Metaphysical rules to remember in any metaphysical argument

  1. Death as defined by Karen Gervais in her book: Defining Death, is the ability of consciousness (subjective experience) to cease to exist upon cessation of function of the brain:

“The individual’s essence consists in the possession of a conscious, yet not necessarily continuous, mental life; if all mental life ceases, the person ceases to exist; when the person ceases to exist, the person has died. Upper brain death destroys all capacity for a conscious mental life, and it is therefore the death of the person.”

-Gervais, Karen. (1986). Defining Death. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  1. For those believing the brain creates consciousness, and if one accepts that consciousness as unambiguously defined by David J. Chalmers is experience, then every experience one shall have from birth to death is a creation of the brain.

  2. All experiences from birth to death have a beginning, middle, and end. That is, when one has a visual perception of a chair in one’s room, the visual perception does not last for the remainder of one’s life (provided one does not die while observing the chair): one will (probably) eventually leave the room to walk outdoors, leave for work, walk to the kitchen for a meal, etc.

  3. Before atoms accidentally formed cells, and eventually formed brains, consciousness did not exist. This means that in the entirety of infinity, something other than/that is not consciousness existed, as consciousness did not exist for billions of years until the fortuitous formation and function of the brain.

  4. One believing the brain creates every instance of consciousness from birth to death corresponding believes there can be no consciousness or subjective experience whose existence is not due to some process in the brain.

  5. If (5) is true, there is no such thing as non-brain created consciousness, and no such thing as non-brain created consciousness in the external world.

  6. Consciousness, as it is actually experienced, is just a series of different experiences (noted by the existence of change of experience) interrelated and connected in a chain from birth to death.

  7. The very fact that experiences change (one is looking at a chair then one exits the room and no longer visually perceives the chair in the room one left) indicates that experiences have a beginning and end.

  8. There is a time, for every experience from birth to death, that an experience is not experienced.

  9. If one believes that consciousness (subjective experience) ceases to exist at death and does not exist unless and until there is a brain that begins to function and generates consciousness, an experience, before it is experienced, is not created by the brain and as such does not exist.

  10. If (10) is true, experiences do not exist before they are experienced, and cease to exist after they are experienced.

  11. If (11) is true, the brain has the ability to cause something that does not exist to come into existence.

  12. The brain possesses the magic of creation ex nihilo: the ability to create something without the use of material of anything in infinity that existed while the magically conjured entity was non-existent.

  13. If visual perceptions, which are the only aspects of consciousness that depict (if they do depict) objects and events in the external world (non-visual perceptions are invisible reactions to external objects and events). and if the brain creates visual perceptions ex nihilo, visual perceptions doe not derive their existence from the external objects and events they are said to mimic and depict.

  14. If visual perception or visually perceived objects are created ex nihilo, the external objects and events they are believed to mimic and depict had nothing to do with the nature of visual perception or visually perceived objects: given visually perceived objects did not exist before the brain magically conjured them from non-existence, their “similarity” to external objects and events are and can only be purely coincidental.

  15. The nature of external objects and events cannot be known, as they are not creations of the brain.

  16. We can only experience/perceive that which is created by the brain, and all experiences/perceptions created by the brain are magically conjured ex nihilo.

  17. For those believing the brain creates consciousness and that there are external world-dwelling, not-consciousness composed doppelgangers of the content of visual perception, existence can be divided into two classes:

A. Everything created by the brain

B. Everything not created by the brain and as such cannot cease to exist alongside and in response to consciousness when it ceases to exist during experiential change or at onset of death.

Any concept or process one imagines or observes falls either into class of A or B. Sometimes one may confuse A for B.

  1. Don’t confuse A for B in your arguments. Always remember the dichotomy of A and B when speaking of objects, events, and processes in science. One is magically conjured from non-existence, the other exists outside the skull and perimeter of one’s skin. Remember the difference.

  2. For Panpsychists (like yours truly), there is no A or B.

A meta program is a program that creates programs.

Metaphysics is that which causes or creates physics.

Metaphysics went down the crapper,
as a subject-only-in-and-of-itself.

I don’t think we can revive metaphysics, either.
It’s really dead.

I base the term: “metaphysics” from the manner in which David Chalmers used it in his papers on consciousness. In the way he used the term, “metaphysics” was not “supernatural” or “beyond nature” or something like that but “the nature of reality”. As he used the term, “metaphysical possibility” for example meant “the possible way reality might be”.


The way reality might be, causes physics to be physics.

I think I see what you are saying, though.

The whole Brain = Consciousness thing doesn’t count for behaviors of plants and trees, for example.

And that’s my whole point (or part of it anyways): plants and trees (for those believing in external world doppelgangers of the content of visual perception) exist outside the brain and skull and as such have never existed inside the brain and thus do not “come from” or originate within the brain. Plants and trees outside one’s body that have never existed inside and thus could not have come out of the brain are therefore not one and the same as a person’s visual perception of plants and trees, which (for those believing the brain creates consciousness) is believed to be created by and emanate from the brain.

I no longer argue against this. As a Panpsychist that denies the existence of not-consciousness-composed doppelgangers of the content of visual perception, however, I believe that reality is non-physical, and consists only of persons and their experiences.

But who knows?

Consciousness begins with the soul and works in tandem with the body to process sensory perceptions and life lived in a human body but the soul has a body of its own, an energy body some refer to as the spark of life or the true body of consciousness. As long as the body lives, the soul resides within but once the body dies, the soul continues on without a human body.

Consciousness, or ‘sensus communis’, is in the pineal gland, obviously.

Actually the entire body of consciousness extends from your eyes down to your solarplexus.

Actually, (if we want to keep using this term ‘actually’), the entire cosmos is in our subconscious mind. It never ceases to exist. And we never cease to exist.

Technically, death is knowing everything. If you know every reason who you know what you know, and all those reasons are external to you, then you cannot perceive a you, a self. It’s logically impossible. YOU don’t exist. If you know every reason why everything occurs and it’s you, then there is no external with which to make a distinction, and, again, you don’t exist.

To really understand death is to know that death is knowing everything!!!

This concept seems really difficult for fundamentalist god type people to wrap their heads around (amongst others).


Definition, I suppose, indicates one’s perception of and belief in the nature of reality. The use of the term “body” in your definition seems, again, to imply the existence of not-consciousness composed doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. The soul in your definition is, as it is in most perceptions of Fundamentalist Christian thought, a first-person subjective point of view and the things experienced by that subjective experience composed of supernatural ectoplasm as opposed to taking consciousness (first-person subjective experience) at face value as just first-person subjective experience. I used to believe in the existence of ectoplasmic souls in physical bodies that exit and live on when the body dies, but since becoming a Panpsychic Idealist (then a Pantheopsychic Christian), I believe that only persons exist and that objects, etc. are within and are composed only of the subjective experience of the person “perceiving” them, and that all persons exist within one large overarching Person—the Judeo-Christian God.

But at the end of the day, we’re all using our imagination to imagine fictional worlds that, as long as the world is logically possible the fiction may be objectively true “behind everyone’s backs”. We simply take the sum of proposed fictional worlds and place one’s bet on the “horse” one thinks is winning.

At the current point of my life I no longer point the finger at anyone and say: “you’re wrong” because doing so, I found, is ludicrous. It’s ludicrous because of the above paragraph. The only thing one can do is set one’s propositional fiction on the table alongside everyone else, and give a good reason why it belongs in the realm of logical and metaphysical possibility.


Consciousness is “in” the pineal gland? Depends upon one’s definition of “consciousness”. If “consciousness” is first-person subjective experience in the form of a person and that which the person experiences, like say, a person sitting in on Trump’s Impeachment and the court in which the impeachment is taking place and the people sitting near and around the person in the house chamber, how can the first-person subjective experience of the person, the person’s experience of the people sitting around him, the chamber itself, and everything said within it exist within a gland sitting inside an organ in a skull?

How did the person’s experience of the impeachment “get in” the pineal gland anyway, when experience of the impeachment of Donald Trump in the history of the existence of the brain of of anyone’s brain functioning at least since last week, did not exist four days ago? Why should the pineal gland suddenly contain “this” as opposed to “that”, and how can and why should experiences reside in something not composed of subjective experience?

The whole idea seems arbitrary and irrational, and not very well thought out. But that’s only my opinion.

Not saying your wrong, but…


We can’t (if one is being honest) know that this occurs ‘actually’. But I believe in the concept, only I believe this applies only to the Judeo-Christian God, not to a human being. I believe the minds of all human beings exist in God’s subconscious mind, and that the ‘cosmos’ is not a space made up of non-conscious objects, but the minds of people, which is the only place “non-conscious objects” “exist” in that they are made up and reside with the subjective experience of a person.

Once again, definition defines one’s belief and perception of reality. One might read your statement: ‘death is knowing everything’ as ‘death=knowing everything’. If death=knowing everything, then death is not what most people define it as: “the permanent cessation of consciousness”—whether in the atheistic sense (“the irreversible and permanent cessation of the existence of consciousness”) or the religious sense (“the irreversible and permanent cessation of one’s experience of the world in which one was born and grew in a body”: “death” being a relocation of one’s consciousness from one plane of existence to another).

I suppose, if death=knowing everything, that we’ll have to come up with a new word for cessation of existence of consciousness or cessation of experience of the current world or plane of existence.

If you meant death is knowing everything in the sense that death results in the knowing of everything, then this is a continuation of the religious sense of death, which is not the cessation of existence of consciousness but the transformation of consciousness away from perception or experience of the world or plane of existence in which you were born and grew.