On death

The problems we observe with society are not truly "problems" unless we feel that there is some significance to the trouble which they inflict. If we are to discard the notion of the "self" and regard ourselves as inconsequential collections of organic molecules in an inconsequential universe, then the problems we cite would not truly be problems at all. Indeed, no "problem" would, in fact, exist. They would simply be other inconsequential physical occurrences. Even if our "problem" was the imminent annihilation of every last organic molecule in the universe, it would still not be a significant issue, assuming we perceived ourselves as collections of organic molecules. For, who says that the purpose of organic molecules is to preserve themselves? There is no purpose to the universe, only random interactions governed by physical laws, the source of which being irrelevant.

I believe this fact completely justifies setting limits on neuromodulation. For if there were no limits set, then this means we would perceive ourselves as collections of organic molecules. But if this were true, there would be no justification for developing neurotechnology, for there would be no problems in the first place. Though we truly are a collection of organic molecules which can “understand” themselves, and though this view of the universe (which may be called “nihilism”) is absolutely true, we must keep in mind that this “understanding” does not last an infinitely long time. These humanoid molecular clusters have devised a clever solution, namely writing, to preserve these understandings for a theoretically infinite time, but not within the same individual molecular cluster, of course. If the human has only a limited time to be cognizant organic molecules, but an infinite time to simply exist as organic molecules which cannot understand themselves (i.e., before birth and after death), then I am in favor of regarding our "selves" as dissociated from our brain during life, albeit to a limited extent. Again, we should do so for no reason other than arbitrary preference.

(These words make us uncomfortable, mostly because of our fear of becoming a collection of organic molecules which is not conscious and which cannot understand itself – that is, our fear of death. My digression holds a purpose, however. Now that we have established why we ought to impose limitations on absolute control over human behavior, the discussion gains substance beyond cheap solutions to the society’s problems.)

Mortality is our greatest fear, just as it was programmed to be by evolution, because it is the source of all other fears. But how do we console ourselves of this fear? One approach has obviously been the invention of religion and the afterlife — a denial of the truth, a blatant fabrication without a hint of evidence which, because of its basis in lies, introduces immense troubles for the presentlife. We should no longer resort to such short-term solutions as religion now that we have science. We should completely embrace the truth and now dissolve the differentiation between brain and "self." But how else can we console ourselves of this fear of death?

I expect that to die is equivalent to simply lose consciousness. When we lose consciousness, our bodily processes do not necessarily stop, but we are not aware of whether they are "on" or "off" anyway. Likewise, when we die, our bodily processes stop, but we are not "aware" of this because we are not "aware" of anything at all.  Some animals are not "aware" of anything ever. Those collections of organics (such as cats and dogs, as far as we yet know) lack the neural complexity to possess consciousness and conscious thought, at least to the extent of the human. They are neither aware that they exist, nor of "who" they "are," nor of what happened yesterday, nor of what is going to happen tomorrow. They are driven entirely by the primitive urges and aversions which our consciousness as humans allows us to control. Animals are already collections of organic molecules which cannot understand themselves.

We can think of dying like "becoming" an animal. When we die, we lose consciousness. Animals never had consciousness. So, when we die, we may very well be an animal, as far as our "consciousness" can tell. There is nothing when we die. There is not even "black" or "darkness," because those words are human perceptions, and we must be alive in order to perceive, and conscious in order to label. You are simply gone. It is possible, and even likely, that the "self" of an animal — how it perceives itself and how it thinks — is well-characterized by this vacuous notion of death.

I am not asserting a belief in reincarnation, as that would imply the transfer of a soul that does not exist. Instead, I am proposing a way to console our fear of death. We can understand that dying is equivalent to becoming some collection of organic molecules that lacks consciousness. Whether we "become" an animal or a corpse is irrelevant, because we lack consciousness in either case all the same.