally, I'd say a cycle of life and death as you propose it is possible. Me personally, I'm a big fan of concepts like cosmic cycles and even reincarnation. However, scientifically speaking there is no way to either prove or disprove any such speculation - that's the sole reason why religion is and has been under so much debate through all the ages.

The problem is this: We only know existence from the point of being. We are conscious. We are. This is our being. We can theoretically discuss "dying is like this and that". But we can never experience it because non-being is not supported during the mode of being. We only know that we have been sleeping because we wake up the next morning. The only way to know if you died before is to be born again - but I'm pretty sure by that time you'd have forgotten :P

@Hermeticus

I suspect I can’t quote properly on my phone.

Even though I desire an eternal and unchanging death, I just don’t see that to be likely. Whilst death for the individual is permanent, I just can’t see that conscious non-existence can be anything but temporary. For example, when I die, this does not impede the motions of life in any way.

“Death is the end of you, but it is not the end of life.”

Coma is definitely a grey area, but brain death can be monitored, a person doesn’t become irretrievable until their brain dies. Even a vegetative state can be recovered from and thus the consciousness is still preserved.

Ah yes, I also favour that definition.

It is commonly perceived that the body upon death returns to the Earth as energy and material but it says nothing about the perpetuation of consciousness. Our access to reality is complex and so I find it hard to live vicariously through the perspective of a cell. It is undoubtedly alive and is a great contribution to the being, but conscious? Accessing reality in a self aware sense? No.

I do support the Buddhist sentiment. The time before birth must be akin to the time proceeding death. We cannot experience death for it is in essence non-being and thus impossible. Only life can be experienced as far as we know. And thus that is what I expect.

And yes agreed, no one will prove nor disprove my proposed cycle of absence then formation for memory it seems is a non-transferable asset. But given my definition of death I can observe the absence before me and call that death, from which I have emerged. And thus I can anticipate a similar reaction proceeding death.

I feel quite burdened by my belief for I do not wish it to be veracious but alas I have convinced myself of my convictions. One death for a man should be enough, but I empathise with the billions before me and the billions after me, of which life will experience and suffer. And what are we if not life?

As simply as the fallen leaves of autumn are replaced, everything alive right now will die and their experiences will be replaced by new ones. Nothing magical nor spiritual, just change.

Death, the insolvable mortal mystery.

the process of living and then dying but is perhaps more accurately identified as the absence of one’s consciousness. — Dante

Some people think "consciousness" is a 'user interface' generated by the unconscious brain. So, in a sense, we are never "conscious". What we are (after birth, before death) is "in existence". We didn't exist, we do exist, an then once again we don't exist -- and we will never be back in any way, shape, manner or form -- at least that is what I think.

What I think about the matter, and what anyone else thinks about the matter, doesn't matter because it doesn't make one whit of difference. Every living thing eventually dies and it stays dead. At least as far as we can tell.

Premise One: Death is not simply the process of living and then dying but is perhaps more accurately identified as the absence of one’s consciousness.

Premise Two: All forms of conscious life begin initially with an absence of itself, an absence of its consciousness. Via birth this condition is transformed and the consciousness is developed and woken to reality.

Premise Three: Upon dying the individual’s consciousness returns to an absence of itself and ceases to exist.

Inference: Life proceeds death because death precedes life. — Dante

Non sequitur.

You haven't proven this :point: life proceeds death, nor does this :point: death precedes life, make any sense.

How can death precede life when death is defined as the end of life (cessation of physical and mental functions)? Isn't that like saying a fire was extinguished before it was even lit. Something's off. I reckon you're confusing nonexistence with death; apparently they aren't the same thing. To drive the point home, do you say a stone is dead or is calling it a nonliving object easier on our sensibilities? A stone can't die because it never was alive.

They're in dreamless sleep indefinitely, unaware even of their own existence. — Hermeticus

Zen moment for me! Please give me some time process this magnificent observation!

@Bitter Crank

Of course once something is dead it stays dead, I do not contest this point. But life continues to emerge and replace what is lost to the void. So I guess I query if the transmission of a new experience is sequential and replaces an absence left by someone else, an absence that is universal and from which all life seems to surface.

@TheMadFool

I anticipated some disapproval of my redefining of death. We are so eager to subscribe to the individuality of our eventual termination. But death is indeed conscious non-existence and I maintain that the state before life and after one’s life meet the same requirement of being an absence of oneself.

If of course you’re arguing that non-existence and death are different, how is the state of death unique for the individual? Is not every death the same state as any other death and is thus enveloping and universal and not specific to the individual?

I maintain that the state before life and after one’s life meet the same requirement of being an absence of oneself. — Dante

That's what the OP seems to sayiing.
:point: Nonexistence 1--->Life--->Nonexistence 2(Death).

Almost all studies on nonexistence with regard to life has been, is, will probably be about Nonexistence 2 (Death). Very few people seem interested in Nonexistence 1 and one among them is Lucretius (De rereum natura). He writes,

Look back now and consider how the bygone ages of eternity that elapsed before our birth were nothing to us. Here, then, is a mirror in which nature shows us the time to come after our death. Do you see anything fearful in it? — Lucretius

I must extend my gratitude to the OP @Dante for helping me to see the light as it were - it's time we shifted our focus from Nonexistence 1 (Death) to Nonexistence 1 (before life). Of course, all this assuming either that someone else hasn't already done so but failed or it's an easier problem to deal with than Nonexistence 2 (Death).

non-existence and death — Dante

Nonexistence and death, to my reckoning, aren't the same because the former doesn't require a period of time when there's life but the latter does. Yes, death is a state of nonexistence and hence I referred to it as such (Nonexistence 2) but the "2" there is to emphasize the fact that there was life that preceded it.

You've actually gotten the hang of death pretty well already. We all have. Think back to what it was like for you in the years, centuries, millennia before you were born. Same thing. For my money the most appropriate contribution we can make on the subject of death is silence.

@TheMadFool

Such a beautiful response and exactly the kind of contribution and feedback I am after!

I often denote this sequence of non existence, life and then non existence as 010.

I often identify that non existence transitions into life by birth (0 becomes 1) and via death returns to non existence (1 becomes 0). Given that 0 becomes 1 initially my mind often queries if the second 0 can in turn become 1 again via birth as has already occurred.

Of course I don’t subscribe to the magic or transference of reincarnation, but I do wonder if the wake of death permits life to broadcast a new transmission, thus enacting replacement.

Non existence 1 is beautiful because temporal motions are passed infinitely quickly and the timeline of one’s life commenced in utero or shortly after the waking consciousness perceives its reality. Perhaps then the second non existence is passed with a similar haste and life forms yet again.

I often have the notion that life is the only thing that can be experienced, for we know of nothing before us and will know of nothing after us. Life is all that can be known.

I appreciate and accept your definition of the second non existence as having an aspect of life before it. But what if non existence one has life before it? Life that was once experienced and discarded by its death? What if this cycle of absence then formation has been perpetual since the first consciousness to emerge in the universe? A thought worth considering?

@Tom Storm

Your remarks are words I myself have uttered. Humans feign an ignorance to death but they are delusional. The time before us is indeed akin to death and as an experience is an oxymoronic impossibility. Only life is known. Life is all that there is for the individual.

Thank you for your words.

All premises revolving around a limited framework of linear time, they're fundamentally gobbledygook. It isn't sensible to speak in terms of before and after. There is only what is.

@theRiddler

Of course there permeates an eternal now but the human mind is divided into portions of time for the sake of its own sense of continuity. There is only change as a constant and time need not always be considered an appropriate axis.

Oddly, I have been present for three years and have long discarded a continuum as an actuality. But that is a conversation for another time.

I often denote this sequence of non existence, life and then non existence as 010. — Dante

Indeed, from that angle, before one is born (pre-life) is indistinguishable from after one is dead (post-life). The lack of any means of making a distinction between things resonates with me; it's been the leitmotif of many of my posts if you want to know.

But what if non existence one has life before it? — Dante

There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence to suggest that but, to be fair, it can't be ruled out in a way, to a degree of certainty that would clear all doubts. We're treading, it seems, at the very limits of what humans, all taken together, claim they know. I wish we could send a probe like those used in space exploration back into our past, to a time before we were born, to, well, find out. What in your opinion would such a proble look like? It has to be mental, it must be retrievable, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all she wrote.

@TheMadFool

Such a probe would have to be masterfully crafted, concise and elaborate, and very telling. It would be the opposite of a legacy, given that it goes back in time rather than forward or maybe I have misunderstood the task. I have no idea what I would offer in all honesty. Which is a severely lacking response, but I don’t know how to confirm such a gesture.


Speaking of limits and margins, there are some impossible questions that I often ponder. Why this specific existence, why not sooner, why not later? Why am I me of all things? What deterministic laws determine my emergence. I don’t care to know if there is a why (I suspect a lack of intention) but the how is deeply intriguing.

comment

Inference: Life proceeds death because death precedes life. — Dante

That's a vacuous statement.

In another comment:

: "Life is a chemical system that uses energy to to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium."

That doesn't address consciouness. Its what is factually (materialistically) going on, but it makes a flower equal to a human. It are the processes of my inner world (made possible by the physical processes going on in the physical world outside) and the non-physical, qualia-like content they have that make consciousness. The hard consciousness problem is solved this way.


So consciousness is easy to explain while at the same time a wonder. God exists!

@Prishon

I subscribe to physicalism in that the consciousness is a coordinated result of a complex biological system working in order to preserve itself. Consciousness improves the chances of survival and thus that is why it was naturally selected.

Consciousness improves the chances of survival and thus that is why it was naturally selected. — Dante

I dont agree. These things could also happen if consciouness was absent. Imagine... You laughing with and there would no feeling in the processes corresponding to that nice feeling that accompanies laughing when you find something funny. You would be an empty physical process. That is, the physical shell around your inner world and the outside world would laugh in vain...

It’s a nice sentiment, but every emotion is a physical process produced by physical processes, reducing us to a husk if you wish to go that far. I don’t see the magic in the being.

Such a probe would have to be masterfully crafted, concise and elaborate, and very telling. It would be the opposite of a legacy, given that it goes back in time rather than forward or maybe I have misunderstood the task. I have no idea what I would offer in all honesty. Which is a severely lacking response, but I don’t know how to confirm such a gesture — Dante

It's just an idea - there are, all said and done, two mutually overlapping words, the physical and the mental, and the many approaches to the former we seem so confident about could be useful to say the least in the latter. There are many scientists and technicians involved in the construction of space probes which are intended to physically visit distant worlds (planets/stars/galaxies) and relay their findings back to earth. I see no reason at all why we can't construct a mind probe (an old idea but, till date, only employed for nefarious objectives) that can travel in mind space and either return with information or somehow "broadcast" it back. The most interesting thing about the mindspace, germane to this our discussion, is that it doesn't seem to be temporally restricted/constrained - memory (past) & imagination (future).

It’s a nice sentiment, but every emotion is a physical process produced by physical processes, reducing us to a husk if you wish to go that far. I don’t see the magic in the being. — Dante

I use a phone too. Select the text you wanna quote and tap the quote button right uo. I had the same problem. Like that the one you react to gets notified.

If there would be matter processes only, how can there be a feeling of funniness? Because of the complexity? Then an electro colliding with a proton have consciousness too. But elementary.

see no reason at all why we can't construct a mind probe (an old idea but, till date, only employed for nefarious objectives) that can travel in mind space and either return with information or somehow "broadcast" it back. The most interesting thing about the mindspace, germane to this our discussion, is that it doesn't seem to be temporally restricted/constrained insofar as the past is our area of interest - memory. — TheMadFool

You could do this. The probe being questions.

@TheMadFool

It sounds like a very hopeful experiment, but I doubt it’ll succeed much more than that? Mind you I’ve never heard about such ventures.

@Prishon

The feeling of funniness is a chemical and neurological reaction in the mind. As science would support. As someone with depression I am subject to these chemical reactions and they manipulate the entire shade of my experience, unfortunately. I wish I were more spiritual, but it’s wasted on me.

And also, I still cannot work out how to quote…

I use a phone too. Select the text you wanna quote and tap the quote button right uo. I had the same problem. Like that the one you react to gets notified. — Prishon

I worked it out! Thanks.

And also, I still cannot work out how to quote… — Dante

Okay. I have highlighted your text. If all functions well there becomes visible a black button with white text "quote". Tap on it with your finger and the selected text appears in a next comment opportunity. :yum:

The laughing feeling indeed corresponds to some complex reaction in the brain (and not to forget, the body!). But what if this physical process has no content? No magical content?

Ah! Done already!:smile: