What happens to consciousness after death?

Question

Is it possible that our innate sense of self, our egocentric outlook on the world, could be wrong? After all, our brains are never REALLY connected; so we cannot know for sure that our consciousness is REALLY separated by anything else than space and time. What I mean is; Is it possible that there could be only a single universal consciousness of which we are all a part? Could this REALLY be how it is? Or are there any philosophical arguments against this view? I haven't been myself since I first had this thought and I'm dying for an answer. On the one hand it feels exhilarating, on the other hand it kinda kills one's self image. What do you people think?

Answer 1

If it is true, so what? You cannot do anything with it anyway.

Is it possible that our innate sense of self, our egocentric outlook on the world, could be wrong?

Yes, it could be. But at present, we have no indication that it is not right.

After all, our brains are never REALLY connected;

I will assume you mean physically connected.

so we cannot know for sure that our consciousness is REALLY separated by anything else than space and time.

This amounts to a an empty statement. You are saying: our brains are separated by space and time and then: we do not know if our consciousness is connected by something other than space and time. True and true but they do not lead us anywhere.

What I mean is; Is it possible that there could be only a single universal consciousness of which we are all a part?

It is possible, yes, but we have no indication of this at the moment.

Or are there any philosophical arguments against this view?

Well from a philosophical point of view it is — for instance — possible that nothing exists beyond your brain in a vat and everything that comes into it is just a simulation; that no physical reality exists and all you see and hear is just artificial stimuli. That is a possibility in just the same way as you proposal of connection/collective consciousness is.

But... so what?

You can also — possibly — fly by your own doing, by tapping into a hitherto unknown source of force that can propel you through the air and maybe even space. That is a possibility, you cannot prove that it is not so.

But I do not foresee you in the near future climbing up on the nearest table and throwing yourself off of it in the hope that you will be able to tap into that unknown source of force before you land on the floor. Even if it could be true, you place no faith in it being so, now do you?

Hence, as long as you cannot point to anything that speaks for your proposition of a shared consciousness actually being true, it is a pointless exercise because for all practical intents and purposes it is not true.

What happens to consciousness after death?

It — most likely — returns to the state it was in before birth. Where do you think your consciousness was before you were born?

Answer 2

It doesn't follow, if there is only a single universal consciousness of which we are all a part, that you are an eternal part, or even a part that persists for some limited time after death. The single universal consciousness could continue minus your consciousness which has been terminated by death.

The question whether when you are alive you are a part of a single universal consciousness is separate from the question whether when you are not alive you remain a part of that consciousness. The consciousness can plainly do without you, as it did before your consciousness began. Why not after your death as well ?

Answer 3

This is one of those ideas that sticks to you when once you run into it. I can't shake it either. But for me, it evolved over time. It's easy to think dramatically about the consequences of a collective consciousness.

• Is hurting others is the same as hurting yourself
• When we die, do we merge with being itself and sense all life?

It's impossible to know. Any questions about the outcome of this way of thinking are purely speculative. Only a liar or a fool can answer your question confidently. That said, i have pondered this concept for a while and do have some interesting questions that might make you think.

You define the idea as a "single universal (un)consciousness" but i think that's wrong, you cannot attribute quantity (single) to consciousness. It is like the idea of time and space, it's just a thing that is, you cannot question it because you experience it. But the question might you might ask is why?

If you try to comprehend why you exist, why you able to think, why anything "is" rather than the more sensible default of "isn't", you might feel the same sense of awe i do. It's a total mind fuck, the human mind is not capable of understanding such transcendent concepts.

It's impossible to fully understand the existence of consciousness. But in knowing that i cannot understand it i feel secure because in some ways the things that we have no hope of understanding are the most true. They lie outside the human ability to inevitably corrupt and re-purpose things we understand.

Ultimately my musings have lead me to the weird belief that consciousness is a universal and omnipresent force that is focused by locales of kinetic complexity at all scales. And by these rules we are the a greatly focused consciousness at our scale because of the unparalleled complexity of the brain. Also consider that this would mean

• A pebble rolling down a hill is aware to some degree
• Cities think
• Computers are already conscious (oops)
• Our encompassing universe is conscious and we are conscious of it while inhabiting it. Much like the cells of our bodies, and the particles of a cell and the atoms of the particle.

This is a more reasonable to me than the alternative idea of drawing a line in the sand saying "this object is not conscious, this simple organism might be, and i certainly am" does not make sense to me. There are no lines in the sand with anything natural, except for maybe a beach.

Answer 4

I see a mayor problem with your question(s). It appears that you do not realize that there are at least two types/levels of "consciousness" (three if you believe in a "supreme" being). They are:

1 - Individual
2 - Group
3 - Transcendent/universal

So, obviously, there are three answers to your main question.

1 - The individual's consciousness ceases to exist, when the individual dies.
2 - The group's consciousness ceases to exist, when all the group's members die (or are no longer a group).
3 - The transcendent consciousness never ceases to exist, as it does not depend on any individual or group.

This makes it clear that for an individual's consciousness to continue to exist, after death, is to somehow become part of the transcendent (supreme being's) consciousness!

Answer 5

If the following answers are strictly related only to one particular religion, you may ignore this. If you can find anything sensible/true, you may search other websites and test them.

Is it possible that our innate sense of self, our egocentric outlook on the world, could be wrong?

Of course. Scientific analysis is enough for understanding this. It can be realized only by self realization. Actually all of us cannot maintain our ego throughout our life as it is now. When people have certain experiences they may understand it. You might have read about some people's anecdotes when they visited some places or when they met some great men. Some of them have said that they felt like melting their ego when they visited such places or great persons.

After all, our brains are never REALLY connected; so we cannot know for sure that our consciousness is REALLY separated by anything else than space and time.

Before asking about connections, you could ask this question to yourself: "For the growth and development of brains do the things needed for it have any connection?" If not possible, again my humble reply is about self realization. Or you may google and find what great Non-dualists who realized the truth have said about it.

What I mean is; Is it possible that there could be only a single universal consciousness of which we are all a part?

If I take your words in literary sense I would say that it is not possible because if you say so you mean you need to wait for something to happen/become. Since you need not wait for a possibility, I am compelled to say so. Also, since consciousness is eternal, unchanging, present at all times, immutable, undivided, and infinite we need not use the word--'parts'. You may verify this: How is the "I" the universe? But if you consider only the essence of that question, again I say, "Of course"; but only up to a certain extent. This is because, if I said so it would be a denial of the words of great men who used the term 'non-dual' after realizing it.

Could this REALLY be how it is?

Yes.

Or are there any philosophical arguments against this view?

I don't know if there is. If you wish to argue against this you may take your own idea as you mentioned about brains. But when you realize yourself you realize that the creator and creation are one. So you will 'get' the proof from within you.

See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_(consciousness)

I haven't been myself since I first had this thought and I'm dying for an answer. On the one hand it feels exhilarating, on the other hand it kinda kills one's self image. What do you people think?

You are right. It will kill the self image that you misunderstood that it is strictly related to your body as in a delusion. But you need not fear of some great loss. Please listen to Sri Ramana Maharshi's parable of salt doll.

What happens to consciousness after death?

When you realize yourself you will understand that there is no birth and death to the self. Please read the first link about consciousness and then read the Bhagavad Gita 2.20.