Last night, I contemplated the death of my mother.
At age sixty-seven, she suffers from decompensated heart failure. Not enough to require constant regulation from machines, but enough to require a built-in defibrilator. She’s doing quite well at the time of this writing, but I feel that at her age (and beyond) any future treatment (that preserves her life long enough for the family to enjoy her presence until the seemingly inevitable), seems only the quintessential “temporary fix”.
Considering her condition, and the fact that she is not to be around forever, I pondered the concept and existence of death, attempting to reductively settle upon a circumscribed number of conceivable possibilites of what might (for all we know) occur to consciousness when the psychophysical (mind/body) connection is lost.
The “brain-death” criterion for a declaration of death states that an individual has died when there is cessation of electrical activity within the neocortex of the forebrain.
(The “brain-death” criterion supercedes the old determination of death by to cessation of respiration and heart function, given the possibility of mechanical support of respiration and heart function regardless of persistent vegetative state of the individual)
Given this “brain-death” criterion and real experience of the death of human beings across time and place, I moved forward to settle upon three distinct possibilities of the fate of consciousness after death (with such reductionism narrowed to my Judeo-Christian belief and prejudice and intellectual respect for the simplicity of atheism: as far as other religions and their theories of the afterlife are concerned, the jury is still out, and remains out):
(1) The Atheistic View Of Death.
In the absence of the existence of God or gods, (according to pertinent physical theory) human existence and biological mechanism is controlled by the blind and unconscious forces and substances that constitute a mind-independent physical realism, the possible existence of which is assumed through the conviction that arises due to the vagaries of subjective experience.
The human brain, due to it’s unique appearance, chemical structure, and bioelectrochemical function (compared to every other object within the universe) is believed to possess the power to create a virtual reality first-person subjective experience that seems to express the ever-changing and inexorable dispositions of the external reality.
This inexorable disposition of the external world controls the physical nature and fate of the experiencing being, such that the possibility of the loss of consciousness and subjective connection to the world remains a constant threat, due to the unconsciousness (and resultant accidentalness) of the life-sustaining physical medium.
If electrical activity to the neocortex ceases (due to the unconscious physical mechanism accidentally yielding physical circumstances that disrupt biological homeostasis to the point that the brain ceases to function),consciousness (according to the atheist view) ceases to exist.
This irreversible cessation of consciousness is the expected consequence of the death of the person (within godless views of the world), unless informational continuity exists—such that the deceased individual continues to exist in the form of information (knowledge of the neural schematic of the deceased remains—containing information concerning relevant neural chemical substrate, statistical positioning of synaptic connections, ion channel voltage between neural membranes that existed to enable the consciousness of the deceased individual, etc.).
The informational continuity of the individual, combined with empirical technology and knowledge, allows reconstruction of the individual’s brain and a return of the individual’s personality and mental life (with the relevant brain perhaps connected to a suitable body that supports the continuous function of the new brain and allows the “resurrected” person to physically navigate it’s new environment—see Max More: “The Terminus Of The Self”).
Aside from this lucky informational and technological circumstance, any hope of “resurrection” of the deceased (within godless explanation) depends upon the astronomical “impossibility” of the odds of an unexpected “violation” of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that accidentally yields a spontaneous resurrection of the dead (see atheist Victor J. Stenger’s surprising defense of the possible yet highly improbable notion of accidental resurrection from the dead in his article: “Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics”).
(2) The Fundamentalist Christian view of death.
Within Fundamentalist Christianity, a supernatural template of the mind and personality of the deceased individual (the “soul”), which acts as a “recording” of the original person, survives the destruction or decomposition of the physical brain. This epiphenomenal “recording” now qualifies to be regarded as the identity of the individual (with the physical body and normative consciousness of the original discarded), and is transported instantaneously before the Throne of God to face the final Great White Throne Judgment at the end of time (Revelations 20: 11-15), in which the Judeo-Christian God “separates the sheep from the goats” to determine which individuals are to be cast in the “lake of fire” and which are to enjoy eternity in “heaven”.
If the “judged” individual: (a) possesses pre-death knowledge of the existence of Jesus Christ and Christ’s sin-sacrifice for the sins of mankind while dying upon the cross, and: (b) believes in the truth of (a) and accepts Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, the “soul” is verbally praised and complimented for it’s faith by God before it is allowed entrance into Heaven.
If the “soul” fails to accomplish (a) and (b) above, regardless of the moral goodness and age of the “soul”, it is considered cursed, receives a verbal reprimand and lambast from God (who dismisses the damned individual by speaking the famous horrific words: “Depart from me ye cursed…into the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels!” [Matthew 25:41]), and is finally thrown into the lake of fire (an attendant angel seizes, carries, and tosses the individual into the flames if the person refuses to go willingly).
(3) The Superchristian view of death.
In Superchristianity, the Grand Primordial Nihilism is the sum total of natural and deliberate evilsl foreknown to God by reason of his omniscience (if God knows the past, present, and future of all conceivably possible worlds, and if this foreknowledge is infallible in terms of that aspect of God’s mind that is replicated by external reality). The Superchristian Hypothesis holds that humans are “cartoon characters” of God, external world replications of the imaginary characters perceived by God within his omniscient mind.
According to SC, the goal of God is the ultimate psychomoral (psychological/moral) evolution of the GPN-characters (us) into psychologically and morally transcendent beings whose psychomoral aspects are derived from the very mind of Jesus Christ (thus one “mutates” from a simple GPN-character into a version of the psychological and moral paragon that is Jesus Christ).
If SC is true, then death is ultimately “freedom” from the reenactment of the GPN.
This follows from Paul’s statement within the New Testament: “Those who have died have been freed from sin…” (Romans 6:7)
Thus the Superchristian hypothesis can interpret the above verse to mean that humans who die (with the exception of the “wicked”, or sociopathic humans who unapologetically feel no concern for the Golden Rule or the necessity to practice it) are freed from the GPN, as their role within a re-enactment of the GPN exhausts and comes to an end.
The consciousness of the (GPN-freed) individual, according to the Superchristian hypothesis, are “uploaded” by God into what Nick Bostrom called: “the next simulation up”—an afterlife virtual reality, in which the individual is educated concerning the true nature of the universe, and evolves (peacefully) into psychological and moral derivation from and causally dependent connection to the mind of Jesus Christ.
My concern for my mother and what occurs to her consciousness after death (or my concern for myself, and the fate of my consciousness after death), I think, reduces to the three hyothetical possibilities presented above (other religious afterlife hypotheses notwithstanding: in my view, if Shiva, Zeus, Odin, or Quetzacoatl turns out to run the cosmic circus, I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it—if possible).
Death is the final mystery, and like the question of the existence of a mind-independent physical reality, it may fail to answer the questions of the conscious (if the atheists are correct, we go back to the subjective “non-state” of the “non-experience” before birth).
Then again, against the odds (from the conceivable point of view of the atheist) “death” might not turn out to be the irreversible cessation of consciousness, and the human mind enters yet another VR which one least expected or dared to believe exists.
At any rate, I’ve settled things (at least within my own mind). Armed with this conceptual reductionism (of a limited number of conceptual possibilities), I have granted myself a measure of psychological comfort in the possibilities that may face the consciousness of my mother (or my consciousness, or the consciousness of any other conscious physical being)—when electrical activity finally ceases within the neocortex.
Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity
superchristianity.com