Talk:Eternal oblivion

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 ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6]} 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)

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)

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.

• Here is one scripture: (Ecclesiastes 9;5,6)

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.

• Psalm 146:4

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

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, —PaleoNeonate – 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)

Do they believe as the Jehoviah’s witnesses that the dead will be resurrected on a perfect earth. Bjoh249 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Eteranl oblivion after death is not the end of a non physical souls or spirits or eternal oblivion after death as souls sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypengirl (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

Pity that the Consciousness after death link was merged with Afterlife, because now Afterlife just lists Near-death experiences under the Science section, completely ignoring the strongest scientific evidence against an afterlife or for eternal oblivion: https://web.archive.org/web/20240114055936/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death#Neuroscience

Should that evidence be restored to the Afterlife page or this Eternal oblivion page? ~2026-31687-15 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

It looks like several editors misunderstood the page title. There's nothing "eternal" about the end of conciousness. If you're using words like "eternal", you're not thinking about death as it's understood based on current scientific knowledge. The first source in the article argues against ideas like those inherent in the term "eternal oblivion". Maybe Socrates and Plato believed in something like that, but most modern scientists and philosophers who were mentioned in the lead almost certainly don't. I rewrote the lead in an attempt to clear this up. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

For example compare the opening paragraph of the article before your changes to the opening sentence. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Which parts of the old version were better? Please explain. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

the parts where it actually tried to explain what eternal oblivion is and didn't go "it is just an expression" without actually explaining it. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

compare "Eternal oblivion is an expression sometimes used to describe what might occur after death." to "Eternal oblivion (also referred to as non-existence or nothingness) is the philosophical, religious, or scientific concept of one's consciousness forever ceasing upon death. Pamela Heath and Jon Klimo write that this concept is mostly associated with religious skepticism, secular humanism, nihilism, agnosticism, and atheism. According to most modern neuroscience theories of consciousness, the brain is the basis of subjective experience, agency, self-awareness, and awareness of the surrounding natural world. When brain death occurs, all brain function forever ceases." and you will see that one is clearly better than the other because it actually explains what eternal oblivion is and means. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that version is better, and I explained why in #The article title is easily misunderstood. The first source we cite explicitly says that the term "eternal oblivion" is misleading. Expressions like "forever ceasing" are similarly misleading. There's either "forever" or there's "cease", but not both. I agree that we should try to explain what "eternal oblivion" is supposed to mean, but our words have to make sense. "Forever ceasing" doesn't make sense. Can you think of another expression? Maybe explain in your own words what you think "eternal oblivion" means. Or provide a source that tries to define it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The end of conciousness IS eternal and it IS forever. Because you don't exist and will continue to not exist, forever. You won't experience anything in such a situation but it will continue to happen to you, forever. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"it will continue to happen to you, forever" Our first source says that this is a mistaken idea:

And here, in a nutshell, is the error contained in the view: It is to reify nothingness--make it a positive condition or quality (e.g., of "blackness")--and then to place the individual in it after death, so that we somehow fall into nothingness, to remain there eternally. It is to illicitly project the subject that died into a situation following death, a situation of no experiences, of what might be called "positive nothingness."

— Chrisahn (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

what? no i'm saying you would cease to exist, FOREVER, there would be no blackness because there be no you to experience it. You cease to even be forever. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You said "it will continue to happen to you, forever". What will continue to happen to a person who died? — Chrisahn (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

you will continue to not-exist. There won't be blackness for you to experience because you don't exist but you will continue to not exist, forever. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"continue to not exist" doesn't make sense. But maybe these questions are too subtle to resolve them here, and talk pages should not be used for personal discussions, so let's get back to more concrete issues. In November 2025, I removed the following sources:

1. The Jonathan Schell Reader: On the United States at War, the Long Crisis of the American Republic, and the Fate of the Earth. New York: Nation Books. ISBN 978-1560254072. I couldn't find evidence that it says anything about "eternal oblivion".

2. Heath, Pamela; Klimo, Jon (2010). Handbook to the Afterlife. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. p. 18. ISBN 978-1556438691. I used the "search in this book" feature of Google Books. I didn't find any occurrences of "oblivion", and "eternal" only in religious contexts.

If you want to use these sources in this article, please explain why, and supply specific quotes from the books.

— Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

this article while it uses the term "Eternal Oblivion" is moreso about people ceasing to exist after death. also just because you don't understand a particular term doesn't mean you get to completely ruin said term's article.~2026-75387-6 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

From an outside perspective (and having only reverted once), the TA here has still not described which of our policies prevents Chrisahn's edits from staying. Until the TA explains further, I have to treat this as a preference by the TA to keep their version over what seems to be an improvement from an established user. Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 03:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

but it's not an improvement and i have stated why. ~2026-75387-6 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, an easy WP:JUST reasoning here. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

New Editing Editor's repeated removal of a large chunk of article-relevant text requires discussion/adjudication. I don't agree that the stated reason for the reversion justifies removing the text entirely rather than at most qualifying it. The stated reason was "The section that I deleted was arguing that 'the mind can be regarded as a set of operations carried out by the brain', which some view as not conflicting with the existence of the afterlife. This section only needs to contain how that view relates to eternal oblivion." But if your brain dies and was never restored, and its informational content was never mind-uploaded to some other carrier that would at best make a copy of your mind in any case, the set of operations carried out by the brain here called the mind has eternally ceased. The argument can be found as far back as Lucretius, directly following Epicurus, who is already cited as advocating eternal oblivion in the Wikipedia article. See Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book III. ~2026-50056-19 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

== Scientific Views: Restoring Merged Content from "Consciousness after death" ==

I would like to discuss the recent removal of the text concerning neuroscientific frameworks and brain operations. Please note that this section is not independent text I just drafted; it is content that was formally restored from the "Consciousness after death" article during its merge into this page.

The consensus of a page merge dictates that the material should be integrated into the target article, not discarded. The premise that the mind is dependent on physical brain operations--meaning the irreversible cessation of brain function results in the permanent termination of consciousness--is the literal scientific mechanism behind the concept of eternal oblivion. Leaving it out completely undermines the very purpose of the merge.

To respect the editor's note that "this section only needs to contain how that view relates to eternal oblivion," I propose keeping the meticulously sourced bullet points from the merge but adding a clear connective opening sentence to perfectly align it with the section's scope:

"Within the neuroscientific framework, because cognitive processes are viewed as a set of physical operations carried out by the brain, the irreversible physical destruction or cessation of these operations necessitates the permanent termination of the mind--the state of eternal oblivion. Multiple lines of scientific evidence support this view, for example:"

Let's work together to integrate this properly rather than deleting a large chunk of previously community-approved, merged content. ~2026-50056-19 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@NewEditingEditor: ~2026-50237-37 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@New editing editor: Please tell me how these concepts need to be more explicitly connected in order for you to restore the deleted material and/or refrain from deleting the section in the future, especially given that the section was already approved Wikipedia content taken verbatim from the Consciousness after death page that was merged with this one.

See the Talk page discussion on the merge for the link to an archive of the old Consciousness after death page, from which this material was taken, and placed back here after whoever did the initial merge omitted it. ~2026-50237-37 (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't delete it because I thought those points were invalid, but because it doesn't sufficiently expand on how eternal oblivion and neuroscience relate to each other in a way the portion of the section I didn't delete already does. The sources in that portion of text also aren't even about eternal oblivion, so saying they support it falls under WP:SYNTH. New editing editor (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the WP:SYNTH objection needs to be made more specific before it can justify deletion of the section.

The deleted material contains separately sourced statements about the relationship between brain/nervous-system functioning and consciousness. The relevant literature also contains sources that explicitly make the connection between those empirical findings and cessation of consciousness.

For example, Peter Godfrey-Smith's “Cephalopods and the Evolution of the Mind,” published in Pacific Conservation Biology 19 (2013): 4–9, discusses complex nervous systems as the biological machinery of the mind. Victor Kriska's recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Bioethics goes further and explicitly argues that the permanent cessation of bodily functions associated with death plausibly results in permanent cessation of consciousness (he calls it "The Annihilation Principle"). Other sources cited in connection with the deleted material make similar arguments from neurological evidence.

Thus, I don't think the mere fact that the individual empirical neuroscience sources do not themselves use the term “eternal oblivion” establishes SYNTH. The empirical premise and the connection to cessation of consciousness are both present in the scholarly literature.

If SYNTH is nevertheless being alleged, could you please identify:

1. Which specific statement/s in the deleted material constitute the alleged synthesis?
2. Which source/s are cited for each statement?
3. What specific proposition do those sources fail to support?
4. What conclusion is supposedly being supplied by Wikipedia editors rather than by the cited literature?
5. If the objection concerns the inference from the neuroscientific evidence to cessation of consciousness, which particular step in that inference is allegedly absent from the cited literature?
6. What source would be needed to establish that allegedly missing step?

I am not proposing a rewritten version of the material. The material was previously present with many citations, and I am asking for the specific basis that justifies its entire deletion.

If there is a particular statement that constitutes WP:SYNTH, what statement is that, and what's the gap between it and its sources? Otherwise I don't see a basis for treating the entire section as prohibited synthesis. ~2026-54073-95 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I was wrong about the WP:SYNTH part, but the material I deleted doesn't connect well with the section nonetheless. If the part actually talked about "The Annihilation Principle", it would be fine, but it just defines neuroscience and gives a few examples of why its core concept is true. New editing editor (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

What if the restored bullet points were connected with the current end of the section with the previously suggested sentences: "Within the neuroscientific framework, because cognitive processes are viewed as a set of physical operations carried out by the brain, the irreversible physical destruction or cessation of these operations necessitates the permanent termination of the mind--the state of eternal oblivion. Multiple lines of scientific evidence support this view, for example:"? ~2026-54320-45 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The undeleted part of the section already connects neuroscience to eternal oblivion and expresses the scientific view in a much more neutral manner. Though, the bullet points could be condensed into a single sentence to give examples as to why a large number of scientists believe in eternal oblivion. New editing editor (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

{{rfc|sci}}

Should the full set of bullet points concerning neuroscience and the cessation of consciousness be restored to Eternal oblivion, as previously presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternal_oblivion&diff=prev&oldid=1378054402 , or should the material be omitted or substantially reduced? The discussion is at [[Talk:Eternal oblivion#Relevance of Neuroscience]]. ~2026-54543-80 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Rationale

The disputed material consists of a series of brief, parallel examples illustrating the same general point, rather than an extended argument built around individual claims. Its bullet-point format is comparable to the use of grouped examples in textbooks: the examples collectively illustrate a subject, and their relevance should be assessed in that context.

I favor restoring the complete set of bullet points, with their supporting references. I believe the discussion should focus on whether the material, taken as a whole, provides relevant, reliably sourced context for the article, and whether its presentation is consistent with Wikipedia's content policies. I do not think the discussion needs to become a line-by-line adjudication of each example.

The existing discussion, including the subsequent clarification concerning the original SYNTH objection, is linked above for context. I welcome input from uninvolved editors on whether the full passage should be restored. ~2026-54543-80 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)