On the Thought of Subjective Perception of Death Within The Constraints of Consciousness.
Using the amazing website that is “stumbleupon”, I must say I’ve found quite the collection of artwork, random quotes, and silly cat pictures, but nothing has ever captured my attention like the essay written by a mister Bard Canning. I have to wonder if that’s his real name or a twist on the “Cannon Bard” theories of emotion. The following is a mere excerpt, not fairly representing the piece as a whole, but representative of the part that captured my attention most closely, existentialism as analogous to musical progression. I do however, very STRONGLY urge you to read the entire essay. It will take but 10 or 15 minutes. His concepts of philosophical reasoning are eye opening. My response follows.
Hold That Thought
“Music is what feelings sound like.”
A thought cannot fully exist within any one moment in time. If it could then you could cryogenically freeze someone’s brain, halting the electrons and chemicals in that moment, and the person would be stuck forever thinking the same thought.
A thought does not exist at a fixed point in time; rather it exists in the transition between points.
It’s rather similar to music. A piece of music is not the notes on the page; rather it is the journey from one note to another that creates the song.
So are our thoughts created in the journey between moments in time.
Pause or End Game?
“You are the music while the music lasts.”
If our consciousness is a chain of connected thoughts, like a string of musical notes, then the concept of death describes a chain of thought that is no longer continuing.
No pain can be felt, no disappointment, nothing.
“Nothing” is nothing, so it cannot exist, and so therefore neither can “death”.
Something can only be said to have ended when it will never continue.
In regards to our consciousness, death is more like a very long pause rather than The End.
Thank You, Come Again
In an infinite universe anything is possible and everything is inevitable. There is every chance that your chain of thought may be continued again somewhere, sometime, in the infinite possibilities of time and space.
It’s true that the atoms will have changed, but take a look at your own body. In the last few years almost every atom has changed within it too. Who you were then no longer exists. They could be seen as “dead”. You are a copy of that body, gradually constructed bit by bit around the old one using the proteins and enzymes that you have consumed (you are what you eat, as they say.) Therefore, if by random chance your final thought pattern was reconstructed a trillion years from now in another place, who is to say that this would not be you? You would not feel that any time had passed at all.
Again, if you haven’t done so. READ THE WHOLE ESSAY. The excerpt is unrepresentative of the entire piece, but the part that stuck out to me the most. My response is as such. Although I agree with his overall concepts, I believe there are unaddressed enthymemes regarding the concepts of what is the finite and what is the infinite. If neither can be truly perceived is there a such concept as the infinitely finite? Perhaps it is my naivety and youthful nature that has distracted my sense of clarity in reason, but perhaps the context of a spiritual plane is what is truly in question. Canning’s points are practically inarguable to the most zealous religious critic, but is it reasonable to say that there is always a bigger plane surrounding (perhaps encompassing in a way that surpasses perception) every smaller plane? For example, in a matrix-type scenario, everyone’s life is a computer simulation, but in what context is that computer simulation existing besides in what is referred to as a “god consciousness” by Canning. What is the context of that consciousness? It can not be nothing, as nothing cannot be perceived outside the scope of both objective and subjective consciousness. What is the meaning of this blog within the scope of an entire “spiritual plane” of existence only within the restraints(?) of perception? The meaning is subjective. In searching for the answers to this, I wrote to mister Canning, to which he promptly replied. Cogito, Ergo Sum. I think, therefore I am. It appears I need to do a bit of research on the concept that is a qualia. Perhaps more philosophical than psychological, but perhaps one in the same. I look forward to what I find.
Love. Love is subjective. But also an objective interaction of matter. A bond formed on interpreting one’s perceptions as a feeling incapable of perception by others, with hope that the feeling one feels is similar or equal to the feeling formed by the subjective perceptions of another individual. Love is putting a perception of hope into an objective physical occurrence, in which one perceives the validity of another’s subjective conscious interpretation based on patterns and analogous mirrors of human assumptions.
And I leave on this series of notes.