1) The document discusses the possibility of eternal life based on a scientific analysis of consciousness and the human body. 2) The author argues that consciousness appears to be a single phenomenon shared across all living things, rather than distinct individuals. 3) If consciousness can be understood as a property of matter that is conserved, then it suggests beings may be eternal as long as the universe exists.

1. A Scientific Look Into The Possibility Of “Eternal” Life
Nyles Bauer
Nyles314@hotmail.com
In the field of medicine we see errors to every known system within the body. There is no gene
which I have found in reviewing this topic which does not, or would not be expected to,
experience errors. Some of these errors lead to the death of the fetus, or an inability for the
fertilized egg to subsequently divide or implant in the uterus Other errors allow for life outside
the womb, and this may lead to a spectrum of outcomes, from severe mental and physiological
ailments to unrecognizable, functional physiological alterations, and potentially, to more efficient
functioning. Nonetheless, I defy the reader to find just one gene or biological process that does
not exhibit some pathological alteration from time to time.
There does seem to be one exception to this observation.
From a clinical perspective we do not see people that are multiply consciousness. Let me be very
clear about this. We are not talking about multiple personalities which, if it truly exists (it’s not
within the scope of this book to debate this issue), it is a cognitive problem, not an issue of
consciousness which we’ve defined as that which life possesses above and beyond what an
automaton would have. We simply do not see multiply consciousnessed people; two entities
trapped in one body. We most certainly should expect to see this since every other viable error
seems to occur in every physiological system.
There seems to be two obvious explanations for this: One is that multiply conscious people are
non-viable and therefore destined to die early in development, or the far more likely explanation
is that this is an impossible situation, that consciousness is the same exact thing in all entities,
human or animal, and so multiply aware anything is just not possible, that the universe does
indeed conserve and that there are not 6.5 billion individual humans in this world, but rather just
one entity. That all other life forms that are conscious also share this same conscious
phenomenon and that if life is ever discovered elsewhere in our universe, it too should be
expected to possess this very same conscious phenomenon. And now our universe, with four
known forces, is now in line with the number of actual individuals on this earth. Even if a
hundred more forces were to be discovered, this model presented here would be far more in line
with the rest of the models we have for our universe. There appears to be one entity with each
part perceived to be distinct by very little aside from some space and the subjective feeling of
separation and individuality caused by our inability to experience each other’s memories. One
would hope that some sort of information is indeed passed between all life, and that is why the
Hundredth Monkey is so seductive. We should vigorously, and rigorously, pursue this type of
research by people that are not required to wear white robes and carry crystals and we should
believe nothing until it is verified lest we create a new religion. This should be a testable and
feasible project. Who knows, perhaps end stage Alzheimer’s patients or similar living things hold
the key. One would hope.
As we’ve discussed previously in this book, if the nervous system is physically cut and
sectioned, the best evidence seems to show that we end up with each part acquiring many, if not
all the properties of an individual. Whether this is someone whose corpus callosum was severed

2. and so is suffering from the split brain phenomenon, or a rat lacking a physical connection to its
spinal cord, the results all point to this conclusion. Yet if these disconnected entities are later
rejoined to one another so that neuronal communication once again occurs, as we actually see in
the split brain patients when new neural pathways are apparently developed, we again give rise
to one entity.
This is important because this certainly suggests that if two intact individuals, born and
developed this way, were to merge in much the same way, that they too would give rise to one
single integrated entity. If well integrated neural connections now bridged each section, they
would now share new memories, but whatever the entities were that experienced these
memories, what we’ve defined in this book as consciousness, it would most certainly be the
same entity. Therefore, even though we may all claim to be individuals and experience life
subjectively as individuals, we are only individuals insomuch as we do not share memories, and
that our neural processing may differ slightly, even between species. Our apparent individualism
is an error on our part, and whatever it is that rides on top, or within, these physical differences,
must, almost certainly, be exactly the same “it”. I fully realize that this sounds like some
evangelical new age garbage, but from a scientific perspective this appears to be the most logical
conclusion. I may not know what, or where, “I”, the entity that is experiencing my life, is or
resides, but I’m fairly certain that yours is exactly the same as mine.
You may argue that perhaps an individual is defined by our DNA and that each combination of
DNA spews forth a whole new “cosmic entity”, but if this were the case then identical twins and
clones would then share the same subjective being, but at least for identical twins, they seem to
be as unique as another other two people chosen at random.
Perhaps it is the epigenetic modification made to the genome that defines one from another? If
this were true than the epigenetic modifications we all experience as we go through life would
change our present being from our younger selves, but this doesn’t seem to be the case since we
all seem to experience continuity of our subjective selves. More matter? We gain and lose
weight, gain and lose new matter, every single moment of our lives, every breath we take, yet
again, we subjectively remain the same.
It seems that unless you introduce religion or some other purely faith based belief system into the
mix, the only logical conclusion that I can find, is the one I present.
As a “side effect” of this, it seems then that we are eternal beings, or at least lasting as long as the
universe lasts if consciousness is indeed a property of matter, or is associated with matter. As a
conservatively educated engineer and researcher, I’m hesitant to tread in these philosophical
waters, but this conclusion does seem to be a logical one.
Superficially it is hardly more comforting to view death in this way than it was prior to reading
this book. We still appear to be alone as we approach this moment, and therefore it is still as
depressing, anxiety ridden, if not outright terrifying. The issue seems to be the disruption of
continuity of life. I will lose my memories, and my social connections to others. What is the
point of living if all our experiences are lost? This is not a new issue to any of us. If you desire to
live, if you would prefer to put off death, how do you now justify living to yourself? As I pointed
out earlier, we all experience a “rolling death” as we go through our lives, losing and corrupting
old memories and acquiring new memories, yet most of us do fine justifying going on with our
everyday existence. There is no difference between this rolling death, and actual death, except
for the fact that physical death occurs as one event, or at least that is how we’ve been taught to
view death as a society.

3. I suspect that it will not be too long before we are able to merge nervous systems much like we
graft plants. When this occurs we then have the very real possibility of experiencing near
immortality as we merge nervous systems to subjectively form one entity, and then let the older,
pathological graft die, or be removed. I suppose that this is the most realistic near term promise
of something that can be experienced as approaching eternal life.
We can, and will, be so much more than we are right now. Whether this turns out to be a good
thing or not remains to be seen. We elect politicians, allow the status of celebrity to be bestowed
on people we would not allow in our living rooms if not for this status. Because we emulate
celebrities, in effect we vote for these very people to lead us into our future. These are the people
that we idolize, and as such, the people whose genes we attempt to immortalize. Is it simply
coincidence that politicians, movie and music stars are also the people in our society that can
have their pick of a buffet of mates, and that they usually feast at this buffet heartily, often
coming back for many helping. And who, in all candor, would pass up an opportunity to be an
entrée at the buffet that one’s favorite idol was grazing? We will indeed be more than we are
right now. We will connect, and connect more intimately, as technology progresses. The internet,
as it stands right now, is only a crude beginning. We are in the stone age of connectivity, and we
will all know some day that we are indeed one.
Certainly one place for faith would be to answer the question “Is there a benevolent god to guide
us?”