Kevin's Watch

What if we make our own afterlife?

This is an idea I’ve been kicking around for a while, and I’m not totally sure if I completely buy it yet, but I do think it’s interesting. I’ll take you through my thought process here.

I have always agreed with the idea that my personal reality is roughly 10% what happens to me (external events) and 90% my reaction to it (how I feel about it). To me that has always been a very empowering idea – because I can, to a greater or lesser extent, control my own feelings. I can’t always control events, but I do have a significant measure of control over my reaction to them. On a large scale if, for example, a loved one dies, I’m going to be sad, possibly even depressed, for a certain period of time. But at some point I can decide to no longer be sad and to work towards becoming happier. Or I could decide to continue to indulge those negative feelings. And while I couldn’t make myself instantly or consistently stop feeling down, there is some level of personal control - I could make efforts, small at first, but increasingly large as time went on, into feeling more positive. Certainly on the level of daily activities the deciding factor on whether or not I have a good day or a bad day is my mood, not the actual events of a day. And since I can (largely) control my mood, I can (largely) control what kind of day I have. Days add to weeks, to months, to years… and eventually to a lifetime.

So, I got to thinking – is there a point where that 10% (or whatever) of influence that external events has on a life would diminish, maybe even to nothing? And it occurred to me that, in the instant before death, this may happen. This could occur regardless of the form of death, and whether or not it was painful, sedate, etc. Because the body’s physiology is set up to preserve the brain at all costs, there may be a moment when the input to the brain from the outside neurons ceases, but brain function has not yet stopped. This, it seems to me, might be a time when a person’s entire “life” in that moment could be determined by their perception – external stimuli would no longer matter, and the only meaningful “reality” at that point would be perception. And furthermore, that it may be possible to entirely control that perception.

Since that moment would be the last conscious moment a person would have, might that not be interpreted by the brain as lasting an eternity? And how could that be distinguished from an afterlife?

This led to the idea that maybe we do, on a subconscious level, determine our own afterlife, or lack thereof. Maybe, if one firmly believed that they were bound for paradise in the presence of a loving deity, their last thoughts would be of joy and peace – and couldn’t that be perceived by the brain as paradise? Alternatively if one was convinced, deep down, that they were damned, wouldn’t it be likely that their last thoughts would be of terror – hell? Or if someone was convinced that there was nothing after this physical life ended their last thoughts may be of satisfaction with their life and of simple cessation – which then may be their experience. Since this would be occurring at a time when perception could be equated with reality for an individual these feelings, perceptions would be that person’s reality.

Like I said, I don’t even know that I buy this idea – I’m just sort of thinking out loud here. But I do think it’s an interesting thought – one that potentially could have lots of ramifications.

What do you all think?

I used to like the idea that whatever we believed would happen to us when we died would be what happened to us.

I can certainly see a certain plausibility in the argument...witness the number of religious near-death experiences, reported by religious people. A case of getting what you expect maybe?

Of course, even if this is the case, once there is no oxygen and no electrical activity within your brain, it would be unable to provide you with what you expected. On the plus side, you also wouldn't be able to experience anything.

So, maybe what you expect is what gives you your dyingthought, but I don't think it lasts, which an "afterlife" would require.

And of course, it would lack a certain...justice...wouldn't it? I doubt many murderers believe that they desrve hell...

--A

Avatar wrote

So, maybe what you expect is what gives you your dyingthought, but I don't think it lasts, which an "afterlife" would require.

No, it wouldn't last. An observer would likely see a time frame in nanoseconds. But to the person expierencing it..... maybe it could seem longer. Again, if in that instance percerption is reality, who's to say how long it could appear?

And of course, it would lack a certain...justice...wouldn't it? I doubt many murderers believe that they desrve hell...

Justice? Who said anything about justice? But yeah, that would be one of the implications, as would your point about near-death experiences.

Sounds like the Tibetan Book of the Dead

Also here.

And probably why Huxley had it read to him as he lay dying. (And why he had his wife inject him with hallucinogenics on his death bed.)

Anyway, I agree that subjective time, subjective experience, could make it appear much longer, but it doesn't sound feasible to me that it would subjectively last for a real-time "ever" if you know what I mean.

The world would not continue on with you believing yourself conscious...nothing could happen in a subjective eternity that was only an objective instant.

--A

I first came across this theory in the movie "What Dreams May Come." I've not read the book from Richard Matheson, but I respect him and wonder if it is more interesting than the movie. But yeah, I think that theory of the afterlife is much more comforting, even more than playing harps with a buncha angels and junk.

They are actually starting a study on the reactions of the consciousness after death. By placing pictures that can only be seen from the perspective of the ceiling they hope to answer this mystery of self awareness after clinical death. Since a majority of "Near Death" experiences state they can observe what's happening from above their bodies they should get a answer to what's proposed by the OP. It will be interesting to see conclusions.

It ought to be obvious that either there is objective truth or there is no truth. If there is, then it is our business to find it. If there isn't, then even our thoughts are meaningless; there is no reason, in either sense of the word. Ergo, there is reason, ergo, there is objective truth. The fact that we can't empirically know it doesn't mean that it is impossible to ever discover it. But the one thing we can't do is invent it.

Anything else leaves the realms of common sense.

Nahh...existence is our playground. That's all we need to know.

I want another go on the slide.

The world is full of subjective truths too.

--A

Avatar wrote:The world is full of subjective truths too.

--A

Of course. The whole objection is to the idea that there are NO absolute truths that can be known.

rusmeister wrote:

Avatar wrote:The world is full of subjective truths too.

--A

Of course. The whole objection is to the idea that there are NO absolute truths that can be known.

So does that mean that that statement is not an absolute truth? So does that mean that we possibly can know an absolute truth?

I am absolutely confused.

rusmeister wrote:The whole objection is to the idea that there are NO absolute truths that can be known.

Depends on what the truth is. Is 2+2=4 true? That is an objective truth that can be known. Helium is lighter than air. That's another. Objective truths are verifiable by anybody. They have proof. Anything unprovable that we declare and believe true is only true to the people who believe it.

--A

This reminds me of something the good ole boy mammon said in Milton about making a heaven out of hell, a hell out of heaven. Milton seems to suggest that's impossible but that's beside the point...

Also, I've told this story before, and badly, but one Jewish midrash, folk story, or something like that says that the difference between heaven and hell will be the people living in them. Not quite the same thing, I know, but it's still a neat idea.

There are two heavens, one for the good people and one for the bad people, and both of them are exactly the same. In the heavens there is a huge all you can eat buffet with every type of food that could possibly exist the only catch is that instead of arms all the people in heaven have unbendable meter long forks. As you can imagine it would be very difficult to get food in your mouth if you had meter long forks instead of arms. In the heaven for the bad people the people are all starving trying to put food in their mouths but in the heaven for the good people the people are so used to being good that they feed each other.

I've posted this before and I apologize for repeating myself, but I thought it was somewhat appropriate to the general idea of the topic.

Holsety wrote:This reminds me of something the good ole boy mammon said in Milton about making a heaven out of hell, a hell out of heaven. Milton seems to suggest that's impossible but that's beside the point...

Also, I've told this story before, and badly, but one Jewish midrash, folk story, or something like that says that the difference between heaven and hell will be the people living in them. Not quite the same thing, I know, but it's still a neat idea.

There are two heavens, one for the good people and one for the bad people, and both of them are exactly the same. In the heavens there is a huge all you can eat buffet with every type of food that could possibly exist the only catch is that instead of arms all the people in heaven have unbendable meter long forks. As you can imagine it would be very difficult to get food in your mouth if you had meter long forks instead of arms. In the heaven for the bad people the people are all starving trying to put food in their mouths but in the heaven for the good people the people are so used to being good that they feed each other.

I've posted this before and I apologize for repeating myself, but I thought it was somewhat appropriate to the general idea of the topic.

I know it's OT, but this story/analogy floats around Orthodox (Christian) circles: In hell everyone is sitting at a table full of good food. Instead of arms, they have very long spoons, too long to feed themselves, so they all sit there and starve. In heaven, same situation - the difference is that they feed each other, and everyone is full and happy.

Which just goes to show...it's all in your head.

--A

Avatar wrote:Depends on what the truth is. Is 2+2=4 true?

No, damn you, it's another one of your lies!!

I prefer to call some things truths, and other things facts.

Rusmeister wrote:It ought to be obvious that either there is objective truth or there is no truth

I think you need to define the concept of truth to make that statement.

Agreed Prebe.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Depends on what the truth is. Is 2+2=4 true?

No, damn you, it's another one of your lies!!

I prefer to call some things truths, and other things facts.

If we seperate truth from fact, then I strongly suspect that nothing at all is true. Or everything is. I'm not sure if there's a difference.

The truth ought to be demonstrable. But only facts are.

(Now that isn't to say I don't call things true. I do. But I just think they're true. I don't know. And probably never will.

--A

Sure there's truth. I love my children. It's wrong to kill babies because they won't stop crying. Zephyr is the coolest deity in Pantheon 3.0. Granted, that last one is likely a demonstratable fact, but until that happens, it's only a truth.

So yes, you're right.