Time is one axis of an infinite continuum. It is no more reasonable to fixate upon our finiteness along the axis of time than it is to fixate upon our finiteness within the three dimensions. Just because a particular person does not exist on Jupiter does not mean that that person does not personally exist, in a meaningful manner, here on Earth. And similarly, just because a particular person will not exist at some point in the future does not change the fact that they exist, meaningfully, in the present moment. Finally (and conversely), just because a person who used to exist does not exist in the present moment does not change the fact that they did exist, meaningfully, in the past.

Those who imagine an afterlife are typically imagining an existence that is still finite, but somehow extended along the axis of time past the horizon of death. Indeed, if this imagined existence were not finite, then it would be the same as the All, as universal Existence, and in that case this imagined expansion of individual existence to the level of the Infinite would lose all personal meaning and become a simple merging with the All. In which case, we would only be saying that the All encompasses all time, while finite beings such as ourselves are limited in time, just as we are limited spatially; this, of course, is trivially obvious, and thus is devoid of philosophical interest.

From a philosophical standpoint, this renders the question of whether there is an afterlife somewhat moot. So long as we are finite beings, it is of little fundamental interest whether there is some part of our existence that extends beyond the domain that is evident to our senses. Perhaps we have a soul that staggers on after we lose our physical form, or perhaps we have an "aura," an energy field of some kind, that extends beyond our apparent physical boundaries. The presence of such an aura would not change anything from a philosophical standpoint, any more than if we ate excessively and extended our physical boundaries in that manner. And the presence of an invisible continuation of our personal self beyond our evident time frame would also not change anything at all from a philosophical perspective. In both cases, we would still be finite beings; our extent would merely be larger or longer.

It is, however, of some interest to ask why people have this fascination with transcending our temporal limitations. To some extent, I believe that this is wishful thinking, because we constantly strive, as we must, against annihilation, even though that struggle is ultimately doomed to failure. However, there is also immanence - the representation of the large, including the Infinite, within the small, including ourselves. This immanent representation of the Infinite within each of us may be the reason that we believe there is some part of us that can transcend our temporal limits. However, the notion that we simply persist linearly in time beyond our physical demise is a trivialization of this immanence - a reduction of the "good Infinite" resulting from our reflection of the universal quality of cooperative diversity to a "bad infinite" of endless simple extension.

ANOTHER ARTICLE TO PERUSE: a regular at the philosophy group, Rimas, sent me an interesting reading on the issue. If you want a good "argument from neuroscience" against the existence of the soul, read sections 1 and 2 of this article, www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

It's a long article; sections 1 and 2 alone are about 20 pages, but it is fast reading and you can definitely get the main ideas by skimming it or reading only part of it. It's worth looking at.

[Typographical note: This website does not accommodate italicization, for which I will substitute CAPITALIZATION.]

Following is my view on life after death. Preliminarily, we must define the entity that is supposed to survive (the issue addressed by the concept of the soul). As I see it, that entity, the individual’s quintessence, is consciousness, bare sentience, sans mental equipment, like memory and thought (which may decline or end in a creature, though he remains the same individual).

I believe that afterlife is logically possible (we came once, we could theoretically come again), but unlikely. Heaven and Hell is pure fantasy. Less easy to dismiss is reincarnation, an individual’s continuing, perhaps endlessly, by successive rebirth in other organisms, most often envisioned occurring between humans. While it cannot be disproved (or proved—if it happened, no one, not even the subject, would know it); I disbelieve in reincarnation as well, for this reason.

The number of potential awarenesses that have never come into actual being is infinitely times as great as the number which have previously lived, even if the latter number is itself infinite (it is the contrast between the actual and the possible, the possible being infinitely more vast than the actual, even if the actual is infinite). Thus, when an organism is about to be born, it is infinitely more likely that the consciousness that will come to life in it will be drawn from among those which have not theretofore been realized than from among those which have already existed (because the first category is infinitely greater than the second). And so the likelihood that ANYONE will EVER have another life, is infinitesimal—theoretically possible, practically impossible.

On the bright side, rejoice!; for if you ever DID reappear, it is overwhelmingly (though finitely) probable that you would come back, not as a man (let alone a great one), or even as a lion, but rather as a mouse or a flea, because they far outnumber higher animals . . . assuming the distribution of life forms on Earth typifies that throughout the cosmos. More to the point, life, even human life, is, on balance, wretched. Ironically, there may be justice, and mercy, not in the existence of some resurrection everlasting, but in EVERYONE’S life, its joy and its misery, being finite.

– Richard J. Eisner (8/29/2009; 1-818-343-0123; richard@richardeisner.com)