The question of death
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:19 am
There are several popular arguments for the human mind’s mortality. Some that I can mention off the top of my head are: (i) the observation that we may be put in an unconscious state, (ii) the way substances and harm to the brain compromises the mind, combined with the fact that the brain is destructible, (iii) there is no recollection of the vast stretches of time prior to consciousness.
These are all fairly intelligent and reasonable points, which I also once shared. Since I no longer do share them I would like to write down a fairly succinct post of the nonesoteric reasons to my contrary conviction. But first it may be in its place to say that my convictions come from purely intellectual conclusions rather than from any wish to control things. All faults should therefore be blamed on my intellect rather than my courage. Certainly, the notion that death is the ultimate end of consciousness is beautiful in its own way.
Now, when it comes to argument (i), it is easily countered since this situation is in fact necessary and fully deducible through the limited mind’s sheer existence and the way finite definitions interact with each other, and since time, which is here the index used to measure “unconciousness” is in fact nothing but a limited mind’s ability to register more or fewer things concurrently. In short, we are unconscious of things that we are too slow to register, and the states of “unconsciousness” as we have observed, are nothing but this same mechanism taken to a more apparent extent, i.e., longer intervals between perceptions. It is in other words a non-argument regarding mortality, or an argument made due to a lapse in attention.
Argument (ii) is similar in nature but less abstract. Since the mind and the brain are indeed synchronized, or the same thing understood under different aspects, it is true that what affects the one also affects the other. Therefore, the necessity which we noted against the previous argument, that the mind can become more limited in its ability to register perceptions, equally pertains to the necessity that the brain can become more limited in it’s structural integrity. But regarding this argument, the counter-argument does not abolish it.
For argument (ii) not only notes that the brain can be impacted, or limited, but also destroyed, and since we understand that the brain and the mind are the same thing we are thus led to the conclusion that the mind is equally destroyed. This is a logical and respectable conclusion.
However, it is not the final conclusion of logic. For much more is deducible when we examine the nature of the mind. The proper counter-argument to argument (ii) lies not in investigating the similarities (the synchronicity) of the brain and the mind, but rather the differences. For there are differences, or we would have no reason of having two different words. This is of course because “mind” refers to the consciousness itself, while “brain” refers to the physical organ associated with it.
This is a very significant difference. For the key here is to demonstrate how the mind cannot be understood solely through the brain and vice versa. That is, the definition (what they are) of the brain and the definition of consciousness do not overlap, but they are essentially different even though we observe that they are interconnected in the world.
When we have established this separate essence of the mind (thought), the next logical step lies in knowing what makes a thing a thing. Now, what we normally experience as “things” are simply what we discern to be something concrete, i.e., what we perceive as a unit. However, we are also able to distinguish parts of the things we see in our everyday lives, and so anything we see can be reduced to further separate things — but what we are doing now is merely to shift our attention, that we experience something other as a unit than we did before. For this is exactly what a thing is; it is a concrete unit that is something in itself (which our perceptions often appear to be).
Now, since the things we commonly discern are in fact not things in the full sense (since they consist of parts, or relations) what is a thing is that which stands by itself when perspective is widened to encompass the all (this is beyond our scope in ways of perception of course, but the logic is available to us). That is, the all is a concrete thing, and also timeless since time is simply constituted by the interaction of relative things.
Two things may be mentioned. One is this; for there to be relative things at all to interact with each other, there must be something they are discerned in, i.e., their existence makes it apparent to us that this Thing exists, or else there would be no relative things to constitute time and our world. (Buddhist teachings make the case that all that exists are relations, but this is simply an incomplete thought since the relations are nothing but discernments, or discriminations, of something). The second thing to mention is this; that which the one Thing consists in is that which has essence, i.e., is known through itself rather than through comparisons.
And of course, there is only one such thing, namely consciousness. Or, perhaps more precisely, understanding; which is the only thing that is known through itself and in itself, and can be described in no other way than through understanding. This means that we have demonstrated that the one concrete Thing is an infinite and timeless consciousness, or understanding.
Since this is the Thing in which other, relative things (us) are discerned, we also know that the discernment of these things (us) is conceptual rather than concrete — by which we also understand that the quality of consciousness which we possess is not concretely divisible from the Thing, meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death but rather the limitations that consitute the discernment of us in the Thing (brain, body, flesh). This implies that the “I” which we all experience, is the same “I”, only separated by our current states and that it is in reality an all-encompassing “I”, i.e., that beyond our limitations, which are finite, we exist as infinite, including the very conception of ourselves (ourself) as limited (which counters argument (iii)).
If someone has objections towards my reasoning, however, I would be glad to hear them.
These are all fairly intelligent and reasonable points, which I also once shared. Since I no longer do share them I would like to write down a fairly succinct post of the nonesoteric reasons to my contrary conviction. But first it may be in its place to say that my convictions come from purely intellectual conclusions rather than from any wish to control things. All faults should therefore be blamed on my intellect rather than my courage. Certainly, the notion that death is the ultimate end of consciousness is beautiful in its own way.
Now, when it comes to argument (i), it is easily countered since this situation is in fact necessary and fully deducible through the limited mind’s sheer existence and the way finite definitions interact with each other, and since time, which is here the index used to measure “unconciousness” is in fact nothing but a limited mind’s ability to register more or fewer things concurrently. In short, we are unconscious of things that we are too slow to register, and the states of “unconsciousness” as we have observed, are nothing but this same mechanism taken to a more apparent extent, i.e., longer intervals between perceptions. It is in other words a non-argument regarding mortality, or an argument made due to a lapse in attention.
Argument (ii) is similar in nature but less abstract. Since the mind and the brain are indeed synchronized, or the same thing understood under different aspects, it is true that what affects the one also affects the other. Therefore, the necessity which we noted against the previous argument, that the mind can become more limited in its ability to register perceptions, equally pertains to the necessity that the brain can become more limited in it’s structural integrity. But regarding this argument, the counter-argument does not abolish it.
For argument (ii) not only notes that the brain can be impacted, or limited, but also destroyed, and since we understand that the brain and the mind are the same thing we are thus led to the conclusion that the mind is equally destroyed. This is a logical and respectable conclusion.
However, it is not the final conclusion of logic. For much more is deducible when we examine the nature of the mind. The proper counter-argument to argument (ii) lies not in investigating the similarities (the synchronicity) of the brain and the mind, but rather the differences. For there are differences, or we would have no reason of having two different words. This is of course because “mind” refers to the consciousness itself, while “brain” refers to the physical organ associated with it.
This is a very significant difference. For the key here is to demonstrate how the mind cannot be understood solely through the brain and vice versa. That is, the definition (what they are) of the brain and the definition of consciousness do not overlap, but they are essentially different even though we observe that they are interconnected in the world.
When we have established this separate essence of the mind (thought), the next logical step lies in knowing what makes a thing a thing. Now, what we normally experience as “things” are simply what we discern to be something concrete, i.e., what we perceive as a unit. However, we are also able to distinguish parts of the things we see in our everyday lives, and so anything we see can be reduced to further separate things — but what we are doing now is merely to shift our attention, that we experience something other as a unit than we did before. For this is exactly what a thing is; it is a concrete unit that is something in itself (which our perceptions often appear to be).
Now, since the things we commonly discern are in fact not things in the full sense (since they consist of parts, or relations) what is a thing is that which stands by itself when perspective is widened to encompass the all (this is beyond our scope in ways of perception of course, but the logic is available to us). That is, the all is a concrete thing, and also timeless since time is simply constituted by the interaction of relative things.
Two things may be mentioned. One is this; for there to be relative things at all to interact with each other, there must be something they are discerned in, i.e., their existence makes it apparent to us that this Thing exists, or else there would be no relative things to constitute time and our world. (Buddhist teachings make the case that all that exists are relations, but this is simply an incomplete thought since the relations are nothing but discernments, or discriminations, of something). The second thing to mention is this; that which the one Thing consists in is that which has essence, i.e., is known through itself rather than through comparisons.
And of course, there is only one such thing, namely consciousness. Or, perhaps more precisely, understanding; which is the only thing that is known through itself and in itself, and can be described in no other way than through understanding. This means that we have demonstrated that the one concrete Thing is an infinite and timeless consciousness, or understanding.
Since this is the Thing in which other, relative things (us) are discerned, we also know that the discernment of these things (us) is conceptual rather than concrete — by which we also understand that the quality of consciousness which we possess is not concretely divisible from the Thing, meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death but rather the limitations that consitute the discernment of us in the Thing (brain, body, flesh). This implies that the “I” which we all experience, is the same “I”, only separated by our current states and that it is in reality an all-encompassing “I”, i.e., that beyond our limitations, which are finite, we exist as infinite, including the very conception of ourselves (ourself) as limited (which counters argument (iii)).
If someone has objections towards my reasoning, however, I would be glad to hear them.