Could Separateness and Death Be Illusions

[TylerVo]

Introduction


In this dissertation, I argue that everything living and nonliving is conscious but only one consciousness can be experienced at a time thereby creating the illusion of separateness.

This project also challenges the instinctive assumption that the only logical outcome after death is nothing. I discuss the equal possibility that when living things die they are instantly conscious again as other living beings without any memories after a seemingly infinite amount of time passes. The living beings they can become have varying levels of consciousness and can be at any point in time at any point in the universe or beyond. When a living being dies it is possible that the energy of that living being turns into random things such as grass-these things expire until eventually the energy transforms to something with a high level of consciousness and awareness like mammals. This process repeats until the energy transforms to something with the highest level of consciousness. This hypothesis suggests that death could be an illusion.

If my conclusion is correct, that separateness and death are illusions then all lifetimes and point of views from things, living and nonliving are never-ending processes that loop for all of eternity. The set of all these lifetimes and perspectives are equal to everything.

I. The Argument
a. Separateness is an illusion
b. Everything is god
c. Death is an illusion

II. Evidence supporting my hypothesis
a. Mathematical probability
i. What can happen once can happen again
ii. Unlimited tries means eventual success
b. Law of conservation of energy
c. Parallel universes and many worlds
d. Cyclic universe model
e. Stories of past lives
f. Illusory everywhere we look
g. Cycles everywhere
h. Unequal distribution of Luck

III. Why the argument is never taken seriously
a. Lack of creativity and cultural influence
b. False dilemma that only two answers exist
c. Wishful thinking
i. Ignorance is bliss
ii. We feel secure when we feel lucky
d. Assumption that I am talking about reincarnation

IV. Possible implications of my argument
a. Unbounded Morality – The most important goal of our species
i. Follow the golden rule
ii. Torture
iii. Death penalty
b. Fear of death is rational
i. We should achieve immortality
c. Recursive consciousness is not good

V. Refutations
a. Other Arguments
i. Separateness is real
ii. The same life repeats
iii. We are living in a perfect simulated reality
iv. We are living in a universe where god exists and is separate from us
vi. Time just goes backwards
vii. Something else

VI. Conclusion

The Argument

Separateness is an illusion

Every consciousness is part of a main consciousness. This main consciousness is the set of all point of views and lifetimes of everything living, and nonliving. This main consciousness also includes lifetimes where nothing happens and nothing is perceived. For example, a rock is conscious but the rock cannot have an experience. But since the main consciousness also consists of lifetimes where something does happen, lifetimes where nothing happen cannot be experienced. We cannot experience the point of view of the rock because we are also experiencing the point of view of all living beings at the same time. All of us are the main consciousness so we are the happening and the not happening. When the not happening happens the happening does. This might explain why there is something rather than nothing.

In order to better understand this concept of a main consciousness imagine a deck of cards. A deck of cards resembles the main consciousness while all the cards in a deck resemble parts of the main consciousness. But only one part of the main consciousness can be experienced at a time. We can only look at one card in the deck at a time. To experience the main consciousness would mean experiencing the consciousness of every being at the same time which is impossible. Thus we only experience one part of the main consciousness at a time. If we can experience a part of the main consciousness where something happens we can never experience a part of the main consciousness where nothing happens. In essence, we are nothing and something at the same time. Because we are something we can never experience that nothing part of ourselves. When we are nothing we experience something. When we are something we experience something. We can only see through one point of view at a time. For example, I cannot experience a life where I am poor and rich at the same time. Even though I am both rich, poor, and everything between I can only experience one state at a time. Separateness is an illusion because we are always a part of a main consciousness. If we are not one particular part of the main consciousness we will always be any of the other remaining parts. Anytime we do not look at one particular card in the deck we will always be looking at another card in the deck instead.

We are all god

Humans have wondered for a long time whether a god exists. But all along, everything living and nonliving may be god. God is defined as a being that creates everything. If we are everything then we create everything. By being conscious we create everything around us. So then all of us including everything there is that we can perceive is god.

Death is an illusion

Since the dawn of time we have always assumed that birth is the start and death is the end. But if my hypothesis is right that our consciousness shifts to another consciousness when we die then there is no such thing as death and it may be time that we change that assumption. Birth and death may both result in existence. Suppose there is a line from point A to B. Point A is life. Point B is death. After we die our consciousness shifts to another consciousness. So instead of going from point A to B (Life to death) we are just between A and B forever. Both life and death leads to any point between A and B but never A and B.

Evidence Supporting My Hypothesis


Mathematical Probability


i. What can happen once can happen again

All it takes to claim that it is possible for us to be conscious again after death is the fact that we are conscious now. Suppose there is a bag containing marbles and we do not know what color the marbles are. We pull a marble out of the bag and it is blue. From this event, we can infer that the next marble we pull out of the bag has a higher probability of being blue. The same can be said of consciousness. When we were born we pulled consciousness out of a bag. When we die we will pull something else out of the bag but we do not know what it is. But we can certainly guess that it might be consciousness again because we have already pulled it out once. To claim that the next thing that we pull out of the bag will definitely be unconsciousness (there is nothing after death) would be special pleading because we ignore the evidence that we already pulled consciousness out of the bag. We can claim that it is possible that the next thing we pull out might be unconsciousness but we cannot say that we will pull out unconsciousness. It is definitely possible that any other marble we pull out of the bag can be a different color from blue but we cannot ignore the fact that we already pulled a blue marble out and that it makes more sense to assume that we will pull out a blue marble. We were born once as a random being without memories so it is possible for us to be conscious again as any random being without memories after death. We can infer from this illusion of separateness that death is also an illusion. I would even go so far as to argue that there is a higher probability that we will be conscious again after we die than not because the fact that we are living proves that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can be conscious but nothing proves that it is beyond shadow of a doubt that we cannot be conscious. There is no evidence that we were not conscious before we were born. The only physical evidence is the first thing we pulled out of the bag.

ii. Unlimited tries means eventual success

We also have to realize that it may not just be one marble that we will pull out of the bag. After we die an infinite amount of time passes and within that infinite amount of time anything is possible. The amount of time that passes after we die also determines the number of marbles that we pull out of the bag after we die. The more time that passes after we die the more marbles we pull out of the bag and the higher probability that we will get a blue marble. A near infinite amount of time passes after we die so we will pull out a near infinite number of marbles and eventually one will be blue (The event that we experience the point of view of a different living being somewhere in the universe.) If there is enough time for something to happen it will eventually happen. If someone throws enough darts at a dartboard eventually they will hit a bullseye.

Law of Conservation of Energy


The law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; only transferred. When we die our energy may still be there but just not in a form of consciousness. However there is a potential for that energy to turn into something else or transfer to a different carrier. Consider how when we break things they turn into other things but never completely disappear. If I smash a vase, it still exists in a different form. It turns into pieces. It does not matter if I dissolve the pieces of the vase in acid. The dissolved matter is still there. If I send the matter into space, the matter is still somewhere out there. But that does not mean the matter cannot be put back together to form a vase again. Any conscious being out there, assuming extraterrestrials exist who manages to find all the pieces could still recreate the same vase with the same exact properties. The same can be said of consciousness. When we die our energy may turn into a different form somewhere out there but that does not mean it cannot be put back together to form our consciousness again. This is especially true considering how much there is out there and how much time passes after we die. If enough time passes somehow eventually this energy is bound to form our consciousness again. Consciousness cannot be created or destroyed. It only turns to a different form once in a while and eventually transforms back into a state that can be experienced.

Parallel Universes and Many Words Theory

Many scientists think that multiple big bangs can happen causing multiple universes to form in a larger multiverse. All things that are possible happen in an infinite number of parallel universes. In this universe I am writing this but in another universe I am doing something else. Every universe contains a different version of me and you doing something else at a different point in time. This theory supports my hypothesis that there are infinite lifetimes in which an infinite combination of events can happen and after we die we experience one of these lifetimes.

Cyclic Universe Model


The cyclic universe theory suggests that the universe has been contracting and expanding forever. If this theory is true it would also support my hypothesis that we are instantly born again as a different being without the same memories after death. While we are dead the universe fully expands and contracts as we are unaware of it. This event is instant as we do not experience the passing of time while we are dead. The next thing we know after we die is we are conscious again as a different being with a fresh start. If the universe can expand again from nothing then it has no definite end or beginning. So it makes sense that consciousness never ends either. So death may lead to any point between A and B but never A and B.

Stories of people remembering past lives

There are many fascinating stories of people who claim to have lived past lives. While it is true that anybody can claim to live a past life, I find it hard to believe that all of these stories are made up. Some of these people have recalled past events with remarkable accuracy. There is just no way some of these stories were made up.

Illusory everywhere we look

Everywhere we look we see cleverly concealed illusions. Everyone once believed the earth was flat but now we know that the earth is spherical. It is also looking more likely that free will is an illusion. If all these things are an illusion then it is reasonable to believe that everything is an illusion. And if everything is an illusion then we can also infer that consciousness is also an illusion as well because the consciousness is part of everything. It appears that everywhere we look there is another illusion.

Cycles everywhere

The rain is a cycle that never ends. The law of conservation of matter is a cycle. Life and death is a cycle. This pattern suggests that consciousness may also a cycle.

Unequal distribution of luck

There is a ring of logic to the question “I could have easily been born as this person so why am I not this person but who I am?” Consider this: Out of all odds you were born in a small rural town in the east coast of one part of the United States without any birth defects, in the information age, have access to clean water, and everything under the sun. But out of all odds another poor soul was born in an impoverished third world country. This person has no access to modern technology, no clean water, and basically has nothing to live for. Why were you not born as that person? It could just be that you were lucky but were you really? Why were you not one of those poor Jews who had to live through the Holocaust? It does not make sense that you get to be this one lucky person who never has to suffer out of the trillions of living beings that constantly suffer. Maybe nobody is luckier than anybody else. There is something illogical about the idea that some have to suffer while others do not at all. One should not get to live a life without suffering and cease to exist forever while others have to live a miserable life full of suffering and cease to exist forever. Equal distribution of suffering makes more sense than unequal distribution of suffering. This idea that we will eventually experience every consciousness means that an equal distribution of suffering exists and that makes a lot more sense to me.

Why the Argument Is Never Taken Seriously


Based on my observations not too many people come up with this argument. And whenever I bring up this argument, I often get told that I have no evidence for my claims. Many atheists get disturbed and slam me with a “You only want to believe this because you do not want there to be nothing after death”. However, what they do not understand is that I am making a serious argument with good logic supporting it and that my argument has an equal if not better chance of being right than the argument that there is nothing after death. Another assumption many atheists make is that I want to be right and that is why I am making my argument. That assumption is patently false as my argument is a legitimate one with real evidence. The burden of proof is on them to prove why nothing after death is the only logical outcome.

Furthermore, I want quite the opposite. I would prefer to be wrong. I think nothing is the best experience there is. An existence where there is nothing is an existence where suffering is impossible. Every conscious being will at some point in their lives feel suffering to some degree. But if they were never conscious this inevitability would not exist. Speaking for myself, nonexistence after death is better than some existence after death. Having to be or do is an endless obligation. Having to be also means having to be a slave to suffering.

Lack of Creativity and Cultural Influence

It is easy to accept old ideas and not accept things that are new. For so long we have thought every consciousness is separate. We grew up assuming that others are separate from us. So if someone comes up with the idea that separateness is an illusion and everyone is really the same person then the idea is immediately rejected. When someone comes up with an idea that challenges the status quo it is looked upon as odd. There is this lack of creativity and willingness to be open to new ideas that differ from old ideas. But those with more creative minds are capable of seeing and accepting things that differ from the status quo. They are more open to possibilities beyond the two in the culture and environment they grow up in. They are more likely to wonder “What if there is a middle?” or “What if everyone is me?” Thus if somehow anybody manages to come up with the argument they never take it seriously. I think everyone is the same person but wait that is impossible because all my life everyone seems so separate from me.

False Dichotomy

For so long there have been two sides on the debate: theists believe that death leads to something else and atheists believe that death is the end. The problem I find is that if someone makes an argument claiming something other than nothing after death then atheists never take that person seriously. It is “Oh you believe in something after death therefore anything else you say can’t make sense”. What is happening is clear. Atheists are falling for the false dichotomy that if someone believes in anything after death then they are automatically a theist. The biggest misconception that atheists have about death is that the only thing possible after death is nothingness. This is considered the default position because the false dichotomy that there are only two positions on death was strongly regurgitated throughout their lives. If you are an atheist death is the end. If you are religious death is not the end. It is either nothing or you are wrong. The hazard of this black and white thinking is that what truly happens after death, what consciousness really is, and the true nature of the universe will never be understood.

Wishful thinking and Denial


Then there is wishful thinking. Many would rather avoid discussing the possibility that life never ends because it makes them feel uneasy or uncomfortable. Everyone finds comfort in knowing that they will rest in eternal peace and that there is no chance of the continuation of suffering. Despite the clear logical basis for my argument, it is often rejected without any consideration because many would rather trick themselves into believing something more comforting. They are using this denial as a coping mechanism. But if there is any chance of solving the recursive consciousness problem then we must learn to accept that this reality exists. Coping with the reality that it exists may be the only way to solve its limitations. It has been proven many times that anytime we wish for something to be true it never is. We find comfort when we feel ignorant and lucky. But when we step out of our comfort zone we make progress.

i. Ignorance is bliss

We always found comfort in knowing that earth was flat. Life was completely devoid of uncertainty when we believed that earth was flat and there was nothing out there that could threaten our existence. Then we learned that earth is not flat, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that there are more planets like ours that do. But we still found security in knowing that our intelligence was unique and separate from everything else in the universe. However, that security quickly faded when we discovered that not only are we not the center of the solar system but that our solar system is not the center of the universe and there are tens of billions of solar systems with more planets like ours. Now we know that we are not separate from everything out there. We are part of everything out there.

There is this security we feel when we believe we are the biggest fish in the pond. If we are not the biggest fish we still find comfort in believing that we are at least bigger than most fish. But we always find that there is a bigger fish than the next biggest fish. That is why many are quick to oppose the argument that we are the same consciousness. Already they know they are small fish but they are afraid of going all the way and finding out that they are not even fishes at all.

ii. We feel secure when we feel lucky


If we are the same consciousness then everything is for nothing including every good act. Luck would just be an illusion and nobody actually has more than anybody else. Those who are in the upper class will eventually have to experience a life where they part of the lower class. Many do not want to accept that this may be possible. In other words, they would rather pretend that luck is undeniably real and this makes them feel secure.

Assumption that I am talking about reincarnation


Another reason why my hypothesis is never taken seriously is because people assume I am talking about reincarnation. I think they assume this because the core propositions of my hypothesis sound so similar to the concept of reincarnation. However what they do not understand is my argument does not involve the special pleading that the reincarnation does. It differs from reincarnation in that the continuation of the same memories is not necessary. I postulate that we reincarnate without memories while those who believe in reincarnation believe that we reincarnate with the same memories. That is what differs my argument from reincarnation.

Possible implications of my argument


Unbounded morality is the most important goal of our species


Is the awareness that we are all the same consciousness and a rising level morality that comes with it a natural phase of evolution? It could be that eventually every living thing reaches a point where they are intelligent enough to figure out that they are the same consciousness.

If every living thing realizes that every other living thing is them more living things would follow the golden rule because they would not want to cause suffering to their own selves. Mostly, in order to solve all problems and survive, all living things must eventually follow the golden rule. So following the golden rule is no longer for emotional reasons but is followed for more rational reasons. Living things in the future may edit their own DNA and remove genes that cause selfishness and greed. It could be that we are nearing that point. If we look at the social evolution of our species we can see that compared to the past we are far less violent to each other. The death tolls of wars has decreased, slavery has largely been abolished though it still exists in some parts of the world, people are less likely to be burned at the stake than at any other point in history, and dissemination of information has increased. I suspect that if our species manages to survive much longer we may do away with violence completely. While violence has decreased it is also true that we are all standing on thinner ice than in the past as we have more access to weapons of mass destruction than ever before. Whether or not we continue to survive will largely depend on our morality. Morality may be the most powerful evolutionary advantage in the far future. Thus it could be that we will all become unboundedly moral.

I could imagine a future where every living thing knows that every consciousness is the same. The goal of the species would be to eliminate suffering from the universe. In order for no conscious being to feel suffering every living being in the universe would need to follow the golden rule. Maybe that’s how our more evolved selves living in the future would think. Like all other problems there is no limit to human ingenuity and we eventually solve the recursive consciousness problem and a big part of the solution may just be human-induced or technology-induced universal unbounded morality. Even if recursive consciousness does still happen in the future none of the lifetimes would be bad because in every lifetime everything is morally unbounded.

Torture is wrong


First of all, I maintain that torture is unacceptable as it degrades the person doing the torturing. Studies have also proven that torture is ineffective as an interrogation method. So even if my hypothesis is not correct I find torture both irrational and fruitless. There no reason for this barbaric behavior in the 20th century. If my hypothesis that we are all the same consciousness turns out to be correct then my attitude toward torture would be even more justified because when we torture each other we are actually torturing ourselves and no rational person would cause suffering to themselves. If we allow torture then suffering would always be possible. Conscious versions of ourselves would always experience suffering. Only when every conscious being knows that it is bad can we can fully remove suffering from the universe. Maybe it is possible that suffering can be eliminated from existence forever if all of our conscious selves knows that they are torturing each other and stop doing it. There is no method to determine with full certainty if it is even possible to eliminate suffering from existence forever if every conscious were to follow the golden rule. But if there is a possibility that it could work then it would not hurt to test it if it could mean making existence perfect for every living being.

Capital Punishment is wrong


It has always been my stance, that the death penalty is wrong when it affects innocent people. The death penalty should never be justified unless it is guaranteed to be used on the right people 100% of the time. Since the death penalty is not guaranteed to target the right people all the time like torture, it is also ineffective. If every consciousness is the same it would make my stance even more justified. If we mistakenly put innocent people to death then we are putting our innocent selves to death. To remove this injustice from the universe our conscious selves would have to realize that they are mistakenly putting themselves to death and stop doing it.

Fear of death is rational


Many see death as the only route to full relief of the suffering they experience in their lives. This is true if we can fully guarantee that death is the end of our consciousness. But now with the possibility that every consciousness is eternal, this guarantee is broken as there is now this uncertainty that after we die we do not really know what happens. Death could lead to more suffering or an even harder existence. It makes sense to avoid uncertainty. Death leads to uncertainty. So it makes sense to avoid death. If we know that after death we could turn into all the people that have suffered or have been tortured throughout history then it is rational to fear death, not embrace it.

i. We should achieve immortality

I believe our species should achieve immortality at some point in the future whether my hypothesis is correct or not. Many may naturally question whether overpopulation will be a problem if aging is cured. If our species achieves immortality wouldn’t the world be overpopulated? I would argue, however, that by time we are capable of achieving immortality our methods of handling overpopulation will only get better as our technology gets better. And seeing how there are plenty of other planets for us to inhabit in the universe this would not be an issue in the long run. Most important of all, curing death and diseases is a not a mutually exclusive process. The only way to cure diseases is to cure death as well. If we do not cure death even though we can we are basically saying that we have a way to cure all age related diseases but we are still going to let people get them because we do not want to cure death. If my hypothesis is true it makes even more sense to achieve immortality. For our actions to have a permanent effect on the universe we have to solve the recursive consciousness problem and achieving immortality may allow us to create this permanent effect. If we cannot die then our consciousness cannot shift. So all of our progress will be permanent rather than temporary.

Infinite consciousness is not good


For some reason most people think it would be good if this hypothesis is true. They base this conclusion on their belief that any kind of existence is better than none. But they never take a second to think about the suffering that people have faced throughout history. Anybody who knows anything of history will acknowledge that many humans have suffered from medieval torture, slavery, and other horrible incidents in the past. Now imagine living as those people who suffered over and over again for eternity. Sometimes you will live a life where you are happy here and there but eventually will live one of those miserable lives again. So I see infinite consciousness as a problem.

Refutations



Other arguments


There are many other arguments that could explain the nature of consciousness and they can also be correct. I have spent a lot of time thinking about how I could be wrong as well. Here are some objections that I have come up with.
i. Separateness is real

There is an equal chance that consciousness really is separate and that death is not an illusion. Maybe in some universes death is an illusion and in others it isn’t and we are in the one where it isn’t. Perhaps there really is nothing irrational about an unequal distribution of luck. Some people get to be rich and die forever while some are not so lucky.

ii. The same life repeats

And there is also reason to suspect that the same life we live repeats and we are tied to one consciousness forever. In this case, separateness is not an illusion. Maybe this is why we get déjà vu. Obviously this would be bad for people who have miserable lives and good for those who have good lives.
We are living in a Perfect Simulated reality

Déjà vu may also be evidence that we live in a simulated reality. It could also be a sign of a “glitch in the matrix.” If a civilization advances far enough technologically it could eventually achieve immortality and become a god of its own universe or greater. It could create virtual realities and other virtual realities within those virtual realities ad infinitum and its members could live inside them. Such a civilization could make virtual realities into what they want, even a reality where recursive consciousness does not exist at all. Considering how long the universe has been around before we were here maybe we have already solved the recursive consciousness problem even if it exists. After we die it would be just like a coffee break. We’d drink coffee and play another game and every game is perfect. Every consciousness is the same but it is no longer a problem. Somehow our species evolved past this long ago and we don’t even know it.

We are living in a universe where god exists and is separate from us

Let us assume that anything is possible. We infer this from just how big the universe is. If anything is possible then it is possible that there are many existences where some type of god does exist and made everything and has control over everything. It is possible that out of all odds we live in one of these existences.

Time just goes backwards

A cyclic universe could also mean that after we die time just goes backwards and we live our life in reverse. There has been some speculation that this could be real.

Something else
Just about anything is possible given the infinite nature of the universe. Maybe only a higher species can truly know what consciousness is and what truly happens after death.

Conclusion


The short analysis here should make clear that the hypothesis that we may all be the same consciousness is a strong one considering all the logic supporting it.

1. There is an equal or higher chance that some kind of persistence occurs after death than nothing after death. Separateness and death may both be illusions. This conclusion is supported by mathematical probability, the law of conservation of energy, multiverse theory, the prevalence of many illusions, cycles throughout the universe, and just plain logic.

2. We should assume that every consciousness can ours and treat every conscious being as we would treat ourselves. Follow the golden rule. We should be following the golden rule even if my hypothesis is not true.

3. Fresh consciousness cycles would mean that everything we do is pointless. Nothing we do ever has a permanent effect. But if we can solve death we may be able to create a real sense of permanence for the first time. Every good deed we do can have a permanent effect on others. So it is rational to find a cure to death and solve aging and we should be making efforts to do this.

4. If you are believe in anything after death you are not an atheist. If you believe in nothing after death you are an atheist. The tenacity of this false dichotomy prevents us from understanding what really happens after death and the true nature of the universe.

5. To fully understand what consciousness is it may be necessary to assume that every consciousness is our consciousness. We may never fully understand how consciousness works if we do not think of consciousness this way.

6. It may be necessary to assume that we are the universe itself and that the universe is not separate from us to fully understand it.

[Tamminen]

Great! This is the first time I have found someone having same kind of thoughts about the deep stucture of reality as I have. There may be differences in details, especially in ontological ones, but the main idea seems to be the same.

I have a text on the subject that I shall perhaps post as a new topic, but here is a short summary of my views.

*****

All being is my being or belongs to the necessary conditions of my being.

I am, and there is no such phenomenon as non-being. Non-being is a pseudo concept. It is self-contradictory, unthinkable, and does not refer to anything.

One of the necessary conditions of my being is that I am related to a set of objects we call the world or universe. This being related we call consciousness in the broad sense , including all experiences of any subject.

Consciousness is essentially temporal and is the source of time in all its manifestations, including the space-time of physics.

Consciousness is not the same as subjectivity. It is the manifold of various subjective forms by which we are related to the world, whereas subjectivity can be thought of as the point without content along which the world is coordinated, to use Wittgenstein's expression.

The subject, or subjectivity, or the 'I', is eternal, because being, as my being, is temporal and has no opposite.

So, as the subject I am eternal. I may have had a beginning, and in fact this must be the case, but I shall never have my last experience, as the subject. But as an individual, of course, I was born and I shall die. So the word 'I' has two meanings: (1) ”the subject that has these experiences” and (2) ”the individual that has these experiences”.

My being consists of successive experiences that are directed towards the world and towards my past experiences building a synthesis of both. This way we learn and grow as individuals. But if I do not have a relation to my past experiences, I am dead and just born. So death is not the end. Dying is forgetting.

So memory defines an individual.

The world consists of objects and other individuals. Other individuals are the deepest meaning of the world and are manifestations of the one and only subject whose one manifestation I am. The objects of the world, and I as an individual body, are material because the other individuals must be material and spatio-temporal objects in order to have a concrete relation to me.

Now we see that the world, as the world of others, divides reality into two ontological levels: the material world and consciousness. I see the others as material bodies but also individual conscious subjects, although their experiences are foreign to me. I can also look at my brain as I think and see my thinking process online, like in a mirror, on the material level.

Now we can speculate a bit, and suggest that perhaps reality is, in order to be causa sui and transparent to itself, a reflexive relation of me to myself, because ”I am” is the only truth that needs no explanation. So, because every other object of the world that I am related to, needs an explanation and remains a mystery even after all explanations, the deepest meaning of the world must be myself, because I am causa sui. This is what I meant when I wrote that there is only one subject and used the phrase 'the subject'. I am the subject now. You are the subject in my future or in my past. I admit that this is embarrassing, but all the same, this seems to be the only hypothesis that solves the problem of foreign experiences, saying that they are not really foreign but my own experiences, which is in accordance with the concept and idea of experience.

This means that I, as the subject, have wandered and will wander through all individual forms of consciousness, in an unknown order, and this wandering has no end. All experiences are my experiences. So this all leads to a kind of solipsism and a kind of transmigration theory, both considered as mortal sins among philosophers, but I think my view is a sophisticated combination of both, reconciling the sins.

[Machapungo]

My opinion:
Separateness is a mental reality in as much as we can't read each others minds and we are reasonably free to think for ourselves. To the degree that we are aware of other thoughts through our normal senses, (sight, sound, etc.) , we are biased and influenced , or not, by
others.
All god''s are delusion.
Death is a the reality that all biological entities will experience. Pray and rely of your faith if it makes you feel better, but there is no escape. Biological life is a terminal condition. Regards.

[Tamminen]

Death is a the reality that all biological entities will experience.

I see people die, and I understand that I shall also die. Nevertheless, I find it impossible to think of my non-being, because if I did not exist, there would be nothing: no world, no time, no past, including the fact that I am just now writing these sentences.

Besides, we do not experience our death, we only experience something before death and perhaps something after death.

-- Updated November 1st, 2016, 10:56 am to add the following --

i. We should achieve immortality

I believe our species should achieve immortality at some point in the future whether my hypothesis is correct or not. Many may naturally question whether overpopulation will be a problem if aging is cured. If our species achieves immortality wouldn’t the world be overpopulated? I would argue, however, that by time we are capable of achieving immortality our methods of handling overpopulation will only get better as our technology gets better. And seeing how there are plenty of other planets for us to inhabit in the universe this would not be an issue in the long run. Most important of all, curing death and diseases is a not a mutually exclusive process. The only way to cure diseases is to cure death as well. If we do not cure death even though we can we are basically saying that we have a way to cure all age related diseases but we are still going to let people get them because we do not want to cure death. If my hypothesis is true it makes even more sense to achieve immortality. For our actions to have a permanent effect on the universe we have to solve the recursive consciousness problem and achieving immortality may allow us to create this permanent effect. If we cannot die then our consciousness cannot shift. So all of our progress will be permanent rather than temporary.

On this I disagree, because if I were you, this could only be through death, mine or yours. How else could I have your experiences? So the life of an individual cannot be eternal, whereas my existence as the experiencing subject has no end. The difference between these two levels of subjectivity is essential, leading to a modified concept of transmigration and a new way of understanding time.