• AMMDI is an open-notebook hypertext writing experiment, authored by Mike Travers aka @mtraven. It's a work in progress and some parts are more polished than others. Comments welcome! More.
Incoming links
from I Am You
Twin Pages

Death, Nothingness, Subjectivity

01 Jan 2022 07:48 - 01 Jan 2022 07:48

    • Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity | Naturalism.org
      • Chapman commented on this (with a via credit for me) so I guess I better read it and form an opinion.
      • Weirdly know going in what my stance will be – the logic is sound but it misses the point.
      • What point is that?
      • That people are hurting, that death terrifies them, not for what it is, but because life itself is terrifying...no damn it, can't quite articulate this... death is so final, so defining. What is death? The cessation of yourself. We can't quite imagine it, but that doesn't mean it's real...in fact its unimaginability is part of the terror.
      • Rejecting visions of reunions with loved ones or of crossing over into the light, we anticipate the opposite: darkness, silence, an engulfing emptiness, a peaceful oblivion. But we would be wrong.
      • For some reason I am angry at this article before even reading it, because I'm angry at Chapman for similar reasons...Oddly I feel nihilism is one of the few things that gets him angry.
      • the error contained in the view: It is to reify nothingness--make it a positive condition or quality (e.g., of "blackness")--and then to place the individual in it after death, so that we somehow fall into nothingness, to remain there eternally.
      • Hm, that isn't an error I make, I think...but maybe we can't help make it.
      • That rage is against the smugness of reason...that thinks it is stronger than death.
      • Maybe I'm just a rage-against-the-dying-of-the-light
      • Alithough I pointed you to this paper, I have to say on reading it closely I did not like it. It rests on a really crude kind of reading, taking metaphorical attempts to describe death literally and then pointing out that they aren't (literally) true.
      • In developing a plausible alternative, my operating assumptions and guiding philosophy will be resolutely naturalistic, materialist, and non-dualist. I assume only a single universe of interconnected phenomena, a universe devoid of souls, spirits, mental essences, and the like. In particular, persons, on this account, are not possessed of any essential core identity (an indivisible self or soul)
        • I'm starting to doubt these assumptions. I mean, yeah, it sounds great: science and buddha agree, there is no self, no fixed identity, we are just collections of reflexes and dispositions. Well, the collectivity that calls itself "me", right now, the one with the job and house and family and social security number, says, you can't just do that. I assert myself.
          • But may not want to go there.
      • "When I die I won't go to heaven or hell, there will just be nothingness." Asimov's naturalistically based skepticism about heaven or hell is common among secularists... but he commits an equally common fallacy in his blithe assumption about nothingness, namely that it could "be." By substituting nothingness for heaven and hell, Asimov implies that it awaits us after death. Indeed the word itself, with the suffix "ness," conjures up the strange notion of "that stuff which does not exist."
      • Don't be mad at the prosaic for not being poetic enough.
      • "It might be nice to believe such a theory, but isn't the truth starker? This life is the only existence there is; afterward there is nothing." Although he probably doesn't mean to, with these words Nozick may suggest to the unwary that "nothing" is something like a state into which we go and never return
        • Actually he doesn't do that at all, he doesn't say "we enter into nothingness" or somesuch, he says there is nothing, which is as close as you can get to accurate without abandoning the constraints of grammar. I suppose a more accurate form would be, the sum total of my personal experience is bounded in time, it had a definite start and a definite end. Between tbirth and tdeath, there was me, after tdeath, no more me, as it was before tbirth.
      • The Burgess example is a lot more on-point.
      • Although the fear of death is undoubtedly biological and hence unavoidable to some extent, the fear of nothingness, of the black abyss, can be dealt with successfully. This involves seeing, and then actually feeling, if possible, that your death is not the end of experience. It is the end of this experiencer most definitely, but that end is not followed by the dying of the light. Experience, I will argue, is quite impervious to the hooded figure who leads his unwilling charges into the night.
      • For the subject, awareness is constant throughout life; the "nothingness" of unconsciousness cannot be an experienced actuality.
        • This seems unobjectionable but I'm going to object anyway. Awareness is not constant, every night we enter an altered state of consciousness that is a complete disruption of daytime consciousness.
    • Had a sudden shift in reading, his point may be that the world continues without us...
      • The second question ("What's next?") is a little trickier, because, unless we suppose that my death is coincident with the end of the entire universe, we can't responsibly answer "nothing." Nothing is precisely what can't happen next. What happens next must be something, and part of that something consists in various sorts of consciousness. In the very ordinary sense that other centers of awareness exist and come into being, experience continues after my death. This is the something (along with many other things) which follows the end of my particular set of experiences.
      • As I tried to make clear above, subjectivities--centers of awareness--don't have beginnings and endings for themselves, rather they simply find themselves in the world...Of course we know that they are not always in place from an objective standpoint, but their own non-being is never an experienced actuality for them.
      • That is interesting. Maybe he is saying that a person seen from outside has a beginning and and end, but from the inside does not. Which is kind of true, if not for the fact that we can reflect on ourselves, that is, see ourselves (with distortions) from the outside.
      • I propose that we should anticipate the subjective sense of always having been present, experienced within a different context, the context provided by those subjectivities which exist or come into being.
      • This is coming close to the I Am You theory that there is just one person.
      • So when I say that you should look forward, at death, to the "subjective sense of always having been present," I am speaking rather loosely, for it is not you--not this set of personal characteristics--that will experience "being present." Rather, it will be another set of characteristics (in fact, countless sets) with the capacity, perhaps, for completely different sorts of experience. But, despite these (perhaps radical) differences, it will share the qualitatively very same sense of always having been here, and, like you, will never experience its cessation.
    • Tweetstorm

      • Alithough I pointed you to this paper, I have to say on reading it closely I found it irritating. 1/?
      • First, OK, the overall point may be good, it's that people have confused ideas about death which cause suffering, maybe we can clear that up.
      • But the argument rests on a crude mode of reading, taking as literal metaphorical attempts to describe death.
      • It is cloddish to read "do not go gently into that good night" and say, well, no we don't literally end up in night, or anywhere at all. Do we think Dylan Thomas was too dumb to figure that out?
      • It is very true that we can't experience our own nonexistence, but (because we are reflective) we can *imagine* our nonexistence and try to conceptualize it, and metaphor is what we have to do that with.
      • It's ridiculous to say, don't do this – awareness of death is like one of the founding pillars of human culture.
      • But the problem is not just a failure to understand how metaphor works. Take this: "Although the fear of death is undoubtedly biological and hence unavoidable to some extent, the fear of nothingness, of the black abyss, can be dealt with successfully."
      • That's positing two neatly-seperable things: innate biological fear and the more abstract and conceptual fear of nothingness.