Thinking about what happens to consciousness after death

[Blurry_Buildings]

I can't stop thinking about what will happen to my own and everyone elses consciousness when we die. I can't settle on anything to believe in because logically it feels like there is either a problem or some uncomfortable conclusions that can be drawn with every after life related theory. For example..

Reincarnation: Knowing that evolution has been scientifically proven, we know that at some point in time, the earliest humans were biologically nearly identical to apes. Any human alive today, if they built a massive enough family tree, would begin to find apes and then different organisms amongst their direct ancestors. We also know that evolution is a slow but continuous process, and that every new generation of people is slightly more distant from the last one genetically. If this continued uninterrupted into the future, we would eventually see new species emerge. No one generation is significantly different from their parents, but any 2 generations far enough away will be completely different.

If reincarnation was real, why would we only reincarnate into humans? Would it even be possible to only reincarnate into another human when humanity is continuously evolving? What would be the difference between reincarnating into a human many generations ahead of you with a completely different genetic makeup and reincarnating into a proto-human many generations behind you? What would be the difference between that and reincarnating into the ape you are directly descended from, or an organism many years into the future that is directly descended from you (or modern humanity)? In my opinion, the answer is that there is no difference between reincarnating into a human who is genetically very different and reincarnating into a different organism entirely. This would mean that we really reincarnate into every living organism on the planet, and maybe beyond as well. An endless cycle of consciousness where we not only suffer through the difficult lives of many humans, but also wild animals and micro organisms, which likely have considerably more miserable lives.

Heaven and hell: The concept of heaven makes no sense to me. Who would desire an eternity of constant happiness? Happiness only exists in relation to sadness (and maybe in relation to feeling "ok"). Without an end to the state of happiness, there is no meaning in being happy. Will the residents of heaven not go insane from the mediocrity that inevitably would come from constant eternal happiness and fulfillment? How could they deal with the purposelessness of their life in heaven knowing that nothing will ever end. How does that serve as a reward for the people who did good deeds in life?

On the other hand, hell is supposedly a place of eternal suffering for those who have sinned. Unlike heaven there doesnt seem to be any contradictions between what it does and what it is supposed to do. Hell is made to punish evil people and it does this by causing them eternal suffering. If we assume that the suffering is like the physical pain of being burned alive then whatever emotions that someone may have, they could still be described as suffering in hell. My confusion with this is why a god who loves every single person would subject many of them to eternal torture for a finite amount of sin, or even worse, subject them to eternal torture for not believing in him (/her/them). Wouldnt an all knowledgeable being responsible for all of humanity/creation be more likely to not be that narcissistic, unloving, and petty that they would punish finite evil or disbelief with infinite suffering? And wouldn't god be more likely to have the foresight to make heaven not involve meaningless eternal happiness and fulfillment, for the sake of the people there? Maybe not, and maybe god is that petty, unloving, and narcissitic if he supposedly made all of humanity as a reflection of himself (/herself). The general idea of an eternal happiness doesnt make sense and an eternal punishment for some of humanity doesnt sound feasible unless god is morally bankrupt.

Nothing at all: This is what makes the most sense to me, personally. I kill myself and the consciousness generated from my brain ends with the end of my brain. I exist and then I cease to, like before I was born. It is also to me a better outcome than heaven or hell, or a reincarnation that involves reincarnating into organisms that are not human. If this (dying and then ceasing to exist in any way) is what really happens though, why does humanity or life in general exist in the first place? Why does the universe exist? There is a reason if there is some higher power controlling heaven and hell, or facilitating reincarnation. But in a world where we materialize from nothing and return to nothing with no god, it makes no sense why life and humanity came to exist. There was no need for the universe, and no reason for it to exist.

 

[CarrotEater]

I believe we are in a state like we were before birth, we simply don't exist.

If there is reincarnation.. maybe ALL off us are the same person/being and get to live as somebody else? That would be terryfing, but interesting. You could live as literally anything that ever existed or exists. You could be Hitler, your mom, yourself, your ex, somebody you never met, a tiger, an ant, reborn as anything, anywhere, not limited to Earth. If at some point all life ceases to exist, you keep randoming into somethinf that lived at some point.

Religion (heaven, hell, valhalla and so on) makes the least sense to me. Religion contradicts each other all the time, at least one of them is wrong - unless it somehow happens that whatever you believe in ends up being true for you and you only. If you believe in heaven and hell, that's what is going to happen. If you believe in Valhalla, same.

 

[Forever Sleep]

The way I tend to see it in terms of lived experience- I don't remember past lives, I've seen no concrete proof that an afterlife exists is: If reincarnation is real then, it's maybe only a kind of lifeforce that is recycled. Not a consciousness that has memories and learned experience. Otherwise- I agree with you. How come we're so stupid at birth if we've already lived all these lives before?

If it's simply a lifeforce that is recycled then, that is more unconscious. Like a battery effectively. Simply a component that you put in something to make it 'go'. How the thing behaves depends on its design but, a battery will power a torch, a toy, a camera all the same. Even there though, I have doubts about reincarnation.

I also agree that heaven and hell seems pointless. Even reincarnation seems pointless. What are we supposed to be aiming for even? If all of this is to learn and become a better person- to what possible end?

The only crazy narcissistic reason I could come up with was- maybe we are all being trained to be Gods/ creators ourselves. Why else would we need to learn about mortal life if our destiny is to become immortal? Why are we tested on our time here? I suppose the other idea that fascinates me is that we are all part of one huge organism/ consciousness- experiencing life but again- why? Boredom?!!

I also think the most likely thing is it's all chance. That there isn't a meaning or end goal to it. I don't see why consciousness couldn't have come about via evolution- just like other attributes. I can see how a strong sense of self, mortality and our place in this world gave us an edge over other creatures. It's just that our enquiring minds like to try to figure stuff out. Plus, we have an enormous ego. It fits that we like to tell ourselves that we're far too important to just disappear after death. It's kind of hilariously narcissistic that a (very possibly) mortal creature has convinced itself that it can live forever.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

We also know that evolution is a slow but continuous process

Actually, evolution isn't always a slow process. It can also happen quickly as well.

Anyway, I think that the most logical answer is that once you die your consciousness dies off as well. We already know the areas of the brain that are involved in consciousness and we know that things, such as damage to these areas, can impact aspects of our consciousness. I don't think that life came about for any particular reason but rather was just a result of chance. Sometimes there isn't a deeper meaning behind anything. Sometimes shit just happens.

 

[Darkover]

Every theory about what happens after death has some kind of logical flaw or leads to a conclusion that feels unsatisfying, terrifying, or absurd. It makes sense that you keep thinking about it—it's one of the biggest unanswered questions of existence.

Your breakdown of reincarnation makes a lot of sense. If reincarnation was real, then logically, we'd be part of a continuous cycle that doesn't just include humans but all life. That idea makes the whole thing far worse because most living beings suffer way more than humans do. It would mean we aren't just humans again and again—we're also insects being eaten alive, prey animals starving to death, even bacteria living brief, meaningless existences. That sounds more like a horror show than a spiritual system of growth.

The idea of heaven also falls apart under scrutiny. Eternal happiness becomes meaningless if there's nothing to contrast it with. And hell—if it's real—only makes sense if God is cruel beyond comprehension. Eternal punishment for finite sins is completely disproportionate.

That leaves the idea of "nothing at all" after death, which feels like the cleanest explanation. Consciousness is just the result of the brain, so when the brain stops, so does awareness. But as you pointed out, this leads to another mystery—why does anything exist in the first place? If there's no god, no reincarnation, no higher purpose, then how did the universe even come to be? Why is there something rather than nothing? That question has no satisfying answer, and it feels just as disturbing as the idea of an afterlife.

Maybe this is why people latch onto religious or spiritual beliefs—they don't want to face the fact that there's no satisfying answer. But even if we accept that death leads to nothing, it doesn't solve the problem of why anything exists at all. And maybe that's the most unsettling question of all.

 

[Yonlux]

But as you pointed out, this leads to another mystery—why does anything exist in the first place? If there's no god, no reincarnation, no higher purpose, then how did the universe even come to be? Why is there something rather than nothing? That question has no satisfying answer, and it feels just as disturbing as the idea of an afterlife.

But can there "nothing"? No, because in the initial moment that nothing exist so something exist, so is needed there's something.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

But can there "nothing"? No, because in the initial moment that nothing exist so something exist, so is needed there's something.

Do you mean that in order for 'nothing' to exist something has to exist in relation to it? That's a really good point that I probably can't give a good response to (I tried below lol), but to me, the problem is that whether or not there can be a 'nothing' or whether or not we can comprehend what true nothingness is, there is no good explanation for why something (the universe/our reality) exists in the first place, especially if there is no higher power. Maybe there can't be a nothing as we understand it without something, but regardless there definitely shouldn't be a something.

Thinking about the concept of nothing though..
I personally believe there can be a 'nothing' without a 'something', even if we have to define 'nothing' in relation to a 'something' that exists.

We define apples as red because in relation to their surroundings, they usually look more red. We call water-melons watermelons because when compared with most other fruits, they are very watery. We also can measure exactly how much water is in the watermelon, based off of a system of measurements that compares the watermelon's moisture content to another unrelated value. But, even if you took a watermelon out of its natural environment and away from any other fruits or systems of measure that were used to define it, the amount of water inside would still remain the same. We define the watermelon in relation to other fruits and in relation to our own measurements, but when we look at it by itself, its properties would remain the same whether you compare it to something else or not. A normal watermelon purchased from a US supermarket today, as long as it is preserved well, would never be any more or less watery. Even if all other fruits were suddenly exchanged with low cost bioengineered fruit variants that had more water than the watermelon we bought today (like a genetically modified fruit slushi - yummy), and even if we suddenly switched to the metric system (the horror, but thankfully less likely), the moisture content of the watermelon we bought and saved would still be the same, despite everything that was used to define it changing/ ceasing to exist.

We can define nothing solely as the lack of something, but even if there was never something, nothing (in my opinion) would still exist, even if it could not be defined.

Additionally, when there is nothing, you know that the reason there is nothing is because something isnt happening. Something takes more energy, more time, more matter, and infinitely more complex processes to occur, while nothing (in my subjective definition at least) is like a motionless void at 0 degrees kelvin that needs no energy, contains nothing, and is nothing. If god did not exist and there was no meaning to anything in our universe, it would make more sense for there to be some kind of cold motionless void (nothing), because there would be no reason for something to be happening, and that void of nothingness would exist, even if there was never a 'something' that could be used to define it.

 

[oneeyed]

I've always wondered, if we can prove consciousness is a form of energy, then it's never destroyed. It would become a different form of energy. What would that other form be I wonder.

 

[CantDoIt]

Reincarnation is the most likely I think. Given enough time, you will reoccur again unless there's something about your specific set of atoms that makes it different from other atoms in the case of a materialist perspective. If you believe that if you were destroyed and recreated nearly-instantly that the recreated version would not be you, you'd be assigning mystical qualities to your specific atoms which would imply something like panphysicism or dualism (which both posit continuity after death as probable).
In the alternative case, reconstructed awareness would be the same person and if a duplicate of you was created, they would both be you; and then memory divergence would create two "different" subjects immediately.
Since consciousness skips ahead until the moment it starts experiencing again (such as in anesthesia), death is not something the subject experiences Therefore, the subject must skip ahead until qualia continues; the question is whether or not there is an event in the future in which qualia continues. The argument here is that the continuation of the subject must simply be "close enough" for continuation to occur. In this case, the subject's state right before death would likely most closely match the experience of someone "waking up." Essentially, two subjects who are "close to" being unconscious.
Would 'you' become all people waking up, or whose qualia was 'close enough' to yours right before death? The answer would be yes, but memory would start to diverge and create the illusion of separate individuals.
In the case of a "Big Freeze" event in which all sapient life in the universe has died, this could come as a Boltzmann brain.

If you are a dualist, idealist, etc, further arguments for reincarnation emerge. In addition to this, the idea that the mind if primary may fulfill Occam's razor because we can confirm that we have experience; and this is the only thing we can actually confirm. Panphysicism and similar philosophies do not assume that consciousness can arrive from dead or non-living matter while materialism must assume this.

However, I think some aspects of NDEs could be correct given that they described their experience as realer than this reality in the same way we can know and feel that this reality is realer than dreams.