“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Make the inferred hangman in Samuel Johnson quote a terminal diagnosis and the mind in question that of a neuroscientist and it might just present the ultimate in existential thinking (A Neuroscientist Prepares For Death).

The writer has “heart cancer”, a rare sarcoma that has caused no symptoms but gives him only 6-12 months of remaining life. His initial reaction was, indeed, quite human, “I was so mad, I could barely see,” he says of the diagnosis.

Only then does he apply his “inner-nerd” neuroscientific curiosity to investigate what the contemplation of death might reveal about the workings of the human mind. He begins his introspection with an attempted reconciliation of two seemingly contradictory mental states – fury at that which has befallen him; gratitude for having had a wonderful life –  as he confronts the ultimate test of a first-rate intelligence, per F. Scott Fitzgerald’s dictum, to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

He then goes on to question whether the human brain is even equipped to measure the absolute value of anything, including the perception of time itself. Perhaps there is no such thing as objective experience if all that we perceive and feel (including our time remaining) is colored by expectation, comparison, and circumstance. All is context.

His most profound area of inquiry, however, relates to the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of truly processing the idea of one’s own demise. Central to the thesis is the insight that the brain spends much of its time and energy, not merely reacting to the external world, but in actively making predictions about the future. The predictive nature of the brain – deeply rooted, automatic, and subconscious – presupposes that there will, in fact, always be a future. As such, our brains are hardwired to prevent us from imagining the totality of (our own) death.

The question thus raised and begs to be answered is what role, if any, does this neuroscientific insight play in the whole concept of belief in an afterlife and/or reincarnation i.e. might these phenomena be explained in terms of a feature or bug of human cognition as the brain’s way to force an invented future? Blasphemous perhaps but the suggestion that faith, itself, may be a kind of existential work-around does not make it any less real in the self-referential world of religion.

The question applies equally to the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the healthy and the sick, as we’re all on the same train, just different cars. We might round out this particular neuroscientific perspective by adding some previous philosophical musings on the topic (e.g.MM 7/16/21 Near-Death Experiences; MM 5/11/20 Shuffling Off This Mortal Coil; MM 10/2/17 Chasing Epicurus) as we ponder the ultimate existential question: 

Is there life after High School?