Upon death, memories, personality and whatever makes up our individuality ceases to exist. However, I think individuality is not our most important feature. After all, we are not the same individuals at different ages. Sure it is all tied up by memories, but even so there are some memories from early childhood that don´t persist. What I mean is, even though we change all the time through life, we have the subjective experience of a continuous flow, and it is that subjective experience that ties everything up. So, the big question is, can our subjective experience somehow survive physical death? I, of course, can´t answer that with any degree of certainty, but my scientific background forces me to take empirical evidence seriously. The only empirical evidence we all have of physical reality is our subjective experience of it. We can´t even say space-time exists at all independently of our perception of it, simply because we can only perceive physical reality subjectively. So I must consider subjective experience as fundamental. Another very important empirical evidence is the effects of anesthesia in consciousness. Very interesting work by Hameroff and Penrose, the Orch-OR theory of consciousness, seems to point to the fact that consciousness is a quantum effect that is interrupted by anesthesia. In other words, subjective experience of space and time literally cease during anesthesia and even so, it is miraculously reset again and again. From the point of view of subjective experience there is no difference between death and unconsciousness, because the only difference being the time extension, in both cases there is no experience of time. Perhaps, the most important empirical evidence of possibility of a continuity of subjective experience independently of a physical body, is the very fact that we all have it even though we didn´t before we were born, or at least we can´t access the memories of it. In an infinite space-time, odds are that once it can happen it should happen a smaller infinity of times. My personnal guess of what happens after we die, is suddenly we find ourselves like after a period under anesthesia and suffering from total amnesia. In other words, we are not the same individuals but nevertheless we are.
Exactly. Do you have a good math formula to describe feelings after returning back from the anesthesia?
That´s exactly the problem Igor. To describe all this mathematically is not trivial. One possible avenue would be to borrow some of the math from Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (Penrose´s CCC). In that theory, at time->infinity the Universe is at an equivalent state to time=0, since at both "moments" there is no mass in the Universe, hence no time experience. Since there is no experience of time, this boundary would exist outside time as we know it, and would serve as an interface between an infinitely expanded Universe and a possible next Big-Bang. This sounds very fitting to a possible theory of Cyclic Subjectivity, because the state after death is equivalent to the state before birth, since in both cases there is no subjective time experience.
I'm not sure that your 'big question' is even answerable in a scientific manner. In fact, I suspect that the answers to many questions that pertain to the subjective experience of individuals are impossible for us to know. Is there any way that I could know whether the green that you see when you look at a tree is the same green that I see - or do we have completely different subjective experiences of colour that we learn to describe in the same manner? How could you even begin to find the answer to such a fundamentally subjective question?
Your question of whether our subjective experience can survive physical death is perhaps even further from our realm of possible knowledge, except by the process of direct experience. What would a subjective experience even be without a physical being to experience it? We may have mystical or out-of-body experiences in this life, yet these are still tied to our physical being (as evidenced, for example, by fMRI imaging and EEG monitoring) as much as we may subjectively experience ourselves as being separate from our body. I don't foresee any way that one could confirm the presence of other formless subjective experiences with anything that could approximate scientific or "empirical evidence" as you have suggested.
I also don't see how the fact that we don't recall subjective experience prior to our birth is in any way "empirical evidence of [the] possibility of a continuity of subjective experience independently of a physical body". If anything, then surely it is the opposite. That thought logically suggests that subjective experience may not be eternal and most likely at least undergoes periods of absence - that which did not exist once can surely cease to exist again. Infinity is just a theoretical concept that may or may not apply to space-time - I think not - so it can't be used as an assumption of the nature of reality.
Thank you Richard for your answer. Follows some comments.
I'm not sure that your 'big question' is even answerable in a scientific manner. [...] How could you even begin to find the answer to such a fundamentally subjective question?
I am not sure either, but I think it pays off to try. However, all we experience of Reality is subjective, so, in a sense, all questions Science tries to answer are fundamentally subjective. You are right to say there is no way to know if my subjective experience of space-time is identical to yours or we both have just learned to agree on it. Actually, according to some very interesting theories out there (Conscious Agents by Hoffman) space-time is not a representation of Reality but rather a simplification serving a role similar to that of a User Interface on your computer. If that is so, it may be that our observations of a quantum realm, including our notions of subjective time and space, and the collapses of the wave function that come as a consequence, are a way to keep us on the “grid” by agreement between us and the rest of the Universe on the way things appear to be. I suspect that, since each one of us is in constant interaction with the rest of the Universe, every time we measure a quantum system, even our own conscious state, an agreement must be reached on the outcome of the measurement, and that what causes wave function collapse. Like what happens in dynamical systems that naturally reach an equilibrium state of minimal energy. Even the arrow of subjective time may be nothing more than the preferred direction of quantum collapses agreed upon by all conscious agents on the “grid”. Now, once conscious agents are off the “grid” (unconscious) due to anesthesia or body death, they are in a state totally undetermined, and, since even time arrow is not determined between measurements of quantum systems, free to reset unbound by space-time. What I mean is, the state of a conscious agent before an agreement event (measurement) and after are completely equivalent. So, the states before birth and after death are equivalent. If that is the case, we may very well be stuck in a infinite loop of resettings!
What would a subjective experience even be without a physical being to experience it?
I don´t think subjective experience without a physical being to experience it is possible either. Our physical beings may be our way to subjectively experience being on the “grid” of conscious agents. All I am saying is that it may be possible having a continuous flow of subjective experience even after death, the same way we have it after being unconscious (by means of, for instance, anesthesia).
I also don't see how the fact that we don't recall subjective experience prior to our birth is in any way "empirical evidence of [the] possibility of a continuity of subjective experience independently of a physical body". If anything, then surely it is the opposite. That thought logically suggests that subjective experience may not be eternal and most likely at least undergoes periods of absence - that which did not exist once can surely cease to exist again.
Totally agree with you, subjective experience most likely at least undergoes periods of absence. However, it only makes sense talking about periods if there is the perception of a time arrow, what is not the case during absence of subjective experience.
Infinity is just a theoretical concept that may or may not apply to space-time - I think not - so it can't be used as an assumption of the nature of reality.
I think it does apply. Take time for instance. Even if the time arrow may necessarily come to an end, Special Relativity tells us that massless particles, photons for instance, function in an endless (infinite) eternity due to time dilation as the speed of light is approached. In other words massless particles are not affected by the arrow of time. As Roger Penrose once said, “for photons eternity is not such a big deal”.
Thanks Cleber - a fascinating discussion, about which one could spend a lifetime pontificating. I'm sure that our subjective experience of space-time is merely a simplification produced/filtered by our brains to allow us to function well enough that our physical being may survive and our genetic lineage can be continued. There is no apparent survival benefit to understanding the nature of consciousness or reality. There is much more to reality than we perceive, probably more than we could possibly understand, and almost certainly more than we will ever know.
I'm keen to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter!
Basically, I guess the point I am trying to make here is the following:
State before birth: Unconsciousness -> No interaction with Universe -> No Quantum entanglement with Universe -> No Time
State after death: Unconsciousness -> No interaction with Universe -> No Quantum entanglement with Universe -> No Time
Hence, the states are totally equivalent, even in the context of a framework based on an arrow of time, since they both are external to that framework.
I am trying to develop this idea further on the project here on RG:
Quantum Theory of Subjective Space-Time
Everybody is invited to take a look!
Have you ever conducted research on Giulio Tononi's "Integrated Information Theory" of consciousness? Do you think it's compatible with what you're suggesting?
Hello Manuel Fernandez! Very much so. One of the cornestones of IIT is that consciousness (C) is a fundamental property of reality, as much as mass (m) and electric charge (e). And, as such, can´t be derived from matter (M). One way of equating that is as follows:
C = F(M); (Eq. 1)
In Eq. 1 above, we try to define C as a function (F) of M. However, we never have objective access to M, only access to the subjective experience of M (Ms). Substituting, it comes:
C = F(Ms); (Eq. 2)
And subjective experience of anything is necessarily a function (F2) of C. Then, it comes:
C = F(F2(C)); (Eq. 3)
Eq. 3 above is clearly a dead end, since it adds nothing to our understanding of C! This seems to indicate that, indeed, C is, at least, as fundamental as other constituents of M, as mass and charge:
M = F3(m, e, C ...); (Eq. 4)
The really interesting point is that, if C is fundamental, it can´t be destroyed, only transformed. If we remember that empirical evidence suggests that C is equivalent to the subjective experience of reality and self, then the same conservation laws that apply to energy and information should also apply to our subjective experience of space-time.
More on the fundamental role of C in our Universe in the attached file.
Another important point to make is that Phi = 0 during periods of unconciousness, dreamless sleep, anestesia, or physical death. That doesn´t mean, however, that C is destroyed when Phi = 0, because, as we don´t experience the passage of time during those periods, from the perspective of our subjective experience continuity is not lost. In case of dreamless sleep and anestesia, C is reset once Phi > 0. In case of physical death, the destruction of physical body does not seem to be enough reason to believe the process is fundamentally different.
Very fascinating! I was asking because at one point, Giulio Tonini said that consciousness is "all we are and all we have: lose consciousness and, as far as you are concerned, your own self and the entire world dissolve into nothingness." Christof Koch shares a similar view. Do you think this shows it might not be as compatible?
Fascinating discussion indeed! I completely agree when they say that consciousness is "all we are". The only thing we have is subjective experience of the Universe, including our physical bodies. So, as far as we can tell, subjective experience is all there exists. Separation between objects and subjects seems to be an arbitrary assumption we just got used to since Descartes. It does simplify Reality but does not explain it. Quantum Mechanics kind of demonstrates that separation is fundamentally not true.
If physical bodies are a consequence of subjective experience and not their cause, it seems to me that their destruction can't guarantee the cessation of what causes them.
I also agree that "lose consciousness and, as far as you are concerned, your own self and the entire world dissolve into nothingness." The point is, can we lose consciousness? I don't think it is possible to lose something that is fundamental to our Universe. It would be like losing electric charge or mass. Well, you can lose mass if you turn it into energy, but those are just two different aspects of the same thing, which is information. Information can't be lost, only transformed.
Check out this article from Tom Clark, founder of the Center for Naturalism, from 1995: https://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/death/death-nothingness-and-subjectivity
Halfway through it I regret having to take a break. Amazing how philosophy and "hard" science seem to be converging so nicely nowadays. More on the "hard" science side of it to come soon. Thank you for the fascinating reading!
Might I also recommend you listen to some of Alan Watts' lectures? He was a British philosopher who popularized Eastern philosophy in the West in the mid-late 20th century. He has since passed away in the 1970s, but they're still fascinating, particularly his lectures on what happens after death and reincarnation.
Thank you Manuel Fernandez .
There is one particular lecture from Alan Watts that seems relevant to the hyphotesis I am trying to formalize here. That is a video called "What Happens When We Die?" which can be watched on Youtube [1].
During the lecture, Alan Watts captures perfectly the essence of that hyphotesis, when he says: "We are all I". When I heard that, I immediately related the idea to Quantum Field Theory, according to which, all particles of a certain kind are quantum excitations of one single quantum field, that permeates all Reality [2]. In that sense, all particles are essentialy the same entity.
Could all individual consciousness be perturbations on an infinite unique Quantum Field of Consciousness? To demonstrate that hyphotesis, we have, first of all, to try formalizing how the quantum state of an observable, say, the position of a photon, relates to the consciousness of the observer. To do that, in the attached paper, I use a simple thought experiment whose conclusion seems to demonstrate that quantum observables can be regarded as subjective. Or, in other words, all quantum observables that make up our Space-Time, are strongly related to, and can not be separated from, Consciousness.
The thought experiment I suggest kind of reduces the whole Universe to a box containing one single conscious observer. Since it doesn´t seem reazonable to expect the laws of nature to change within the box, no matter how isolated that environment might be, the experiment becomes possible. Moreover, the conclusions that apply to one observer inside the box, would apply as well to two, and things may start to become really interesting then. In the future, with the advent of simple but conscious machines, it may even be possible to put this thought experiment into practice. More on that later.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AusPqT0p7UM
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UwigY4SjKY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics