Talk:Eternal oblivion

Dictionary Definition vs the article here
I've looked it up in several dictionaries and none of them have ever said what is stated here. Yet, when the word oblivion is used it does seem to mean in the way the article describe, in the context it is used. I once heard a quote that said "What is the true death?" "The true death is non-existence" "Sounds like oblivion, why would anyone want that?" or this quote "I would choose oblivion to his existence" But, no dictionary has ever defined it as a state of unconscious non-existence, they describe it as "being forgotten" what does being forgotten have to do with being unconscious and non-existent? I don't think those two quotes are talking about someone/something being forgotten at all. The snare (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Eternal oblivion literally means: lack-of-awareness forever. The term is used in philosophy and theories of body/mind. There are other terms used which are virtually interchangable like "permanent non-existence" or "eternal nothingness" etc. Shabidoo | Talk 09:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We/you could make a new word/facet of philosophy to disambiguate this theory.
 * IE: Obliviationism or Oblivianism. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Philosophically Impossible
The article claims that some people find afterlife philosophically impossible, but it fails the acknowledge that equally there are people who believe that oblivion is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.11 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One needs search no further than G. K. Chesterton.


 * Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' ...


 * My notes tell me this comes from The Everlasting Man.  My notes also remark on how Chesterton is so readily willing to presume agency before material existence.  I can almost see the logic of his position if you get agency for free.  &mdash; MaxEnt 18:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oblivion before birth
Just as a Turing machine can have a single-ended infinite tape, or a double-infinite tape (with no end in either direction), one must also consider the Cantoresque topology of oblivion. If oblivion after death is believed to be impossible (by some) does that necessarily mean that such a person also believes that oblivion before birth is impossible? If not, what amazing property of time differentiates the two cases? (Physicists are having a great deal of trouble putting the proper arrow into time.) I think it would be useful to find a citable source to incorporate these issues into this article. It strikes me as odd how people speculate a great deal more about just one end of the tape. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suppose their flawed argument would be that whatever force brought them into the world would have had the seeds or sparks of their soul waiting in storage before they were born and so their pre-existence wasn't oblivion and that for those who believe in no beginning...that their pre-existence was also eternal. I don't remember every reading any arguments like this but it would be great to find one. Do you have access to online journals? I might be able to get you 24 hour access. Shabidoo | Talk 00:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Before you exist, the probability that you exist is essentialy zero, or infinitesimal or probably undecidable. Even worse, the concept of probability probably does not make sense, since you are not picked up from limbo waiting to find a body, but created from scratch in the brain.
 * Since real twins have distinct consciousnesses, it means that you did not become you as a first person at conception, but when the brain developed sufficiently (probably about 6 months after conception?). &mdash; TentaclesTalk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 16:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And how can you be sure it was “zero”, we exist, therefore it can’t be zero. In fact, it can never ever be zero, and it can be even 90 or even 100 if we count parallel realities and the multiverse. You can also see consciousness as a sort of energy, and energy can’t be created nor destroyed. Nothing comes from nothing, meaning that we can’t come from nothing and therefore can’t go into “nothingness” since there is no such thing as nothingness nor even eternal oblivion, and ”eternal” oblivion can’t ever happen again. - Crater123 (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the logical extent of this would be that life and death don’t really exist, and subjective phenomena experienced out of perspective and thus dubbed as permanent? I’ll try to find sources for/against this claim; it would be prudent to add this subject matter to the page with real sources and evidence. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Is an separate article on this subject even necessary? there is basically nothing to write about, which is reflected in the fact that there are no good sources from which someone could write a decent wikipedia entry. The afterlife article is different in that there is obviously a lot to write about - about the various afterlife conceptions for example, and a lot of sources for that.

So i propose that this article be deleted. At best it deserves a mention as a subsection on the afterlife page. - Ironrage (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article certainly does not need deleting. But you are right, we could definitely improve the article and find better references. There have been some articles written on it recently in philosophy journals and this has been treated in some prominent books by philosophers in the last year or so. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

After some searching on the internet, i think i found something. In philosophy the view of "eternal oblivion" actually seems to be called the the termination thesis. There are also books on death that mention it. - Ironrage (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have these articles and I'm trying to find the title of a book by      and most notably a recent book by Samuel Schleffer called Death and the Afterlife. I'll certainly add some material from his book and some snippets from the articles.Shabidoo | Talk 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"and I'm trying to find the title of a book by eISBN: 978-0-7735-9488-3"

If you google that number you get this.

Also, if the actual name for this view of "eternal oblivion" is the 'termination thesis', shouldn't the article be renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fieldman is one of the very few authors who discusses it using that term and he actually argues against it (with some rather silly arguments) claiming for example that as long as the body remains mostly intact we can still consider it, in a sense, as "somewhat a person" or "somewhat an animal". Oblivion is the term widely used by humanist organizations and philosophers. Shabidoo | Talk 21:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "The termination thesis" isn't the same thing as the idea that death is eternal oblivion because you can reject the termination thesis and still think that death is eternal oblivion: "On this view (rejecting the TT), if you and I are animals (as animalists say) then we could survive for a time after we are dead, albeit as corpses. In fact, we could survive indefinitely, by arranging to have our corpses preserved." Obviously you can think that death is eternal oblivion whether our corpses are immediately vaporized by an A-bomb or preserved like Lenin's! Eternal oblivion is usually called annihilation, personal extinction, or pure mortalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:2:114C:D1E6:A336:95B5:4613 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Science can neither prove nor disprove that the cessation of the brain causes cessation of consciousness!
Science might prove that consciousness ceases to exist within the brain, but there's no way to prove (or disprove) that consciousness itself ceases to exist. Here's a relevant analogy. If a glass holding water shatters, water will cease to exist within the glass, but the water itself will shift to other locations (as it spills from the glass).

What's more relevant is the awareness of self, or identity. If consciousness itself has no inherent form (like water or electricity) but can enter a physical body to take a form (as electricity enters an appliance to make the machine work, or water enters a glass which can be served for drinking), can that consciousness retain an integral sense of identity when it leaves the body? Or does that sense of self depend on the occupation of the body where the identity was born? These questions are outside of the realm of science.
 * This sounds like a humerous mix of Aristotle/Aquinas with Deepak Chorpa's quantum love. On one hand you say that what consciousness is...is outside the realm of rational science...and yet you then use a rational argument to explain why consciousness might survive brain death.
 * Science certainly cannot build any theories on what happens to consciousness after brain death...but it can certainly respond to the claims "consciousness survives brain death". It is a completely unfalsifiable claim with absolutely no way to test it. It can also evaluate its relationship to analogous statements like water surviving the breaking of a cup. The analogy is terrible because the relationship between particles of water is virtually random and there are no complex interactions between specific groups of particles that serve a specialised function in "being a quantity ofy water in a glass" nor does any cluster of molecules serve any special function other than "being water". The analogy of "entering a body" like with electricity/water is a flawed one. We have no reason to believe that consciousness enters anything but that it emerges with the growth of the brain during gestation. There is no doubt...on the otherhand...that water enters the body, circulates through the body and then leaves the body. You're comparing a given fact...with some unfounded and totally unfalsifiable counterpart which might possibly in some idealistic metaphysical reality be true...sort of like prayer beams shooting out of your head when you communicate with God or some mystical connection of the minds between two lovers no matter how far apart they are. Science can say a lot about this: noting that the theory is unfounded and unfalsifiable...and critiquing the analogies that are used to justify the possibility of something totally unrelated. Shabidoo | Talk 22:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"In philosophy" section
Modern scholars' reading of classical sources is badly needed in this section. In its current status, the text is just a user's interpretation of these authors, in violation of WP:NOR.--Darius (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Biblical support for oblivion after death
There is biblical support for unconsciousness after death (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,11) and (Psalms146:3,4) unlike the support for afterlife which has no scriptural support. We as Jehovah's Witness,support the belief of unconsciousness after death but death is not necessarily end as the Bible promises resurrection. "5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,*+ where you are going."
 * Here is one scripture: (Ecclesiastes 9;5,6)

"4 His spirit* goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish."
 * Psalm 146:4

I will try to to edit this article because nonreligious people are not the only ones who believe it we as Jehovah's Witness believe to because there is scripture support for it contrary to what (many religions teach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy10038 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If a notable scholar considered reliable has discussed oblivion and religion, an "in religion" section may be appropriate. It's important for the material to be sourced to reliable, ideally secondary, sources.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The afterlife is mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament and is frequently mentioned in the new testament. I read the passages you included here. These two passages could probably fairly be interpreted if one wanted to as a statement of eternal oblivion but I have no doubt most religious people take these statements as an explanation of what happens to the corporeal after death, while the essence or soul lives on in a different way, or whatever argument they might make trying to explain it. On the other hand you can find numerous passages in both testaments that clearly and unambiguously talk about an afterlife. The only religion I know that vaguely hints at maybe no afterlife is Taoism, but the supporting scripture is as shaky as the passages you've copied here and they would have to be interpreted in a very cold, rational, secular way which is hardly the norm. As general knowledge, abrahamic religions and eternal oblivion are completely incompatible but if there is some notable sect that does believe in it that would be extremely interesting. As Neonate said, we would need a proper source to include this if you wouldn't mind linking it. Shabidoo | Talk 21:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Seventh-day Adventists believe much the same way. The dead know not anything. They believe in a resurrection and that a select number will then be taken to heaven, but those who are not allowed into heaven will then die a permanent death, an eternal oblivion. They do not believe in an eternal hell.

ThreeRocks (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism from Eastern Philosophy
In the west, consciousness is regarded as synonymous with mind - thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, perceptions. Therefore when all these activities cease, it is assumed that the-Self or awareness ceases to exist. For this reason, few claim they still exist in dreamless sleep.

But there are irrefutable objections to this claim from Eastern philosophy, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.

First of all, thoughts and images are constantly coming and going, but the experience of knowing or being aware isn't coming and going with them: it remains in the background in order to know the next thought or image. Imagine an image in your mind, and then let it disappear. Notice - you have not ceased to exist along with it. So how can they be who you are? Thoughts and images can be added and removed from you like clothing...

Second, you are aware that you are sitting, eating, drinking, whatever, therefore you are called aware or sentient. But are thoughts and images sentient? Imagine a image in your mind, and ask: "on which side is awareness?" On your side: the experiencer, or on the side of the image: the experienced? The image isn't aware of anything. And soon it will disappear completely. You are aware, thoughts and images are not aware. So how can they be who you are?

Thirdly, the seer can never anything that is seen, it is a contradiction. These various thoughts and images are known or experienced by you. The seer and the seen, the knower and the known, the experiencer and the experienced, can never be the same. It is a contradiction.

I think you get the point. These are 3 examples of "drig drishya viveka", a process of discrimination between the-self and the not-self.

Naturally, when all the activities of the mind stop, so there are no thoughts, no images, no feelings, no sensations, no perceptions - and there is just the irreducible, raw essence of who you are - pure-knowing... well that is my point. There is just pure-knowing. When we leave that blank state of "no-mind" and our thinking or intellect re-engages, then we are able to remember knowing or experiencing blackness, blankness, timelessness, peace and so on...

If we weren't aware in dreamless sleep we would simply haft to answer "I don't know" or remain silent when asked about our experience of dreamless sleep... But we are able to answer "blackness, blankness, timelessness, peace, no thought" and so on, precisely because it was an actual experience we had, and this is quite reasonable.

Rupert Spira, who is a proponent of the Advaita branch of Hinduism, says: "In order to claim the absence of awareness as an actual experience, there would need to be something present in order to have that experience, and that very something would be awareness itself. Therefore such claims confirm the presence of awareness, rather than its absence."

So basically, the criticism of eternal oblivion is simply that it contradicts our own experience. The irreducible, pure-awareness does not cease to exist in dreamless sleep or in any other circumstance. It's based on a mistaken identification of who we are - the mind. Only the mind ever disappears, the-Self never disappears. Not a matter of belief but experience, but it is difficult to see when you have spent your entire life thinking you are the mind or body.

88.105.218.154 (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is word soup. You've used the term "awareness" in such a vague form that it's hard to not only make sense of what you're saying but even harder to refute your statement. In any case "awareness" and "experience" are still emergent properties of the brain which cease the moment your brain stops functioning. The only way you can continue after brain death is through some magical continuation of spirit or some disembodied consciousness beaming around on thought-rays etc. Of which there is zero evidence that is possible (thought what mechanisms?) or that it happens (define any test that could prove or refute this). The only arguments you are left with are religious "faith" arguments which you simply just have to believe for whatever motive you have per believing it. For those uninterested in believing in elaborate spiritual explanations (without evidence) what is left is the logical default "eternal oblivion" until, perhaps one day in the future they are given some reason to see things otherwise. You haven't given irrefutable evidence but an example of a spiritual world view that plays word-games with terms like "awareness". Shabidoo | Talk 14:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only arguments that people who believe in eternal oblivion is that we go into non-existence or nothingness after death, which is something we can’t really known. In fact, eternal oblivion suggests that consciousness “originally” sprang from nothingness and that we will return to that said nothingness. But… that can’t happen because if that’s the case, then eternal oblivion will no longer be “eternal” as a default due us existing and will last 0 seconds, and nothingness is “something” that can’t happen because only nothing spring from nothingness, philosophy, and even science says that energy can’t be created nor destroyed and that nothingness doesn’t exist or even happen. So what happens after death remains unknown (and you should base it under your beliefs to live a better life), eternal oblivion is faaaaaar from logical and is a guarantee that it can’t happen, and even if it did, it wouldn’t be eternal and it itself will end in just 0 seconds after the universe and the world itself rebirths Crater123 (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll make it even less word-soupy:
 * Your mind can’t die forever because forever doesn’t exist, as we’re still living through it.
 * As we’re living through forever, our consciousness must come to fruition again an infinite amount of times because (provided we’re made of matter and energy) we can never be destroyed. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge?
This article seems to have a lot of content and conceptual overlap with Consciousness after death. Should the two be merged? Editor2020 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not for this. They are opposites. Shabidoo | Talk 23:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a very profound theory and is a huge point of contention for all of humanity, it definitely deserves its own page. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Be rational
This article seems to imply that eternal oblivion is just a theory. I'm sorry, but isn't this a scientific fact? I get that this is wikipedia, but come on, be rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9980:1810:1593:1A6C:3407:CDF9 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Nothing about the afterlife (if it exists) can be fact, because it is impossible to test. Couruu (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Even Science claims eternal oblivion to be absurd, what happens after death is untestable and we really don't know till you reach there, but eternal oblivion can be a guarantee that it can't happen because it is implying something sprang from nothing, which is false. Nothing comes from nothing, therefore can't happen, meaning that eternal oblivion can't happen, what happens after death is purely on your beliefs.

Crater123 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

“Eternal oblivion” imaginary depiction is wrong
Granted, the picture does say “could”, however, this is an insert of the self into nothingness, which, as the article states, nothingness and a person will never intersect. It would be no better of a depiction of being deceased than a picture of Saint Peter. I propose that a more befitting depiction would be to remove the image entirely, leaving a blank Wikipedia (admittedly still white) page in its stead or, in a method depicting more clarification, a small sentence or text clarifying that the imagining of death is to imagine the concept of not imagining. 67.214.195.5 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. If no one provides a counterargument soon, we'll go ahead and remove the image. Zoozoor (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)