@IntoTheLight,
I would call it the highlander theory because in the end? there can be only one. LOL! Seriously though, I have never heard of it before. I'm not big into pseudo-science, so I refer more to standard abstract philosophies and the like for the basis of my answers. Its certainly not bad to reference the former, but that is just how it is for me. That being said, there are a few directions you could take this though applying parts of your quote and work by various philosophers (not all of them mind you but some of them);
As I read the quote you posted, you have two fundamental points that tie consciousness to immortality. The first is that consciousness is a thing in itself and is autonomous (therein lies the issues associated with free will [Leibniz?]). Otherwise, how could anything "allow" itself do anything? Second, there is a delineation between the autonomy of consciousness and reality (i.e. universes splitting off). Free will and multiple universes are very specific in philosophy and narrow down the scope quite a bit. Honestly, the person who (at least in my opinion) would most likely fit near this hybrid theory is Gottfried Leibniz. I would also mention that immortality seldom does not include theological aspects, like the concepts of a soul or something like that. But Leibniz seems a good on-the-fence philosopher to use for an example though.
Leibniz would probably agree with some of the principles in the quote. Leibniz believed in a fundamental substance in the universe, namely the monad. Essentially, the monad is that "substance" that comprises the universe (which he calls the plenum) and was divided into three distinct levels, each possessing a gradient of the preceding plus additional attributes. Entelechies (the bare monad) is what we would consider the blanks of the universe. Entelechies are unconscious, cannot grow, reflect the universe confusedly, and can go out of existence. The next monad is the "animal monad," which possess the positive attributes of the form, plus more specialized abilities. Animal monads, Leibniz argues, are the point at which most human spend a great amount of their lives as. We have conscious perception, memory, reason inductively, etc. On the top of the monad chain are "rational souls," which are
self-conscious, conceive the "I," and possess levels of abstract reasoning.
So you have three types of monads, the uppermost with self-consciousness and the ability to persist through time (like the animal monad but not the entelechy). There are numerous reasoning's and support for the theory in his treatise
Monodology, but I will call them some of them out axiomatically in the interest of writing space. Monads are simple substances, since they are the substance of the universe. As simple substances they are irreducible? so nothing is predicated of it except itself (making it something fully isolated and independent from outside influence). Some other things about monads are that they are purely quantitative (otherwise they could be cut down infinitely) and also they cannot come in and out of reality because all monads are created at the beginning of the universe.
That very point is where I think this is a hybrid Leibnizian theory. The universe is basically full of monads (the universe is a plenum full to the brim with monads). Each monad is basically a universe in itself (both to the consciousness of whatever is in it and everything else). However, Leibniz posits that there are multiple universes in that there are " infinite and multiple worlds" in the form of an endless extension of monads. The universe that we experience it is the "dominant monad" which Leibniz states reflects the world most accurately. It is on that note that the notion of consciousness in your quote and the "split universes" seems like they could be applied together.
To sum it up, Leibniz permits a consciousness in the form of the monad (the dominant monad in the end) which persists through time as a quality of itself. There are also multiple worlds (universes) in which events could be different even in the slightest minutia. But the monad persists through time regardless of the reality so long as that monad is the dominant and experiential one. In a sense, it the monad (consciousness) could be considered immortal and applicable to a multiple universe theory. There is a lot more to it, but that is just a basic summary.
Another reason I use Leibniz is that the primary topic, immortality, is pretty much a nexus point to Leibniz. Plato (specifically Phaedo 78b-80c) discusses the matter of the soul and its logical ability to persist through time just as much as George Berkeley did ( a markedly different outlook compared to Leibniz). Both of these guys rely heavily on the irreducibility of the soul (taken to be consciousness if you read it right) therein allowing it to persist through time? immortality. Leibniz accounts for this I think. Other than that, you could check out Kant, who basically attributes immortality as a postulate of pure reason. And if all else fails, look to theology.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace