Can you imagine to be dead?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
101

As the conscious mind is in metaposition, when you die you cease to inhabit what is otherwise the sleepwalker [zombie]. This thing, the body and brain, can be seen in hypnotism and sleepwalking, as the causal being. If we imagine that when both that causal being and consciousness are engaged, we are awake, but somewhat being taken down a causal road, then being dead you would be awake but without that body. Sleep and unconsciousness generally are existential, and they are induced by brain/bodily function.

When dead there will be nothing [body/brain/existence] there to make the consciousness take that state, or there will be nothing there et al. I don’t see a third option where consciousness would be asleep or suffering things which relate to bodily function?

_

102

Imagination requires consciousness but if you are dead you have neither
And so while you may imagine being dead it is not really at all the same

103

We can imagine all variety of things. But we don’t know what it is like to be dead, so we can’t know if what we’re imagining is it. Lots of people imagine themselves hanging out on a cloud with their grandparents, or being reincarnated as a bull, or any number of other things, and that is ‘imagining what it’s like to be dead’ as far as they are concerned. If we’re presuming that to be dead is to be nothing at all, well- we can imagine our corpse lying on the floor. We can imagine darkness and silence. Are these imagining being dead? They are, after a fashion.

Can we imagine what it’s like to be a fish? We can imagine swimming around in a fish body. But we can’t really imagine what it’s like to be as dumb as a fish is, and to lack the capacities a fish lacks. At least not very clearly. So it’s kind of like that.

104

The closest thing probably is understanding how it was before you were born, that state of nothingness. So, yes, you can, based on the logical example of what death is, ceasing to exist.

105

The uterus is not the “nothingness”.

106

Fine, before we were conceived.

107

I never said “Are” can’t exist. I said “you and i ARE.” We exist. Forgive me my error of saying “One is or one isn’t”. You are right, that isn’t correct. One is, pure and simple.

The point is, can their “be” a non-existence? Well, of course not, for if anything is to “be”, “is”, “are”, there must be existence. So what can happen to someone who dies? We can say that death exists, but not that it doesn’t. We can say that death is something, but not that it is nothing.

Non-existence is utter gibberish. We can neither observe it nor conceive it. The whole idea of it has no merit.

108

Do not confuse non existence with non consciousness since they are not the same
For when one dies they are no longer conscious but their physical body still exists

109

Indeed. But since we do not identify people as merely their physical bodies (I have seen none of your physical bodies yet I surmise that I am speaking to humans, for your minds, your language, etc. displays itself), we can’t say that when someone’s physical bodies dies, that they altogether die, for it is quite obvious that the physical body is but one aspect of their total being (which includes mind), and that their mind cannot be tasted, touched, smelled, heard, nor seen.

So it is clear, via our senses, that the material aspect of the being, the body (including of course, the brain) rots away and dies. But we can’t say the same about mind, aka, that which see’s but can not be seen. That which tastes but cannot be tasted. This isn’t mere semantics, it’s quite real. We are talking about the exterior on one hand (the body) and the interior on the other hand (mind, or soul). We cannot say what happens to the interior of an organism that dies, only the exterior. But we can say, via logic, that non existence can not be seen, nor comprehended, and therefore, is logically unsound, in the same way that “God” is logically unsound.

The counter argument to this is that the mind and brain are one and the same. That everything can be reduced to matter, and therefore when we see that matter is dead, we can say that the mind is dead. I find this view to be reductionistic to the point of absurdity. For again, we can never reduce matter to that which observes matter, for we cannot see, cannot touch, cannot hear, cannot smell, and cannot taste what we call “mind” or “consciousness”.

One more thing, I find (or rather, suspect) that there is a pathological aspect to the belief that when you die, that you will cease to exist forever and ever more, or that you will be unconscious for ever and ever more. And that can be called the UTOPIA of the once-and-for-all end of suffering, of pain, of aversion, and so on. I find (or rather, suspect) that the pathology that rules the materialist is in many cases the same as the pathology that rules the Christian, the Islamist, and so forth. The desire for an eternity of everlasting non-suffering. Existence has shown us no such thing, and we ought not presume such a thing if we take this question seriously.

110

Mind is a function of the brain and so when the latter ceases to function then so too does the former. And while eternal non
suffering cannot be proven there is precisely no evidence to suggest otherwise. Until there is it remains the default position

111

The notion that eternal non-suffering (a complete fabrication of the mind, totally at opposite to what we know or can conceive) should be the default position is ludicrous to me, unless one takes religious utopianism as ones default position, rather than empirical reality (which shows us that suffering comes and goes)

The mind isn’t the outcome of the brain anymore than heads is the outcome of tails. They are mutually dependent, yes, but neither is the “prime mover” so to speak. To perceive (mind) is CLEARLY different than to be perceived (brain).

112

To exist - existence - has to do with BEING.
When one has died, there is no existence since there is no being. That’s the way I look at it anyway.

113

The default position seems to be existence, rather than non-existence. After all, we are alive right now, aren’t we?

114

existence is the only position.

115

But life is nothing more than a very tiny blip between post birth and pre death. In statistical terms it is of zero significance
Death is where it is at for that is where all life eventually goes. We need to stop being so afraid of it for that does not help
I am so glad there are death cafes one can go to to discuss it with others who are not at all worried by it but many still are
The only way to overcome any irrational fear is to actually confront it and that is just as true for death as for anything else

116

What I fear, is that you may be mistaken, and you won’t confront it.

117

People don’t go to death, they go through it. It’s a process. that which you are returns back to the universe, and most likely returns back to life, differently, on a never ending cycle. it’s stupid to think death is just nothingness as a final end.

118

When you provide the actual evidence I will accept it unconditionally
But do not expect me to agree with you just because you want me to
As that is just emotional reasoning and as such is entirely superfluous

119

Actually, non-existence and non-consciousness is the same.

According to you, if someone dies, all consciousness in the universe will cease to exist forever, therefore their body will also cease to exist forever.

120

No its not emotional reasoning but you are desperately trying to make it seem like it. You like to pull things like “Why are you afraid of death and nothingness” as if I have a vested interest in escaping nothingness.

Dude, I once said I was annihilist, I wanted eternal non-existence but its simply bullshit and not likely to be true.

I think you are the one who has vested emotions in it, you’re always bragging about how peaceful it will be and how comfortable you are. You need to be right about this critical issue, or else your whole psyche might fragment in on itself.