A Nothing For Each Existence

[Cyperium]

Your genetic disposition does more than that . When you look in the mirror do you see your parents . Do you hear your self saying the same things from time to time . Hand gestures are another one . The way your lips curl when an ice cube is put against them . Kids separated from there parents will have the same gait when they walk . They will think in similar fashions . It is quite remarkable really . I speculate that we have a genetic memory of the past lives of our heritage . So even the stuff you do right now is becoming part of that genetic memory in your kids . An evolutionary process in motion so to speak . So in that I believe you have the ghost of your ancestry in you big time . The dead are part of your very existence by you being a genetic copy of the past with modifications because of evolution being in motion. The Mutant of the Future . Modern Human of 2011

I would think that it might be easier for the brain to "simulate" consciousness of people similar to you, yes. That each is person is a part of me because we come in the same genetic heritage is a belief you have, not necessarily true (why would they be a part of you just because they come from the same heritage?). You haven't stated any indication as to why that would be. You seem to expect us to simply take it for what it is without any leads to or from accepted knowledge.

One of the reasons that I think belief in some sort of afterlife is so common is because once we exist, it's impossible to imagine not existing. It's like trying to imagine absolute nothingness, which isn't anything at all, and as such there's nothing to imagine. So when we think beyond our death, we instinctively reject the absurdity of nothingness. This may be philosophically justifiable if what we imagine is simply the existence of something by virtue of the impossibility of nothingness, but it's far less justifiable when what we imagine is the continuation of both something and our own conscious awareness of it. All one has to do is think in the reverse chronological direction back to a time beyond one's birth to recognize that the nonexistence of one's own conscious awareness is possible. So we must, as rational human beings, be prepared to consider that the absurdity of our own nonexistence is only apparent rather than real.

That's not how I think anymore. I think that we didn't exist before we were born, so if we don't exist when we die then we are simply born again (since nothing has no time and is beyond time and space). Same thing would simply happen the next time you become nothing. Otherwise your life is a lie. Truth must defeat nothing.


Let me tell you this again:

*nothing* life *nothing*

That the other *nothing* is after life doesn't mean a thing, as before/after is irrelevant. *nothing* is outside of time and it doesn't matter what happens before or after. If you were nothing "before" you were born, then you will be born "after" you die - as yourself, living your life again, exactly the same.

You exist where you can and this is exactly where you are. That's where you can exist. That's the truth. If your life would change even a bit that would make your life a lie.

That is logical and true if our current knowledge is correct that we were nothing and becomes nothing after death. This is also a indication that there is a nothing for each existence.

We partially create our own reality. Our other part of reality perception is connected to social learning. The former makes us unique, while the latter helps create a consensus perception of reality. You would not consider the big bang part of reality had you not learned this. But once we all learn it, it becomes part of our collective perception of reality.

Yes, read the other thread I made in "General Philosophy - The Brains Potential To Create Consciousness", it is strongly related to what you suggest here.

We also create our own reality, based on direct data that enters our sensory systems, which is then processed through the filter of our minds. But even these filters are both individual and collective. If you went to school at all or watched TV or internet, your filters are at least partially collective. You would need to isolate and do a memory dump to remove the collective contributions to the filter ,before you could define you own reality or nothingness.

Yes, even though without much knowledge at all we were still conscious to some degree, I have memories that are from when I was a baby and thought that people were holding me too hard when they carried me. I couldn't express it to them which made me frustrated. I was very much conscious of it though, even though memories fade and it can seem that reality was less bright, I assure you that it was as bright as ever. Knowledge doesn't (in my opinion) reinforce consciousness or make it less or more conscious. I think that the idea that our consciousness is based on experiences is greatly flawed, and more a reflection that memory fades than the notion that we were less conscious when we had less experiences. We aren't more unique now than we were then.

 

[Rav]

That's not how I think anymore. I think that we didn't exist before we were born, so if we don't exist when we die then we are simply born again (since nothing has no time and is beyond time and space). Same thing would simply happen the next time you become nothing.

If we're going to speculate wildly, then I guess it's not impossible that at some future time the requisite conditions for the emergence of a particular consciousness experiencing entity (that is, the entity that is attached to one particular stream of life experiences) might exist again. It might be a million years from now, or several hundred billion years from now, or perhaps even after a totally, completely and absolutely unfathomable amount of time, such as a trillion trillion iterations of a potentially cyclical universe. Then again perhaps it could happen much sooner on some other planet in some other galaxy, or even in some other universe if there is such a thing as a multiverse. However it might happen, and however long it might take, I'd agree that the interval would be of no consequence because it wouldn't be perceived.

Having engaged in all that unbridled speculation however, I can still think of reasons why none of it may be the case.

 

[Cyperium]

I had exactly the same reasoning, until I realised that it doesn't have to be in the future. Time has no consequence. Nothing is beyond time (both future and past).

If we get to be *nothing* (as we were before we were born), what will happen is that we are born. Not again because there are no "again" as it is before time.

There might be many different "you" though throughout time and throughout a possible multiverse (or even in the universe) and I guess that this means that you could live at a different place and at a different time if there isn't something very special about your life here and now.

Something that I think is important here, is that *nothing* has no memory, time, sequence of events, or anything at all. It's the reset of all.

 

[scheherazade]

I had exactly the same reasoning, until I realised that it doesn't have to be in the future. Time has no consequence. Nothing is beyond time (both future and past).

If we get to be *nothing* (as we were before we were born), what will happen is that we are born. Not again because there are no "again" as it is before time.

There might be many different "you" though throughout time and throughout a possible multiverse (or even in the universe) and I guess that this means that you could live at a different place and at a different time if there isn't something very special about your life here and now.

Something that I think is important here, is that *nothing* has no memory, time, sequence of events, or anything at all. It's the reset of all.

While we live it is always 'now', though we can recall the succession of 'nows' that form our experience to date, which we call 'memory' and refer to such as being in the past.

We can contemplate on the 'nows' that have not yet transpired and conceptualize more than one course of possible action as a potential future.

As each 'now' passes, it cannot be revisited save by our memory and the future does not exist, only that there is potential for now to continue to occur, at least for a time.

How long each of us may experience 'now' may not be of our own determination. :bugeye:

 

[Emil]

In the past, when I was very active on these forums, I often encountered the argument that each person has their own reality, that there is no "base reality". However, that lead me to a question, that if each person has their own reality/existence, then each person when they seize to exist must also have their own "nothing", in which they don't exist.

Those who support the SR, without them realize, admit that there are multiple reality.
I personally am against and I support the existence of a single reality.
Here, and continuing the discussion here.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I would think that it might be easier for the brain to "simulate" consciousness of people similar to you, yes. That each is person is a part of me because we come in the same genetic heritage is a belief you have, not necessarily true (why would they be a part of you just because they come from the same heritage?). You haven't stated any indication as to why that would be. You seem to expect us to simply take it for what it is without any leads to or from accepted knowledge.



That's not how I think anymore. I think that we didn't exist before we were born, so if we don't exist when we die then we are simply born again (since nothing has no time and is beyond time and space). Same thing would simply happen the next time you become nothing. Otherwise your life is a lie. Truth must defeat nothing.


Let me tell you this again:

*nothing* life *nothing*

That the other *nothing* is after life doesn't mean a thing, as before/after is irrelevant. *nothing* is outside of time and it doesn't matter what happens before or after. If you were nothing "before" you were born, then you will be born "after" you die - as yourself, living your life again, exactly the same.

You exist where you can and this is exactly where you are. That's where you can exist. That's the truth. If your life would change even a bit that would make your life a lie.

That is logical and true if our current knowledge is correct that we were nothing and becomes nothing after death. This is also a indication that there is a nothing for each existence.


Yes, read the other thread I made in "General Philosophy - The Brains Potential To Create Consciousness", it is strongly related to what you suggest here.



Yes, even though without much knowledge at all we were still conscious to some degree, I have memories that are from when I was a baby and thought that people were holding me too hard when they carried me. I couldn't express it to them which made me frustrated. I was very much conscious of it though, even though memories fade and it can seem that reality was less bright, I assure you that it was as bright as ever. Knowledge doesn't (in my opinion) reinforce consciousness or make it less or more conscious. I think that the idea that our consciousness is based on experiences is greatly flawed, and more a reflection that memory fades than the notion that we were less conscious when we had less experiences. We aren't more unique now than we were then.

The hope of the past or the hope of you fathers . I got my own example that is documented . Parents do plan children contrary to modern belief that just got knocked up . Mine is a coincident I can't ignore . If it was just the one I would not think a thing of it , but the last couple years sense I discovered the internet I think the hope of your fathers is pretty accurate. So what was it ? It was Book of genealogy . It had My direct line back to Harmon Greathouse . It was a book on the Stalls or Stahls . There Daughter Mary Magdalene Stall was the Wife of Harmon Greathouse . They took Communion at a church in Baltimore one year a part the date June 13 and then the following year May 3 . I say that was a blessing bestowed on Harmon as my Brother was born June 13 and I was born May 3 . Of all the dates that could of would of been recorded they were not . These 2 were . One more date was recorded so it could all just be a fluke . It is documented though . You can even buy Baileys book on Ebay . Any one that wanted to could verify that . So to Me Me Brothers and My birth was predestined in Harmon . We were cast into Harmon . Which is very screwy to Me cause I was reading the book of Isaiah and it said some shit I found stangy . It has the word harmon in the verse . I tried to find out what it means to no luck . Maybe you know . You think it is reference to Music ? You know anything about linguistics ?

 

[Cyperium]

The longer you go back in the past the more people you are related to. It depends on how many children they had, in the past people had many children to help support them through poor times and each of them also gave rise to new children (with a few exceptions), so the babylonian king might be my ancestor - it doesn't mean that much. All of the current population are relatives to some girl that lived 150000 years ago (mithocondrial eve), and also all of the population are relative to a guy that lived around 60000 years ago (Y-chromosome Adam). All of the other lineages died out except for these two. A significant percent of the asian population is direct ascendents to some king that lived a long time ago, since he had so many children.


Sheherazade:

While we live it is always 'now', though we can recall the succession of 'nows' that form our experience to date, which we call 'memory' and refer to such as being in the past.

We can contemplate on the 'nows' that have not yet transpired and conceptualize more than one course of possible action as a potential future.

As each 'now' passes, it cannot be revisited save by our memory and the future does not exist, only that there is potential for now to continue to occur, at least for a time.

How long each of us may experience 'now' may not be of our own determination.

The idea is that we experience the same now, not revisit it. After all, if we are nothing we are exactly what we were before we were born and time doesn't matter there (or what was before or after anything, it is beyond everything).

 

[Rav]

I had exactly the same reasoning, until I realised that it doesn't have to be in the future. Time has no consequence. Nothing is beyond time (both future and past).

The implication here, whether you mean to make it or not, is that when 'you' cease to exist, so does everything else.

 

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Cyperium.

The idea is that we experience the same now, not revisit it. After all, if we are nothing we are exactly what we were before we were born and time doesn't matter there (or what was before or after anything, it is beyond everything).

We all experience the same 'now', yet it is unique to each of us, in that our locations and conditions vary greatly.

We measure time to suit our purposes, yet it is the same time across the universe simultaneously, IMO.

It is always 'now' everywhere, yet the perspectives will never agree because our biology effectively limits us in our experiencing of such a concept. :bugeye:

 

[SciWriter]

I read about this somewhere (Damacio?)and have summarized it.

IN CONCERT The orchestra assembles in the infant, as the players arrive, section by section. The separate agencies of which the baby is composed have to settle into place and do their tuning up. Nerves need tightening and balancing, pipes clearing, airways opening, as well as whole ranges of tricks and minor routines needing to be practiced and be made right. These subsystems that will someday compose a system have as yet hardly begun to acknowledge one another, let alone to work together for one common purpose. These parts will perform one day in the concert called life’s Magnificat.

Before this composition, the infant has many selves, for there is not yet one experiencer. The conductor now arrives onstage, but he only plays a minor role, providing some reference points that assist with the timing and punctuation of the playing. He does not bind them into one organic unit, for the flow between the players is something else—the very act of making music in which they act together to create a single work of art, participating in the common project. In human and nature life alike these parts will only belong together just in so far as they are involved in the common purpose of creating that instance of life. This unification that arises is not through the conducting power of some supervisory self who emerges from nowhere, but arrives through the power inherent in all the sub-selves, via their own self-organizaion, for it is the nature of these players to play.

The infant’s symphony orchestra tunes up, experimenting with half-formed melodies, to hear how they sound for themselves, and, remarkably, to find and recreate their sound in the larger group sound that is beginning to arise all around. See, now, how several little alliances are forming, the strings are coming into register, and the same is happening with the oboes and the clarinets. See, now, further, how they are joining together across different sections, how larger structures are emerging. You are the dancer and the dance, your movements now being shaped by the sounds of the instruments, your body absorbing and translating everything heard. One cannot make just one dance for the many different tunes, for that would be graceless and chaotic. See how each of the instrument players is watching you, the dancer—looking to find how, within the chaos of these body movements, the dancer is dancing to the player’s own tune, each player wanting the player to be its own, to have the dancer give form to its tune; and, yet, to achieve this, each must take account of all the other influences to which the dancer is responding—how each must accommodate to and join in harmony with the entire group. Now there is but one orchestra in one body of the one dancer, making a single work of art.

 

[Cyperium]

The implication here, whether you mean to make it or not, is that when 'you' cease to exist, so does everything else.

No, there is no such implication that objective time/space should seize to exist (if there are any such objective time and space).

When I seize to exist 'my time' and 'my place' also seizes to exist. There is no sequence of events anymore for me. I could equally well be at the beginning of the universe, and before the beginning of time itself. The objective universe is in existence and is irrelevant to nothingness (which I now am).

Time doesn't move on for me, neither do I exist in a certain place, therefor what happened the last time I was nothing will happen the next time, but there is no last time or next time, it is always the same time. "Last" and "next" are just words so that we can understand it.

 

[Rav]

No, there is no such implication that objective time/space should seize to exist (if there are any such objective time and space).

The implication emerges from your suggestion that you could exist again in the past, rather than the future. But tell me, where exactly is the past? As far as I can deduce, it's not anywhere anymore. All of the constituent elements of any particular previous moment in time have undergone a continuing process of change, and what we call the present is the very latest configuration of those same constituent elements. Here's a very simple illustration:

Example 1:

-------------->
11111122222  [B]2[/B]  333333444444
22334411334  [B]4[/B]  112244112233
34242334141  [B]3[/B]  241412231312
43423243413  [B]1[/B]  424121323121

Example 2:

-------------->
             [B]2[/B]
             [B]4[/B]
             [B]3[/B]
___________  [B]1[/B]  ____________

In the first example, each previous configuration remains. In order to pop out of existence into some timeless abyss of nothingness and reemerge in one of these previous configurations, each configuration would have to have the quality of independent existence from all the others. But more than that, it would have to remain frozen in time. This is inconsistent with the hypothetical multiverse in physics, since although it is said that our universe may branch out into multiple alternate universes at each moment in time, there's no particular reason why time wouldn't continue to flow in the manner in which it normally does in each of these alternate universes. In a nutshell, it would seem that the only way to get back to a previous state in any universe would be to reverse the arrow of time; to effectively 'rewind' it (but even then you've still got the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics getting in your way, which would almost certainly guarantee that the best-case scenario would only be an approximation). A further implication of suggesting that the past still exists, and that one can 'arrive' there (via whatever means), is that necessarily the future must already exist also. This creates all sorts of additional philosophical problems to resolve.

The second example illustrates a universe that undergoes change, but only ever exists in the present (at macroscopic scales, at least). It's much like the crest of a wave, with absolutely nothing in front of or behind it. Note that none of the constituent elements ever disappear, rather they simply always exist in a dynamic state. In my opinion, this is by far the least problematic interpretation of the available evidence. It is in this scenario that popping out of existence into some timeless abyss of nothingness and reemerging 'in the past' is particularly nonsensical.

 

[Enmos]

No, there is no such implication that objective time/space should seize to exist (if there are any such objective time and space).

When I seize to exist 'my time' and 'my place' also seizes to exist. There is no sequence of events anymore for me. I could equally well be at the beginning of the universe, and before the beginning of time itself. The objective universe is in existence and is irrelevant to nothingness (which I now am).

Time doesn't move on for me, neither do I exist in a certain place, therefor what happened the last time I was nothing will happen the next time, but there is no last time or next time, it is always the same time. "Last" and "next" are just words so that we can understand it.

If you believe that 'you' slip into nothingness when you die, then what do you believe is 'you' to begin with?
If I make a pattern in the sand and then erase it, did it slip into nothingness? To me, it's just a reorganization of the sand grains.
Also, I don't think time is of any relevance here.

Edit:

To get back to the point (if you understood what I meant with the previous rant), I exist and I was nothing before, you exist and you were nothing before. If we were the same nothing, then why aren't we the same existence? That said, we must have our own nothing, in order to have our own existence.

You weren't nothing before, 'you' were just 'organized' differently.

 

[Cyperium]

Rav: I've read and understand the point of your post although it isn't quoted here.

It doesn't really matter how the universe is configured, as I'm not at a certain place or time (there isn't a certain moment where my nothing is at), it is the same nothing that I were in before I was born and where or when I was when I died is irrelevant as that applies to existence and doesn't apply to nothing. Naturally, if it is the same nothing then the consequence will be the same, which is that I am born. We only know about this consequence because we live right now. If it isn't the same consequence then I don't see how my life could be true, then the universe must have changed while I was nothing (and it must have done so the last time too - even if it is the same time), but nothing has no change, unless it means that I exist.



Enmos: It isn't the parts of my body that seizes to exist, it is the configuration, this configuration is what made me exist as myself, as otherwise my body would just be like any lump of matter and wouldn't be my body anymore. My body is only my body because I can exist there. If it was arranged in a way that someone else existed there or if it was arranged in a way that no one exists there (becomes dirt, for example) then it isn't my body anymore and I have seized to exist. My mind is what makes me exist, not my body, if my body can't support my mind then I can't exist (or if it supported any other mind).

 

[Enmos]

Enmos: It isn't the parts of my body that seizes to exist, it is the configuration, this configuration is what made me exist as myself, as otherwise my body would just be like any lump of matter and wouldn't be my body anymore.
My body is only my body because I can exist there. If it was arranged in a way that someone else existed there or if it was arranged in a way that no one exists there (becomes dirt, for example) then it isn't my body anymore and I have seized to exist.

It is a lump of matter right now. I think your sense of self is misplaced here. It is only an illusion. If they would clone you 10 times, all of your clones would think they have a unique 'selveness'.

My mind is what makes me exist, not my body, if my body can't support my mind then I can't exist (or if it supported any other mind).

That is a contradiction. Your mind is a product of your brain (which is a part of your body). Ultimately it is your physical body that makes 'you' exist. 'You' is like the pattern I drew in the sand.

 

[Rav]

then the universe must have changed while I was nothing (and it must have done so the last time too - even if it is the same time), but nothing has no change, unless it means that I exist.

Why do you think it's problematic that the universe might continue to go about it's business even if you don't exist? Shouldn't that in fact be the default premise for anyone who accepts that there is an external world that exists independently of our own experience (or lack thereof) of it?

Think of it this way. Tomorrow, thousands of people will die. In fact according to one source that google just provided me with, it will probably be somewhere around 150,000. But in spite of that fact, I would imagine that you believe that the universe will continue to unfold, and that you will continue about your business. Those 150,000 (or so) people might indeed enter into some timeless void, and if they do indeed reemerge, how do you justify your assertion that it could happen in our past?

 

[Yazata]

In the past, when I was very active on these forums, I often encountered the argument that each person has their own reality, that there is no "base reality".

I've heard lots of people say that. It's kind of a common-place among a certain kind of philosopher. Thomas Kuhn argued for it with his "paradigms", for example.

After all these years, I'm still undecided whether the assertion is meant metaphorically or literally. People adamantly insist that the idea is NOT merely that different people interpret and describe the same world in different ways. (That's kind of trivial.) But if the stronger assertion really is that we do literally occupy different realities, then how do we avoid all kinds of philosophical difficulties, including solipsism?

How is it that Christians and Muslims can argue with each other at all, or Newtonians or Einsteinians, if they literally occupy different universes? Do the different universes interact and communicate in some mysterious way? How do people with different religious or scientific ideas manage to work for the same employer, cheer for the same sports team or drink in the same bar?

However, that lead me to a question, that if each person has their own reality/existence, then each person when they seize to exist must also have their own "nothing", in which they don't exist. Cause, and bare with me on this cause it is kind of difficult to explain, if that isn't so, then how can someone start to exist? To start to exist, like we did when we were born, that is to make the nothing we were to the something that we are.

Presumably our births didn't consist of reality just popping into existence from out of nothing. We were conceived by our parents having sex (yep, it's true) and our mothers were pregnant with us for approximately nine months before spewing us forth. There was a whole world, a whole universe, happily ticking along and doing its thing before we ever showed up.

In other words, in the realist scheme, we are embedded inside something that's larger than we are, something that isn't ultimately just us and our own psychological states. The causes that account for us are found in the prior states of that larger universe.

But it's true that modern post-Cartesian philosophy has assigned itself the (probably hopeless) task of someow constructing the rest of the universe from the contents of an individual's own subjective experience. Seen from that fundamentally subjective (and seemingly solipsistic) perspective in which 'to be is to be perceived', a problem like yours does seem to arise. My personal experience only extends back so far and no further. So it would seem that the/my universe (the world I construct) couldn't have had any existence before my own personal birth when my experience commenced.

'Nothing' is certainly one of the conceptual contents of my own private world, in the sense that it's a word that I use that seems to have some (negative) meaning for me. So does my use of 'nothing' in my world only apply inside my own world? Is 'nothing' just another content of my own personal subjective thought-world, or is it a larger and more objective matrix in which all subjective worlds exist and out of which they arise?

When it comes to individuating 'nothings', I'm out of my depth and start to sense the presence of serious logical difficulties. What's more, I start to suspect that the whole thing might be some kind of pseudo-problem, a difficulty that's being generated by how we choose to conceive of things.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

The longer you go back in the past the more people you are related to. It depends on how many children they had, in the past people had many children to help support them through poor times and each of them also gave rise to new children (with a few exceptions), so the babylonian king might be my ancestor - it doesn't mean that much. All of the current population are relatives to some girl that lived 150000 years ago (mithocondrial eve), and also all of the population are relative to a guy that lived around 60000 years ago (Y-chromosome Adam). All of the other lineages died out except for these two. A significant percent of the asian population is direct ascendents to some king that lived a long time ago, since he had so many children.


Sheherazade:
The idea is that we experience the same now, not revisit it. After all, if we are nothing we are exactly what we were before we were born and time doesn't matter there (or what was before or after anything, it is beyond everything).

Genghis Khan is who your talking about and it is said that 25% of all Chinese are related to Him . He had a boat load of Women in his life . That would be if 4 people in a room in china there is a good chance one is related to Genghis . I wonder how many people are related to Charlemagne? I don't think I am , but Clovis is a different story . Yeah I seen the split of the Family when researching Me Ridgely Genealogy . Funny how those recorded are recorded in history . Now with the information age with everybody being front and center you can trace histories of individuals real good . Like Maurice Strong . I traced his linage once . Don't remember the details , but rest assured it reveals why he is like he is . His history reveals the monster in him . I think this could be true of anyone . Well maybe not . Some people have bigger microscopes on them than others . Public Spectacles .

The past is not gone for you that think it is . No not even . Ghosts from the Past haunt . Don't believe Me ? Look at the Ideology of Christianity . That Jesus haunts big time still . We rely on the past and build on the past . Easy concept don't you think . You go to school and learn about the things dead people thought up . They haunt you to learn what has been left for you like a gift from the past .
There is that Tribe in South America that S.A.M. introduced use to that live in the now . They are the exception . Very unique culture . I was totally blown away by there culture . Apparently they have no god conception , but they do have spirit conception . Animal spirit I think .

 

[C C]

To get back to the point (if you understood what I meant with the previous rant), I exist and I was nothing before, you exist and you were nothing before. If we were the same nothing, then why aren't we the same existence? That said, we must have our own nothing, in order to have our own existence.

How this manner of extinctivism is arrived at: Matter/energy is considered normally non-experiential and does not manifest as anything to itself. Therefore, pre-development and death of a biological brain equals an encounter with the absence of everything.

But complete absence would seem to be the same absence common to all dead and pre-living humans, regardless. That is, there would be no information presented to make one person's "nothing" distinct from another person's "nothing". So any subjective constructivism of reality grounded in this manner of extinctivism seems to collapse, and indicate that the "many" engaging in such individual realities would actually be the illusionary product of a "one" that underlies them all (the absence).

 

[universaldistress]

Consciousness is merely a building. The building is made of blocks that once they, have the roof on say, become water-tight. Before the consciousness has developed to the point of awareness it is merely building blocks.

When death comes the consciouness that is subject of the physical brain ceases to exist. Whether anything continues after this, like some kind of quantum imprint, is at present undetectable and therefore pure conjecture.