What interests me about my canonical 'past-life' dreams and anomalous qualia-memory events – flashbacks or exomnesia – is establishing the relationship between consciousness and identity. In every dream and flashback, it is the first-person I that's doing the experiencing. Yet the place and the time belong to someone else.
Psychologists distinguish between semantic memory – our accumulated knowledge of facts and meanings (we know things without remembering when or how we learnt it) – and episodic memory, the recollection of events we have experienced. I would break episodic memory further into a event memory, a catalogue of who did what, when, where, why and how, and qualia memory – what it was like to have been there, the sensations – how it looked, sounded, smelt, tasted and felt.
My dreams and flashbacks are not proof positive that consciousness can survive biological death. However, I personally feel it with a sufficient certainty to mitigates any fear of death (as opposed to fear of actual dying, pain etc). I feel I know what will happen afterwards – being born into a new biological container and experiencing memories of this life from the next, albeit faint and sporadic, but perhaps a little stronger next time round. There's an intuitive certainty to that feeling.
But I would like to know how it happens!
I have been the conscious observer of all my waking experiences since childhood. Flashbacks and dreams speak to another apparent life, in an earlier historic time, while maintaining the subjective experiencing I.
But what exactly is that persistent I? How does identity cross from one body to another?
My belief is that consciousness is fundamental. Consciousness put space, time matter and energy into being. These are but emergent properties of consciousness, not the other way around.
The philosopher David Chalmers famously identified the 'hard problem of consciousness'. We can study the neural processes associated with perception, attention, memory and emotion; brain scanners can map the neural correlates of a multiplicity of types of brain activities.
But why should electrochemical activity in the brain be accompanied by any subjective experience at all? Why should there be something it feels like to see sunlight streaming through autumn leaves, or to hear a Bob Wills recording, or to stand outside a racetrack in a dream?
Physicalism has offered us the explanation that consciousness is a byproduct of brain activity. Whether those explanations can ultimately account for subjective experience itself remains contested, and a final verdict is unlikely to be delivered any time soon. Some would ask if it is ever to be settled.
The radio and the signal
Here's a very simplistic metaphor – the best I have at present, though it remains to be further refined.
Imagine a radio signal emanating in all directions from a transmission tower. Now imagine not just thousands of stations – but countless billions of stations. Enough for every human on earth to have their own. Now imagine not a radio, but a human being receiving that unique signal. That signal is modulated by our individual biology, and yes, our will. This is how I picture the relationship between consciousness and the brain. The signal and the receiver. The receiver gives the signal a particular audible expression. Without the receiver, there is no music to be heard in that room.
One day, however, that radio will finally break down. Yet somewhere, a factory is busy producing another radio. Someone buys that new radio, and tunes it to that same unique station as the old radio. The music is there again. Could consciousness work like that?
Perhaps individual brains don't manufacture consciousness, but receive, filter or localise something that's already there – that has existed since the birth of time.
William James entertained versions of a transmission theory of consciousness, while current idealist philosophers, notably Bernardo Kastrup, have argued that individual minds might be localised expressions of a more fundamental consciousness. The idea of a universal consciousness is present in Hinduism and Buddhism.
There are problems with my analogy. It assumes one signal per one receiver (biological entity). Two radios tuned to the same station receive the same broadcast. Yet they are not the same radio. And you need more than just a radio and a signal; you need a person to tune that radio to a station and experience the resultant sound. If my brain dies and another brain subsequently reports anomalous memories of what I had experienced, would this make that new subjective perspective a continuation of mine? Would there be an unbroken thread of first-person experience? Or merely another manifestation of consciousness within a different organism? The problem of personal identity remains.
Could you, for example, wish that in your next life, you'd like to be, say, Winston Churchill or David Bowie?
I find myself wondering whether the essence of an individual life could be carried forward without its autobiographical details.
Perhaps what survives isn't the recollection of events, names, addresses, relationships, careers and personal achievements, but something more elusive; a residue of experience, an accumulated response to reality. A particular disposition, or an intuitive familiarity with circumstances encountered before, an understanding of the importance of Goodness and Truth in the unfolding Universe?
The idea is totally speculative. Neuroscience provides no established mechanism by which such information could pass from one brain to another after death – or even before it! Telepathy, which many of us strongly suspect exists – has no underlying theory or vector by which we may explain how it works.
Nor does the fact that consciousness is subjectively undeniable prove that it can exist independently without a physical brain (the concept of 'non-local consciousness'), and therefore eternal or capable of reincarnation.
Religion offers various answers. Some Hindu traditions, notably Advaita Vedanta, maintain that an enduring self passes through successive lives. Buddhism generally rejects the notion of an unchanging individual soul while nevertheless affirming rebirth through causal continuity. Christianity traditionally places its emphasis upon salvation and the survival and resurrection of the person.
I find each approach interesting, but none provides an explanation of precisely how one conscious subject might continue in another body, certainly nothing remotely scientific.
And there's a further question.
If we do live successive lives, what is the purpose? Is consciousness merely gathering experiences, endlessly repeating the cycle of birth, life and death? Or is there some direction to the process?
I incline towards the latter.
This time two years ago:
Under Rzeszów – subterranean inspirations
Another canonical past-life dream
Cottagecore – a manifesto
This time five years ago
Ego, Consciousness and Soul
This time six years ago:
Samopoczucie, Joy and the Sublime Aesthetic
This time eight years ago:
Autumn, with a railway theme
This time nine years ago:
A few words about coincidence
This time 12 years ago:
Hello, pork pie [my week-long pork-pie diet]
This time 14 years ago:
The meaning of class – in England, in Poland
This time 15 years ago:
First frost
This time 19 years ago:
First frost
[No frost forecast at allright up to the end of October 2026.]


































