Looking to the future, there is then an infinity of time ahead of us in which we don't exist. Isn't this also a scary thought? — jasonm

No, it is not. It is actually soothing. If there could be an infinity of time ahead of us in which we don't exist, we would get rid of a lot of pain for a long time then. Without existence, there is no awareness of despair. I think you might see both scenarios as "scary" because you seem to be very attached to life, and the consciousness of staying alive.

Another thought:

If we die and reach the afterlife, what if there is life but not eternal life?

In a sense we have cheated death, but death still awaits us - so in a sense we haven't cheated death.

Just playing devil's advocate with some more 'scary' thoughts...

Just playing devil's advocate with some more 'scary' thoughts... — jasonm

You feel a lot of anxiety about trying to get attached to life as much as you can. Your thoughts are not "scary." You feel the overwhelming thought of realising that, sooner or later, we will all leave this world without being aware of it. There will be neither a trace nor an "afterlife." 

Eternal life is not scary at all. I view it like a child who is afraid of becoming an adult. They simply don't understand what its like. But its rare that anyone in any stage of their healthy life thinks they should die. So it would be 1000 to 100,000,000 years from now.

But its rare that anyone in any stage of their healthy life thinks they should die. — Philosophim

Why is it rare? I think you are misunderstanding "should" with wish. There are an important number of people out there who are healthy but wish to die for many reasons.

Why is it rare? I think you are misunderstanding "should" with wish. — javi2541997

By statistics. If you really think you should die, you attempt to commit suicide. Most people do not attempt to commit suicide who are healthy. Therefore it is rare by fact. This is incontrovertible.

I think a suicidal person doesn't think "he should die" but "he wants to die," which, I guess, is pretty different. Should die reminds me of a big overwhelming. Like if someone is regretted for past actions or suffers from a guilty feeling, and the only escape is to commit suicide. This has often happened with Samurai committing "seppuku." But that's not the usual case. I no longer see suicide as a rare fact... Their rates are higher than ever.

I no longer see suicide as a rare fact... Their rates are higher than ever. — javi2541997

Its now about what you think, its about what is.

https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

"For some countries in Southern Africa and Eastern Europe, the estimated rates of suicide are high, with over 15 annual deaths per 100,000 people.

Meanwhile, for other countries in Europe, South America, and Asia, the estimated rates of suicide are lower, with under 10 annual deaths per 100,000 people."

So lets split the difference on this and go 13/100,000 people. That's a suicide rate each year of .013%
Peruse the sight for more data breakdowns if you want. But it is a fact that suicide is rare.

I think a suicidal person doesn't think "he should die" but "he wants to die," which, I guess, is pretty different. — javi2541997

No. In my experience suicidal people arrive there by many different paths. Many are simply angry and perform that anger upon themselves. Others want to punish others (often family) by killing themselves. Some want to do it to make a bold statement and don't really think it through - as if they will be there afterwards to see how it went. And others want to do it because they have had enough. So it can involve anything from 'attention seeking' to severe depression and feelings of worthlessness. It can be an impulse decision, a response to situational crisis, or something deeper which has been ruminated over for many years.

Now, assume that we do not have eternal life. Then we are completely gone for an eternity. We therefore also cease to exist to never live again - *ever.* Looking to the future, there is then an infinity of time ahead of us in which we don't exist. Isn't this also a scary thought? — jasonm

Like the rest of us, I have already not existed for billions of years, at least, and not a second of it bothers me. I have heard no good reason to believe in an afterlife, so the idea isn't coherent enough to be concerning.

Which thought then do you find scarier? — jasonm

Neither. Only this life in time is "scary".

If we die and reach the afterlife, what if there is life but not eternal life? — jasonm

Same shit (again), different "life".

There is much potential for fear in a state of eternal subjective experience, but also so much potential to see and learn. Ceasing to exist after one dies can be scary ahead of time for some people, but the comfort in this is the concomitant ceasing of subjective experience. Any fear or pain would only be temporary and then not even the possibility of fear would exist.

I'm not afraid of either option; i'm okay with either one, but i think i'd prefer to live eternally. If i could live forever, i would handle it, i guess, like a marathon runner would; one step at a time. I would spend most of my mental time and focus in the present moment, which i suspect would mediate the effects of deep time vertigo.

I've always thought that to become a viable eternal being, the transformation would need to be not only physical but also deeply psychological.

Hello all.
I find this series of posts quite interesting. It seems that some of the ideas expressed are perhaps driven by religious concepts - ie. 'man' (as in a concept including all the different varieties, genders, etc of human beings) is mortal; and as such either faces oblivion when we die, or a potential existence that is outside of time (eternity). I can't say which is the absolute end point, as I have not experienced death. From what limited experience I have had of others, including loved ones, dying leaves me with an impression that there is something that is intrinsic to life that is more than the merely physical. For example, when my father was alive, yet in a coma just before his death (he died of cancer), it appeared to me that I still felt a presence that I would describe as my father. However, once he had actually died - his physical body had stopped functioning - all I felt from the presence of the physical form was that of a mechanism; an empty mechanism - my father was gone.

Now, these were impressions. I can not tell you whether I was experiencing fact or personal fiction. My father was a strong Christian (perhaps, one can suggest a 'true believer'), and yet before his last conscious moments he expressed a fear of death. If his belief system was correct (and I don't know), he had nothing to be afraid of because he was just about to start the journey of eternity with a purportedly loving God. I personally feel that if his belief system was wrong, then he equally had no reason to fear death because he would no longer be aware of anything - the machine was about to stop functioning and presumably(?!) that would be it. (Yes, I am aware that I am stating things as a dichotomy. I am sure it is much more complicated than that.)

Obviously, there are many philosophical and religious beliefs about death and what may follow. I have absolutely no idea if any of them is right or wrong; and I would not have the audacity to demand anyone follow any particular belief system. No matter that I have been raised in the Western (white) world as a person of privilege (a man); and hope that I behave as what I conceive to be a 'decent' person to be treated 'decently' by others. Yes, I have a moral code; which is in part to do with how I was raised and what privileges I have experienced, and partly what makes sense to me because of my raising and experiences.

I can say what I would like to occur after death - I would love to have the chance to be reacquainted with the ones I have loved, whom have been very dear to me, whether animal or human. I hope my beloved pets whom have passed on are experiencing an existence that is far greater and better than any they had on this level of existence (in this 'reality'). But, if they are simply gone, I hope I treated them in a way that meant they were happy while here. Unfortunately, I know I failed them more than they deserved.

I suspect that death is a certainty in this form of 'reality'. What follows doesn't cause me fear, at least not yet; it just raises my curiosity. Still, not enough to be motivated to find out until I absolutely have to - until the machine that is my body stops.

If his belief system was correct (and I don't know), he had nothing to be afraid of because he was just about to start the journey of eternity with a purportedly loving God. I personally feel that if his belief system was wrong — Andrew Tyson

You are correct. Modern day science has shown us without a doubt that death is final. Some despair, but you shouldn't. It should motivate you. Understand this is it. No second chances. Live your life as you want now, because you never will get another chance. Maybe we would have more people motivated to go into the sciences to extend life span if we all accepted the reality of death. Maybe more people would chase their dreams.

To me, it is a tragedy for most people to be deluded into thinking there's something after this is over.

Second scenario is fine. Not at all scary. Dying can be scary. Being dead isn't.

The question of how life "does not grow old," in perfection is an interesting one. Consider the vision towards the climax of Dante's Divine Comedy:

That sacred army, that Christ espoused with his blood, displayed itself in the form of a white rose, but the Angel other, that sees and sings the glory, of him who inspires it with love, as it flies, and sings the excellence that has made it as it is, descended continually into the great flower, lovely with so many petals, and climbed again to where its love lives ever, like a swarm of bees, that now plunges into the flowers, and now returns, to where their labour is turned to sweetness.

Their faces were all of living flame, their wings of gold, and the rest of them so white that snow never reached that limit. When they dropped into the flower, they offered, to tier on tier, the peace and ardour that they acquired with beating wings: and the presence of such a vast flying swarm between the flower and what was beyond it, did not dilute the vision or the splendour: because the Divine Light so penetrates the Universe, to the measure of its Value, that nothing has the power to prevent it. This kingdom, safe and happy, crowded with ancient peoples and the new, had sight and Love all turned towards one point.

There is movement but it is cyclical, oriented without reserve or change towards the One.

There are other options. Like, the matter which made up our Bodies was incessantly transforming, but they, in themselves, have a virtually immortal existence. Living or dead, is irrelevant to what we really are.

As for what we were conscious of; these were stories. Stories end. Or they live on, already in other stories, just as they were constructed from other stories. And so, our Minds, as human history, are virtually immortal.

It's just that there's not what "we" want; we who form the subjects of the multiferous local stories. We want to carry on only as that subject. But, it was only a mechanism linking the Body to the stories, and has no function when the body is gone, so...

The body lives on because it's not thd body but the universe.

The Mind lives on because it's not an individual spirit but universal history.

It is only the ego, never alive to begin with, that finally becomes obsolete. Nothing feels nor experiences that loss. And, nothing was there to begin with.

As for what we were conscious of; these were stories. Stories end. Or they live on, already in other stories, just as they were constructed from other stories [...]

The body lives on because it's not [the] body but the universe.

The Mind lives on because it's not an individual spirit but universal history.

It is only the ego, never alive to begin with, that finally becomes obsolete. Nothing feels nor experiences that loss. And, nothing was there to begin with. — ENOAH

:100: :fire:

I have heard no good reason to believe in an afterlife, so the idea isn't coherent enough to be concerning. — Tom Storm

I would agree, and simply say there is no reason to think we live beyond death. If there is an afterlife it is as improbable as is a full explanation for this life.


I don’t find either a life after death, nor a death after life, scary. I find them both unknowable now, while we experience only life after life and death after death. The idea isn’t measurable in any way. Why be scared of what we can only imagine to describe or experience, and if we die when we die (which makes the most sense by all empirical evidence) then we will not exist to even experience anything of it, so why be scared?

And if eternal life is like infinite time, and life after death is like life for 1 quadrillion years, again, what is there to fear but our imaginations of what those years would be full of?

I don’t belittle the question. I just don’t see an empirical way to approach an evaluation. Immortal souls may make sense to some, but I find souls existing right here and right among us, whether they die with the body or not, to be perplexing enough.

It is only the ego, never alive to begin with, that finally becomes obsolete. Nothing feels nor experiences that loss. And, nothing was there to begin with. — ENOAH

My only quibble is that this is most likely, probable, and apparent by all evidence true, but asserting any of this with certainty, like “the ego, never alive to begin with,” is as treacherous as asserting the ego is alive beyond death of the body. None of this has been laid bare enough to say “never” or phrases like “was there to begin with.” Maybe. Maybe we’ll see. Maybe we won’t see. Maybe now, we won’t see. Maybe we do see and don’t understand. Maybe we understand and haven’t seen. Maybe we won’t see……. But I hope we do see, and I believe there is still room for this faint, improbable hope.

I hope we do see, and I believe there is still room for this faint, improbable hope. — Fire Ologist

Fair enough. But who or what exactly is doing the hoping? And on whose behalf? And what will it see? And, to what end? And. How? How, any of it without a body?

I too have hope. Maybe we can't help it; even those who suppress it with Science. But my hope is that immortality already is, and that "I" never really was. Because hope in that doesn't seem improbable.

Hello Philosophim.

Can I please have any articles written by accredited scientists that state that death is final, there is nothing afterwards? Of course, I have my doubts that there are any such published studies that put this point; although there may well be accredited scientists whom proffer an opinion.

Why do I put this to you? I am not trying to offend you, but your comment seems to indicate a distinct lack of understanding of what science is. I would propose that what we refer to as science is an established set of procedures of undertaking empirical and repeatable experiments and then speculating about what the results may mean. The only variable I can think of may be the pursuit of astrophysics, where because experiments are extremely hard to undertake there appears to be a distinct leaning on mathematical analyses. Off course, the maths is well beyond my understanding; but I have listened avidly to people like deGrasse-Tyson on his public documentaries.

How can science experiment in a repeatable and testable fashion with things that fundamentally are outside of matter - or at least quantifiable and testable substances? Certainly once the machine (the body of a living organism) stops functioning, we can perceive it as 'dead'. What happens after death is only ever speculation and opinion. I've never (to this point) experienced death; an when I do I don't think I will be reanimating my body just so I can tell everyone what happens on the other side of it; if anything does. Science can not tell us anything more about death than what we ourselves can see and feel. We won't know whether there is or isn't any sort of afterlife, or even the wonderful ideas of Buddhism where one can return and experience another life until one lives it so well (accumulates enough karma) to be able to not come back, rejoining the all being that is one idea of how we got to be here in the first place.

I don't know what there is after the stopping of functioning of the machine I call my body. One day I will find out, or not. But it is not going to happen while I am alive.

Yes, one can find comfort or despair, or any other sort of emotional state in taking on a belief system, a hope for the future regarding what happens after our bodies cease to function. Only those whom have transversed from one state (life) to the other (death) know, if there is anything to know. Science is not the method to ascertain certainty of knowledge on this matter.

But who or what exactly is doing the hoping? And on whose behalf? And what will it see? And, to what end? And. How? How, any of it without a body? — ENOAH

Same kind of combination of eventualities that is asking these questions. Same place I am directing my answer. Nowhere else in the universe.

Assume we die and have eternal life. Does this last for literally for *infinity*? If it does, then it never ends - *ever*. Where then will we be 1,000,000,000,000 years from now looking ahead with still an infinite amount of time ahead of us? — jasonm

If we have an eternal life, we wouldn't have a concept of time. We would not think in terms of "time". Right now, since we can't get outside of the sense of time, we are forced to hypothesize in relation to time. That's why you say it's a scary thought.

Both scenarios are like looking into an abyss that has no end. Exactly one of those possibilities must also be true. — jasonm

No. Some OPs are not coherently written. Yours is one, sorry. I'm not trying to be rude. I am trying to say to you that your proposal in the OP is misplaced because you're writing as a mortal human, with a limited amount of time.

If we have an infinite amount of time ahead of us, I can assume that there is no need to worry or be scared. If we are condemned to have no power during this period, then we essentially do not exist (I will also respond to that side), and if we have any power, then we would eventually gain more and more, until we are able to do whatever we want, including a release from an infinite existence.

Speculation aside, if we have nothing after this life, it doesn’t matter anyway, and is nothing to be afraid of (since nothing can happen to something that doesn’t exist).

What we should be afraid of is the state of the world after we leave it, and the possibility that our impact is one that leads more people to lives without fulfillment, (since fulfillment in this life is the only thing that matters if there is no life after).

This existence based on the fulfillment of others is particularly altruistic and unnecessary, but it is still possible to reach self-fulfillment while increasing the contentment of others (IN their lives, it of course doesn’t matter what you think of your life after you have lived it if you don’t exist after your death).

This existence based on the fulfillment of others is particularly altruistic and unnecessary — Igitur

If you are looking from the perspective that you aren't already these others; that is, that you are mistaken if you think you are an individual self.

Physically you are a recycling of atoms, never a stable anything.

Organically, your genes are shared by countless combinations of others.

Your mind has been constructed out of "code" input from countless other loci in history; the Subject projecting a "self" is no more than a mechanism.

We don't know this en masse, or even conventionally, because of how History has thus far developed "our" Narrative, but it's absurd that we speak of so called self fulfillment instead of altruism, or advancing "us". Everything we do, including pursuing and evaluating so called self fulfillment is inextricably bound up with others, the rest of moving history. Whatever you do to fulfill self inevitably affects others. If you are a desert father isolated from others, you are that because and in the face of others. If you bring with you any philosophy, mysticism or ideology, any thoughts, you have brought others.

I'm not saying I'm altruistic, nor am I preaching. I'm just pointing out something overlooked; and likely, rejected, perhaps by you. But it is what is. Human existence, "both" physically and so called "spiritually" or existentially, is ineluctably others.

Hello Philosophim.

Can I please have any articles written by accredited scientists that state that death is final, there is nothing afterwards? — Andrew Tyson

I just happened to be reviewing old posts I had visited prior and came across this. Since you didn't reply to my posts specifically or tag me, I never got an alert! But I've seen it now, so I'll reply the best I can.

First, I never said a particular article was published that stated "There is nothing beyond death." I said, "Science has concluded this." Just piece it all together.

First, lets define brain death:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/
"Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem. The three essential findings in brain death are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnoea. An evaluation for brain death should be considered in patients who have suffered a massive, irreversible brain injury of identifiable cause. A patient determined to be brain dead is legally and clinically dead."

So, we can determine that when the brain is dead, you are dead. So what does the brain do?

Here's a run down of neurochemistry and how thoughts work.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/

Basically we've known for years now that the brain is the origin of human thought. You can physically affect the brain to change a person's living experience.

A few examples: Depression medication, psychiatric medication. Diet and blood oxygenation for brain performance. Examples of traumatic brain injury like the story of Pheneus Gage https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114479/ Or people losing the ability to see color purely through brain damage with perfectly healthy eyes.

The evidence that we are our brain is conclusive. When our brain dies, we are dead. There is no form of logic with ensures that our dopamine, epinephrin, and neurochemical selves persist after we die. There is no evidence that we are anything more than our neurochemical selves. Therefore science has concluded that when we die, we are dead and there is nothing after.

The idea of life extending beyond death is the realm of philosophy, religion, and fantasy. Not science.

"The idea of life extending beyond death is the realm of philosophy, religion, and fantasy. Not science." Philosophim.

Thank you, Philosophim. We may actually be saying the same thing - i.e. science can confirm that the machine has stopped functioning - i.e. death has occurred. What is beyond death, if anything (and I am not proposing or denying anything, I simply don't know) is merely speculation.

I don't deny that I like to believe there is the possibility of something after life (functioning) has ceased; thus the suggestion that when my father was passing away, yet at least his body was still functioning to some very limited degree (he was in a coma); I felt that he was still 'present'. After his body had ceased functioning, my impression was that he was gone. His mortal remains were there, but the essence (the unspecified, perhaps unspecifiable thing) that I would describe as my father was no longer there.

If the material is the only part of this reality that is 'real', then I was simply in a delusional state caused by the emotions, the grief I was experiencing due to the ceasing of functioning of this physical thing I referred to as my father. However, and on a digression, if one looks at the maths involved in astrophysics, it implies that what we take to be the 'real world' - the world in which physical items exist in with height, width and length; plus time - is simply a delusion experienced by the two dimensional creatures that live in this existence. And, that is the result of the practical and testable aspects of a process that we refer to as the scientific method - i.e. science.

Why do I make this comment? Because I think if we limit ourselves to only what has been proposed by those whom work as 'scientists' - use the scientific method to test and speculate on what the results indicate - we may be missing out on a much richer domain of existence. I don't want to be limited by science. I do value science, and I value much of the technology that scientific research has enabled to subsequently be invented. However, when we get down to concepts of what is 'right and wrong', how does one live a 'good life' (read the works of Plato and Aristotle), and other such untestable non-physical things; science has nothing to give us. Equally, if there is a existence after the ceasing of functioning of the physical form, science is not in a position to be able to speculate.

My suggestion is to encourage everyone to live as fulfilling and rich a life as you can while in this physical existence, and don't hold too tightly to any construct that we can not possibly actually 'know' while in this life. I would definitely support people being as liberal minded and tolerant as they can be. Still, this is merely a concept that I hope is beneficial to all, and which I can not possibly know whether it is 'morally' right or wrong. Again, morals are probably outside the scope of what science can speculate on.

Regards, Andrew