Can a person become immortal? Immortality, eternal life. You will survive everything that is dear to you

Since ancient times, people have tried to understand life and death in order to gain immortality. The desire to live forever was so great that it pushed people to do terrible things, such as sacrifice and even cannibalism.
But is eternal life really so unreal and unattainable?
In history, there have been successful experiences to extend life.

So in 1926, one well-known Soviet doctor and professor, Alexander Bogdanov, conducted an experiment on rejuvenation. He assumed that if the blood of a young man was transfused to an old man, then youth would return to him. He carried out his experiments on himself, and the first results were very successful. The professor exchanged blood with a geophysicist student. There were 11 successful transfusions in total, 12 was the last and lethal for the professor. An autopsy revealed kidney damage, liver degeneration, and heart enlargement.
The next attempts to gain eternal life ended in death.

There are people whose aging process is much faster than others. This pathology is caused by a very rare genetic disease - Bardel's syndrome or "Prodereya". People with this disease can grow old literally overnight.
American scientists have proved that life can still be extended for a very long time. They conducted an experiment on fruit flies, leaving the offspring of only the oldest flies, and the offspring of the young were destroyed. For several years, hundreds of generations have changed, as a result, the lifespan of such flies has increased 3 times.
But such an experiment cannot be carried out on people.

There are places on earth where people live much longer than others.
One of these places is the village of Eltyubyur in Kabardino-Balkaria. In this strength, almost every second crossed the 100-year milestone. Getting pregnant at 50 is considered the norm here. Locals believe that the reason for their longevity is the air and water from the mountain stream. However, researchers at the site believe that the reason for longevity lies in natural genetic selection based on the principle of longevity. Genes responsible for long life have been passed from generation to generation.
Others believe that the whole thing is in the mountains that surround the village on all sides, and the mountains are like pyramids, which, according to some scientists, are able to change the physical properties of the substances placed in them, contributing to their longer preservation.
But, one way or another, the very fact of the existence of such places is unique.
In addition to such unique places, there are also unique people who have achieved immortality.

One of these people is the head of the Russian Buddhists Khambo Lama Itigelov. He left the world by on their own... The lama sat in the lotus position and began to meditate, and then stopped showing signs of life. His disciples buried the body, and after 75 years, according to the will of the lama, his grave was opened. Seeing the body, the pathologists who were present at the exhumation were simply stunned. The body looked like it had lain in the grave for only a few days. A more detailed study of the monk's body surprised scientists even more, his tissues looked as if they belonged to a living person, and special devices recorded brain activity. Scientists have encountered a similar phenomenon more than once; Buddhists call this state of the body "Damat". With "Damat" you can exist for years, this is achieved by reducing the body temperature to almost zero, and as a result, a decrease in metabolism. Scientists have proven that if you lower your body temperature by only 2 degrees, the metabolic rate will halve. This means that the consumption of the body's resources will decrease, and the life expectancy will increase.

Today, the mechanism of aging has already been studied. A special part of the chromosome, the telomere, is responsible for aging. And this telomere tends to decrease in the process of cell division.
But in our body there is a special substance capable of restoring the length of the telomere, this is an enzyme - telomerate. But the main problem is that this enzyme is found in the cells of the developing fetus, and it is forbidden to experiment with such cells in almost all countries.
But a way out was found. The enzyme telomerate is found not only in the cells of embryos, but also in a cancerous tumor - "Teratoma", which develops in the ovaries of women and the testes of men. And it is with such cells that it is allowed to experiment in the United States.
Research continues, and the time is not far off when a way will be found to extend a person's life.

edited news katerina.prida85 - 16-01-2012, 14:04

Keywords:

People are just filthy bags of blood and bones that are completely inadequate for immortality. Everyone realizes this: both ordinary stokers and billionaires. In 2016, his wife Priscilla Chan pledged $ 3 billion to implement a plan to cure all diseases by the end of the century. "By the end of this century, it will be quite normal for people to live up to 100 years," - believes the naive Zuckerberg.

Of course, science has taken a huge step forward, life expectancy has increased greatly. Although they consider it incorrectly, forgetting that in the old days there was a very high infant mortality rate, and therefore the numbers are so negligible. But the money invested in scientific research is not at all like that. Longevity and potential is a particularly popular obsession with the rich and famous, who seem to be very confused by the fact that someday this happiness will need to be parted.

Often times, the shapes are not important - let them be a pulsating can of canned food or monkey gonads.

And the whole problem is that human bodies, these sad, falling, failure-prone products of evolution, are simply not made to live forever. People throughout history have tried, but the trash body has always got in the way.

Interested in the immortality of oligarchs, politicians and scientists throughout history, the dream does not leave to live to the end of time. The following is a summary of the various approaches that have been taken in the endless pursuit of eternal life.

Hack all diseases

Zuckerberg, along with his Silicon Valley friends from Google and 23andme, launched the Breakthrough Award in 2012 to promote scientific innovation, including those aimed at increasing longevity and fighting disease.

He created a foundation that will donate $ 3 billion over a decade to basic medical research. Some people argue that this approach is not the most efficient one. The money will be spent on studying one specific disease, rather than trying to pacify several at once. That is, it will take ten years to completely eradicate, say, smallpox, while people will seek salvation from cancer.

There is another problem - time. The patient grows old, his condition only gets worse, and the disease remains untreated. And aging itself is the biggest risk factor for all of these out of control diseases. The more you age, the more exposed the risks, because organs and systems inevitably wear out and break down.

It is important not to forget that we are talking not only about a few billionaires who can afford the best, but about millions of people depending on the circumstances. Therefore, some centers are investigating ways to stop aging at the enzyme level. One of the most promising is TOP, a kind of cellular signaling that tells the cell to either grow and divide or be destroyed. Scientists believe that manipulating this pathway can slow down the most natural of processes.

Biohacking also plans to take its place in the sun, despite debates over the ethical dimension of how far people can go to change their genetic code... Scientists, for example, are still scrutinizing CRISPR technology, which acts like a homing missile: it tracks a specific strand of DNA, then cuts and inserts a new strand in its old place. It can be used to change almost every aspect of DNA. In August, scientists first used gene editing technology in the human embryo to erase an inherited heart defect.

Fresh blood, foreign gland

Throughout human history, we have been running around with the idea of ​​filling the body with replaceable parts to cheat death. Take the same Sergei Voronov, a Russian scientist who, at the beginning of the 20th century, believed that the gonads of animals contain the secret of prolonging life. In 1920, he tried this by taking a piece of a monkey's gland and stitching it onto a human gland (we warn you right away: not his own, he was not so fond of science).

There was no shortage of patients: about 300 people underwent the procedure, including one woman. The professor claimed to have restored youth to 70-year-olds and extended their life to at least 140 years. In his book Life. Studying ways to restore vital energy and prolong life "he wrote:" The sex gland stimulates brain activity, muscle energy and love passions. It pours vital fluid into the blood stream, which restores the energy of all cells and spreads happiness. "

Voronov died in 1951, apparently unable to rejuvenate himself.

Monkey testicles are out of fashion, but unlike Dr. Voronov, the idea of ​​collecting body parts is still very much alive.

For example, there is a lot of talk about parabiosis - the process of blood transfusion from a young person to an elderly person in order to stop aging. Elderly mice were thus rejuvenated. Moreover, in the 50s, people conducted similar studies, but for some reason they gave up. Apparently, the ancestors learned some terrible secret. For example, that this method can be pushed from under the counter to very rich people. They love the blood of virgins and babies. As the story goes, everyone from Emperor Caligula to Kevin Spacey loves young bodies.

Although, to be honest, the experiments with transfusion were carried out on humans, but did not end very well. It didn't always work. For example, science fiction writer, doctor and pioneer of cybernetics, Alexander Bogdanov in the 1920s decided to pour himself fresh blood. He naively believed that this would make him literally invulnerable. Alas, insufficient analysis, and the luminary is already digging a grave. It turned out that he had transfused the blood of a malaria patient. Moreover, the donor survived, but the professor soon died.

Reimagining the soul

Humanity has dreamed of immortality for so long that it has created as many as four ways to achieve it:

1. Life-prolonging medications and therapies for genes discussed above.

2. Resurrection is an idea that has fascinated people throughout history. It began with the experiments of Luigi Galvani in the 18th century, conducting electricity through the legs of a dead frog. It ended with cryonics - the process of freezing the body with the hope that future medicine or technology will be able to defrost pizza from Magnit more accurately than a microwave oven and restore health. Some comrades from Silicon Valley are interested in new versions of cryonics, but so far they have not paid so much attention to it.

3. The search for immortality through the soul, which did not lead to anything good. Only to wars. The body is, after all, a perishable, rotting shell. Only the soul is eternal, which will acquire immortality in the best of worlds. Or like Casper, at worst. But let's put aside religious discourse. The soul, of course, is not a toy, but we are trying to write about science.

However, scientists have their own understanding of the soul. For them, it is not so much a ghostly essence of us associated with a higher power, but also a more specific set of brain signatures, a code unique to us that can be hacked like any other.

Consider the modern soul as a unique neurosynaptic connection that integrates the brain and body through a complex electrochemical flow of neurotransmitters. Every person has one and they are all different. Can they be reduced to information, for example, for replication or addition to other substrates? That is, can we get enough information about this brain-body map to reproduce it on other devices, be it machines or cloned biological copies of your body?

- Marbelo Glaser, theoretical physicist, writer and professor of natural philosophy, physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College -

In 2013, the independent biotechnology research company Calico, under cover of secrecy, began a project to explore the depths of the brain and find the soul. Everything was very pretentious: thousands of experimental mice, the best technology, press coverage - the world froze on the threshold of discovery. And then it all somehow ended by itself. They looked for "biomarkers," meaning biochemicals whose levels predict death. But all they could do was make money and invest in drugs that can help fight diabetes and Alzheimer's.

Building a lasting legacy

By the way, we said that there are four ways, but we wrote only three. So, we will take out the fourth separately. This is a legacy. For ancient civilizations, this meant the creation of monuments so that living relatives would repeat the name carved on the walls of the tomb for a very, very long time. A person is immortal as long as his name is written in books and pronounced by descendants.

Today's legacy is different from giant stone shrines, but the egos of ancient and modern owners are quite comparable. The idea of ​​uploading consciousness to the cloud moved from science fiction to science: Russian web tycoon Dmitry Itskov launched the Initiative 2045 project in 2011 - an experiment or even an attempt to make oneself immortal over the next 30 years by creating a robot that can store a human personality ...

Various scholars call this uploading, or mind transfer. I prefer to call it personality transfer.

- Dmitry Itskov -

Immortal planet

The worst thing about all these experiments, which makes them completely meaningless for most, is the high cost. For the average white resident of a developed country with a good annual income, this will be unaffordable money.

This, in turn, could mean that we will have a class of near-immortal or cloudy minds that control people, walled up in a cage of terrifying analog bodies. But the interbreeding of a person with a computer will give rise to new supermen, thinkers, half people - half lines of code.

Kennedy said that the discovery of these options depends on which path of research is most effective. If aging is viewed as a disease, then there is hope of living to the long-awaited pill of immortality. As someone very smart said:

The challenge is to figure out how to improve your health and do it as quickly as possible. If with the help of drugs, this is achievable. If with the help of numerous transfusions of young blood, this is less achievable.

Whether this will give rise to a super race of "destroyers" impenetrable for torment, time and the limits of the flesh is unclear. So far, all fighters with mortality are frightened by the prospect of being soon in a wooden box and in a two-meter hole. But let them think better about the consequences, maybe mortality is better for all of us?

Question mark 1992 # 2

Rudolf Konstantinovich Balandin

Life, death, immortality? ...

To the reader

Of the questions that are equally interesting for science, philosophy, religion, for each person, perhaps the most important and hopeless: what is life?

Many works have been written on this topic. Special sciences are devoted to the study of the manifestations of life, not to mention the whole complex of biological disciplines. Scientists prefer to look for the foundations of life in the microcosm. However, there at the level of atoms and simple molecules dominate standard objects devoid of individuality, as well as mechanical interactions ... Or does this approach reflect primarily our ignorance of the essence of life?

Be that as it may, the answers to the question: "What is life?" - there are too many. Each science, and even more so each philosophical or religious doctrine, offers its own options for explanations. One gets the impression that none of the interpretations of the essence of life will be convincing until the meaning of death is understood.

What is death? Does it oppose life or dominate it? Is immortality possible for living beings?

Such issues affect the interests of each of us. From them, we pass not only to the field of theoretical speculation, but willingly or unwillingly we think: how to live in this world? Is there a different light?

BALANDIN Rudolf Konstantinovich - member of the Writers' Union of the USSR. Author of 30 books and numerous articles and essays. The main topics are the history of the Earth and life, the interaction of society with nature, the fate of material and spiritual culture.

Life, death, immortality? ...

About the meaning of death

Let's paraphrase a well-known saying. "Tell me who your enemy is, and I will tell you who you are." The enemy of all living things is death.

The original Russian thinker N.F. Fedorov argued that the distant and highest goal of mankind is the victory over death, the resurrection of all who lived on Earth. Such is the filial duty of the living to those to whom they owe the greatest blessing of life. Fedorov tried to sentence death to death.

Perhaps this attempt was caused primarily by despair and the desire to overcome the chilling horror of nothingness at all costs.

Let's remember the fear of death, familiar to all of us. Leo Tolstoy experienced him painfully, and not only for himself, but also for his children: “Why should I love them, raise and watch over them? For the same despair that's in me, or for the stupidity? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them - every step leads them to the knowledge of this truth. And the truth is death. "

In religious teachings, this fear is usually "neutralized" by the belief in the immortality of the soul. It is said that the American philosopher D.W. James even promised after his death to find a way of spiritual communication with friends. But, as I. I. Mechnikov noted, he never fulfilled his promise.

In our century of science, the belief in the immortality of the soul has revived in new forms (suffice it to recall the most interesting work of the American scientist R. Moody "Life After Life"). However, for all the consolation of such views, after a short reflection, you sadly realize that if the spirit separates from its habitable native body, then this will be the death of me as a bodily-spiritual being. Without a body, my mind will be helpless, inactive ... And will it be?

"The inevitability of death is the gravest of our sorrows," asserted the French thinker of the 18th century, Vauvengarg. It's hard to disagree with him.

Death is a conscious necessity. Our complete lack of freedom. Capital punishment, to which indifferent nature has sentenced each of us. But there is another, directly opposite point of view. Death is good!

"We admit sincerely that only God and religion promise us immortality: neither nature, nor our minds tell us about this ... Death is not only deliverance from disease, it is deliverance from all kinds of suffering." This is the opinion of M. Montaigne.

From scientific objective positions - detached from our personal experiences and fears - death is presented as a regulator and organizer of life. All organisms are known to multiply exponentially in a favorable environment. This powerful "pressure of life" (the expression of V. I. Vernadsky) would very quickly turn the terrestrial biosphere into a swarming cluster of organisms.

Fortunately, some generations are clearing the arena for others. Only in such a change is the guarantee of the evolution of organisms. The hideous image of a skeleton with a pernicious scythe turns into the embodiment of harsh but fair natural selection.

... Alas, each of us living thirsts not only for knowledge, but also for consolation; understanding the blessings of death for the triumph of biological evolution hardly helps us to joyfully expect the end of our priceless - for us! - and the only personal life forever. And against the inevitability of eternal non-existence after a fleeting stay in the world, the only antidote remains - to live, as they say, to the fullest.

“If, together with death,” wrote V. M. Bekhterev, “the existence of man ceases forever, then the question arises, why are our worries about the future? Why, finally, the concept of duty, if the existence of a human person ceases to exist with the last dying breath? Isn't it right then not to look for anything from life and only to enjoy the joys that it gives, for with the cessation of life, nothing will remain anyway. Meanwhile, otherwise life itself, as a gift of nature, will flow without those earthly pleasures and pleasures that it is capable of giving to a person, brightening up his temporary existence.

As for caring for others, is it really worth thinking about it at all, when everything: both “I” and “others” - tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or someday will turn into “nothing”. But this is already a direct denial of human obligations, duty, and at the same time denial of any community inevitably associated with certain obligations.

That is why the human mind does not put up with the idea of ​​the complete death of a person outside of his earthly life, and the religious beliefs of all countries create images of an incorporeal soul that exists behind the coffin of a person in the form of a living incorporeal being, and the worldview of the East created the idea of ​​transmigration of souls from one creature into other".

But then scientific knowledge is nothing more than entertainment and a way of obtaining life's blessings, and we, like everyone sentenced to the "highest measure", in the last hour (month, year, decade - is it all the same?), Indeed, everything is allowed, and there is no difference between good and evil in front of the abyss of nothingness.

You can, of course, believe in the immortality of the soul, but you should know that our mortal body will dissolve in the world around us and we will never, never be destined to enjoy earthly life ...

From the standpoint of natural science, the death of a living organism is decomposition into the smallest constituent parts, atoms and molecules, which will continue their wanderings from one natural body to another. V.I.Vernadsky wrote something like this in his diary, emphasizing that he does not feel the fear of death. But he also has another entry: “... in one of my thoughts I touched ... the clarification of life and the creativity associated with it, as a merger with the Eternal Spirit, in which or which is composed of such human creatures striving for the search for truth, including my. I cannot make it clear ... "

The last remark is very necessary. It seems that everything is clear to a scientist from a scientific point of view. However, his thought does not want to put up with the limitations of the scientific method, which recognizes only what can be proved. But death is an obvious fact that does not need proof (like any despotism). And the posthumous existence is speculation, fiction, a guess that is not confirmed by anything and is taken on faith. Is there any possibility to confirm or deny it according to the data of modern science?

Let's try to find out this not speculatively, but on the basis of the available facts.

Biological eternity of life

Beginning of life

Everything born is doomed to death. In the material world, we do not seem to know anything that contradicts this law. Animals and plants, stars and planets, even the Universe (or, more precisely, the Metagalaxy, the part of the universe we observe), according to modern concepts, once had a beginning, and therefore will have an end.

In this case, the meaning of death is clear: to limit the expansion of life. However, then the meaning of life disappears altogether: what are the most complex creatures for, if death is predetermined for them? Only an absurd game of blind chance remains to explain the appearance of living organisms. And already a completely tragic nonsense of being sees the emergence of intelligent beings who are aware of the frailty of their life.

Apart from unnecessary suffering and fears, this knowledge gives nothing. And it takes away the most beautiful thing - the hope for uninterrupted life, for immortality. How much happier are animals, gifted with feelings, but lacking an understanding of the inevitability of death!

For the religious outlook, the problem is removed by reference to God. He is the supreme creator of all living things, and the secret of creation is inaccessible to the weak mind of man. One must not try to comprehend it, but believe in a miracle.

To the question of the nonsense of the appearance of life and reason for the triumph of death, the scientist is free to answer extremely simply: this is how it is, such is the reality. In relation to nature, the questions are incorrect: why or - why? They presuppose in advance the consciousness and will of the creator, his plan. For scientific knowledge, this is an unnecessary hypothesis. Therefore, you should find out how everything happened. We do not ask why the sun is shining when it burns out? Not for the sake of sunbathers ...

People thought about the appearance of living organisms for a very long time. In some myths, the idea is expressed about the birth of the first plants and animals from mud, silt. Democritus asserted the same in the system of his materialistic philosophy. According to him, atoms, intertwining, form various substances, as well as plants and animals, not for no reason, but on some basis and by virtue of "necessity." In a little more detail, he explained this (I quote from Diodorus): “The earth first hardened, then when, due to warming, its surface began to ferment, in many places it lifted up some of the moist (substances), and (thus) arose on their surfaces are rotting (formations), covered with thin shells ... When moist (substances) due to warming ... began to give birth to life, they (decaying formations) immediately began to receive food at night from moisture precipitated from the surrounding atmosphere, while in the daytime they hardened from the heat. " In the end, from them "various forms of animals arose."

Something similar has been suggested by thinkers for many centuries. Especially widespread was the opinion, dating back to Aristotle, about the self-birth of the larvae of many organisms and rotting meat. This legend was refuted by the experiments of the Italian scientist Francesco Redi in the second half of the 17th century. Even earlier, the Englishman William Harvey proclaimed: "Every animal is made of an egg." Vernadsky proposed to call the statement “living - from living” the Redi principle.

How did the first organisms come about?

Most scientists of the 20th century will answer this question like this. Once upon a time on a lifeless Earth, conditions were created for chemical evolution, as a result of which complex organic molecules were synthesized, and from them, after countless trial and error, tiny clumps of organic matter were formed, capable of metabolism and reproduction ...

Such hypotheses are numerous and sometimes elaborated in detail. In addition to articles, they are devoted to substantial monographs.

It is assumed that clay particles - colloids - and such natural forces as lightning strikes, volcanic eruptions, the decay of radioactive minerals, and the invasion of meteorites into the atmosphere have played a significant role.

All these hypotheses have one single serious drawback: there is not a single fact that confirms the theoretical possibility of spontaneous generation of living organisms on Earth from inorganic substances. The most complicated laboratory experiments were carried out for many years in different countries, but the artificial, technogenic synthesis of even the most primitive organism has not yet succeeded.

Suppose someday such experiments will be crowned with success. What will they prove? Only what is necessary for the technogenic reproduction of bio-matter ... a reasonable man, developed science, sophisticated technology. All this, of course, bears little resemblance to the natural conditions on the pristine Earth.

More convincing would be the facts obtained as a result of "time travel" into the depths of the geological past. After all, if organisms once appeared on Earth, even if in the form of "seeds" brought in from other inhabited worlds, then its history should begin from an era devoid of life.

The search for such an era has been going on since the last century and is still unsuccessful. The oldest known rocks directly or indirectly testify to the existence of microorganisms at that time - about 4–4.5 billion years ago. Some researchers hoped that the mystery of the prefaces of the geological annals of the planet would be cleared up as a result of drilling the world's deepest Kola superdeep well. According to the project, it was supposed to pierce the entire earth's crust, composed of more or less altered (metamorphosed) sedimentary rocks. However, the design section of the well was not confirmed: it still has not gone beyond the known rocks studied on the earth's surface.

I would like to remind you that due to the vertical movements of the earth's crust and the cycles of the lithosphere, the most ancient sediments usually "emerge" again into the sunlight. Geologists have the ability to mentally travel to any era, studying near-surface rock massifs.

So, despite all the efforts of scientists of various specialties, there are only guesses unproven by facts about the origin of living organisms on Earth. Some experts have returned to the long-expressed idea of ​​transferring the "embryos of life" to our planet from Space. But in principle, this does not solve anything if one professes the most popular theory of the formation of the Universe (Metagalaxy), which relates the moment of its birth 15–20 billion years into the past. All the same, somewhere on some unknown planet or in the clouds of cosmic dust, the great mystery of the appearance of life was to be accomplished.

If there was a beginning of the Universe, then there was also a beginning of life. These events could not occur simultaneously, if, as astrophysicists assert, the "big bang" of the original superdense and superhot clot of matter took place. Only at a certain stage of cooling of the exploded substance should favorable conditions arise for the formation of organisms

And again, the prevailing ideas in modern science about the origin of the Universe, the Solar System, the Earth, organisms lead us to the recognition of the non-necessity of life in Space, where dead bodies, fragments and slags, dust, ash and reflections of the colossal fireworks absolutely prevail - in time and space. , perpetrated by someone unknown to someone unknown ...

Alas, you involuntarily switch to an ironic tone: from the scientific point of view, the fate of each of us and of all earthly life - timid miserable sparks in a deathly deaf abyss - seems too hopeless. Both the mechanical running of the planets and the mechanical rotation of galaxies demonstrate with the utmost evidence the hopelessness of the vicious circle of the kingdom of necessity, in which death reigns ... And even our thought falls into some kind of vicious circle.

Is there a way out of it?

Of course have. It should be. Living science is also an opportunity for choice, overcoming inevitability.

It is usually believed that the first scientific theories about the origin of living organisms on Earth were created by A.I. Oparin and J. Haldane. However, at the very beginning of our century, the German scientist O. Lehmann proposed an original theory of the formation of primary life forms from liquid crystals - peculiar substances that combine the properties of liquid and solid... He conducted experiments and presented photographs of liquid crystal droplets resembling single-celled organisms.

In the same years, the biochemist SP Kostychev's brochure "On the appearance of life on Earth" was published. He criticized all the hypotheses of the spontaneous generation of organisms proposed at that time. In his opinion, the accidental appearance of a living cell is completely incredible:

“If I invited the reader to discuss how high the likelihood is that among inorganic matter by some natural, for example, volcanic processes, a large factory was accidentally formed - with furnaces, pipes, boilers, machines, fans, etc., then this the proposal would at best come across as an inappropriate joke. However, the simplest microorganism is even more complex than any factory; hence, its accidental occurrence is even less likely. "

The general conclusion of S.P. Kostychev is as follows:

"When the echoes of the debate about spontaneous generation finally die out, then everyone will recognize that life only changes its form, but is never created from dead matter."

Ten years later, in 1923, V. I. Vernadsky developed these ideas in his own way in his report "The Beginning and Eternity of Life." He tried to substantiate the position of the fundamental difference between living and dead matter. And he put forward the thesis: life is geologically eternal. In other words, in geological history we cannot find epochs when life was absent on our planet.

"The idea of ​​eternity and beginninglessness of life," asserted Vernadsky, "is gaining special significance in science, since the moment has come in the history of thought when it comes forward as an important and deep foundation of the emerging new scientific worldview of the future."

Further development scientific thought mercilessly dispelled such hopes. The mechanical worldview and the belief in the existence of the beginning of not only life, but also the Universe prevailed. However, let us remember that in science the most widespread opinion is not yet the most correct. Individual thinkers are closer to the truth than whole armies of standardly equipped "scientific workers". We will have to repeat once again: until now, despite all the efforts of specialists, it has not been possible to find a single fact proving the existence of an "abiogenic", lifeless era in geological history; there is not a single experience confirming the possibility of constructing a living organism from dead matter. Consequently, the ideas of SP Kostychev and VI Vernadsky are confirmed.

Over the past decade, some scholars have tried to revive these ideas at the current level of knowledge. Astrophysical and astrochemistry data show that a huge number of complex organic molecules are present in the interstellar medium. According to the estimates of American scientists F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, there are about 10 52 (!) Biomolecules and primitive organisms in our Galaxy.

These data, according to Wickramasinghe, "clearly indicate that life on Earth originated, as we see it, from an all-pervading general galactic living system." "Earthly life owes its origin to cosmic gas and dust clouds, which were later captured by comets and grew in them."

He refers to calculations of the probability of random synthesis of super-complex biomolecules, provided that their constituent parts are randomly combined. The number of such possible combinations turned out to be monstrous: 10 10000 - much more than the number of atoms in the Universe. The scientist concluded:

"It is more likely that a hurricane sweeping through a graveyard of old aircraft will collect a brand new superliner from pieces of scrap than random processes will create life from its components."

As you can see, our contemporary unwittingly repeated the argument, and to some extent the image expressed by the Russian scientist at the beginning of the century. And even knowing perfectly well - as a specialist - the fashionable concept of the "big bang", Vikramasinghe does not recognize it: "I give my own philosophical ideas to the eternal and boundless Universe, in which the creator of life, Mind, which is significantly superior to ours, has emerged in some natural way."

One circumstance is somewhat embarrassing in this regard. Why in the eternal and boundless Universe at some point in time a creative Intelligence should arise by some natural way? For eternity, there is no fundamental difference between certain moments of time, it has as many of them as you like. In addition, this Reason nevertheless arose as a result of, presumably, natural evolution. So, there was a time when neither this Reason nor life was? What kind of eternity is this, which is subject to the laws of evolution, which presuppose precisely a very definite irreversible "course of time"?

It turns out that in this case, too, we are talking about the geological eternity of life. Somewhere in the bowels of galaxies or in bizarre vortices of cosmic dust, biomolecules appear in an unknown way. It is enough to form an environment suitable for life on some planet, these biomolecules invade there, revive, stimulate an active metabolism with the external environment, interact with each other and begin a long marathon of evolutionary transformations, constantly "feeding" from the space environment with biomolecules that carry new information.

This concept has one nice feature: it recognizes the Unknown, something inaccessible (yet?) To our knowledge. However, the geological "eternity" looks like some kind of particular, a favorable coincidence of chance circumstances. Of all the planets of the solar system, only one turned out to be in such an extremely unlikely position relative to the luminary that a gas and water shell appeared on it - the atmosphere and hydrosphere, the interaction of which with the earth's crust determined the "nutrient medium" for the embryos of living organisms. But when and how did the embryos arise?

If in a natural way, it means that in the dead Space somewhere and sometime living matter is synthesized from the inert one. So there is no cosmic eternity of life?

… And again, after long wanderings, our thought closes in on the same initial position: in the universe, dead matter dominates, death triumphs. On Earth, over time, due to super-powerful bursts of solar activity, extinction of the luminary, or for some other reason, the natural environment will become unbearable for life. Consequently, not only individual individuals are subject to death, not only each of us, not only all of humanity, but all earthly life until a new favorable case of the revival of life somewhere in other stellar systems. So is there still a way out of this impasse?

"Two Synthesis of the Cosmos"

This is how V.I. Vernadsky defined the opposition of two worldviews. On the one hand, the Universe is supposed to be the greatest mechanical system, on the other - the greatest organism. In the first case, this is what most scientific theories imply. And in the second ...

“Was there ever and anywhere the beginning of life and living things,” asked Vernadsky, “or life and living things are the same eternal foundations of the Cosmos, which are matter and energy? Is life and living things characteristic only for one Earth, or is this a common manifestation of the Cosmos? ..

Each of us knows how much important, valuable and dear for all of us is connected with the correct and accurate answer, the solution of these questions ... For there are no "questions more important for us than questions about the mystery of life, that eternal mystery that has been facing humanity for thousands of years ...

We know - and we know it scientifically - that space without matter, without energy, cannot exist. But is there enough matter and energy - without the manifestation of life - to build the Cosmos, the Universe that is accessible to the human mind? ..

He preferred to answer this question in the negative, referring precisely to scientific information, and not to personal sympathies, philosophical or religious beliefs:

“... You can talk about the eternity of life and the manifestations of its organisms, how can we talk about the eternity of the material substrate of celestial bodies, their thermal, electrical, magnetic properties and their manifestations.

From this point of view, the question of the beginning of life will be just as far from scientific research as the question of the beginning of matter, heat, electricity, magnetism, motion. "

According to Vernadsky, ideas about the world based on the data of physics, chemistry, mathematics, mechanics, extremely simplify reality, offering schemes that are far from reality. In this case, the universe turns either into chaos, in which areas of order arise by chance, or into a grandiose machine controlled by the world Mind or deities.

For a naturalist, the Universe is embodied primarily in the terrestrial area of ​​life - the biosphere (we add: also in the human microcosm). And here life reigns. “These ideas about nature,” continues Vernadsky, “are no less scientific than the creations of cosmogony or theoretical physics and chemistry, and closer to many; although they are as incomplete as the geometric schemes of the simplified thought of physicists, they are less imbued with the ghostly creations of the human mind. "

Let us add that the authority of mechanics, physics, chemistry has grown immensely due to the successful use of relevant knowledge for military purposes, for the creation of weapons of mass destruction. The states spent enormous sums on the development of these sciences. For most people, intricate formulas and incomprehensible scientific concepts were perceived as gibberish, hiding hidden wisdom. (They say that during the applause of the audience, who greeted Chaplin and Einstein, the great artist whispered to the great physicist: "They greet you because they do not understand your work, and me - because everyone understands me.")

In our century, the so-called exact sciences began to claim absolute primacy. According to them, worldview problems are checked, and the derived formulas of universal gravitation, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. are considered to be fundamental. However, all these sciences are built on the assumption that neither life nor mind possess any special qualities, without taking significant part in the life of the Universe ... Not even in life, but in some kind of machine-like state. It is clear that the world built according to such a scheme remains inanimate and completely uncomfortable for a living thinking person.

Of course, any specific science, and indeed all sciences in general, have definite limitations. The main thing is how skillfully and wisely each scientist realizes and takes them into account.

"There are always scientists," wrote Vernadsky, "who clearly feel and embrace this living, real Nature of our planet, all imbued with the eternal beating of life, and for whom this understanding of a single Nature is the guiding thread of all their scientific work."

Why do researchers lose this feeling of living Nature? The main reason, perhaps, is that the human environment is radically changing. An artificial “second” technogenic nature, the technosphere, has been created. Modern man in everyday life, at work, at rest remains, as it were, a tiny detail of a gigantic mechanical system. So the whole world begins to appear to a person as a natural semblance of the technosphere - the world of mechanical systems that push life to the margins of being.

I would like to highlight one remark of Vernadsky and carefully comprehend: "In science there is still no clear consciousness that the phenomena of life and the phenomena of dead nature, taken from a geological, that is, planetary, point of view, are a manifestation of one process."

Logically, not everything is correct here. First, the phenomena of life and dead nature are sharply separated, and then it is indicated that they are one. But what organic unity of the living and the dead is possible? And how, then, is the geological point of view different from the biological one? If biologists have developed the concept of an organism, and representatives of precise, technical ones - a mechanism, then what kind of symbiosis is possible: either an organic mechanism, or a mechanical organism? It turns out incomprehensible. Or is it possible that some third synthesis of the Cosmos encompasses the first two? And how is it related to geology?

Living from the dead or dead from the living?

Maximilian Voloshin has a stanza:

And a terrible scar on the ridge of the Lunar Alps

Left the sky ax.

You are like the Earth from which the scalp is torn off -

The Face of Terror in the dispassionateness of the ether.

This characteristic of the Moon is not typical for poetic dreams. And for scientific reflections, the Moon remained the abode of the mysterious Selenites for a long time. In the last century, many astronomers have seriously discussed the possibility of the presence of intelligent beings on the Earth's satellite. In our century, it became clear: celestial bodies are rarely inhabited, like our planet. Most often they are lifeless.

It is curious that the poet preferred to see in the Moon the image of the Earth deprived of life, and not vice versa: in the Earth - the image of the Moon, which acquired a "scalp", and scientifically speaking, a biosphere. Voloshin is generally characterized by the spiritualization of nature. One of its incarnations is the human microcosm:

He thought in the sky

I thought in the clouds

He made flesh with clay,

Growing like a plant.

I became stiff with stones,

I was furious with passions

He saw by the sun

Dreamed of dreams by the moon

Buzzed with planets

Breathed in the winds.

And there was everything -

Above as below

- Fulfilled by high matches.

Another poet-philosopher of our century, Nikolai Zabolotsky, was not so optimistic about the same years. Looking closely at the life of nature, he drew attention to the incessant cruel struggle for existence, in which life and death are inseparable, which are in some kind of meaningless cycle:

... Above the garden

There was a vague rustle of a thousand deaths.

Nature turned into hell

She did her business without fuss.

A beetle ate grass, a beetle pecked a bird,

The ferret drank the brain from a bird's head,

And fear-twisted faces

The nocturnal creatures watched from the grass.

Nature's everlasting press

Connected death and being

In one ball, but the thought was powerless

Combine her two sacraments.

However, the human soul does not want to put up with the "eternal press", where being is affirmed by death, It seeks and finds a way out of this impasse:

I will not die, my friend. Breath of flowers

I will find myself in this world.

The centuries-old oak tree my living soul

Rooted, sad and harsh.

In its large sheets I will give shelter to the mind,

I will cherish my thoughts with the help of my branches.

So that they hang over you from the darkness of the forests

And you were involved in my consciousness.

Over your head, my distant great-grandson,

I will fly in the sky like a slow bird

I will flash over you like a pale lightning.

Like summer rain I will pour, sparkling over the grass.

There is nothing in the world more beautiful than being.

The silent gloom of the graves is empty languor.

I have lived my life, I have not seen peace:

There is no peace in the world. Life is everywhere, and I am.

It is interesting to note that Vernadsky has an expression: "the ubiquity of life" (meaning the state of the biosphere). But how can you still imagine from a scientific point of view - but simply in reality - the unity of the phenomena of dead and living nature? Which of these two phenomena prevails? Or are they really woven into an unbreakable ball?

If we are talking about ecosystems, then Zabolotsky quite accurately depicted the chains of so-called trophic links - food systems where plants and microbes, whose tissues are woven from earthly dust and sunlight, are eaten by herbivores, and these, in turn, are eaten by carnivores ... There really is a cycle of life and death ... for the sake of life! For the entire ecological whirlwind guarantees the stable existence of its constituent species.

But ecosystem is a largely speculative concept. It is possible to call it a single organism only more or less conditionally. The whole area of ​​life is a different matter - the biosphere. This is the most real film of life on the planet.

Some scientists propose to call the biosphere a set of living organisms (living matter - according to Vernadsky). However, organisms do not at all form a single sphere enveloping the Earth. They are disunited, and most importantly, inseparable from their environment. All the atoms that compose them enter their flesh only for a very short time. Following Cuvier, organisms can be called stable, although not durable, vortices of atoms. And the entire biosphere as a whole is also a set of stable organized vortices of atoms, cycles of matter and energy. It should be considered an organism with good reason.

The biosphere is a living space organism. The nutrient medium for it is the mineral substrate of the planet, and the sun generously supplies energy.

This conclusion, it seems to me, follows from Vernadsky's doctrine of the biosphere, its cosmic and planetary essence.

And yet, something remains unclear. Of course, the molecules and atoms of our body belong to the biosphere. Each of us is like a tiny cell of this cosmic superorganism. The termination of our personal life does not mean any noticeable loss for the biosphere. In our body, some cells also constantly die off and others are born. As statistics show, more people are born on Earth than die. In this sense, it is legitimate to talk about the triumph of life, not death.

However, we feel ourselves not only physically, but also spiritually. Perhaps even bodily death is not too terrible. If it is not accompanied by torment, then it looks like an eternal dreamless sleep. Another thing is terrible: the thought of the cessation of consciousness, reason, perception of life. This means a hopeless loss of what we are so accustomed to: the surrounding living world, the Universe, our own feelings and thoughts ...

Pay for excellence?

The half-forgotten Russian philosopher NN Strakhov has an original work "The World as a Whole", where one of the chapters is called "The Meaning of Death".

“Death is the finale of the opera, the last scene of the drama,” the author writes, “just as a work of fiction cannot drag on endlessly, but separates by itself and finds its boundaries, so the life of organisms has limits. This expresses their deep essence, harmony and beauty inherent in their lives.

If the opera were only a collection of sounds, then it could go on without end; if the poem were only a collection of words, then it also could not have any natural limit. But the meaning of the opera and the poem, their essential content require a finale and a conclusion. "

The idea is interesting. Indeed, in chaos there is no beginning or end. Only organized bodies are capable of developing in a certain direction. But every organization has a limit to its perfection. Having reached it, it remains to either maintain stability or degrade. In the first case, sooner or later, the laws of nature begin to manifest themselves: in a changing environment, an actively living organism, having reached relative perfection, begins to "work", to incur irreparable losses.

“If any organism,” continues Strakhov, “could improve itself endlessly, it would never reach adulthood and full disclosure of its powers; he would constantly be just a teenager, a creature that is constantly growing and never destined to grow up.

If the organism in the epoch of its maturity suddenly became unchanged, therefore, it would represent only recurring phenomena, then development would cease in it, nothing new would occur in it, therefore, there could be no life.

So decrepitude and death are a necessary consequence of organic development; they follow from the very concept of development. These are the general concepts and considerations that explain the meaning of death. "

As soon as the meaning of death is clarified, immediately there is an excuse for it. Moreover, it begins to be thought of as a great blessing! This is no longer just a quantitative limitation of living things capable of overly rapid reproduction. We are talking about the dying of individuals who have reached perfection, not only for the sake of freeing the arena of life, but also for the possibility of achieving a higher level of perfection and maintaining the highest biological activity of living matter.

It turns out that even the transience of dying can be considered a blessed phenomenon: “Death is remarkable for its speed,” says Strakhov, “it quickly reduces the body from a state of activity and strength to simple decay. How slowly man grows and develops! And how quickly, for the most part, it disappears!

The reason for this speed lies precisely in the high organization of a person, in the very superiority of his development. A tall organism does not tolerate any significant disturbance in its functions.

From this point of view, death is a great blessing. Our life is limited precisely because we are able to live to see something ... death does not allow us to experience ourselves. "

It seems that the logical construction is harmonious, the arguments are convincing. And how many will they reconcile with inevitable death, with a short life and eternal non-existence? How many people want to perceive death as good?

I think there will be few such originals. And what do the arguments of reason mean before the indisputable evidence of feelings? And they deny death. And even in this word, in its sound, there is something dark, disgusting, terrible;

NN Strakhov was of the opinion that Darwinism was doubtful. And at the same time, the idea of ​​death as a payback for perfection is consonant with the idea of ​​the progressive evolution of species that occurs as a result of the survival of the most perfect (if we understand fitness in this way). In the laboratory of nature, there is a constant search for more and more active, developed, best organized forms. Unsuccessful specimens are rejected quickly, and successful ones have the opportunity to survive for a longer time, but they must also give way to new, even more perfect species. The creative nature, in its unquenchable striving for perfection, is forced to use death as a means of increasing diversity and prosperity of life.

… To be honest, in this understanding of evolution there is something deeply offensive for anyone living. Here a person and every creature appears as a means, as a dead material (although alive, but for creative nature, as it were, devoid of feelings and consciousness) material for experiments, for "higher selection." I recall the Nazi ideas about the superman and inferior races, as well as the concept of a communist paradise, for the sake of which it is permissible to destroy and terrorize millions of people.

And what kind of higher creative Intelligence (Nature or God - in this case it does not matter), if it is completely devoid of the concept of good and evil, sympathy for the dying or doomed to death - that is, for all living ?!

Of course, it is possible that we simply do not understand the greatness and wisdom of Nature's design. But our understanding remains on the surface of the ocean of feelings, emotions, and the unconscious. And our entire being - not only the mind - resists death, perceives it as something terrible, as an absolute evil in relation to the individual, as something directly opposite to life and freedom. We will involuntarily agree with Nikolai Berdyaev: "Nature is primarily for me the opposite of freedom, the order of nature differs from the order of freedom ... Personality is man's rebellion against the slavery of nature."

Nature has sentenced man to the realization of the necessity of death. The most intelligent creation of the Earth turned out to be the most unfortunate in this respect.

“Life is the greatest blessing given by the Creator. Death is the greatest and last evil "- so Berdyaev asserts, as if not noticing that death was granted to man from above, and that this evil completely refutes, negates the great blessing of life.

Russian philosopher Yevgeny Trubetskoy, retelling the views of atheists, wrote: "Suffering and death are the most obvious proofs of the nonsense reigning in the world ... The vicious circle of this life is precisely the circle of suffering, death and untruth." In what way did he see the way out of this circle?

In the acceptance of Christian values, faith in God and the appearance of Christ. But what if we abandon the religion-consoler? If we turn to scientific reality? Then it remains to recall Dostoevsky's statement (through the mouth of the Devil from the vision of Ivan Karamazov):

“Since humanity completely renounces God (and I believe that this period, parallel to the geological periods, will come true), then by itself… all the old worldview and, most importantly, all the old morality will fall, and everything new will come. People copulate in order to take from life everything that it can only give, but indispensable for happiness and joy in this world alone. Man will be exalted with the spirit of divine, titanic pride and a man-god will appear. Hourly conquering nature without borders, by his will and science, a person thereby hourly will feel pleasure so high that it will replace all the previous hopes of heavenly delights. Everyone will know that he is all mortal, without resurrection, and will accept death proudly and calmly, like God ... "

Isn't it a prophetically drawn picture. Has not modern man, armed with powerful technology, become the conqueror of nature? Although in one small thing, the victory is final! - nature remains after all: it still kindly and unswervingly dispatches legions of “conquerors of nature” into oblivion, like any other waste, imperfect products of his creativity, just as man himself sends objects, equipment, created by him, to landfills ...

No, there is no need to talk about the pride and calmness of the present person before the grin of death. The deadliest wars in history took place in our century. And what does the future hold? If not a global military, then no less disastrous ecological catastrophe. Modern man, enslaved by everyday life, production, technology, the power of the state and capital, no one feels himself to be an almighty god. He is increasingly disbelieving in the coming happy future. And this was foreseen by Dostoevsky. The devil reasonably notes:

“But since, in view of the ingrained stupidity of humanity, this, perhaps, will not work out even in a thousand years, then anyone who is already aware of this truth is allowed to settle down completely as he pleases, on new principles. In this sense, "everything is allowed to him" ... All this is very nice; only if he wanted to cheat, why else, it seems, the sanction of truth? But such is our modern Russian man: he will not dare to cheat without sanction, he has loved the truth so much ... "

It may seem that this is the lot of an atheist: in the face of death, try to snatch everything possible from life, regardless of anything for the sake of your own pleasures. Not believing in God, he is free to set the "rules of the game" when good and evil are transformed into relative concepts. However, for the believer, as is commonly believed, "everything is permitted"; neither the devil nor even God has power over his soul. A person always has a choice to whom to devote his soul: to God or the devil, to live in good or in evil.

Yes, as long as a person is alive, the whole world is granted to him; a person is given control over his life, to choose certain actions, to hope for something, to count on happiness ... Death is complete certainty, the absence of choice when nothing is allowed. True, in religious teachings, death is often interpreted as liberation. The immortal soul leaves the bodily prison and rushes to its eternal abode. Tricky questions arise. If the separation of the soul from the body is a blessing, then why unite them at all for the sake of a short stay on Earth? And the death of a baby in a monstrous way then turns out to be preferable to the death of an old man who has lived a difficult life.

And the immortality of the soul looks somehow one-sided: it appears after birth (passes from dying to those born; although, as you know, fewer people die than are born): it is formed over several years, and then it does not remain in a state of eternal rest - out of time. She is changeable.

In short, if death is a blessing done for the sake of the highest perfection, then life can be considered a real misfortune, from which one should get rid of as soon as possible. The believer in God the Creator already during his lifetime prepares for the afterlife "anti-existence"; the believer in the Creative Nature must joyfully give his life for the sake of the highest perfection. The easiest way is for those who do not believe in anything or do not think about anything beyond. However, for them, in this way, an animal life is realized, not worthy of a thinking creature, and their death only cleans the Earth of greedy and unprincipled consumers.

Another option is possible: admit your ignorance, abandon clear conclusions and turn to facts. What do they testify to?

Of all organisms, the simplest unicellular protozoa have the shortest life span. In a favorable environment, they split up, multiplying extremely quickly. Each such division of a cell can be considered its death. Although there is another version: a single-celled organism is immortal (in principle), because it does not die, but doubles. In any case, for multicellular organisms, the situation is more definite: higher animals usually live much longer than lower ones. A person in this respect, undoubtedly, belongs to the centenarians.

However, even here everything is not as simple as we would like. A pike or a raven surpasses a person in terms of the duration of an individual life. In addition, modern people have the opportunity to postpone their death as much as possible with the help of medicine. And still quite recently - several centuries ago - short lives absolutely prevailed.

Well, how long do trees live? Are they not the champions in this indicator? Therefore, they can be considered the special chosen ones of the Creative Nature, the most perfect creatures!

Let us turn to the indicators of life expectancy not of individuals, but of species. In geological history, species are known that have lived on Earth for tens, if not hundreds of millions of years. For example, the crocodile family has been preserved since the Mesozoic era, the era of the domination of reptiles, and scorpions from even earlier eras, when higher animals began to master the land. Sharks don't appear to have changed significantly in nearly half a billion years. Well, blue-green algae have been living on the planet since time immemorial - several billion years.

Probably the most rapidly dying out ... our ancestors, hominids. Of all the species over the past 2-3 million years, only one Homo sapiens has survived. It turns out that the Creative Nature especially quickly rejected, dooming to death, the most intelligent inhabitants of the Earth. And humanity in our era looks like a doomed species: over 40 millennia, it has so transformed its habitat that a global ecological crisis has begun.

Ancient crystal man

In the fate of any living creature, the date of birth is least determined, and death is the most definite.

The fragmentation of a single-celled organism is, in essence, the birth of two organisms. During sexual reproduction, two cells, merging, give rise to a new organism. However, at this moment, the organism as such is not yet there. An idea of ​​a future individual appears, a clot of genetic information that determines his innate qualities. The crystallization mechanism of an individual is turned on (in the words of the outstanding physicist Erwin Schrödinger, an aperiodic crystal).

The question arises: does an organism appear only when it actively absorbs molecules from the external environment, increasing its body? In the material embodiment - yes, it takes shape just then. But, as you know, all its atoms are quickly replaced by new ones. They are nothing more than construction material... And the structure plan, construction, stability, dynamics - all this is determined by genetic information recorded at the molecular level.

Consequently, in the information aspect, the idea of ​​this particular organism is formed from two sources - from two parents. And each of them, in turn, has two sources of genetic information. Thus, the information sources of each being, each of us, go back to the distant past. From generation to generation, from parents to children, the flame of life is continuously transmitted - the idea of ​​life! - without the slightest interruption

There is an image of a vibrant living tissue woven from millions and millions of individuals in the four-dimensional space-time of the biosphere. Continuous threads of past lives stretch to each of today's organisms. In this sense, our past is the history of all living matter on the planet.

When we talk about the duration of the existence of a separate group of animals or plants, we mean a certain set of traits that is characteristic of it and persisted from the formation to the extinction of this group. But after all, each of the groups did not arise out of nothing and most often did not sink into nothing. It was preceded by related forms, and new species "spun off" from it.

So to speak. As an individual, each of us has a certain age, which can be counted either from the birthday or from the moment of conception. At the same time, we are representatives of one or another family, clan, tribe, and these roots can go back hundreds and thousands of years in the past. Belonging to the biological species Homo sapiens, we are 40 thousand years old, and belonging to the hominid family pushes our past back by millions of years ... So, step by step, we delve into the geological past. Ultimately, you will have to reach the mythological era of the origin of life on Earth or even in Space.

As varieties of a single living substance, any existing species are of the same age. It's just that in the history of the biosphere, they changed from different speeds... Single-celled organisms - already very perfect - remained more or less unchanged, and those destined to become humans evolved at maximum speed. That's all.

The birth of each of us is the end result of an infinitely long folding in parts and transmission from generation to generation of genetic information, a biological idea, which is realized in the form of one or another organism. Birth is the materialization of such an idea. But at the same time it does not disappear, but continues to be stored in the genes, recorded at the molecular level.

It turns out that any living organism, including you and me, as a carrier, the embodiment of biological information is much older than each crystal, stone. After all, the crystal, "dying", completely dissolves in the environment. It breaks down into atoms, ions or simple molecules, in which the memory of its previous existence is completely erased. Having gone through cycles of dissolution in natural waters or melting in the crucible of the earth's interior, a newly born crystal is individual, like a living organism. In deviations from the ideal crystalline form and ideal chemical composition, its unique "personality" is manifested, information is contained about the features of origin and growth, the surrounding geological environment. This information remains in a passive state until some changes occur with the crystal, and in the end, until it disappears completely.

So, the crystal has a fixed date of birth. It is usually determined by the rate of decay of radioactive minerals contained in a given rock and accumulating more and more radioactive decay products over time. It is interesting that living organisms have an opposite indicator: the intensity of reproduction. And in this, perhaps, life is fundamentally different from inert inert matter.

Another fundamental difference relates to information. Crystals accumulate it as they grow, drawing it from the environment in the form of "nutrients". It is stored in favorable conditions for a very, very long time, and when the crystal dissolves or melts, it passes into the environment. Crystals of one kind or another are practically the same, no matter what era they belong to: modern or unimaginably distant Archee. It can be said that crystals have not learned anything in their entire geological history.

Living matter is a different matter. It constantly absorbed information, learned, modified. The variety of organisms increased, their complexity increased. Animals and plants learned to interact with each other and with the natural environment. Living organisms have stored and store information as the greatest value. An individual dies, but it transfers genetic information to its descendants.

It is widely believed among scientists that information accumulated in living matter due to errors, misunderstandings, and accidental distortions of it during storage and transmission. A strange idea. It is not confirmed by any mathematical calculations. On the contrary, it is categorically refuted! And common sense poses a very simple question: is it possible to improve the description of the future organism - in the most complex way coded information about its structure, properties, physiology, development, possibilities, and even about death - with the help of typos?

Of course, there is a possibility that the number is large enough. monkeys, who have been constantly working at printing presses for a very long time (say, millions of years; for theory, even this can not be assumed), someday quite by accident they will type the full text of Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. Even if we assume that such an incredible event will nevertheless take place, one should take into account that a controller is also required, who must familiarize himself with the received texts and select from them those required to “create” the novel.

It is generally argued that genetic information is controlled by the environment through natural selection of the fittest. This option either assumes infinite insight and wisdom behind the environment (God the Creator!), Or does not take into account at all that, they are most adapted to earthly varied conditions it is the protozoa that can live on glaciers, in hot mineral springs, in the depths of the earth, do without sunlight ...

Species of animals and plants that have existed without noticeable changes for millions or even billions of years are really well adapted to the conditions of the biosphere. They have chosen a strategy of sustainability, conservatism, preservation of the achieved perfection. To do this, they do not even have to die at all: it is enough to split into identical parts. Having acquired qualities that are reliable for life, encoded in the genetic system, such an organism regularly churns out new and new copies of this text. Standardization triumphs. Creative impulses are muted or prohibited.

Another part of the living matter follows a different strategy. These species are flexible and changeable. And they create themselves, drawing on new information through active interactions with each other and with the environment. How information is enriched remains largely a mystery.

This topic is special, difficult and secondary for our purposes. It is important to note the very fact of the search strategy in a significant part of plants and animals. Among them, the striving for diversity, unexpected solutions, freedom of creativity is clearly manifested. Over the past million years, these qualities have been most fully expressed in the evolutionary line of our ancestors, hominids, leading to the creation of Homo sapiens - Homo sapiens.

Is it permissible here to talk about striving for perfection? And what, then, is meant by perfection? If adaptation to the environment, then we should talk about a departure from perfection, taking into account the highest adaptive capabilities of the simplest organisms.

Consider, for example, energy indicators. According to the calculations of the American biophysicist E. Brod, a person emits thousands of times more energy per unit mass than the Sun. These calculations are easy to verify by dividing the total amount of energy emitted by a person and a star by the mass of a person and a star, respectively. However, a single-celled creature by this indicator is thousands of times superior to a person.

Studying the traces of biomolecules in ancient sedimentary rocks, scientists have established that more than a billion years ago, living organisms in biochemical terms did not fundamentally differ from modern ones. The most simply arranged species have been steadily preserved throughout geological history. This fact alone testifies to their perfection.

Finally, it's time to remember that protozoa are potentially immortal. And this also shows their perfection.

Perhaps a technical analogy is acceptable. An ax or a hoe has not fundamentally changed for many millennia, while computers have only (half a century gone through a rapid evolution: several generations of "smart machines" have changed, of which the first generations look hopelessly outdated and doomed to destruction. Similarly, many varieties of complex technical systems have died out. (airplanes, cars ...) with a stable existence of the simplest devices (hook, needle, hammer ...) In technology, the most cunning, science-intensive, complex creatures are discarded faster than others.

It turns out that death is a payment for excessive complexity, for the possibility of creative freedom, and ultimately for reason.

So, a normal crystal is maximally adapted to the environment, completely depends on it, does not learn anything (almost?) And exists - as an individual - outside the concepts of life and death.

The simplest organisms have achieved perfection in interaction with the environment, are able to quickly adapt to its changes and transform it for the good of life / Having achieved such harmony, they are not inclined to violate it, implementing a strategy of maintaining stability, despite any changes in the biosphere.

For complex multicellular organisms with an internal division of functions, the situation is not so unambiguous. They retain the simplest molecular structures (genes) with potential immortality. In this sense, and for them, we can talk about the continuity of the fabric of life from the beginning of geological history to the present day. But as a biological species or as an individual, representatives of such groups, carrying out a strategy of creative search for new forms, are doomed to death.

The realm of the dead and the world of the living

Doomed rebels

This is how Maximilian Voloshin began his wonderful philosophical poem “In the Ways of Cain. The Tragedy of Material Culture ":

In the beginning there was a mutiny

The mutiny was against God

And God was a rebellion.

And all that is, began through rebellion.

With amazing insight, the poet expressed a thought that is difficult to reveal by the scientific method:

Only two paths are open for beings

Caught in the traps of the balance:

The path of rebellion and the path of adaptation

Rebellion is madness;

Natures are immutable.

But in the fight

For the truth of the impossible

Madman -

Transubstantiates himself.

And the adapted one freezes

At the passed level ...

What can you do here: Rebellion is etched in our genes. Undoubtedly, there are many opportunists among people. They adapt to the given social environment - no matter how ugly, ugly, humiliating it may be. And they get considerable benefits in return. But they lose, perhaps, the most important thing: the ability to live in harmony with the rebellious nature of creatures striving for the "truth of the impossible."

The poet is close to the human, spiritual, and not biological essence of this division of all living:

It's time for new riots

And disasters: falls and madness.

Prudent:

"Return to the herd!"

To the rebel:

"Re-create yourself!"

However, it should be remembered that prudence does not save a person from the inevitability of death. In this sense, for all of us it is completely indifferent how the path of life has been traversed. We all belong to the category of "biological rebels".

Religious teachings promise the believer immortality of the soul as a reward for complete obedience. It is assumed that the one who prudently fulfills the provided commandments, is pleasing to God and after death will find eternal rest in the heavenly booths.

Let's remember that Satan - a fallen angel - was severely punished for his rebellion against the almighty God. "The father of cybernetics" Norbert Wiener wrote in one of his works that the devil that a scientist fights against is a mess. And he took the position of the religious thinker Aurelius Augustine, who saw in the world not a confrontation between good and evil, but simply a certain amount of imperfection.

In this case, absolute order, complete perfection would mean immobility, peace, the cessation of catastrophes and rebellions, ideal harmony ... Does not the face of death be seen in this blissful picture?

Such an assumption may seem blasphemous. But after all, complete order is certainty, lack of choice, ultimate lack of freedom, crystallized tightly.

Most of the religious commandments are prohibitive. They indicate what not to do. In this they differ from the commandment of life: love, dare, create! For then not only will life last, but it will be even more diverse, unexpected, interesting.

One can imagine that the flaws of our material-spiritual world do not relate to the world beyond the grave, the ideal. There is a sharp distinction: the souls of the righteous go to heaven in order to taste eternal bliss, and the souls of ineradicable sinners are plunged into the abyss of hellish torment ...

It is unlikely that such religious images are designed for rigorous logical analysis in accordance with scientific data. However, you should think about them a little.

If we agree that a certain spiritual substance leaves the body after death and goes into another being, then some questions arise. Where is this "otherworld"? Before it was supposed to be in the sky. Now there is no room left for the palaces of paradise, just as there is definitely no fire-breathing hell hidden in the bowels of the earth. There is absolutely no reliable data about astral bodies residing on other planets. Fantastic hypothesis!

Suppose, however, that there is a "parallel otherworld", the transition to which is carried out through bodily death and spiritual liberation. How do souls dwell there? Doomed to eternal paradise will be happy there forever? How many will be satisfied with inactive otherness? For a creatively gifted person, this will be a real punishment, even a tragedy! To whom is heavenly bliss oriented?

In Islam, it is embodied in images of a purely everyday, earthly. There even the beautiful houris even delight the soul of the deceased ... In general, there is everything that the padishah, satiated with wealth, possesses in this earthly life. And the poor, deprived of these benefits on Earth, are offered to console themselves with the hope of finding them posthumously. In such cases, the religious fanatic sometimes longs for death, or, in any case, is ready to perceive it as a blessing.

Whatever you think, boring, and a vulgar tone turns out to be an eternity, devoid of daring, creative impulses, freedom of searches and doubts, mistakes and insights. Only the most unassuming townsfolk, deprived of many human joys during their lifetime, are capable of being satisfied with it.

Eternal moment

The idea of ​​heaven and hell can be interpreted allegorically.

Our conscious life is in the eternal present. We preserve the memory of the past, but also in the present and think about the future in the same way.

As Epicurus noted, death for each of us exists only speculatively. While we are alive - she is not, when she came - we are not. We are not experiencing death, but its premonition, the thought of it. Our death will be marked by outside observers. For them, it is reality. For us, it’s a sham.

It is possible to propose a hypothesis based on the subjectivity of the moment of a person's death. The last moment is not interrupted for him, but passes into eternity. The current events of life cease, but the experience of the given moment remains.

At every moment of being, we combine the present-past-future into a single clot. And not time flows, as they usually say, but events change in the same eternal present. (Once the Russian physicist N. A. Umov wrote: “Time is not flowing, we are the wanderers of this world.” Remains - eternity ...

Of course, objectively, a person's life ends. But both life and death are individual. Here everyone, as they say, is for himself. Therefore, the starting point is personal, subjective. Only she interests us in this case.

Formally speaking, given the infinite divisibility of time, the last moment can really last as long as you like. There will always be an opportunity to split the remaining part in two and so on to, infinity. However, if we bring this abstraction closer to reality, two circumstances become clear. First. In space, we have the limiting dimensions of a material object, the minimum clots of matter-energy: quanta. Having recognized the unity of space-time, it is necessary in this case for the minimum portion of space to assume the minimum duration in time, which is not equal to zero.

The second circumstance is connected with the possibilities of our perception of the smallest portions of space and time. Here the human senses are clearly very imperfect "measuring instruments". Millionths or even thousandths of a second remain elusive for us. Consequently, it is permissible to expect an endless fragmentation of the dying moment only with a negligible degree of probability.

And yet, the last flash of consciousness - a farewell to life - perhaps extraordinary, unfolding whole cascades of events (imaginary) and vivid emotions, depending on how a person came to this state, which will reveal his conscience, implicitly keeping score of good and bad deeds.

It is not for nothing that in many religions there is a rite of initiation into near death, repentance and absolution. Cleansing from spiritual corruption, defilement gives hope for pacification before eternal rest.

Ideally, such a procedure testifies to the mercy of God, revealing even to the sinner an eternity unclouded by evil, prepared for pure souls. However, we have to remember those who died suddenly, in a catastrophe, in infancy, in deep sleep. They are not given to comprehend, to grasp the transition to the eternal moment. Does it mean that it is absent for them? Unacceptable injustice!

There is one more "weakness" in the concept of an eternal moment: a categorical discrepancy between subjective experience and objective observation. You can console yourself with the thought of the lasting last moment of your being. But all other people will undeniably state death. And if subjectively it will not be felt, then its objective existence does not raise any doubts.

… The great power of religion is in addressing directly the human soul, to personal feelings and aspirations. The power of scientific ideas is determined by their provability, general validity, and reliance on reliable knowledge. Where faith and knowledge unite, a strong alloy arises that strengthens the soul and mind. But where faith and knowledge are in opposition, irreconcilable contradictions, you have to choose on your own what to give preference to. Depending on the temperament and mind, some reject the arguments of science, as if closing their eyes to reality; others are forced to courageously abandon comforting religious speculations in the name of dispassionate scientific truth.

Finally, another position is possible: the recognition of one's own or even general ignorance. Such uncertainty can be creative, implying further searches in both religious and scientific fields.

We will not predetermine our position In an effort to comprehend the essence of life and death. It is clear in advance that it will not be possible to come to absolute truths that exhaustively the topic to the bottom. The greatest thinkers of all times and peoples tried to understand the mystery of life and death. Even if someone managed to express completely correct ideas, how to find them among many others? Here too much depends on our personal mental abilities, knowledge, character.

Perhaps someone is quite satisfied with the traditional notions of heaven and hell, someone is satisfied with an atheistic view of death as an absolute and hopeless reality, and someone is a comforting image of an eternal moment. A person, having accepted any of the prevailing concepts, is free to abandon further intellectual pursuits. However, it is more reasonable and constructive, it seems to me, to avoid definitive and unconditional answers in such questions. This will mortify living thought, turning it into cold fossil.

... Let's set off on further voyages in the boundless ocean of ignorance.

Continuing the reasoning about the eternal moment, completing an active life and revealing eternity, one involuntarily comes to sad conclusions. In our volatile world, life is dominated by ... the dead!

For many, many billions of our ancestors, the transition to timelessness has already taken place. And if each of them brought his “drop of eternity” into the world, then as a result a truly ocean arose without movement, changes, life.

In this case, the events of the current reality of the living world are nothing more than fleeting waves in the bottomless ocean. An image of the kingdom of the dead appears, where each of the living is just a short-lived wanderer. I recall some cruel epitaphs on the gravestones: "And you will be here" or "You are at home, and we are visiting."

Such thoughts are very ancient. Apparently, the ancient Egyptians proceeded from them in their ideas about the kingdom of the dead. It is no coincidence that the most grandiose buildings were intended not for the living pharaohs, but for the dead. And yet, as Egyptian art testifies, the cult of the dead did not deprive people of optimism.

For example, in the grave inscription of the dignitary Henie (Middle Kingdom, more than 4 millennia ago) there are the words: "Oh, those who live on earth, who love life, who hate death!" It's amazing how consonant with our minds this appeal from a distant era, from a different culture, from an unrelated people. It is close and understandable to us and as if specially designed for us.

Apparently, the Egyptians perfectly understood the greatness and "crowdedness" of the kingdom of the dead. But this did not reconcile them with death. It was terrible and disgusting for them: truly the kingdom of necessity, complete lack of freedom!

Death is presented in a strange way in the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, which is familiar to Soviet people. In the "Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary" (1983) P. P. Gaidenko writes: "For Marxist philosophy, the tragedy of death is removed precisely by the fact that the individual, as the bearer of the universal, remains to live in the gens ... Marxism-Leninism is an optimistic philosophy: a person even after death remains living in the results of his creativity - in this Marxism sees his real immortality. " The strangeness here is that the real tragedy of the death of an individual, each of us is illusoryly removed by the consciousness that others remain to live, as if they, in turn, will not have to die, and some products of labor. But after all, normal consciousness suggests that it is not in these people and things that the deceased person continues to live, and they cease to live for him. Everyone is afraid of the loss of himself, of his own consciousness, of his individual unique life.

Let us recall the dialectical exercises of F. Engels: "The denial of life is essentially contained in life itself, so that life is always thought of in relation to its necessary result, which is constantly in its embryo - death ... To live is to die."

This is how, professing dialectics, Engels "abolished" life, reducing it to dying. It would be interesting to find out, developing the idea of ​​the denial of life, contained in life itself, can the same technique be used for death? Is there a denial of itself in it? One gets the impression that in this case, when it comes to the death of an individual, it looks like an unconditional reality that does not contain any self-denial.

The idea of ​​death as a necessary result of life is scary enough. Let us take into account that in Marxism-Leninism, the goal and the result have always prevailed over the means. It is assumed that a happy future can be reached through violence, cruelty, suppression of personal freedom, and murder. This theory has not stood the test of practice.

Apparently, Engels believed in the eternity and infinity of the universe. He even suggested: “... we have the confidence that matter in all its transformations remains eternally the same, that none of its attributes can ever be lost and that therefore with the same iron necessity with which it someday she will destroy her highest color on Earth - the thinking spirit, she will have to give birth to it again somewhere in another place and at another time. "

The picture turned out to be quite optimistic. If you limit yourself to only the first impression. Comprehending it, you come to sad conclusions. Still, it turns out that the universe is dead. Everywhere in it is carried out mechanical movement dead matter. Only here and there, in this gloomy abyss, rare isolated foci of life "spontaneously ignite" by themselves, like fireflies on a dark night, to soon fade away without a trace.

Against this background, such, for example, the arguments of P.P. Gaidenko will hardly be comforting: "In Marxist philosophy, the finiteness of the individual is viewed as a dialectical moment in the existence of mankind, ascending in its progressive development to more perfect social forms of revealing the" essential forces "of man."

The ascending movement of mankind along the countless steps of obsolete generations seems strange. Where does this path lead? Is it not into the abyss of nothingness? And what do more perfect social forms and a more complete revelation of the essence of man mean? Is it not that thanks to these achievements and discoveries in the 20th century, two world wars took place, each of which surpassed all previous wars in the history of mankind combined in the number of killed?

And one more perplexity persists: after all, mankind is not at all immortal! The time will come - perhaps not in millions, but only in thousands of years - and it will disappear, like many other biological species. It cannot be otherwise: not only an individual is endowed with eternal life, but also all individuals taken together.

If the life of a person is dying, then the life of humanity is the same, only lasting a longer period.

... It would be an obvious simplification to believe that such a conclusion makes the Marxist-Leninist teaching, and nothing more. Apparently, any materialistic philosophical system that presupposes the primacy and absolute predominance of matter in the world, mainly of dead celestial bodies in lifeless outer space, proceeds, sometimes implicitly, from the recognition of the domination of death over life.

We have already said that modern scientific cosmogonies, recognized by the overwhelming majority of scientists, prove that the universe began with an explosion. Is this not a triumph of destruction and death?

So, perhaps, idealistic philosophies, giving priority to Spirit over matter, are able to help our consciousness get rid of the deadening inertia of the scientific universe?

Immortal soul

The kingdom of the dead of the ancient Egyptians has a serious advantage over the "omnipotence of deadness" characteristic of scientific cosmogony and materialistic views. Reducing life to the fleeting existence of protein bodies, complex organic molecules that make up the body, one has to admit that such a phenomenon is negligible on the scale of space, and inert matter absolutely dominates on Earth. The ancient Egyptians, on the contrary, did not combine in a single reality, but divided into two "parallel worlds" (using science-like terminology) the world of the living and the kingdom of the dead.

The Egyptians' ideas about the afterlife are reflected, in particular, in the "Book of the Dead". One of the most important chapters of this book instructs the soul of the deceased how it should behave before the judgment of Osiris, and is entitled "How to enter the palace of truth and free a person from his sins, so that he contemplates the face of the gods." The soul is obliged to repent and answer about its earthly deeds before God.

Subject to proper rituals and abundant sacrifices “... the deceased will have bread, pies, milk, a lot of meat on the altar of the great God, he will not be removed from any door of Amenti, he will march with the gods of the South and North and truly will be one of the servants of Osiris ".

The transition scheme is as follows. After being on Earth, the soul of a person says goodbye to the mortal body and goes to the kingdom of the gods, where it is rewarded for what it did during material life. The immortal soul retains some connections with the material world, provided that the memory of it is preserved in the world. Here you can even see a certain analogy with the Marxist ideas about immortality in the memory of future generations (only here the soul remains alive, and in the system of materialism it as such is absent).

The inscription on the scarab, which was placed on the mummy's chest instead of the heart, read: “I joined the earth from the eastern side of the sky. Having lay prostrate on the ground, I did not die in Amenti, here I am a pure spirit for eternity. " In other words, a specific person in a specific place does not die, but simply his spirit passes into another being. And yet, the fear of death was not suppressed in people. For example, in the monuments of the religious literature of Mesopotamia, the land of the dead - the possession of Nergal - was depicted as follows;

Ishtar, Sin's daughter, decided to go

To the house of darkness, the abode of Nergal,

Into a house from which one who enters does not return,

On the path that no one returns back,

In a dwelling where everyone who comes does not see the light,

Where dust is food, earth is food.

Whoever lives there does not see the light, remains in darkness.

Dressed like a bird in winged clothing

There is dust on the doors and the lock ...

It is clear that there is no point in rushing to get to the land of the dead. The parting of the soul with the familiar habitual body seemed to be a tragedy, this event was mourned.

Gloomy is the image of winged spirits, forever immured in an underground dungeon. It is difficult to say what the authors of this picture had in mind, but it demonstrates the complete impotence of the soul, whose wings are given only for an imaginary flight.

But what if the soul soars in the heavens, if it is blissful in the luminous spheres? Or more "scientifically": goes into parallel worlds?

To some, such a prospect may seem excellent and comforting. However, it raises a lot of serious doubts. What does inactive consciousness and feeling mean? However, we have to talk about feelings conditionally due to the absence of appropriate organs. In principle, a variety of hallucinations are possible. But in our times, few people believe in the mystical foundations of hallucinations. Physiologists and psychologists study these phenomena and explain them very convincingly without resorting to references to supernatural forces.

Apparently, all that remains is to hope for the preservation of consciousness "in its pure form", outside the material substrate.

Alas, one can only guess and build fantastic assumptions about such a consciousness outside matter. It has never been observed or studied by anyone. How to find at least a hint of its real possibility, if we agree with the available scientific data on the structure of matter, energy transformations, biological processes, and the activity of the brain?

And further. The assumption of the parallel existence of obsolete souls again returns to the idea of ​​the domination of the dead. In a parallel world, more and more dead people should accumulate, which more and more actively interfere in the life of the living. Sometimes it is presented in the form of "feeding" energy from this world to the energy needs of the inhabitants of parallel worlds.

What is left for the living? How can you handle this growing pressure? How did the Supreme Reason allow such a blatant injustice: good and evil are in an equal position, and the dead reign over the living? Why is the access to the world of the living of evil from the other world not prevented? Are we guilty of the sins of the former villains?

It is better then to believe in the alternation of material incarnations of spiritual substance, passing from a person to a blade of grass, animal, stone, dust and again after a series of transformations returning to a new person. And the righteous, as it is assumed in Hinduism, is not provided with heavenly bliss, but complete peace, disappearance, dissolution in the surrounding immortal world.

Well, it is possible that there is a kind of soul in plants (isn't that why flowers are so beautiful?) And, of course, in animals, and, who knows, crystals also, perhaps, vibrations of atoms and electromagnetic fields indicate a hidden spiritual substance. However, why did all these so different natural bodies have a soul similar to that of a human? And a billion years ago, the tiny inhabitants of the Earth - at that time the highest organisms that we now consider the simplest - also had the same soul?

Questions arise strange, sometimes unexpected, and it is very difficult to answer them with arguments, based on the idea of ​​the immortality of the human soul. In any case, it is not possible to get scientifically substantiated answers.

Let's turn to philosophy. For example, George Berkeley, argued the natural immortality of the soul. According to him, the soul is capable of being destroyed, but is not subject to “death or destruction according to the ordinary laws of nature or movement. Those who admit that the human soul is only a subtle vital flame or a system of animal spirits, consider it transitory and destructible, like a body, since nothing can dissipate more easily than such a thing for which it is naturally impossible to survive the death of the shell that encloses it ...

We have shown that the soul is indivisible, incorporeal, inextensible and, therefore, indestructible. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that movements, changes, decline and destruction, to which, as we see, the bodies of nature are exposed hourly (and that is exactly what we mean by the course of nature), cannot touch an active, simple and uncomplicated substance ; such a being is indestructible by the power of nature, that is, the human soul is naturally immortal. "

With all due respect to the originality and depth of Berkeley's thought, one gets the impression that his proof of the immortality of the soul is based on his own experiences, beliefs, and desires. This attitude is fundamental for him. And here it is difficult to argue with him. Indeed, the basis of our ideas about the world is our own "I", the experience of self-knowledge. However, this experience says nothing about the immortality of the soul. On the contrary, we clearly realize that our soul is ephemeral and was born relatively recently - from nothing. Therefore, there is reason to believe that it will sink into oblivion. Why not so?

It is interesting that Berkeley refutes the opinion about the “thin life flame” of the soul not so much from logical reasoning and observation, but from considerations of morality, piety, and human dignity. It seems to him that such an idea is "a remedy against the influence of virtue and religion", but is widespread "among the worst part of humanity."

In general, among religious theorists, almost the main - although not always obvious - argument in favor of belief in the immortality of the soul boils down to the fact that such a belief forces a person to think about his earthly deeds, to fear the afterlife for sins, and therefore to lead a beneficent lifestyle. ... In this case, the believer should not be afraid of death itself, but the subsequent state of the soul, which continues forever.

Simply put: if there is no immortality of the soul, then it must be invented in order to strengthen the moral foundations and to free the beneficent person from the fear of death, and in the sinner this fear must be strengthened. Scientific evidence is not needed here at all, because in any case, in order to live righteously, in order to overcome the fear of death, it is beneficial and convenient for a person to believe in the immortality of the soul.

Mortal soul

It seems blasphemous and cynical to talk about the benefits of believing in the immortality of the soul. It seems that the base is combined - profit and the sublime - faith and soul. However, one should not close our eyes to reality. In reality, too often they coexist and even combine in thoughts, or even much worse - in the actions of one and the same person, these two categories.

The worst kind of lie arises: in relation to oneself, to conscience, to God. Hypocrisy and hypocrisy. And before these qualities were widespread. And now in our country, many citizens, quickly rebuilding their convictions, turned to the church with the same impulse with which they previously turned to atheistic party bodies, even communicating with the Almighty and Omniscient as with high party bosses: saying one thing, thinking another, doing the third ...

What can you do, the lie is too deeply rooted in our mutilated society, and the higher you climb the levels of power, the more perverse and ugly the forms of this lie. However, the owners of unjustly acquired capital also have to pay for material wealth with spiritual values.

Against such a background of triumphant crookedness, such pure and noble people as Patriarch Tikhon, Father Pavel Florensky, Mahatma Gandhi stand out especially brightly and vividly ... They all believed in the immortality of the soul. And they were opposed to their good power by revolutionaries, atheists, seekers of earthly carnal goods and pleasures, rejecting the immortality of the soul ... In short, all those whom Dostoevsky classified as demons.

As if the obvious everyday experience confirms the fidelity and wholesomeness of the guidelines offered by the great world religions, in particular, the belief in the afterlife of the human soul. Regardless of how scientifically justified this belief is, it undoubtedly helps to live more dignifiedly and die more peacefully. And let it be there!

Frankly speaking, in this case, the matter would come down to profit, convenience. This will mean abandoning the search for truth - the holy divine gift to man! - for the sake of profitable ... hypocrisy or superstition, perhaps. After all, true faith presupposes ruthless truth, absolute sincerity.

So, let's look more closely and impartially at the facts (philosophers since ancient times have proved both the mortality and immortality of the soul with equal convincingness; here each of us has the opportunity to choose arguments at our discretion.) They testify that the noblest deeds are often performed by those who does not believe in an eternal soul or even in God.

Let us recall the revolutionary anarchist, the great learned prince P.A.Kropotkin. In the name of the ideals of freedom, equality and brotherhood, he renounced all his considerable privileges, from a brilliant court career, wealth, and even from professional scientific work. Professional revolutionaries who despise labor, he considered, in modern parlance, demagogues-parasites, thirsting for personal power. Not believing in God, he was always striving for the highest moral guidelines.

And Giordano Bruno? His example is no less instructive. He shocked many enlightened contemporaries, first of all, by accepting execution, not believing in the immortality of the soul. He had the opportunity to at least pretend to repent and thereby prolong his one and only life. What prevented him from doing this? If there is no afterlife, then everything in this world is permissible for a person, and after death he will not be held accountable for his sin of false repentance before God!

Those who marveled at the courage of Giordano Bruno in the face of death, apparently, believed precisely in the benefit "that the belief in the immortality of the soul provides. And those who sentenced him to be burned at the stake - cardinals, bishops, grand inquisitors, thereby violated the sacred commandments of the prophet Moses: Thou shalt not kill! and Jesus Christ: love your neighbor as yourself, and do not answer with evil even in response to evil. How could they dare to trample on the foundations of Christ's teaching? Truly believing in the inevitability of an answer to the Lord for their sins (and they all sinned to their fullest!) And the threat of eternal hellish torment, they had to mercifully forgive Bruno for his "delusions" and transgressions.

It turns out that Bruno believed in the lofty ideals of goodness, justice, human dignity, truth, not being afraid to give his life for them. And his devout judges (remember the commandment: do not judge, that you will not be judged!) Were thoroughly saturated with hypocrisy. I. Kepler justly noted: “Bruno bravely endured death, proving the vanity of all religions. He turned God into the world ... "

What inspired Bruno to the feat of faith? (Having no faith, is it possible to decide on a martyr's death?) After all, he did not predetermine general prosperity for mankind, but difficult times: “New truth, new laws will appear, nothing sacred, nothing religious will be heard, not a single word worthy of heaven is heard and celestials. Only the angels of destruction will remain and, mingling with people, will push the unfortunate to audacity, to all evil, ostensibly to justice, and thereby provide a pretext for war, for robbery, deception ... And that will be old age and the unbelief of the world! .. "

And at the same time, in his opinion, all this can be experienced as a serious illness. People will have to decide their own destiny. We are not opposed by the Universe - we are opposed by ourselves, our low thoughts, so miserable and vulgar in the face of the inevitability of everyone's death. Only struggle and overcoming give the happiness of victory. Having achieved the ability to live in the past and the future, a person joins the immortality and eternal beauty of the world.

According to him: "Whoever is carried away by the greatness of his work does not feel the horror of death."

You can count the examples of Kropotkin and Bruno as rare exceptions. However, this opinion looks unconvincing. The mere fact that the belief in the mortality of the soul does not hinder someone or even helps to live and die with dignity proves its fruitfulness. So, there are people - from the best representatives of the human race! - able to overcome the fear of death and do good, thought, beauty, perform noble deeds not under the threat of an afterlife punishment, but at the behest of the heart, conscience.

In general, it seems to me, one should not count on the question of mortality or immortality of the soul to find the only correct answer for all times, peoples, personality types. Everyone chooses this faith according to the disposition of the soul, according to the level of reason.

In any case, no matter how we solve this fatal question for ourselves, the main truth remains unshakable: our mortal mortal life will certainly end sooner or later with death - the separation of soul and body. The body will disintegrate into its component parts, disappear. And the soul ... Nobody knows what will happen to it. One can only guess, fantasize, believe. Even this option is not excluded: everyone will be rewarded according to his faith and earthly deeds. Some - eternal torment, others - bliss, the third - nothingness, eternal rest. And who knows if the last option is the best?

One thing is clear: the former unity of soul and body will never be restored.

Overcoming hopelessness

Our reasoning about life and death, as it is easy to see, constantly reaches dead ends. As if some fatal force does not allow thought to rush into the luminous vastness of eternal life - no matter how you imagine it - each of us, any person. As a kind of general phenomenon in the biosphere of the Earth, life, of course, has existed continuously since time immemorial. But even here the situation is quite hopeless: if earthly life had a beginning, then it is reasonable to assume its natural end.

The Sun will go out, the Earth will cool down, the biosphere will slowly perish. The last to die out are those who were the first to kindle the hearth of earthly life - protozoa, viruses ... What kind of immortality of the individual human soul is there!

Such a picture fully corresponds to modern scientific ideas based on facts, logically built and thought out by many thousands of the smartest specialists. One can oppose these conclusions with consoling religious fantasies, myths, and legends. However, the arguments of reason and objective experience are not empty words.

A person is free to completely disregard science in assessing life and death, accepting the concept that suits him best. The easiest way to do this is for someone who is not at all familiar with natural science. Otherwise, you will have to admit that science is not from God, but from the devil. And then - thoughtless obscurantism triumphs.

It is necessary to make a reservation. Such reasoning presupposes calm theoretical speculations outside the real threat of death. The situation is completely different in practice when a person dies. There is no time for science, and truly all means are good in order to reduce suffering, fear of death. And first, if necessary, reduce physical pain, because they often do last days and the hours of a person's stay in the world are unbearable.

It should be noted that one of the most important functions of religious teachings and rituals is not only to make life easier for a person, but also to prepare him for death. In a sense, philosophy presupposes the same. No wonder Plato said: to philosophize is to learn to die. The example of Socrates, who courageously accepted death, has inspired many since then. (However, in old age, sages usually part with life more easily than in youth.)

It would seem that science with its merciless truth in this respect is fundamentally different from religion and philosophy, which tend to substitute illusions for reality. An experienced specialist, examining a doomed patient, can quite accurately determine the remaining period for him. Doesn't this sound like a death sentence?

Let's take a look at some examples. In the fall of 1990, the Izvestia newspaper published a conversation between A. Vasinsky and Viktor Zorza, a journalist, political scientist, philosopher, a native of Western Ukraine, who has lived in the United States for many years. He is the initiator of the creation of hospices in our country, hospitals for the dying. To this activity he was prompted by a personal tragedy: the death from skin cancer of his twenty-five-year-old daughter Jane

“… The hospice in which Jane died,” Zorza said, “showed me that if victory over death is impossible, another thing is possible - to leave without despair, with dignity, having completed many of my mental thoughts.

According to him, “according to the philosophy of hospices, it is inhuman to hide from a patient if he wants to know the truth how much is left for him. He can get ready. Collect the necessary thoughts. To say goodbye, to forgive ... ”And this is not just reasoning, but a hard-won truth. After all, his daughter in one of her last days said: “For a person there is nothing more important than birth and death. When I was born, I knew nothing. When I die, I know everything. Everything around me is good, not evil. I'm ready to die. "

This is, perhaps, worthy of a man the last moment, passing into eternity: the readiness to accept the inevitable, for everything that is possible for life has been done. And then ... the unknown? I would like to admit just such an indisputable truth.

Of course, the unknown can sometimes frighten no less than the tragic certainty. And then the usual strategy of removing the fear of death is not to think about it at all, or, rather, to suppress all thoughts about it. What will be will be, but for now it is necessary to live and have fun.

- Not to notice death, not to talk about it, - continues A. Vasinsky, - it seems to be part of the lifestyle, is valued as a sign of courage.

- I agree, - V. Zorza answered. “But the most interesting thing is that hospices and a serious attitude towards death encroach not on genuine, but on false optimism.

Indeed, the optimism of ignorance and silence can turn into horror at the edge of life in front of an open abyss.

To avoid this danger, you have to face the truth. And take into account practical experience.

After all, it turns out that science - biology, medicine, psychology, pharmacology - is able to effectively help a person who ends (especially if prematurely) life. This is evidenced, in particular, by the experience of hospices.

On this optimistic note, we could end the story. Yes, one thought does not let you calm down. Humility in the face of inevitability is a forced obedience. The behavior of a slave in front of the all-powerful ruler. And when a slave shows calm wisdom and human dignity, he is doubly sorry!

The law of conservation of spiritual energy?

It is difficult to get used to the idea that such a finely organized, difficult feeling, intelligent and beautiful creature like a person, having served some time on Earth, completely disappears, dissolving into the world around him without a trace. What can be opposed from a scientific point of view to such a conclusion?

VM Bekhterev tried to answer this question in his work "The Immortality of the Human Person as a Scientific Problem". His line of reasoning was as follows.

The body of a deceased person decomposes and ceases to exist - this is an indisputable fact. The atoms and molecules that made up his body pass into new states, enter into new compounds. Matter can be said to be completely transformed. What happens to the energy?

In nature, the law of conservation of energy operates, which has no exceptions. Energy does not arise and does not disappear, it only passes from one form to another. This also applies to the phenomena of neuropsychic activity. “This law in relation to this subject,” writes Bekhterev, “can be expressed as follows: not a single human action, not a single step, not a single thought, expressed in words or even with a simple look, gesture, in general, facial expressions, disappear without a trace. "

A person lives among people, and many people around him are subject to his spiritual influence to one degree or another, and they, in turn, influence him. Thus, neuropsychic energy is organized in the form of a generalized social “superpersonality”. She lives long before the birth of this particular person and continues to live after his death. A person transfers his neuropsychic energy to her. This is the manifestation of his social immortality.

“We are not talking about the immortality of the individual human personality as a whole,” Bekhterev clarifies, “which, when death occurs, ceases to exist as a person, as an individual, as an individual ... but about social immortality due to the indestructibility of the neuropsychic energy that forms the basis of human personality ... "

In other words, he continues, "we are talking about the immortality of the spirit, which during the entire individual life through mutual influence, as it were, passes into thousands of surrounding human personalities." And by creating spiritual values ​​and embodying his creative energy into material objects, a person acquires the ability to influence many future generations.

“Therefore, the concept of the afterlife,” writes Bekhterev, “in the scientific sense, should be reduced, in essence, to the concept of the continuation of the human personality outside its individual life in the form of participation in the improvement of man in general and the creation of a spiritual universal human personality, in which he certainly lives a particle of each individual personality, even though it has already left the real world, and lives without dying, but only transforming itself, in the spiritual life of mankind. "

The scientist's thought does not stop there. In his opinion, “if a human personality is immortal and remains to live in the future, as a particle of spiritual universal human culture, then it also lives in the past, because it is a direct product of the past, a product of everything that it has received from the past universal human culture through succession and inheritance ".

An interesting and unexpected image of the "condensation" and "dispersion" of the personality arises. Some analogy to this can be seen in the formation and dissolution of a crystal, or the growth and decay of a body. In both cases, not only material-material, but also energetic phenomena occur. Moreover, when Bekhterev talks about spiritual culture, he means, in modern terms, information. It is truly an intangible substance, in contrast to matter and energy. But she is inseparable from them as from her carriers. Information is generated, transmitted, perceived, lost as a result of material processes.

In other words, spiritual culture is the sum of information accumulated by previous generations: In such a formulation, the mystical meaning is lost, which can be suspected of any manifestation of spirituality. And it becomes clear that material carriers of information - books, sculptures, architectural structures, paintings ... - themselves remain inert products of creativity.

For example, an old film retains the living appearance of a long-dead artist, who continues to actively influence the public, awakening emotions and thoughts in them. However, because of this, there is no reason to consider the film show as a ritual act of invoking immortal spirit... And if this happens in the case when a visible image appears that is maximally similar to a living person, then what then can we say about rock paintings of people of the Stone Age or the Egyptian pyramids?

There is no doubt that every person from an early age absorbs information from the environment, assimilates it and on this basis carries out his activities. Only now the energy generated by it is almost all dissipated. And those relative crumbs that are embodied in the products of labor are hardly permissible to associate with the immortality of the soul ....

Table salt dissolved in water is not at all a crystal of halite - table salt. The gold atoms scattered in the waters of the oceans are not at all a gold nugget. The sun's rays and minerals are completely different from the tree that they give birth to.

What follows from this? The most obvious, although not indisputable conclusion: neuropsychic energy and information, scattered in the environment, have no resemblance, relationship with the human personality.

In this case, if there is a law of conservation of neuropsychic energy, even if it can be argued (which is very doubtful) that it (and not just energy) is eternal, then there is no good reason to conclude from this that the soul is immortal.

VM Bekhterev, apparently, understood this well, emphasizing that he meant social immortality, and not personal. He. assumed that a person would be morally elevated and spiritually cleansed, realizing his involvement with the entire human race, the intellectual achievements of past and future generations:

“Responsibility for your actions and actions is completely natural if every action, every step, every word, every gesture, every mimic movement and even every sound uttered by a person does not remain without a trace, but one way or another is reflected on others, transforming here into new forms impact on the outside world and transmitted through social continuity to future generations of mankind.

And if this is so, then for every human person there arises the need for moral improvement in the course of life. "

Alas, no matter how correct the scientist's reasoning may be, the last final conclusion raises serious doubts. You cannot force a human person to moral perfection by logical promises and edifications. In essence, the entire spiritual culture is directed towards this goal. And no significant results, general moral progress are felt.

But how could such progress be realized on condition of strict observance of the law of conservation of neuropsychic energy? He assumes, with an increase in the concentration of this energy in one place, a corresponding decrease in another. Otherwise, the balance will not converge! Consequently, progress should be accompanied by an equal amount of regression.

To some extent, perhaps, this is what happens in the history of mankind. What we call scientific and technical or social progress is carried out with a huge damage to society: the spiritual impoverishment of the individual, massive repression, bloody wars, etc., and even more - for the surrounding nature. It is enough to look at the state of our planet (biosphere), mastered by man. Some "prosperous" regions look like rare oases against the backdrop of vast territories where nature is drastically impoverished, polluted, desertified, and spiritual culture is in the same disastrous situation.

There is no doubt that information is being accumulated. In this respect, progress is evident. But only in summary terms, as the total number of accumulated books, articles, facts, works of art, open laws of nature ... However, such arrays of information are only available in their insignificant part for mastering by a specific person. But spiritual culture comes to life only if it becomes the property of the individual, is embodied in the consciousness, actions, and creativity of a person. Spiritual culture not realized in a living person is dead.

And yet, the impression is created that, following the path that Bekhterev's thought is blazing, there is hope to break out of the vicious circle of ideas that constantly return us to the recognition of the domination in the world of death, not life.

To begin with, let's try to abandon the habit, turning to science, relying only on knowledge - proven and confirmed, as if there is no longer any hope for unexpected insights from scientific thought that opens up new areas of knowledge. It is significant that Bekhterev had this in mind:

"All transformations of matter and> whether matter in general, and in general all forms of motion, not excluding the movement of a nerve current, are nothing more than a manifestation of world energy, unknowable in its essence ..." And although the reference to something fundamentally unknowable recognizes this object as inaccessible scientific knowledge, this does not exclude at least partial penetration into the secret.

Beyond being?

From whole to part

Let us turn to the work of the biologist and philosopher VP Karpov "The main features of the organic understanding of nature." He did not replace the universe with physical and mathematical models, schemes, but recognized it, following Plato and his followers, as a single and incomprehensibly complex organism: “The evolution of nature available to our eyes is the result of the eternally adopted and disturbed harmony of millions of lives, in other words, part of a spontaneous world process ...

In what direction the world process is moving, according to what law the evolution of the universal organism is taking place, will probably forever remain a mystery to us. There is too little data to address this issue; hypotheses remain, more or less witty. "

Due to the constant metabolism, all chemical compounds and atoms contained in the body have more or less recently been in different places the surrounding nature; there is not a single particle that constitutes an integral part of the organism. There is a certain force that unites them into a definite, strictly designated form, moreover, dynamic, flexible, aimed at self-preservation.

“Since there is no fundamental difference between natural individuals of various types, and each of them consists of matter and form,” writes Karpov (add more energy - RB), “we must recognize the soul in each of them ... organizations of the most varied complexity, they are probably accompanied by all kinds of levels of self-awareness, and it is hard to believe that our human intellect is the last link in this chain. "

What we call a living organism - a plant, an animal - in turn is part of an incomparably larger and more complexly organized whole. And this encompassing whole should, apparently, be considered spiritualized, alive. According to Karpov, “animals, plants, clouds are part of our planet, the main organs of its metabolism ... the Earth, in turn; is an part of A solar system unusually complex and delicate? organism; the latter itself is part of the Milky Way, etc. ... If we have no way of delineating the limits of the universe, we must nevertheless recognize it as an organized whole ...

If this is so, we can close the chain of natural phenomena and link the origin of the simplest natural individuals of a given era with the world whole. "

In our time, it has become generally accepted: organisms, including humans, are part of the biosphere. But living sentient creatures cannot be part of an inanimate, insensitive mechanical system. After all, they are combined with the environment by the exchange of substances, energy, information. However, bewilderment may arise. If the Earth is part of the solar system, then shouldn't the latter be considered a living organism?

The set of stars and planets is a mechanical system. Much like the collection of atoms that make up a molecule. But this molecule, being a part of the organism and participating in life, is itself lifeless (although not dead, of course). She is outside of life, or rather, a passive part of a living or inert body.

So the Solar System does not hover in the Cosmos by itself, but enters the Galaxy, billions of stars and planets of which form something "organism-like". The life of galaxies is complex and diverse. With the nuclei of some of them, strange processes occur, reminiscent of cell division (or the radioactive decay of an atom?). Other galaxies appear to merge or otherwise interact.

Perhaps the lifespan of galaxies exceeds a human age by as many times as galaxies are larger than humans. It is possible that among them there are "unicellular" simplest forms and galactic associations that resemble multicellular organisms.

Continuing our reasoning, we can assume something that unites all these galactic bodies together - the Biosphere of the Universe.

Immediately it is necessary to make a reservation: it is difficult to combine such views with the currently recognized theory (hypothesis - more precisely) of the "big bang". And it measures time for the Universe extremely sparingly: only 15–20 billion years. This period is hardly sufficient for the normal life of one simple galaxy or even one star system. (A magnitude 15–20 billion times larger than a person is negligible on a cosmic scale.)

It would be necessary, abandoning the theory of the "big bang", to revise many modern ideas about the finest structure of matter. Perhaps this will happen as a result of further development of the hypothesis of quarks and the evolution of the cosmic vacuum.

The latter is especially important. With this mysterious substance - which is sometimes identified with an ocean of energy that has not acquired the forms of the surrounding material world familiar to us - there is. some reason to associate ... who knows if the immortality of the soul? the existence of the other world? manifestations of information and psychic energy?

In ancient myths, the general prevails over the particular, synthesis over analysis, the living over the dead. Almost two and a half millennia ago, this principle found its logical embodiment in the philosophy of Plato. According to him, the Creator - the highest Mind of the Universe - arranged the world like a living organism.

“What kind of living creature is this, according to which the organizer arranged the cosmos? - asked Plato. - We should not humiliate the cosmos, believing that it is about a creature of some particular kind, for imitation of an incomplete one can in no way be beautiful. But let us conceive of such a (living being) that encompasses all the rest of the living by individuals and genders as its parts, we decide that it was the model to which the Cosmos is most likened: after all, as it contains intelligible living beings, so the Cosmos gives place to us and all other visible beings. After all, God, wishing as much as possible to liken the world to the most beautiful and completely perfect among conceivable objects, arranged it as a single visible living being, containing all living beings akin to him by nature in himself. "

In fact, this reasoning can be expressed in a short verbal formula, an old aphorism: man is a microcosm. In the biblical version: man is the image and likeness of God. Without trying to look for irrefutable scientific evidence, freely philosophizing, you involuntarily incline to such conclusions.

Man did not appear in the world by the play of blind chance. It was created ... by the biosphere, nature, Cosmos, God - it is not concepts or images that are important, but the very fact of the existence of the creative Something. And if we go from the natural analogy with the human creator, it should be recognized that any creation embodies - albeit partially, incompletely - the qualities of the creator. So, in our time, mechanical similarities of living organisms and even technical intelligent systems - computers - have been created.

In this case, something, if you will - a creative Nature, whose private creations were living organisms, including Homo sapiens, necessarily possesses the properties of a living intelligent organism. Moreover: a superintelligent superorganism (from a human point of view), with all its qualities superior to any of its particulars, including each of us and all of us together. Likewise, a single neuron in our brain and their entire set can in no way be recognized as more "alive" and "intelligent" than the entire organism that includes them.

In the system of idealism, thanks to Plato's genius, reasoning from the general to the particular is common. For example, Schelling believed: "The world is an organization, and the general organism is itself a condition (and thus a positive) mechanism." "Things are not the essence of the beginning of the organism, but on the contrary, the organism is the beginning of things." It is clear that in an organism devoid of consciousness, groups of cells with consciousness cannot arise. Where would this new quality come from?

Each person not only lives and dies, but also creates for himself. Although at the same time it remains a small part of humanity, which, in turn, is a small part of the earth's biosphere. Only the biosphere can be considered a single isolated individual organism. And then, expanding the coverage of reality, one can consider a galaxy or a set of galaxies as a whole organism, and even more broadly - the Universe. Following the rule we have adopted to go from the general to the particular, we repeat after K. E. Tsiolkovsky:

“Everything is generated by the Universe. She is the beginning of all things, everything depends on her. Man or other higher beings and his will are only manifestations of the will of the Universe. No creature can manifest absolute will ... We say: everything depends on us, but we ourselves are the creation of the Universe. Therefore, it is more correct to think and say that everything depends on the Universe ... If we manage to fulfill our will, it is only because the Universe allowed us ... Not a single atom of the Universe will escape the sensations of the highest intelligent life. "

Living from living, reasonable from reasonable

Now let's try again to turn to the riddle of the origin of living organisms. Dead parts, as it turned out, do not add up. Even finished parts on a factory assembly line do not “self-fold” into a finished product without the participation of workers or robots, acting according to a pre-planned program. Biology and paleontology testify that the Redi principle is unconditionally implemented: the living is from the living:

So what, in this case, a living organism could give life to the first primitive single-celled creatures that once arose on Earth?

This organism is the biosphere of the Earth. And she, in turn, was the product of a cosmic superorganism, including our Galaxy. Well, the galaxies remain the cells of the living space.

And what gave birth to the Cosmos?

Everyone is free to answer to the best of his imagination. For, as Tsiolkovsky justly noted, one can only guess about the Cause of the Cosmos.

One should not think that ideas about a living universe remain the property of mythologies, some philosophies and science fiction writings. Many prominent scientists shared similar views. I will refer to the book of the prominent Russian biologist, plant physiologist, Acad. AS Famintsyna "Modern Natural Science and Psychology", published at the very end of the last century.

Considering the vital activity of both animals and plants (by the way, it was Famintsyn who was credited with the innovative study of photosynthesis, and not K.A.Timiryazev), he came to the conclusion:

“It must be admitted that mental processes are woven into the life of every living being in a variety of ways, forming an indissoluble whole with material phenomena. The psyche has not yet been discovered beyond these limits; the psychic side of the phenomena of the so-called dead nature remains an unsolved mystery. "

There are also unconventionally minded prominent scientists-astrophysicists. Here is what one of them, Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe, wrote relatively recently:

“With the current level of knowledge about. life and the Universe, the categorical denial of a certain form of creation as an explanation of the origin of life means unwillingness to face facts, an unforgivable arrogance. Just as it was once proved that the Earth is not the physical center of the Universe, so it is just as obvious to me today that the highest Intelligence in the world cannot concentrate on the Earth. "

Finally, let us recall the final chapter from the famous book by E. Schrödinger "What is life from the point of view of physics?" (that's not exactly what it was called in the Russian translation of 1947). In it, one of the greatest physicists of our century made such an argument.

Each of us controls the actions of our body and foresees their immediate results. Our body is a collection of atoms and functions according to the laws of nature. Therefore, each of us can control the "movement of atoms" according to the laws of nature. In this sense, the "I" has the quality of an almighty God!

For a Christian, as Schrödinger points out, such a statement sounds blasphemous and insane. But it contains the truth expressed in Bible times by the sages. Ancient India... Its essence is that the ephemeral personal soul (Atman) is at the same time the omnipresent, all-perceiving, eternal world soul (Brahman).

In short: Atman-Brahman. In this unity, two statements merge: man is a Microcosm and, as Schopenhauer argued, "the world is a macroanthropos" or "Cosmos is a mega-man."

Let's take into account that we are not talking about a material substance, but about consciousness, a soul. If life and mind are present in the entire Universe, then they are also present in every individual natural body, for both life and consciousness are manifested only in general, for the embracing whole. Therefore, life and reason, characteristic of the Universe, are at the same time the property of man. Thus, each of us is involved in the immortality of the Universe!

... I do not know whether Schrödinger's ideas about life and immortality are correctly conveyed here, but I believe that they are not indisputable. Someone may recall the statement of the philosopher of the last century, Seren Kierkegaard:

"Can you imagine anything more terrible than such a denouement, when a human being disintegrates into thousands of separate parts like a crumbling legion of exiled demons, when it loses the most precious, most sacred for man - the unifying power of personality, its single, existing self?"

... We have white blood corpuscles in our blood. They are able to recognize harmful microbes and try to destroy them. At the same time, they can die, protecting their native organism.

Do we penetrate with our consciousness into their life, feeling each individual cell? No. And they are not able, apparently, to comprehend our common being with them, feeling themselves part of our organism. Both outwardly and in terms of the level of development of consciousness, these mobile cells are not like us. They do not live long, act reasonably enough and die painlessly for us and, possibly, for themselves too.

In a similar way, all living organisms are connected with the living shell of the planet - the biosphere. It has a much more complex structure than us, stores and processes incomparably more information, and its life cycle takes billions of years.

It is quite clear that bodily we completely belong to her. What is life and death for us is only life for her. The energy of our body and our thoughts also belongs to her, and only in part to us.

But what about consciousness, soul?

It is interesting that the structure of the word "consciousness" presupposes knowledge as belonging not only to a given individual, but also to someone adjacent: an accomplice in comprehension. Who is this? Another man? Unlikely.

After all, we are talking about our own knowledge. Perhaps some kind of abstraction such as the "collective mind" of humanity or a certain cultural community is assumed. However, it is more plausible that the authors of the word did not mean such ingenuity, but the idea of ​​divine Reason, embracing all kinds of knowledge. And then we again return to the recognition of the identity of the personal and universal soul (Atman-Brahman).

Spiritualized, permeated with universal consciousness, the universe is incomprehensible to our limited reason. So, the white blood cell of our body is powerless to comprehend the existence of Homo sapiens. One can only guess about this universal consciousness, build fantastic hypotheses, create myths ... The scientific method in such cases demonstrates its powerlessness if it is limited by the principles of the movement of thought from the particular to the general, from the dead to the living, initially losing understanding of the unity of life and the Mind of the Universe.

Perhaps, on the ways of comprehending this unity, new extraordinary discoveries await science? How can they be expressed?

Let's try to dream up. For this, modern science does not provide many opportunities. One of them, perhaps the most promising, is related to vacuum research. Material objects, various fields are realized from this ocean of energy imperceptible to us. Consequently, both the psychic energy of our organism and the biofield also have a vacuum ocean of energy as their source.

Consciousness, mind, soul - all these are ideal phenomena. They manifest themselves in the surrounding material world indirectly. It is impossible to catch them with the help of instruments or senses. Why?

It is possible that the reason is hidden in the properties of the same bottomless energy ocean - the cosmic vacuum.

I suspect that the mystically-minded reader will immediately imagine the "scientific justification" for the appearance of spirits and ghosts, angels and demons, UFOs and little beasts in our reality as representatives of the "otherworld". Without encroaching on the right of everyone to fantasize freely and, if desired, to indulge oneself with illusions, I just want to make a reservation once again: the above arguments about the “antiworld of vacuum” are conjectures that do not even pretend to be a scientific hypothesis.

Another thing is the idea of ​​intelligent biospheres of the Earth and the Universe. It looks logically and in fact more grounded than the concept of the dead mechanics of the Cosmos. Although in this case, our inevitably limited human mind is powerless to comprehend what is higher than its capabilities. True, we have far from exhausted the magnificent possibilities that creative Nature, God, has provided to us.

For all our smallness and ephemerality, we remain the embodiment of the incomprehensibly complex, spiritualized, intelligent biosphere of the Earth, and it, in turn, is the bearer of the life and mind of the Universe. Participation in eternal existence and consciousness is the guarantee of our immortality.

Worthy of eternal rest ...

“Gods, my gods! How sad is the evening land! How mysterious are the mists over the swamps. Whoever wandered in these mists, who suffered a lot before death, who flew over this land, carrying an unbearable load, knows this. The tired one knows it. And he leaves the fogs of the earth, its swamps and rivers without regret, he surrenders himself with a light heart into the hands of death, knowing that only she alone will calm him. "

These words of Mikhail Bulgakov contain a sad truth that reconciles with death. For on the path of life, for one who has exhausted his strength to the last opportunity, who is mortally tired - is not satiated with pleasures, but is tired, like a master who has completed an overwhelming work - for a weary traveler, the peace of nothingness inspires fear.

This is the great justice of fate.

No matter how we theorize, no matter what ideas about the transition to the otherworld of the vacuum or to the superlife of the biosphere are comforted, inevitably remains the simplest everyday appearance of death, sooner or later awaiting us. And then a lot - if not all - depends on ourselves.

Perhaps, in this respect, it is easiest for those people who generally cease to think about their own death, and even more so prematurely mourn it. They live - while they live. That's all.

For others, the fear of death is helped to overcome by religious images and rituals, the hope for the immortality of the soul.

Still others believe that in the absurdity of life, only the pursuit of pleasures and material benefits remains. Such people are capable - just in case, what if there is a God! - formally profess this or that faith (isn't that superstition?). However, despite all their tricks, they from time to time experience the painful horror of a premonition of death, its lifetime experience.

The fourth seek to substantiate the scientific and philosophical concepts that explain the meaning of death. Becoming the subject of scientific and philosophical analysis, death appears to be an ordinary natural process accompanying life - nothing more. Thinkers who are able to deeply penetrate the life of nature and the Universe are in the best position. Sometimes they lightly and calmly await the transition to eternity, the last and complete reunification with the life of the universe and the Mind of the Universe.

Finally, there are those that we talked about at the very beginning of this chapter: weary travelers, who have survived the blows and blessings of fate with dignity, workers and craftsmen who have experienced the happiness of creativity and dedication.

It would be strange and unwise to choose the best from these options (or from some others). After all, we do not choose them, but they choose us. Everyone has that life and death, that immortality, that they deserve. There are, of course, exceptions. But one must focus not on them, but on fair retribution for everything that has been or has not been achieved in this world, for the good and evil left behind.

And one more obvious truth: we are all immortal as long as we are alive.

... We have already mentioned the book "Life After Life" by Raymond Moody. Since that time, many scientists have written on this topic, analyzing the experience of "returning from death" of more than one thousand people. Mention may be made, in particular, of the collection Life After Death (1990). It contains a new article by R. Moody. On the basis of additional numerous interviews, he again confirmed the most characteristic events of the "otherworldly being" (or other being), remembered by those who have been in a state of clinical death: separation of consciousness and observation of one's body and current events from the Side; feeling of liberation; overcoming the dark corridor, behind which there is a light that brings bliss; returning to your own body sometimes without joy.

In general, most people of different ages, mental development, education and various religious beliefs told about their "posthumous experience" about the same thing. And one more characteristic remark of R. Moody: "In one form or another, all patients expressed the same idea - they are no longer afraid of death." But that's not all:

“Many come to a mono understanding of the essence of the other world. According to this new view, that world is not a one-sided judgment, but rather maximum self-disclosure and development. The development of the soul, the perfection of love and knowledge do not stop with the death of the body. On the contrary, they continue on the other side of being, perhaps forever, or, in any case, for a period, and with such depth, which we can only guess about. "

“I came to the conclusion,” the scientist writes, “that there is life after death, and I believe that the phenomena that we considered are a manifestation of this life. Nevertheless, I want to live. "

It turns out that the desire to live during life is stronger than the desire for posthumous eternal existence. The author does not even notice that with the words “I want to live” he sharply moves away from “non-life”.

But what, then, is the meaning of death if personal life continues after it? And what are the possible explanations for the "experience of immortality"?

The patterns cited by R. Moody and other researchers are statistical in nature and are revealed as a result of mass polls, subsequent sampling and generalization. We have before us special cases, although they are quite common. True, the option that we mentioned earlier remains: each posthumous otherness is given individually.

During resuscitation, various drugs are used that can produce psychotropic effects.

“Near-death experiences,” adds R. Moody, “also have a well-known resemblance to a nervous disorder during seizures, especially those caused by disorders in the temporal lobe of the brain: 1) people who suffered from a similar disease reported that this was preceded by“ noise ”; 2) the temporal lobe plays a huge role in the memory mechanism ”.

Each of us has experience of dreams, some of them are very reminiscent of "posthumous visions". For example, in a dream you often observe yourself and the events taking place, as it were, from the outside. A similar effect should be amplified in our century thanks to films.

We have to critically assess the accuracy of the timing of the memories of the other being. It is entirely possible that in many, if not all, cases we are talking about the last seconds or minutes of fading consciousness, and its subsequent complete loss is a failure that was not felt at all.

It also happens that later thoughts and images, in part inspired by the stories of resuscitators, are presented as "near-death". There are even much rarer sensations: “remembrance of the future”, the illusion of foreseeing the events taking place. In this case, a person who has visited a certain city for the first time clearly understands that he has already been here, has seen these houses, is able to foresee what he will meet on the next street ... However, as psychiatrists have found out, all this is just an illusion of knowledge.

In an article by the American scientist Kenneth Ring it is said: "The bulk of research on near-death states indicates that most people do not remember anything from the experience of a near-death shock, but a rather high percentage of those who claim that they can consciously describe the experiences ..." And his conclusion is: “We must emphasize that the ten-year study of near-death states has not led to any generally accepted explanation, even among those who have carefully studied them for years ... At present, the question of how can such experiences be explained - more precisely, can they even take place - remains shrouded in ambiguity and controversy. "

Finally, let us recall the so-called reincarnation - the reincarnation of souls, the transfer of the memory of past lives to other generations. Some researchers cite information about individual cases of memories - usually in a hypnotic dream - about the events of a long lived life. The transmission of such information by inheritance ("genetic memory") is excluded. Even if you recognize reincarnation, you will have to emphasize its rarity and mystery.

So, scientific analysis does not give strong grounds to assert that the experience of people who have experienced clinical death testifies unequivocally to the existence of an immortal soul. If it is present in everyone, then all those who have experienced death, without exception, should definitely feel it. This is not the case. And yet ... It's time to remember ignorance.

Those readers who hoped to get unequivocal comprehensive answers to the questions posed here as a result of their acquaintance with this work will be disappointed. There are no definitive answers and there will not be, apparently, until our death. Scientific thought is not an all-powerful sorceress. She has her own laws and restrictions. Where there are no objective facts, it is powerless. But our life and our death are subjective, and no one in the world can survive our individual unique experience, our immortal life.

- But it will break off!

- Reunite with the life and mind of the nature around us.

- But the earthly nature is not eternal!

- She will be reunited with other lives and the Mind of the Universe.

- And what is the guarantee that everything is exactly like this?

- None. Everyone has to think and choose.

- But this is sheer arbitrariness!

- This is one of the manifestations of human freedom.

- What is the final conclusion?

- None. Will be our personal experience... Let's wait. Let's live! Everyone is granted that life and that immortality that he deserves.

- So after all, what to believe in?

- In life. Into death. Into immortality.

Notes (edit)

() I will refer at least to the work of John Bernal "The Emergence of Life" (M., 1969) or: D. Golsmith and T. Owen "The Search for Life in the Universe" (M., 1983).

No matter what some individuals say, who deny the theory of evolution, it still works and people continue Darwin Lives! Modern Humans Are Still Evolving develop. Your children will be like you, but they will not become perfect copies: they will also receive a number of evolutionary changes, they will become, albeit not much, but better than you.

Look at the reconstructed images of the people of the past. Even in the relatively recent 19th century, they were much lower Men’s average height 'up 11cm since 1870s ’ taller than we are. And if the acceleration continues, you will have to complex looking at your tall descendants. Who knows what people will be like in a couple of thousand years? Perhaps the immortal ancestor will seem to them like a ridiculous talking monkey.

6. Overpopulation of the planet will become a reality

The earth can support the life of the limited What 11 Billion People Mean for the Planet the number of people. Already, a huge number of them suffer from a lack of food and water, and if the natural decline in population is stopped, the deficit will only grow. The planet's resources will sooner or later be depleted, and this can provoke not only hunger and suffering, but also massive wars.

7. Society will stop progressing

8. Criminal penalties will become useless

If people become immortal, we will surely face the problem of crime control. Imagine yourself: if, over the centuries of life, a person becomes tired of a monotonous existence and wants to have fun with not entirely legal means - for example, mass murder and cruel rape - what measures can restrain him? 30, 40 and even 100 years in prison are unlikely to be an adequate deterrent for someone who intends to live tens of thousands of years.

And society will certainly recognize life sentences as immoral: being locked in a cell for eternity can be considered imprisonment in a personal hell.

You can, of course, use the death penalty, but even today it is a very controversial thing from an ethical point of view. is a valuable thing, and endless life is even more valuable. Moral attitudes will be accordingly revised by society, and people of the future are unlikely to dare to kill an immortal, if there is even the slightest probability that the sentence is erroneous.

9. The meaning of life will be lost

Humans are pretty lazy creatures, and if they have the option of doing nothing, they don’t do anything. Sometimes only the knowledge that the time of human life is limited, theirs to fulfill their dreams, be it traveling around the world, creating masterpieces of art or raising children.

And if you know that you have eternity ahead of you, why rush somewhere? Or, on the contrary, over the millennia, you can try anything you like, and then realize that there is nothing else to do.

And sooner or later it will just get boring.

This is not particularly conducive to the emergence of life-affirming thoughts. Even flights to other planets and radical changes in living conditions and areas of activity become boring, and as a result, the most amazing activities will become a monotonous routine.

As immortal demigods, humans risk either engaging in extreme forms of hedonism for centuries, or vegetating in the eternal. And then, and another one day get bored.

10. You will survive everything that is dear to you

You have become immortal. Then they started a family and children. Will they be immortal too? If so, congratulations: you have contributed to the planet's impending overpopulation. If not, sooner or later you will have to see your children die, and then the children of their children, and so on. However, perhaps due to some mental deviations that manifested itself as a result of immortality (remember the individual perception of time?), You will not be particularly affected by the death of descendants.

However, you can survive not only your family and great-grandchildren, but the whole world you are used to.

The country in which you were born will disappear someday. The continent that you traveled far and wide during your time will go under water. The face of the planet will change beyond recognition, and you will live.

And even if you die, it will definitely not be in your bed from old age. Most likely, your death will be unnatural - someone can kill you, you will die during some next war or from an accident. And it is unlikely that someone will hold your hand before leaving for another world.

Of the questions that are equally interesting for science, philosophy, religion, for each person, perhaps the most important and hopeless: what is life?

Many works have been written on this topic. Special sciences are devoted to the study of the manifestations of life, not to mention the whole complex of biological disciplines. Scientists prefer to look for the foundations of life in the microcosm. However, there at the level of atoms and simple molecules dominate standard objects devoid of individuality, as well as mechanical interactions ... Or does this approach reflect primarily our ignorance of the essence of life?

Be that as it may, the answers to the question: "What is life?" - there are too many. Each science, and even more so each philosophical or religious doctrine, offers its own options for explanations. One gets the impression that none of the interpretations of the essence of life will be convincing until the meaning of death is understood.

What is death? Does it oppose life or dominate it? Is immortality possible for living beings?

Such issues affect the interests of each of us. From them, we pass not only to the field of theoretical speculation, but willingly or unwillingly we think: how to live in this world? Is there a different light?

BALANDIN Rudolf Konstantinovich - member of the Writers' Union of the USSR. Author of 30 books and numerous articles and essays. The main topics are the history of the Earth and life, the interaction of society with nature, the fate of material and spiritual culture.

Life, death, immortality? ...

About the meaning of death

Let's paraphrase a well-known saying. "Tell me who your enemy is, and I will tell you who you are." The enemy of all living things is death.

The original Russian thinker N.F. Fedorov argued that the distant and highest goal of mankind is the victory over death, the resurrection of all who lived on Earth. Such is the filial duty of the living to those to whom they owe the greatest blessing of life. Fedorov tried to sentence death to death.

Perhaps this attempt was caused primarily by despair and the desire to overcome the chilling horror of nothingness at all costs.

Let's remember the fear of death, familiar to all of us. Leo Tolstoy experienced him painfully, and not only for himself, but also for his children: “Why should I love them, raise and watch over them? For the same despair that's in me, or for the stupidity? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them - every step leads them to the knowledge of this truth. And the truth is death. "

In religious teachings, this fear is usually "neutralized" by the belief in the immortality of the soul. It is said that the American philosopher D.W. James even promised after his death to find a way of spiritual communication with friends. But, as I.I. Mechnikov noted, he never fulfilled his promise.

In our century of science, the belief in the immortality of the soul has revived in new forms (suffice it to recall the most interesting work of the American scientist R. Moody "Life After Life"). However, for all the consolation of such views, after a short reflection, you sadly realize that if the spirit separates from its habitable native body, then this will be the death of me as a bodily-spiritual being. Without a body, my mind will be helpless, inactive ... And will it be?

"The inevitability of death is the gravest of our sorrows," asserted the French thinker of the 18th century, Vauvengarg. It's hard to disagree with him.

Death is a conscious necessity. Our complete lack of freedom. Capital punishment, to which indifferent nature has sentenced each of us. But there is another, directly opposite point of view. Death is good!

"We admit sincerely that only God and religion promise us immortality: neither nature, nor our minds tell us about this ... Death is not only deliverance from disease, it is deliverance from all kinds of suffering." This is the opinion of M. Montaigne.

From scientific objective positions - detached from our personal experiences and fears - death is presented as a regulator and organizer of life. All organisms are known to multiply exponentially in a favorable environment. This powerful "pressure of life" (the expression of V. I. Vernadsky) would very quickly turn the terrestrial biosphere into a swarming cluster of organisms.

Fortunately, some generations are clearing the arena for others. Only in such a change is the guarantee of the evolution of organisms. The hideous image of a skeleton with a pernicious scythe turns into the embodiment of harsh but fair natural selection.

... Alas, each of us living thirsts not only for knowledge, but also for consolation; understanding the blessings of death for the triumph of biological evolution hardly helps us to joyfully expect the end of our priceless - for us! - and the only personal life forever. And against the inevitability of eternal non-existence after a fleeting stay in the world, the only antidote remains - to live, as they say, to the fullest.

“If, together with death,” wrote V. M. Bekhterev, “the existence of man ceases forever, then the question arises, why are our worries about the future? Why, finally, the concept of duty, if the existence of a human person ceases to exist with the last dying breath? Isn't it right then not to look for anything from life and only to enjoy the joys that it gives, for with the cessation of life, nothing will remain anyway. Meanwhile, otherwise life itself, as a gift of nature, will flow without those earthly pleasures and pleasures that it is capable of giving to a person, brightening up his temporary existence.

As for caring for others, is it really worth thinking about it at all, when everything: both “I” and “others” - tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or someday will turn into “nothing”. But this is already a direct denial of human obligations, duty, and at the same time denial of any community inevitably associated with certain obligations.

That is why the human mind does not put up with the idea of ​​the complete death of a person outside of his earthly life, and the religious beliefs of all countries create images of an incorporeal soul that exists behind the coffin of a person in the form of a living incorporeal being, and the worldview of the East created the idea of ​​transmigration of souls from one creature into other".

But then scientific knowledge is nothing more than entertainment and a way of obtaining life's blessings, and we, like everyone sentenced to the "highest measure", in the last hour (month, year, decade - is it all the same?), Indeed, everything is allowed, and there is no difference between good and evil in front of the abyss of nothingness.

You can, of course, believe in the immortality of the soul, but you should know that our mortal body will dissolve in the world around us and we will never, never be destined to enjoy earthly life ...

From the standpoint of natural science, the death of a living organism is decomposition into the smallest constituent parts, atoms and molecules, which will continue their wanderings from one natural body to another. V.I.Vernadsky wrote something like this in his diary, emphasizing that he does not feel the fear of death. But he also has another entry: “... in one of my thoughts I touched ... the clarification of life and the creativity associated with it, as a merger with the Eternal Spirit, in which or which is composed of such human creatures striving for the search for truth, including my. I cannot make it clear ... "

The last remark is very necessary. It seems that everything is clear to a scientist from a scientific point of view. However, his thought does not want to put up with the limitations of the scientific method, which recognizes only what can be proved. But death is an obvious fact that does not need proof (like any despotism). And the posthumous existence is speculation, fiction, a guess that is not confirmed by anything and is taken on faith. Is there any possibility to confirm or deny it according to the data of modern science?

Let's try to find out this not speculatively, but on the basis of the available facts.

Biological eternity of life

Beginning of life

Everything born is doomed to death. In the material world, we do not seem to know anything that contradicts this law. Animals and plants, stars and planets, even the Universe (or, more precisely, the Metagalaxy, the part of the universe we observe), according to modern concepts, once had a beginning, and therefore will have an end.